Originally posted by: Alistar7
I didn't realize there was that much broad suuport in opposition, how many countries have publicy stated their opposition? Thanks Fencer128, you seem to be on top of the anti-war scene so you should be able to tell me this. Have looked for about an hour now and haven't been able to find a list. TIA, greatly appreciated.....
Garet Jax
The problem here is the UN and how they have handled this situation. They laid down some rules that were clearly violated and they did nothing to penalize the violator. This has forced the US to either sit back and do nothing like the UN has chosen to do or to take action and contradict much of what the UN was established to do
Originally posted by: Alistar7
I didn't realize there was that much broad suuport in opposition, how many countries have publicy stated their opposition? Thanks Fencer128, you seem to be on top of the anti-war scene so you should be able to tell me this. Have looked for about an hour now and haven't been able to find a list. TIA, greatly appreciated.....
Originally posted by: Alistar7
statistics are like a bikini, while they may be revealing, what they hide is essential.
Originally posted by: Alistar7
statistics are like a bikini, while they may be revealing, what they hide is essential.
Originally posted by: Alistar7
all im looking for is the number of countries officially not supporting the action.....?
Originally posted by: jaeger66
Originally posted by: Alistar7
statistics are like a bikini, while they may be revealing, what they hide is essential.
So you ask for stats, and then when someone gives them to you you claim that stats are meaningless?
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: arynn
Bush and Blair decided not to put the second resolution to a vote because if they had they would then be directly violating a UNSC decision. By pulling the resolution and using 1441 and previous resolutions as justification, they are not violating international law. Sure, they are violating the spirit of the UN; however, had they violated the UNSC mandate after their resolution was vetoed or voted down there would have been other issues to deal with.
Yep. Sounds about what I believe.
While the US is taking pre-emptive action against Iraq, it is not the same as if they went and invaded Iran tomorrow. There is no other way to verify that Saddam isn't working on nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. No one has been able to state definitively either way what the status of Iraq's weapons programs is. Most speculate that he has been effectively been contained. However, the current inspection had been useless as they were restricted. The UN should have demanded Iraq comply with invasive, unrestricted inspections in November. If Saddam were to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon, that would not be good as he seems crazy enough that he would actually use it.
I think your use of the term "restricted" is misleading - especially when compared historically to these events. From what I remember, Hans Blix said he was receiving unrestricted access to any and all sites at any time. This compares starkly with the previous position. The only "blot" is that Iraq has not been willing to allow scientists to be flown out of the country for interview - as prescribed in 1441 I believe. Whilst a breach in itself it is quite possible that this would have been granted also, if the will of the international community was set towards a deadline for disarmament (see French, German and Russian suggestions for inspection timetables).
With respect to nuclear weapons - all the evidence points to a non-existing nuclear program. You can never be sure of any countries actual nuclear capabilities, so going on the facts I will have to conclude that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program. Further inspections would have helped to confirm this.
I think the inspections leaving doubt as to whether or not Iraq has weapons in violation of the cease-fire agreement from the Gulf War indicates they were totally ineffective. That is where the UN and US screwed up. The inspections should have been much more strongly enforced throughout there duration. Allowing the inspected to dictate any terms of inspection is ridiculous. Furthermore, the fact that Saddam was destroying the Al Samoud II missiles after Bush stated if he didn't totally disarm we'd attack him indicates he must have better stuff hidden elsewhere. Even though Saddam is crazy, he isn't stupid enough to destroy his best weapons before an impending invasion. You can conclude that Iraq does not have nuclear weapons, but how certain are you of your conclusion?
I think it is inappropriate to sell the war as the liberation of the Iraqi people as that is only a nice side effect of the war. If that were the only reason for us to be going to war, public opinion would be much more opposed to military action. While it would be a noble cause to fight for, not many would want to sacrifice their loved ones in the process. This fact curbs our involvement in many other wars that have no potential impact to us.
True. This should be about disarmament - however if (and now it obviously has!) war came then that oppotunity should be used to remove Saddam. I sincerely hope (and believe) that this was never solely about Saddam.
I think Saddam has to go as he has proven incapable of being negotiated with. Regardless, if he is captured he will be arrested for crimes against humanity. I agree that if Saddam had complied with the agreement, we would leave him in power even though we don't like him. If we were to launch a war soley to remove a leader we didn't like that would create a far less divided international uproar.
When the war is over and we find out what Iraq had, the war will be either justified or not. (While arguing that the ends justifies the means is not the best way to go, it's all we have at this point.) At that point in time, Bush will either be vindicated or he'll be sent packing in 2004. No one in the general public has enough information to make a truly informed decision. So, we can either choose to give Bush the benefit of the doubt or vehemently oppose the war. Personally, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Whilst discovering WMD would no doubt vindicate the war - IMHO it would not necessarily vindicate the need to have created this huge international mess of a diplomatic effort. That is my own personal opinion.
The diplomatic mess is not solely the fault of the US - it is the fault of both sides. The UN should have approved a far less vague resolution in November. They should have released a resolution similar to what Russia, China and France are talking about now with an ultimatum attached. The UN screwed up then. Apparently, the French Foreign Minister (or whatever the UN reps title is) had assured Powell that the French would not veto a future resolution after the US had agreed to the softer resolution 1441. I agree that Bush and Rumsfeld may not be very diplomatic, but I think Powell has done fairly good job - I think he was largely responsible for the US going the UN route initially. The UN route was only pursued as long as it was because it was deemed important for Blair.
Cheers,
Andy
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Alistar7
all im looking for is the number of countries officially not supporting the action.....?
I'm finding it difficult to find. When/If I do I'll post it ASAP.
Cheers,
Andy
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: konichiwa
You would say that the Iraq issue was as present in the public consciousness five years ago as it is today? Hahahahaha
Public consciousness does not matter. Only the acting governments of the countries in the U.N.
Guess what, we are a republic. Our leaders are elected to run the country ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, as are the governments of England, Spain and Australia (where a vast majority of their respective populations do not support this war). Saying "Public conciousness does not matter" is ludicrous.
Again, Bush is not in his place to do this. If the US wants to attack Iraq, then so be it, but doing it under the guise of affirming a UN document is crap.
Legal justification
All this mumbo jumbo basically boils down to, yes, the UN has the authority and legal justification to attack. But the US does not, particularly unilaterally!
Because its a Republican president waging it. Had Clinton had the balls to depose Hussein as he wanted to, instead of guiding his policies by the daily popularity/approval polls, there would only be a fraction of the protestors out there.Why is there such division over this war?
The diplomatic mess is not solely the fault of the US - it is the fault of both sides. The UN should have approved a far less vague resolution in November. They should have released a resolution similar to what Russia, China and France are talking about now with an ultimatum attached. The UN screwed up then. Apparently, the French Foreign Minister (or whatever the UN reps title is) had assured Powell that the French would not veto a future resolution after the US had agreed to the softer resolution 1441. I agree that Bush and Rumsfeld may not be very diplomatic, but I think Powell has done fairly good job - I think he was largely responsible for the US going the UN route initially. The UN route was only pursued as long as it was because it was deemed important for Blair.
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: konichiwa
You would say that the Iraq issue was as present in the public consciousness five years ago as it is today? Hahahahaha
Public consciousness does not matter. Only the acting governments of the countries in the U.N.
Guess what, we are a republic. Our leaders are elected to run the country ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, as are the governments of England, Spain and Australia (where a vast majority of their respective populations do not support this war). Saying "Public conciousness does not matter" is ludicrous.
Spin, spin, spin.
Just because the public is not aware of what was going on in Iraq does not mean our government didn't either? Sheesh...open your mind!
Again, Bush is not in his place to do this. If the US wants to attack Iraq, then so be it, but doing it under the guise of affirming a UN document is crap.
Legal justification
All this mumbo jumbo basically boils down to, yes, the UN has the authority and legal justification to attack. But the US does not, particularly unilaterally!
"mumbo jumbo"?
"basically"?
You're falling back to using grammatical crutches now? I wonder why? I guess you've run out of thoughtful things to say.
And, it is not "mumbo jumbo". It is what the UN resolutions state. And, the U.S. is perfectly within its rights to forcefully disarm Saddam Hussein. The fact other countries who originally accepted those resolutions no longer wish to enforce them is no fault of President Bush.
Originally posted by: Alistar7
me too, been looking for better than 2 hours, maybe I need to start jotting them all down, assumed I would EASILY find a list...ANYONE?????
Exactly.Originally posted by: Stark
Yes, but the arguments against diplomatic standards always seem to ignore the fact that: the US was attacked on 9/11 because it is hated by a large percentage of the world, particularly a part of the world that has not been able to emerge from third world status despite huge amounts of wealth acquired from the sale of their natural resources. People around the world admire us and hate us at the same time. Nothing we do can change this.
Bush Sr. was a good diplomat. Clinton was a good diplomat. And they still attacked us.
Originally posted by: Fencer128
The diplomatic mess is not solely the fault of the US - it is the fault of both sides. The UN should have approved a far less vague resolution in November. They should have released a resolution similar to what Russia, China and France are talking about now with an ultimatum attached. The UN screwed up then. Apparently, the French Foreign Minister (or whatever the UN reps title is) had assured Powell that the French would not veto a future resolution after the US had agreed to the softer resolution 1441. I agree that Bush and Rumsfeld may not be very diplomatic, but I think Powell has done fairly good job - I think he was largely responsible for the US going the UN route initially. The UN route was only pursued as long as it was because it was deemed important for Blair.
All of those complaining about the vagueness of "serious consequences" should not have voted for the resolution as worded then. The diplomats were not stupid and must have known that this was ambiguous at the time - and for a reason. That is the crux of it.
I agree that Blair - and maybe Powell - had a greater influence on getting this down the UN route than some others. It does beg the question though - *if* Bush had to be slightly coerced into this - is that a good thing!
Andy
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Read the resolutions for yourself, instead of relying on some interpretation by a biased source. visit un.org and see for yourself, the UN never makes provisions for "in case we don't agree with war, one country can go ahead by themselves." The "force" that is threatened on Iraq is by a UN coalition of armed forces, NOT BY ONE NATION.
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: konichiwa
You would say that the Iraq issue was as present in the public consciousness five years ago as it is today? Hahahahaha
Public consciousness does not matter. Only the acting governments of the countries in the U.N.
Guess what, we are a republic. Our leaders are elected to run the country ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, as are the governments of England, Spain and Australia (where a vast majority of their respective populations do not support this war). Saying "Public conciousness does not matter" is ludicrous.
Spin, spin, spin.
Just because the public is not aware of what was going on in Iraq does not mean our government didn't either? Sheesh...open your mind!
Again, Bush is not in his place to do this. If the US wants to attack Iraq, then so be it, but doing it under the guise of affirming a UN document is crap.
Legal justification
All this mumbo jumbo basically boils down to, yes, the UN has the authority and legal justification to attack. But the US does not, particularly unilaterally!
"mumbo jumbo"?
"basically"?
You're falling back to using grammatical crutches now? I wonder why? I guess you've run out of thoughtful things to say.
And, it is not "mumbo jumbo". It is what the UN resolutions state. And, the U.S. is perfectly within its rights to forcefully disarm Saddam Hussein. The fact other countries who originally accepted those resolutions no longer wish to enforce them is no fault of President Bush.
Read the resolutions for yourself, instead of relying on some interpretation by a biased source. visit un.org and see for yourself, the UN never makes provisions for "in case we don't agree with war, one country can go ahead by themselves." The "force" that is threatened on Iraq is by a UN coalition of armed forces, NOT BY ONE NATION.
I expect the resolution was worded so vaguely because a more strongly worded resolution would not have passed (I am not certain of this, but it seems very likely). I expect the US supported 1441 because they felt it was better than nothing. Now, they can refer to the war as the "serious consequences".
Originally posted by: arynn
Originally posted by: Fencer128
The diplomatic mess is not solely the fault of the US - it is the fault of both sides. The UN should have approved a far less vague resolution in November. They should have released a resolution similar to what Russia, China and France are talking about now with an ultimatum attached. The UN screwed up then. Apparently, the French Foreign Minister (or whatever the UN reps title is) had assured Powell that the French would not veto a future resolution after the US had agreed to the softer resolution 1441. I agree that Bush and Rumsfeld may not be very diplomatic, but I think Powell has done fairly good job - I think he was largely responsible for the US going the UN route initially. The UN route was only pursued as long as it was because it was deemed important for Blair.
All of those complaining about the vagueness of "serious consequences" should not have voted for the resolution as worded then. The diplomats were not stupid and must have known that this was ambiguous at the time - and for a reason. That is the crux of it.
I agree that Blair - and maybe Powell - had a greater influence on getting this down the UN route than some others. It does beg the question though - *if* Bush had to be slightly coerced into this - is that a good thing!
Andy
I expect the resolution was worded so vaguely because a more strongly worded resolution would not have passed (I am not certain of this, but it seems very likely). I expect the US supported 1441 because they felt it was better than nothing. Now, they can refer to the war as the "serious consequences".
from what i understand powell went to chirac and told him they would go ahead with 1441...IF.... france would back them every step of the way...france agreed and proceeded to neatly backstab us when the it came down to the nitty gritty
Originally posted by: Fencer128
from what i understand powell went to chirac and told him they would go ahead with 1441...IF.... france would back them every step of the way...france agreed and proceeded to neatly backstab us when the it came down to the nitty gritty
Are you sure that's not a conspiracy theory?
Andy