| Here we go.....my views on Iraq | |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student  |
Ok, first things first...
Place a dictionary in one hand, and use the other to hold onto something. This'll get wild. ***Disclaimer*** These are MY views. You can contribute if you want, but I have established my views through scholarly research and sources. You really can't say I am wrong. And don't call me names. ****** Let's see, where to start, regarding the question "How do you feel about the war with Iraq?" First off, you can point out that we aren't AT war, so it changes the question. If you are someone like me, you can point out that we ARE at war, since the Gulf War ended with a ceasefire, and a bunch of resolutions, which haven't been followed. Mostly, we entered into a cold war with Iraq. And I don't mean cold war like nuke cold war, I mean it like a standoff, with resolutions and threats, for the past 12 years. One could argue that we can just finish it. And, with some old resolutions that Congress has (I can look them up), we can use force whenever we want to. Congress approved it about 12 years back. So we'd be following domestic law, and not be doing anything unconstitutional. Now, international law, or what is known as "jus ad bellum", justification/law for going to war. I'll list the points that one needs to follow for "jus ad bellum", and explain my views on each. (1) The use of force needs to be last resort, where it is used only if all other possibilities of resolution has been exhausted. This is a debated point. Some feel that the inspectors should be given more time, or new resolutions made. I feel that after 12 years, the use of resolutions and inspectors has been exhausted. I really feel that the use of force will be last resort. (2) The decision must be made by legitimate authority, not by disgruntled groups or authorities. Decision must come from proper state (national) authorities. Well, I think that Bush, along with Congress, should be able to make the decision. If the consensus is there, then I am for it. (3) Use of Force cannot be motivated by revenge or aggressive design. Must be consistent with Christian charity or Augustine's self-defense. Ok, I could explain this more, but merely an overview for now. The discussion exists as to whether we are doing good in our use of force? Is it charitable to the world? Are we helping? And also, is it in defense? Is an attack inevitable? WHEN is the attack imminent? When a bomb goes off? Well, according to UN charter, regarding Use of Force, one really needs to wait for the bomb to detonate. It's dimb, yes. Are we helping? Probably, in my mind. Is attack inevitable? Not really, Saddam couldn't hit US, but he might hit our interests. And Bush with the whole "He tried to kill my dad", is a bit vengeful. (4) There needs to be a chance of success. Well, one my say, "We're the frickin' US of A!!!" Well, it depends on goals, as to if we succeed. Just because we turn Iraq into a parking lot does not mean we succeed. (5) There must be a goal of peace, preferable to that which might exist if war is never fought. This is where more argument might occur, speculation, etc. How will the world be if we invade? How will it be if we don't? This is a real tough issue, I mean, who knows? This is really the coward's way out, to say that we DON'T know that we will have better peace. But I think the goal is there. As for economic interests, I feel it is just really dumb to think that we are doing a "blood for oil" thing. Think about it. If we want REALLY cheap oil, what can we do? Be friends with Iraq. Then we get cheap oil. And then one points to Saddam destroying weapons. Yeah, he's destroying weapons HE SAID HE DID NOT HAVE! Just for reference, McCarthy and Tucker, NBC Weapons resarchers, stated that "Baghdad's determination to reatin these unconventional weapon capabilities in defiance of the UN disarmament regime is the chief reason for continuation of international sanctions, which have cost Iraq more that $130 Billion in lost oil sales. Iraq has a near total reliance on oil exports as a source of revenue." What needs to be asked is WHY Saddam would destroy something that he is taking a major suffering for. Think of it like this: and I use this for illustration only, and it works great: You sell your left testicle (since you're guys, mostly) to bang, Oh, Natalie Portman. You wouldn't want to just throw her on the curb in a puddle of mud and slam the door in her face. Then you wouldn't have that testicle, and you don't have what you gave that testicle for. The only way this could make sense to do is if... You can bang Anna Kournikova whenever you want for free. So, the point here, is that Saddam is destroying something that he literally had to "grab his ankles" to get. And he gives it up? No, only if he has more stuff, better stuff. And one has to remember that he is destroying weapons HE SAID HE DID NOT HAVE!!! Now, I'm a bit of a just war theoris, so I will detail what that is, and then come to a conclusion, finally, and maybe touch this up with other things in time. There are mainly 3 points to just war theory: When? (1) It is morally acceptable to use military violence only for defensive purposes and only when there is no alternative method of stopping the aggression. How much? (2) It is morally acceptable to use military violence only to the extent needed to stop the aggression and only in an amount at most proportional to the violence the aggressor threatens to inflict Against whom? (3) It is morally....Only against those who are taking part in the aggression. So, to discuss those points. First, is it defensive? One could argue, as many leaders are, that the attack is imminent, and that we should preempt and attack first. Is there no alternative to stopping the aggression? I think that resolutions and inspections will not help, but there is an alternative I will get to later. On point (2), will we use only what is needed to stop the aggression? Yes. Is it proportional to the violence Iraq threatens to inflict? Well, Saddam threatens a lot of violence, so, we will be proportional, if not less than what Saddam threatens against us. On point (3), will it be used only against those who are taking part in the aggression? You can bet so. With what opposition lies there, we will target very carefully. Any collateral damage will be minimal and accidental. Now, we roll to the wonderful Resolution 1441. Yeah, the one that everyone talks about and no one has read. I've read it, so I can see where the no-war people are just ignorant, and the pro-war people are pushing Resolution 1441 too far, and misinterpreting. So here's what the UN says in Resolution 1441: grr...this is hard to summarize, want to put down the whole thing... To start, the Security Council "recalls" all it previous resolutions, particulary 661 (1990), 678 (1990), 686, 687, 688, 707, 715 (all 1991), 986 (1995), 1284 (1999), and 1382 (2001). Then, it "recognizes" the threat of Iraq's non-compliance with the Council resolutions and proliferation of WMD and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security. The Security Council "further recalls" that resolution 678 (1990) (this is key part) authorized Member States (like the US, Britain, France) to use "all necessary means" to uphold resolution 660 (1990) and "all relevant resolutions subsequent" and to "restore international peace and security in the area" Then, it goes into a bunch of detail about the Council "deploring" the fact that Iraq has not complied with requirements set out by resolutions. But..the important thing is that the resolutions he has been violating are back from 1991. The complete and accurate disclosure that we require, we required that back in 1991 through resolution 687. So it details all of these violations that Iraq has been doing for, oh, 12 years. So the Council decides that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)" And here's a real kicker... The council decides "to afford Iraq, by this resolution (Resolution 1441) a FINAL OPPORTUNITY to comply with its disarmament obligations." (emphasis added by me) In this final opportunity, Iraq needs to submit a "currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop NBC weapons, ballisic missiles, and other delivery systems...any false statements or omissions...shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations" The Council also decides that "Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution." So...a large chunk. But how many war debaters have actually read the whole Resolution 1441? Now YOU can say that you sorta have (I'd still read the whole thing) So, my points. As you can see, Iraq has 10 resolutions already that it has violated, in the start, which they recall/remember. It's also been decided that Iraq poses a threat, so one can now conclude that Iraq is a threat, and we can act defensively. And it actually say, in the next paragraph, to use "all necessary means" to uphold resolution 660 (1990) and "all relevant resolutions subsequent" and to "restore international peace and security in the area" So, what, we invade? Is it necessary, well, after so many violations, yes. And have they violated stuff, well, the Council say Iraq remains in material breach of its obligations. So, do we give them another resolution now? NO!!! We GAVE them their FINAL OPPORTUNITY!!! Therefore, as I concluded, resolutions and inspections are overwith. Now, to conclude. What do I think we should do? As I said, there is an alternative, which is: Establish a credible deterrent. We can do this two ways: Have the whole world rally behind our wanting to use force. Or, drop bombs on them, invade, etc. See, Saddam KNOWS we won't do anything. If we make him CERTAIN that we will do something, he will back down. So the best option, in my mind, is to have all the countries unify in the use of force idea. Then, Saddam will have no doubt we are after him, and we will back off. I say we resolve to invade him. If he backs down, good job, we deterred. If he still does not back off, then war. We have to follow the international law that has been set out by the Council. And we already HAVE permission from Congress, from 1991, we HAVE permission from the UN, through all the resolutions above. So...why are we waiting? Beats the hell out of me. So that is my view. You asked for it, you got it. Now I go to class. Later. Oh, and a added note: it seems very likely that this summer, I will internship with the United Nations. I'll let you guys know if that is the case, I'll know in a few weeks for sure. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. This post was edited by Ulic Belouve on Mar 13 2003 11:35am. |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
Mistral - Ex-Student 
|
LOL! He said "nuke-u-lar".
I don't trust anyone who can't pronounce a simple word like nuclear! |
|
Fizz of Belouve - Student 
|
well, I sas his speech yesterday....
this man is sick. I just hope that either many soldiers will surrender, or this will be a bloody war. _______________ One of the Belouve boys, founder of the mighty FiZZsters Midbie council #20 - Fizz - #1933 - Jan '03 - Aug '04 "Renfield, you idiot!" This comment was edited by Fizz of Belouve on Mar 18 2003 03:43am. |
|
Bubu - Hubbub 
|
it's hapenning. U.S. ends diplomacy. Bush to deliver ultimatum. hold on to your pants. _______________ make install -not war |
|
SirBizNatch - Student 
|
phew! im worn out from all this scrolling...
yea buzz, im pretty clueless. 
i never learned bout them in history(apparently they decided that it was not important to know about canada hehe) _______________ Personal body guard to teh 1337 Jacen Aratan! Midbie Council Memeber||Member of the Almighty FiZZsters |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
It would be you don't know much aboot Canada eh _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
SirBizNatch - Student
|
ioshee, let me jump on before the continent drifts away.
dooes canada hav a government? i dont know much about canada. i hear its cold. _______________ Personal body guard to teh 1337 Jacen Aratan! Midbie Council Memeber||Member of the Almighty FiZZsters |
|
Fizz of Belouve - Student 
|
wtf ioshee ?
I really hope u just forgot to add any " " or "j/k" here....
*shivers* _______________ One of the Belouve boys, founder of the mighty FiZZsters Midbie council #20 - Fizz - #1933 - Jan '03 - Aug '04 "Renfield, you idiot!" |
|
ioshee - Student 
|
MINDofSIN wrote:
"As a Canadian, I have a severe mistrust of the US government..." I wish America would find a way to geographically separate Canada and float it out to sea. _______________ One of the Belouve boys |
|
Gabba - Ex-Student 
|
well tell me who is in controle of afganistan or has it been left to its own devises _______________ Sit vis nobiscum. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Someone's starting to speculate. I didn't realize we had control of any part of Asia. When did we annex Afghanistan as a part of the US? That's news to me _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Gabba - Ex-Student
|
You have pointed out a lot of the main facts there Ulic so I’m not going to argue with it, still doesn’t mean I support plans for invasion, I do however have my own feelings about how this should be resolved, most of them revolve around project mirage.
One thing I must state is this. America and its allies have never really wanted a peaceful conclusion to this, perhaps because there is little hope for one, but since the first 100'000 troops arrived in the Gulf, there was no turning back. It would be unconceivable to think that such a mass movement of troops would be reversed without a war, this make’s the current diplomacy in the UN nothing more than window dressing. The 2 armies (UK and American) are now up to full strength. This means war is only 2 weeks away (this is not a informed statement but a educated one). I fear that a peaceful end to this situation has long passed. One question now if you do not mind. Who is next? I’m guessing Iran (no 3 in the axis of evil I think). The stage will be set to open up 2 fronts on the country (presuming the invasion if Iraq is successful). If this was to happen and it was successful America will have control of a large part of Asia and a large part of Muslim populist, but will this apparent gesture of liberation for the people of the countries work or will it provide the population of the area more reason to hate and bomb America and its allies. _______________ Sit vis nobiscum. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student 
|
Hey, thanks, I noticed you guys are apologetic. No real need, any further.
As for the language thing, it was really because I came here after, what, 4 days, and I see a hella lotta f*** on this thread. And that isn't cool, not that I'm against vulgarity, but c'mon, I think I found an easy 5. And a sig vulgarity isn't nice, since it shows up everywhere. I was really more annoyed because it sounds like a lot of 2-yr-olds suddenly hearing the f-word, and saying it constantly like it's gonna die soon. I'm typing in the dark, so I can't really see the keys. As for assasinations, we just have to be careful how they look. If they look like an assasination (which they will, with the media how they are), we're in trouble. As for the WWII thing, I don't mean to not use the lessons learned (heel, we were screaming about appeasement in Iraq) I just mean not to equate any two wars. You can learn a lesson, but Saddam is NOT Hitler. I've studied Hitler enough to know that. But you can learn some things, that is important. Just apply the lessons, not just equate two wars. And, please, ty to remember, if you can: we are merely in a "de facto" state of war, or cold war. If we do anything, it will be use of force, not really war. I hate people "against the war". We aren't AT war... or, are you against the COLD WAR that we are having, is that it? These anti-war are really against war violence, more likely. And I agree. Violence sucks. But sometimes it is unavoidable. The cop wishes he had no gun, but sometimes, there is no other option. Hmmm...now I equated the US to a cop. Damn. But, back to vacation. And someone just drop an apology for the gay thin in my profile. You can fake it if you want, and I can PROVE I'm not gay, but I really don't think that I need to prove anything to a bunch of computer gamers. Just don't assume things from the small amount of info you gain into my real life, through this Academy. You really know little my life, and even less about dating. I just take my frustration with women HERE, and my love for women in real life. The ones who pretend they love women here, miht have problems, since they are trying to cover something. I don't prove, I don't care. But labeling people is how bad things get started (racism, holocausts, slavery, etc.) So again, to learn from wars, be open to people. We're human, first and foremost. So that being said, yell about war a bit more. I might be on again if I am bored in a day or two. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Bubu - Hubbub
|
I humbly appologize. You're right, master.
*bows* It won't happen again. _______________ make install -not war |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Sniya, he didn't say that profanity was bad and you shouldn't say it but what he's talking about is the excessive profanity. From the rules "Watch your mouths. A small amount of swearing is ok, but if you take it over the top, you will get a warning" Don't you think cussing one time on every line is a little excessive and not realy adding much to the point the person is trying to make. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Sniya - Student 
|
personly i think whatever era is valid in a disscusion as we can learn a lot from the success and mistakes of others.
Anyway not what i relly wanted to say mainly i think france is not in anywhy less determined to get rid of saddam.they are only taking a seprate route.If we givee the inspectors a little more time we can a have them find a whole load a stuff no one mentioned("So when were you going to tell us about these? "Well..about the same time you found them" or b they get a whole load of eviedince that saddam isnt cowaperating. I agree sadam needs to be got rid of but not via the USA/UK/etc route.The right way is a pain in the ass but if we dont keep the rules whats the point. (Oh an Ulic i think your a great guy and a great Knight but come on whats with the cursing complaint all of a sudden people curse all the time on the forums JACs JATs JAKs included and you complain about it when thier dissagreeing with your points.If they wernt directly at anyone perticular or too frequent i cant see any major problem) edit:Oh the assasination thingie i saw a programme on this,the only reason it became a problem for the US was that the kept getting revealed.Which begs the question could it not go on if they wernt caught.Which begs the question is it right for a goverment to do things in secret?[of course they could always get the british to do it for them] _______________ The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. Bertrand Russell http://www.thejediacademy.net/forums_detail_page.php?f_id=970 This comment was edited by Sniya on Mar 16 2003 02:29pm. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
You won't see it on CNN a better bet would be Fox News. Not as much liberal garbage on what Bush is supposedly doing all wrong with not an ounce of anything good. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
MINDofSIN - Student 
|
I apologize for my statement. I forgot that a lot of younger people visit this site. *ahem* "Fuzz the oil!" Bubu, if you could change your sig, that would be great. 
"Second, well, we can't assassinate Saddam. 1975 Executive Agreement by President Ford made any assassination of a foreign leader against US Policy. Overturning it would just look fishy, and violating us would screw the US even more." Who doesn't feel bad for Fidel Castro? I don't think any country would EVER publicly assassinate the leader of another. If Saddam were to have an "unfortunate accident" like say, a car crash, then not many people would feel bad. The right wing groups hate him, the Western backing countries hate him. That's just my opinion. Also, in my opinion, Saddam gave up his right to breathe the same air as the rest of us long ago. I've never heard of the so-called mystery ship yet. Sounds like an interesting situation though. *turns on CNN, waits* _______________ Jedi Academy Holocron http://jaholocron.ryanmh.com/ Why should our government send our soldiers to foreign soil to protect freedom of speech, when our freedom of speech is being taking away everyday by the same government. This comment was edited by MINDofSIN on Mar 16 2003 02:13pm. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
I, in no actual seriousness meant to draw any real similarities between WW2, Hitler and the current situation with Saddam. Besides that people should realize even when a leader does something that isn't hurting their country at the moment doesn't mean you should just let it go on because he's not doing anything "bad" yet. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. This comment was edited by Buzz on Mar 16 2003 02:01pm. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student 
|
On Vacation, but checking in.
First off, don't try to tie in WWII with this. Exspecially not Hitler. Again, different era, a whoile bunch of background over the past 2000 years, etc. It's complex, and not as applicable as the uneducated might think (uneducated in the WWII subject, not overall) Second, well, we can't assasinate Saddam. 1975 Executive Agreement by President Ford made any assassination of a foreign leader against US Policy. Overturning it would just look fishy, and violating us would screw the US even more. Third, Chiraq (France, however you spell it) and Saddam go way back to 1972, or before Saddam was in power. They were good firends back then, for one, and now, Iraq has a debt to France and Germany. So, Chiraq not only sees Saddam as an old friend, but as someone who owes him money. Some other final points. I'm not really advocating the use of force. It's never very pleasant. I think a solution would be for everyone to make a unanimopus decision. If you all resolve to go to war, and Saddam thinks you will, then Saddam will probably back off. But, if needed, and resolved to go to war, then it should be just fine. There have been many advances in technology, to where I think it will be less than brutal. And...has anyone been following the Iraq mystery ship? It's a cargo ship that left Iraq, and is going...nowhere. It's just wandering around in international waters. Never docked, nothing. The Navy follows it, but can't do anything, since it's international waters, and if they do something, the crew will scuttle the boat, sending it and whatever is on it to the bottom of the ocean. If it IS something, having it at the botom of the ocean will be, um, BAD. Especially radioactive/chem/bio stuff. And in genearal concerns, I still think there is a rule out there about language on these things. So I would think an instructor could watch the language, and I would DEFINATELY think that a Belouve (Bubu) would NOT put vulgarity into a signature. If I were not on vacation, I would deal with you both through the council or such. And also, I expect some remedy for the "conclusions" that have been drawn and placed under my profile. It is entirely out of line, again, for an instructor to state such. I could draw my own "conclusions" about people here at the Academy. But even if I do, I keep them to myself. It would not uphold respect. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Mistral - Ex-Student 
|
Well said MINDofSIN. Cool sig Bubu.
I think we're looking at this the wrong way! This "war" is merely a clever intelligence gathering excercise. That idiot chimp Bush has a plan after all. Think about it. What better way to find out what "weapons of mass destruction" Saddam has than to attack him. Back him into a corner and leave him no other option but to use his toys, therefore justifying the war in the first place. Genius! Don't worry, I'm sure our fearless leaders will be safely out of harms way while the rest of us are dying from smallpox and cancer. Well, its been nice knowing you guys  .
"I got a bad feeling about this..." |
|
Bubu - Hubbub
|
check out my sig _______________ make install -not war |
|
MINDofSIN - Student 
|
As a Canadian, I have a severe mistrust of the US government. However, I would support the UN and the Europeans. If they can validate Bush's claims, I'm not completely opposed to war.
First, I would like to see other actions taken. Ideally, get rid of Saddam, either by assasination(anyone here object?) or by a military coup. Fuck the oil. It shouldn't be a factor in going to war. _______________ Jedi Academy Holocron http://jaholocron.ryanmh.com/ Why should our government send our soldiers to foreign soil to protect freedom of speech, when our freedom of speech is being taking away everyday by the same government. |
|
SirBizNatch - Student 
|
not alot goin on in my backyard. is there a good site out there with current news in other countries? _______________ Personal body guard to teh 1337 Jacen Aratan! Midbie Council Memeber||Member of the Almighty FiZZsters |
|
Battlin' Billy - Student 
|
I hear ya ioshee. It's too bad most Americans have no idea what's going on unless it's in their backyard. I'm saying that as an American.
_______________ Midbie Council Member #2 - Profile ID 2073 | Member of B@rtM@ulS@ar | Owner of Monty's 2000th comment & D@RtHM@UL's 8100th comment | Former Padawan of SilkMonkey & Arcuss JA Goaltender & NHL Fan | Fellow Rush fan to Axion|Plo Koon is my oldest JA friend Post your RL pics HERE! | Post you JK2/JK3 screenies HERE! |
|
ioshee - Student 
|
For the most part I stay out of this issue (in RL) because I don't keep well informed on the subject.
What bothers me is that things like this happen to me: I’m working late and the cleaning lady comes into my office. I ask her how she's doing and somehow this leads to her telling me about how people shouldn't be mad at the Dixie Chicks (or actually just the fat one I guess) for what she said, and how it's her right to say what they want. I agreed with her on the freedom thing and I told her that that is exactly what our military protects. I also pointed out to her that because of this freedom thing we have, people have the right to express their dislike for what the fat Dixie Chick said. Then she tells me she's "against the war" (wow big shock.) This next part is a quote (hence the quotation marks): "The way I see it, Bush isn't going to lose any sons in this war." Now I'm thinking, no but he might lose a lot more than that. I think it’s in his best personal interest NOT to go to war IF it can be avoided and he knows it. It just rubs my rhubarb the wrong way when people talk about Bush like he is the only person who decides whether there will be death and suffering or world peace. So here is my point: If I ask you how you’re doing (and I meant it by the way) don’t rattle on about a subject you obviously know nothing about. I’m only referring to my RL here. This does not apply to anyone at the JA. You all have a free license to talk to me about subjects you know nothing about. _______________ One of the Belouve boys |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |