Iraq executest POW's, violates Geneva Convention, no Protest



  • Why would it make you suspicious? Saddam is just as guilty as any one of those other regimes.



  • I was being facetious with all my 8 points actually.
    If people believe no country as the right to pre-emptive action then they believe countries must wait to be attacked (then prove who attacked them I guess) before taking any action. So I suppose as long as say Saddam just killed 5 million shites Iraqis and 5 million kurdish Iraqis that would be regretable but certainly nothing one ought to intervene militarily to prevent this. Certainly prevention of genocide isn’t even pre-emptive defensive action.

    France intervened unilaterally in the Ivory coast recently. Well, it was to ‘defend’ French nationals but they went much further. Although of a dubious legality it was the right thing to do as it did prevent lots of bloodshed. It’s a pity they can’t see the logic in Iraq. I am 100% convinced that over the next 10 years less Iraqis well die now then if Saddam had been left in power.



  • @BigBlocky:

    France did promise to veto any resolution or plan that lead to war no matter what. Presumably 10 more years of sanctions would be ok for France as that would cause huge hatred towards America and this benefits France.

    Strange reasoining in the end, quite anti-french. I could ready ouyr first sentence differently, and it would come closer to the truth: lead to war no matter what. That was what the US wanted: a blanko-cheque by the UN. That’s what the others didn’t want to give.

    DS, some people are ‘true believers’…

    Now say you aren’t one….

    @Ozone27:

    But the inspectors DID find evidence–if not of the vaunted “smoking gun” (that is, a chemical weapons factory), then certainly of Iraqi bad faith.

    But still they complied under the pressure/threat.

    I wasn’t at all stating “threaten to beat him up, then when he complies, beat him up anyway…” I’m saying when you threaten to beat him up if he doesn’t comply, then when he doesn’t comply you just threaten him again, the whole process just makes you look ridiculous. According to the reports of the UN inspectors (which I watched religiously) there was ample evidence of Iraqi BAD FAITH–that is, saying you want to comply but acting otherwise.

    But still, the Iraqis complied, even if unwillingly. The point is (to me) that either you follow the laws of the international community, or you don’t. If you don’t, then any international laws can expected to be broken by you if you see fit. Why should any other dictator/regime/government which tries to get WMDs now stop it when threatened? It would be more reasonable to trey and get them before anybody has assembled an intervention force.
    And it seems, we have heard/interpreted the inspectors reports quite differently.

    As far as France, Russia etc. being willing to act if the inspectors said go–that is just a smokescreen. It’s preposterous that the decision for war or peace lies in the hands of a small group of academics. The job of the weapons inspectors was to observe & report, & make recommendations. The decision for war or not was always in the hands of nations & governments. They just chose to interpret Iraqi bad faith in the most favorable possible light for internal & external political reasons.

    Well, if they had observed, reported and recommended differently, who knows how France, Russia and China would have decided…… the point is that i have never heard any criticism of the inspectors that was “beyond hope”. I think the governments did not interpret the faith but the actions of the Iraqi gov’t.

    But what the US was saying may sound insulting but it was TRUE!

    Except for the “evidence” that the Iraq works on WMDs and cooperates with Al Quaeda etc……

    Again: Why should i believe one lying man but not the other?

    The US delegation to the UN ought to have been more willing to compromise on the timing & the circumstances for war, but the antiwar powers ought to have been more willing to compromise on the possibility of war in the 1st place. So you see, its not all about the US being uncompromising–its about everyone losing sight of the purpose of the UN presence in Iraq in favor of narrow political vendettas & infighting.

    We surely can argue about whose fault it was in the first place…. but it’s true, when the pace was raised, it turned into these vendettas. That’s what i blame both parties for. And in such a situation, it’s hard to blame the Iraq for following its “best strategy”.

    As I stated, war was basically inevitable unless Hussein began to really act in good faith vis-a-vis the UN resolutions. Inevitable that is unless you are tacitly willing to accept his right to rule over Iraq in order to prevent war & prolong a favorable situation for the major powers at the expense of the people of Iraq. Sorry life isn’t always sunrise & moonbeams but thats the way it is.

    Yup. And as i see it, you think that the “right to rule a country” lies not in the hands of that countries people only. I guess that is another point were our opinions differ.

    @BigBlocky:

    If people believe no country as the right to pre-emptive action then they believe countries must wait to be attacked (then prove who attacked them I guess) before taking any action. So I suppose as long as say Saddam just killed 5 million shites Iraqis and 5 million kurdish Iraqis that would be regretable but certainly nothing one ought to intervene militarily to prevent this. Certainly prevention of genocide isn’t even pre-emptive defensive action.

    No single country has the right to pre-emptively attack. For genocide, it is not a single countries responsibility either. And for your last sentence: Read it again please, now that you have some temporal distance: Yes, it certainly is not.

    How many wars have been started “pre-emptively” because one nation claimed/thought a minority of its own people would suffer in another country? Would this scenario be a legal war, or could it be just an excuse used by that nation?



  • But still, the Iraqis complied, even if unwillingly. The point is (to me) that either you follow the laws of the international community, or you don’t. If you don’t, then any international laws can expected to be broken by you if you see fit. Why should any other dictator/regime/government which tries to get WMDs now stop it when threatened? It would be more reasonable to trey and get them before anybody has assembled an intervention force.
    And it seems, we have heard/interpreted the inspectors reports quite differently

    I disagree a bit here. I don’t think this war is a question of legal or illegal.
    I don’t think you can sum up this war in one question at all. It is a clouded and complicated issue. (I spelt issue wrong…dumb. :oops:)
    If one is going to agrue the legality of this war than one has to say that action in Kosovo was illegal and should not have been done. The UN, as a body, did not approve it. However, the question is was it the right thing to do? I would think yes.

    The UN is just as much to blame for all of this( if you’re playing the blame game) that anyone else.
    U.N. resolutions are meaningless if the body is not willing to enforce them.
    Both the Security Council and the General Assembly would rather chose paralysis than admit it.
    The UN should stop pandering to the tin-pot tyrants who abuse its processes.

    I will also say that the war-hawkish advisers of the states did take a heavy handed approach to this. But, again who am I to really say, I don’t know what goes on in high political office. 😄



  • Ahhh ghoulie.
    finally a war-hawk i can relate to.



  • @Mr:

    I disagree a bit here. I don’t think this war is a question of legal or illegal.
    I don’t think you can sum up this war in one question at all. It is a clouded and complicated iusse.

    It truly is, and everyone has different emphasises of importance on different questions on that issue.

    If one is going to agrue the legality of this war than one has to say that action in Kosovo was illegal and should not have been done. The UN, as a body, did not approve it. However, the question is was it the right thing to do? I would think yes.

    But the situation was different: First it was NATO going in, second the UN later de facto approved the action.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 1
  • 5
  • 5
  • 25
  • 28
  • 22
  • 9
I Will Never Grow Up Games

43
Online

13.4k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts