reply to post by Kokatsi
Terms change and have different meaning as time goes on.. Preemptive war - Self Defense, however you want to say it is irrelevant. Comparing actions
of the USA to that of Nazi Germany is laughable as neither have anything in common in this context.
I still believe we were within our rights for actions in afghanistan, as well as Iraq. Hussein had no intentions of giving up his WMD program, and
stated as much. They were waiting for the UN to stop caring, for the heat to be removed, and they were going to coniue the program. Were WMDs found in
Iraw? Good question, and you will get varying answers.
Did we find anthrax? we did, from old shells left over from the first gulf war - Must of been an oversite from the Iraqis. Did we find nukes? Nope, no
H bomb to be found. Uranium enrichment plants? Nope, none found. Did we find chemical precursors all over the country that can be used both in
civllian AND military capacity? We sure did.
Did we know, FOR A FACT, that Iraq had, in the past, maintained a Bio/Chem weapon program - Yup, because we gave it to them during their 10 year war
with Iran. The question was asked, what would happen if Iraq fell to Iran, and at the time, Iraq was loosing. You nearly double the oil reserves of a
larger iran, add more manpower that would give a decisive tactical advantage militarily over other gulf countries. I seriously doubt it would of
stopped there. People always find Iran as the wild card, and its because people always lump Iran as a Middle Eastern country. They are not, they are
Persian, and their mindset is different in a lot of ways from the rest of the Middle East. But hey who needs a WMD program when all you have to do is
have a very large group of school children hold hands as they are forced to walk through a mind field to clear it for the Iranian army. I can see how
we are called Monsters....
Is that a smoking Gun? I dont think it is. I do beleive though it was a gun that was slowly coming out of the gun belt with the intentions of aiming
and then firing, creating the smoking gun.
Afghanistan - Bin Ladens base of operations for the terror network for sometime. The "government of Afghanistan" were given an ultimatum - Turn over
Bin laden, or we will find him ourselves. We got our answer, and they got our response. Our fight was not with the people or government of afghanistan
until they decided to side with Binladen and work with the terror group.
They made their bed...
UN Charter -
U.N. Cahrter - CH 7, Article 39 on - Breach of Peace
Steps taken for Breach of Peace
Article 39 is requested - The UN looks at the issues involving concerned parties, with an attempt for resolution.
Article 40 - The UN looks at the issues involving concerned parties, with an attempt for resolution
Article 41 - UN considers what measure to use to fix the issue using non military options - IE Sanctions
Article 42 - If sanctions fail the UN can convene and recomend resolution using military means.
.... and so on until Article 51
UN Charter - CH 7 Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member
of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members
in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and
responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore
international peace and security.
Does anyone else see an inherint flaw in this setup in todays world?
#1 - For starters we can use Iraq as an example where the UN failed with regards to enforcing their own sanction programs. There was enough
justification simply by Iraqs failure to comply with established sanctions over 10 years that, under these articles, allowed for the use of force
#2 - This entire setup is geared solely towards Nation States. Exactly how does one file a protest against a group that is not covered under the
charter, let alone qualified under the Geneva conventions Rules for armed conflict?
#3 - In my opinion this is the simplest answer to some of these questions. The United States, just Like Afghanistan, Russia, Venezuela are all
soviergn nations, accountible to no one but the citizens in those countries. The role of the United Nations is to have a forum of open dialogue in
hopes that talking will lead away from armed conflict. It does not hwoever take the place of the Government of any nation, nor can it direct any
nation on how to maintain their own national defense.
#4 The UN is not a Democratic entity, with each country siding with other that represent their own national policies. For the longest time Frances
forieng policy towards the United States was essentially to do the opposite of what we were doing (extreme example, but close).
Hypothetical - The United States takes information to the UN detailing that North Korea is developing a WMD program. Evidence submitted is backed up
by other intelligence agencies. The info is credible enough, coupled with N. Koreas refusal to have a declared, transparent civilian nuclear industy
(that they are entitled to), to raise concerns.
Question #1 - What is the intent of N. Koreas WMD program? Self defense.
Question #2 - Self defense against whom? UN forces still inside S. Korea.
The enitre world can come to the same conclusion, so it goes to the UN council. Sanctions etc come up, yet one country, we will use China, blocks the
Do we go it alone? The UN, an entity established to resolve these issues, just had their hands tied and rendered completely useless by this one no
vote. China has no intrest in our National Security, yet they have a huge intrest in their own, which includes supporting N. Korea.
Long story longer - While I have no issues with diplomacy, and using the UN to help, in the end the UN is not the world governing body it thinks it
is, and has absolutely no vested intrest in any nations national security, which means there will be times when unilateral action must be taken.
Coloring the United States as the evil of the world is a very ignorant viewpoint. Some people on here who are not from the United States have some
very strong opinions, and that is fine. I do ask you though that you place yourself into our shoes at times and ask yourself the following:
If it were your country that was suppose to act as a Super Power and play the World Police, thereby making your country a very high target for
extremists, terrorist, dictators etc that would have absolutely no qualms about selling items to these groups to hurt you and your citizens, exactly
what steps would you take to defend yourself?
Anything proactive you did could jeopradize citizen safety if trying to use the UN, as it would not resolve the uissue, since these groups could care
less about the UN or what it passes.
Anything your country does that is clandestine is going to be argued by other countries as acting in a unilateral fashion in a wreckless manner that
will cause problems.
Im sorry but filing an amicus brief or lodging a complaint with the UN when it comes to your countries self defense, your citizens welfare does not
Islamic extremists is to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity.
All religions have their wingnut elements that beleive what they want, and nothing will change their mind. The Islamic faith does not prohibit other
religions at all. What it does is prevents them from prosteltizing, or gaining new members by convert, and the extremist elemnts will grab on to
whatever they can to justify their actions.
We can play the blame game all day in terms of who did what to what country or religion at what time, but it doesnt fix the underlying problems. Do
American Forces make mistakes - Yup. Do they cross the line - Yup. Our legal system will take care of that. Small comfort to those affected I know. I
just find it weird that most members on here are quick to villify American Military actions, yet absolutely refuse to acknowledge the atrocities
commited by the other side.
Can a country that is predominately muslim be able to act in a controlled manner and gaurantee rights? I think so. Jordan and Turkey are 2 countries
that come to mind. Syria is yet another where female rights are preotected. Saudia Arabia just passed religious reform that no longer allows their
imans to issue their own fatwas. They can only be issued by their senior clerics. The Saudi Government has also gone after a cleric who issued a fatwa
against a grocery store chain because they employed females ans checkout clerks. The Saudi Government stopped the iman from issuing his fatwa and
defended the Grocery stores actions and for being progressive.
Do most muslims care if we burn the Quran?
Do most Christians care when they burn the Bible?
The answer is yes and no. Both sides would find it distasteful and disresectful, and would say as much. Its these people that are the bulk of both
groups, where dialogue leds to understanding.
The ones seen on tv are extremists, incited by their radical views and their sect leaders, ignoring their own religious doctrines when it comes to the
killing of innocent civilians and toleration of other faiths. This is not a war with Islam, this is a war with extreme elements that are twisting
religious doctrine to advance an agenda.
One other thought because I see it pop up now and again. You guys can blame Bush for all you want, but please have your facts correct when you do it.
He did not start the war on terror, as that began a long time ago. One could argue that it was Clintons inability to kill bin laden (he had multiple
chances) that caused sept 11th. No bin laden, no terror plot?
If you do some research you will actually find that after Sept 11th, our view of Islam actually went up. A majority of Americans did not hold the
religion responsbile, but the radical extremists.
And finally I saw some posts about the Quran and its punishments doled out. Careful throwing stones in a glass house. If you read the bible you will
see a lot of the same issues that crop up.
The only way out of this mess is for people to have dialogue and understanding, and to ban together across all religious lines and denounce the
radical fringe elements and hold the moral high ground.