so this site will not be updating for at least 24 hours
Get well soon!
thanks phishy :-)
am a typical male ...
cut my arm off with a axe and i would sew it back on myself
give me a cold and i become "super wuss"
Get well soon!
thanks phishy :-)
am a typical male ...
cut my arm off with a axe and i would sew it back on myself
give me a cold and i become "super wuss"
I suspect he is trying to pool some power and influence while he still can. I hear old Benny Nitinyahoo (no clue how to spell it) is challenging him for power of the Lakood (no idea on that spelling either) party.
yes he does have problems , but it is a comfort to keep hearing israeli politicans that are willing to keep talking about dialogue
i commend that
Something happened to this guy. Either he changed or is doing a really good job of hiding his true agenda. Israelis have always been racist against Arabs. I don't want to generalize but Avi, a friend of mine in Dallas, tells me Arabs are treated like Black people were treated in the pre 1950's. Separate but equal. Something like that anyways. People who are mixed are not really accepted by either community. We all know the history of Ariel Sharon. He seems to be under pressure to do this, or he has changed. Giving up settlements he had built is strange in my book. I like this new Ariel Sharon. So far he is doing some good things. The wall is a bad idea.
your right something has changed , this is certainly not the Ariel we are all used too ,
But like you , I wont complain :-)
Ariel Sharon is the same man. Not to say he *could not* have changed recently, after all... Saddam Hussein is now spends his time weighing the merits of Cheetos vs. Doritos.
"Every time we do something, you [Shimon Peres] tell me America will do this and will do that... I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
- Ariel Sharon
He is also quoted extensively on the sickening, racist Stormfront website. It's sad that it takes one racist to expose another; but a racist Sharon is. He has an agenda, and the means pale in comparison to the end. He may cry "peace, peace" but his war has already begun. I see no indication that he intends to stop it.
Thats a very interesting quote
I suppose what I am trying to say is that I will (with reservations) put myself inline with any Israeli leader who is trying (genuinly) to move towards peace and equality for the palastinains , even if the motives may not be pure , if the result is a move forward then we have to support it ,
Anybody who defends this torture or anything like it, digusts me.
Bush/Cheney/Republicans - You DISGUST me. You make me sick. I can't believe you are getting away with this.
One day these people will have faces.
I am with you Hype .
and still not a senior military or or senior anybody found guilty !
Thank you Bush for creating a civil war in Iraq.
very true hype , and once the Shia starts getting attacked in LARGE numbers you watch this spread into Iran and their masive shia population
LOL, this is so much shit, and Hype, I know you are to dippy to see through it, but H, I have a post comming up here quick about the insurgents planning to incite a civil war by attacking Sunni and Shia.
Why is it the US's fault? These guys couldnt make Iraq hate Americans enough. They coudnt get the American public to turn against the war enough, so now they are going to try and make the Iraqis break out against eachother.
To still sit here and excuse their actions, while condemning ours it so absurd it's almost laughable.
What reality does Gump live in? This is the last throes? Come on. They have been getting more organized since the day we said mission accomplished.
Get with the program. As soon as we leave, Iraq will be in a hot civil war or in a mild to hot civil war.
Right now, since we are there, I would call this a cold civil war. Everybody has made their agendas known. The fighting has been going on but now it is being upgraded to war.
Um, Saddam had the terrorists in his country contained. We opened pandoras box when we invaded Iraq and didn't do the job correctly to prevent this from happening. That would have been possible, but BushCo fucked that up too. It is not possible now. We are going to be occupiers or Iraq is going to be in civil war. Maybe both at the same time. It is starting to look that way.
G , as Hype says , we opened the box
Iraq had many problems of course , but it did not have this !
the US government was advised by a number of intelligence agencies including mine that we should not allow the Shia to gain over all control of the country
they said , that this would lead to federalism and would play into the hands of the Iranians (who have gained greatly from all this)
Invading a country without international support is one thing , not having an effective plan to bring order to the country is another crime in itself
I was watching the syrian foreign minister on british TV last night , saying exactly what some of us have been saying
a border has two sides , it just looks ridiculus to be blaiming other countries or the insurgents or whatever when it was the US that took the country and it was the US that failed to secure the borders
as for hypes final comment , very true
we are going to be occupiers during a civil war here
the only hope i can see of stopping the slaughter that will follow is one i am sure will never happen
for the US and UK to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible and with the agreement of the Iraqi people , replace all US and UK assets with United nations peace keepers (muslims) and hope then to negotiate between the sunni and shia to prevent a blood bath
of course the US wont do this , as they have to many dollars invested and would not want to lose face
so civil war here we come
Why do some people cut off their nose to spite their face?
Here is a quote that works quite well:
"Most Americans understand that fighting terrorism with racism is repugnant to their values and won't work. And most people have enough sense not to cut off their nose to spite their face. But not everyone."
Get with the program [...] Saddam had the terrorists in his country contained. We opened pandoras box when we invaded Iraq
Two key points from Hype. First part is a common theme from Hype, "get with the program" I find with you means "read party talking points, then vomit them back out on any blog as if you actually could rub together two coherent thoughs and have an opinion.
Second part is to show the absurdity of your arguments. It wasnt two weeks ago you were telling me, and others on Dissent that Iraq was virtual Utopia before we showed up, there were no terrorists in Iraq before us, and we had no reason to go there. Now, low and behold, you say there were Terrorists before we were there?
Drink it up fool, H actually believes this stuff from an educated, experianced, and (to me, warped) perception of the world. You just eat it up because you dont know better. Sad really, but whatever.
H, the US government was advised by a number of intelligence agencies including mine that we should not allow the Shia to gain over all control of the country
What the hell? Ok, so we are supposed to let them rule themselves so as not to be conqorers, but then you say we should have played a direct hand in forming the demographics of their government.
But you know, as well as I do that no government we propped up with artificial majorities would ever be supported by anyone.
Right now, the ones getting headlines are the Jordanian Zarqawi, his militias of Syrian hooligans, and their Iranian funding. There are former Saddam Baathists that finally realized they were not going to be lynched in the streets, so they are carrying around posters of the guy and singing his praises.
The majority of the Sunni are being lied to by Al-Sader (another Jordanian isnt he?) to try and fuel civil unrest that has yet to take true fuition.
At some point H, even you will have acknowledge that all of the doom and gloom predictions have yet to come true. The only civil war possibility there is now is one that Zarqawi is trying to start by ACTING like he is from the Sunnis while attacks Shia. The real reason behind this is because the Shia have yet to react violently in return for the repeated attacks made on them under the guise of "Sunni nationalism".
you said "What the hell? Ok, so we are supposed to let them rule themselves so as not to be conqorers, but then you say we should have played a direct hand in forming the demographics of their government."
the advice on how to set up the country was there , from the brits and the israeli's and many others , the way it is divided gives to much power to the shia , of course the shia are the largest numbers so in maths it makes sense , but it is this shia domination that is another of the many factors dragging the country to civil war
the sunni feel they are being punished for saddam and it is not there fault
wit Al-Sader your possibly getting confused (or i am ) he is a Shi'ite not a sunni , and he is mainly creating problems in the south with the other shi'ites , to the sunni he is irelevent , they would not listen to him
you said "At some point H, even you will have acknowledge that all of the doom and gloom predictions have yet to come true"
answer not yet G , from what i see Iraq (right now) is much worse then it was under saddam , of course many who suffered under saddam would say i was wrong , but the tens of thousands affected now would certainly agree
you said "The only civil war possibility there is now is one that Zarqawi is trying to start by ACTING like he is from the Sunnis while attacks Shia."
answer , hmmm i think the civil war will come full monty (erm in england that means to the max , not naked lol) if the constitition is rejected next month , and though i may change my mind , at the moment , i think it will fail
as for zarqawi i do agree . he is just stirring the pot as much as he can , but it is the constitution and its success or failure that will make or break the country and the signs are not good
Gump is an ass for making assumptions. What talking points? Gump's reaction is out of place and just plain wrong. Secondly, we did no such thing on Daily Dissent. We merely said this was bad from the beginning. We have no right to change other countries governments. Saddam is bad but so is everybody else. If your neighbor spanks his kids and you don't agree with that, do you go over his house and teach him a lesson? Do you take his kids away? Please refrain from dictating government and culture.
you'll know soon enough. If it is confirmed, you can bet the US media will play it up (terror factor is good here, so it will run), and US troops will be in their "NBC" gear soon
a few newspapers are picking up the story now ..
i am not so sure the US Media will play this up , it is a complicated situation , i am not so sure that Bush n co would want to play on this whilst the US people are arguing about being in Iraq
if true , the group are doing so in specific response to a specific US attack , the propaganda value for both sides is very difficult to assess
time will tell , but i am still unsure how the whitehouse would want to play this story (if it turns out to be confirmed)
Do you know what chemical weapon they supposedly used? Pepper spray perhaps?
I have no idea hype , thats the problem with the term "chemical weapon" it could be anything from Mace to mustard gas ..
I doubt it is anything major but with media supression as it is in Iraq , who knows
, a few sites are picking this up , but i am taking it as single sourced until one of the main news agencies pick it up (retuers/ap etc)
but it could be as simple as pepper spray yes LOL
this one never took off. Might have been just bragging by the group
not so sure G , if it did happen it is very small scale , but i really dont think it is in the wests benefit to advertise this if true ,
time will tell yes , but i don't think now is the time we would be told ..
still as you say it may not have happened , and the only facts i can give you is that this information was reported on there web site and that the buildings they discuss were actually acttacked with rockets
it is only themselves (at this point) claiming that anything was inside the rockets
so i think it is unlikely but i am not yet ruling out the possibility of any truth in this ...
of course it is going to be exaggerated on both sides. i say the most likely scenario is they found 2 very old shells with chemicals that are so old they don't work very well, and then hit the parking lot and an empty building, and then claim massive casualties. (of which there were none)
for all the rhetoric being thrown around, the reality is, the problem is 'there' and not 'here'. since 9-11 there has not been a single casualty 'here'. if al-queda were a truly competent (and global) threat, why are thier attacks limited to regional small arms fire?
so they (unconfirmed) managed to get their hands on an obviously limited supply of chemicals. what are the results? negligable, nearly to the point of ignorable.
Bottom line, these guys can definitely pose a threat to unprotected civilian populations, but against any competent military, they are about as scary as a chihuahua is to a gorilla.
thanks for your comments anonymous
my view is that al-qaeda was a threat when they were in the bases of afghanistan , that threat was removed
what we see now are copy cat groups that have no way of creating the damage that Osama amd co did ,
even zarqawi has spent more of his terrorist career apposed to al-qaeda then he has spent claiming he actually is al-qaeda
what we have , is people encouraged by the media to call all the bombs here and there "al-qaeda" and it makes them seem like this big world nasty threat
infact ,i do not think osama has been able to operate in any note worthy fashion for many years
what we in the west have done is give "al-qaeda" the best possible recruiting strategy by our clumsy efforts in the muslim world
where they were recruiting the odd extremists now the extreme muslims are flocking to them
to me its another example of a badly thought out response to the world today
I agree. If we would have ignored the terrorism, then the hot air would have been let out of their movement. Instead, we played right into their hands. I believe Osama is more of a threat to our ideals than our lives. The threat of Osama is showing us what our government is really capable of. Fear was the first success of the terrorists. The second came when our government started going to war with other countries who never attacked us. I believe Osama didn't have much of an operation back then and now there are so many clones.
This will end badly. At least that is my impression. Are we any safer?
well only if you spin the story and say the tens of thousands dead are now safer
what can happen to them now
, seriously , they can not even define what terrorism is at the united nations today ..
the definition as it stands is one the islamic extremists would be very happy with , for the bombs droping on Iraqi people can also be called terrorism
it says "by whoever , against who ever" etc etc .
bet mr bolton did not like that :-)
I thought this was about the "cause" and getting us infedels out? How would money on the Iraqi help "true Muslims" fighting for their "freedom"?
But keep thinking WE are the bad guys here.
hehehe , why is this different then the US pack of playing cards with rewards for people , some of which were nasty yes , but some of which were just guilty of being part of a government you were trying to overthrow
I am not defending them btw G , i am just looking at the princible
you offer rewards and so do they ..
they view the Iraqi government as illigal so they dont respect it
you viewed saddam as evil so you didnt respect him
_h_ is on target... what right do we have to tell them their government is evil... what rights do they have?
none.. we make our own rules, apply them at our discretion and screw over anybody possible to save our pasty asses..
spot on hype
and thankyou for visiting , pop through anytime ,your wisdom is always appreciated here
About time Mr Bush.....
full article Here
However, after he finishes investigating himself, he will find himself blameless.
H, I know you have some folks here that just love to bash this guys. But I've said on my own, and other blogs that I am glad to see this step. Reguardless of his motives (self preservation), it puts a different tone that our country's Presidency has been missing since Nixon: Self Accountability. Bush has set the precident that the President will, and must, take the final responsibility for any/all actions taken by the Federal govnt.
Think of this in comparison to Nixon and/or Clinton. Niether would admit anything (in fact they just lied about it), until they were about to go to jail. Then they wanted everyone to just forget about it because they "are human, and make mistakes".
I to am glad to see this statement , i am not pleased it took so long..
but history is the key here , once a leader starts saying he was wrong on any subject , it is the begining of the end
we are seing bush now in a position that he will not be able to recover from
K.Ron thankyou for your comment and for visiting my site , I agree
the accused becoming the judge and jury is a little absurd
"our country's Presidency has been missing since Nixon: Self Accountability"
Excuse me they didn't hold themselves accountable. They didn't think they had done anything wrong! It took an FBI agent, two reporters and a lot of pressure to get our government to even look at itself.
If he has been imprisoned, how did they get some of his journal? And better yet, if Gitmo is so bad, why did he have the ability/time/materials to keep a journal?
I am thinking who will put such bombs in London in this time!! I do not see how such bombings in London can enhance any Islamic cause. Britain is the best country in the world in treating its Muslim minorities and provides refuge to many others. I am sure the majority of British public are against any war ... Because of this I would conclude no [true] Islamic group would want to bomb Lond
LOL, H, brother, what is the source of this stuff? I mean, a anti-war novelist couldnt have tried to write this better. This thing is trying to evoke symathy and compassion for a POW, who before he was arrested was training, in Afghanistan, to attack westerners (aka: infedels) to help complete Jihad. Now though he thinks that London is the best town, and no muslim would ever bomb it? Give me a break.
Again, if this guy's in prison, how'd they get some of his "personal" journal? And if Gitmo is that bad, how has he been afforded the opportunity to even write this thing?
Is this some more "creative" journalism?
G , i do love the way you just jump from conclusion to conclusion
the diary was sent in the form of a letter to his sister in England the letter was carried by hand by a representive of Human rights watch , his sister took the letter to the press
the "Pencil" and very small amount of paper are allowed under international law , the US refused to supply such things , but HRW and the red cross went on full attack to push for this legal right
as per usual G , you do not EVER question your government on the claimed guilt of these people
of course "some" people in gitmo are guilty yes ... but the law of the world and the US should be "innocent until PROVEN guilty"
you just take it as read that the white house says 'they are ALL evil'
how do you know that THIS GUY is guilty of anything at all ?
you dont ,
you are FAR too trusting of your leaders my friend , that is not healthy
the diary is real , the words are real and considering that this british citizen has been kept now for years without trial or justice because many americans like yourself do not PUSH your government to supply any evidence of his guilt , he will remain locked up in cuba
What a disgrace... If there is was only more we could do...
ok H. And so was Bill Burkett, well, until someone looked a little closer.
well if you look closer and can proove any of these cases then of course i would be happy to adjust my view
andy evidence of guilt you have G
go on buddy , point me to a single court case ?
EVIL EVIL EVIL!!!!!!! Those poor radical Muslims were denied armed escort (with govnt attorney) to a proper police station of a sympathetic nation (also known as safe haven). The UK and the US should have sanctions imposed on them, and then put Blair and Bush in jail...
Oh wait, if we put sanctions on them, they just wont trade with anyone, then the world economy colapses. And how exactly would we arrest Blair or Bush? Not sure the local law enforcement is going to let in some Pakistani "peace keepers" roll in with handcuffs.
LOL again G , international law is what it is , it is LAW
if you don't want to apply yourselves to it then remove yourself from the human rights and geneva convention laws you agreed to apply
a country is deemed as being unwell if it does not sign upto the international laws , america wants to be seen as healthy so it signs up to the rules , but it also wants to be able to break them when it sees fit .
as my mother often said "you can not have your cake and eat it"
you are trying to for example push Iran on its duty under international law , why the fuck will they listen if you yourself dont apply it
lead by example G , american is leading by example , and thats one reason that we are all a lot less safe then before !
what ammuses me most with your thoughts on these subjects G , is how you ALWAYS assume these people are guilty , purely because your government tells you they are !!!
you don't know that they are guilty of anything at all , your just repeating parrot style the line your government takes
if they are guilty , then why deny that judicial process ?
why can you say that you have a right to torture people for this reason or that , and without even noticing the hypocracy condemm people like saddam as evil as he erm (cough) tortured people !
is it beacause he did not torture people in the way you guys would ?
is it because your american your reasons for torture are cool and ok , but being iraq of course saddams torture was evil !
come on G , your waving the double standard stick again
That is so true... Judge not, less thee be judged..
where on earth would they ever get chemical and other "unconventional" weapons capabilities and supplies?
pakistan maybe ? or eygypt . or even saudi arabia , who knows
to be fair i think it is rhetoric too , but it is possible
my question is ladden with some ammount of sarcasim. I think that in that region, some "unconventional" weapons are readily available to anyone looking for them.
ah , i see you were implying that they may have found saddams weapons , LOL i see
now wouldnt that be sweet ,
not going to happen G , they dont exist
pepper spray, mustard gas and plenty of other things... common practice these days..
i wonder if i cleaned my kitchen and threw the dirty rag on someone if i could be accused of using WMD.
well that depends on whether you have any military bases hype :-)
if you can help out mr bush in any way then of course they are not WMD ..
but if you turn your back on bushy boy then guess what
your harbouring cleaning products of mass destruction
what you have , depends on who you are
you dont like mr bush (the first test in anyones sanity, you pass) so therefore
sorry buddy , CPMD is what you have !
who coined the "Viet-Kong style" phrase H?
Is that some spin I smell?
LMAO , erm (cough) I "coined it"
no press agency has yet used that phrase
so the spin you smell could well be mine G ,
it just brought back memories from history and my mind made the join
tunnels aren't anything new.... digging in has been around for thousands of years... what is so funny is how stupid today's people are... they built a tunnel, imagine that....
haha. H, how much you wanna bet they already have a nuke?
They are getting pretty bold for a nation without them.
they have something MUCH more powerfull then a nuke G , they have OIL , they can restict the flow and cripple the worlds economy including yours
the IAEA states clearly that Iran is MANY years away from a bomb
the threat (to me ) is economic not militaristc
_h_ is right again... the shear threat of violence raises prices and increases the money flow into their pockets.. since our government lines their pockets with some of this money, they play the same game..
Appease Appease Appease. Worked with Hitler.
Hehehe Nyctexan , whats to appease , Iran is still within the realms of what is allowed under the NPT , so what exactly are we appeasing ?
there is very little chance of the euro 3 and the US getting any support from the security council on this one
how could they , Israel , pakistan and india have all got the bomb through the back door , we did nothing to stop them
so why the double standards ?
C is the winner
My money is there are some very (now or soon to be) regretful senior officials in Washington that will very quietly "resign" and/or "retire."
I will bet that there are several washington 'crats sitting right now about to piss themselves, hoping that a couple of folks just go quietly, and dont drop a list of names off. I will bet this includes some senior military leadership too.
But as far as an official response, naw, you wont get it. They will handel it internally, and people will pay, especially for the bad face they put on the country.
About the same as will happen at the UN. No one of note will be charged, but some heads will roll.
i agree G , I have no problem with the US and UN judging its standards by the same rules
it is only when it is double standards that i scream foul
I had just heard so much "oil for food" stuff of late , that people did not notice that the same rules were being broken at a national level as well as an international one
but if heads roll all the way round , i am happy with that
If this report had included accounts of the US allowing illegal oil shipments a year or more before the invasion then I would agree that the US had acted improperly. Because this happened "just weeks before the invasion" I don’t think anybody can really blame the US.
There are so many factors that must be considered as to why the US would have done this. First and foremost, the oil for food program was about to be rendered irrelevant with the invasion and subsequent regime change. The US obviously knew this. Secondly, I don’t know all the details (I am pretty sure you don’t either), but not pissing off another Arab county (especially a country that borders Iraq) just before invading seems like a commonsense move. Finally, I can just see the world response now had the US seized the oil shipment. Everybody would be screaming that the US had stolen the oil.
These are just a few of the endless reasons why the US might have let the oil shipments pass.
In regards to the "which of the following will most likely happen now" section of the article, my responses are as follow:
a) As long as the US does not let itself become like Europe economically or politically, the US will never be irrelevant to the world (in our lifetimes). The UN on the other hand is a completely irrelevant body and its actions continue to keep it irrelevant.
b) The US will continue to apply double standards no matter what other nations think. Every nation is hypocritical and does what is in their best interest.
c) The US will carry on and continue to operate as usual. The American media is very hostile toward the Bush administration. Had the media sensed that this story had even the slightest bit of truth or merit they would have blown it out of proportion and shoved it down our throats.
In regards to all the postings blaming the US for everything that ever goes wrong and for screwing up the middle east my response is as follows. It is clear from history that Europe's strategy of appeasement is far superior to anything the US has to offer. Look at the great progress that has been made in Iran. It is comforting to know that Iran's striking capability will at least initially be limited to those European countries that did nothing to stop it. At that point the Europeans will once again have to look down their noses to the US to clean up their mess.
Thanks for popping by
you said " but not pissing off another Arab county (especially a country that borders Iraq) just before invading seems like a commonsense move."
well that didnt seem to apply for
example to syria who provided the US with considerable intelligence data after sept 11th ,
the basic point you seem to imply here is that it is ok to break international law aslong as you have a (national) moral ground to do so ...
Sorry i can't agree with that , especially as the US puts itself at the front in regard to tackling international law breakers then its own conduct needs to be pure , it is not ..
you said "The UN on the other hand is a completely irrelevant body and its actions continue to keep it irrelevant"
well and truly highlighting a difference of opinion there ..
to me and millions like me the UN has gained more credibilty by standing upto the US , the longest standing ovation yesterday was for a speach that was rightly critical of american foreign policy , the UN did not endorse the invastion of iraq and world leaders said how it would be a huge error , it seems the UN was right and America was wrong
they should have listened to Hans Blix but they didnt , and the US now has its worst world reputation that has happened in my life time (i am not young)
so i would say the opposite , i would say that the UN is now more accurate then ever , and the US are trying to claw back international support after a foolish action
I agree the US will continue to apply double standards , and i agree that the rest of the world in the main is no better
the view on the american media is one we differ on too , i think that the first signs of a true media in the US of late has come about due to Katrina , but political groups like fox news will soon redress that balance
I do respect your view NYC but i feel you have an over inflated view of your own countries importance , this is fine of course , it is patriotic , but trust me . america needs the world much more then the world needs america
I just pray for my many friends your side of the pond that america will soon return to the center of politics
then the world can start to repair the damage that the far right wing leadership has brought to us all
trust me , though it may seem crazy or mad or stupid or whatever else you may think , the world is more concerned about the actions of the american government then they are from the muslim extremists ...
you may justify that anyway you want , but at some point leaders are going to have to sit down and work this shit out
and if america continues to dictate but refuses at the same time to listen , then i fear for what problems we all have to come
In reply to your international law argument and also in regard to your comment on the US not having the backing of the international community (the UN), there are several factors at play that you and the rest of the world seem to be overlooking.
I will admit that the idea of the world having a forum where all countries can come together to work out problems, solve hunger, find the cure for aids...ect is a great idea. No one would be against this. Back in reality though, we must contend with each and every county doing what is in their best interest. This fact and this fact alone is the reason why at this point there is no "international law."
From your response, I can tell that you are an intelligent and reasonable individual (I am not trying to make myself sound smart by saying this). That stated, I want you to tell me that the countries that were against the Iraq invasion were against the invasion because of international law or because it was morally wrong and not because they had oil, arms, or other contracts that they stood to lose once Sadam was removed from power.
Many people like to refer to the Iraq war as illegal. I seem to recall a treaty signed on behalf of Sadam (Iraq) at the end of the first war agreeing to many terms which were repeatedly broken throughout the 90s and early 00s. It seems to me that voluntarily breaking the treaty is grounds for a legal invasion. I will admit that I don’t know all the terms and stipulations of the signed treaty. I assume that there was some sort of clause stating that if Sadam broke the treaty the UN would have a say in whether or not action would be taken against him. I also recall the US going back to the UN repeatedly seeking "permission" to take action. No matter what Sadam did, the UN would not have acted.
The US tried to play nice and let the international community feel special, but why would the US expect anything to change overtime. The US has seen the UN fail to take action time after time. I guess this more credible UN backed by its "morals and principles" does not have a law to protect those killed in the genocide taking place in the Sudan. Can you explain why nothing was done to prevent the genocide in the Sudan. Might it have something to do with different countries interests in the oil in Sudan. If the UN wont take action in a case like the Sudan then when will it take action.
The UN has become nothing more than an conglomeration of countries that act to hedge the US's power at every turn. The UN is more concerned about the US putting women's panties on the heads of its detainees than with those dying in the Sudan, those gassed by Sadam, ect.
I will admit that America has done terrible things in the past. I am truly ashamed to be an American when I think that we are actually responsible for having created the UN.
Law is not whatever self interest says it is at any given time.
Thankyou for your reply ,
I have come down with a virus , so i will not be able to give you a full reply today
I will come back to the post and reply to you with a day (or so) as soon as i feel a little better
you said "....fact alone is the reason why at this point there is no "international law."
well international law is something that has done us all rather well , a good example would be the first gulf war , Kuiwat was freed by the will of international law , the removal of the Taliban was done through the rules of international law and the US makes most of its political voice on the world stage expecting countries like Iran to stick to it's agreements on international law
from my perspective , the US has always achived success when it has led from the front with the worlds backing , and like Iraq and vietnam , it has always seemed to struggle when it works agaisnt the flow of international support
you said "I want you to tell me that the countries that were against the Iraq invasion were against the invasion because of international law or because it was morally wrong and not because they had oil, arms, or other contracts that they stood to lose once Sadam was removed from power."
of course every country has motives , nobody debates that , the US had motives to attack iraq and it had nothing to do with WMD or terrorism or human rights , but when there is a genuine world crisis , such as the invasion of kuiwat or sept 11th , the world can see the bigger picture and acts as one voice . the fact that countries such as Russia , france , germany , china etc did not support you , when on other occasions they have , highlights the claimed error of such an action
the UN resolutions agaisnt Iraq were designed in a rather clever way by the british and the US governments after the first gulf war , they put a clause into the agrement that stated "that if any member of the security council thinks that iraq is still in material breach then the sanctions stay in place" (paraphrased)
on no less then eleven occasions the world tried to get the sanctions lifted , and on eleven occasions the US and UK stonewalled the world and kept the sanctions in place
the estimate is that upto 1 million Iraqi's died due to the sanctions that it seems (with hindsite) to have been a mistake , for Iraq appears not to have had any WMD . so mu view is the world was right to call us on it eleven times , and we were wrong
you said "The US has seen the UN fail to take action time after time." the reason for this is the US expects the world to follow its rules , but not the other way round , take israel for example , there are over 60 resolutions that critise israel , the US has voted agaisnt each and every one
It is the US that is the worst offender of any country when it comes to stopping world law , and should be ashamed of itself when it appears to vote out 4 times more world laws then countries like china
when the US says the UN needs reform , they mean "the UN should follow our lead"
even this week it is the US that refuses to enlarge the security council
the US that ha stopped the reform of the NPT treaty
the US that blocked the accepted definition of terrorism
john bolton had over 70 ammendments he wanted for the UN and it is to the worlds credit that he achieved none of them
Of course when you talk of countries like Sudan , more work needs to be done , but remember , it was kofi annan who said the invasion of iraq was illigel and nobody stoped that either
you mention the gassing of the kurds by saddam , that is a dangerous area , it was an American dual use factory built as dual use by a company called betchel with US government permision that made the gas that killed the kurds
of course Iraq was you friend then so the US government did not seem to have much of a problem with it at the time , infact not long after they sent mr rumsfield to baghdad to offer yet more support
the simple fact of the matter is that resolution 1441 did not give the US authority to invade Iraq , the UN is very specific when it says it accepts the need for a war , it did not , the US broke an international agreement (the geneva convention) that it agreed to abide by , and it expects the world to abide by , it did not , and as tony blair and george bush say "the rules of the game have changed" yes they have , but sadly not in a way that will ever make us any safer
sorry it took so long for your reply , and thanks again for your thoughts