sigh another iraq thread just wanted to post an article in here actually, the video can be watched if you go to the webpage http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76372,00.html

quote:

Hi. I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. The legitimacy of war. That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo . In just a few moments, we'll report on the growing evidence that the United States will initiate military action against Saddam Hussein next month. But some Americans continue to dispute the legitimacy of such an action and "Talking Points" is losing patience with that wrong-headed argument. Richard Reed, who lives in Bakersfield, Calif., writes, "O'Reilly, as usual, you are spinning. In the first place, there was no 1991 peace treaty (after the Gulf War). The document was a cease-fire. And it was not a U.S. document, it was a U.N. document. Stop your lies and misrepresentations to promulgate a war." Well, Mr. Reed, I know you don't care about the fact, but I'll give them to you anyway. In order to end a formal war in the Gulf, the United States and its allies agreed to U.N. Resolution 687, which was passed by the Security Council only, not the body of the United Nations. It was, in effect, a peace treaty because if Saddam didn't sign it, the war would have continued. The document was non-negotiable, so the words cease-fire were simply symbolic. Saddam Hussein has violated two provisions of that resolution. The first one stated Iraq must unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of all biological and chemical weapons. A U.N. commission would supervise the destruction of the weapons. That term was finalized in 1998 when Saddam expelled the U.N. inspectors, who had long list of weapons that have not been destroyed. To this day, the Iraqis have not accounted for those weapons. Second, the resolution stated that Iraq must officially condemn the practice of terrorism, halt its support for terrorist organizations and forbid terrorist organizations from operating within Iraqi territory. As captured Palestinian documents prove, Iraq has continued to fund and train terrorists belonging to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, among other groups. So, Mr. Reed, the United States and the United Nations have the legal right to negate the resolution and remove Saddam by force. And if you remember, sir, 293 Americans were killed and 467 wounded in the Gulf War, far more than any other country. You'll also remember that after 9-11, President Bush and Congress agreed that the United States would fight a war on terror, not just a war on Al Qaeda. In order to impose order on a dangerous world, those countries which have demonstrated they will support terrorists and certainly Saddam has done that, are fair targets for U.S. action. Now think about it. The Taliban posed no direct threat to the United States, other than protecting Al Qaeda. Iraq poses the exact same threat. It directly supports Hamas and others and has been seeking materials to develop nuclear weapons with. It is naive and damaging to the world, I believe, to put forth that a man like Saddam deserves to stay in power when he has no legitimate right to do so. Americans lost their lives defeating this man on the battlefield. He violated the resolution. He continues to be an active supporter of terrorism. He has to go.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

Whether the US has justification for the war in international law is not really the point. I've said it before and I'll say it again now: merely because an action is permitted by law, it does not make that course of action inherently "right" nor does it make it the most "preferable" course of action. For instance, while international law may make war "legal" in a sense, nowhere does it condone warfare as the most preferable option, nor does this international law in any way compel the US to go to war with Iraq. The war on Iraq may be legally justifiable, but - in my opinion - that does not make it morally justifiable.

Besides, it's not as though the US has held a great deal of respect for international law and international treaties over the past decade or so. Remember, no resolution passed by the UN permits the arbitrary "no-fly" zones the US and UK have over Iraq. Technically (assuming they actually had the weaponry to do so - which they don't) the Iraqi's would be justified under international law in shooting down as many planes as they damn well wanted to - but would that make their actions right?

Regardless, for a breif list of human rights abuses perpetrated by the US government, take a quick look at this page (bearing in mind that these reports are impartial, not just some left wing dogma):

http://www.hrw.org/reports/world/us-pubs.php

Similarly, I don't understand how the US can assert that they are so desperate to uphold international law and to see "justice prevail" in this sense, when they refused to be a part of the ICC and declared that no American citizen would ever stand trial in an international war court (meaning that a US soldier could commit attrocious war crimes and be sent back to the US, where as any other individual in violation of the Geneva convention would be tried under International Law). Where did this new-found zeal for the preservation of international treaties come from? Does that mean that president Bush must re-enter the Kyoto Protocol he backed out of 2 years ago? Can we bomb him if he continues to ignore the international treaties his country signed? I

If a small, third world nation had as many human rights violations as the US - and retained the same aggressive miltary policies - they would have been bombed back into the stone age by Bush and his chums long ago. Anyway, here's a list of unsigned/broken treaties and I think the article says what I'm trying to say, yet about 20 times better:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/1998/25106898.htm

For some more specific treaty violations (the article is primarily about illegitimate incarceration, but it covers some of what I'm talking about here):

http://www.amnesty.ca/library/1999/amr5119.htm#section2

And they were just brought up with a quick Google search. I'm sure that someone who's researched this before can come up with a more comprehensive list of UN resolutions the US has either violated or refused to sign.

So, to return to my original point, is violation of International Law really an adequate justification for war Izzy? Does George Bush have no right of reply if Saddam Hussein launches one of his eleven (yes, eleven!) scud missiles into the whitehouse in a pre-emptive strike? Could Iraq declare war on the US because it believes that they have violated several UN treaties? Or because the US has a highly clandestine system of weapons production (which it refuses to allow weapons inspectors in to see - not to mention the fact that it then sells these weapons to terrorists and unstable nations) it thus poses a very real threat to world peace and global security?

Anyway, regardless of all this, Izzy, even if the Iraqi war is justified under international law, what do you think it will solve? Can these solutions not be acheived via more peaceful, diplomatic means? At which point is the war no longer justifiable? When 2,000 people die? When 200,000 people die? Or is human life just unfortunate collateral damage in our quest to acheive some "higher goal" that in every way usurps our need to value human life? Can the deaths of innocents be factored into your equation at all?

Once again, I'm not having a go at you or anything, just getting some points off my chest. But I hope this post makes my stance clear.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

someone just got owned

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Whether the US has justification for the war in international law is not really the point. I've said it before and I'll say it again now: merely because an action is permitted by law, it does not make that course of action inherently "right" nor does it make it the most "preferable" course of action. For instance, while international law may make war "legal" in a sense, nowhere does it condone warfare as the most preferable option, nor does this international law in any way compel the US to go to war with Iraq. The war on Iraq may be legally justifiable, but - in my opinion - that does not make it morally justifiable.

you're completely rigth and i even agree with you, what can be legitamitly done is not always what should be done. in this case i feel it is but i just posted this because i have seen arguements from people saying "the USA has no right to attack iraq!" "who does the US think they are that they can bully iraq around". i was addressing this thread to those 'people'

quote:

Regardless, for a breif list of human rights abuses perpetrated by the US government, take a quick look at this page (bearing in mind that these reports are impartial, not just some left wing dogma): http://www.hrw.org/reports/world/us-pubs.php

personally although some of those human rights abuses are wrong that really has no point in this, but i would love to talk about in another thread. as my article said, US is not attacking iraq because of its human rigths abuses (although i'd like to think that it does factor in somewhere) but for other military reasons. there are many countries out there with human rights reports much worse then that of the US and when comparing a battle between two countries, for now, i will side with the one that has the least serious of the human right report.

quote:

Similarly, I don't understand how the US can assert that they are so desperate to uphold international law and to see "justice prevail" in this sense, when they refused to be a part of the ICC and declared that no American citizen would ever stand trial in an international war court (meaning that a US soldier could commit attrocious war crimes and be sent back to the US, where as any other individual in violation of the Geneva convention would be tried under International Law).

agian the ICC is a different matter altogether, i opened a thread about this a while back and i can bring it back up if you like. but what i can say is that just because the US does not support the ICC it doesnt mean the us wouldnt let an american stand trial internationally for war crimes. just because you dont agree with a particular method doesnt mean you still dont want the same end. both you and I would like to see Saddam out of power, but we have different opinions on how this should be done. this is the same concept im trying to say about the ICC.

quote:

Where did this new-found zeal for the preservation of international treaties come from? Does that mean that president Bush must re-enter the Kyoto Protocol he backed out of 2 years ago? Can we bomb him if he continues to ignore the international treaties his country signed? If a small, third world nation had as many human rights violations as the US - and retained the same aggressive miltary policies - they would have been bombed back into the stone age by Bush and his chums long ago. Anyway, here's a list of unsigned/broken treaties and I think the article says what I'm trying to say, yet about 20 times better: http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/1998/25106898.htm For some more specific treaty violations (the article is primarily about illegitimate incarceration, but it covers some of what I'm talking about here): http://www.amnesty.ca/library/1999/amr5119.htm#section2 And they were just brought up with a quick Google search. I'm sure that someone who's researched this before can come up with a more comprehensive list of UN resolutions the US has either violated or refused to sign.

these are not 'just' international treaties like kyoto and such, these are treaties signed at the end of war, to ensure that the war will end (as in not continue) and what needs to be done so war doesnt happen agian. i think, these are a bit more important. another point is that kyoto for example does not threaten use of force agianst those members who pull out of the treaty, which is something some treaties do have. i want to be honest and add though that i dont have time to go over those web pages yet right now, so when i do i may form a new opinion.

quote:

So, to return to my original point, is violation of International Law really an adequate justification for war Izzy?

actually yes, but only if those Law's call for it if they are not obeyed. problem is most UN resolutions have no consequences to them, they just say 'do it' and dont say what will happen if they dont. yes, laws should be obeyed and the punishment for not obeying should be enforced, just like i would expect a thief to be dealt with accordingly if he took my turntables.

quote:

Could Iraq declare war on the US because it believes that they have violated several UN treaties?

yes i belive so, however show me a UN treaty that shows that force is need to be used agianst the US because it has defied it.
the new resolution 1441 (the one hans blix is dealing with) specifically says use of force will be used if iraq doesn cooperate (not a direct quote)

quote:

Or because the US has a highly clandestine system of weapons production (which it refuses to allow weapons inspectors in to see - not to mention the fact that it then sells these weapons to terrorists and unstable nations) it thus poses a very real threat to world peace and global security?

yes that is an issue which needs to be addressed.

quote:

Anyway, regardless of all this, Izzy, even if the Iraqi war is justified under international law, what do you think it will solve? Can these solutions not be acheived via more peaceful, diplomatic means?

no, i belive that at this point war is the best and really only solution. a lot can be solved by going to war with iraq, i dont think i need to name them (cause i dont have enough time class starts in 25 minutes and im in my room sitting in my boxers)

quote:

At which point is the war no longer justifiable? When 2,000 people die? When 200,000 people die? Or is human life just unfortunate collateral damage in our quest to acheive some "higher goal" that in every way usurps our need to value human life? Can the deaths of innocents be factored into your equation at all?

quickly agian, this is a matter of opinion, which i am sure will be different then yours. one point is no one can predict how the future, just becuase war is going to happen you cant say that so and so civilians will die. maybe (although highly unlikely) saddam will be assasinated during the first day of war by one from his own circle of friends and only 2 civilians die, then it will be worth it? you can never really know how the future will be.

theres more i'd like to say in response to those last few questions you asked (what can be attained and how much is worth loosing to get that) but now i really must get dressed and bike over to my digital integrated circuit design class

quote:

Once again, I'm not having a go at you or anything, just getting some points off my chest. But I hope this post makes my stance clear.

dont worry buddy, i understand you stance, nothing taken personally. i enjoy your posts and the time you put in to them. i wish i could say the same for Az, i think his post was pathetic and retarted.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

Last edited by Izzy on Jan-24-2003 at 17:15

I would have given reasons to why u were "owned", but I was on my way to college
You've posted an article in which Bill O'Reilly was uncovered for speaking shit, and accused of "spinning", and what he's done, is not confronted the spinning accusation, but "spun" the accusation of bullshit (in which he clearly was). For instance
"I know you don't care about the fact", Mr Reed had given him the facts, and Mr O'Reilly has either not read what was said, or chosen to make himself sound clever and righteous with his opening statement, and it was pretty obvious to me he failed miserably, but then again I wasn't pahetic and retarded enough to post it
It comes as no surprise that Mr O'Reilly has a show on Fox, the channel responsible for the farce that is the Bush Presidency (Fox news being the first to wrongly announce that Bush had won, starting a chain of events which were impossible to reverse, on a side note it was George W. Bush's cousin that announced his victory. but thats another story ).
The rehashing of old news to try and win public support for this war is incredible, the BBC released today that Saddam Hussein (cos he does it all himself ya know) was intending to release chemical agents at allied soldiers if they enter Baghdad, which I believe we knew when the Gulf War ended, which is why America didn't go into Baghdad at the end. Then again I could be wrong, but I don't think I am
I think renegade covered the rest of it

Well, even with all of what was mention by IZZY, theres no support by its allies, and americans themselfs. about 70% of americans dont want war without the U.N. Acceptance and justification for it, and either they dont want to go alone.
Blair , Prime minister of Britain, is in a very hard situation, wanting to support BUSH on about any military action, but has 80% of people in BRITAIN against a MILITARY action wihtout a UN Acceptance or justification either. Blair, though, agrees with UN on arranging and giving ONU more time to inspect Iraq.

And well, about 1-2 weeks ago, BUSH's acceptance dropped to 58%, now its dropped to 52% Bush is burning himself.


EDIT: I forgot to mention how RUMSFELD called " OLD EUROPE".. dummass RUMSFELD.. READ ON !!

BERLIN, Germany -- German and French politicians and media across the political spectrum have hit back angrily at U.S. criticism that the two countries belonged to "old Europe" and were isolated in their opposition to war in Iraq.

"I find this comment on 'old Europe' deeply irritating. Old Europe is resilient and capable of bouncing back," French Finance Minister Francis Mer said.

"Cool down," German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer shot back at comments by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "We are good friends and allies."

Rumsfeld angered France and Germany by saying they were not representative of a "New Europe" that includes former Soviet bloc countries. "You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't. I think that's old Europe," Rumsfeld told reporters.

On Friday Rumsfeld's comments had unusually brought unity among French and German politicians of left and right together with the two countries' newspapers, from the German tabloids to the French heavyweights.

Commentator Christian Malard of France-3 TV told CNN that President Jacques Chirac was "a little bit shocked" by Rumsfeld's comments but considers the U.S. a friend and was trying to play down the row.

Even the strongest advocates of U.S. policy in Berlin and Paris were annoyed, including Germany's mass circulation Bild daily, traditionally a vocal supporter of the United States.

"Mister Rumsfeld, hundreds of thousands of your G.I.s fell for 'old Europe' because they freed us from the tyranny of Hitler. You are sinning against your own heroes by disparaging 'old Europe.' Your G.I.s died for the ideals of your place of origin," Reuters translated Bild's editorial as saying.

France's left-wing Liberation newspaper underlined Mer and other French ministers' comments with the headline: "Old Europe kicks back."

French media quoted French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie as saying: "We are no longer in prehistoric times when whoever had the biggest club would try to knock the other guy out so he could steal his mammoth skin."

Both Chirac and French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin appealed for calm and urged ministers not to make any further loaded comments, Liberation said.

"Any confrontation, such as a verbal one with the United States, would be harmful for everybody," said Alain Juppe, president of Chirac's UMP party.

Germany's left-wing Tageszeitung suggested the U.S. should follow the example of Russia and China in its approach to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld has a problem with age. The U.S. defence minister calls France and Germany 'old', the rest of Europe 'young' and wants a quick war with Iraq. Nuclear powers like China and Russia favour more level-headedness," Tageszeitung said.

"Does Washington want to risk a rift in the North Atlantic alliance over Iraq, which could lead to a division of Europe into countries that follow 'modern' America and an 'old' and 'problematic' faction that no longer wants to?" the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung asked.

"The importance of Rumsfeld's foolish comments -- he might as well have extended the 'Axis of Evil' -- should not be exaggerated," it said.

Le Parisien had "Escalation" as its front page headline and noted 76 percent of French people -- compared with 66 percent at the start of January -- are now against a war in Iraq.

The age issue also featured in the Parisien's cartoon, which showed Chirac and Schroeder arriving at a U.S. conscription desk holding a "No to War" banner, to which a stern-faced Rumsfeld, with Bush standing behind him, yells "Too old! Discharged!"



Source.. CNN.COM

Fox NEWS is a BUSH SUPPORTER by the way.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

Last edited by LiquidX on Jan-24-2003 at 17:48

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Can these solutions not be acheived via more peaceful, diplomatic means?

Well lets see... we tried sanctions (which almost certainly killed more people than this war would).

What do you recommend? Asking nicely? Or maybe we could appease him by offering him control of Kuwait?

quote:

At which point is the war no longer justifiable? When 2,000 people die? When 200,000 people die? Or is human life just unfortunate collateral damage in our quest to acheive some "higher goal" that in every way usurps our need to value human life? Can the deaths of innocents be factored into your equation at all?

You make it sound as if these people don't have to die. Every single one of them is going to die. It's just a matter of where and when, and how.

They could die by disease, or in an accident - a death that would not only serve no purpose other than as a meaningless end to yet another life amongst billions.

They could die in their sleep, old and weak, fortunate enough to pass away before disease could seize them and make their passing far more painful, but likewise their death would accomplish nothing.

Or, they could die when the United States attacks Iraq, and by giving their life provide the potential for their people to achieve real prosperity. For future generations to grow up unoppressed, to be given the same basic freedoms that we take for granted. Could you ask for a more noble death? Their legacy would be an Iraq where their people could live in peace and prosperity. And by means of that legacy, they would be living far longer than they would have if we had not attacked.

quote:

Originally posted by Az I would have given reasons to why u were "owned", but I was on my It comes as no surprise that Mr O'Reilly has a show on Fox

i know im side stepping but my gosh, as if O'Reilly wouldnt be singned by MSNCS, CNN or any of the other news corporations if he decided to quite FOX right now. him being on FOX has nothing to do with political alignment. he has a huge following and can bring in a lot of money to a station. naturally any station would hire him and his opinion based tv show.


anyways what i wanted to expand on earlier was said well by arbiter, thanks for saving me the time

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy i know im side stepping but....

moving on....
I don't actually know who O'Reilly is, with not havign foxnews in the UK, I was pointing out that Foxnews is a Pro-Republican channel. Also they're not going to be against something that would win them ratings (the bliss that is corporate America).
When a station hires him, do they hire his team of advisors, script writers and "spin doctors"?
Also, are all his statements that stupid? as you said he has a big following? or are all the people that follow him clueless?

quote:

Originally posted by Az moving on.... I don't actually know who O'Reilly is, with not havign foxnews in the UK, I was pointing out that Foxnews is a Pro-Republican channel. Also they're not going to be against something that would win them ratings (the bliss that is corporate America). When a station hires him, do they hire his team of advisors, script writers and "spin doctors"? Also, are all his statements that stupid? as you said he has a big following? or are all the people that follow him clueless?

LOL ! .. for me, ABC news and CNN have much better source of news for me. Channel 2 is good also.
I saw O'Railly talking with one of Clintos economic advisers, and one republican one. O'Railly didnt let the what used to be Clinton's administration economists talk or give opinions. He never let them finish. It was so bad that they told O'Railly why he had invited them if he was not going to let them TALK ! O'Railly is so friking REPUBLICAN ! .. In my economy class we were discussing what a disgrace of a person he was. He should at least show some respect. But anyways.. like you said.. CORPORATE AMERICA

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX LOL ! .. for me, ABC news and CNN have much better source of news for me. Channel 2 is good also. I saw O'Railly talking with one of Clintos economic advisers, and one republican one. O'Railly didnt let the what used to be Clinton's administration economists talk or give opinions. He never let them finish. It was so bad that they told O'Railly why he had invited them if he was not going to let them TALK ! O'Railly is so friking REPUBLICAN ! .. In my economy class we were discussing what a disgrace of a person he was. He should at least show some respect. But anyways.. like you said.. CORPORATE AMERICA

I used to respect O'Reilly, even though I often disagreed with him, but sometime last spring he had this 2 hour special about how music with violent lyrics was destroying American youth, and I pretty much lost it there. The only good thing I can say about him is that he doesn't let people give BS answers to his questions, like most reporters do. The problem is, he often gives plenty of BS of his own.

FOXNews Channel=New York Post (news-lite with a conservative spin)
For God sake's they hawk their own chessy wares on news shows (nothing like watching a scintilating debate between Ann Coulter and Eleanor Clift broken up by Sean Hannity hawking a "Hannity & Colmes" coffee mug)

CNN=Wall Street Journal (real news)

Here's a Very interesting article on the subject

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7116