Jump to content


Sign in to follow this  

Notification Of Compulsory Enlistment

Recommended Posts

We can't kick out every petty dictactor in the world and impose a capatilist democracy, and imposing a government and social structure is wrong anyway. But some people clearly require removing from power. Unfortunately most change must come from within, or it won't work. [/b]

 

I do agree with some of your points but If we are objective to how another country is being run we become the dictator...right or wrong we cannot dictate to anyone in the world what we think is the way to go.. look at the UK. you have Blair and his cronies that tell you what you can and not do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Cyclone

non of those resolutions authorise the use of force, one against iraq did, that was the legal basis for the invasion.

Israel supports the west, that's a key difference between them and sadam.

 

But this resolution was from 1991, it seems a bit specious to use that over 10 years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by DerekH

Yes they have had the holocaust etc but other nations have suffered the same ethnic cleansing as the jews be it in Somalia or Russia, Cambodia even in uganda...but the other holocausts are not even recorded as being the same as the jews.

 

I'm not having a go at anyone here just making a comment and putting a personal bias - I really hate the term 'ethnic cleansing' - what we are talking about here is genocide - the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. Things like that really shouldn't be sanitised...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that was my point. We can't dictate that other countries must have a represenative elected government, they have to want it.

If they want it and they ain't got it, then we can assist them to get it.... Maybe.

what's the timescale got to do with it, the resolution had not been withdrawn, he was in breach of it, the consequences were spelt out in it.

 

From a historical point of view, most countries were actually formed by force. But now the geopolitical map is fairly fixed with a few violent splits taking place now and then.

 

I guess were lucky that we're so homogenised.

 

So, what we need to do, is take over the world, depose all world leaders, have a fair and representative election and elect a world leader and regional and then local leaders.

 

It's gotta end that way right, one world, one goverment, one person, one vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Cyclone

non of those resolutions authorise the use of force, one against iraq did, that was the legal basis for the invasion.

Israel supports the west, that's a key difference between them and sadam.

 

Not to mention that the occupied territories were captured when 7 arab nations attacked them with no provocation and lost. Can you say spoils of war? Hell, we own Gibraltar because we kicked the Spanish out at some point.

 

People have the right to protest against a war that they believe to be wrong. It doesn't mean they don't support our boys on the ground, it means they think that there should be none of our boys there. These are clearly two different viewpoints.

 

We can't take a moral stance on behalf of the rest of the world, but when we see international law clearly being broken in a civil war and have the capability why shouldn't we intervene (that's at the yugoslavia comment).

Let's clear up some points here. The UN didn't authorise force against Iraq. Blair and Bush took unilateral action because they knew that the UN wouldn't support it. Not a very good example of democracy at work. The fact that the UN isn't United is down to Blair and Bush who ignore it if it doesn't fall into line. It is the view of the UN Secretary General that the invasion was illegal under the UN charter.

 

Israel attacked the 7 Arab states you refer to (there had admittedly been a build up of their forces) They did not respond to an unprovoked attack. Your distorted view of history would appear to pay testament to the Zionist propaganda machine and it's western friends. As Israel was the aggressor they are even less entitled to be in Gaza or the West Bank, stealing land and murdereing civilians.

 

As we have broken international law perhaps the UN would be right to take action against the UK and US and force a pull out from Iraq? that's the logic of your argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

except that the government was advised that their action was not illegal because iraq was in continued breach of a resolution which did authorise the use of force.

 

Okay, I did a little research. I don't think anyone would or did condemn Israel for it's actions then. It was deliberately provoked into action, and if it had not taken it then Egypt appeared ready to invade with the intent of destroying israel entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"appeared ready" ,"intent" are a million miles away from committing an unprovoked attack.

The Attorney General was appointed by Teflon Tony....he wasn't going to tell him that he couldn't have his war was he. Most experts on International Law not in the employ of Governments are quite clear that this was an illegal act. The UN's Secretary General is of the same opinon and I don't think one of Tony's henchmen is credible when contradicting his expert opinion.

It was quite clear that another resolution was required for war and if you read up Blair's speeches before he changed his mind, that was his opinion as well. He was happy to promote a second resolution when he thought that the vote was in the bag but changed his mind when France wouldn't play ball.

 

Today's Guardian reports on a further bout land seizures and illegal building on the West Bank. It's about time the UN resolutions relating to this were enforced, never mind Bush saying "carry on"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you say Ned, the level of arm twisting diplomacy that went on before a "second resolution" could be put to the GA was intense.

 

When it became apparent that hardly any countries were supportive of an unprovoked pre-emptive attack on a sovereign state recognised by the UN, the "french veto story" was wheeled out.

 

Funny how the French managed to veto a resolution that was never even put to the assembly.

 

There were no WMDs, Blix was asking for more time to verify this - as Saddam had cleverly given full cooperation once the US has started spending serious money on shipping materiel out there.

 

The US could not wait for Blix to report back with his anticipated "no-WMD" report as that would have further weakened the already creaking justification for this illegal invasion.

 

So hostilities were initiated with a "for the media" ultimatum that saddam had 24 hours to leave the country or the US/UK would invade.

 

And if Saddam had left the country and gone into exile in Jordan, then of course the entire US army was going to stand down and go home....

 

This war was pre-ordained by the US, who succeeded roping in a sycophantic British PM, and convinced him to lie to his people (maybe even unwittingly) in order that they would support the war.

 

From the point of view of Bush and Blair, it would have been better for them to come straight out with something like:

 

"we are going to invade Iraq for three reasons

1. Because Saudi is no longer a friendly nation, we cannot count her oil reserves as guaranteed accessible.

 

2.We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years and we need a return on our investment

 

3.The economy could do with a post war boom to get it going before the next general/presidential election."

 

At least they would have been honest, and judging by one or two of the opinions on this board, they would not have been entirely without support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.