The thread previously known as the post your picture thread

[Tuberload]

Arta, that argument does not fly.  You only have to look at WWI to see that all those old European countries had no clue how to handle foreign relations.  If any of those hundreds of years of experience prior were useful in 1914, it would not have taken only two months from an assassination in July 1914, until September 1914, for 33 countries to be at war.  That is not the kind of foreign relations experience on which the world should depend.

So, at best, you can hope they all learned from it and can only count their foreign relations experience since that time.  But attempting to do that is not possible either.  England, the imperialist of all imperialists, has been in more trouble worldwide than even the United States.  Spain has been through countless revolutions and government changes, rending all their experience null.  France, well they only have one foreign policy -- run.  Germany is suffering from massive cultural guilt, albeit forced by culture and law.  Russia is a non-union of fragmented states, most just trying to survive the next crop season, and will do anything in their own best interests, foreign relations be damned.

But here in the United States, we have blinders on, even to our own experiences of the past.  Two days ago, I heard an impassioned but eloquent speech by Senator Earnest Hollings (Demcrat from South Carolina), on the subject of Iraq.  In part of it he denounced the White House administrations seeking of democracy in Iraq, saying that democracy must come from within.  People must want it and fight for it.  He proceeded to list off over two dozen countries around the world where the USA had meddled and attempted to "install" democracy, each failing because the people never wanted it.  He said if we really want to find out if the Iraqis want democracy, do the vote in September 2004, not in September 2005.  Give the people a vote NOW.  If they don't want democracy, they won't vote, and we can leave.  If they do want democracy, then stay and help the new government rebuild, at their own discretion on what they need from us.

To my understanding, which may be wrong, the United States is not a U.N. territory, and is not subject to any ruling by the U.N.  The U.N. rulings are merely suggestions, as far as U.S. law is concerned.  Citizens of the USA will never give up our sovereignty.  I don't really understand how the U.N. can exist without rule of law.  But nonetheless, it's invalid to say the USA needs any approvals from the UN.

I somewhat agree.  Honestly, but without proof, I believe the real issue here is that puppet Saddam, who the USA financed to help fight Iran (when we hated THEM), got out of the USA's control.  He became a liability, and since we were responsible for giving him all those WMD abilities, and the supplies, and the knowledge, (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) then it became time for us to "erase" him.

I don't mean to draw away from the conversation, but this is the most truth I have seen yet. I am a big supporter of America, and our current administration, but when put in perspective it is almost scary. Everyone, including the US, likes to beat their chest and say they are right, when in reality none of them really are. I think the UN is a great idea gone wrong. I just wish there could be some sort of world unity, without the fear of a unilateral government. The world we live in is a very scary place, unless you live in America with the blinders on like you said. Why as a nation, are we so blind to what's really going on? Is it because of our freedoms, or something else? Makes me wonder if to some degree we are brainwashed.

[Adron]

Which still doesn't change the fact that the US attacked Iraq without a valid UN sanction. The reason the UN vote wasn't an overwhelming defeat for Bush was the lies spread by Bush's supporters - that Iraq was an immediate threat.

To my understanding, which may be wrong, the United States is not a U.N. territory, and is not subject to any ruling by the U.N.  The U.N. rulings are merely suggestions, as far as U.S. law is concerned.  Citizens of the USA will never give up our sovereignty.  I don't really understand how the U.N. can exist without rule of law.  But nonetheless, it's invalid to say the USA needs any approvals from the UN.

Doing what you want to inside the US is your own business. You have sovereignty. A war between nations necessarily involves more than one nation though

Apart from that, USA is known for not collaborating with other nations, and not accepting treaties that other democratic governments accept. You should give up more. One example is the treaty about war criminals - not accepting an international court for that.

Yes, in a way Saddam got what he deserved. The Iraqi people doesn't deserve chaos though, and the US didn't have the right to give Saddam what he deserved.

I somewhat agree.  Honestly, but without proof, I believe the real issue here is that puppet Saddam, who the USA financed to help fight Iran (when we hated THEM), got out of the USA's control.  He became a liability, and since we were responsible for giving him all those WMD abilities, and the supplies, and the knowledge, (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) then it became time for us to "erase" him.

That makes a bit of sense. Give help to an evil dictator as long as he's gassing people you don't like, then smack him down when you need a distraction, and he's starting to become a nuisance.

[Arta]

Grok:

Perhaps. I just can't see what the US is doing happening in europe though. For so many selfish, greedy, blind, stupid people to elevate themselves to such important positions as to be able to do what they're doing. I thought about an explanation, and that's what I came up with. Maybe I'm not displaying enough foresight.

Raven:

I was referring to collective experience, not individual experience. I have never seen evidence linking Saddam to terrorism. I have never seen anything suggesting the stuff you just posted. The only stuff I've heard about Iraq and terrorists was to do with the Iraq/Iran war, where they used terrorists against Iran... but, uh, so did the CIA. I do accept that Iraq may have harboured terrorists in the past, but not much more than that. Cite your sources please, or I'll just assume you're making it up (no offense).

[Adron]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/846973/posts
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1082762002
http://www.nisat.org/blackmarket/asia/Southwest_Asia/iran/2002.01.08-Arms%20Headed%20for%20Gaza.html

Url #1 didn't say anything about the actual contents, just theories.

Url #2 says they captured material for nukes near Iraq, but not inside Iraq - could've been destined anywhere, and even if it was captured inside Iraq, there's nothing to say it wasn't just passing through to some terrorist organization elsewhere - obviously it must've passed other countries before, just happened to be discovered near Iraq.

Url #3 seems to be about weapons smuggling to palestinian organizations. It claims to come from Iran, not Iraq. It also included weapons more suitable for attacking military targets than attacking civilians, including anti-tank rockets and mines. Doesn't seem like a clear case of supporting terrorism, other than that the receivers may be labeled terrorists by certain terrorist governments.

[Raven]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/846973/posts
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1082762002
http://www.nisat.org/blackmarket/asia/Southwest_Asia/iran/2002.01.08-Arms%20Headed%20for%20Gaza.html

Url #1 didn't say anything about the actual contents, just theories.

Url #2 says they captured material for nukes near Iraq, but not inside Iraq - could've been destined anywhere, and even if it was captured inside Iraq, there's nothing to say it wasn't just passing through to some terrorist organization elsewhere - obviously it must've passed other countries before, just happened to be discovered near Iraq.

Url #3 seems to be about weapons smuggling to palestinian organizations. It claims to come from Iran, not Iraq. It also included weapons more suitable for attacking military targets than attacking civilians, including anti-tank rockets and mines. Doesn't seem like a clear case of supporting terrorism, other than that the receivers may be labeled terrorists by certain terrorist governments.

As I aforementioned, it's really difficult to find such proof online because alot of it was been essentially drowned out by other issues currently arizing such as the prisoner abuse scandal. Alot of my news I get from various news agencies (not always US-domestic ones), and so it's difficult to site those. Apparently those sites don't really blatantly prove anything, but it's too difficult to find any internet sources. I guess if you really want the proof, there should be some in old transcripts of certain foreign news programs. Aside from that, I don't think I could present any proof just by searching for currently available sites.

[Raven]

A few vials of anthrax found hidden in a scientist's home or office? That is Saddam's fearful WMD arsenal? THAT is what required a full-scale war?

Saddam may have been a thorn, but the world voted to give him time. Saddam was not an immediate threat, and there was no valid reason to attack him. Besides, Israel is a much bigger thorn in the world's side than Saddam.

Saddam did use gas, long ago. Irrelevant to this conversation. Unless you want to nuke America because they're the only nation to have used nuclear weapons against another nation?

A few vials of anthrax here and there (a few is all it takes to kill thousands of people) is adequate cause to wonder just how much there is and what else he may have had. Regardless, a few vials was still a few vials more than what he was allowed to have. That anthrax should have been disposed of long ago. Instead, he kept it around, hinting that he may have had alot more. And we're still not sure whether he did.

Comparing Israel to Saddam's regime is beyond apples and oranges. The issues presented by Israel vs. those presented by Saddam are pointless to compare; there are just too many differences. Same with the situation of when Saddam used his gas and whether or not it's hypocritical of the current American administration to criticize him for that because over 50 years ago, a different administration had to use nuclear weapons to end WW2. Such an argument is obviously tangential.

What I've found in the articles I've read are a lot of maybes. Stuff that could be used to make weapons, drawings for weapons, but not actual weapons.

Perhaps you weren't looking hard enough, or for the right thing? I cannot site any proof, simply because I don't think any is available. But even the fact that he materials that had little applications other than weapons was already a breach on terms he had agreed upon. It wasn't a full scale blatant breach, but he pushed way beyond where he should have.  He kept escalating his defiance until something was done about it.

That's not a reason to go to war. If you really believe that minor disputes over agreements are a reason for war, I'll bring up Israel and perhaps other countries who agree to a plan, then change their mind or procrastinate. You can't expect him to lie on his back, like a beaten dog all the time. That's not the way people work.

This wasn't a minor dispute. The sanctions he agreed upon were the only things that allowed him and his regime to remain in power when Gen. Schwarzkopf and his troops were knocking on Baghdad's door in the first Gulf War. Naturally, such provisions are expected to be followed.  These weren't just minor technicalities. Citing Israel in this matter is a moot point. Most of the reasons behind the destruction of agreements involved with Israel were that governments such as the Palestinian Authority were unable to prevent "rogue" terrorist groups from breaking the provisions that had been agreed upon. And when one side breaks an agreement, it's natural for the other sides to do something about it. Saddam was not at all a victim in any of this.

Which still doesn't change the fact that the US attacked Iraq without a valid UN sanction. The reason the UN vote wasn't an overwhelming defeat for Bush was the lies spread by Bush's supporters - that Iraq was an immediate threat.

The US didn't really need a valid UN sanction, but Bush's administration decided to present their argument to the international delegations anyway. If you believe that the delegates were ignorant enough to so easily believe "lies", that perhaps you don't give them enough credit. Alot more evidence was presented to the UN than just "Saddam has WMDs", and all the evidence presented was the basis for their voting, not just that controversial one.

I was against starting the war. Once you have started it, you have to see it through, because right now it's all a mess. What I'm saying is that since you made the mess, now you get to fix it. It's easier to destroy than to rebuild.

Agreed. The US and the international community are currently at work repairing the damage caused by the war, and according to many widespread predictions, after enough hard work, the new Iraq will be considerably better than the one run by Saddam's regime.

It's relevant for understanding his position. You have to try to understand him.

I doubt there are many people out there who can say they truly understand him. What's important is dealing with his actions, not understanding them.

Belief or fact? Perhaps the reason they didn't provide a huge advantage (assuming they didn't) was that Saddam didn't allow the American spies everywhere?

Saddam believing that weapons inspectors were spies was hardly justification for refusal to grand them access to the areas they wanted to see. Alot of the inspectors weren't even American, especially those that were part of the last team to attempt an inspection. Sounds more like a conspiracy theory.

Yes, in a way Saddam got what he deserved. The Iraqi people doesn't deserve chaos though, and the US didn't have the right to give Saddam what he deserved.

No, the Iraqi people didn't deserve chaos. Saddam could have spared his people from unneeded suffering, but he instead chose to just force them through, just for the sake of being defiant. The US was one of the more visible nations that signed the cease-fire treaty with Saddam. When Saddam broke it, the US was well within its rights to take appropriate actions, among them being Saddam's removal.

It works for showing that the decision to attack Iraq was arbitrary in some regards. There must've been other reasons to do it.

I've already mentioned that there were probably more than one reason for the Bush administration's actions. That doesn't mean the decision to go ahead was arbitrary.

It was not a legitimate reason; the UN said no.

A no vote by select delegates does not make the decision illegitimate, especially considering the US isn't bound by any UN decisions beyond a political standpoint.

It does. The UN can do things that the US cannot, legitimately.

No it doesn't.  Lately, the UN has been a ceremonial entity, not without its own share of imperfections. Alot of its "decisions" have been viewed upon moreso as "advice" than actual "rulings". The UN really can't do all that much when there's a sizable body of opposition to conclusions it has reached.

The US has supported regimes which have tortured and executed civilians. The US has more resources to offer. If Saddam had equivalent resources to offer to the nations he supported, the "war" would be fought differently. They have to make do with what they get - if they can destroy tanks and kill soldiers, they will, and they sometimes do too. If they don't have weapons that lets them attack soldiers, I fully well understand their attacking the "civilians" (i.e. armed occupants) living in settlements on their soil.

Also, supporting families left behind after dead warriors can't be such a bad thing to do.

How can you call someone who straps on a bomb and blows up a bus full of school-children a "warrior"? That's despicable, no matter what your "politics" are. Saddam gave money to the families these murderers left behind to help promote more of such evil. Insisting that there's any good in this is utter garbage.

Innocent until proven guilty, are we?

Saddam isn't an American citizen; these rights do not extend to him. Regardless, now that he's arrested, he will be tried and his guilt can be formally assessed.