Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Jul 2004 20:08:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1283 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
> Note: The "consequences" did not include what happened (i.e. armed
> intervention).
From what I can tell, the consequences didn't really amount to much other than
saying "Stop, or I'll say 'stop' again!" If the UN wants to be taken seriously,
they need to stick to their own decisions, and follow up on their resolutions in
some tangible way. SH didn't just ignore their resolution. He publicly stated
that he was not going to comply with it, bragging to the whole world that he had
defeated his enemies. The UN actually voted to not do anything to enforce their
own resolution which was reportedly drafted out of a clear sense of moral
outrage. If they were so outraged, why weren't they stepping up to the plate
and doing something more effective than verbal condemnation?
As for actually enforcing it, what else were they going to do at that point?
Telling him to comply with the terms of his previous surrender hadn't worked.
Imposing a trade embargo against him didn't work (not just in the sense that he
still didn't comply, but also in the sense that he was clearly trading with
other nations in spite of the embargo). The only two solutions that really
stood any chance of succeeding were assassination (which isn't allowed), and
sending in troops to physically enforce the UN mandate. It doesn't matter who
sent in the troops; it was still going to result in a major armed conflict. The
best of all possible solutions to his defiance would have been if the citizens
of Iraq rose up and hauled his sorry butt to the border and handed him over to
waiting UN troops, but the second best solution would have been if the UN had
led the charge instead of cowering in their hidey-holes and hoping the situation
would magically resolve itself.
> That is a rather subjective view.
Just because the UN fails to enforce their resolutions doesn't mean those
resolutions are invalidated. The US may not have had a UN mandate ordering them
to attack, but they certainly had a broken UN mandate ordering SH to comply with
the legally binding terms of his surrender.
> What did SH do whilst Clinton was running things that was worth even lobbing
> missiles at?
Aside from continuing to hinder UNSCOM, we didn't really know. Maybe nothing,
maybe funding WMD research. The point is that he accepted the terms of his
surrender and pointedly defied them, while the Clinton missile-lobbing tactic
was only serving to embolden him.
> I hear they have returned. ;-(
I'm considerably less than shocked to hear that. England still came back nearly
40 years after the American Revolution and tried to subjugate us again, Scotland
is under British control despite having won freedom from them in 1314... The US
can pretty much go into almost any oppressive dictatorship and wrest control
away from the leaders on behalf of their citizens, but it's up to the citizens
to prove that they can maintain their own freedom. Without that, they'll just
end up trading czars for socialists.
> ... or because they were CIA spooks rather than independent experts…
If it was a case of them refusing on the grounds of CIA infiltrators, they
should have singled them out and refused entry to just those people. Turning
everyone away just makes it look like you're hiding something.
> Even if the Iraqis did not want the war?
The Iraqi people wanted SH overthrown. They may not have wanted war (NIMBY
applies pretty universally in these situations), but they wanted him and his
sons gone. They've just had the rug pulled out from under them so many times by
allies who have promised support and later abandoned them (including the US
during the Gulf War) that they were terrified of the consequences of discovering
that they were standing alone when the time came to rise up against the regime.
The technology gap between king and peasant has also advanced so far as to make
it exceedingly difficult for the populace to overthrow their own government
without heavy foreign support. This becomes even more problematic in a
situation like Iraq's, where most of the people with the clout to start a
revolution wouldn't have been doing it for "we, the people," but for "me, the
warlord." Too many of the politically powerful oppressed had their eye on SH's
palace as a personal goal, and not as a symbol of injustice.
> Which countries are we talking about?
France and Germany come to mind right away. Both nations were very vocal in
condemning the US for initiating military action, both nations ended up in the
"well, we're glad he's gone...but you still shouldn't have done it" camp, both
nations demanded to be involved in the reconstruction, and both nations have
been grumbling about the whole situation since then.
And after the results of 9-11, if they thought there was any other possible
outcome to this situation, they should be voted out of office ASAP for gross
incompetence. Bush Jr. may have been looking for an excuse to invade, but the
UN handed it to him on a silver platter and then collectively washed their
hands.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
