Fahren-hype 9/11

[Tetrahedrite]

That's why I didn't bother answering your question. You've already made up your mind.

 

Are none of the points made in the previous post valid?

[Pangloss]

Iraq is definitely on the other side of the world from the USA.

 

We certainly know now that they posed no threat, but the intelligence community of the US, UK and Russia and a host of evidence suggested otherwise, and Hussein certainly violated his agreements, which actually renders *any* other point virtually moot.

 

I certainly understand why *you* consider the war illegal. We share an opposition to it. But it wasn't actually illegal, because (a) there is essentially, in the final analysis, no such thing as international law, and (b) what passes for international law (such as UN 1441) actually supported the US position (individual UN member opinions are another subject).

 

And finally, even the UN's chief weapons inspector believed that it was *possible* that weapons still existed just prior to the war, and said as much. Repeatedly.

 

I have sources for all of this, it's all been discussed ad nausseum here in this forum, and while I welcome newcomers, I'd really prefer that you review those debates rather than try to draw me into a new one that will simply repeat old business.

[Tetrahedrite]

Iraq is definitely on the other side of the world from the USA.

 

We certainly know now that they posed no threat' date=' but the intelligence community of the US, UK and Russia and a host of evidence suggested otherwise, and Hussein certainly violated his agreements, which actually renders *any* other point virtually moot.

 

I certainly understand why *you* consider the war illegal. We share an opposition to it. But it wasn't actually illegal, because (a) there is essentially, in the final analysis, no such thing as international law, and (b) what passes for international law (such as UN 1441) actually supported the US position (individual UN member opinions are another subject).

 

And finally, even the UN's chief weapons inspector believed that it was *possible* that weapons still existed just prior to the war, and said as much. Repeatedly.

 

I have sources for all of this, it's all been discussed ad nausseum here in this forum, and while I welcome newcomers, I'd really prefer that you review those debates rather than try to draw me into a new one that will simply repeat old business.[/quote']

 

You make some fair points and I accept that you view that the invasion was fully justified, however I would make several observations to your above mentioned points

-whether or not you believe international law exists or not (I do) there was still no justification for the war.

-certain international conventions are followed by all developed countries (I think the US is one of those) such as the Geneva Convention which sets out the "rules" of war, the international convention for human rights (which the US blatantly disregards; see Guantanamo Bay, Abu Grabh), international law with regards to ownership of coastal waters etc. If these "laws" and others were disregarded by all countries the world would fall into a world war.

-My above hypothesis is still relevant: Using this logic Australia could go and invade, say, Canada and not be held accountable

-Could I say that the US has WMD's (and lots of them) and is guilty of war crimes (Vietnam, Abu Grabh) so it should be invaded?

-The US refuses to sign up to the International War Crimes Tribunal because they know some of their soldiers are guilty of war crimes.

-If the war was legally justified, was it morally justified?

-Hans Blix said there were "possibly" WMDs in Iraq, its pretty irresponsible to go to war on a "possibly". Why weren't the inspectors given all of the intelligence the US said it had? Why weren't they given an extra few months or a year to establish for sure whether weapons existed? What was the rush?

[Pangloss]

-whether or not you believe international law exists or not (I do) there was still no justification for the war.

 

Well that's your opinion, and more power to you. As a rule I try not to find fault in people's expression of opinion.

 

-certain international conventions are followed by all developed countries (I think the US is one of those) such as the Geneva Convention which sets out the "rules" of war, the international convention for human rights (which the US blatantly disregards; see Guantanamo Bay, Abu Grabh), international law with regards to ownership of coastal waters etc. If these "laws" and others were disregarded by all countries the world would fall into a world war.

 

Characterizing the US as an outlaw nation (and Iraq to be in compliance) is a standard extremist method, and in this case a vast and inaccurate overgeneralization. The United States is generally as cooperative as any other major western nation with regard to international treaty. Meaning you can show me (or rather I can show you -- I don't know how experienced you are on this subject, but I know quite a lot about it) plenty of individual examples of treaty violation by the United States. But what always gets conveniently left out of the extremist position in such discussions is that the US complies with the vast majority of treaties in which the US is signatory.

 

As for that issue of enforcement, as anyone with experience in international law will tell you, enforcement is based more or less entirely on the cooperation of the nation that happens to be in violation. Other countries can put pressure on the offender to comply, but ultimately that's about it.

 

After all, that's what happened in Iraq. They were in violation of 17 agreements, and only the US was ultimately willing to do anything about it. Had we done nothing, he would still be in violation today, and probably WOULD have WMDs by now.

 

So isn't your position really a question of *selective* enforcement? The US has to comply, but other nations... don't?

 

By the way, a "law" is not an agreement. It's a law. It's not open to negotiation. There's nothing like this on the international scene, because there is nobody to enforce it. Oh, except, of course, the United States.

 

-Could I say that the US has WMD's (and lots of them) and is guilty of war crimes (Vietnam, Abu Grabh) so it should be invaded?

 

Another overstated generalization. Stalin killed 20 million, should I hate Russia the way you hate the United States? Australia was settled by British prisoners (or so the legend goes), should I assume that only criminals live in Australia?

 

By the way, there are no UN sanctions against the United States. Nor any mandates for war crimes tribunals for Abu Graib (however it's spelled). Those are your opinions, and they're highly debatable positions. Show me some sanctions like the ones the US had regarding Iraq, and we'll talk.

 

-If the war was legally justified, was it morally justified?

 

Iraq had a history of threat to the region and this country.

 

By the way, you cleverly left Afghanistan out of all of this. I think it's relevent to point out that not only was nobody in the *entire world* willing to do anything about Saddam Hussein, it's also true that nobody in the *entire world* was willing to do anything about the Taliban or Al Qaeda either.

 

Nobody. Anywhere.

 

-Hans Blix said there were "possibly" WMDs in Iraq, its pretty irresponsible to go to war on a "possibly". Why weren't the inspectors given all of the intelligence the US said it had? Why weren't they given an extra few months or a year to establish for sure whether weapons existed? What was the rush?

 

I agree with this statement, so I am perhaps not the best person to take the counterpoint here. Sorry.

 

 

My main point: You've made a number of extremist statements here that I've clearly shown logical counterpoint for. You're welcome to maintain those positions -- that's your right, and I respect it. I happen to agree that Iraq was a bad idea. But I've answered your questions, so anything you say along the lines of "but that makes no sense" followed by reptition of your extremist position, will likely just be ignored. I give this little caveat not in an attempt to be rude, but simply out of boredom from endless reptition of conversation after converstion of people who aren't really interested in having a two-way conversation in the first place; they were just trying to stir up trouble.

 

If that's not your intent, I apologize, and by all means, don't let a jaded former Republican like me shut you down. But I you wish to continue a conversation with *me*, you'll have to change the subject or add something *new* to the discussion. Again, I don't mean to be rude, and there are other folks here -- perhaps one of them might be interested.

[Ophiolite]

My main point:[/b'] You've made a number of extremist statements here ..........

Extreme from your point of view. Nice and central to my world view. Remove the word extremist and replace it with different, and I have no problem with the rest of your post(s). [Which as you know is not the same as agreeing with you, merely reciprocating your respect for my position.]

[Tetrahedrite]

I agree this is going nowhere and will not continue on because agreement will never be reached

 

For the record I am not anti-American in any way. I am anti war for war's sake, anti Bush and anti conservative christian. I have many friends from the US that I have met while at University and all are great people.

I left out Afghanistan because I agree with the action that was taken. It was backed by the UN, there was a proven terrorist threat and the action was not taken unilaterally or pre-emptively. Well done to the USA.

As a last point, I am not having an arguement for arguements sake, and am not trying to stir up trouble. I honestly and passionately believe that GW Bush is the most dangerous and incompetent leader in the world today and I believe the more it is discussed in the world, the more people will come to the same realisation

[Pangloss]

Yes, only extremist from my point of view. It's just my opinion.

 

Tetra, if you say you're not anti-American that's good enough for me, I'll be happy to take your word for it. Certainly your position on Afghanistan suggests a reasonable perspective. I know it's hard to come onto a board later (as I did too) and get into a conversation with folks who have already been there several times. I just wanted to be honest with you about where I was willing to go with the discussion.

 

The only thing I would point out is this:

 

I agree this is going nowhere and will not continue on because agreement will never be reached

 

I'm sure you're right, but if you hang around here (I'm fairly new here myself but I really like the forum) you'll probably find that I'm much more maleable than most folks you'll talk to who are willing to take the right side of a viewpoint. I voted for Bush in 2000 and have voted Republican about 50% of the time, but I voted for Kerry yesterday. (shrug)

 

I think the left side of the debate has had many, many valid points that were worth considering. And it's a shame that many of them were ignored because of polarization. I've watched moderately conservative friends stick their heads in the sand over the last year simply because they're so fed up and frustrated with all of the distortions and half-truths they've had to put up with.

 

And exactly the same thing can be said about the other side. I've had moderately liberal friends, whose opinions I normally respect very much, turn into salivating Bush haters right before my very eyes, just because they're so frustrated with all the distortions and half-truths that THEY'VE had to put up with.

 

All of which has just reinforced my centralist/moderate/independent/libertarian beliefs. We've got to move past this stuff, in my country. I hope we can do that now.

[-Demosthenes-]

speaking of people who have too much faith of those in power...

 

you know' date=' moore may have, just may have made f911 for the better good of the nation. you never know... perhaps thats why he removed it from the selections for the academy award, or perhaps thats why he continues to urge people to pirate his film online[/quote']haha

You are a funny one.

[budullewraagh]

haha

your post has no significance whatsoever