Anti-war protesters, answer me this! - Page 2

Worthingtons · January 19, 2003, 01:10

'Originally posted by Oerdin
Let's face it. 90%+ of them are just stupid me to political leftists. They haven't sat down and seriously thought about the implications of their position and I doubt they really want to.
'
Oerdin is right, a lot wil be silly leftists. The problem is Lefties dont think things through, they never do. They'll be the same one's rioting if Saddam gets and uses nukes , for bush to go

Oerdin · January 19, 2003, 01:12

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why? What's it to you? What has Hussein done that effects you personally or anyone you know? Aside from the opportunity of a few thousand ultra-rich, exactly whose interests benefit from this policy you advocate?

By making an example of people like Saddam the world's other dictators will be more likely to tow the line. In the long run that means fewer wars. Fewer wars means lower taxes, or atleast more of the tax money going to programs I like, and it also means fewer of my friends becoming soldiers since we've detered other conflicts.

Of course there is also the fact that in the long run peace provides for greater economic growth then war (which only provides a short boost to growth combined with the possibility of wide spread distruction a la WW2). Thus a policy which reinforces the current status quo and deters future wars is more benificial to me personally then to avoid conflict and possibely incite future acts of aggression.

chequita guevara · January 19, 2003, 01:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
You may not like the U.S. being the world's policeman but it is a role which someone in this world needs to play. Sure, it means the U.S. gets a larger say in how offending countries are dealt with but the Pax American is fairly benevolent.

The US defines who is or isn't an offending country. In all honestey, the US is one of the biggest violators of of interntional peace and international law. It's just that since our government is the "watchman" no one can do anything about it.

In point of fact, the US doesn't give a damn about international law or peace. It only cares about the interests of its economic (and thus political) elites. Any action which enhances their power (economic and/or political) will be undertaken. Those which do not enhance it will be left to its own devices.

If the US is the world's policeman, an analogy would be as if LAs police department only protected the interests of Beverly Hills.

cia · January 19, 2003, 01:26

Here's my question. Why should the U.S. give a whit about international law. It didn't get our plane back from the Chinese, our soldiers back from the first Gulf War, or really do anything for our trade or security which we couldn't do for ourselves. I've always hated the sandbox mentality and the politics of consensus which go along with it. Ten idiots who agree do not outnumber on intelligent person with the correct answer.

chequita guevara · January 19, 2003, 01:33

If the US shouldn't care about international law then why should it try to force others to obey it? Either the US obeys it also or the US shouldn't force others to obey it.

cia · January 19, 2003, 01:36

Che, the US forces people to obey IT"S law, which is whatever the current administration says it is. Occasionally international law and self-intrest coincide, other times not.

chequita guevara · January 19, 2003, 01:37

Sava · January 19, 2003, 01:40

Lefties, contrary to somes' belief, simply just see through the BS.

Oerdin · January 19, 2003, 01:44

Can someone please give me a clear example of the U.S. violating long standing (and thus incontrivertable) international law without a VERY good reason?

I'd like to hear more then "we wanted to make Kyoto international law but the U.S. blocked it". Determining what will become future law and what is law are two different subjects.

Sava · January 19, 2003, 01:48

Does the ABM treaty count? Or how about the US never signing the Geneva conventions treaty on the ban of chemical/biological warfare? Or how about the US's refusal to sign the ban on the anti-personal dumb-land-mines treaty?

I'm not sure if this violates law, but the US is the signal biggest arms dealer in the world... selling arms and munitions to both sides of conflicts around the world...

Oerdin · January 19, 2003, 02:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Does the ABM treaty count? Or how about the US never signing the Geneva conventions treaty on the ban of chemical/biological warfare? Or how about the US's refusal to sign the ban on the anti-personal dumb-land-mines treaty?

I'm not sure if this violates law, but the US is the signal biggest arms dealer in the world... selling arms and munitions to both sides of conflicts around the world...

Nope, none of those violate any international laws. The ABM, like most modern treaties, has a "self-abrogation" clause where it is explicitely spelled out what each party must do in order to terminate the treaty. People might disagree about how wise Bush was to use the abrogation clause but the fact remains it is not a violation of international law.

Refusing to sign the land mine ban or refusing to give up chemical & biological weapons falls under the "blocked treaties which some people would have liked to have seen become international law" and is in no way a violation of international law.

Sava · January 19, 2003, 02:03

Personally, I think there are certain moral and ethical guidelines that should be adhered to rather than a piece of paper. Regardless of whether or not it was against the law, I still wouldn't murder anyone.

chequita guevara · January 19, 2003, 02:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Can someone please give me a clear example of the U.S. violating long standing (and thus incontrivertable) international law without a VERY good reason?

The war against Nicaragua and specifically the mining of one of their harbors. The war against Yugoslavia. The bombing of Sudan. The invasion of Grenada. The invasion of Panama. The embargo against Cuba. And that's just the last twenty years.

cia · January 19, 2003, 02:09

Wasn't the war in Yugoslavia at the UN's request? And since when is an national embargo illegal?

Sava · January 19, 2003, 02:10

It was at NATO's request...

cia · January 19, 2003, 02:12

That raises a bugger of a question. What if supporting a treaty like NATO violates international law?

Sava · January 19, 2003, 02:16

IMO, NATO is a terrorist organization

Az · January 19, 2003, 02:23

Quote:

Azazel, exactly what effect would protests in the US have on the war in Sudan? There are groups working to end slavery in Sudan as well as trying to relieve the food crisis in Southern Sudan. While I think that we should be arming the Christians and Animists in the South, I can't really say it would be in their best interests seeing as the US would only aid those groups it felt best represented American elites' interests. Given the weight of history, those groups would tend to be rather nasty and dicatorial . . . which is still better than the genocidal Arab government.

Maybe, the US government would help those people more than it does now. Why are the chances of the US administration changing it's stance on something it really wants to do higher than the chances on the US administration doing something it actually kind of wants to do, that is to **** the Sudanese government? But of course, that would be sort of being co-belligerents with the US government, and we can't allow that

. In any case you don't see the issue really surfacing in a major way on the organizations' sites, and all support that they do recieve is generally from food relief organizations and the like.

and Sudan is just an example.

chequita guevara · January 19, 2003, 02:26

Quote:

Originally posted by cia
Wasn't the war in Yugoslavia at the UN's request? And since when is an national embargo illegal?

The US decided it wanted to bomb Yugoslavia and tried to get the UNSC to go along with it. The UNSC refused, so the US got NATO to go along with it instead. It was the US who initiated things, however, and not NATO.

chequita guevara · January 19, 2003, 02:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Why are the chances of the US administration changing it's stance on something it really wants to do higher than the chances on the US administration doing something it actually kind of wants to do, that is to **** the Sudanese government?

That's kind of an unclear question.

First off, with the exception of extremely reactionary organizations like the Taliban and al-Qaeda, US imperialism is almost always a bad thing. Even if locally it might do some good, say, liberating the Iraqi people from the Baathist regime and ignoring the cost to the people who've been liberated (a million and counting at this point) in the world scheme it is a bad thing, because it reinforces the US's ability to go anywhere it wants. So next time it will be Columbia or maybe Cuba. Maybe we'll be more ready to have Lula or the new president of Equador overthrown.

What are the chances that this anti-war movement will stop Bush from attacking Iraq? I'd say effectively nil. Hopefully the leadership of the movement is clear on this, as last time around there were plenty of illusions in our ability to force the government to act democratically. It's not gonna happen, but if the movement is prepared, we can keep going. A semi-lengthy invasion and occupation (18-month occupation my ass

) might be bloody enough to get the squeemish middle to balk and could cause the US to retreat pre-maturely, thus blunting its political ability to project its imperial power in the future.

Will it happen this way, probably not. But it surely won't if we roll-over and let the bastards have their way with the world.

Az · January 19, 2003, 02:50

Gotta run to the uni. maybe will reply to you from there.

DinoDoc · January 19, 2003, 02:52

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So next time it will be Columbia or maybe Cuba. Maybe we'll be more ready to have Lula or the new president of Equador overthrown.

I think that you should have chose another region to make this point. We are the unrivaled power in this region and could go to those countries now if we chose.

DinoDoc · January 19, 2003, 02:54

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The war against Yugoslavia.

I don't know about the other examples you listed but this really isn't an incontrivertable example of the US violating International Law.

chequita guevara · January 19, 2003, 03:03

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

I don't know about the other examples you listed but this really isn't an incontrivertable example of the US violating International Law.

Did Yugoslavia attack the US or any of its allies? No, then it was an illegal war. The only purpose of the war was to force the Yugoslavs to agree to the Ramboulliet peace accords, and in the end the US agreed to the Yugoslav's terms, and not the other way around, so the war didn't even achieve its stated objectives. On top of that there was the rather continual bombing of civilian targets and finally there was the deliberate attack upon the Chinese embassy.

Oerdin · January 19, 2003, 03:05

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The war against Nicaragua and specifically the mining of one of their harbors. The war against Yugoslavia. The bombing of Sudan. The invasion of Grenada. The invasion of Panama. The embargo against Cuba. And that's just the last twenty years.

The Nicaraguan Contras commited a number of rights violations (though not as many as the communists) the point is the Contras did that and the U.S. took actions to curb their abuses when it became obvious how out of control the war factions had gotten. I also contend that taking part in a war is not, in and of itself, a violation of any international law. Distasteful, yes. But not a violation.

I'd have to say the U.S. proticipation in the Yugoslav conflict is a picture postcard of International Law in action. You had one side killing and exciling people based upon their national origin & religion and you had the western powers putting a stop to it.

Sudan was/is supporting terrorists who wanted to attack us so I see this as being one of those "very good reason" type of situations. You attack us (or help others attack us) and we get to attack you. Turn around is fair play.

In Grenada the Cubans and Angolans were training fighters to take part in armed revolutions throughout Latin America. It is logical and legal to put a stop to people who are planning to carry out armed attacks against civilians.

Next, we have the embargo of Cuba which is in no way illegal. The U.S. has not turned back a single ship which wishes to dock in Cuba since the Cuba missile crises in the early 1960's. What it does say is that ships, persons, or companies which do business in Cuba are not welcome in the United States. Also persons or companies which deal in stolen property can have their assets in the U.S. taken away as judicial punishment. This is entirely with in International Law and the law which the Congress passed disallowing Americans to purchases Cuban goods or to visit Cuba effects only U.S. citizens and so is not covered by International Law.

None of the above actions violated any International Laws. People my disagree with them or might not like the U.S. acting as policeman but I'm still waiting for an unjustified violation to be brought up. The only one which I think actually was a violation is Panama.

Panama is an interesting case because you have a currupt dictator who was deeply involved with drug smuggling, who wanted to nationalize U.S. assests in Panama, and who threatened to block U.S. ships from using the canal (a joke since the U.S. controlled the canal zone). I'd say it was a violation to invade the country but the reasoning is clear. If you don't threaten the U.S. and act like a rabid howler monkey then you won't end up like Noriaga did.

DinoDoc · January 19, 2003, 03:06

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Did Yugoslavia attack the US or any of its allies?

That isn't particularly relevent.

Oerdin · January 19, 2003, 03:22

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Did Yugoslavia attack the US or any of its allies? No, then it was an illegal war. The only purpose of the war was to force the Yugoslavs to agree to the Ramboulliet peace accords, and in the end the US agreed to the Yugoslav's terms, and not the other way around, so the war didn't even achieve its stated objectives. On top of that there was the rather continual bombing of civilian targets and finally there was the deliberate attack upon the Chinese embassy.

Having served eight months as a peace keeper in Kosovo I feel I have a bit of prospective on that particular conflict. The war was not about the Ramboulliet accord. It was about getting the Yugoslav government to cease committing ethnic cleansing and when it became apparent that Slobo was going to keep on cleansing until somebody stopped him that is when NATO became involved.

The death of civilians is regrettable but inevitable in a war zone. The point is NATO took extreme measure to minimize the number of civilian deaths while the Yugoslav government intentially targeted the Albanian civilians in order to realize their dream of a "Greater Serbia". Trust men Che I was their less then a year after the war and I saw the destroyed villages and since I was in PsyOps I got to talk to a great many of the survivors.

NATO was well with in reason to put a stop to Slobo's genocide. I'm not sure about the Chinese Embassy though. The government denied it was on purpose but I've read a few theories (including some put up by former white house insiders) that say it was deliberate. I don't know who to believe.

If the conspiracy theorists are correct then this is what happened: The Chinese were providing the Yugoslavs with military assistance and satellite intelligence. The U.S. asked the Chinese to stop and the Chinese refused. The U.S. then ordered the Chinese to stop or they would face "sever action" and the Chinese still refused. The following week the Chinese Embassy (where all of the military & intelligence assistance was being given to Yugoslavs was changing hands) was "accidentally" bombed.

If it's true then it would be a violation of the letter of international law if not the intent. Personally, I think if you act like a combatant then it is alright to treat you like a combatant.

chequita guevara · January 19, 2003, 03:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
The Nicaraguan Contras commited a number of rights violations (though not as many as the communists) the point is the Contras did that and the U.S. took actions to curb their abuses when it became obvious how out of control the war factions had gotten. I also contend that taking part in a war is not, in and of itself, a violation of any international law. Distasteful, yes. But not a violation.

Do you actually believe that ****?

Quote:

I'd have to say the U.S. proticipation in the Yugoslav conflict is a picture postcard of International Law in action. You had one side killing and exciling people based upon their national origin & religion and you had the western powers putting a stop to it.

International law is very clear on the subject of war. You can only go to war if someone is attacking you. All other excercizes of force are illegal and thus violations of international law.

Furthermore, the war had nothing to do with what you claim but was started by the US in order to force Yugoslavia to accept the Ramboulliet agreements to be shoved down its throat (an agreement which the mainstream Albanian Kosovars rejected also, BTW).

Quote:

Sudan was/is supporting terrorists who wanted to attack us so I see this as being one of those "very good reason" type of situations. You attack us (or help others attack us) and we get to attack you. Turn around is fair play.

We bombed a pharmsutical factory.

Quote:

In Grenada the Cubans and Angolans were training fighters to take part in armed revolutions throughout Latin America. It is logical and legal to put a stop to people who are planning to carry out armed attacks against civilians.

Yeah, right, and what eveidence do you have of that?

Quote:

Next, we have the embargo of Cuba which is in no way illegal.

An embargo is an act of war. See previous statements about the legitimacy of war under international law. Since Cuba is not attacking us, this is violation of international law.

Quote:

Panama is an interesting case because you have a currupt dictator who was deeply involved with drug smuggling, who wanted to nationalize U.S. assests in Panama, and who threatened to block U.S. ships from using the canal (a joke since the U.S. controlled the canal zone).

1) He was replaced with someone who helped the drug cartels launger money. 2) There were no threats to nationalize US property, 3) the treaty which turned the canal over to the Panamanians required them to allow US shipping.

My god, either you're a kid who didn't live through any of these events or you smoked so much pot that you have no memory left.

DinoDoc · January 19, 2003, 03:28

Quote:

An embargo is an act of war.

On what do you base the claim? I've never heard them described as such by anyone except Floyd.

Oerdin · January 19, 2003, 03:32

Che, I lived through all of them and I'm relating things exactly as I remember them happening. Also I did not smoke alot of pot.