Anti-war protesters, answer me this!

[Oerdin]

BTW here is a great read about what happened in Grenada. I'd highly recommend it to anyone who wants to get a clear historical understanding of what occured and why. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...189697-0173634

[Oerdin]

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.

Can you please show me where this is written? I'd be willing to bet money that states are allowed to go to war when they are attacked or when their vital interests are at stack. That doesn't even bring up about how war is considered A.O.K. when the U.N. deems it to be sanctified, but, all of that is a side show because if you aren't allowed to intervine to stop Genicide then the law is meaningless.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
BTW here is a great read about what happened in Grenada. I'd highly recommend it to anyone who wants to get a clear historical understanding of what occured and why. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...189697-0173634

At the time Reagan claimed it was because the Cubans and Soviets were building a military airbase. Actually, it was an airbase to increase tourism on the island, but it provided a convenient excuse to the Reaganistas. They also said that American medical students were being held hostage, but when interviewed one of the kids said (after back in America), the first they knew they were being held hostage is when the US military showed up and told them that they were being rescued.

It was all BS and the invasion was just the US putting it's toe back into the world of direct international intervention (the other toe was blown up in a Lebanese suicide bombing a few days earlier). It was America's first internationa adventure since we got kicked out of Vietnam. There were no revolutionaries being trained in Grenada (which, frankly, would have been a terribly stupid place to do it considering how small the island was and how easy it would have been for any tourists to have spotted them--much better to do it in Cuba where no one could see).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Quote:

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.

Can you please show me where this is written? I'd be willing to bet money that states are allowed to go to war when they are attacked or when their vital interests are at stack. That doesn't even bring up about how war is considered A.O.K. when the U.N. deems it to be sanctified, but, all of that is a side show because if you aren't allowed to intervine to stop Genicide then the law is meaningless.

There was no genocide in Kosovo. As for the legitimate use of force, simply look up the UN charter.

[chequita guevara]

Re: the Contras. First off, the only human rights violation the Sandanistas were ever accused of was some deaths involving the relocation of the Moskito indians. The Indians were being moved becase they lived in a war zone, a war zone created by the Contras. The Sandanistas were trying to move the civilians out of harm's way, but did it in a totally ham-handed way. The people responsible for the deaths were prosecuted and dealt with.

The Contras, on the other hand, murdered 40,000 Nicarguans, destroyed schools and hospitals and communal farms, smuggled cocaine into the US, tortured people, raped women, massacred isolated farmers, etc.

The US organized, trained, equipped, fed, clothes, and sheltered this army. For all intents and purposes they were an extension of the US government. They were directed in their operations by the CIA.

This was so blatent that the Nicaraguans took the US to the World Courth and won (because of the incident of the harbor mining).

From start to finish the US war on Nicaragua was a violation of international law. And for half of the war it was a violation of American law.

[Oerdin]

There most certainly was large scale ethnic cleansing. I heard from a number of villagers who told me one morning he woke up to find the VJ (Yugoslav Army) had surrounded their town and told them they all had one hour to leave or they'd be killed. After the civilians had been forced out they'd dinomite the houses to prevent people from coming back or even getting their belongings which were left behind.

BTW I saw a ton of mine fields along the Albanian and Macedonian borders. The bastards would tell the Albanian they had to leave the country or they'd be killed and then they refused to let them through the normal border crossings and mined the nearby border areas.

You can't defend Slbo Che. NATO got this one right even if they waited to long to stop him in Bosnia.

[chequita guevara]

Yes, that happened, after NATO started bombing. Many of the people I saw claimed they fled because of the bombing.

I'm not defending Milosevic's actions, but claiming genocide when there are no bodies to substantiate the charge is just as wrong.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by The diplomat

How come they only bash the US and Israel?

They currently kill the largest number of people.

[Sandman]

How about this one: The US repeatedly violated the UN arms embargo on Bosnia during the civil war there, by dropping planeloads of weaponry to the Bosnian Muslims. Buoyed up by these weapons shipments, the Muslims attempted a number of offensives which were easily defeated by the better-equipped Bosnian Serbs, who then went on the counter-offensive across the country, including at the Srebrenica enclave.

[Az]

Tripledoc: lies. Sudan, Nigeria, Russia, Colombia, this is just a small example of nations that harm civilian populations much more than israel. but of course, "I'm not listening"....

Che: an answer is coming.

[uh Clem]

Oerdin: "It is logical and legal to put a stop to people who are planning to carry out armed attacks against civilians."

We're shutting down the School of the Americas?

[Edan]

Re: Israel and the US

Originally posted by Tripledoc
They currently kill the largest number of people.

Go ahead, pull the other one.

[Urban Ranger]

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

NATO is supposed to be a defensive organisation. Why did it launch an offensive war? Isn't it against its own charter?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
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.

Ethnic cleansing eh? Well sure the US doesn't give a two hoots about ethnic cleansing in other parts of the world, say, hm, Africa? Besides, if the evidence of ethnic cleansing is so strong, why does the court at the Hagues have so much trouble with Slobo?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'd be willing to bet money that states are allowed to go to war when they are attacked or when their vital interests are at stack.

By defining anything as a "vital interest," a country can launch an attack at its own whim.

[Tripledoc]

The dangerous doctrine of preemption
Senator Robert C. Byrd, United States Senate, January 17, 2003

Rarely in recent memory has the United States faced more profoundly serious and complicated challenges to our global leadership. We are beginning our second year of war in Afghanistan – our second year of chasing after Osama bin Laden – and at the same time the Pentagon is feverishly mobilizing for possible war in Iraq. Meanwhile, North Korea is firing up its nuclear production facilities and warning of a "Third World War" in Asia if the U.S. interferes. Suddenly, large swaths of both the Middle East and Asia are on the brink of open warfare, and the conduct of U.S. foreign policy is facing enormous tests. Even our allies are questioning our real intentions and our ultimate ambitions.

This is certainly not the time for rash words or hasty actions, but it is most definitely the time to take a long and sober look at where the United States has been and where it may be headed. The Administration's doctrine of preemption and the testing of that doctrine in Iraq have thrust the United States into a new and unflattering posture on the world stage. In many corners of the world, America the peacemaker is now seen as the bully on the block.

I believe it is time for this Administration to review our national security strategy and its take-no-prisoners approach to international relations. In working through the complex process of developing strategies to protect the world from terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, we must also work to restore the image of the United States to that of strong peacekeeper instead of belligerent bully. Terrorism is a global threat that demands a global response. We must seek cooperation, not confrontation.

The contrast between the Administration's handling of the crisis in Iraq and with its handling of the crisis in North Korea is a perfect illustration of why a doctrine that commits the United States to the use of preemptive force -- unilaterally if necessary -- to prevent unsavory regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction is a flawed instrument of foreign policy.

I am relieved that the Administration, despite North Korea's alarming rhetoric, appears to fully comprehend the folly of a preemptive U.S. military strike on a nation which we believe is a nuclear power, and has finally agreed to at least talk with the North Korean government and to work with other nations in the region toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis.

The situation in Iraq, however, appears to be heading in the opposite direction. Iraq, which by all accounts does not have nuclear weapons and is presently the subject of scrutiny by U.N. inspectors, is under the heavy threat of a preemptive U.S. attack. The airwaves are awash with video snapshots of brave young American soldiers, bidding tearful goodbyes to loved ones.

When it comes to Iraq, America's war machine seems to be cranked up to a fever pitch.

Ever since Congress voted last year to hand to the President the power to decide how, when, where, and why we will wage war against Iraq, the question of whether we should wage war has largely been overlooked. It is past time to remedy that omission. Where is the debate on the wisdom of actually resorting to force? Where is the urgency? Why not let the inspectors do their job? Why are our allies backing away?

Congress made a serious mistake in passing an open-ended use of force authorization last year, but we only compound that mistake by sitting idly by while the Pentagon draws up war plans and sends our young men and women abroad. Now is the time for informed debate. Now is the time for a public examination of where we are headed and why.

The President has stated repeatedly that he has not decided whether to invade Iraq. We must take him at his word. It is my hope that he will not rush to judgment. The situation demands a careful and thorough examination of the views of our allies, the costs, and the risks before any final conclusion that war is the only recourse. Congress must be part of this debate. The United Nations must be part of this debate. A vote taken last fall should not constrain members of Congress from re-evaluating the situation in light of recent developments.

However bad it was -- and it was very bad -- the use of force resolution passed by Congress last October did not impose an oath of silence on Congress or on the people. It did not prohibit the continued questioning of the Administration's decisions with regards to Iraq. This may be difficult to do when the war drums are beating, but that is the sometimes uncomfortable role of the true patriot.

Without so much as a whisper of debate, our nation is actually mobilizing to attack a sovereign state before U.N. weapons inspectors have even made serious headway in their work. Is this what the policy of preemption means - - that we preempt evidence and move to attack based only on suspicions? And the Administration's new policy of preemption has repercussions far beyond Iraq. Other nations are watching what we are doing. North Korea is one of those nations. Even Brazil is contemplating the development of nuclear weapons as an insurance policy against possible attack.

Iraq and North Korea are both charter members of the President's infamous "axis of evil." Yet, at the same time that the President is turning the heat up on Iraq, he and his Administration have been vigorously downplaying the crisis in North Korea. Iraq has at least allowed U.N. weapons inspectors into the country; North Korea threw them out. Iraq, to the best of our knowledge, does not currently have nuclear weapons. North Korea has brazenly admitted that it is working to develop nuclear weapons, and there is evidence that it already has some nuclear capability. Iraq, at least, is going through the motions of cooperating with the United Nations. Meanwhile, North Korea has announced its withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, threatened to resume missile testing, and declared that U.N. sanctions will mean war.

And yet, the United States is mobilizing for war with Iraq while politely tiptoeing around the far more dangerous situation on the Korean peninsula. The President, in the same breath that he assails Saddam Hussein, has gone to great lengths to assure the world that he has no intention of invading North Korea. Is it any wonder that our allies are scrambling to make sense of America's foreign policy? Is it any wonder that the new image of the United States has caused turmoil and puzzlement even among our staunchest allies?

I am sure that many of our friends around the globe wonder why diplomacy can remain an option with a regime as treacherous and threatening as North Korea, yet can be taken off the table when it comes to a much weaker Iraq. I wonder if the Administration has calculated carefully enough the ramifications of a military solution in Iraq, not only in terms of dollars, but also in terms of bloodshed and hardship in the Middle East and terrorist attacks here at home.

What is the message we convey to the world if we are eager to apply a doctrine of preemption on those countries with limited ability to defend or counterattack, and yet waffle over a preemptive response to dangerous regimes with the firepower to hit back? Are we not in effect saying that nuclear weapons and long-range missiles can provide small countries with an insurance policy against a U.S. preemptive strike? The unanticipated result of this doctrine of preemption may be to unleash a global scramble to acquire the means to deter the U.S. from unprovoked attacks. We could be at the brink of a new type of arms race unleashed by fear of a preemptive U.S. strike.

There are many risks to an inconsistent foreign policy that, in some cases, threatens the use of force as a first response and, in other cases, takes military action off the table entirely. Our national treasure will be increasingly poured into bullets and bombs at a time when homeland security is an equally pressing concern. Our efforts to preach peace and restraint as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be sabotaged by our own policies. American citizens at home will face an increased threat at the hands of terrorists lying in wait for the chance to cripple our economy and derail our war machine. And we will be increasingly hard-pressed to prevent terrorist destruction because our resources will be sucked up by the war machinery that now drives our foreign policy.

Additionally, if we stay the current course, thousands upon thousands of American families will face a painful uprooting. Many, many of the men and women who will be sent to Iraq are members of the National Guard and Reserve. Military officials have said that the activation of National Guard and Reserve troops for a war against Iraq could exceed 100,000.

The impact of such a large activation will reverberate throughout the nation, in communities large and small. On January 7, the Charleston, West Virginia, Gazette reported that a speeding motorist raced through three tollbooths and drove more than 75 miles on the West Virginia Turnpike before any state troopers were available to pursue him. The problem? The State Police force is suffering a severe shortage of troopers. The fear? The situation will get much worse if the 51 West Virginia troopers who are also members of the Guard and Reserve are called up for duty.

This problem is not unique to West Virginia. According to the Gazette, law enforcement agencies across the nation, whose members are heavily represented in the Guard and Reserve, are worried about the impact of a war on their ability to protect the public. And law enforcement will not be the only profession to be affected by a reserve call-up. Members of the Guard and Reserve are not just part-time soldiers -- they are also full-time members of their communities, holding key jobs. Policemen, firefighters, paramedics, doctors, nurses, teachers -- their professions run the gamut, and their absences when on active duty leave significant voids for those left behind.

America will be at great risk of terrorist attack if we invade Iraq. And shortages among the ranks of health and public safety professionals diverted from their civilian jobs to go to war with Iraq will leave Americans with a perilously thin margin of protection at home just when they are likely to need it most.

We must not be in a rush to initiate war against Iraq. Saddam Hussein is certainly in no position to launch a strike against the United States with thousands of our troops massed on his doorstep. Iraq will not be able to rebuild its ailing military in the coming months or to covertly produce weapons of mass destruction under the watchful gaze of the U.S. military and the U.N. weapons inspectors. Today's headlines reveal that the UN inspectors discovered a cache of empty chemical warheads in an ammunition dump. Who knows what tomorrow's inspections may uncover. Where is the urgency that would drive us to preempt the inspectors before they have adequate time to fulfill their mission. While there is dwindling international support for using the initial findings of the U.N. inspectors as a trigger point for invasion, there is great support for the overall United Nations arms inspection program. Saddam Hussein is politically isolated, and the world is virtually unanimous in supporting the disarmament of Iraq.

To act precipitously now, without the full support of our friends and allies, could cost the United States dearly in the long run. Already, some of our strongest allies in the region, most notably Turkey, must chafe at U.S. pressure to join in the war on Iraq. According to a recent survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, 83 percent of Turks oppose allowing U.S. forces to use bases in their country to attack Iraq. And yet our war plans call for the stationing of as many as 80,000 U.S. troops in Turkey. In Europe, the same poll found that large percentages of the population believe that U.S. desire to control Iraqi oil is the chief reason that we are considering attacking Iraq. These perceptions can only serve to undermine our global influence in the years to come. If the U.S. can seize Iraq for its oil, what other nation might it decide to conquer? These thoughts must be on the minds of those who question our new and belligerent foreign policy.

The possibility exists that the crisis in Iraq can be resolved without a shot being fired. With more time and increased diplomatic efforts, there is a chance that Saddam Hussein could be peacefully forced into exile. But first, the fever pitch of war rhetoric often heard from this White House must subside. If we fancy ourselves a superpower then we must behave as a superpower, with confidence, with wisdom, and with dignity.

Some important dates are fast approaching. The first is January 27, when the United Nations weapons inspectors are due to present to the Security Council their first formal assessment of Iraqi compliance with U.N. disarmament demands. Their interim report, delivered to the Security Council on January 9, confirmed that Iraq's weapons declaration was incomplete and insufficient, but the inspectors also reported that they have found no "smoking guns."

I was heartened by Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement that, despite indications to the contrary, January 27 is "not necessarily a D-Day for decision-making." We must give the inspectors adequate time to conduct a thorough search. While the White House continues to assert that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, it is important to note that the United States has just begun to share key intelligence information on the Iraqi weapons program with the U.N. inspectors. It will take time to pursue those leads. Even our staunchest allies, including Great Britain, are urging the U.S. to slow down on Iraq and let the inspectors do their work. The January 27th report is the first, not the final, step in that process.

The second important date on the near horizon is January 28, when President Bush is due to deliver his State of the Union message. The dueling crises in Iraq and North Korea are grim reminders of his last State of the Union speech when the President branded those nations and Iran an "axis of evil."

The President's rhetoric that evening was colorful, but events have proved that it was not wise. I note that the President is now saying that he is "sick and tired" of Saddam Hussein. That is just the type of rhetoric we do not need at this volatile time. It only adds to our image of bellicosity. President Bush must resist any urge to personalize our foreign policy and tone down the supercharged public rhetoric which has been flying around for months. Whether George Bush is "sick and tired" is not the issue and must not be perceived as his reason for sending American men and women to shed their blood.

America must not be viewed globally as a reckless power which views the world in terms of simply flattening the opposition. We must not continue to brandish our awesome military might, walk away from treaties and cooperative agreements, and ignore nuances and sensitivities.

We are losing friends all around the world, and that is extremely risky business in an age of globalism and terrorism. A great nation should not have to rely solely on the force of its armies to inspire the world's admiration. A great nation should inspire other nations by the example it presents to the world.

The doctrine of preemption is likely to cause us trouble far into the future. Labeling whole countries as "evil" invites a response and risks arousing hatreds and passions that are best left sleeping.

Setting the United States up as the ultimate judge of good and evil, with the right to preemptively strike any nation which might pose a threat in the future, is the fastest way one can imagine to make us not only feared but also universally hated.

When one considers that a single angry person in a crowd with a vial of some dreadful, active virus is the equivalent of billions and billions of dollars worth of U.S. military might, it becomes clear that we are making the wrong choices on the foreign policy front.

When tensions across the globe are so high, the President would be prudent to measure his words carefully and reiterate for all the world to hear that he has not yet decided to attack Iraq, that he will fully engage in diplomatic solutions to the North Korean crisis, and that the United States will seek not to initiate war but to apply the soothing balm of patience to an anxious world. I call upon this Administration to cool the rhetoric; reevaluate its doctrine of preemption; initiate a return to the peace table in the Mideast; and go back to the United Nations for a final endorsement before we decide whether to unleash the deadly dogs of war.

###

[muxec]

The pacifists of free world allowed to Hitler to start world war. They said in 1939 do not attck Germany, they said it in 1940 and 1941 and this led to WW2.

[Dis]

I still don't believe Bush wants to start a war. He just makes it look like he wants to start a war. It worked to get inspectors back in Iraq didn't it? Clinton's nice guy way couldn't keep the inspector in Iraq.

[Sandman]

That's why Bush has to be stopped now. It's not going to stop after Iraq is conquered.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Senator Robert C. Byrd, United States Senate, January 17, 2003

No one listens to Byrd.

[Ned]

Thanks, Che, for clarifying what most of us knew already. The protesters, by and large, are not anti-war, but anti-American.

This, of course, confirms as correct the first post in this thread.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by muxec
The pacifists of free world allowed to Hitler to start world war. They said in 1939 do not attck Germany, they said it in 1940 and 1941 and this led to WW2.

Psst...World War II started in 1939.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by muxec
The pacifists of free world allowed to Hitler to start world war. They said in 1939 do not attck Germany, they said it in 1940 and 1941 and this led to WW2.

No. It was the idiots who drawed up the Treaty of Versailles put him in power in the first place.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Psst...World War II started in 1939.

Psst... for the European theater only. Started in Asia much, much earlier.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Thanks, Che, for clarifying what most of us knew already. The protesters, by and large, are not anti-war, but anti-American.

This, of course, confirms as correct the first post in this thread.

Anti-American imperialism, Ned. We want our country to do good in the world, not evil.

[Tripledoc]

I don't get it. how can Americans be anti-American? Is not 'un-American' a better put-down? Or maybe such a term is too loaded historically speaking.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by uh Clem
We're shutting down the School of the Americas?

I've been to Fort Benning and I don't think the school should have been shut down. It really is the best way we can proffesionalize other country's armed forces and teach them about the role the military plays in a democracy (which is to do as it is told).

Blamming the school because the message didn't stick with a few graduates is a little like shutting down USC because O.J. Simpson hacked up his ex-wife. Still the lefty protester really don't care about right or wrong or correct. They just want to keep ranting their dogma.

[chequita guevara]

The School wasn't shut down, it just had a name change.

As for the message not sticking, you're wrong, the message stuck very well. Most of the soldiers who went to the School of Assassins became even bigger and more effective tortureres and butchers once they got back.

[Oerdin]

Che, I like you man but you can't honestly believe that they were teaching torture do you? I'm sure a few nut balls from the deep out field have said that stuff but what I saw at Benning dealt mainly with teaching non-lethal riot control measures, sending foreign officers to American OCS, and educating foreign military personnel to think like American officers.

Admitably I never attending any classes but in the main chow hall at Benning you see all of the students and I got a chance to eat dinner and make friends with a couple of them. One fellow from Ecuador told me about his classes and said he's job once he got home was to become an instructor and teach other people what he learned.

I can't say I saw anything bad at the school.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
I don't get it. how can Americans be anti-American?

Anti-American has become a meaningless buzz phrase by right-wingers who don't seem to understand that objecting to U.S. policy isn't the same as hating the U.S.