Points to Ponder

[khaosworks]

The Bush administration says that it is attacking Iraq preemptively in self defence. The last people to use this kind of argument, and have it soundly rejected by the court hearing it, were the Nazis at the Nuremberg Tribunals in 1946.

The Bush administration goes to the UN to demand it take action because Iraq has ignored UN Resolutions for 10 years. Israel has ignored the UN Resolution to get out of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank for 35 years.

The Bush administration asks the UN to take action because Iraq has not allowed arms inspectors to enter. Iraq says, okay, it will. The Bush administration's response is to say that they are going to go in even though Iraq has acquiesed. The Bush administration asks the UN to support it going into Iraq but says it will go in by itself if the UN refuses. So what's the point in telling the UN?

The Bush administration goes to Congress to ask for a resolution to make war on Iraq because they must show the world that the United States is united in its resolve and determination. 37 percent of people in a recent Newsweek poll - taken before Iraq said it would allow inspection - do not support a war with Iraq. Of those, 2-1 believe that Bush should seek Congressional sanction. What unity in resolve and determination?

The Bush administration says they cannot tolerate terrorism. And yet, Iraq has not been linked, or shown to be linked, to any terrorist act in recent memory. There is no evidence that Iraq had any connection with the events of September 11.

The Bush administration says that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. There has been no evidence presented to show that Saddam Hussein actually has weapons of mass destruction, merely allegations for the potential for it, with no real basis provided. Yet we are supposed to take the Bush administration and/or Tony Blair's word for it.

And even if Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, why can't he be deterred from using it like everyone else with nuclear weapons has been deterred? He had the opportunity to use biological and chemical weapons during the Gulf War but knew that if he did so Israel and/or the Allies would retaliate in kind, so he did not. Saddam is not insane nor is he stupid. He is a survivor. In the same way that he knows if he sold a nuclear weapon to Osama Bin Laden it would be traced back to him immediately, he can be deterred. In fact, thinking seems to indicate that if Saddam feels he has nothing to lose - if enemy forces move in on Baghdad, the deterrent will no longer work.

And even if he is willing to use these weapons of mass destruction, none of these weapons can conceivably reach the United States. Why aren't the Arab nations doing anything, if the threat is so great? Why are they actually opposing a US move aside from Saudi Arabia, which appears to be caught between its own interests and its desire for US protection.

The Bush administration says that free societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. Which is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon in war? Which country was among two which threatened each other with mass murder for forty years? And which is the only country that has been condemned by the World Court as a terrorist nation for its part in the terrorist war on Nicaragua?

If the mere presence of weapons of mass destruction is a threat, why doesn't the US disarm? Or Russia? Or China? Or the UK?

The Bush administration says it has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Yet the US and its allies have led and approved sanctions that deprive the Iraqi people of such necessities of life as water filtration systems to prevent cholera. Should Iraq then approach the UN to attack the US for violating human rights?

Ask the questions. Demand answers.

Comments

[katyhh.livejournal.com]

The last people to use this kind of argument, and have it soundly rejected by the court hearing it, were the Nazis

And if you were living in Germany you might possibly be requested to give up your position as a judge if you freely spoke this opinion. Our minister of justice apparently said something similar (she denies that she has directly compared Bush to Hitler, though, and most people including me believe that) - and had to step back from her position, due to the miserable atmosphere this created between the US government and ours ...

Huzzah for free speech and common sense ... *siigh*

Did I mention that I really like reading your posts?

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

I'm only sexy when I get worked up. :-)

[gingicat]

I'm 32 years old, and the occupied territories have been a fact for as long as I've been alive. I've been struggling to understand why they're there since I became politically aware, in 1976.

I've also been trying to understand why (a) Jordan pushed the Palestinians out (which they did, you can look it up in the history) and why the Palestinians, instead of allowing themselves to become pawns of the Arab nations, indoctrinated into a belief of hate, didn't simply say to the Arabnations, "Fuck off, you've always treated us like shit, we're going to go become Israeli citizens." Because they could have, if they'd wanted to.

[camwyn]

I'm probably going to get flayed alive for saying this, but when people like that idiot were rambling on about the Towers being attacked because of pagalesbiabortiofeminism, I remember thinking 'wrong... if this is anything, this is karmic retribution - earned, not imposed - for the effect of the sanctions on the children of Iraq'. Which may be part of the reason I despise the idiot so much that I never want to use his name again.

I'm not saying Saddam doesn't deserve to be thumped soundly and told he's an idiot before having his toys taken away. I'm just saying Chimpy (and I am truly sorry to all real chimpanzees, as well as the character Chimpy in the comic strip Monty) is behaving in a way that's the moral equivalent of dancing around in copper armour, during a rainstorm, feet in a wading pool of salt water, chanting 'all gods are bastards'. And I feel like my letters to my congressbeings aren't doing jack. Dammit, what comes next?

[jost.livejournal.com]

While I don't disagree with your overall screed, I must call to issue this: "this is karmic retribution - earned, not imposed - for the effect of the sanctions on the children of Iraq". I think it's very difficult to claim that A) The destruction of the towers could ever be "earned" and B) that it's karmic in any way. I will agree that the people behind it believe that it was retribution but even that gets into a tit-for-tat game that has no winner. If the sanction against Iraq could be in any way Karmic, then you have to assume that they (the sanctions themselves) are the Karmic whiplash to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait as the sanctions only came about as part of U.N. resolutions in response to the unprovoked invasion. Is it time to lift those sanctions? Perhaps. But to single out their effect on children as opposed to other Iraqi people above puberty is not equitable. The sanctions hurt everyone there, not just children. We cannot specify what happens to the food and supplies that do make it in go directly to children, nor should we. Personally, I am of the mind in all of this to still respect national sovreignity and that means respecting it in all its forms; the right for Iraq to keep Saddam in power as well as the Iraqi government's right to distribute the food it gets to whomever it sees fit to get it. Make no mistake; there are Iraqi government officials with full bellies while poor children starve. If there's a karmic backlash in that scenario, it really must go to the full-bellied Iraqis and not to others.

[camwyn]

The main reason I was thinking it was the children is because of an extended education in the wonders that a dictatorship can do for public health, particularly in areas like infant mortality, when I was studying to enter a public health program. It was amazing to watch how uncomfortably my professors danced around the subject - er, yes, well, these people are of course bad, but damn if Iraq didn't have an awfully low infant mortality rate compared to economically/societally similar countries, mostly because that was one of the government's Ways of Looking Good. They were in my mind first, and you're right; it ought to come down on the heads of the officials...

*sigh* Sorry. Not being offended or anything, just trying to lay out what I thought of the whole affair. I don't think it's coming out quite right.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

The main problems are these:

Dubya is an idiot.

The American people aren't willing to stand up against him because it's not in our backyard, even though we (in the general sense) don't support a war against Iraq.

What I found most chilling were the insistence that if the UN wouldn't do anything, the US was going to go it alone and the total lack of interest the US has with meeting with Germany during the upcoming NATO meeting because Germany wouldn't play ball with the US.

What the fuck does this administration think it's doing?

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

The American people aren't willing to stand up against him because it's not in our backyard, even though we (in the general sense) don't support a war against Iraq.

This is the part that confuses me about my fellow citizens. Didn't we learn a year ago that it *can* become our backyard?

Sigh.

I wish I could print this entry and mail it to several people.

A.

[almeda.livejournal.com]

The way to print it is to append ... something ... to the end of the URL to tell it to be in the LYNX stylesheet. I can't remember what the string is, though, and searching lj_nifty doesn't seem to be helping. :-/

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Thanks, but, um, that wasn't what I meant. :)

What I meant was that I wish I could send this analysis to VP Cheney and have him read it and get some sense (no point sending it to George III).

A.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

First of all, Bush is an asshole who will do what he wants when he wants and anybody who gets in his way is to be ground up into little tiny meatballs with lots of breadcrumbs made from Wonder bread.

Regarding Israel and the West Bank - the UN has been leveling resolutions against Israel for most of Israel's existance no matter what evidence might be on Israel's side. Bear in mind that the whole Jenin thing had lots of people decrying Israel as obviously having massacred large numbers of Palestinians because the Palestinians said so, but when the numbers proved it was much closer to if not actually what Israel said it was there were few retractions or apologies. And as somebody who has grown up with a Jewish political family this is only the latest example in a string of this sort of thing.

I will not say Israel is blameless. It has its atrocities.

Saddam Hussein has been linked to some terrorism - specifically, sending payouts to families of suicide bombers in the West Bank and Gaza.

Bush is being a total twit and spoiled brat in regards to Iraq. If only he didn't have the big shiny red button...

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

I won't deny that Israel has gotten a bad rap from several quarters on occasion, and I'm glad that you admit that it has done some wrong - also on occasion. However, the point is not whether the UN Resolutions were made without sufficient evidence - the Security Council resolutions against Israel was to tell them to get out of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, being enemy territory occupied after a war.

The wording of the resolutions makes it clear that the concept of gaining territory by conquest - through force of war - is to be considered a violation of international law. In other words, in this modern, international law governed world, it's not legal to hold territory you have captured in the course of a war after the war has ended - you're supposed to go back to the starting lines. There's no question of any evidential problem here: Israel is occupying ths said territories. The question is whether Israel recognizes the illegality of its actions or not. And it has not, and has defied those resolutions for 35 years.

Why no action by the UN against Israel? The most obvious answer is because it's a US client state.

As to Saddam giving payouts - that's after the fact as a reward, not an prior inducement in that sense. I'm not aware of any terrorist act directly attributed to Iraq in recent memory.

And yes, Bush is a twit.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

To address the points in reverse order:

Bush is *really* twitly. I think we agree on that but we can keep restating it :-)

I'm not sure if the fact that Israel gets aid from the USA is actually why the UN hasn't done much about those resolutions. When the USA backs something they put money and weapons and soldiers behind it. When the Arab world backs something they do about the same thing - and have done so in regards to Israel.

Also, Israel had precedent. In the first war they fought, also a defen sive war, they gained territory in the northwest and southwest. The maps show Israel with that territory today. It is not common for one country, fighting defensively, to take territory from another.

Also, there is a point about the UN making resolutio ns without sufficient evidence. The UN is supposed to be all about rule of law and the law being fair. They have not shown fairness with a great many of their resolutions against Israel. Sort of like how laws against sex on the floor or farting in public make one less respectful of the law in general, because the law is being an ass.Ã

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

Surely, whether or not it is common or uncommon for a country fighting a defensive war to take territory is irrelevant as to the legality of it. Similarly, whether or not it was done before is no bar to future determination of its illegality.

I'm not saying that the UN has always had sufficient evidence to make its Resolutions. I'm saying that in this particular case, there is no question of sufficiency of evidence because it is undisputed that Israel did occupy and is occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The question here is whether or not Israel acknowledges that this occupation is illegal or not under international law. The UN Security Council Resolutions have said it is illegal, as of 1967. And Israel has, rather than contesting this assertion, has simply chosen to ignore it.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

True about illegality being mutable; but at the same time there is precedent-law.

Regarding Israel going to the UN to contest assertions: From what (sometimes very little) I know about Israel's history with the UN it's been a very stormy ride. Israel has been told No by the UN to just about everything except being allowed legal status in the first place - and the original borders would have been laughable even if it hadn't been surrounded by hostile neighbors.
I remember Dad once saying that UNICEF has been founded initially by Israel and that the UN kicked Israel out of the program - I admit that is an anecdotal tale in my knowledge. But it also fits into the pattern of treatment of Israel by the UN. I will note that the UN has made no mention of Syria occupying Lebanon or telling them to let it go; but it makes a lot of hay about Israel and Gaza/West Bank. IOW, treatment is uneven at best and downright unfair at worst.

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

I'm going to table this, really, but just a few last remarks.

You misunderstand the point of precedent. There is no violation of precedent because prior to the Six Day War, there was no declaration that the taking of terrority by force was illegal. Nobody said that the territory seized prior to that point was illegal, hence those territories are still legitimately Israeli. But any additional territory seized due to the Six Day War was declared illegal as of UN Resolution 242. Now, you can question why it should be illegal, when the prior one wasn't, but no such attempt was made.

To say that the UN has not made any noise about Syria is also untrue, as of UN Resolution 520, dated September 17, 1982 demanding that all non-Lebanese forces leave Lebanon - you can look it up. So that's one example of unfair treatment invalidated. Further, as far as I am aware, Israel still participates in UNICEF - http://www.unicef.org.il.

To say that the UN has never (or rarely) treated Israel fairly and thus there's no point contesting in my opinion sounds unaccountably whiny to me. You either want to work within the system or you don't, and that's a choice. Israel remains in the UN by choice, and yet doesn't want to work within the rules. Kind of like the Bush administration, really.

[(Anonymous)]

Ahhh. The naivate if youth. Sorry if that sounds pajorative, just want to explain this within its large context and apart from current (misinformed) public opinion. >> The Bush administration says that it is attacking Iraq preemptively in self defence. The last people to use this kind of argument, and have it soundly rejected by the court hearing it, were the Nazis at the Nuremberg Tribunals in 1946. The U.S. has, preemptively fought other countries before. Granada, Panama, Spanish American War, etc. To compare U.S. action, in any way, with the action of the Nazis shows that you don't really have much of a grasp on moral reality. >> The Bush administration goes to the UN to demand it take action because Iraq has ignored UN Resolutions for 10 years. Israel has ignored the UN Resolution to get out of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank for 35 years. The U.N. relolutions against Israel are not manditory resolutions, they were not passed by the Security Council, only the General Assembly, as advisories. That is the difference. >> The Bush administration asks the UN to take action because Iraq has not allowed arms inspectors to enter. Iraq says, okay, it will. The Bush administration's response is to say that they are going to go in even though Iraq has acquiesed. The Bush administration asks the UN to support it going into Iraq but says it will go in by itself if the UN refuses. So what's the point in telling the UN? If you had read Iraq's ENTIRE response, you would see that Iraq had attached conditions to the inspections. One of these conditions is that inspectors be, simaltaniously, dispatched to Israel and the Iraq would only allow destruction of its WMD on a one for one basis sith Israel. >> The Bush administration says they cannot tolerate terrorism. And yet, Iraq has not been linked, or shown to be linked, to any terrorist act in recent memory. There is no evidence that Iraq had any connection with the events of September 11 This is the big lie that is going around. Say it long and loud enough and most people beleive it, even in the face of the facts. In fact, Saddam's agents met with Atta in the Czech Republic beofre 9/11. Saddam has been providing money and weapons to Hammas and Hesbola (sp) for at least 10 years that have been documented. Most of all, do you REALLY trust a madman like Saddam to NOT give WMD to Al Queida? >> The Bush administration says that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. There has been no evidence presented to show that Saddam Hussein actually has weapons of mass destruction, merely allegations for the potential for it, with no real basis provided. Yet we are supposed to take the Bush administration and/or Tony Blair's word for it. This is also not true. U.N. Inspectors, BEFORE they were kicked out of Iraq in 1998, documented Bio and Chem weapons, as well as a Nuclear effort. The toppling of Saddam will be a cake walk. If civilians are, accidently, killed, it will be because Saddam has a habit of placing tank and artillary parks next to hospitals, schools and mosques, IN VIOLOATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW!! Really, you should seriously thinj about getting your intellectual, loyalty and moral realities adjusted to a more real level. Thanks for your time. Will Long

Ah-heh.

[camwyn]

Loyalty realities?

Considering who made the original post this is a comment on, does anyone else find this a little entertaining?

Bleh. Sorry, folks, my head's all stuffed up and my throat's starting to get sore and I've got Perl coding to do and for some reason this just struck me as amusing. I'll go be quiet now.

What the hell is naivate?

[etherial.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to respond to most of this except to say that there was virtually no justification for any of the wars you cite America as launching. Just as there is now. The Monroe Doctrine prevented European countries from interfering with development in the Americas. We have always done whatever we want with the Americas whenever we want, and always at the expense of the Latin American people.

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

The U.S. has, preemptively fought other countries before. Granada, Panama, Spanish American War, etc. To compare U.S. action, in any way, with the action of the Nazis shows that you don't really have much of a grasp on moral reality.

Just because the US has done it before doesn't mean it was correct in those situations either. It's kind of like saying that it's okay for a guy to rob banks because he's done it several times before.

The U.N. relolutions against Israel are not manditory resolutions, they were not passed by the Security Council, only the General Assembly, as advisories. That is the difference.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 was adopted on November 22, 1967, calling for, among others, withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the Six Day War. Also check out Security Council Resolutions 338, 262, 267, 446, and 465 which all say about the same thing.

If you had read Iraq's ENTIRE response, you would see that Iraq had attached conditions to the inspections. One of these conditions is that inspectors be, simaltaniously, dispatched to Israel and the Iraq would only allow destruction of its WMD on a one for one basis sith Israel.

Kofi Annan confirmed on September 16 that "I have received a letter from the Iraqi authorities conveying its decision to allow the return of inspectors without conditions to continue their work." What Iraq opposes is the addition of any new conditions.

This is the big lie that is going around. Say it long and loud enough and most people beleive it, even in the face of the facts. In fact, Saddam's agents met with Atta in the Czech Republic beofre 9/11. Saddam has been providing money and weapons to Hammas and Hesbola (sp) for at least 10 years that have been documented. Most of all, do you REALLY trust a madman like Saddam to NOT give WMD to Al Queida?

Hammas and the Hezbola weren't behind 9/11. Al Qaeda was. We only have Czech intelligence to say that an Iraqi - not necessarily Saddam's agents - met with Mohd Atta twice. Not even the FBI or the CIA have verified this. Consider - in 1991 Osama Bin Laden offered his help to take down Saddam Hussein. Also consider that Osama has issued fatwas against Saddam Hussein. The only link here is that when 9/11 happened, Saddam jumped on the bandwagon and used it for political capital, praising it. There is no link. I've already stated my opinion that Saddam can be deterred - he is not a madman, and he is not stupid enough or desperate enough to supply arms to Al Qaeda and believe it will not be traced back to him... unless he's given no other option, like say, an invasion of Iraq.

This is also not true. U.N. Inspectors, BEFORE they were kicked out of Iraq in 1998, documented Bio and Chem weapons, as well as a Nuclear effort. The toppling of Saddam will be a cake walk. If civilians are, accidently, killed, it will be because Saddam has a habit of placing tank and artillary parks next to hospitals, schools and mosques, IN VIOLOATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW!!

Scott Ritter, a former UN Weapons Inspector, has come out in saying that UNSCOM verified in 1995 that Iraq had fundamentally disarmed. When the UN inspectors left the country in 1998, they had verified that Iraq had 90 to 95 percent disarmed. The International Atomic Energy Agency in 1998 stated that Iraq had no nuclear capability. The IISS's report simply says that the Iraqis could have been stockpiling chemical and biological weapons and that it could have nuclear capability. In other words, it's all speculative.

As to violations of International Law, I may just direct you to this article which talks about Bush's violations of international law since 9/11.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

When I'd first responded the links hadn't been put in. I went to take a look at UN Security Council Resolution 242. Here are my thoughts after reading it:

* Israel hasn't followed the dictates of the Resolution - they have not withdrawn from the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, although they have given up the Golan Heights (also captured during the Six Day War)
* No other country in the region has followed the dictates of the Resolution. There is no DMZ around any country and most Arab countries in the area still do not officially recognize Israel (and are still technically at war with Israel too). The refugees (as they are called) are still living in the same stretch of land and have not been resettled in any other country. Indeed all of the other countries around that territory have utterly refused to take any residents of Gaza or the West Bank.
* The UN hasn't followed the dictates of the Resolution. It has not established a Special Representative to try to establish peace in the region, nor did it say anything at the beginning of the Yom Kippur War in 1973. When Israel has been attacked the UN has been quiet until Israel has started winning; when Israel has attacked Israel has been given much grief right from the start.

I am not saying Israel should not be given such grief - they should - but so should the other nations in the region and they don't. Fairness counts.

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

Again, look it up. The UN Security Council responded to the Yom Kippur War with Security Resolution 338, asking for an immediate cease-fire and thereafter compliance with Resolution 242. It was ignored. Other Resolutions were passed (339, 340 and 344), and also not followed, by any of the parties - granted, not just Israel, but be fair. They didn't keep quiet.

The non-establishment of a DMZ as per Resolution 242 isn't just the UN's responsibility, nor is that of establishing the Special Envoy useful if the other conditions are not present or if the parties don't want to talk. The Resolution dictates that first, Israel give up the Occupied Territories. This hasn't been done.

Y'know, I don't like to keep correcting you on this stuff - it's easy enough to do a Google Search. Anyhow, this kind of debate is not really going to be resolved in LJ, so I suggest we stop here.