What did history teach us? part II

[Sirotnikov]

Basically the UN being a weak body is the reason for all troubles.

Had the UN enforced a 1947 partition, or 1967 partition or any cease fire , there would be peace here.

but since we know the UN does not have teeth, and we can not trust it to defend us against arab agression, we prefer to use our own methods instead, just as easily.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
but since we know the UN does not have teeth, and we can not trust it to defend us against arab agression, we prefer to use our own methods instead, just as easily.

Didn´t Israel murder at least one UN General Secretary?

But, ok: I have no problem with Israel going to war against Iraq. If someone grants you Military Access.

But don´t expect Europe to cover the costs.

And don´t complain if you get licked.

[Sirotnikov]

Saddam wants to stay in power. So, what?

saddam has proven himself to be a burden on his people and the entire area. even though, as you claim, iraq was an almost developed country in 1990, it was, and still is a very oppressive one - and while it had a great economy, it's freedom and democracy were non-existent.

any person would choose personal security (being sure he won't be kidnapped by secret police) over economic success (being 1st world country).

Saddam wants Wommdies. So, what?

The UN (international community ) decided wommdies are a no-no, especially for countries who like to randomly expand their borders, or employ wommdies in battle.

He doesn´t *have* them, he just *wants* them, but even if he *had* them: So, what?

UN says he had them, and since then they couldn't find out what happenned.

Judging by Saddam's nature it would be a better guess that he hid them, instead of destroying them. This is what Iraq must prove - that they indeed destroyed everything.

Knowing that he wants them - assures us that even if he did destroy them, he will eventually try to get them again.

All his neighbours say they don´t feel threatened.

Look at the facts:
Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and until recently, Jordan, are all cooperating with efforts to disarm Iraq. That means that they are feeling threatened.

So it is *you* who is failing to answer the *one* question that matters: Why is the security of Israel our business?

Who said anything about Israel?
When in the last 30 years have Iraq attacked Israel except 1991?

In the contrary - during 1991 to 1998, Iraq have several times, secretly offered several peace treaties to Israel (recently uncovered by Maariv newspaper).

However, being able to look beyond actions and find patterns - I can see that this offer was merely strategical. He wanted peace with Israel, to get stronger politically - not for the sake of peace, but rather as a temprary means of accumulating power (peace with Israel would change balance of power, and would get Iraq out of sanctions etc).


But let me answer your question: The world should take care of Israel's security, because that's the duty of the UN - to solve conflicts between nations and provide security and peace to all nations.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Didn´t Israel murder at least one UN General Secretary?

Don't be silly.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/folke.html

[Sirotnikov]

Didn´t Israel murder at least one UN General Secretary?

Israel as a state didn't.

An unknown group of terrorists, probably Israeli (though maybe jsut Jewish) did.

But, ok: I have no problem with Israel going to war against Iraq. If someone grants you Military Access.

That's wierd.

So what's the problem of the US going to war against Iraq, if Saudi Arabia and Quwait grant them access?

But don´t expect Europe to cover the costs.

I don't.
I'm trying to explain Europeans that they are in the same boat - and that everyone, first and foremost the Iraqi people - will gain from removing Saddam's regime.

And don´t complain if you get licked.

We won't. We aren't attacking though. The US is.



Your problem is that you've been reading chomsky too much. You somehow think that every itnerenational conflict is secretly in a great conspiracy related to Israel.

[Comrade Tribune]

UN never hold up any theory about a right to pre-emptive action. Quite to the contrary.

According to the UN Charter, it is Iraq whose security has been threatened.

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

It is clearly the US that are in violation.

[Sirotnikov]

Didn´t Israel murder at least one UN General Secretary?

In any case - a violent action against a political figure is infact guerilla.

an action against civilians is terror.

the difference between guerilla and terror is in the methods and targets.

same thing about war and war crimes. war is allowed. war using toxic gases is not.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
So what's the problem of the US going to war against Iraq, if Saudi Arabia and Quwait grant them access?

Unlike the US, you aren´t allied to Europe.

If *you* go to war with Iraq, it´s still none of our business. But if the US do so, we become implicated.

[GePap]

Look at the facts:
Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and until recently, Jordan, are all cooperating with efforts to disarm Iraq. That means that they are feeling threatened.

They do this because the US wants it, and the US is the boss: its the same thing as when Israeli leaders do what the Us demands: it does not mean that the leaders agrees, it just means that the leader would rather take the action than threaten the vital link to the US. And all these states are doign what theyc an to keep the whole "democracy" thing from being to harmful to themselves: specially if the Shia get too much power.

The reason to invade Iraq has nothing to do with WMD or the UN, or any of that. The individuals who created this policy think that by getting rid of Saddam all of a sudden all the problems int he ME (including the one in Israel_palestine) will solve themselves) and that by showing the US fist, everyone will fal in line and play nice. It is trully suing force to try to shape the world, and the ME. I doubt highyl that it will work, but that ius the reason, not anythign said in any UN resolution, or whether Iraq is a threat (it isn't).

As such, 1938 has no meaning to the situation, and neither does 1956. The US isn';t doing it for imperialistic reasons, it is doing it for evanelical reasons. I can think of no good historical precedent of any kind.

[Sirotnikov]

UN never hold up any theory about a right to pre-emptive action. Quite to the contrary.

According to the UN Charter, it is Iraq whose security has been threatened.

tsk tsk tsk

UN charters needs to be enforced. Otherwise the UN has no use.

Iraq is suspected of having WMDs and is failing to cooperate with UN. This must have consequences.

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

The purposes of the UN include securing peace, civil rights, self determination and so forth - Saddam's behaviour has proven to be a risk all those, and he fails to comply with UN orders.

It is clearly the US that are in violation.

Not at all.

US temporary violation of order and of iraqi self-rule will instill civil rights, lessen military threat from iraq, instill democracy. all proper UN values.

According to your own logic, it was wrong for the US, UK, France and USSR to "impose" their rule on germany. Yet this gave only good results and Germany is now a leading economy and among the most peaceful and unthreatning countries in europe.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Didn´t Israel murder at least one UN General Secretary?

In any case - a violent action against a political figure is infact guerilla.

an action against civilians is terror.

No it ain't. Terrorism is the use of violence or intimidation as a method of government or to secure political (or other) ends. The terrorist group involved decreed Bernadotte was a 'political' figure and killed him. It was a terrorist act.

'During the fight for Jewish statehood, extremist military groups sometimes resorted to the use of terrorist tactics. One such instance occurred in 1948 when members of the Jewish underground organization LEHI (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) killed UN Peace Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte to protest his diplomatic efforts to modify the Palestine partition plan.'

from my link.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Look at the facts:
Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and until recently, Jordan, are all cooperating with efforts to disarm Iraq. That means that they are feeling threatened.

It means they are feeling threatened by the US.

If you hold a pistol to my head, I would probably say: "Disarm Iraq."

Otherwise, no chance. I have no problem with Iraqi self-defense.

[Sirotnikov]

Unlike the US, you aren´t allied to Europe.

If *you* go to war with Iraq, it´s still none of our business. But if the US do so, we become implicated.

You are not consistent.

Either it's ok for US alone (or any other country) to attack Iraq (as long as you don't get implicated), or it's not. Make up your mind.

They do this because the US wants it, and the US is the boss: its the same thing as when Israeli leaders do what the Us demands: it does not mean that the leaders agrees, it just means that the leader would rather take the action than threaten the vital link to the US.

true to an effect, but if they really would have thought US action is more of a threat to their rule then over throwing saddam is - they would have made the right choise.

And all these states are doign what theyc an to keep the whole "democracy" thing from being to harmful to themselves: specially if the Shia get too much power.

Obviously. Which is exactly why we need an arab democracy soon.

And Iraqis (together with Iranis) are great candidates. They are closest to western world as it comes. But since they can't liberate themselves, we ought to help.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
US temporary violation of order and of iraqi self-rule will instill civil rights, lessen military threat from iraq, instill democracy. all proper UN values.

Irrelevant.

The Law is not 'whatever leads to good results, in the opinion of the tougher guy'. The Law is the letter of the Law.

The UN Charter (at least theoretically) is the Law. The US are preparing to break it. Sophisms don´t get you anywhere.

[Sirotnikov]

No it ain't. Terrorism is the use of violence or intimidation as a method of government or to secure political (or other) ends. The terrorist group involved decreed Bernadotte was a 'political' figure and killed him. It was a terrorist act.

'During the fight for Jewish statehood, extremist military groups sometimes resorted to the use of terrorist tactics. One such instance occurred in 1948 when members of the Jewish underground organization LEHI (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) killed UN Peace Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte to protest his diplomatic efforts to modify the Palestine partition plan.'

from my link.

I read your link.

I disagree with your definition.

Terror is using mass killing targetted at innocent people, not implicated in making or executing political decisions.

Guerilla or Partisans, are legitimate in my view to assassinate military and political personnel.

In that case - I see the Murder of Israeli Minister, Late Rehav'am Ze'evi, as more legitimate than killing Israeli citizens.

He was in charge of executing policy (even thouhg he was only the minister of ecology or something ) and thus is a legitimate target for a resistance movement.

I am not. Neither are my friends or family. We may vote in favor or against any set of views, but we are private citizens, and not state officials.