Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Just this week, the United States declared war on the sovereign nation authoritarian regime of Iraq, in contradiction of the Geneva Convention. On the grounds that the United States is a "sovereign" nation, Coalition forces started a campaign to eradicate Saddam Hussein's ruling party in Iraq. The Geneva Convention, among other things, states that a country can't pre-emptively attack another sovereign nation. US President George W. Bush, in the eyes of the opposers of the war, went against the Convention when he invaded Iraq. In my opinion, today's idea of a "sovereign" nation has to change. No country should be allowed to use the umbrella of sovereignity to blatantly break rules set in place by organizations like the United Nations. If these organizations want peace when the USA wants war, so be it: If a rule in the UN, or a convention that the USA has signed, prevents a war, don't go to war. I think the UN is exactly what we need. Countries can choose wheter or not they want to be in the UN, but as long as they're in, they follow the rules or get punished. This does not only apply to wars, but to all rules and regulations carried trough by the organisations. When I say have to, I mean have to. As in "this rule is against our interests, but we'll still follow it because we have to." What are your thoughts on the subject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle they follow the rules or get punished. Oh really? Iraq didn't follow the rules, they weren't going to get punished. Iraq had clear commands from the UN given directly to them that said disarm, they didn't. They were told to comply fully, they didn't. They were told to turn in documentation of weapons, they turned in a copy of an old one. Now, they weren't punished for what they did/didn't do, or what rules they broke. Unless, that is, you consider stalling for them and putting in clearly ineffective inspectors for them to ruse a punishment. I really don't see any reason why we should be "punished" for going to war when Iraq had had no "serious consequences" promised by 1441 before this war. Besides, the entire point is null and void because 1441 gives us all the authorization we need, the security counsel unamiously approved it and no resolution has been signed preventing war. So what's the problem with us going to war, what are we breaking, really? As for the other issue at hand, i do not think the United Nations should exist in a military or defense sense. We are clearly seeing that a SC cannot make decisions for the good of a single country because sometimes countries have conflictiing interests. France, for on reason or another, does not want to take American interests into account, and will not go to war no matter what. And America has no interest for whatever it is that France wants to protect in protesting the war. Therefore when an issue of individual interests arises in the national community, how can a group be expected to make a decision on war or peace? The UN, i believe, should deal only with peacetime matters and leave the military decisions to individual and allied countries. Surely, whether you agree with war or not, you can accept that the UN just proved it's futility in dealing with matters of war. Why then continue to allow it's deception of usefulness to remain over our eyes and inhibit us further? In other words, leave soverignty to countries. Those countries can make alliances and go to war as they please, granted they are willing to accpet the responsibilites and conseqences of such actions. No superpower truly wants war with anyone, so i think that any sort of World War can be eliminated from immediate concern. Other than that, countries can protect each other from agression through individual alliances and mutual interests without some overarching and useless body to make baseless resolutions it clearly does not always mean to keep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle The Geneva Convention, among other things, states that a country can't pre-emptively attack another sovereign nation. Wasn't there a little something about not torturing POW's too? In my opinion Well, while we're all entitled to have our own opinions, that doesn't make them correct... besides... you know what they say about opinions... they're like ***holes... everyone has them and they all stink. I think the UN is exactly what we need. Countries can choose wheter or not they want to be in the UN, but as long as they're in, they follow the rules or get punished. This does not only apply to wars, but to all rules and regulations carried trough by the organisations. Right... we can't get our own government to agree on anything but we're supposed to get all the different countries in the U.N. to fully agree all the time? Come on now... you should know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Well, the Iraqi's have violated the same Geneva Convention, by showing US troops in disrespectible positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Originally posted by pbguy1211 Wasn't there a little something about not torturing POW's too?[/b] Yes, your government just tortured two POWs to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Yes, your government just tortured two POWs to death. of course we did... [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL243253.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 did you even read the article? specifically the part that read: "But King said this did not mean the deaths were the result of criminal acts by U.S. personnel." Can you let the investigation happen before you hang us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 he's right. If you read it, you'd know it sounds like they just punched each other to death. "Blunt Force." Oh, and they happened over 3 months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Well, nothing is sure in that article, we don't know the true causes of death, the motives, or the techniques that might have caused it. We have no clue if this violates the convention or not, and it is a single, isolated incident. We have video footage flaunted by the Iraqis that show EXECUTED soldiers as well as brutally treated POWs. That is, unless you think all the soldiers were conviently shot in the middle of the forehead and nowhere else on the battlefield by accident. Oh, and i'd like to get back on topic but something has been said cercerning it since i last posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Originally posted by pbguy1211 did you even read the article? specifically the part that read: "But King said this did not mean the deaths were the result of criminal acts by U.S. personnel." Can you let the investigation happen before you hang us? Think for a minute. Camp delta is tightly guarded in the extreme. They're not gonna let the prisoners beat each other to death - it'd take several minutes and before that, the guards escorting the POWs would have intervened easily. Each cell is used by only one prisoners. Did you really have no idea that your country tortures its most valuable prisoners as a standard procedure in interrogation. When they refuse to talk, they're shipped to Egypt (who have no qualms against extracting information in any possible way) and shipped back again along with the information. Oh, and they happened over 3 months ago. And your point is? That it doesn't matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Camp delta is tightly guarded in the extreme. They're not gonna let the prisoners beat each other to death - it'd take several minutes and before that, the guards escorting the POWs would have intervened easily. Each cell is used by only one prisoners. OH! I'm sorry! I didn't know you've been there before and were the foremost expert on the Afghan camps we have set up. Don't be so quick to be the judge, jury, and executioner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Originally posted by pbguy1211 OH! I'm sorry! I didn't know you've been there before and were the foremost expert on the Afghan camps we have set up. They do let reporters in once in a blue moon, except they're not allowed to see the prisoners. But the cells, the insane security and the guards they're allowed to see. Don't be so quick to be the judge, jury, and executioner. That's the job of your country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais That's the job of your country. It's an initiative they have taken to do what they feel is right. And since no "higher being" dishes out pamphlets on what is right and what is not, the best one can do is stand up for what they believe is right, instead of waiting for that presumably non-existant higher being. In that way, I guess Saddam and Bin Ladin may justify their "righteousness", but the stronger one always ends up being "more right" because winners write history. Given that, the best we can do is support the side whose cause you believe in more. And I know which cause I'm up for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Originally posted by krkode It's an initiative they have taken to do what they feel is right. And since no "higher being" dishes out pamphlets on what is right and what is not, the best one can do is stand up for what they believe is right, instead of waiting for that presumably non-existant higher being. The best one can do is control those people whose power can kill millions of people. A safety grid of control should be mandatory, so that the powerful countries can't just run things the way they think it should be run. Democracy and peace should be what's strived for, as it's proven time and time again that it's the two cores of a satisfied population. Thus, given this premise, the UN should not be dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 no, the UN should not be dismissed. But the security should, or at least the veto powers of certain countries. In fact, most likely those powers should, because the council should decide, not one country veto and that's that. As for the dumb camp thing, those guys probably want suicide, and might do something even so stupid as slamming themselves in to the bars. There's something wrong when terror is used as a weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 ever heard of suicide by cop? that could be the case here as well. not that i'm saying it was, just a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 25, 2003 Author Share Posted March 25, 2003 *Returns* *Reads whole thread.* Sigh. Everyone, what do you want me to do, list every TIE Guy, what you said on 1441 is all valid: But you know, if Iraq had followed UN Resolutions in the first place we would not have this dilemma, would we? Personally, I think stating the acts of dictatorships as reasons why UN doesn't work isn't stating good examples, simply for the reason that Dictatorships do not care. Iraq is still debated, and we are split on wheter or not it was right, so maybe it was a poor example on my end (1441 DOES give you the right to go to war, of course:)). Pbguy, Heavyarms: This is not a thread to debate Iraq. What do you want me to do, list every violation ever commited to UN rules by any country? I didn't mean to be biased, okay?! The point is, if you can't follow the rules of the UN, don't join. And we still want the UN. Of course it can't force dictatorships to follow instructions, but democracies should. Oh really? Iraq didn't follow the rules, they weren't going to get punished. I meant "in the world I'm proposing". Iraq wasn't going to be punished by the UN in the real world, but I didn't state so either. I'm afraid you misunderstood a bit, my rightist friend. As for the other issue at hand, i do not think the United Nations should exist in a military or defense sense. We are clearly seeing that a SC cannot make decisions for the good of a single country because sometimes countries have conflictiing interests. France, for on reason or another, does not want to take American interests into account, and will not go to war no matter what. And America has no interest for whatever it is that France wants to protect in protesting the war. Therefore when an issue of individual interests arises in the national community, how can a group be expected to make a decision on war or peace? The UN, i believe, should deal only with peacetime matters and leave the military decisions to individual and allied countries. Surely, whether you agree with war or not, you can accept that the UN just proved it's futility in dealing with matters of war. Why then continue to allow it's deception of usefulness to remain over our eyes and inhibit us further? In other words, leave soverignty to countries. Those countries can make alliances and go to war as they please, granted they are willing to accpet the responsibilites and conseqences of such actions. No superpower truly wants war with anyone, so i think that any sort of World War can be eliminated from immediate concern. Other than that, countries can protect each other from agression through individual alliances and mutual interests without some overarching and useless body to make baseless resolutions it clearly does not always mean to keep. I think the UN might have been wrong on that one. Iraqi war is wrong... as long as there is an alternative. If the UN really could make Saddam disarm all his weapons, fine. However, this would take really long, and that's why Bush wanted a war so badly. The key point is that the UN didn't recognize Iraq as a big threat. If they had, they may have voted for an invasion. I think a better example is Afghanistan. It was recognized a threat after 9/11 (duh), and a lot of countries joined in to invade it. I think the UN should remain, but it should be a bit less biased towards peace, which is not always the right answer (although I think it was for Iraq). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle Personally, I think stating the acts of dictatorships as reasons why UN doesn't work isn't stating good examples, simply for the reason that Dictatorships do not care. That's clearly not the point. The point isn't that Iraq wasn't doing anything, for that's the be expected. The point is that the UN wasn't going to do anything about it? You know the possible (likely) chemical weapons factory Coalition troops found? The UN inspectors had been to the city and they hadn't even checked it. A 180 acre facility in camoflogue that has at least the potential to make WMD agents and they didn't even look in the windows. What more do you need to show that inspectors were not the way to go? There was clearly no other way to go (the inspectors were a stalling attempt from the very beginning, IMO, or at least after the first deadline), but still the UN planned to do nothing. That is point, not that Iraq didn't comply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDI_MASTA Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Is it just me or to be a sovereign nation dont the people actually hafta elect their officials? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 well, they had an election... and saddam won legitimately getting all 100% of the votes! yeah! legitimate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 26, 2003 Author Share Posted March 26, 2003 Is it just me or to be a sovereign nation dont the people actually hafta elect their officials? In many sovereign nations people elect solely by party. Then, when a party wins the electoin, the party leader becomes President/State- or Prime Minister. While it results in less political freedom, it has the advantage of knowing educated people elected your leader . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle In many sovereign nations people elect solely by party. Then, when a party wins the election, the party leader becomes President/State- or Prime Minister. While it results in less political freedom, it has the advantage of knowing educated people elected your leader . Well, would you rather have random people running that the public new nothing about? Political parties ensure that a qualified and publicly known/exposed canidate is elected. I really don't have a problem with voting straight ticket Republican (when i'm able to vote, that is) because i know i can trust the party to nominate people that have roughly the same views as i do, at least more so than any other canidate that has a chance of winning. Still, a nation can be "sovereign" without haveing elections, but sovereign simply means that they exercise their own control of what happens inside their country and outside matters dealing with their country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 27, 2003 Author Share Posted March 27, 2003 Well, would you rather have random people running that the public new nothing about? Political parties ensure that a qualified and publicly known/exposed canidate is elected. I really don't have a problem with voting straight ticket Republican (when i'm able to vote, that is) because i know i can trust the party to nominate people that have roughly the same views as i do, at least more so than any other canidate that has a chance of winning. I guess this topic is hopelessy off-topic, so I'll shoot. I guess this is interesting to you, as you seem heavily into politics. You make a good assumption, based on the info I gave you, but you're wrong about one thing. The people running our country are not random, unknown characters. They are "elected" annualy as party leaders in "elections" inside by the members of the party. The public perfectly well knows who the party leader of each political party. For example: The leader of the SV party in Norway is Kristin Halvorsen. She just got rechosen as Party Leader a couple of months ago. Also, in a way you can say people have several candidates for each cause, as we have 8 parties instead of 2. This means that if you're a right-wing and didn't like Bush, you could just vote for the other right-wing party (such as the right-wing Norwegian Labour Party instead of the Norwegian Right Wing Party). You may ask why we choose to sacrifice political freedoms like we do. Well, the advantage I mentioned holds true: The people who choose the State Minister candidates choose them solely on political skills. In peoples' elections, it's been proven (trough surveys) that some people vote based on looks, gender, race, orientation, and so on. This is obviously a minority, but still. The other obvious advantage is that you don't have to be in the high- or middle-class in order to become State Minister (because for obvious reasons there are no presidental campaigns). I'm not questioning a 300 years+ old system. The Constitutional Monarchy, however, is almost as old (constitution signed in 1814), which should mean it works just as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 But how can you get anything done with 8 parties. No one side would have the ability to pass legislation (assuming your "congress" works in similar fashion to the US's). Therefore multiple sides would have to come together to pass anything and every party would want to add or subtract or ammend something, no? Maybe it doesn't work this way in real life, but i just can't imagine anything getting done in a timely fashion unless it was something so basic that no one would object to it. I can just imagine if there were 8 parties in the US senate, with 12 or so for each party, and absolutely nothing would happen. One party could stall all legislation, and it would take so much inbetween work and bartering to get anything even to the floor. Too much chaos for me. Why not just combine all the right-wing parties and all the left-wing parties? They all want basically the same thing, and people could still hold individual views inside a larger party, but it would be so much easier (it seems to me) to coordinate and implement legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.