On 2 Aug 2002 at 13:28, Blunderov wrote:
> [joedees1] @bellsouth.net Fri 2002/08/02 09:42 AM wrote
>
> [Blunderov0]
> Almost I don't believe what I'm seeing. I don't care if there are a
> hundred points written in Beelzebub's own personal ink. There is no
> justification in international law for deposing a regime you don't
> like, no matter how emphatically you may disapprove of it. Bush is
> simply inventing a pretext in the time honored fashion of warmongers
> everywhere. [/Blunderov0]
>
> [joedees1]
> Or no matter what it does?
> [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov1]
> Yes. No matter what he does short of launching, or being clearly seen
> to be in the process of launching, an actual physical attack. This is
> the law. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> he has already done that. On Kuwait. On his own people. On one of
> our ex-presidents. [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> If I may refer you to your own later words in this very post?
> <snip>Ancient. Not,...contemporaneously.<snap>
> Last I heard the war is over.
> [/Blunderov2]
>
But not his threats against us, and his attempts to shoot down the
aircraft protecting his own citizens from him, and his flauting of UN
resolutions concerning weapons inspections, and his manufacture and
secretion of chemical and biological weapons in direct violation of those
resolutions, the kind of weapos he has already used on his own people
and those of other countries, and his attempts to obtain nuclear
weapons, and his threats to use them against Israel (which, it seems,
might please some on this list to no end), and on and on and on...
>
> [joedees1]
> Such as attacking their neighbors, creating chemical weapons they use
> against those neighbors and against their own people, and attempting
> to assassinate a former US president (among other things)? [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov1]
> I'm sorry? It is not clear to me whether you are referring to the USA
> or Iraq in this sentence. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> That statement speaks volumes concerning your lack of understanding of
> world events. [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> Clearly we disagree on some matters of interpretation. I would be
> happy to attain enlightenment. Perhaps some future post of yours will
> cause the scales to fall from my eyes? [/Blunderov2]
>
it would seem that they are memetically riveted there.
>
> [Blunderov1]
> If I recall, the USA has very many exotic weapons including chemical
> ones. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> Which it has not used.
> [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> Which it has not said that it has used. I supppose I'll have to take
> an honest Yankees' word for it. [/Blunderov2]
>
It seems that you would prefer to take an honest iraqi's word for it.
>
> [Blunderov1]
> It has no compunction about using depleted uranium shells in aircraft
> and artillery weapons. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> Not as chemical weapons (they are extremely inefficient at that
> purpose), but because of their physical penetrating power when
> directed at hardened targets. [joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> Well I'm not sure how glad I am that the US managed to solve its'
> problem with hardened targets by using a weapon that, if I recall
> correctly, is illegal under the provisions of the Geneva Convention,
> no matter how efficiently it is used. [/Blunderov2]
>
There is, I am reasonably sure, a program underway to find a way to
achieve the penetration coefficient without the use of depleted uranium,
in order to avoid the bad PR, at least. But those who attack the US,
physically or verbally, will simply find another target.
>
> [Blunderov1]
> It has a history of genocide against its indigenous people.
> [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> Ancient. Not, like Iraq, contemporaneously.
> [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> OK Joe, you got me on this one. You have rendered me almost
> speechless. You are prepared to judge other nations on the basis of
> their histories but not your own? [/Blunderov2]
>
Ancient vs. contemporaneous is a valid distinction. Should I likewise
condemn present-day Great Britain for its massacres in India much
more recently?
>
> [Blunderov1]
> The USA has frequently attacked its neighbours. It has issued an open
> fatwa on the life of Fidel Castro, for instance, not to mention Saddam
> Hussein in, as far as I know, in flagrant contravention of
> international law and convention. [/Blunderov1]
>
> >[joedees1]
> Fidel Castro was allowing the stationing of nuclear weapons 90 miles
> from our shores. For their removal, we pledged not to invade.
> [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> It is not clear to me that the assassination of a foreign head of
> state would influence matters for the better or accord with
> international law just because the USA really, really, really wanted
> it to.
>
A dead Saddam could not obtain or use WMD's (weapons of mass
destruction), as the live one has done, and has sworn to do again.
>
> (Interestingly America has murdered at least two of its' own
> presidents; is this a genetic thing?)
>
Four of them - and assassination of their leaders is an international
sport, engaged in by citizens of many countries, as well as those from
outside them.
>
> It was very sporting of the USA
> to refrain from investing Cuba. Three cheers. [/Blunderov1]
>
We got the missiles out.
>
> [Blunderov1]
> It is still the only nation on earth ever to have used nuclear weapons
> in anger. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> You mean in war.
> [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> You have understood me correctly. Have I understood you correctly? It
> seems to me that you are implying that if Suddam Hussein, for
> instance, finds himself attacked by an hypothetical aggressor, he
> would be entitled to resort to nuclear weapons because he would, when
> all was said and done, be "in war"? Or does this apply only to the
> USA? [/Blunderov2]
>
He has made it abundantly clear that he would would use them , as he
has used other weapons of mass destruction, whether he was attacked
or not. That's why he must be deposed before he obtains them.
>
> [joedees1]
> No reason WHATSOEVER????? You apparently must then, by following your
> own statement to its logical conclusion, disapprove of the deposing of
> the Taliban, Hitler,Duvalier,Idi Amin, and Pol Pot. You have little
> company. [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov1]
> No, not "no reason whatsoever". International law lays out the
> circumstances that may constitute adequate grounds for a pre-emptive
> attack. The reckless USA seems to think it can cherry-pick the bits of
> international laws, treaties and conventions which it finds tasty and
> leave the nasty bits for everyone else to swallow. >[/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> Apparently, you did not read the Iraqi articles I posted; they make a
> strong pre-emptive self-defence case for such imposition. [joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> I don't recall a strong case being made for this anywhere.
>
Selective recall tends to go hand-in-hand with bias.
>
> With regard
> to your own posts, it maybe that my memory, an admittedly dodgy organ,
> is at fault. I believe I have the gist of the argument though - how
> does it go - The USA is afraid, so it will attack first in
> self-defence. Anyone else, however, who does this is a rotten doctor
> commie rat.
>
No, Israel finds itself having to do such things to stem the tide of suicide
bombers plaguing their land by halting them at their sources. The
Phillipines engages in preemptive attacks upon Abu Sayyaf rebels
(aligned with Al Quaeda) with the full support of the US. Yemen has
attacked cells of Al Quaeda within their own borders, as has Morrocco.
The US, having become aware of the Al Quaeda connections, has no
condemnation for pre-emptive attacks upon Chechen terrorists by
Russia or Uighur terrorists by China, or, in fact, Kashmiri terrorists by
India.
>
> The term "pre-emptive self-defence" sounds as if it was minted in the
> Soviet Union of yore, not the enlightened West. [/Blunderov2]
>
Two jumbo jets flying into twin towers filled with clueless civilians has
quite an enlightening effect as to the realities of a situation, and what
must be done to forfend against them.
>
> [Blunderov0]
> How is this splendid indifference to international law different from
> Islamic, or any other, extremism? [/Blunderov0]
>
> [joedees1]
> It is in response to an expansionist and fascist extremism, rather
> than itself being same. [joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov1]
> I love it here in wonderland.
> [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> You seem to perpetually inhabit it
> [/joedees1].
>
> >[Blunderov2]
> Just lucky I guess.
> [/Blunderov2]
>
> [Blunderov1]
> It is a marvelous place where pre-emptive self-defence (for instance)
> can be justified to one's adoring electorate as a righteous response
> to an intolerable situation that was in, no small part, precipitated
> by the USA itself. I am sickened to the marrow by the speculation that
> the USA's attack will be timed to coincide with some elections. I fear
> it is all too true. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> It will occur when it is possible to succeed with an acceptable cost,
> but before an unacceptable attack by Iraq upon the US becomes possible
> (according to the articles, that outer limit is 2005). /joedees1].
>
> [Blunderov2]
> Nothing to do with the elections or a 2nd term of office then. I'm
> delighted. Bush is allowed to have 2 terms. The fact that the AD2005
> "deadline" falls within the range of his possible 2nd term is probably
> no more than a monstrous coincidence. [/Blunderov1]
>
That is correct. And Bush II might not have two terms, war or no war, if
the stock market keeps tanking; Bush I was popular after the Gulf War,
but Clinton defeated him on the basis of the economy. BTW, Lyndon
Johnson, who could have won re-election, refused to seek it BECAUSE
the US was at war; interesting, hunh?
>
> [Blunderov1]
> I ask with tears in my eyes:
> If the USA is in a position to allow itself the luxury of attacking on
> high-days and holidays that are convenient (for reasons only remotely,
> if at all, connected to the war) to it's leaders, how can there be
> said to be a clear and imminent danger, as required by international
> law, in the situation ? [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> The US is dealing with a real deadline, and is not in a position to
> attack now, so far as I know. It will do so when it can succeed
> without prohibitive US cost, before that deadline. The attack will be
> in the best interests of the US and the people of the region, not of a
> party or a president. When the stakes are that high, no such
> game-playing is going to happen, because with the stakes that high, it
> is no game. Cry all you want and shed big watery tears for that
> vicious and bloodthirsty dictator; I cry for him not. /joedees1].
>
> [Blunderov2]
> This addresses the point that I made how?
>
The threat is clear, and it is becoming more imminent as time goes on;
but it cannot be dealt with instantaneously, so prudence demands that
preparations be made in advance. And they are being made in the full
light of day.
>
> If the US is not in a
> position to prevent an attack, and has not yet, in spite of that fact,
> been attacked, how can it be in imminent danger of being attacked?
> Either there is no danger, or it is not imminent. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> When the US goes in to protect its interests and those of its allies,
> it leaves when the job is done (and sometimes, regrettably, too soon).
> Saddam was planning to seize Kuwait (and most probably the entire
> Arabian peninsula) for the duration. [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov1]
> The complicity and duplicity of American diplomacy prior to the Gulf
> War have been well documented in these annals. I don't buy the
> "righteous indignation" pose. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> The US was hoping to counterbalance Iraq and Iran, and for a while, it
> worked. When he turned his gaze south, towards a sparsely populated
> but globally critical Arabian peninsula, he had to be met and stopped.
> Period. I criticize Bush, senior, for not deposing him during the
> Gulf War; it was a miscalculation that has cost the region, and the
> world, dearly. It will not be repeated. [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> Spilt milk I suppose. But this does not mean that the USA can just
> resume hostilities against Iraq anytime it wants. The war, as I have
> remarked, is over. Yay. [/Blunderov2]
>
See remarks above. No, I'lll cut and paste them.
But not his threats against us, and his attempts to shoot down the
aircraft protecting his own citizens from him, and his flauting of UN
resolutions concerning weapons inspections, and his manufacture and
secretion of chemical and biological weapons in direct violation of those
resolutions, the kind of weapos he has already used on his own people
and those of other countries, and his attempts to obtain nuclear
weapons, and his threats to use them against Israel (which, it seems,
might please some on this list to no end), and on and on and on...
>
> [Blunderov1]
> I have no doubt that any feebleness in the legal rationale will be
> satisfactorily obscured by gunfire, much as is the case in Israel.
> [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> The rationale IS gunfire (Saddam's), and his continuing attempt to
> augment same with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, which he
> would most certainly use, as he has used chemical weapons already
> against his own people and against those of other countries.
> [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> But I must accept that America will play nice from now on because it
> sees the error of its' former ways? [/Blunderov2]
>
We have been; most of our military actions recently have been to save
other countries' own peoples from the depredations of their own vicious
regimes, to protect food distributors (distributing food we donated)
during famine, and to support nation building towards participatory
democracies, complete with citizen human rights, against the threats
posed to them by religio-fascist terror insurgencies.
>
> [Blunderov1]
> It is true that Iraq is firing on American personnel. The fact that
> these Americans are in airspace that doesn't belong to them may have
> something to do with it. [/Blunderov1]
>
> >[joedees1]
> You would prefer to allow him to commit genocide on the people within
> his borders? How did you feel about Rwanda, or Serbia? How did you
> feel about Germany? Not me, and not most conscientious and civilized
> people. [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> Insofar as the USA has conformed to international laws and treaties I
> have no problem with its' conduct in any of the above. [/Blunderov2]
>
But by the definition you are attempting to impose here, in such actions,
which meet with your approval, it has not.
>
> [Blunderov1]
> Or does it belong to them? Maybe international law is tiresomely
> archaic in promoting outmoded concepts such as "sovereign airspace"
> and "non-interference"; clearly these things have no part in the
> modern world if America finds them irksome. After all, America is
> nothing if not modern. [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> Amwrica does what it does because someone has to, no one else can, and
> the entire world looks to us to do it. They bitch and moan when we
> do, and they bitch and moan when we don't. I wish that we were NOT
> the world's policeman, but we catch hell whether we wear the cap or
> not. [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov1]
> Granted it must not be easy. It could be done much better than it is
> though. It would help to have leaders that are not preoccupied with
> grandstanding to an electorate in preference to finding sustainable
> solutions. /Blunderov1]
>
Actually, finding such solutions is good for both world stability and one's
reelection chances, although by no means assuring same (not to
mention one's historical legacy). The US has been engaged in the
Mideast, at the demand of all parties involved and uninvolved, for thirty
years in search of a sustainable solution; the president who pulls it off,
if and when it happens, will have assured a greater place in the annals
of history.
>
> [Blunderov0]
> This is horrible. The next thing the whole world will be in flames.
> [/Blunderov0]
>
> [joedees1]
> No, just one mustachioed madman's crazed ambitions.
> [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov1]
> The USA is setting a terrible example that will not go unnoticed.
> [/Blunderov1]
>
> [joedees1]
> By other would-be aggressors, power-and-territory-hungery dictators,
> and tin-horn satraps, I most sincerely hope. [/joedees1]
>
> [Blunderov2]
> No need for the uncertainty. I very much fear that your wish was
> granted long ago. I seem to recall reading, long ago, about the
> long-range weather prospects for persons who find it expedient to "sow
> the wind". [/Blunderov2]
>
Yep. For Saddam Hussein, the whirlwind is a'coming.
>
> Despondently
>
> Warm regards
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:17 MDT