14 Mar 03
i've always wondered why everybody is so opposed to war? if we look at the league of nations, it was the failure to act that brought it down-the abyssinian crisis and the manturian crisis to name two. they did not back up what they said and so nations ended up just braking the rules willy-nilly.if we don't take action against iraq, surely other countries will break international law, and nothing will happen?
14 Mar 03
Originally posted by geniusI'm not against the war, I think that we should go in, destroy the weapons and evict Saddam from Iraq and instate a new (non-dictater) Gov.
i've always wondered why everybody is so opposed to war? if we look at the league of nations, it was the failure to act that brought it down-the abyssinian crisis and the manturian crisis to name two. they did not back up what they said and so nations ended up just braking the rules willy-nilly.if we don't take action against iraq, surely other countries will break international law, and nothing will happen?
-Adam
14 Mar 03
Originally posted by geniusAre you saying that you think that war, in general, is a good thing? Fortunately I haven't ever directly experienced a war, but if you ever speak with someone who has, they will almost universally tell you that there is little that is glorious or good about war.
i've always wondered why everybody is so opposed to war? if we look at the league of nations, it was the failure to act that brought it down-the abyssinian crisis and the manturian crisis to name two. they did not back up what they said and so nations ended up just braking the rules willy-nilly.if we don't take action against iraq, surely other countries will break international law, and nothing will happen?
At it's most basic, war is the taking of human life for political ends, and that is something that I hope most people feel to be wrong, or at best an occasional necessary evil.
-mike
14 Mar 03
Originally posted by geniusever thought about this the other way around. The league of nations collapsed when they failed to act against Hitler invading other countries. Germany was a powerful nation invading smaller weaker countries for their comodities (eg Poland for the coal)- sound familiar? & they didn't interveen because they were afraid of its economic & military power.
i've always wondered why everybody is so opposed to war? if we look at the league of nations, it was the failure to act that brought it down-the abyssinian crisis and the manturian crisis to name two. they did not back up what they said and so nations ended up just braking the rules willy-nilly.if we don't take action against iraq, surely other countries will break international law, and nothing will happen?
What I want to know is what will the UN do if the US (& the UK?) go to war against their wishes. The true challenge of the UN will be in resisting America, not Sadam.
14 Mar 03
Originally posted by belgianfreakI honestly don't think Bush cares what the UN says. He's just going through the motions right now. Remember, he's from Texas. Texas, the state where the governor says "may God bless you" on your way to be executed. Kirk
ever thought about this the other way around. The league of nations collapsed when they failed to act against Hitler invading other countries. Germany was a powerful nation invading smaller weaker countries for their comodities (eg Poland for the coal)- sound familiar? & they didn't interveen because they were afraid of its economic & military power.
...[text shortened]... war against their wishes. The true challenge of the UN will be in resisting America, not Sadam.
15 Mar 03
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957precisely - he doesn't care what the UN thinks. And that's what makes him so dangerous, because he's willing to do whatever he pleases without listening to his 'allies'.
I honestly don't think Bush cares what the UN says. He's just going through the motions right now. Remember, he's from Texas. Texas, the state where the governor says "may God bless you" on your way to be executed. Kirk
So can the UN make him care? Could they place economic sanctions on the US. Sure, the US will throw them right back and both sides will suffer, but it would be making a stand. Or what if the UN sent a peace keeping force to the Iraq Kuwait border. Would Bush order his troups to fight through them?
15 Mar 03
Quite frankly I'm rather appaled at the lack of action in our congress. When Clinton was in office and it came to the public about his extramarital affairs, he was almost impeached. Now, our president is about to undertake a major military action that is against the wishes of about half the population (if you believe the polls) and most of the other nations in the world, and do you hear ANY mention of impeachment? ðŸ˜
15 Mar 03
Originally posted by OmnislashAn unpopular action or being down in the polls is not grounds for impeachment. Kirk
Quite frankly I'm rather appaled at the lack of action in our congress. When Clinton was in office and it came to the public about his extramarital affairs, he was almost impeached. Now, our president is about to undertake a major military action that is against the wishes of about half the population (if you believe the polls) and most of the other nations in the world, and do you hear ANY mention of impeachment? ðŸ˜
15 Mar 03
An unpopular action or being down in the polls is not grounds for impeachment. KirkCorrect. But if Bush unilaterally starts a war with the aim of changing the Iraqi regime, that goes against the UN Charter and against all established international law, if also in conducting that war he uses weapons of mass destruction against a virtually defenceless population including the use of weapons such as cluster bombs designed to target civilians, then I think there could be an argument for impeachment, if not trying the guy for war crimes.
Nick
15 Mar 03
Originally posted by maestroThe use of language is absolutely fascinating to me in this whole dialogue. Bush would simply say "I am backing up what the UN resolution 1441 has said." Others will say he is "unilaterally starting a war." But you want to try Bush on war crimes and not Saddam if I'm hearing you correctly. Kirk
Correct. But if Bush unilaterally starts a war with the aim of changing the Iraqi regime, that goes against the UN Charter and against all established international law, if also in conducting that war he uses weapons of mass destruction against a virtually defenceless population including the use of weapons such as cluster bombs designed to target civilians, ...[text shortened]... think there could be an argument for impeachment, if not trying the guy for war crimes.
Nick
15 Mar 03
Originally posted by maestroFirst off cluster bombs are not weapons of mass destruction, weapons of mass destruction are Nukes, Bios and Chemical bombs.
he uses weapons of mass destruction against a virtually defenceless population including the use of weapons such as cluster bombs designed to target civilians
Nick
and cluster bombs are not designed to target civilians ( I dont know where you got that idea) he wouldnt use them over there because there Military is cowardly hideing in the citys
15 Mar 03
There actually is an interesting case for impeachment is Bush decides to go to war. The constitution states that the president may issue a directive to begin a war, only with the consent of the congress, and there has been subsequent legislation allowing the president a discretionary period of 60 days before he has to do so, so that he can rapidly mobilize forces in an emergency. This safeguard was built into the constitution to prevent the president from treating the armed forces as his own, personal army, which has happened innumerable times in the past of other countries, almost universally with disastrous consequences.
George W. Bush has been building up forces near Iraq for months now, much longer than the proscribed 60 day period in which he is allowed without congressional approval. If he were to issue the order tomorrow to begin an invasion, he would stand in violation of the constitution, which would legitimately warrant an impeachment.
-mike
15 Mar 03
Originally posted by UncleAdamYou are technically correct in this statement. Cluster bombs are designed to wreak destruction on concentrations of troops, each contain around 200 smaller bomblets which are dispersed on impact. In the Kosovo conflict between 7% and 11% of Nato bomblets failed to detonate.
....and cluster bombs are not designed to target civilians ( I dont know where you got that idea)
However, analysis of the effects of cluster bombs from the 1991 Gulf, Kosovo and Afghanistan conflicts shows that unexploded bomblets cause even more post-conflict deaths among civilians, especially children, than landmines. In the immediate post-conflict period in Kuwait there were 1,348 injuries from explosive remnants of war compared with 531 mine-related injuries. By the end of 2002, nearly 2,000 people had been killed or injured by exploding bombs which had been accidentally triggered by Kuwaitis.
cluster bombs kill civilians.