Discussion in 'The Study' started by billc, Mar 19, 2011.
Oh me, oh my! My face is on the reddish side of pink. He said it with such a straight face. :asian:
For justification, yes there is, as demonstrated after Iraq invaded Kuwait.
The US led invasion of Iraq a decade later was no different.
Saddam violated the terms of the GWI so frequently that saying GWII was "warmongering" is a bit of truth restructuring IMO.
Those terms were UN-imposed, not US. It wasn't Bush's place to unilaterally decide to to go in for that reason.
What part of coalition do you not understand?
History is so easily forgotten especially when people want to change it. Yes, the U.N. that was the place in star wars that Obi Wan described as a retched hive of scum and villainy? Oil for food, rape and sex scandals in third world countries, putting known human rights abusers on the U.N. committee for human rights...yes, we really should look to them for approval and sanctioning of our actions.
Remember, Obama the peacemaker? Do you think he is going to send back his nobel peace prize? I am curious, not being a student of Indian history, which countries did Ghandi attack?
Britain? Only he did it without the use of military power - he used our own drive towards unpicking the weave of the Empire to hasten the process along. It's still the use of 'force' even if it doesn't involve bullets.
He went a bit too fast in my view but his only real mistake was getting assassinated too early with the problem of Partition unresolved.
Oh, I understand coalition, but did the UN authorize the coalition to go into Iraq on it's behalf? No. It was purely an American operation with whatever suckers it could gather with distortion of facts and outright lies.
Colin Powell's UN demonstration, anyone?
Oh, stuff it already.
There is a mandate from the UN security council, which makes these actions entirely legit. Things like this is why there is a UN. This is not about political or economical interests, but stopping a genocide which will flood neighboring countries with refugees. Perhaps that is why it feels so weird to you. It's a new experience for you to actually have a good reason to let the military bomb the **** out of someone.
Besides, every US president needs to have a war.
Hot Damn, I really missed this place. :uhyeah:
"It smells like teachers in here?????????????"
I resemble that remark....
Is it really?
Because when I look at Darfur, I see genocide (though the U.N. refuses to recognize such, and I question how it's genocide (as defined by the U.N.) in Libya when he is killing the rebels for political and not cultural reasons), and it took the U.N. four years to mount a response. This while an estimated 330,000 civilians were killed, a U.N. estimate of 2.85 million displaced (refugees).
It took nine years for the U.N. to get involved in the Sierre Leone Civil War, despite the massive attrocities occurring there. And the U.N. didn't intervene until after the majority of the fighting was over.
And let's not forget about Rwanda, where there were already U.N. troops stationed, were informed about the upcoming attempt at genocide, and yet did nothing to prevent it. Add to that the fact that the U.N. ultimately had nothing to do with ending the situation.
So, sorry, I don't buy this idea that with several major countries in Europe dependant upon oil from Libya, that the reason they are intervening is entirely altruistic. Not only that, but the U.N. Resolution only establishes a no-fly zone, so the government can still rape pillage and murder all it wants.
This is nothing short of intervening in the internal politics of a soverign, U.N. recognized nation for political reasons.
You are right. Darfur is a tragedy. Sierra Leona as well.
One of the main differences is that noone in the security council vetoed the intervention or tried to stall.
I feel areas like Sierra Leone are intentionally left to their own devices because way too many governments are making a killing. Sierra Leone is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of raw ores, diamonds, etc. Yet for reason they can't pull themselves out of the misery. Too many people are profiting from the misery.
But yet, for some reason, you make the statement that for Libya, the case is different. That this time, the reason for going is alturistic.
I tell you, it is easy to use cheap (slave) labor to shift for diamonds, etc. It needs no great skill. But to get oil out of the ground is a whole other thing. Hence the ability to allow devastation to occur in African countries and still get what they want, but the need to have some measure of stability and infrastructure in order to get oil.
Hence the fact that the primary backers in the play are the one's who stand to lose the most economically, the countries of the E.U.
when i first heard about him gettin that my first reaction was 'for what?'
Your not much of a student of history at all, I'd gather, since Teddy Roosevelt-a warmonger iof ever there was one, even if he didn't "attack" any countries as President-won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906, while Gandhi never did.....123
Separate names with a comma.