Response to A Warmonger explains ......


I'm saying that countries who start unjust wars (such as the entire annexation of a neighbour) deserve to be invaded, and their regimes ousted. I'll let the historians argue and judge about the righteousness of previous wars. We live in today, and generally cannot wind the clock back (to kick Europeans out of America, Americans out of Mexico, Protestants out of Northern Ireland, Jews out of Palestine etc.)

i agree that the annexation of a neighbour, particularly since the founding of the united nation, deserves to be dealt with. presumably this applies to all countries who annex their neighbours? it also applies to all invasions contrary to intenational law doesnt it? i think it is a leap to suggest that such action is punishable by invasion and regime ousting as this has never been sanctioned by the united nations. in fact it expressly prohibits it

certainly international law and historic precedent do not support such a claim

I think you might agree that the legal and moral arguments about war don't always coincide. Most people seem to accept that Gulf War I was legal (apparently the words "all necessary means" did the trick), but I think you would argue that it was not moral. Most others believe it was moral. Today, it seems that the words "will face serious consequences" to most people (in Europe) mean the war is not legal. So, whether it is legal or not, I argue that it is moral. The truth is that legality (for what it's worth) is determined by what the UN Security Council decides. So, for instance, the impending UN peace keeping mission to Macedonia is illegal, because China has vetoed it (for typically spurious reasons), yet we might agree it is a worthwhile exercise.

you are right to suggest the conflict between a just war and a moral war. better minds than ours have struggled on that one for centuries. the 'trick' for the first gulf war (or the second depending on your view) was that iraq WAS in breach of international law. the 'trick' was helped by a unanimous securtiy council resolution and a world wide coalition to restore the integrity of kuwaits borders

(incidentally, which country made a profit from their involvement in that war?)

'will face serious consequences' does not mean war. it COULD mean war but not necessarily. the fact that china, france and russia signed an addendum to the resolution stating that it DIDNT mean war is a significant fact. it also doenst mean war to most people in Europe, Asia, Africa, and North and South America. they dont poll research stations in the antarctic on such matters so i wont speculate.

even if one makes the jump and suggests 'serious consequences' means war, res 1441 is clear, concise, and precise that the security council must decide on any action - that means any action at all, whether war, or changes in inspections etc

these actions should be based on the reports of the weapons inspectors it says

the chief weapons inspector did not believe iraq was in material breach of resolution 1441 and nor did the security council

legality is not only dependant on the unsc but on the charter of the united nations and international law

i believe, and it was previously argued in this context, that one veto on the security council against 14 votes in favour on an actual resolution is a different issue from no votes on no resolution

had only france voted against such a resolution, precedent had been set and accepted in the kosovo action

but no resolution, specifically called for in 1441, was ever proferred

as france had stated her position, and presuming it was not done to spare her blushes, it is reasonable to presume that there was not an otherwiuse unanimous vote waiting for a resolution

therefore to compare it with kosova is spurious

unless you believe that the precedent set in the kosova case was that the unsc can be ignored in all its rulings at the convenience of member states

in that case iraq could also ignore the unsc so 1441 would be irrellevant

as would the system of unsc veto and unanimity and the united nations

and before you criticise china for spurious use of it's veto, why not look into what the united states, who has used her veto the most, has vetoed

I disagree, 1441 calls on Iraq to do a number of things and says that something bad is going to happen if it doesn't do them. If the UN thought that the US, UK or Solomon islands needed to be invaded then it would need to pass another resolution to that effect.

but you are arguing that no other resolution is needed to deal with a country in breach of res 1441

any country invading iraq, besides the international laws and un charters it violates, is by defintion in material breach of res 1441

1441 places certain obligations on iraq, unsc countries, and the united nations member states

the obligations though different are treated with the same weight of importance

therefore, as an example, britains responsibility for the upholding of res 1441 is the same as iraq's, but while the resolution doesnt threathen sanction on other countries in breach, you are arguing that any member state can arbritarily uphold 1441. therefore any country could invade any of the coalition countries under the pretext of upholding 1441

it is technically legal,, and no more ludicrous than the self contradicting assertion that the war was mandated under 1441 or ANY previous resolution

Some other comments on some of your comments:

On the question of dual-uses of bio materials. I'm no expert on Anthrax either but I believe it is needed for the creation of Anthrax vaccines. But, hey, I am not defending that particular action.

i am glad you are not defending. anthrax vaccine is not suitable for biological weaponry. what was supplied to iraq was anthrax concentrate - the type of anthrax required to breed more anthrax - completely unneccesary for vaccine grade but essential for weapons grade

anthrax DOES NOT get exported by mistake. anthrax vaccine doesnt even get exported by mistake

but lets say it was an honest mistake for vaccines

what about Clostridium Botulinum, Histoplasma Capsulatum, Brucella Melitensis, Clostridium Perfringens, Escherichia Coli (E. Coli) ?

and thats just the some of the biological agents !!(shipped to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission under license from U.S. Commerce Department)

and in general

no doubt you will argue that just because the us contributed to his posession of inhumane materials designed for one function alone, and that they knew he was using them, and that they helped him use them, doesnt mean they have any responsibility when they are used

worth mentioning that details of such sales were amonst the pages that the us removed from iraq's intercepted dossier (remember 1441?) under the pretext of having a 'faster photocopier' before being submitted to the un - then they accused iraq of not having full details in the dossier !!!

I don't think the comparison with Central America is valid. Iraq invaded Kuwait plain and simple. The countries of Central (and South) America suffered civil strife for decades. Of course the US stuck its oar in, but it is simplistic to blame the US for all (or even most) of the bad things that happened in those countries. The struggle between right and left was a feature of most Latin nations (including Spain and Portugal, where the US clearly was not involved).

it is an abuse of history to suggest that america simply stuck its oar in. would u not call what happened in panama an invavsion? or nicaragua? or vietnam?

are cia orchestrated coups materially different from troops on the ground?

I think it is particularly unfair to blame the US for the Israel/Palestine problem. Unless of course, if you believe that Israel has no right to exist. Then I could understand why you would blame the US. If Israel has a right to exist then it has a right to defend itself, and it needs American help to do that.

i do believe israel has a right to exist and i did not suggest otherwise. however i also believe palestine has a right to exist. specifically i believe palestinian children and israeli children have a right to exist.

do the palestinians have the right to defend themselves too?

i will presume by your dismissive reply that you are ignorant of the palestine/israel conflict, the attrocities committed, us arming of israel, us vetoing of legitimate un resolutions, the blanket protection regardless of crime etc etc

you do realise that israel is occupying another country dont you? wouldnt you suggest the occupied is in more urgent need of assistance than the occupier?

or is that only when its kuwait and iraq?

it is in many other threads and sites - if you want to know about us political and military support for israel at the expense of palestine, look it up

I don't understand your point about the Taliban. The US was right to support the Mujahideen (against the Russians). If some of the same individuals later became the Taliban, how can that be Americas fault?

why was the us right to support what, by its own definition, was a terrorist organisation? isnt that a bad thing?

are you suggesting the united states is a sponsor of terrorism?

the cia established and funded islamic schools in afghanistan (taliban means student) where the art of jihad (holy war - a phrase with previously benign usage but ressurected for the cause) was used to stir up islamic fighters against ussr

they didnt LATER become the taliban, they were the taliban

the same taliban and the same mujahideen who co-funded their campaign against ussr with the growth and sale of opiun which would end up in the arms of addicts around the corner from the whitehouse

blind eye turned to the lot

america didnt turn on them because they were terrorists, or because they treated women badly, or because of heroin - but because they bit the hand that originally fed them

but the taliban were not responsible for 11/9 and the us had planned to invade afghanistan as much as 14 months before that terrible day

As for the detainees at Guantanamo, I don't believe they are being tortured. The ones who have been released so far, certainly were not. If some are being "exported" to other countries for torture, then I disagree with that.

you may not believe they are being tortured but they do. human rights watch (an organisation occasionly quoted from by bush et al re: iraq) thinks so. the us government and military think so (two non-people were found dead at baghram airbase. originally put down as accidental but an inquest concluded they died from a continuous and sytematic assault of blunt objects and blows. seeing as they were in the custody of american interrogators, wouldnt you call that torture? the united nations does

human rights watch also has strong evidence that suspects are flown to several middle eastern countries, where the laws are somewhat more relaxed, to be tortured

but you know those people with interests in human rights are left wing liberals who are biased

did you know that the united states exports 'items of torture' in breach of international torture conventions? bet you didnt

do you agree with the denial of all legal rights specifically under the geneva convention (u now, the one the us insist its prisoners are protected under)?

So what if Bush got fewer votes than Gore. It is an irrelevant statistic, just like the total party votes in an Irish election. What matters is who wins each constituency (or state in the US). As for the US Supreme Court, it is interesting that you know so much about the political affiliation of the judges. Were you aware that most of the Irish Supreme court was appointed by Bertie Ahern? Does that make it a Bertie Ahern dominated supreme court? There is no equivalent in this country where it's all done behind closed doors. The transparency of the American process, is what leaves it open to this kind of criticism.

it may not be relevant to the outcome of an election but it is hardly irrelevant as an indicator, at least, of public opinion

but then i dont think we need to go over the irregularities in that election result as no doubt you will deny everything and say the court decided

no it doesnt make it a bertie dominated supreme court

no accusation of such partiallity has ever been made against the irish supreme court

but many are made against us supreme court whose decisions and opinions are often biased towards both political affiliation and government policy

the process of selection in the united states is incredibly politicised - bertie would just as likely appoint a liberal jusdge as he would a conservative judge - where republican judges are appointed by the republicans and democrats by the democrats

to draw comparison is to pervert reality but i reckon you know that

I would like to say that I do disagree with much of your characterisation of US foreign policy.

which parts of

the state with the largest number of weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological and nuclear, a strong track record of using them on civilians, a long history of invading it's neighbours, overturning democratically elected governments, installing vicious regimes, supporting vicious regimes, executing its children, terrorising the world, destroying the economies of its enemies, the deaths of millions of civilians as a result of beligerence, the use of chemical weaponry, cluster bombs, the assination of leaders of countries, threathening democracies with hostile acts

do you disagree with?

Created By: Declan Finlay