[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Itnay pareshaan mat ho, Little Chicken, i am going to answer your question in the next sentence. Serbia's bombing was more warranted, and more rational, than the present situation; unlike Iraq, Serbia possessed a semi-mature democracy movement within the country. The post-bombing transition was thus comparatively more stable than it will be (IMO) in Iraq. And since you are so gung-ho for this invasion, please let me know what US plans are for a post-Hussein Iraq: will Kurds be given ethnic representation in a new interim government? Will northern Iraq (that has helped the US by providing airbases), be given an independent state of its own - Kurdistan? Or will the US treat Kurds as pawns yet again - dropped like hot potatoes once they have exceeded their usefulness? Shi'ites represent the majority of Iraq; hence will they be allowed to constitute the majority in a new government? Where is the Iraqi Hamid Karzai? Answer the questions please....
[/QUOTE]
No pareshaani beta...More warranted? Illegal..yes or no? No UN mandate to attack. Simple as that. Don't justify based on your understanding of the realities of the balkans. As advice, I would recommend you read.."War in the Time of Peace" by David Halberstam, it might clear up some things for you. Semi-Democracy movement? Jeez lousie...!!! DO you understand the term balkanization? Well, Iraq is exactly the same but with a more ruthless leader. Imagine the role the UN and Europe in particular could have played and will still play in the rebuilding. Ever since day one, you guys have no answer for Saddam's flouting of the UN resolutions. Without enforcement all laws are null and void.
US didn't have a UN mandate to attack Serbia. Simple as that..it is a legal issue, that's what it makes it illegal. When you say it more or less warraned it is like saying you are more or less pregnant. You either are or you aren't.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Nadia_H: *>>As far as disarmament goes they had 12 years...not 1 or 2 or 3 but 12. That is more than half your life. think about it.<<*
Iraq is already significantly (albeit NOT completely) disarmed, though of course for the cowboys in Texas nothing less than 200% disarmament is sufficient. Even back to the days of Mad. Albright, it was about regime change NOT disarmament. You didn't answer my question....... how does the UN Charter reconcile with the beliefs of pre-emptive attacks (and regime change)? Why did Kofi Annan say that this invasion is illegal?
[/QUOTE]
We still found missles that had to be destroyed durin the recent sham of inspections. Really...when does this charade end?
I agree with Kofi Anan that the invasion is illegal per the UN. But it was illegal against the Serbians. Why did they shut up then? That is the hypocrisy.
You at least make good points, Chaltahai, i will give you this much. Once you drop the insults and the one-line remarks, there is actually quite a lot of sense hiding behind.
i would be more willing to acknowledge that Serbia’s bombing was illegal, if i genuinely believed that the invasion against Iraq is for a more higher motive - for Serbia, it was to eliminate the rule of Milosevic, the systemic program of ethnic cleansing, rape, etc. No puppet govt. was subsequently installed. i beg you - please don’t insult my intelligence by stating that this invasion is to get rid of the big bad Sad-dam and his repressive regime; you and i both know that that’s bull. Best time to have done that was when the screams from Halabja’s gas victims were still fresh in our ears, not fifteen years later.
What happened to all my queries regarding a post-Hussein Iraq?
i am glad you admit that this invasion is illegal. Thank you. Terror bombing civilians, as is occurring in Iraq, is also illegal; cutting off their water supplies for more than 36 hours (Basra’s) are all violations of the Geneva Conventions.
Anyone troubled that he didn't get UN approval to bomb 2 embassies, a ship, the Pentagon and the WTC?
Anyone....
Anyone....
Oh, and also would someone please name the most recent "legal" war they were in favor of or even had to grudgingly accept on account of its, you know, "legality"?
Strange. The US seemed all gung-ho for UN approval for its invasion of Iraq, only for as long as it seemed they could get that approval by bullying half the world; once they knew that UN sanction would not be forthcoming, they backtracked and said - hey we had the legal justification all along so screw the UN.
Nadia: Let me tell you how it happened with Kosovo. US was going to go the UN to ask for a UN mandate to take action against serbia. Russia, as NYA pointed out, was a long time ally of the serbs and said publicly that they would veto any resolution sanctioning war against the serbs.
\US then went around the UN and with NATO, to France's Chagrin, and attacked Serbia.
Rules were made along back then as well. It was showcased very early on that the UN's inability to effectively enforce it's own mandates whether in Iraq, Balkans, Congo are the greatest impetus for someone else to step in and enforce.
I would go far as to argue, that US action finally gives UN some teeth otherwise it is in need of some viagra like the OIC and other pan-national states.
Someof this might happened before your time, but it nevertheless happened.
That was politics, 'cause they knew if they didn’t get UN approval they’d have to deal with all the bellyachers lining up to turn the opinion of the world against the U.S. Hey they gave it a shot-a damn patient one. They should have known the bellyachers would have been there either way and gotten started in February.
U.N. sanctions of Iraq apparently are legal, but that fact hasn’t quelled the dissatisfaction around here regarding this issue. Rather, the U.N. has in the minds of many perpetrated a genocide. So let’s not get all hung up on UN approval.
Seriously, can any one answer the question about the last “legal” war they approved of?
Chaltahai, how does US action give the UN "some teeth" ? How does ignoring the wishes of the majority of the world translate into making the UN more stronger ? If anything, US actions have turned the UN into a laughing stock.
Yes the actions against Serbia were undertaken outside of the UN Charter. So yes they were illegal. i think there will be a massive amount of difference in post-war Serbia, versus post-war Iraq. No one has yet seemed able, or willing, to answer questions of what precisely a post-Hussein Iraq will look like. Will Kurds be given ethnic representation in a new interim government? Will northern Iraq (that has helped the US by providing airbases), be given an independent state of its own - Kurdistan? Or will the US treat Kurds as pawns yet again - dropped like hot potatoes once they have exceeded their usefulness? Shi'ites represent the majority of Iraq; hence will they be allowed to constitute the majority in a new government? Where is the Iraqi Hamid Karzai? i asked all these questions previously and no one seemed willing to give an answer. Nor have i read much of this in the media, which has seemed to ignore the complexities of a post-Hussein era. It does not provide much assurance for those who would TRULY want to see a DEMOCRATIC, not puppet, government in Iraq.
So now you have if from the horse’s mouth (the horse might feel insulted being equated to Perle). But so what, a few thousand Iraqi (and other) civilians dead, soldiers used as cannon fodder by and for the Bush regime. Increase in terrorist activity worldwide (including state terrorism by Russia, Israel, etc.). We can now own up that we KNEW what we were doing was illegal, so…?
“Published on Thursday, November 20, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
War Critics Astonished as US Hawk Admits Invasion was Illegal
by Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
…
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: “I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.”
…
“They’re just not interested in international law, are they?” said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war’s legality last year. “It’s only when the law suits them that they want to use it.”
…” http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1120-01.htm
*In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." *
So the neo-con regime in the US now openly admit they violated international law. That just confirms why these people must be removed from power, and legitimate worldwide resistance must continue against the war mongering and terrorism ordered by these people.
What happened to all my queries regarding a post-Hussein Iraq?