Originally posted by ivanhoeYes. You are right. Iraq has used such weapons against the Kurds in the past. As well as in the war against Iran.
"Lybia has no such weapons. As Iraq had no such weapons."
The Kurds do not agree with you on that last statement .....
However, at that time Iraq was considered a USA ally , so it was hardly mentioned and i don t remember any us president commenting on it
at that time. Okay, maybe i shouldn t blame the US only, Chirac as well has actively supported Sadam's regime at that time.
And if you allow me to go back in time a little, the USA did use such weapons on a far larger scale, remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?
Okay, again i shouldn t single out the USA, during 'conventional'
bombardments on german cities in 1945 500.000 citizens were killed by western allies.
I also grew up during Vietnam and i remember very well these pictures
of children running in flames after some cowboys dropped napalm on their head.
My point is the wmd's were used as an argument to start a war on Iraq.
Tony Blair himself suggested that Iraq could deploy such weapons against the west within 45 minutes. That was clearly a lie.
It worries me that a huge part of the public buys such lies very easily.
Yesterday i saw a poll indicating that 50% of american adults still believe that Saddam was personally involved in 9 11.
I don t trust a country were half of the population has a twisted perception of reality. Sorry.
1 edit
Originally posted by Nohup.
Yes. You are right. Iraq has used such weapons against the Kurds in the past. As well as in the war against Iran.
However, at that time Iraq was considered a USA ally , so it was hardly mentioned and i don t remember any us president comment ...[text shortened]... of the population has a twisted perception of reality. Sorry.
What I find interesting and fascinating about politics is to find out what is really happening. To try and see through the propaganda from both or all sides involved.
As a reminder: The whole of the United Nations were convinced that Saddam had programs to develop, produce and possess WMD, including France, Russia, Germany and China. That is why they all (!) repeatedly summoned the Saddam regime to apply to the Security Council resolutions to let in the United Nations inspectors. Because Saddam refused to coöperate during, I don't remember exactly how many, 20 or more years with the UN in the field of controlling his programs of WMD and refusing to let the inspectors into the country and making them able to do their job, war was waged on him by the Coalition of the Willing. The fact that after an intense period of diplomatic action France told the Americans and the world that they would NEVER approve of a security council resolution, stating that there would be an ultimatum and after the expiring of this ultimatum a military response by the members of the UN if Saddam again failed to obey the Security Council and cooperate fully and completely, only thèn the US decided to act without the explicite approval of the Security Council and formed the Coalition of the Willing led by the US and the UK.
To suggest that only the US and the UK were convinced that Saddam was in the possession of WMD is not in accordance with the facts. All members of the Security Council were convinced that this was true. The only one who was and still is denying this is Saddam himself.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI glanced at some of your old posts dealing with the war with Iraq and got the vague impression that you were against it. Reading your recent posts here I think perhaps I was mistaken. Have you been, and are you, in favor of the last war with Iraq?
.
What I find interesting and fascinating about politics is to find out what is really happening. To try and see through the propaganda from both or all sides involved.
As a reminder: The whole of the United Nations were convinced that Saddam had programs to develop, produce and possess WMD, including France, Russia, Germany and China. That is why they ...[text shortened]... vinced that this was true. The only one who was and still is denying this is Saddam himself.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat s funny. As far as i remember Hans Blix was in Iraq till a few weeks before the war started. He was even presenting his report live on television in front of the uno council. Report saying that no wmd's were found that far, that Iraq cooperated reasonably well and stating that more time was needed to have a conclusive answer.
[b].
I don't remember exactly how many, 20 or more years with the UN in the field of controlling his programs of WMD and refusing to let the inspectors into the country
How could it be 20 years ? The first war on Iraq was in 1991. The inspectors were thrown out in 1997 i believe, but inspections resumed in november 2002.
Personally i am convinced that the decision to go to war was taken already at the time when wmd inspections resumed. I remember reading articles in the late summer of 2002, describing how all american bomb factories were operating at the highest level ever.
Apparently everything was set in a military time frame and the uno
was only one big show that went a little unpredicted.
For a timeline see http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline2.html
4 edits
Originally posted by NohupNothing funny about it at all. Everybody can remember the games Saddam was playing with the inspectors. Then they were allowed in then they were thrown out then they were let in and the games went on and on .... The reports of the UN inspector Blix were written in such a way that both sides, at that time the US,UK on one side and France, Germany and Russia on the other, could find in those reports what they could use in order to support the political stances they took. Blix stated later that this was the only option he had under the circumstances.
That s funny. As far as i remember Hans Blix was in Iraq till a few weeks before the war started. He was even presenting his report live on television in front of the uno council. Report saying that no wmd's were found that far, that Iraq co ...[text shortened]... r a timeline see http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline2.html
There are a lot of resolutions that passed the Security Council during the last years about Irak and the programmes of developing, producing and possessing WMD long before the last war to remove Saddam Hussein. Do you remember him using chemical weapons to kill Kurds in the North of Irak ?
The US government was determined to tackle the problem Saddam posed. Yes. If that would mean war, they were also prepared to wage war. Yes. The ultimate decision to actually go to war and posing the ultimatum with the exact date was after the French made clear that they would NEVER agree with a resolution containing an ultimatum to Irak followed by military action in order to put the max of pressure on Saddam. That refusal of the French made it clear to the US/UK that a political resolution backed up by the threat of using force could never pass the Council because of the veto of the French. That's when they decided to act without the explicite approval of the Security council.
You write: "Apparently everything was set in a military time frame and the uno
was only one big show that went a little unpredicted."
They indeed prepared the military side of the problem to show Saddam that they meant business. They tried to reach an agreement in the Security Council, but the French choose to block a further diplomatic process because they refused under ANY circumstances to agree with military action. If the US/UK would have agreed with that policy Saddam would have received the message that he was safe and that he could go on with deceiving the international Community. He would still be in power in Baghdad ....
To state that "the uno was only one big show that went a little unpredicted." can only be backed up by a one-sided interpretation of the facts ....
What kind of policy would have been the correct policy for the US/UK to choose after the decision of the Security Council member France to block any solution now AND in the future that would put Saddam under military pressure ?
What would be the aim/goal of the policy you would choose for the US/UK ?
1 edit
You convinced me.
- Playing with inspectors justifies war !
- No diplomacy is possible if it s not backed up with military threat.
Hence all diplomacy is american diplomacy !
( If by accident another country uses a military threat to back up diplomacy it s a rogue state to be invaded asap )
- Preferring further diplomacy instead of going to war leaves no option but war, hence France started the war !
Thanks for adding your insights to my one-sided propaganda.
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettDuring the pre-war Irak crises I supported the politics Tony Blair advocated: Dealing with the problem through diplomatic means within the framework of the United Nations. At a certain point this was made impossible because of the rivalry between the US on one side and France, Germany and Russia on the other side. The UK functioned as a bridge between the two. We always tend to look at the actions of the United States as being ONLY based on national interests. The actions of other countries included France, Germany, Russia and Belgium are looked upon as opposing this onesided approach of the US administration . This is a view that makes us blind for what the intentions are of the other nations involved. France, Germany and Russia for instance had loaned the Saddam regime billions of dollars. They were afraid that they were going to loose that money if Saddam was removed from power. Besides that they were heavily involved in the oil- and other industries. We cannot understand the situation without looking at the national interests of these countries as well.
I glanced at some of your old posts dealing with the war with Iraq and got the vague impression that you were against it. Reading your recent posts here I think perhaps I was mistaken. Have you been, and are you, in favor of the last war with Iraq?
Another background of the situation is the old wish of France to form a counterweight to the US in world affairs, the "De Gaulle doctrine". After the collapse of the Sowjet empire this old wish of France became even more pressing for the French. The German Social-democratic/Greens government became in favour of this French idea ever since the two German states became one after the fall of the Sowjet empire. They now do not need the US anymore to unite their country and the need for American soldiers in Germany has diminished because of the moving of the NATO borders to the east. Poland now is the buffer state between Russia and the Nato countries. When you look at the past we can understand why the Poles are not particularly fond of the Russians nor do they owe anything to the Germans. On the contrary. Both Germans and Russians plundered the country and massacred the population during WW 2. The Russians murdered the political, cultural and military elite of the Polish people. Tens and tens of thousands of people were murdered. The poles have taken the place of the Germans as the second best ally in Europe, after the UK. The balance of powers has shifted to the east. Using the Irak crises the French managed to realise their old Gaullistic political wish: They now could form a counterweight to the US power together with the Germans and the Russians. The French cock paraded through Europe with its beak pointing high to the sky. It was sometimes even embarrassing to see how they bullied and even threatened the Polish government and how they brought so much division in Europe. Belgium for instance choose the side of France because they have huge interests in Africa, especially the Congo. They were very concerned, together with the French, that the US would become too powerfull in the Middle East and as a result of that in "their" , Belgiums and France's, Africa. The reasons why Russia joined the "Gang of Four" as they were often called is obvious. The USSR once had a strong foothold in the Middle East. First they were thrown out of Afghanistan by the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden and now they saw another ally in danger: Mr. Saddam Hussein. They were not compensated enough for their expected losses by the US government so they decided to keep supporting France in his efforts to stop the US from removing Saddam Hussein. The French blockaded a tough approach of the dictator by the US to serve their own interests and to protect their delicate relations with the Arab States. France has a lot of citizens of Arab (Mahgreb) origin within its borders. They could pose a serious problem for the government if the French were too eager in opposing or even removing an Arabic leader.
When the French announced after long and difficult negotiations that they would NEVER be in favour of dealing with the problem of Saddam with military means, the US were simply forced to act without the explicite approval of the Security Council, because following the French line would mean taking all the political and military pressure from the Saddam regime. If the US/UK had followed the French line, removing all the pressure, they would loose all of their international credibility and it would have been a signal for countries and regimes like Saddam, such as Syria, Iran, Libya and North Korea, that they could go on developing and producing WMD. The tiger would have been toothless. The anti-US government thinkers inside and outside the US would have loved this to happen. However if you look at it in the wider perspective of the proliferation of WMD this victory of the "Gang of Four" would have meant a serious set back for peace in the Middle East ànd in the world. That's why I supported the Blair approach and I strongly disapproved of the French approach .......
Originally posted by NohupWhat kind of policy would have been the correct policy for the US/UK to choose after the decision of the Security Council member France to block any solution now AND in the future that would put Saddam under military pressure ?
You convinced me.
- Playing with inspectors justifies war !
- No diplomacy is possible if it s not backed up with military threat.
Hence all diplomacy is american diplomacy !
( If by accident another country uses a military threat to back up diplomacy it s a rogue state to be invaded asap )
- Preferring further diplomacy instead of going to war leaves no ...[text shortened]... rance started the war !
Thanks for adding your insights to my one-sided propaganda.
What would be the aim/goal of the policy you would choose for the US/UK ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhere do you find the time to churn all this stuff out, Ivanhoe? I didn't ask for an interminable lecture on international politics. All I wanted to know is what your position on the most recent war with Iraq is. For or against? You've made it clear that you once supported a diplomatic solution to the crisis. One can infer from your recent posts that you have had a change of heart on the subject, and now support the war. But this in not explicitly stated, and I would not presume to put words in your mouth. All I want to know is whether you now support the war, or not. Do you now think the U.S. invasion of Iraq was justified?
During the pre-war Irak crises I supported the politics Tony Blair advocated: Dealing with the problem through diplomatic means within the framework of the United Nations. At a certain point this was made impossible because of the rivalry between the US on one side and France, Germany and Russia on the other side. The UK functioned as a bridge between the ...[text shortened]... why I supported the Blair approach and I strongly disapproved of the French approach .......
Originally posted by rwingett
Where do you find the time to churn all this stuff out, Ivanhoe? I didn't ask for an interminable lecture on international politics. All I wanted to know is what your position on the most recent war with Iraq is. For or against? You've made it clear that you once supported a diplomatic solution to the crisis. One can infer from your recent posts that you ...[text shortened]... ether you now support the war, or not. Do you now think the U.S. invasion of Iraq was justified?
Yes, it was the only remaining course of action they could take. I hope that the follow up of the war against the Saddam regime can again be realised within the framework of the United Nations. The last signals given by France, Germany and Russia do point in that direction. If you have any better way for the US/UK to reach their goals I would like to hear this from you ...
I am not going to try to get History on my side.
Just some simple statements :
I don t believe in wars, neither do I believe the world can be build upon
military threats
I hate being told lies
I hate it especially when these lies are told by world leaders in the process of justifying war
I grew up thinking ( or hoping ) the world had an international institution - uno - that would help us to avoid war, asking at least some form of consensus before starting one
I was shocked to see an american president actively pushing for war
claiming he didn t need any form of international consensus
I was shocked to see an american president actively manipulating the perception of the public to justify such war
I was shocked to see some other world leaders joining in
One year later I am shocked again to see a defender of Christianity trying to justify a higly dubious war on this forum.
I am not surprised to see that defender of war switching to History
in his attempt to justify it.
I am sure he couldn't easily find arguments in the Bible - a book he loves to refer to in many other threads.
I agree that things happen in a historical context.
Generally I love to delve into history but in this particular case I feel it would miss the core of the matter.
I feel this is about ethics, about moral principles, not about history.
I was looking for a constructive way to end this thread ...
I might spend my next holiday in Lybia
If I find any nasty weapons I will let you know :-)
I rest my case.
( So i can use my time to read the fao report on world agriculture ... the thread on gm's seems to attract more open minds :-) )
Originally posted by ivanhoeVery interesting, but now I am a little puzzled.
Yes, it was the only remaining course of action they could take. I hope that the follow up of the war against the Saddam regime can again be realised within the framework of the United Nations. The last signals given by France, Germany and Russia do point in that direction. If you have any better way for the US/UK to reach their goals I would like to hear this from you ...
As I am sure you are well aware, the pope has been a consistent critic of the war with Iraq. He has said that he did not feel the war was inevitible, and has criticized the U.S. for invading Iraq without the specific authorization of the U.N.. This is, and has been, his position all along.
Now, I am also sure that you are aware that according to Catholic dogma, the pope is infallible when speaking "ex cathedra", or in his capacity as the pope.
What I do not understand, then, is how is it possible for a Catholic to have an opinion contrary to that of the pope's on such a matter? Part of being a Catholic means subscribing to the doctrine of papal infallibility. By supporting the war, it would seem to me that you are either denying the pope's infallibility, which would undermine your religion as a whole, or that you are renouncing (or suspending) your catholicism in order to take up a position that is clearly contrary to that of the pope's.
Obviously a Protestant would not be bound by the doctrine of papal infallibility, but I do not see how a Catholic can reconcile these contradictions. Your support for the war must clearly be a mistake.
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettI'll try to make it as short as possible. You introduced a very complicated problem.
Very interesting, but now I am a little puzzled.
As I am sure you are well aware, the pope has been a consistent critic of the war with Iraq. He has said that he did not feel the war was inevitible, and has criticized the U.S. for invad ...[text shortened]... ntradictions. Your support for the war must clearly be a mistake.
PART ONE
you can skip part one in case you are not interested in the politics part of the story. You can continue with part two ....
The best way to go for the US/UK would have been to obtain Security Council permission.The Vatican being in the possession of the far best diplomatic system in the world, plaid a major part in the efforts by all parties involved to reach a political agreement. When France decided they would NEVER agree with a Security Council resolution imposing a ultimatum on the Saddam regime, that could be followed by the use of force, the US/UK came to the, in my view correct conclusion, that a political solution of the problem was impossible within a reasonable period of time, because of the stance the Saddam regime was taking. The Saddam regime was not willing to coöperate fully and completely, not now and not in the future. They even managed very cleverly to continue this non-coöperating policy when the US/UK were building up, not only the political and diplomatic pressure, but also the military pressure. Nobody could reasonably expect the Saddam regime to change its mind now that France was actually helping them to reduce the pressure in every way possible. The Iraki statements after the French decision of not supporting any military actions show this very clearly.
Now the Vatican had another view on the facts. Maybe they knew more than I did ...... probably so, but I never heard anything about that. Not even from the "Gang of Four" or from the Saddam regime. Why didn't France send an urgent message to the US/UK ax to inform them of the possibilities of further diplomatic action ? They did not see any possibilities either. It was the policy of France not to get involved in a war that could harm their own interests and their relations with the Arab nations. But deep down they did not have any (moral) problems with the US and the UK going to solve the problem Saddam posed in a military way.
You see that the Vatican and I did not agree on the assessment of the situation and therefore on the actions that should follow. The Vatican held the opinion that further diplomatic action could be fruitful. I did not.
PART TWO.
About the infallibility of the Pope: You can make a distinction between the Pope as the Vatican Head of State, The Pope when he speaks "Ex Cathedra" and the Pope when he makes other statements.
This is a very complicated matter. If you really want to dig into this going for the facts you can visit among other sites this internet page:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htm
of the Society of Pius X. District of Asia.
Many people think whenever the Pope delivers a speech or makes a statement he is unfallible : UTTER NONSENSE. Let's all remember this .....
Whenever the Pope is acting as the Vatican head of state he is not infallible either. So it poses no faith-related problem to disagree with him on political matters. Of course his opinion has a special weight being the opinion of the leader of the Church.
In matters of faith and morals only statements with a special status are infallible: The "Ex Cathedra" Statements. The only "Ex Cathedra" statements Pope John Paul II has made were , as far as I remember, the canonisations of a number of Saints. He did not make any other infallible statements.
The Encyclicals he has written are of course consistent with the Roman Catholic Faith, but they are not infallible "Ex Cathedra" statements.
The Pope has of course a special status and a special meaning being the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, but as a Roman Catholic you always have to listen and follow your own conscience, being the last and highest instance to obey ....... and that's not the Pope .......
Rwingett : "What I do not understand, then, is how is it possible for a Catholic to have an opinion contrary to that of the pope's on such a matter? " Rwingett
I hope I made it clear how this is possible. Have I succeeded ?
10 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeDear Ivanhoe,
but as a Roman Catholic you always have to listen and follow your own conscience,
If you follow your own conscience you might be a freethinker after all 😉
I've even noticed that the amount of logic you use in most posts only marginally differs from the amount of logic the 'freethinkers' use.
Somehow i deplore it.
In a good discussion there should be room for imagination, intuition, drama, irony, satire, emotion ...
If language is restricted to logic we lose most of our culture.
Personally i don't mind some ambiguity - it keeps the mind open.
We should never forget our worldviews are social constructs - we might feel 'free minds' but our views are partly shaped by our social context.
Every culture is supported by a set of social institutions generating and protecting a set of worldviews. ( Very rarely we escape the set - i believe some artists do and some good jokes as well 😲)
Anyhow, reducing language to logic tends to hide the social context of thinking.
Personally I am convinced that on quite some matters there is no Final word. You can fill The Void with religious thoughts but there are many alternatives. We shouldn t think too easily our personal way of filling the void is the best.
However not all 'worldviews' are equal when the subject switches to a down-to-earth practical question. Some worldviews are more tolerant and more flexible, some are more rigid and tend to restrict individual liberty. That s why i prefer Freethinkers above Christians, generally freethinkers are far more liberal. Generally freethinkers invite to explore the world, while Christians invite to accept God - in that sense God is an exteriorization of a worldview - no more, no less.
I object strongly against the way you try to convince us that war was the only possibility. I think your notion of history as something that
leaves no possibilities but One is related to your notion of One God -
I believe history is always open - it s people starting wars , not History -and if we start a war we should take full responsability instead of arguing it was the only option.
But i do agree we need the historical context to fully understand what happended. And i do appreciate your attempt to sketch this context.
I only partly agree with your sketch but you did add quite some relevant elements.
I believe that looking for a logical paradox here - as rwingett is doing -is completely irrelevant.
Kindest,
Jan
PS If France said they would NEVER agree... France is not Destiny and never is only a five letter word 😉
1 edit
Originally posted by Nohup"If you follow your own conscience you might be a freethinker after all 😉 " Nohup
Dear Ivanhoe,
If you follow your own conscience you might be a freethinker after all 😉
I've even noticed that the amount of logic you use in most posts only marginally differs from the amount of logic the 'freethinkers' use.
Somehow ...[text shortened]... . France is not Destiny and never is only a five letter word 😉
a free thinker .... absolutely ! 😀
"In a good discussion there should be room for imagination, intuition, drama, irony, satire, emotion ... " Nohup
You've come to the right place ..... 😵