[quote]Adamsson wrote:
Look at the prequel… How is THIS over the line… when things like “?The distinguished delegate is ignorant…?” and "?This libelous report does not deserve any respect or credibility. We will send it to the same place that we have sent all previous reports: the paper-recycling bin…
There is, however, Madame, a significant contribution that you might make?and that would be by quitting…?" towards UN experts… are NOT over the line? How can this be… fair in any way? Secondly, how is this a flame? Can you point at any factual errors in this speech…? The truth CAN be harsh, but should it be silenced for that reason alone? Is it maybe the fact that they oppose YOUR PERSONAL opinion that makes you think that way? ;)[/quote]
It is quite possible.
I can’t argue in favor of limiting one’s freedom of speech and have no idea what the context was for the “prequel” comments. Like I said, I’d normally side with the “say what you want” camp. But I understand that you can’t get away with going into a tribunal and throwing inflammatory remarks at the institution.
Anyhow, I don’t think the UN is in any way biased toward Israel. Not anymore than South Africa was back when Apartheid was in place.
Ironically enough, UN watch was created by the AJC.
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
An interesting point about the Iraqi war is the resolutions that most european radicals say was NOT met, beacause Iraq did not have WMD… It is quite clear that people like lixy have never read the actual resolutions, since they mention a few things OTHER than wmd… For instance: ballistic rockets with a range of more than 150km… Can you say scud? [/quote]
Hey, I had a second. Here is a speech by W. in October of 2002.
If you have second you can read the reasons for going to war. I think you’ll find that most have been shown to be true.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Look at the prequel… How is THIS over the line… when things like “?The distinguished delegate is ignorant…?” and "?This libelous report does not deserve any respect or credibility. We will send it to the same place that we have sent all previous reports: the paper-recycling bin…
There is, however, Madame, a significant contribution that you might make?and that would be by quitting…?" towards UN experts… are NOT over the line? How can this be… fair in any way? Secondly, how is this a flame? Can you point at any factual errors in this speech…? The truth CAN be harsh, but should it be silenced for that reason alone? Is it maybe the fact that they oppose YOUR PERSONAL opinion that makes you think that way?
It is quite possible.
I can’t argue in favor of limiting one’s freedom of speech and have no idea what the context was for the “prequel” comments. Like I said, I’d normally side with the “say what you want” camp. But I understand that you can’t get away with going into a tribunal and throwing inflammatory remarks at the institution.
Anyhow, I don’t think the UN is in any way biased toward Israel. Not anymore than South Africa was back when Apartheid was in place.
Ironically enough, UN watch was created by the AJC.
“inflammatory”… Well, it would be interesting to know how you define that? Is stating “the supreme court decision to refuse a recount in Florida was a foolish and unjust decision” a inflammatory comment…? Or is it when you disagree with a strong statement it is inflammatory? And you have so far not pointed at one single factual error in the speech, you just make baseless and not very witty comments and insinuations.
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
“inflammatory”… Well, it would be interesting to know how you define that? Is stating “the supreme court decision to refuse a recount in Florida was a foolish and unjust decision” a inflammatory comment…? Or is it when you disagree with a strong statement it is inflammatory? And you have so far not pointed at one single factual error in the speech, you just make baseless and not very witty comments and insinuations. [/quote]
Inflammatory \Inflam"mato*ry, a. [Cf. F. inflammatoire.] Tending to excite anger, animosity, tumult, or sedition; seditious; as, inflammatory libels, writings, speeches, or publications. --Burke. [1913 Webster]
I thought I made it clear that I cannot possibly defend the president’s decision to censure that bit. I also admitted to the possibility of my response being biased because of my political, cultural and religious beliefs.
I’m normally a hard-line “I’d die defending your freedom of speech right even if I disagree with it” kind of guy, and that’s the reason behind my ambivalence on the matter.
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
Read the actual resolutions, they have quite a lot of info and shed light on the legal grounds for going to war.[/quote]
I read them back in 2003 and found no legitimate ground for the US invading Iraq.
Interestingly, Kofi Annan himself stated “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”
Do you think Iraqis are better off or the world any safer five years after the initial invasion?
Interestingly, Kofi Annan himself stated “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”[/quote]
Interestingly, Kofi Annan said the Bosnia campaign was not in conformity with the UN Charter, but that we had moved into an era where “procedural classicism” was becoming more and more outdated.
Outside of squaring Annan’s hypocrisy on the issue, no one considers Annan - who is nakedly political and presided over an era of rank corruption at the UN - to have a legitimate say in the matter.
One of the good things about the war in Iraq is that it has sent the clear message that the UN is to be ignored in matters like these - and now Islamists/rogue states are no longer under the illusion they can hide behind the Kofi Annans of the world.
Interesting that you’d post a poll showing the majority of Iraqi’s wanting the US to stay until security is achieved. So, why don’t you support the will of the Iraqi people? Why won’t you support their elected government’s fight to secure Iraq? Why do you talk up the “legitimate” resistance groups that are causing chaos and ruin?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
One of the good things about the war in Iraq is that it has sent the clear message that the UN is to be ignored in matters like these[/quote]
Duh! Was anyone under the impression that you cared about whatever the UN said?
The overthrow of Saddam was the ONLY good thing that came out of it. I don’t think the hundreds of thousands people sacrificed for the cause was a reasonable act.
Your “clear message” was interpreted worldwide as total disdain of US leadership for international law. Hence, the increase in people who hate your guts.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Interesting that you’d post a poll showing the majority of Iraqi’s wanting the US to stay until security is achieved. So, why don’t you support the will of the Iraqi people? Why won’t you support their elected government’s fight to secure Iraq? Why do you talk up the “legitimate” resistance groups that are causing chaos and ruin?[/quote]
From said poll:
“Since the end of the war in Iraq, thousands of civilians have died in violence on the streets. Support for the coalition forces based in Iraq is low - with 82% expressing a lack of confidence in them and 69% thinking they had made the security situation worse.”
What part of “get the fcsk out” don’t you understand?
Duh! Was anyone under the impression that you cared about whatever the UN said?
The overthrow of Saddam was the ONLY good thing that came out of it. I don’t think the hundreds of thousands people sacrificed for the cause was a reasonable act.[/quote]
Nope - just think, if an Iran wants to do something nasty at the international level, it can’t hide behind China’s veto at the UNSC level to give it cover.
How is that for shaking things up? International brigands have been put on notice.
This plain foolish. Who cares about “international law”? The US? China? Russia? The Arab nations?
International law - whatever it is - is great when it works for you, and you ignore it when it doesn’t. That isn’t a US phenomenon, by the way. Your idealist bubble needs to be busted.
The “world” doesn’t care a whit about international law.
And besides, if the war in Iraq was “illegal”, go find me a Security Council resolution saying it was and sanctioning the US.
You desperately want “international law” to mean something it doesn’t because you want non-US countries to be able to punch above their weight in geopolitics. Nope.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Read the actual resolutions, they have quite a lot of info and shed light on the legal grounds for going to war.
I read them back in 2003 and found no legitimate ground for the US invading Iraq.
Interestingly, Kofi Annan himself stated “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”
Do you think Iraqis are better off or the world any safer five years after the initial invasion?[/quote]
Kofi Annan is in no way a legal lense which the UN charter and the UN resolution find their legality trough.
Read the resolutions from 1990-2006 again. Note the “subsuqent relevant resulutions” in the early ones and the “ballistic rockets with a range…” My personal opinion as a law-student is that the war is in the grey zone legally, weighing towards not legal. My problem is the Black-White train of thought that most leftwings in Europe tend to have on the issue. Most of which have not had a single year of law… much less international law…
If you want me to go into an in-depth analysis of terrorist threat, region stability etc, I don’t think that i can do that in this format. I don’t think that “this war will make more terrorist”-argument is a argument that can stand alone. With this logic, fighting Germany in WW1 was a bad, bad idea… after all, that made a whole new world war…?
Right…? I don’t think that the war itself is the problem, a war was in many ways needed, the problem is the aftermath. Bismarck understood how to end a war and how to prevent further wars, read up on his solutions…
I don’t think the hundreds of thousands people sacrificed for the cause was a reasonable act.[/quote]
Is this more of the “cluster (fucked) sampling” bullshit? Because the the “We don’t have the right answer so any answer will do.” explanations that come along with it are pretty entertaining.
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Read the actual resolutions, they have quite a lot of info and shed light on the legal grounds for going to war.
I read them back in 2003 and found no legitimate ground for the US invading Iraq.
Interestingly, Kofi Annan himself stated “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”
Do you think Iraqis are better off or the world any safer five years after the initial invasion?
Kofi Annan is in no way a legal lense which the UN charter and the UN resolution find their legality trough.
Read the resolutions from 1990-2006 again. Note the “subsuqent relevant resulutions” in the early ones and the “ballistic rockets with a range…” My personal opinion as a law-student is that the war is in the grey zone legally, weighing towards not legal. My problem is the Black-White train of thought that most leftwings in Europe tend to have on the issue. Most of which have not had a single year of law… much less international law…
If you want me to go into an in-depth analysis of terrorist threat, region stability etc, I don’t think that i can do that in this format. I don’t think that “this war will make more terrorist”-argument is a argument that can stand alone. With this logic, fighting Germany in WW1 was a bad, bad idea… after all, that made a whole new world war…?
Right…? I don’t think that the war itself is the problem, a war was in many ways needed, the problem is the aftermath. Bismarck understood how to end a war and how to prevent further wars, read up on his solutions…
[/quote]
I wanted to highlight how happy I am that we’ve had the input of two new posters: Adamsson and The Beast.
I can’t tell you how refreshing and appreciated it is to have Europeans who can think beyond tag-lines and headlines.
It seems that Adam and The Beast understand that this is a global conflict against extremism.
Adam is pointing out quite clearly that kofi annan was no friend of this cause. Further, many of us have serious suspicions that he was on the take from Iraq. We know his son was.
Anyone who uses annan as an example of moral or international dignitas is a peewit.
I submit that his continuance of secretary general under these circumstances, made the u.n. a poster child for corruption.
The u.n. has an odium that will take many good acts to remove.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Is this more of the “cluster (fucked) sampling” bullshit? Because the the “We don’t have the right answer so any answer will do.” explanations that come along with it are pretty entertaining.
[/quote]
You think people dying in funny? This is not some number that people drew out of their hat, it has the backing of many authorities.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Read the actual resolutions, they have quite a lot of info and shed light on the legal grounds for going to war.
I read them back in 2003 and found no legitimate ground for the US invading Iraq.
Interestingly, Kofi Annan himself stated “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”
Do you think Iraqis are better off or the world any safer five years after the initial invasion?[/quote]
[quote]lixy wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Is this more of the “cluster (fucked) sampling” bullshit? Because the the “We don’t have the right answer so any answer will do.” explanations that come along with it are pretty entertaining.
You think people dying in funny? This is not some number that people drew out of their hat, it has the backing of many authorities.
I think I’m gonna throw up…[/quote]
The question is: would this number be any different if Iran and Syria did their part in keeping border-crossing partisans in check…? Would this number be any different if the world-community as a whole spent more time and energy helping out, instead of pointing fingers…?
Would this number be any different if people like you were less busy polarizing the debate and drawing the situation in blacks and whites… and more busy looking for solutions?
[/quote]