George Galloway and the US Senate- some choice quotes
- Thread starter JacktheHat
- 151 comments
- 3,441 views
- 87,832
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Actually, can someone help me out here?
When was the last time, other then Gulf War I, that the leader of the losing side, despite having been the aggressor AND had enemy troops in the capital city AND having been the target of several missiles was allowed to keep their leadership of the defeated side?
When was the last time, other then Gulf War I, that the leader of the losing side, despite having been the aggressor AND had enemy troops in the capital city AND having been the target of several missiles was allowed to keep their leadership of the defeated side?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,110
- Mile High City
The most similar thing I can come up with is Japan after WWII - they were allowed to remain soverign. However, there were stipulations - and they lived up to those stipulations.
Iraq did not.
Famine, I understand what you're saying but to me it's not just a UN resolution - it's an American resolution too. It was an agreement between many countries that we signed in to. We took action based on what the resolution said (action meaning we let Iraq keep their country). The US signed on to an agreement and even if every party doesn't want to enforce their end - we're justified in enforcing ours.
If 10 people agree on rules and one breaks them - any one or combination of the original ten (besides the infringer) is justified in enforcing the penalty.
- 87,832
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
What if the other 8 object?
Mind you, we're back to the rights of the majority against what is actually right again. In this case, the majority said no, making the US's action illegal according to the majority (UN), however correct and justified that action was. Sucks, but it's true.
The UK's excuse was "Saddam has WMDs which can be deployed at 45 minutes' notice."
I can imagine the Cabinet meeting for that one...
Blair: That's our reason, guys. *emotive hand gesture*
Prescott: Bollocks, Tone. That's right up there with "Look out, it's coming right for us". Yer daft wazzock. *eats pie*
Blunkett: Look out, Tony! Saddam's got a bear! Aaargh!
*Cabinet laughs*
Mind you, we're back to the rights of the majority against what is actually right again. In this case, the majority said no, making the US's action illegal according to the majority (UN), however correct and justified that action was. Sucks, but it's true.
The UK's excuse was "Saddam has WMDs which can be deployed at 45 minutes' notice."
I can imagine the Cabinet meeting for that one...
Blair: That's our reason, guys. *emotive hand gesture*
Prescott: Bollocks, Tone. That's right up there with "Look out, it's coming right for us". Yer daft wazzock. *eats pie*
Blunkett: Look out, Tony! Saddam's got a bear! Aaargh!
*Cabinet laughs*
Danoff
Premium
- 34,110
- Mile High City
It doesn't make the action illegal. Are you saying that any war that is not initiated by the UN is illegal? I don't remember a UN resolution passed against the US in this matter. The UN never said - "Hey America, you're doing something terrible, we're going to sign a contract saying that if you don't quit it we'll sign another one."
So it's not illegal, it just wasn't initiated by the UN. I never claimed the US was doing the UN's work. We're just upholding our end of the bargain.
So I take it that you understand now how the US can point to a UN resolution and say that we're enforcing it but we don't need UN permission.
(hint: because it was also a US resolution)
- 87,832
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
danoff
Sadly, it IS an illegal action, however justified. And I'm not saying that, it just happens to be true. I did check into it. Just in brief it's against Article 51 of the UN Charter - and even the US's own clarification of it.
danoff
Every time you say the following phrase, you're saying exactly that.
danoff
Nope.
danoff
Which particular sitting of which particular House enshrined that one into US Law?
It was the UN's decision to not invade Iraq based upon their breach of the precious Resolution. It was the US's decision to dissociate from the rest of the UN - bar the me-too UK and, in varying numbers, a couple of dozen other member states - and invade Iraq.
The only way to claim that the UN's Resolution is also the US's is if you agree that the US has agreed to abide by UN rules. If you agree that, then you must, by extension, also agree that the US broke that agreement in order to punish another country which, it was adjudged, had also broken an agreement with the UN.
That's borderline vigilantism - breaking the law to punish those who break the law. That's not necessarily a bad thing - vigilantism in the form of the Guardian Angels can work well, doing what is right rather than what is lawful.
- 1,165
so why was it ok, back in the real first gulf war (between iraq and iran), to use chemical weapons against iran and civilians, if now its not even ok to oppress the people and to violate some UN sanctions?danoff
i totally agree to famine, i surely don't miss saddam and i would like to see more freedom and democracy in the middle east.
can you please show me some information on the german weapons and oil deals with iraq? as a german that would particularly interest me.Viper Zero
i really don't know whats going on in russia, i don't trust putin at all and i am sure he had other reasons than pacifism and i am not too sure about chirac either, but from what i know, germany had no deals with saddam.
due to our history, germany nowadays is really cautious. and even though we have a weapon industry, they are tightly controlled. every weapon's deal will arouse a lot of discussion, even if its just armoured ABC support vehicles for the US or submarines for israel. they did not even sell a nuclear facility for civil use to china because misuse was feared.
the reason why our government opposed the iraq war was mainly due to the fact that elections were close and the vast majority of the german people opposed the war. so it was entirely democratic, even if it might have been dishonest.
furthermore i would not say we sit back and wait and do nothing, but it is because of our recent violent history that we are reluctant to use violent measures.
besides, we have gone to kosovo, have we not?
p.s.
i am anti-war, but i am not anti-american. i really like america (even if i do not like your current government, but hey, i do not even particlarly like my own government)). through discussion boards like this i try find out what moves you and i want to understand what is going in america.
after the last election, when other germans said to me "how can an entire nation be so dumb?" i opposed them and told them not to think like that because they did not understand.
but you should not do the same mistake and label everyone who criticizes something to be anti-american. i like america, i do think its a great country, especially since it was the first modern democracy and america helped so much in liberating my very own country from the nazis.
nevertheless, a true friend is not one that follows you blindly everywhere, but one who is honest with you.
i really hope you give me an answer this time, viper.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,110
- Mile High City
The UN does not make law for the US to follow. That thinking may appeal to you because you'd like for your country or just other countries to have control over the lone superpower in the world, but it isn't true. The US remains a soverign country - fully capable of engaging in its own military action and fully capable of deciding which of its agreements it wishes to enforce.
It's not vigilantism - because the UN is not our ruler.
The UN is considered by many in the US and probably by our president to be a guiding force rather than a ruling force. Patriotic Americans (myself included) will not accept the notion that we must get approval for our foreign diplomacy and military operations from any other nation or group of nations.
Edit: This reminds me of our recent election when John Kerry said something about a "global test" for engaging in military action. That kind of rhetoric lost him a lot of points with the American people. We will not submit to the whims of France and Germany simply because we wanted to work with the UN.
- 30,026
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
Weather, you or other Americans accept that you need to get apporval or not is meaningless, the bottom line is Famines right, by breaking the UN rules you made the war illegal. Regardless of how bad Saddam was, the reason for going to war was frankly, complete bolloks. If you took you're time, you could've got Saddam out, had a majority backing and kept the public happier.
I disslike Blair too, he's even admitted he was wrong about the wmd. He's Bush's lap dog, at least thats how a lot of Briton's view him and thats not good.
I disslike Blair too, he's even admitted he was wrong about the wmd. He's Bush's lap dog, at least thats how a lot of Briton's view him and thats not good.
- 87,832
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
danoff
Then why do you feel the need to cite the UN's Resolutions as reasons for your foreign military operations?
As I said, either agree with the UN and don't go to war, or disagree with them and do. But don't agree with them on the one hand and ignore them to go to war on the other. In the wonderful black or white rhetoric we often see in these parts, you're either part of it or not. If you are, you must abide by their decisions. If you are not, you cannot cite breach of their rules as a reason to breach their rules.
You may not agree that the US is subject to any external laws, but it is. It is subject, as a signatory, to that beast known as "International Law". And the International Court of Justice is part of... the UN. Whether or not I want to "control" the "world's only superpower" (though I'd imagine EU vs US would result in MAD) is irrelevant - and believe me when I say I couldn't care less.
Incidentally, if the US were to break UN Resolutions, would any other "sovereign" nation be entitled to deploy a military force - against the wishes of the UN - to ensure US compliance?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,110
- Mile High City
Because our agreement with Iraq was THROUGH the UN. The US did not make a separate treaty with Iraq to end the gulf war (to the best of my knowledge).
Note that I did not cite the most recent resolution the UN made against Iraq as a reason to go to war. I'm talking about the end of the first Gulf War - which I believe was negotiated with the UN rather than the US.
Once again it's very simple (the UN doesn't have to be part of the equation).
US (and others) went to war with Iraq to remove them from Kuwait.
US (and others) allowed Iraq to keep their country if they'd live up to certain terms.
They did not.
US does not allow them to keep their country.
The justification occurs in the invasion of Kuwait and the violation of cease fire terms.
Yes. They could justfiy an attack on us - not that they would get very far.
In the sense that other countries can decide to sanction us or go to war with us? Cetainly. Iin the sense that we are objectively right or wrong? No.
- 87,832
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
danoff
And that's the key. Nowhere in US legislature is there a paragraph which says anything close to "We agree to let Iraq stay as it is unless they kick off."
danoff
Yes, it was.
danoff
The UN DOES have to be part of the equation since the US is a signatory of the UN Security Council and everything above was carried out under the auspices of the UN Security Council. If the US wants to conduct its own foreign military campaigns why does it even need to be a part of the UN Security Council?
You are in it. You are bound by its terms since you agreed to those terms - every bit as much as Iraq agreed to the terms of the ceasefire to end Gulf War I (which, I'll note, never DID actually end). By detaching yourselves from the UN Security Council to restart a war whose cessation was negotiated by the UNSC's terms you are engaging in international vigilantism - along with a few other countries. Enforcing the terms agreed by the UNSC is the responsibility of the UNSC, and doing it because they won't, in contravention of their wishes and Article 51 of the UNSC, is illegal according to "International Law" however justified it may be.
danoff
That's sword-beating, and it's unnecessary. If it were to come down to it, do you honestly believe that the combined forces of the world wouldn't be able to force the US to back down, in military terms? If they couldn't, why has the US been forced, diplomatically, to back down before? Surely the US could ride roughshod over the world, seeing as it's "the world's only superpower"?
danoff
Which, of course, I said earlier. The war is justified. The US's primary reason, as quoted by you, is not justified. Neither was the UK's.
- 7,889
- SolidFro
- RRoDzaaah!
Famine
Yes, most of the world's forces would be destroyed within hours. I would suspect only China would put up much of a fight. China doesn't have a vehicle to carry out an attack against the US. Any long range attack would have to be done by missiles. Their large army means nothing if they're contained on the Asian continent.
No more war games for today.
- 87,832
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Famine
You over-estimate your military capabilities.
If you could wipe out "most of the world's forces" in hours, why did it take so long to reach Baghdad with the assistance of other countries? How can guerilla forces really provide any resistance to you? And, bluntly, how can terrorists with little funding or military capability of their own kill 3,000 of your citizens in your homeland despite alleged prior warnings of such an event?
Nevertheless, we're skewing wildly away from the point. Galloway was accused by the US Senate, without evidence, of doing something. Why?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,110
- Mile High City
I'm not convinced. Show me where in the UN charter it says that military action not initiated by the UN is illegal and in violation of UN rules. (I'm not saying you can't, I honestly want to see it)
It's a problem if you think the UN is somehow above the countries that comprise it. I do not. If a coalition of countries signs a treaty and one of them breaks it. All of them are entitled to take action (even if some wave that right). But that assumes that no one of them is more important than the other - which is how soverign nations have to be treated. You're basing your view from this notion that the UN is above the status of soverign nation.
The US is unable to occupy the world, but we could eliminate the world's ability to carry out a respectable assualt on our nation. China could not get its army onto US soil. An air attack would be eliminated quickly, a sea attack would be eliminated quickly.
We are vulnerable to a few methods of assualt. Terrorism, long range missiles, and economic. We're working on the long range missile issue. But you can't launch an ICBM if your launchpad is bombed... and you'll have trouble terrorising a country if its boarders are closed.
Honestly? It took us a while because we were attempting to minimize collateral damage and keep our soldiers safe. I still don't think it really took all that long - but we weren't fighting much of a resistance.
- 87,832
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
danoff
Not at all. I think the UN is weak, flawed, gutless and unwilling to do what is necessary.
I'm basing my view on the notion that you (not personally, obviously) signed the agreement to abide by the UNSC's rules. By breaking the rules you break the contract.
- 383
The rules are there for everyone, why would you expect others to uphold them if you go around breaking them when it suits you?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,110
- Mile High City
I see, so if I make a rule that says you can no longer say the word "if", will you abide by that rule? After all, rules are for everyone.
In that case, the UN should feel free to penalize us. But the US, as a party invovled in each UN treaty that it cooperates in, has a legitimate claim to enforce the agreement we personally took part in.
That means that if we personally agreed (as part of whatever group) that we would stop kicking the crap out of Iraq's forces if they would live up to certain standards - then we personally (even without the group) can enforce that agreement.
If we violate a UN treaty that we signed along the way - other countries should feel free to take the up with us.
danoff
- 87,832
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
danoff
Unilateral military action - unless in self-defence and "without time for deliberation" - is not permitted by the Charter of the UN. To which the US is a signatory.
It's all in or none. And the decision must be taken by the UNSC.
- 87,832
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Nope. "Several" countries decided to divorce themselves from the UNSC and engage in the war. Each of them breached the Charter by doing so because the war was not in self-defence and they took a little while to think through it.
Ironically, if you'd have just launched a nuke towards Baghdad on 9/11 (all other factors regarding Iraq's connection ignored), you'd have been within the reaches of the Charter. Which sounds a bit dim.
Out of interest, do you know what's required for the US to launch a nuke?
Ironically, if you'd have just launched a nuke towards Baghdad on 9/11 (all other factors regarding Iraq's connection ignored), you'd have been within the reaches of the Charter. Which sounds a bit dim.
Out of interest, do you know what's required for the US to launch a nuke?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,110
- Mile High City
Technically speaking or with approval from the UN?
But it was not a unilateral action and it was not without deliberation. I still don't see how even the UN claims that war is unacceptible (illegal) if it is not initiated by the UNSC.
If he does not agree with it...
