Two Things

>>I'm sorry...When you clean your house, do you clean the whole house all at once?
>>Or do you set priorities?
>>Oh, I'm sorry.
>>Maybe you can afford 1000 cleaning ladies, all waiting for you to blow a whistle so they can start cleaning at them same time.
>>Maybe you prefer not to clean your house at all.
>>I mean, after all, it's not fair to clean the dishes if the bathroom is dirty.
>>And you can't clean the bathroom if the livingroom needs vaccuumed.
>>My appologies to you sir.

It's funny, I dont think it's appropreiate to refer to such global environment as "your own house", you are actually cleaning somebody else's house for a price, and obviously u won't clean the house where u won't get any returns. My point is simple, killing Saddam is more of an long term investment for the US. Primary objective of this war is oil, secondary objective maybe to establish a more strong US influence world wide, the well being of the Iraqis probably came in at third or forth.

And to hell with Congo, it has no military or economic significance in the world so US is probably gonna send in a few peacekeeping rangers and probably give the country some food. This is reality.

>>So, you want the US to do everything huh!!!!
>>Why don't some other F****n country help out a little.
>>That would be nice; but I think whinning about the US is easier.

Other countries? gimme a break, which country in this world has military bases covering half the damn globe?
US is the one who wants to be involve in just about everything in the world.

Quote:

---

So, you want the US to do everything huh!!!!

Why don't some other F****n country help out a little

---

um...the US does arrogate to itself the desire to do everything where it is convenient...go to www.hrw.org and check it out yourself.

On that note there is an excellent article I thought is worth reading titled "Give Iraqis Justice Not a US Puppet Show"....on the hrw.org page also...

"Saddam Hussein and his henchmen have been responsible for murdering or "disappearing" some 225,000 Iraqis. Now that his dictatorship is crumbling, what is the best way to bring to justice the surviving members of his government who are responsible for these atrocities?

The Bush administration has proposed an "Iraqi-led" tribunal. It sounds wonderful in theory: Why not entrust the Iraqi people with pursuing the crimes committed against them?

In practice, though, Washington proposes to handpick the Iraqis from among its closest exile and opposition friends. This threatens to aggravate political tensions and undermine the rule of law. Only an internationally-led tribunal will have the independence, credibility, and legitimacy needed to see justice done.

At stake are not Iraq's alleged crimes against U.S. forces, such as executing prisoners of war or attacking troops while pretending to surrender. If the Pentagon can provide evidence of these crimes, no one would quarrel with its right to prosecute the perpetrators on its own.

But these offences pale in comparison with the atrocities that Saddam Hussein and his government committed against the Iraqi people: the so-called Anfal genocide of 1988 in which some 100,000 Kurdish men and boys were rounded up and executed, and entire Kurdish villages assaulted with chemical weapons; the suppression of the 1991 uprisings in the largely Kurdish north and Shia south; and the suppression of the Marsh Arabs in the mid-1990s.

In an ideal world, one would hand the prosecution of these atrocities to Iraqi judges and prosecutors. But there are only two potential sources of Iraqi jurists, and neither is promising. The first, judges and prosecutors who populated Saddam Hussein's brutal and arbitrary justice system, is hardly a source of independent, fair-minded professionals. The second comprises Iraqi jurists in exile, as well as Iraqis from communities historically repressed by the Baath Party who remained in the country. It will be an uphill battle for these people to show they are not so consumed by hatred of the former dictatorship they won't simply assume the guilt of the accused. Moreover, Washington's designees would likely be seen as puppets of Washington, rather than independent dispensers of justice.

A more prudent route would be to find an internationally-led justice process, modeled after the international tribunals set up for Rwanda and former Yugoslavia, perhaps in streamlined form. To facilitate Iraqi involvement, one could emulate the special court for Sierra Leone, which is dominated by international judges but has significant involvement of local jurists. To decide on which format, and to begin preserving and assembling evidence, the United Nations could establish an international commission of inquiry.

An internationally-run court is far more likely than an Iraqi-led tribunal to be seen as a step toward the rule of law rather than a continuation of arbitrary violence. This is essential in a country where, after decades of brutal dictatorship, there is an enormous temptation to summary score-settling. So why does the Bush administration press for a tribunal led by hand-picked Iraqis?

First, Washington wants to control the scope of the inquiry to prevent examination of U.S. conduct in Iraq. The Pentagon seems to have gone to great pains to avoid civilian casualties in most cases, but certain of its actions have been controversial under the laws of war, such as the use of cluster bombs, the targeting of civilian morale, and the way in which it has used lethal force in urban areas. The last thing the Pentagon wants is for an independent tribunal to examine its behaviour.

Second, the Bush administration wants to apply the death penalty in Iraq. Most democracies have abolished capital punishment, and international tribunals don't permit it. But Washington doesn't want to be denied the option.

Finally, and perhaps most important, the Bush administration and the Pentagon detest international justice. Their ideological antipathy toward the International Criminal Court (out of fear that it might focus on an American) has led to its presumptive dislike of any international tribunal.

None of these reasons speak to the needs of the Iraqi people, who deserve a fair accounting of the many cruelties they have endured, a credible process for bringing those responsible to justice, and a positive precedent for building the rule of law in their lawless state. An internationally-led judicial process is the Iraqi people's best bet for a more lawful and just future."


I have bolded points I think he hit on very well

http://www.imahosting.com/sigs/image6.gif

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zhelynd@10 April 2003 - 17:19
>>So, you want the US to do everything huh!!!!
>>Why don't some other F****n country help out a little.
>>That would be nice; but I think whinning about the US is easier.

Other countries? gimme a break, which country in this world has military bases covering half the damn globe?
US is the one who wants to be involve in just about everything in the world.

---

Ahhh...Then you DO want the US to do it all while you sit back and whine about it.

You know, you're as bad as My grandma.

She has never driven a car more than one day in her whole life and that day she ran into a house.

But she's very happy to sit in the passenger seat and tell everyone else how to drive.

Or that they don't deserve to have a license.

Zhelynd, I award you the BackSeat Driver of the year award!!!

:wacko:

Congratulations.

that may be true, ne1, but the US is the most powerful. shouldnt they take some responsibility?
i dunno...

So does that mean the US was right to have this war with or without UN approval?

If we should have the responsibility to do something about it just because we have the most powerful military, why should we need to have someone elses approval?

I am not sure if that is what you meant but it kinda sounded that way.

I personally think we should do what we can, at UN discretion and only with military support in some form from all member countries. Other countries should not say we should have done this or that if they are not willing to be a part of it.

And if we are going to be the ones that do it all, we definately should be doing it in an order that makes sense to our country.

But again, I do not think we should be taking it all on ourselves. We should be concentrating on making the idea of the UN work, especially if that means changing the way the UN works and giving each member an equal status when making decisions.

Then the world can decide what is best and reap the benefits of their decision or suffer the consequences together.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Z@10 April 2003 - 18:57
that may be true, ne1, but the US is the most powerful. shouldnt they take some responsibility?
i dunno...

---

Z,

What post were you replying to?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tracydani@11 April 2003 - 02:26
So does that mean the US was right to have this war with or without UN approval?

If we should have the responsibility to do something about it just because we have the most powerful military, why should we need to have someone elses approval?

I am not sure if that is what you meant but it kinda sounded that way.

I personally think we should do what we can, at UN discretion and only with military support in some form from all member countries. Other countries should not say we should have done this or that if they are not willing to be a part of it.

And if we are going to be the ones that do it all, we definately should be doing it in an order that makes sense to our country.

But again, I do not think we should be taking it all on ourselves. We should be concentrating on making the idea of the UN work, especially if that means changing the way the UN works and giving each member an equal status when making decisions.

Then the world can decide what is best and reap the benefits of their decision or suffer the consequences together.

---

Traci,

I'm not sure who you were replying to but just as a side note, I wanted to be sure you were aware that the UN was a US idea.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm

You'll note that the Charter was based on proposals by 4 countries.
The US was one of them.

It was signed and ratified in 1945 but it had existed since 1942 when 26 nations agreed to fight together against the Axis of Evil.

The Geneva conventions of war have been around for awhile but the last additions were in 1977. In light of recent events, I think it needs to be reevaluated.
http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Both were designed in a time when war was declared, there were no terrorists, (not in any organized sense, unless you counted the school bully and his gang of toadies), and two countries had just been foiled in their plans for world domination.

The conventions were designed to protect from such attrocities as those perpetrated by the nazi's and the Japanese on our soldiers and the Jewish people.

The UN came about from a recognition that if the world remained a world of individual countries, it would be easy prey again to the next dictator with designs to dominate it.

Terrorism was not considered as a viable threat.

Also, the UN weapons inspectors could not have ever found WMD because it seems they were housed in mobile units.

Oh, and possibly weapons grade plutonium underground in heavy water filled containers.

Its time to redefine the purpose of the UN and possibly do a few revisions to the Geneva Conventions.

I mean, terrorism has become an act of war. That MUST be addressed.

As to your question...

I'm sure you're familiar with young love...

Two young people who are so in love with each other that they decide to get married.

They asked for the girl's parents' permission.

They are going to get married anyway because they feel its the right thing to do.

It will be easier though with their parents' blessings and support.

I'm not trying to say the US wanted to elope with Iraq, :huh: but the analogy is valid.

Peace

I agree that the UN needs to be re-organised, but that can only be done if all countries actually complie with the treaties, otherwise we might as well forget the whole concept...like we did with the League of Nations.

It has been said, the USA is the most powerful country in the world, and it has over half of the worlds GDP in its economy....if the USA wont abide by the treaties, why should anyone else? Because they say so?



I would disagree with this statement though....

Quote:

---

Both were designed in a time when war was declared, there were no terrorists, (not in any organized sense, unless you counted the school bully and his gang of toadies), and two countries had just been foiled in their plans for world domination.

---

Just because the USA had not experianced terrorism, does not mean it was not around before September 11th.

Ask just about any other country in the world.....terrorism has been around for a long time, or is it only terrorism when its directed at USA?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zhelynd@10 April 2003 - 23:19
>>So, you want the US to do everything huh!!!!
>>Why don't some other F****n country help out a little.
>>That would be nice; but I think whinning about the US is easier.

Other countries? gimme a break, which country in this world has military bases covering half the damn globe?
US is the one who wants to be involve in just about everything in the world.

---

It seems to me; from your comment that the US is the only nation in a position
to do something about it and it is doing it.

So, what&#39;s the problem again? <_<