Forums Loading, stand by... HOME

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

Re: So, we need a topic...Lets try this?

Posted By: Doom (207.239.12.200)
Date: 6/4/2003 at 10:42 a.m.

In Response To: Re: So, we need a topic...Lets try this? (Phil)

Hrmm. A topic upon which Phil and I can almost agree? Well, there goes the world. Nice knowing you all.

: Warning: Long Post Ahead.

: As far as threats against our country, the UN doesn't
: look kindly on ousting a leader because we don't like
: his policies. I'm just dubious since there are so many
: dictators in oil-poor countries that we never touch,
: but many threats in oil-rich countries that only
: conquest and occupation can solve.

: What the U.N. doesn't look kindly upon is the breaking of
: International Law, and I can't say that I blame them.

This is true, Phil; however, you neglected to mention another significant factor on the U.N.'s decision, the major countries of Europe. Unfortunately for the world, European politics can often take a form of being somewhat anti-U.S. -- which is understandable, since, after having been what they considered the center of the civilized world for about a millenium and a half, it does seem natural to be slightly resentful towards a country that in little more than two centuries has not only usurped that position, but made them look rather laughable in comparison (in terms of economy, military, etc. I'm not going to start a discussion on more subjective matters). Thus, many of the major European countries, especially France, like to take an opposing view to the U.S., and whether they actually care about international laws and regulations or not becomes rather secondary. And, though they may not be quite as influential as the U.S., their word still carries a lot of weight in the U.N. I'm not disagreeing with you here, just adding a point that deserves some consideration as well.

: Under the United Nations Charter there are only two
: provisions that allow for one nation to usurp the
: sovereign authority of, and invade another. The first
: is if the Security Council decides that it is in the
: best interest of the U.N. to do so, and grants its
: permission. This is what we had during the first Gulf
: War, but lacked during this outing. The second
: provision allows for a nation that feels another poses
: an eminent threat to engage preemptively. It was our
: claim that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (a vague
: term in and of itself) posed this eminent threat. This
: claim is wearing thin.

Unfortunately, one of the best ways for a new leader, that, like Bush, was rather unpopular when first voted in, to make himself a fixture is a nice little war. It draws the hatred of the people who didn't want him in away. The Afghanistan thing was perfectly understandable; however, the Iraq thing was riding a little too much on the momentum of the last, combined with this fact. I believe that Iraq probably did have some weapons of mass destruction, or at the least would have had them in the next ten years; I also think that a war of some kind was inevitable, and to strike first is to be the most prepared. I don't, however, think that America needed to go about doing it quite the way it did, or the time that it did.

: There is one more situation in which a nation can legally
: invade another, and that is if the Sovereign of a
: nation, through choice or action, revokes his
: sovereignty. The quickest way to do this is by
: committing specific war crimes, i.e. "crimes
: against humanity." The most notable of which is
: ethnic cleansing or genocide. If a mad despot were to
: commit an act of genocide (let's say, the gassing of
: 50,000 Kurds for example) he would immediately revoke
: his sovereignty and be eligible to stand trial before
: the International Criminal Court for war crimes. Under
: international law any nation that is aware that a
: crime against humanity is being committed is legally
: obligated to intervene and put an end to it. Often
: times this means invasion with the goal of dismantling
: the force committing the crimes and the apprehension
: or termination of those responsible. This was the goal
: of the U.N. coalition in Bosnia.

One of the things I hate most about the Iraqi war is the people who are against it simply because they don't like Bush. That's not a good reason for ignoring the deaths of tens of thousands of people. I also don't like the levels of hypocrisy in the US government, nor the fact that they decided that they thought it necessary to use the pretext of the eminent threat. But then, we live in a democracy; what can you expect?

: All this leads to a simple question, "why then,
: would the U.S. hide behind the eminent threat
: provision instead of simply making an accusation of
: genocide? Surely even Europe couldn’t argue that it
: was wrong to put an end to genocide?"
: Unfortunately the answer is more complicated. The U.S.
: (and Europe for its part) hate to accuse another
: nation of committing genocide and will avoid it at all
: costs. If a country recognizes an act of genocide in
: one nation, it has to recognize the same acts as
: genocide in all nations. A country that recognizes
: genocide essentially volunteers to be the world's
: police force, a costly job. And, sadly, you hit the
: nail on the head about the oil-poor countries. Why
: would even a country like the U.S., one that has the
: capability to do the job, want to police a bunch of
: third-world countries the effectively offer it nothing
: in return? What's more, pursuing war criminals would
: require the U.S. to recognize the authority of the
: ICC, something it's loath to do as a number prominent
: U.S. individuals *cough*Kissinger*cough* might find
: themselves facing war crimes charges.

Although the US certainly can't truthfully deny that they are, indeed, holding out on booting out other, poorer dictators for their own benefit, there is a practical reason why they don't go to those countries; as you said, they don't want to end up as a police force, and thus cannot make any kind of what could be considered valid points as to invading oil-poor countries to the UN concerning those first two reasons. Approval by the Security Council? Too much bickering. Eminent threat? What in the world, save nuclear and chemical weapons, poses any kind of threat to the most militarily powerful nation on Earth? And as those oil-poor countries are so oil-poor, and they generally don't have much of an economy anyway, they obviously can't even afford to fund the creation of weapons of mass destruction.

I'd write more, but I have no time. Cyas.

Messages In This Thread

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

For your own future enjoyment, please report any major forum abusers or cgi errors so we can remedy the problem. If you have any questions email us.

The Asylum

The Asylum is maintained by Myth Admin with WebBBS 5.12.