Originally posted by xmarksthespot
[B]Umm this thread isn't about guns. We don't sell guns in supermarkets here, we have less violent crime. Correlation and causation? Perhaps, perhaps not.
Anyway the thread is about Africa, U.N. and U.S. apparently.
All I'm saying is is that they have no right to impose on U.S. sovereignty or our Constitution, OR telling us who can and can't have what. I was just adding to the further list of follies that point to the UN and their attempts to kill a headache by cutting off the head. Anyhow back to the topic.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't mean to single out the U.S., it does do a lot for the world, but Americans should realise their country has been no angel on the world stage.
Oboy, here we go again, the old "Well you did some for the world, BUT..."
Who said we were angels? At least the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay didn't wind up with their heads cut off with the videos sent home to their parents to permanently traumatize them..
Oh and as far as the UN's "good deeds" go, you might want to include them seeing 9-11 as no reason for action, and their little Oil For Food deals AND their bending of the rules on UN Resolution 1441:
Unconditional inspection of Iraqi palaces regardless of the presence of American weapons inspectors.
Every time American inspectors were present Saddam would complain, and the UN would find a way to complain about bias, and make deals with the UN to buy his way out of the law they agreed to enforce, while Saddam used the bought time to shuffle his goods around in those convenient little 24-72 hour periods when he would shut the palaces and then reopen them.
1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Affirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Affirms the rights of the Palestinians.
They never put any pressure on Yassir Arafat to do anything about the extremists though, did they? As long as Arafat would say "I condemn this" each and every time something happened in the Gaza strip, everything was fine......
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Oboy, here we go again, the old "Well you did some for the world, BUT..."
Who said we were angels? At least the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay didn't wind up with their heads cut off with the videos sent home to their parents to permanently traumatize them..
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Oh and as far as the UN's "good deeds" go, you might want to include them seeing 9-11 as no reason for action, and their little Oil For Food deals AND their bending of the rules on UN Resolution 1441:
Unconditional inspection of Iraqi palaces regardless of the presence of American weapons inspectors.
Every time American inspectors were present Saddam would complain, and the UN would find a way to complain about bias, and make deals with the UN to buy his way out of the law they agreed to enforce, while Saddam used the bought time to shuffle his goods around in those convenient little 24-72 hour periods when he would shut the palaces and then reopen them.
Donald Rumsfeld shakes hands with Saddam Hussein, 1983.
"1984, U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iranian draft resolution seeking UN Security Council condemnation of Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq requests to the U.S. preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests."
Obviously Saddam's complaints are incredibly persuasive then huh? He manages to sway both the US and according to you the UN too.
"The oil-for-food programme was derived from the US-sponsored Security Council resolution, passed in April 1995 but not implemented until December 1996. During this time, the CIA sponsored two coup attempts against Saddam, the second, most famously, a joint effort with the British that imploded in June 1996, at the height of the "oil for food" implementation negotiations. The oil-for-food programme was never a sincere humanitarian relief effort, but rather a politically motivated device designed to implement the true policy of the United States - regime change."
"Through various control mechanisms, the United States and Great Britain were able to turn on and off the flow of oil as they saw best. In this way, the Americans were able to authorise a $1bn exemption concerning the export of Iraqi oil for Jordan, as well as legitimise the billion-dollar illegal oil smuggling trade over the Turkish border, which benefited NATO ally Turkey"
"Likewise, using its veto-wielding powers on the 661 Committee, set up in 1990 to oversee economic sanctions against Iraq, the United States was able to block billions of dollars of humanitarian goods legitimately bought by Iraq under the provisions of the oil-for-food agreement."
"It has been estimated that 80 per cent of the oil illegally smuggled out of Iraq under "oil for food" ended up in the United States."
"United States had made it clear - through successive statements by James Baker, George W Bush and Madeleine Albright - that economic sanctions, linked to Iraq's disarmament obligation, would never be lifted even if Iraq fully complied and disarmed, until Saddam Hussein was removed from power."
Scott Ritter, Independent
BTW remind me again how many banned weapons and WMDs were found in Iraq.
Oh and post 9-11 "UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1368 (2001), whilst the General Assembly adopted Resolution 56/1,[4] which unequivocally condemned the attack and began a process of dealing with the threat of international terrorism. Resolution 1368 emphasised that states have right to self-defence as stipulated under Article 51 of the Charter, whilst also calling on the international community to work together to counter the new menace."
Did the IRA's militant actions and attempt to assassinate Margaret Thatcher warrant a war on terror? No, of course not, because terrorism only began to exist after the 9-11 attacks. Just like WWII only began after the bombing of Pearl Harbour.
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
They never put any pressure on Yassir Arafat to do anything about the extremists though, did they? As long as Arafat would say "I condemn this" each and every time something happened in the Gaza strip, everything was fine......
Israel is a member nation of the United Nations. The PA under the title "Palestine" has "observer" status only in the United Nations.
The difference is one is due to the actions of a nation's army, the other is due to the actions of militant groups. The UN can act against the former but how does one expect it to act against the latter?
The PA do not govern a nation, most of their infrastructure is destroyed, their people have an unemployment rate estimate between 40-70%. What exactly did anyone really expect Arafat - an old man confined to a small compound - to do without the Israeli Administration's cooperation. Any power he had was purely symbolic.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Wow, well thank you for that illuminating report, Captain Obvious.For one, the fact that america still holds Africa in debit is a pretty good indication of how much help they are receiving. Also, enlighten us with some reports and figures.
Second, no shit sherlock, sudan is rich in resources. I wonder why the conflict in sudan occured to begin with.
Perhaps the fact that Arabia is involved in the war has something to do with bush not having any part in it, or yeah it could be something else.
Also, what are your thoughts on Derfur. You told us everything apart from the reply to the OP.
links, facts and figures i posted on Africa can be found in the G8 thread if your interested
im sure you can find it all by yourself
as for the situation in Darfur
the situation is complex in Sudan..its seems the Government has decided to pick another fight now that the civik war in southern Sudan between the Islamic government and oppressed Christian factions...
now it seems they are going down the race route as oppossed to the religion route
like i also stated before...its frankly not as simple as going in and forcing the government militarily from what they are doing in Darfur because of the political involvment of China (China and Russia rejected any attempts to impose sanctions around Sudan's petroleum industry)
the political situation gets more complex when you consider that Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda and Kenya all support opposition groups in Sudan financially , logistically and militarily...not to mentio the US hepled financially as well
many nations can be accused of turning a blind eye but it was the US that proposed for 10,000 UN peacekeepers to be sent in
but the civil war itself is more likely to be a result of the way the British ran Sudan as a colony...namely to separate north and south
and the latest event doesn't help the situation either...namely John Gerang...the vice president of Sudan who was a leader of the opposition during the civil war...dieing in a helicopter crash
happy now?
Re: Genocide in Darfur
Not only Darfur.
And most of the ethnic cleansing that takes place is simply done through starvation and disease. Prior to the tidal waves that wreaked havoc in countries like Thailand, India, Sumatra, Ethiopia, Indonesia etc. , the Darfur conflict was priorotised as the worst current humanitarian crisis in the world.
Not much was done by the UN due to the fact that key members forming it, are constrained in their ability to react both to the conflict both pragmatically and ideologically.
The Russian goverment, with its weakened economy, struggles to meet its internal security dillemas in light of its persistant border conflicts, while the United States force deployments in Iraq and elsewhere, coupled to a recurring recruiting shortages for its armed forces, make intervention a numeric impossibility.
Moreover, in both of these nations, along with Britian and France, a strong lobby exists opposed to intervention in countries whose internal strife is not clearly related to the nation's own interest (America and France having suffered demoralizing losses in Vietnam, as well as in Somalia and Algeria, respectively).
A precedent to this effect has been established by the lack of a capable contigent of foreign peace keepers during the troubles in both Rwanda and Liberia.
While it is likely that there will be some accountability for those who have engaged in war crimes and crimes against humanity in the region on all sides of the conflict, it is not yet clear whether the mechanism by which such prosecution will be made will be either via the International Criminal Court, or through an ad hoc tribual as was used at Nuremburg, and following the ethnic conflicts in Rwanda and in the balkans.
The current Bush administration has stated explicitly that its remains opposed to the ICC, and supports the special tribunal mechanism as a general principal.
Conclusion: Before a decision may be taken, implemented and most of all, have its goals achieved, hundreds of thousands are bound to suffer death through bullets, starvation and disease.
Re: Re: Genocide in Darfur
Originally posted by GCG
Not only Darfur.And most of the ethnic cleansing that takes place is simply done through starvation and disease. Prior to the tidal waves that wreaked havoc in countries like Thailand, India, Sumatra, Ethiopia, Indonesia etc. , the Darfur conflict was priorotised as the worst current humanitarian crisis in the world.
Not much was done by the UN due to the fact that key members forming it, are constrained in their ability to react both to the conflict both pragmatically and ideologically.The Russian goverment, with its weakened economy, struggles to meet its internal security dillemas in light of its persistant border conflicts, while the United States force deployments in Iraq and elsewhere, coupled to a recurring recruiting shortages for its armed forces, make intervention a numeric impossibility.
Moreover, in both of these nations, along with Britian and France, a strong lobby exists opposed to intervention in countries whose internal strife is not clearly related to the nation's own interest (America and France having suffered demoralizing losses in Vietnam, as well as in Somalia and Algeria, respectively).
A precedent to this effect has been established by the lack of a capable contigent of foreign peace keepers during the troubles in both Rwanda and Liberia.While it is likely that there will be some accountability for those who have engaged in war crimes and crimes against humanity in the region on all sides of the conflict, it is not yet clear whether the mechanism by which such prosecution will be made will be either via the International Criminal Court, or through an ad hoc tribual as was used at Nuremburg, and following the ethnic conflicts in Rwanda and in the balkans.
The current Bush administration has stated explicitly that its remains opposed to the ICC, and supports the special tribunal mechanism as a general principal.
[b]Conclusion:
Before a decision may be taken, implemented and most of all, have its goals achieved, hundreds of thousands are bound to suffer death through bullets, starvation and disease. [/B]
good post 🙂
Posted by Xmarksthe spot:
You're not taking into account the context of either action. Both are violations of international law, however they are not comparable acts. One is being committed by the elected Administration of the world's only hyperpower. The other is a deplorable act of violence committed by terrorist groups.
Violations of International Law...well hey, I don't hear Amnesty International saying anything about Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, or anyone else who was beheaded while they were alive and screaming, or the multiple car bombs in Iraq, BUT they'll get everyone in Hollywood and La La Land to complain about the atrocities of "the world's only hyperpower."
Bottom line, I don't wanna hear it. The street runs both ways.
How much pressure does the U.S. put on Israel? None. Pressure is constantly and consistently put on the Palestinian Authority to reform and to reign in on the militant factions. The militant factions are condemned, but the UN passing resolutions against militant factions is pointless.
So what is Israel supposed to do? Sit back and let another holocaust take place? They're fighting back to make sure that dosen't happen again. It's called survival of the fittest.
Passing resolutions on militant forces makes sense though, because in a way it's the political answer to the way police make gang activity illegal, and Hamas, in essence, IS a gang--they have black market weapons, recruiting drives, and low intelligence and a bunch of wannabe's just waiting to be the next big cheese. So what's the difference between them and a gang?
This is basically the equivalent of the LA hoods, where the law and the thugs are battling it out. It's not so hard to see. There can only be one winner. It's not OK for Israel to have weapons but God be praised when that new shipment of AK's comes in...
The oil-for-food programme was never a sincere humanitarian relief effort, but rather a politically motivated device designed to implement the true policy of the United States - regime change."
And Saddam never gave the food to his people either, and contributed to their starvation. Perhaps you saw the warehouses loaded with UN food boxes on one special report after the major battles were over in 2003? And the countless reports of abuse and torture from former prisoners of the Republican Guard. Not to mention a guy who spent 12 years in jail for going out of country to buy milk for his family because Saddam had a ban on dairy products save for his family...millions of Iraqis made all of this up, right?
Regime change you say? Why not? Based on how he abused his people, ask yourself how keeping Saddam in power would have done any good either?
Through various control mechanisms, the United States and Great Britain were able to turn on and off the flow of oil as they saw best. In this way, the Americans were able to authorise a $1bn exemption concerning the export of Iraqi oil for Jordan, as well as legitimise the billion-dollar illegal oil smuggling trade over the Turkish border, which benefited NATO ally Turkey.
Yeah and Saddam made over 2 billion a year despite the sanctions and the smuggling he complained "hurt" him, and despite this thievery you speak of, it seemed that Saddam lived pretty well depsite the losses and abuse he claims to have suffered. Did you see any of his people living in 2 billion dollar palaces?
Turkey deserved the oil, after what Saddam did to the Kurds. Saddam was a thief and a scumbag, and you're complaining because someone ripped HIM off for once to benefit someone else whom he victimized?
Saddam's free ride was coming to an end anyway. And he owed the people around him for what he did to them, and we helped them get it.
Your point?
If you don't refute a point I've brought up am I to assume you concede on that matter, you seem to selectively quoting what suits your points or taking things without associated context from my posts.
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Violations of International Law...well hey, I don't hear Amnesty International saying anything about Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, or anyone else who was beheaded while they were alive and screaming, or the multiple car bombs in Iraq, BUT they'll get everyone in Hollywood and La La Land to complain about the atrocities of "the world's only hyperpower."
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
So what is Israel supposed to do? Sit back and let another holocaust take place? They're fighting back to make sure that dosen't happen again. It's called survival of the fittest.
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Passing resolutions on militant forces makes sense though, because in a way it's the political answer to the way police make gang activity illegal, and Hamas, in essence, IS a gang--they have black market weapons, recruiting drives, and low intelligence and a bunch of wannabe's just waiting to be the next big cheese. So what's the difference between them and a gang?
This is basically the equivalent of the LA hoods, where the law and the thugs are battling it out. It's not so hard to see. There can only be one winner. It's not OK for Israel to have weapons but God be praised when that new shipment of AK's comes in...
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
And Saddam never gave the food to his people either, and contributed to their starvation. Perhaps you saw the warehouses loaded with UN food boxes on one special report after the major battles were over in 2003? And the countless reports of abuse and torture from former prisoners of the Republican Guard. Not to mention a guy who spent 12 years in jail for going out of country to buy milk for his family because Saddam had a ban on dairy products save for his family...millions of Iraqis made all of this up, right?
Regime change you say? Why not? Based on how he abused his people, ask yourself how keeping Saddam in power would have done any good either?
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Yeah and Saddam made over 2 billion a year despite the sanctions and the smuggling he complained "hurt" him, and despite this thievery you speak of, it seemed that Saddam lived pretty well depsite the losses and abuse he claims to have suffered. Did you see any of his people living in 2 billion dollar palaces?
Turkey deserved the oil, after what Saddam did to the Kurds. Saddam was a thief and a scumbag, and you're complaining because someone ripped HIM off for once to benefit someone else whom he victimized?
Saddam's free ride was coming to an end anyway. And he owed the people around him for what he did to them, and we helped them get it.
Originally posted by jaden101
so your just another hypocrit who is for one war but against another...is that it?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If you don't refute a point I've brought up am I to assume you concede on that matter, you seem to selectively quoting what suits your points or taking things without associated context from my posts.
Is it something in the water in the States that makes you think that blind faith in your Administration is good? Is it treason to look at your government objectively and question it's actions? Do you think I'm personally criticising you when I criticise the actions of your Administration? Patriotism is nice and all but if it's to the extent where you can't look at who runs your country and say "you shouldn't be doing that" then it goes against democracy, no?
Did you not read the quote correctly. Turkey was complicit in oil smuggling. The US legitimised this and illegal oil trade to Jordan. Estimated 80% of the illegal oil ended up in the US. the The US was complicit in illegal oil trade when it was advantageous regardless of where the money went.
the finger of blame cannot be pointed solely at the US for this...the reason France and Russia both opposed the war was that they had already recieved payments from Saddams regime to actively try and get the UN imposed sanctions against iraq lifted because they had already signed illegal oil deals with iraq...not to mention the fact that as gesture of reward to their actions in trying to get the sanctions lifted...they would be getting oil at below market prices...which is also illegal
hence it can be argued that that it was the nations that were opposed to the war that were interested in the oil...and never gave a second thought to the people of iraq
and i dont think we need to bring up kofi annans sons links to illicit oil deals that were contradictary to the oil for food programme
*Addressing quotes and rebuttals by Xmarksthespot*
you don't refute a point I've brought up am I to assume you concede on that matter, you seem to selectively quoting what suits your points or taking things without associated context from my posts.
No concession. I just see things differently. Your views are yours and mine are mine. No sense fighitng with each other over it. And how many times have you or others here or any other boards taken selective quotes and other things "w\o associated context"? Hearing only what we want to hear, happens every day and we're all guilty.
But to show you I have some intelligence, I will try to answer your facts and opinions with my own and at the end of the day it's only an opinion.
That said, here we go:
In other words: They do bad things too, why can't I?
You do realise you're comparing the lack of adherence to the law of an elected Administration and the lack of adherence to law of individual murderers.
Only one side is being looked at as evil...and the day I hear Amnesty International and similar groups condemn the Al Qaeda beheadings and the kidnappings of people who had nothing to do with their war, then I will think differently. Since when do individual murderers get preferred status among civil rights groups?
Prewar Iraq there were not daily bombing attacks in Iraq. The country had a stable power and water supply, which they do not now. They had some semblance of infrastructure and economy which they do not now.
Agreed. But it's the actions of AL Qaeda in Iraq and not the actions of the Coalition that is causing this...what would happen if Iraq became stable and Al Qaeda's jobs were on the line because people realized that their answer to things wasn't the right one? Of course they're going to participate in calculated interference because they'll do anything to promote their agenda and exert their influence because peace is a
threat to their jobs. It's gonna get worse before it gets better (IF it gets better, I'll agree with you on that.) Point well taken.
Did you not read the quote correctly. Turkey was complicit in oil smuggling. The US legitimised this and illegal oil trade to Jordan. Estimated 80% of the illegal oil ended up in the US. the The US was complicit in illegal oil trade when it was advantageous regardless of where the money went.
I see your point, and you're saying that we allowed illegal oil in return for funding the smugglers, who perhaps wound up using that money for their terror cells, thru your statement of concern for "where the money went." I understand you, but what I'm saying is this is probably nothing compared to the money that the Saudis give to the underground terror network they have been funding all along but are too blind to admit.
One deal as compared to a lifetime of support for religion inspired terror. Dosen't make it right, but how many illegal activities have the Arabs engaged in over the years? I suppose that's ok though...
Does the United States intend to enact regime change in every country where people are suffering or oppressed. Burma? Zimbabwe... oh wait that serves no strategic function? Maybe Uzbekistan... oh wait that wouldn't suit the Administration's "outsourcing"? Are they going to force the House of Saud out of power... oh wait that's where most of the US oil imports come from?
Yeah well apparently there's not enough "World Police" to go around. That's why the UN was supposed to be our reserve force. What's wrong with them getting off their asses and risking the lives of their "peacekeepers" for once instead of letting them sit by as observers every time someone becomes a victim of the violence they so openly condemn?
As to Africa, I think you're forgetting that 17 U.S. Army Rangers died trying to get food to Somalis despite the fact that their thugs turned the entire country against us. We sent American Marines to Haiti a while back. We can't be everywhere,and where the govt. decides to do policing is not in my control or anyone else's...
BTW Is it OK for the Israeli Government to have nuclear weapons?
Is it OK for Iran, the birthplace of Islamic radicalism, to be pursuing nuclear programs? You think they wouldn't use them? They'd love to..you know it and I know it.
Hizballah is a political party in Lebanon. Hamas provide social services in the West Bank and Gaza.
I'm well aware of who they are, don't think I'm THAT uninformed.
Social services? Yes I'm sure they'll continue to provide bomb vests and subscriptions to Jihad monthly and continue to do so until they can no longer...oh and let's not mention possible forcible conscription of the only son of every family in order to fill their ranks. You know it happens..blind loyalty in return for their social 'services.'
I do not support many of the actions taken by the Israeli Army, and the lack of scrutiny of the deaths of civilians.
Fair enough, and neither do I, but tell that to AL Qaeda in Iraq, who killed nearly 2000 civilians in their car bomb attacks in the past 2 years. Everyone bitches about the Israel\Palestinian and the American allegations, but the yet the extremists in Iraq are seen as freedom fighters taking down the great American war machine and everyone supports them to compensate for their own feelings of helplessness against "the system" or "The Establishment" to quote some of America's finest pipe dreaming Utopians...1969 all over again.
Yes indeed, X. Selective quoting and the tools implemented to reinforce the opinions born of them are used to daily advantage. You made your point, and based on that I hope you are mature enough to realize that that's the way it is. Dosen't make it right, but who said life was fair?
From the general world viewpoint I guess America is supposed to sit back and allow cold blooded killers to dictate their policy as well as the world's in general, as the threats to Denmark and other countries recently made by Al Zawahiri point out. Sorry, wrong answer.
Anyway back to the topic: Darfur and S. Africa and the alleged underuse of American power to do anything to stop it. In other words, America is directly responsible for it,and nothing we do will improve our image because we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Gotcha'. Have a nice day.
Originally posted by jaden101
the finger of blame cannot be pointed solely at the US for this...the reason France and Russia both opposed the war was that they had already recieved payments from Saddams regime to actively try and get the UN imposed sanctions against iraq lifted because they had already signed illegal oil deals with iraq...not to mention the fact that as gesture of reward to their actions in trying to get the sanctions lifted...they would be getting oil at below market prices...which is also illegalhence it can be argued that that it was the nations that were opposed to the war that were interested in the oil...and never gave a second thought to the people of iraq
and i dont think we need to bring up kofi annans sons links to illicit oil deals that were contradictary to the oil for food programme
BINGO, there you go. Now what was this about America being the only oil greedy nation?
And this ties into Darfur and other places that the UN could
have helped, as was the original topic of the thread. BUT the UN didn't because of the role of their peacekeepers as observers instead of active military peace enforcers. They'd rather sit and practice non violence instead of risking the lives of one of their soldiers doing the job they were sent to be doing.
Yeah the US might be World Police headquarters, but the sherrif's dept. isn't doing anyhting remarkable either...
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Yes indeed, X. Selective quoting and the tools implemented to reinforce the opinions born of them are used to daily advantage. You made your point, and based on that I hope you are mature enough to realize that that's the way it is. Dosen't make it right, but who said life was fair?From the general world viewpoint I guess America is supposed to sit back and allow cold blooded killers to dictate their policy as well as the world's in general, as the threats to Denmark and other countries recently made by Al Zawahiri point out. Sorry, wrong answer.
Anyway back to the topic: Darfur and S. Africa and the alleged underuse of American power to do anything to stop it. In other words, America is directly responsible for it,and nothing we do will improve our image because we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Gotcha'. Have a nice day.