Posted by Phoebus Apollo on 3/28/2003, 3:37 am, in reply to "Re: War on Iraq" The authority granted to the coalition forces by international law is enforced by the United Nations. First of all, I do not respect the U.N.'s right to create and rule on such "international law" - it derides the national sovereignty of all nations involved. Secondly, this law was created under the duress of Iraq, which means that by no means did Iraq consent to such a policy, and by no means (as a sovereign nation of the world) should it be forced by anyone to abide by it. Thirdly, I have heard of no contention that the cease-fire was broken, which means that even if it was, it is not being used as a justification for this war, and thus it plays little to no part in any argument justifying it. Lastly, the U.N. did not sanction this particular war, and without a U.N. sanction we cannot use a U.N. cease-fire ruling to justify the war. In short, this "international law", which is not envoked, gives no moral or just cause for the war (not that I recognize the U.N. as a moral or just agency to make such a decision in the first place). In Portland, do most of the protesters who break the law insist on being arrested? Many of the protestors simply left. They did not turn themselves in or seek to attempt to. Their only purpose was to shut down the downtown area and force the news media to recognize their socialistic aims. They went well beyond the traditional bounds of "civil disobedience" by being violent towards police (one rioter threw acid in the face of a cop) and damaging local businesses (a park bench was thrown through a McDonalds window). You can bet no one will stand to trail for any of these acts. Hell, at times they threatened their own lives and the lives of others by running out into the freeway to bar incoming traffic. Totally unacceptable. Personally, I don't have any problem with lawful expression of political opinion, or even civil disobedience(true civil disobedience, where the civil disobeyer insists upon being arrested and tried in court). Just because I think it should be legal to voice an opinion doesn't mean I will/won't voice dissent with that opinion if I believe it's wrong. And I do not believe it should've been legal to do what the rioters in downtown Portland did a few days ago. They blockaded our roads, damaged our downtown businesses, hurt numerous people, committed acts of vandalism, and it's detestable. Whether they are "voicing their opinion" or not, I have a problem with such violent behavior. However, they must realize that the right of political protest is what they're bringing to Iraq, and we must, therefore, accept it ourselves. I mean, there's nothing great about tolerating opinion with which we agree. I don't think we should "accept" it. When it comes to peaceful protest, we should allow it to be legal, sure. But that does not mean that even if the protest is legal we should "accept" the viewpoint those protestors bring. Protestors can sometimes be the most stupid, zealous, misinformed group of people on the planet, peaceful or not. We shouldn't idly accept them for any of these qualities. I don't know how he really thinks of such things in his heart of hearts. Saddam is insane, simply put, his battle plans are probably intentionally erratic, so I'm not going to make any major guesses. He may or may not even HAVE WMD's to find and use. Speaking of which, I've never heard someone define what a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is. Is Mustard Gas a WMD? It's a chemical weapon we were exposed to during the Gulf War. We talk about chemical weaponry like it's WMD, but I can't think of many chemical weapons that actually would compare to a full scale nuclear blast. I don't have a clue. Personally, I'm indifferent to whether or not we find these weapons, I just care if we 1) are exposed to them and 2) get Saddam out of power decisively and swiftly. Anything else is really extraneous, in my opinion. Eventually, they'll have to come to the conclusion that resentment is not a plan; that their humiliation is the fault of their kleptocratic fascist buffoon leaders; that liberal democratic capitalism is the only hope they have to take their rightful place among the family of nations. Nazi Germany did it. Imperial Japan did it. And if they did it, anyone can. I'm afraid this war is only going to draw ire on free-market constitutional republics. Right now I've relegated myself to hoping that the Iraqis do come to appreciate what we're trying to do, however misconcieved the intention might've been.
12.231.181.132
This is something I've been wondering about. I had been given to understand that the cease-fire which ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991 provided for the the coalition's right to patrol the no-fly zones etc. That, in effect, under international law, Iraq authorized it's own invasion when they broke the cease-fire which they had signed.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread