Gross, I the reason why I accused Annan of impurity that hasn't happened yet is because I wanted to illustrate the outrageousness of you accusing the United States of future illegal actions. I totally respect Kofi Annan as an idealist. I believe that the comparison to Mother Teresa is a good one, and like Mother Teresa, Kofi Annan should work to aid people in need of food and medicine. As great of a woman as Mother Teresa was however, I would not have wanted her to control an entire country. She was a humanitarian, not a politican. Same with Mr. Annan. As much as I respect his humanitarian work, I do not believe that he would succeed in setting up a stable democracy in Iraq. First, he would be operating with his hands tied behind his back by the Security Council, who would not be able to agree on anything. Second, even if was given the freedom of action that would be required, he is too kind of a soul. Kofi Anan is the ultimate compromiser and would not be able to make the hard decisions that are needed to make in such a volitile region. Whether the U.S. or U.N. control the country, there will be resistance from both remaining Saddam loyalists and different factions who want a bigger piece of the pie. Because of these circumstances, the only logical choice would be for the U.S., UK, Japan, Australia, South Korea and others who are willing to join in the efforts to rebuild the country. Kofi Annan would do a very good job making sure the basic needs of the Iraqi people are met and that aid gets too them.
About my "love" of Dubbya. I have never respected him as a self-made man, and in fact find that his kind of background is what's wrong in American politics. I dissagree with most of his economic and domestic policy, and do not admire the way he handles himself as a politician. I do not know where you get that he is my idol. That said, it is not unreasonable to agree with Bush on foreign policy despite his background, just as it is not unreasonable to agree with Bill Clinton on some issues although you do not admire his personal life. I admire the fact that Kofi Annan has gone through a lot in his life, but I still do not think that he should not have too much political influence. When I put my faith in the United States in the effort to rebuild Iraq, I am putting my faith in a country that I believe has done far more good for the world than harm, and a country that has been very kind to those who come to it poor and malnourished. I am not putting my faith in one man at all. That is the concept you fail to grasp.
To Ben . . .
I don't understand why you are trying to belittle my arguements with the common knowledge that a five year old would know. You are trying to impress upon me your intelligence of a subject matter, that is common material. And the thing about the Grand Ayatollah is well kind of half of the story. The reason that that was issued was because the Iraqi people were resisting the coalition and they did not want the US or any of the other coalition troops into their country. In essence it is the typical usual of religion where the head of the religion will feel one way, while the mass of the religion will feel the exact opposite way. It is the same scenario of how the smaller third world countries are "supporiting" the US, while the people that make up the country are protesting the US. The fact that the Ayatollya had to realease his statement shows that while the educated see the benefit of allowing the US in their country the people don't. Ben if you honestly believe that in all of your narrow mindedness, and willing to believe the US over the voices of the rest of the world, that Koffi Annon is devoting his life to peace for his own gain. I am greatly disturbed that you would place a man who never had a single conflict in his child hood life and through college, and managed to make his way through life drinking it away while daddy covered his ass, over a man who has come from an incredibly poor town in Africa and managed to gain the respect of almost all of the nations of the world, and has spent relenteless hours of his life caring for those who are not cared, by your love and devotion Bush, the poor, the homeless, those with aids, all the people that Bush wants to not believe they exsist, he wants to help. It is mind boggling that you could support the actions of Bush over Koffi Annon. I have a question for you, do you believe that Mother Teresa (if you know you that is) spent her life suffering so that she could become famous?
And to Paul
Paul you are talking about completely different things, and I would like to leave my article to shutup you don't know what you are talking about, but I will elaborate. Here is the issue you are demonstrating the issue that the UN will not break soveirgnty, which I believe is a good action on their part, which you obviosly disagree a with. The fact that they will not break soveriengty, however, has absolutely nothing to with how they would rebuild a country. You talk about medical aide which should actually be paid by the US and not the UN because of what you said so proudly before, the US was the one to kill all of the Iraqi's and take over the country not the UN. Nevertheless I don't believe that the US is qualifiied to care for these people, as I have never trully seen the US embracing the needs of another country (not to say that I have ever seen that though), and so therefore I would, eventhough the US did massacre the people, the UN would be better set up to help the medical needs of these people. Also in terms of the actual rebuilding of Iraq, you can say what you want, but everyone on this forum knows that the Drug Lords are coming back into power in Afgaistan and that we have not even begun to repair the damage we caused, much less the damage caused by previous wars, and I believe that a similar attitude would be placed on Iraq. When Bush realizes that this will cost in excess of 20 billion dollars a month he might shy away a little. While the UN with the full support of most of the world would be able to easier acquire these funds and rebuild Iraq more effectively. And lastly we install regimes that look kindly towards the US, and that is a euphomism. There is no question that Truman did a good job with post world war 2, but this is slightly differnent the countries we are dealing with are not former super powers, or powers at all, but rather poor third world nations, that can be easily manipulated. I dont' trust the US with such obvious biases in this situation to control the future of all of these Iraqi's, the security in the middle East, and the potential for disaster in the rest of the world . . . obviosly we don't give a fuck about world opinion and the issue of rebuilding Iraq has serious implications on not just US trade but also the future of this world.
April 3, 1991: United Nations Security Council Resolution UNSCR 687 is passed. The resolution calls for the following
1.) Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
[-Coalition forces are finding this stuff as we speak]
2.) Iraq must "unconditionally agree" not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
[-Documentation has been found of Iraqi attempts to acquire both refined nuclear material and the equipment needed to refine unprocessed nuclear ore into useable weapons; as well as the equipment needed to launch ballistic missiles]
3.) Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
[-Several weapons including Scuds have been fired against Kuwait in the current engagement while others have been modified for range in excess of 150KM. The firing of a Scud was proof of Iraq?s failure to comply as the weapons have a range of 298 KM (roughly 185 miles)
-British reports indicate the Iraq also has around 20 Al-Hussein missiles that have a range of 644KM and can be tipped with biological or chemical weapons]
-According to CNN Iraq also has an unknown number of FAW 200 cruise missiles that have an operational range of 200 KM.]
4.) Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
[-See Chemical attacks against Iraqi Kurds in 1988]
5.) Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
[-UNSCOM and the IEA were expelled from Iraq after they began to make headway exposing Baghdad?s widespread failure to comply.]
6.) Iraq must fully declare its weapons of mass destruction programs.
[-Documentation has been found of the continuation of Iraqi efforts to obtain and produce weapons of mass destruction, that have remained undeclared]
7.) Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
[-Coalition Troops have found a number of Terrorist Training Camps in
Northern Iraq]
And so it began...
A total of 17 resolutions were passed between 1991 and the passage of Security Council resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002 which called for:
-An immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
-UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
-[Also contained reminder that] the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations
It has been a decade long story that has shown the inability of the Security Council to act back up its words with action, and enforce its' mandates when and where they are violated. The Council knew full well that Iraq was violating its resolutions. However instead of taking the action necessary to ensure Iraqi compliance in the future, it "condemned" or ?deplored 10 times the failure of Iraq to abide by conditions set by the Council (this being more than just the United States.)
Other Iraqi Infractions recognized by the Security Council are documented in:
UNSCR 1060 : "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
UNSCR 1134: Repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060
UNSCR 1137: "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and it?s tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
UNSCR 1205: Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 ?to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
Yet, people remain convinced that the UN is capable of making the hard decisions needed to rebuild a country ravaged by thirty years of terror that runs so deep; Iraqi civilians eager to see Sadam gone are still haunted by his barbaric though now faltering regime. The UN can and should play a significant role in Humanitarian relief, but it?s track record over the past decade has proven that the UN is incapable of making tough choices in a timely manner even when the Iraqi Government has eliminated all doubt of their refusal to comply with the UN. After a decade of condemnation and inaction, a number of people would rather put the UN back in charge of rebuilding a country whose regime it repeatedly failed to keep in check. The US and its allies will finish the job in Iraq for just as we haven?t abandoned Afghanistan and we will not abandon Iraq. Under the "watchful eye" of the UN, Iraq has managed to keep a $7 Billion black market program alive. Instead of using the money ease the plight of the Iraqi people, the Iraqi leadership funnels the money into the pockets and the bank accounts of the Iraqi elite. Palaces, lavish cars, foreign assets, the Iraqi leadership has been keen to spend the both legitimate and illegitimate funds on everything except the welfare of the Iraqi people. The Security Council has had over a decade to bring accountability to its efforts in Iraq, only to remain complacent in it?s ineptitude.
Gross, you seem to think that Iraqis, in general, hate the United States. I am sure you get that from a generalization of all Arabs into one group, believing since they are in the same ethnicity they have the same opinion (e.g. believing that Jordanians protesting the war are actually Iraqis!) and believing that Iraqis are actually in favor of Saddam Hussein. Let me tell you about the real world. The real world is run by ruthless dictators. These dictators control their citizens with fear, not with aid workers in blue hats. Saddam Hussein controls or should I say controlled his citizens with fear imposed by a paramilitary organization called the "Fedayeen Saddam." This group, founded in 1996 under the command of Uday Hussein (Saddam's eldest son in case you don't know), is most notorious for its beheading campaign from June 2000 through to May 2001. Women whose family members who were in prison as "opponents" of Saddam were most likely to be targeted. It was Fedayeen who were resisting the United States in Southern Iraq, in the Shi'ite (that's a branch of Islam in case you didn't know Andrew) town of Najaf. The reason why they were fighting so long is because they know that if the Coalition doesn't kill them, the Iraqi people probably will. If you don't believe that the Iraqi people are welcoming the coalition, please look this Reuters story about how the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani issued a fatwa (edict in case you do not know) urging Muslims not to resist the coalition (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030403/wl_nm/iraq_fatwa_dc_6). I agree that the Iraqis don't like a foreign military in their country, but they hate Saddam Hussein even more.
I could easily make a case about Kofi Annan's conflicts of interests, how the United Nations makes billions of dollars overseeing off of the oil-for-food program, all the while allowing Saddam to ignore resolutions to keep the profit flowing, but I won't. I like arguing with you too much Andrew and I don't want to see you leave the forum.
Ben, I'm going to agree with you. Limits of speech exist. That means we don't have free speech. Since this is true, we don't really have free speech then, do we. I'd like to clarify that not only are there laws contradicting free speech, many social places such as malls or other places I can't think of right now have whatever rules they want. My point is I think we should have free speech. It's in the constitution. I doubt this will happen because people lazy idiots who can't tell if somebody is lying and aren't going to bother trying to find out if a fictional situation is true or not.
Paul, you're an idiot; stop talking.
Gross, I tend to agree with your predictions for what will happen. It's one thing to critique current policies; it's quite another to criticize what hasn't happened yet. I say this because the US doesn't have unilateral support. There are countries who oppose our conquering of Iraq. Let events play out.
We have not rebuilt one road, or hospital, or anything else that we destroyed in Afganistan
Also how the hell can you even compare Kofi Annan to George W. Bush . . . ha! That is a laughable comparision, if you can show me one example where Kofi has acted to benefit "his friends in upper places" I will never speak on this forum ever again. You will try and twist and tell me to say when Bush has done anything like that . . . the Hummer Law as I refer to it as, he got rid of taxing stocks, he has lowered taxes for the rich. He does have a conflict of interest towards rich people.
Also the UN woudlnt be controlling a the nation, they never have and never will, but they would like they have done in other parts of the world facilitate an election, and allow a government that was appointed by the people to lead the nation, and not a government that neccarialy looks favorably to the US.
And lastly how can you say that they Iraqi's are enjoying the US imperialistic take over . . . just a few days ago they were in open arms refusing to allow the US to pass into their city of Najaaxarasdfasdfsfaasfa (okay the end is made up but the first couple letter are right) . Obviosly the Iraqi's aren't bending over and kissing the feet of the invaders that are taking over their country . . . you can't deny these people their human nature to feel threatend by a hostile take over of their homeland no matter if the intentions are good or bad.
Let's see, I remember that just a couple of weeks ago, the United Nations was screaming to keep Saddam Hussein in power, now we want them to run the very country that they would rather see repressed? Don't get me wrong, I think that the UN should have a role in post-war Iraq, a humanitarian role. They can send food and healthcare to the citizens of Iraq. That corresponds with the purpose of the United Nations. If the UN actually supported taking Saddam out, and sacreficed in the effort, I would feel much differently, but because of their past behavior, I do not trust them to put in a brutal dictator just like their beloved Saddam Hussein. I don't trust the United States completely either. I do trust them more then the UN to take the right innitial steps and provide administrative assistance. The people who should rebuild Iraq are the Iraqi people. They even have most of the resources they need to do it with (gasp) the oil. At present, the Iraqi people trust the US much more then the UN. It wasn't the UN who liberated them from the repression of Saddam Hussein, in fact it was the UN who tried to prevent that from happening. If this post-war rebuilding does not succeed, free-world will be fucked forever. If it succeeds, it could start a wave of freedom in the middle east a kin to what happened at the end of the cold war in eastern europe. This is too important for the UN to run, and frankly, I see no reason to trust them. Who is to say that Kofi Annan won't steal the Iraqi oil money and use it the same way he uses the money from the rest of the international community - to benefit his friends in higher position ( I have no evidence of this, but that is the same amount of evidence you have for accusing Bush of the same deed). The countries who sacrificed, instead of dragging their feet, have much more of an interest in a successful, democratic post-war Iraq. They even have a much more impressive record of helping rebuild countries than the United Nations itself (US: all of Western Europe, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Eastern Europe; UN: Bosnia). Let those who started the job, finish it. France doesn't exactly have a great record installing regimes. Just look at nearly every country in Africa.
Finally, there are thousands of US troops still in Afghanistan, as well as troops from many different nations. Billions of dollars are still pouring into the country every year. We did not go into Afghanistan when it was a unified country, and we are still far from finished there. The bullshit tag-line that we fucked up and abandoned Afghanistan is a malarkey and everyone who follows any sort of international politics closely knows it. To say that there is no roads have been built, and no steps towards democracy taken is a pack of lies. I wonder where the men who clubbed women showing some ankle went...
Here is what I believe is going to happen in Iraq . . .
Firstly Bush is going to "rebuild" Iraq by himself and not allow anyone else besides "coalition" troops to maintain stability in the region and in the world. This isn't his job to do, because it is the international community's responsibitly and duty to maintain stability in the world, and not a country that has some lets say "preferential idealogy." This task of rebuilding Iraq should be left up to Kofi Annon and the UN, because their rulings will have the most legititamacy than any other group. But nonetheless Bush believes that it is his "job" to rebuild Iraq, which really it comes down to him believing that "to the victor goes the spoils," and that since he defeated Iraq, he gets the right to reap the nation of anything he wants. This doesn't make much sense to me, just because the Iraqi people have seen of enough of the imperialist America, and now want their nation to be rebuilt, not re-cultivated with American societal standars and so on, the Iraqi's need an organization in their that will be able to rebuild and care for the people . . . hell the WHO should been in there five weeks ago. Secondly on Bush's road to "rebuilding" I believe that he will take the Iraqi's oil. He will do this on the front that the oil is going into funds that are headed towards rebuilding Iraq, so therefore he isn't taking the oil he is just using for the same purposes that the Iraqi's would hopefully use it for . . . rebuilding. But rather this oil money will not benefit the Iraqi's to the large extent that it should, rather much of the money, not all because that would be to obvious, will be stolen and will be used the same way Bush uses most of American tax money - to benefit his friends in higher position. And thusly Iraq will turn into another Afganistan, will the Drug Lords taking over the nation and, not one single road being built, and not one single step taken towards democracy in that nation.
Lastly, I don't believe that the UN would do a perfect job in Iraq, they had some problems in Bosnia, which they did manage to overcome, but I believe that because the UN is a more neutral body then the US and also that the Iraqi's trust the UN more than they do the US, that the UN would be the better body to oversee this affair. If this is not handled properly every America that lost his life, lost it for nothing, and every Iraqi soldier and civilian that was killed, was killed for no reason. This will be the hardest part of the war, and I don't trust Bush to do it.
Legally, some speech is not protected. Although it is not in the Constitution, it is a precedent just as important as separation of church and state, another practice by the government that is not expressed in the constitution. In Schenck v. United States (1917), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force." It is not free speech for someone to induce panic knowing full well there is no reason because that kind of speech has the capacity to harm the population as a whole.
Likewise, it is not legal to use speech as a weapon. One cannot legally use speech to incite acts of violence or other illegal acts. For example, it would not be legal, or appropriate for me to say, "Go and kill black people on Tuesday." One can also use speech as a weapon against a person's livelihood. This can be tried in civil court. For example, if a student lied and accused a teacher of sexual harrassment, that teacher would be fired. The teacher probably not be able to find any teaching job again and their livelihood would be greatly diminished. If you do not have some sort of deterance for that kind of speech, like "if you lie about me and destroy my life doing so, it's illegal, and i'm going to sue you," every American would fear being destroyed by lies. As far as political speech goes, there are very few limits on that. You can express any viewpoint you want so long as it does not involve inciting people to act violently. Do you think that it is free speech to order people to blow up city buses or to lynch certain groups of people?
Go back and read your last post. Yeah. I'm weeping with embarrassment too. First you assert that free speech has conditions. Show me where it specifies conditions in the constitution, or any other definition, for that matter! Until you do, I'll brand you as a babbling fool. Hell, even if you do manage to back yourself up, I'll still call you a babbling fool. Then you go on to talk about "returning things to the way they never were." WHAT THE FUCK!? Are you saying that just because something hasn't happened yet it should never happen? If that ideology held true throughout history, we'd still be breaking mammoth skulls open with big pointy rocks. This is what I HATE about you political conservatives. You think that new things are bad. I'll admit that technology and recent advances may be somewhat detrimental to our way of life, but progress on the whole is a good thing. Especially political progress. So "returning things to the way they never were" is bogus.
Please prove to me that you're not as much of a dork as I think you are.
