The Jake
03-20-2003, 07:59 AM
I've given this a lot of thought.
I've gone out of my way to read up on the different views of held by every major country in the world which has influenced this debate (I won't pretend Australia's influenced **** but I will state the views of this country as a whole).
I've gone out of my way to read up on life of the average Iraqi and the conditions in Baghdad.
I've also read up on the stories of the naive human shields who went there and how they were manipulated by the Iraqi government.
I'm going to try and present my view here. This is long and unless you're prepared to read it and post intelligently, I request you start your own Jake bashing thread in the Cage where it belongs.
Still got your attention? Ok.
Australia's stance:
The Liberal Party which runs the country, voted in majority of support of our Liberal Prime Minister John Howard's stance in supporting the U.S. in the war against Iraq.
The Australian population as awhole and the majority of every other political party in Australia has voted AGAINST the use of force without UN Sanction.
This has caused an uproar because our government, contrary to it's elected purpose, is not acting as the voice of the people. The purpose of democracy is that the people have a voice and their voice carries the weight of numbers. In this country, our government has displayed complete contempt for this.
Not getting into the debate over whether we should support the US or not, but the fact our government has completely rejected the view held by a majority of a nation is astounding.
We're basically talking about a government which has IGNORED the cries of a nation. So much for a democracy. We really have no say whatsoever except next election.
Britain's stance:
Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair won the right to authorise the use of force, but at what cost? How many ministers resigned? A third of parliament rejected the move, including a large number (2/3's IIRC) of his own benchers rejected the move. This is the largest revolt in British Parliament in over a hundred years.
Germany's stance:
Their stance is very strongly tied to a post World War II diplomatic policy. War must be avoided at all costs. War is made through discussions and concessions. This is a fundamental aspect in a lot of European nation politics. They'd rather concede a point, even if they come off second best for it, than go to war for it. This is, IMHO an extremely noble gesture in one sense but in others very tough.
After all - aren't there some causes worth believing in enough to fight for?
Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said.
"I think people are deluding themselves about our position. It is strongly based and built on principles. I think any sort of theoretical discussion cannot shake this principle-based position."
Meaning, they believe that peace is the solution and that any cost must be reached to avoid war.
France's stance
Almost identical to Germany's except they more strongly
highlighted the moral implications of acting unilaterally. Especially given that inspections WERE working.
"To act without the legitimacy of the United Nations, to favour the use of force over law, is taking a serious responsibility"
- French President Jacques Chirac
China's stance:
China, in case you didn't pick up on this, has been deathly silent during the whole debate. Mainstream tv and radio has apparently restricted most if not all of any debate on this subject. It's certainly suppressed the views of the government.
One would presume they don't want a war, but it is theorised that they would not oppose the US for fear of protecting their trade interests.
"Beijing will hew to the policy of not taking the initiative on the Iraqi issue," said an Asian diplomat.
"It wants to U.S. to ensure China's continued access to Middle East oil after the Iraqi conflict. And it wants the U.S. to hear China's views on the North Korean and Taiwan issues."
Russia's stance:
Russia's stance, at a glance is an amalgamation of the German and EU stance and that of the Chinese government.
They don't want a war but it is strongly suggested that they wouldn't want to use their veto power for several reasons:
i) it weakens the UNSC.
ii) US backlash which could hurt Russia economically.
As the US position came to be one more supporting a regime change, Russia opposed. They were opposed to a second resolution that supported military action as they felt this would pave the way to a regime change. They felt the current resolution was sufficient, it just needed to be enforced better.
OK - well that's a brief snapshot.
So how does the world feel about Iraq?
Obviously he's a threat and the possibility he might have WMD cannot be ignored.
Hence, the original resolution formed by the UNSC.
Was it working? In a word, YES. There was evidence documented by the IAEA supporting that they were complying, albeit slowly. Far too slowly. Were they in breach? **** yes. Did that authorise the use of force. No. It meant that the
The weapons he had could fall into the wrong hands... hands worse than Saddam's... like Al-Qaeda.
But I think Chirac said it best - he asked (can't remember exact wording) "based on the scale of the threat, is it worth a war?"
He's not talking about the fact that they have weapons or not.
What he's saying is - based on how MUCH and how LETHAL the weapons Saddam has, what's the probability that it will be used by terrorists? Does that probability necessitate a war?
Good question. You'd expect the UN to react more strongly if they all agreed that they were in breach and need to cooperate more swiftly. But they couldn't seem to agree how to proceed.
The Problem with the UN
There are multiple problems here.
1) The US seeking military action against Iraq
Everyone agreed that Iraq was a threat.
Everyone agreed something must be done.
But the US repeatedly insisting on military action automatically put off potential supporters. Their stance lead to the next problem.
2) The existence of veto powers
The fact that veto powers exist presents a problem. Anyone that has them and doesn't agree to the US' position can cast their veto vote which puts the kybosh on any further discussion.
France threatening to use this, whilst they have the moral imperative to do so, I believe nullified any chance of diplomacy and all but encouraged the US to go it alone.
A better system IMHO, would be to eliminate veto powers but give those countries with them more than one vote. This would ensure that their voice carries more power than smaller nations but yet ensure that they cannot dictate the direction of the world.
It is clear now that the UNSC does not work. The fact that any one country can do it's own thing and strike pre-emptively creates one of the biggest moral dillemmas of modern society.
The Moral Dillemma
In an enlightened era, we would hope we avoid conflict and violence.
We would hope that we would have solid evidence of any accusations.
We would expect that all nations could work together to solve their problems.
We would hope that people would not strike first out of suspicion.
But that is not the case.
The course of action taken by the United States has taken the world backwards. We, as an entire human race, have regressed.
For the US has shown that it is perfectly acceptable to strike first if you have suspicion and reasonably believe someone has it in for you.
Imagine, school kids attacking another school kid suspected of being a bully. The kid has reported it to the teachers but the teachers have no evidence of it. The kid suspects it. He suspects the bully has something in for him. He has hunches, heard rumors. He's tried to raise those with the teachers. But they don't believe it. They say it's inconclusive and insufficient. So he strikes out.
The school teachers really have no leg to stand on morally because the leader of the United States - the most powerful nation in the world - has demonstrated it is ok to do pre-emptively strike someone, if you have grounds to believe they present a threat and be damned what anyone else have to say about it.
We're basically telling the world - other countries, other people, other children, not just in the United States but the world over, that it is ok to hurt people, it's even ok to kill people - IF you believe they have it in for you.
It is a sad day for the world.
Not just for the lives that we have lost already to war and the lives yet to be lost, but for the disgrace we as a human race represent. I'm sickened not just how the US wagered a war based not on disarmament or a regime change, but economics. I'm mortified that the other superpowers don't stop them because of economics. I have no faith in the United Nations any longer. World government and any hope of world peace I believe is shattered. I hate the fact a country had to threaten to use it's veto power and couldn't resort to more diplomatic measures.
Saddam is not innocent and deserves to be stopped, the world agrees on that. But the end does not justify the means. Today the US Government, along with UK, Australia and Spain and the rest of the "coallition of the willing" - just told the world it does. But further onto that, what are the ramifications of that statement - both today, tomorrow and the future?
Speaking for myself here, my only hope is that these governments who "claim" to be acting in our interest are withholding intelligence information that proves that they have to act and that it truly is in our best interests.
I hope that they know something we don't and that's why they're acting. I have to believe that, because if I don't, then I wonder if I have no faith in anything anymore.
We have literally opened Pandora's box here people - and hope is all we got left.
Peace to you all - except Dogg coz' I hate you :)
- The Jake
I've gone out of my way to read up on the different views of held by every major country in the world which has influenced this debate (I won't pretend Australia's influenced **** but I will state the views of this country as a whole).
I've gone out of my way to read up on life of the average Iraqi and the conditions in Baghdad.
I've also read up on the stories of the naive human shields who went there and how they were manipulated by the Iraqi government.
I'm going to try and present my view here. This is long and unless you're prepared to read it and post intelligently, I request you start your own Jake bashing thread in the Cage where it belongs.
Still got your attention? Ok.
Australia's stance:
The Liberal Party which runs the country, voted in majority of support of our Liberal Prime Minister John Howard's stance in supporting the U.S. in the war against Iraq.
The Australian population as awhole and the majority of every other political party in Australia has voted AGAINST the use of force without UN Sanction.
This has caused an uproar because our government, contrary to it's elected purpose, is not acting as the voice of the people. The purpose of democracy is that the people have a voice and their voice carries the weight of numbers. In this country, our government has displayed complete contempt for this.
Not getting into the debate over whether we should support the US or not, but the fact our government has completely rejected the view held by a majority of a nation is astounding.
We're basically talking about a government which has IGNORED the cries of a nation. So much for a democracy. We really have no say whatsoever except next election.
Britain's stance:
Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair won the right to authorise the use of force, but at what cost? How many ministers resigned? A third of parliament rejected the move, including a large number (2/3's IIRC) of his own benchers rejected the move. This is the largest revolt in British Parliament in over a hundred years.
Germany's stance:
Their stance is very strongly tied to a post World War II diplomatic policy. War must be avoided at all costs. War is made through discussions and concessions. This is a fundamental aspect in a lot of European nation politics. They'd rather concede a point, even if they come off second best for it, than go to war for it. This is, IMHO an extremely noble gesture in one sense but in others very tough.
After all - aren't there some causes worth believing in enough to fight for?
Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said.
"I think people are deluding themselves about our position. It is strongly based and built on principles. I think any sort of theoretical discussion cannot shake this principle-based position."
Meaning, they believe that peace is the solution and that any cost must be reached to avoid war.
France's stance
Almost identical to Germany's except they more strongly
highlighted the moral implications of acting unilaterally. Especially given that inspections WERE working.
"To act without the legitimacy of the United Nations, to favour the use of force over law, is taking a serious responsibility"
- French President Jacques Chirac
China's stance:
China, in case you didn't pick up on this, has been deathly silent during the whole debate. Mainstream tv and radio has apparently restricted most if not all of any debate on this subject. It's certainly suppressed the views of the government.
One would presume they don't want a war, but it is theorised that they would not oppose the US for fear of protecting their trade interests.
"Beijing will hew to the policy of not taking the initiative on the Iraqi issue," said an Asian diplomat.
"It wants to U.S. to ensure China's continued access to Middle East oil after the Iraqi conflict. And it wants the U.S. to hear China's views on the North Korean and Taiwan issues."
Russia's stance:
Russia's stance, at a glance is an amalgamation of the German and EU stance and that of the Chinese government.
They don't want a war but it is strongly suggested that they wouldn't want to use their veto power for several reasons:
i) it weakens the UNSC.
ii) US backlash which could hurt Russia economically.
As the US position came to be one more supporting a regime change, Russia opposed. They were opposed to a second resolution that supported military action as they felt this would pave the way to a regime change. They felt the current resolution was sufficient, it just needed to be enforced better.
OK - well that's a brief snapshot.
So how does the world feel about Iraq?
Obviously he's a threat and the possibility he might have WMD cannot be ignored.
Hence, the original resolution formed by the UNSC.
Was it working? In a word, YES. There was evidence documented by the IAEA supporting that they were complying, albeit slowly. Far too slowly. Were they in breach? **** yes. Did that authorise the use of force. No. It meant that the
The weapons he had could fall into the wrong hands... hands worse than Saddam's... like Al-Qaeda.
But I think Chirac said it best - he asked (can't remember exact wording) "based on the scale of the threat, is it worth a war?"
He's not talking about the fact that they have weapons or not.
What he's saying is - based on how MUCH and how LETHAL the weapons Saddam has, what's the probability that it will be used by terrorists? Does that probability necessitate a war?
Good question. You'd expect the UN to react more strongly if they all agreed that they were in breach and need to cooperate more swiftly. But they couldn't seem to agree how to proceed.
The Problem with the UN
There are multiple problems here.
1) The US seeking military action against Iraq
Everyone agreed that Iraq was a threat.
Everyone agreed something must be done.
But the US repeatedly insisting on military action automatically put off potential supporters. Their stance lead to the next problem.
2) The existence of veto powers
The fact that veto powers exist presents a problem. Anyone that has them and doesn't agree to the US' position can cast their veto vote which puts the kybosh on any further discussion.
France threatening to use this, whilst they have the moral imperative to do so, I believe nullified any chance of diplomacy and all but encouraged the US to go it alone.
A better system IMHO, would be to eliminate veto powers but give those countries with them more than one vote. This would ensure that their voice carries more power than smaller nations but yet ensure that they cannot dictate the direction of the world.
It is clear now that the UNSC does not work. The fact that any one country can do it's own thing and strike pre-emptively creates one of the biggest moral dillemmas of modern society.
The Moral Dillemma
In an enlightened era, we would hope we avoid conflict and violence.
We would hope that we would have solid evidence of any accusations.
We would expect that all nations could work together to solve their problems.
We would hope that people would not strike first out of suspicion.
But that is not the case.
The course of action taken by the United States has taken the world backwards. We, as an entire human race, have regressed.
For the US has shown that it is perfectly acceptable to strike first if you have suspicion and reasonably believe someone has it in for you.
Imagine, school kids attacking another school kid suspected of being a bully. The kid has reported it to the teachers but the teachers have no evidence of it. The kid suspects it. He suspects the bully has something in for him. He has hunches, heard rumors. He's tried to raise those with the teachers. But they don't believe it. They say it's inconclusive and insufficient. So he strikes out.
The school teachers really have no leg to stand on morally because the leader of the United States - the most powerful nation in the world - has demonstrated it is ok to do pre-emptively strike someone, if you have grounds to believe they present a threat and be damned what anyone else have to say about it.
We're basically telling the world - other countries, other people, other children, not just in the United States but the world over, that it is ok to hurt people, it's even ok to kill people - IF you believe they have it in for you.
It is a sad day for the world.
Not just for the lives that we have lost already to war and the lives yet to be lost, but for the disgrace we as a human race represent. I'm sickened not just how the US wagered a war based not on disarmament or a regime change, but economics. I'm mortified that the other superpowers don't stop them because of economics. I have no faith in the United Nations any longer. World government and any hope of world peace I believe is shattered. I hate the fact a country had to threaten to use it's veto power and couldn't resort to more diplomatic measures.
Saddam is not innocent and deserves to be stopped, the world agrees on that. But the end does not justify the means. Today the US Government, along with UK, Australia and Spain and the rest of the "coallition of the willing" - just told the world it does. But further onto that, what are the ramifications of that statement - both today, tomorrow and the future?
Speaking for myself here, my only hope is that these governments who "claim" to be acting in our interest are withholding intelligence information that proves that they have to act and that it truly is in our best interests.
I hope that they know something we don't and that's why they're acting. I have to believe that, because if I don't, then I wonder if I have no faith in anything anymore.
We have literally opened Pandora's box here people - and hope is all we got left.
Peace to you all - except Dogg coz' I hate you :)
- The Jake