Regime Change

Enough of the lies.

I simply do not accept that this war is really about WMDs or Al-Qaeda. I'm sorry but rather like most of the rest of the informed world I have seen the arguments flap about in the wind and the total lack of evidence and I think you have to be pretty stupid to have been fooled into believing these are the reasons for war.

During yesterdays rebellion against Blair in the House of Commons one person stood out as a surprise. Ann Clwyd, a well known humanitarian just returned from Iraq, and about the last person you would expect to support this war, stood in favour of military action. But not because of WMDs of Al-Qaeda. She argued in favour of the war because of human rights abuses in Iraq. She argued for regime change.

So why have we been continually lied to?

I believe the answer to this is that whatever you may feel about the moral case, invading another country in order to depose the leader and install another government is illegal, and there is no way it would ever be agreed by the UN. The problem with this is - once you start invading countries for the purpose of forced regime change then where does it stop? It replaces international law with ANARCHY.

I am left with mixed feelings over the whole thing. I am sick of being lied to. The (British) public knows it is being lied to and that is why they have turned against Blair. I recognise the appalling abuses of human rights in Iraq. But I cannot accept the moral case for starting a war in order to force regime change in another country. I believe it is illegal, immoral and sets a very dangerous precedent indeed.

Where does it stop?

Blair has been asked this question many times. He answered "It stops when we have eradicated international terrorism and rogue states." (or something very similar).

If that is the case then expect war, war, terrorism and more war, forever and ever. You cannot defeat terrorism by waging war on foriegn countries.

:(

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Enough of the lies.

I simply do not accept that this war is really about WMDs or Al-Qaeda. I'm sorry but rather like most of the rest of the informed world I have seen the arguments flap about in the wind and the total lack of evidence and I think you have to be pretty stupid to have been fooled into believing these are the reasons for war.

During yesterdays rebellion against Blair in the House of Commons one person stood out as a surprise. Ann Clwyd, a well known humanitarian just returned from Iraq, and about the last person you would expect to support this war, stood in favour of military action. But not because of WMDs of Al-Qaeda. She argued in favour of the war because of human rights abuses in Iraq. She argued for regime change.

So why have we been continually lied to?

Ok, first of all, you complain about a 'total lack of evidence'. Pull your head out of the sand... they have found the evidence. They had stuff they were not supposed to have. And they haven't been cooperating. If you deny that, then you are contradicting Blix, and you have to throw out the whole 'weapons inspectors' thing.

Seconldly, who says there has to be only a single reason for the war? I don't. In fact, if I tried to nail things down to a 'single reason', I couldn't justify war. It is a COMBINATION of things... The poor human rights record, terrorist links (not necessarily to al Quaeda... he has enough links to other terrorist groups), the very likely possibility he has weapons of mass destruction, the potential benefits of creating an arabic democracy, and yes, in small part, oil. It is not ONE reason to go to war. It is a combination of several.
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I believe the answer to this is that whatever you may feel about the moral case, invading another country in order to depose the leader and install another government is illegal, and there is no way it would ever be agreed by the UN. The problem with this is - once you start invading countries for the purpose of forced regime change then where does it stop? It replaces international law with ANARCHY.
It should also be illegal to kill and starve your own citizens (like Iraq does). It should be illegal to agree to certain terms ("we agree not to have certain weapons") and then go back on your word. And if the world will not step up and enforce THOSE rules, Then you have anarchy.Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

If that is the case then expect war, war, terrorism and more war, forever and ever. You cannot defeat terrorism by waging war on foriegn countries.
How do you know? You've made some great sweeping statemement with no logic to back it up. What is being attempted here has great risks, but the rewards (a democratic middle east) are even greater.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


During yesterdays rebellion against Blair in the House of Commons one person stood out as a surprise. Ann Clwyd, a well known humanitarian just returned from Iraq, and about the last person you would expect to support this war, stood in favour of military action. But not because of WMDs of Al-Qaeda. She argued in favour of the war because of human rights abuses in Iraq. She argued for regime change.

So why have we been continually lied to?



Be careful there, Elephant.

The reason behind military action is just Oil, is money and political power. Blair and Bush don't give a damn about human rights in Iraq. Do not give so much credibility to Ann Clwyd.

If they were interested on a regime change, it would be in order to get rid of Saddam because he is a stone on their road.

Q-S

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Be careful there, Elephant.

The reason behind military action is just Oil, is money and political power. Blair and Bush don't give a damn about human rights in Iraq. Do not give so much credibility to Ann Clwyd.

If they were interested on a regime change, it would be in order to get rid of Saddam because he is a stone on their road.

Q-S

Oil? If Bush wanted oil he could get lots of it by asking for an end to sanctions.

I feel there are a lot of reasons. Yes, human rights is a reason, WMDs are a reason. The attempted assasination of Bush's father is a reason. Unfinished business is a reason. Al Qaeda connections and support for other terrorist groups is another reason.

The invasion of Iraq also serves another purpose. Look at a map. We are now in Afghanistan and Turkey. With Iraq, we can attack Iran and Syria from three sides. Iran is a named member of the Axis of Evil. It is next on the Bush Hit Parade. Saudi Arabia knows that if the royal family is to remain in power they will have to reform. They may not survive. Syria will be required by us to stop supporting terrorism or it will be invaded. Same with Lebanon. We can only make that threat once we occupy Iraq.

Keep in mind this is not a fight just against Iraq. It is a war against terrorism, which is far larger than against a single country. Terrorists have been gaining support from several Arab countries, and we must invade a few, and threaten others. For the threats to be credible the invasions must be successful against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. otherwise we can't simply threaten Syria, we would have to actually invade it. Successful invasions of Iraq and Iran will also help reduce the threat level from North Korea.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Enough of the lies.

I simply do not accept that this war is really about WMDs or Al-Qaeda. I'm sorry but rather like most of the rest of the informed world I have seen the arguments flap about in the wind and the total lack of evidence and I think you have to be pretty stupid to have been fooled into believing these are the reasons for war.

During yesterdays rebellion against Blair in the House of Commons one person stood out as a surprise. Ann Clwyd, a well known humanitarian just returned from Iraq, and about the last person you would expect to support this war, stood in favour of military action. But not because of WMDs of Al-Qaeda. She argued in favour of the war because of human rights abuses in Iraq. She argued for regime change.

So why have we been continually lied to?

I believe the answer to this is that whatever you may feel about the moral case, invading another country in order to depose the leader and install another government is illegal, and there is no way it would ever be agreed by the UN. The problem with this is - once you start invading countries for the purpose of forced regime change then where does it stop? It replaces international law with ANARCHY.

I am left with mixed feelings over the whole thing. I am sick of being lied to. The (British) public knows it is being lied to and that is why they have turned against Blair. I recognise the appalling abuses of human rights in Iraq. But I cannot accept the moral case for starting a war in order to force regime change in another country. I believe it is illegal, immoral and sets a very dangerous precedent indeed.

Where does it stop?

Blair has been asked this question many times. He answered "It stops when we have eradicated international terrorism and rogue states." (or something very similar).

If that is the case then expect war, war, terrorism and more war, forever and ever. You cannot defeat terrorism by waging war on foriegn countries.

:(

Here we go again :rolleyes:

#1. Saddam gave haven and support to the terrorist Abu Nidal and his organization (before he had him killed recently that is) in violation of 687, paragraph 32 which imposes the obligation under international law to report suspected acts of Iraqi support for international terrorism to the UN secretary general.which also addresses Iraq's support of terrorism.

#2. Abdul Rahman Yasin, the one terrorist not captured from the first WTC bombing is currently living free in Baghdad. The only named conspirator still at large. He was one of the "blind Sheik's" nutty Islamic fundie followers....so why did he run for Iraq...and why did Saddam harbor him in full disregard of UN Security Council Resolution 687? (paragraph 32 again)

#3. Abu Mussab al Zarqawi (al Qaida senior operative) is apparently free to operate in Baghdad as well. (pesky paragraph 32 again)
the link

#4. Ramzi Yusef aka Abdul Basit, the mastermind of WTC bombing #!. Was at the time suspected of being an active Iraqi intelligence agent. Also, when finally captured in the Phillipines, found to be also associated with Abu Sayyef (terrorist group known to be linked with al Qaida)

#5. Dr. Hamza's testimony that Iraq's Mukhabarat (political secret police) are running the concealment mechanism for their ongoing proscribed nuclear program. The link

#6. On August 8, 1995 Hussein Kamil (Saddam's son-in-law) defected to Jordan. He had supervised Iraqi unconventional weapons programs. His information confirmed that Iraq had developed and possesed weaponized biological agents.

#7. Egyptian officials arrested one of the first WTC bombers where he was hiding with family in Cairo. He is Abu Halima. He told them about the involvement of two Iraqi intelligence agents who had managed to flee.

#8. UNSCOM 227 inspection (from Ritter's book Endgame) uncovered Iraqi documents detailing biological and chemical agent testing done on humans. (political prisoners)...Endgame page 180.

#9. Calutrons (magnetic isotope seperators) of the kind used in the Manhattan project were found in the process of being moved around by the Iraqis way back in 1991. (another instance of deception, and active nuclear program)

#10. Mukhabarat terrorism "school" inadvertently found by UNSCOM 150 inspection team in 1996. (not part of UNSCOM mandated mission...not WMD's...just terror/torture etc...the issue of this find was not taken up by the UNSC) page 120 "Endgame.



UNSC res 687 was a ceasefire agreement...he broke it over and over again...making it null and void...now it's time to restart the Gulf War. Legal as legal can be. No one's fault but Saddam. Guess I'll have to go bump that thread again.... :rolleyes: Still waiting for someone to challenge those few points. No one has...I wonder why???

-zilla

[ssibal]

Elephant, how can you argue that regime change is illegal under the same UN that does not enforce its own resolutions concerning Iraq. What about Iraq's illegal actions for the past 12 years?

Segnosaur


How do you know?


Because I have watched Margaret Thatchers Iron Fist vs The Irish Republican Army. Ultimately the only way to stop terrorism is to change the circumstances which create the terrorism.


You've made some great sweeping statemement with no logic to back it up. What is being attempted here has great risks, but the rewards (a democratic middle east) are even greater.


Well, unfortunately I don't believe a democratic Islam is a realistic possibility.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

Keep in mind this is not a fight just against Iraq. It is a war against terrorism, which is far larger than against a single country. Terrorists have been gaining support from several Arab countries, and we must invade a few, and threaten others. For the threats to be credible the invasions must be successful against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. otherwise we can't simply threaten Syria, we would have to actually invade it. Successful invasions of Iraq and Iran will also help reduce the threat level from North Korea.

Yeah sure :rolleyes:

Most of the terrorists in the attack to NY were from Saudi Arab.

Why don't the USA attack SA?

US foreigh policy sucks.

Q-S

Originally posted by Q-Source

Blair and Bush don't give a damn about human rights in Iraq.


Oh I know that. Bush just wants to get rid of Saddam. He wants regime change, but not because of human rights. But it still raises the question of the legitimacy of starting a war for the purpose of regime change.

Originally posted by ssibal
Elephant, how can you argue that regime change is illegal under the same UN that does not enforce its own resolutions concerning Iraq. What about Iraq's illegal actions for the past 12 years?

And what about Israels?

Seems America gets to choose which resolutions get followed and which don't, and if that fails it just does whatever it feels like anyway.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Where does it stop?
:(

I thought we made it clear. Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
Right now we are pursuing military means to change Iraq.
My guess is a successful and quick Iraqi campaign will make it easier to put pressure on Iran.

For North Korea I still have hopes that the other countries in the region might be successful. However, as days go by I lose faith in a peaceful solution due to the volatile nature of their leader.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Well, unfortunately I don't believe a democratic Islam is a realistic possibility.
That's right. All Islamic people are incapable of handling democracy because of lower brain function :rolleyes:

(Sarcasm intended.)

I wonder, if Islamic people cannot handle freedom and democracy, how do they manage to function in western society? How come we have refugees from Muslim nations coming to places like Canada (where they are productive members of society, and have no problems voting)? How come the net migration of people is from the Islamic countries TO the west, and not the other way around?

Heck, even if we don't manage to install a democracy, even a dictatorship that doesn't kill as many of its own people will be an improvement.

[headscratcher4]

Serious question from someone who is not a fan of the Bush policy right now...

for the sake of information, where were you on Bosnia and Kosovo? Intervention warrented? Regime Change in Servia desirable? How are you on the Russians in Chechnia? The Chinese in Tibet? Syria in Lebenon?

What should the thoughtful interenational community do when nations are aggressive and dangerous to their neighbors -- regardless of U.S. and European involvement with Iraq and tacit acceptance of Saddam up until the gulf war, he has a history (Iran, the Gulf War) of using his military against his neighbors.

Should anyone have the right to invade Iraq? What about his neighbors -- Say Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait?

Knowing today that Pol Pot murdered 2 million, should the international community have intervened?

Knowing that Mao killed 60 or 70 million?

Stalin and his 30 to 40 million?

Hitler, starting a war that resulted in 30 million+ Deaths...would earlier intervention, regime change have been warrented?

Is there any governemnt so evil as to warrant regime change? If so, where does it stop? If not, how should the international community engage?


I don't know the answers or have an answer to give. Seriously and again, I am just trying to gage your thinking on issues like intervention?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Is there any governemnt so evil as to warrant regime change? If so, where does it stop? If not, how should the international community engage?


God bless "America" :rolleyes:

[ssibal]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


And what about Israels?

Seems America gets to choose which resolutions get followed and which don't, and if that fails it just does whatever it feels like anyway.

No it does not. Israel has Chapter Six resolutions which are non-binding and unenforcable. Iraq has Chapter Seven resolutions which are legally binding enforcable.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Q-Source


God bless "America" :rolleyes:

But that doesn't answer my question. You may believe that the US should be overthrown...all I am interested in is what the parameters are, explain why?

I can tell you -- and agree with many of -- the reasons the US is wrong over Iraq...but I can't help thinking that the international community has failed Iraq and its people. My point is -- to take an example from Thomas Friedman's Sunday NYTimes column this week -- with all of the peace marches around the globe condemning US policy, Israel, etc. Where were the banners demanding freedom for Iraqis? Where were the demands of the globe on Saddam? What are the global demands on Soddam in the alternative to war?

While I think inspections should go on, aren't you a little bit awonder at the fact that everytime the pressure gets a little greater, Saddam finds new documents? Why weren't these documents turned over months ago? How long should the inspections go on?

Q-Source, I am trying not to be a Jingoistic American, so help me understand what makes sense to the international community and thus make sense of US policy.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by headscratcher4

Q-Source, I am trying not to be a Jingoistic American, so help me understand what makes sense to the international community and thus make sense of US policy.

You gave the impression that your have no genuine questions for us. You sound a little bit ironic.

Anyway, I have no time to answer now. I must leave my office, but I will come back tomorrow.

Q-S

[DanishDynamite]

UCE:I am left with mixed feelings over the whole thing. Me too. Perhaps Machiavelli got a bad rap.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by ssibal
No it does not. Israel has Chapter Six resolutions which are non-binding and unenforcable. Iraq has Chapter Seven resolutions which are legally binding enforcable.
Another major difference...

For the most part, the resolutions agains Israel were 'forced' on them. In the Iraq case, there were conditions that Iraq itself agreed to at the end of the gulf war, but they failed to live up to them.

Its like the difference between me saying "You will sell me your car", and you saying "No" (in the case of Israel), versus us coming to a mutual agreement for me to sell the car, and you backing out of it after I had already paid.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Another major difference...

For the most part, the resolutions agains Israel were 'forced' on them. In the Iraq case, there were conditions that Iraq itself agreed to at the end of the gulf war, but they failed to live up to them.

Its like the difference between me saying "You will sell me your car", and you saying "No" (in the case of Israel), versus us coming to a mutual agreement for me to sell the car, and you backing out of it after I had already paid.

Also, Israeli resolutions make demands of both Israelis as well as the other parties involved whereas Iraqi resolutions are unilateral.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
With Iraq, we can attack Iran and Syria from three sides.

I believe that the radical neo-conservatives now running the US think the same.

Foam the runway.