|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Apr 7th, 2003 04:23 PM | |
| FS | But as far as I know, there's no indication that Saddam funded terrorists for the strict purposes of targeting America. I mean, not to Ronnie around the issue here, but being the friend of your enemy isn't exactly the same as your enemy. |
| Apr 7th, 2003 03:13 PM | |
| Abcdxxxx |
True...because India isn't the only nation with blatant attacks on their governments... Israel is another, and nobody wants to allow Israel any pre-emptive possibilities. Then if we apply that logic to parts of Africa, and South America... well it'd be a mess. Which makes me wonder. In the case of US and Iraq ... it's no secret that Saddam has funded terrorist groups (aside from Al Qaeda) that have claimed American victims. Seems like that's a better sticking point to me. |
| Apr 7th, 2003 03:08 PM | |
| The_Rorschach |
Well Burbank, agree in that its a matter of precident, not validity. You and I are well aware that the world's reigning powers, super and otherwise, have many franchise clubs which deny membership to upstarts. That, largely, is the reason no country wants N. Korea to have nuclear capabilities. Few believe they will ever be used, but its the projection of power which is important in this scenerio, because once Korea has fissionable weaponry they must be treated more delicately, and cannot be dismissed as easily as they have been in the past Similarly, if smaller nations -influencially speaking as India is by no means tiny- begin carrying themselves with a sense of dominance in world affairs, especially if successful, we will see a shift in power and regard towards those countries. |
| Apr 7th, 2003 02:49 PM | |
| mburbank |
I believe India is indeed 'onto something', which is precisely the problem. Their claim to 'pre-emption' is far more valid then ours, the attack on their parliament being the case in point since establishing a link between that act of terrorism and at very least genial tolerance by the government of Pakistan is far more likely than establishing ties between say Al-quaeda and Iraq. The right to pre-emption we hve now established can in now way be morally reserved for us, and to insist it is our right alone (which surely for reasons of national security we can't) undermines what little credability we have. This is the crux of why I believe pre-emption is a pandora's box 5that nver should have been opened. |
| Apr 7th, 2003 01:56 AM | |
| Abcdxxxx |
At least India can say they've been attacked ... in fact, I'd say hitting their Parliment is an act of war right? Italian's on to something - nearly every UN nation has stuck it's hands in Iraq's pockets or had some sketchy double dealings. The amount of kickbacks, and other assorted under the table deals involved with the sanctions is frightening. You better believe that just as sanctions against Iraq became a business all unto itself (helping Palestinian refugees arm their "resistance" or um I mean buy shoes and eat dinner, is another one) the rebuild isn't going to be a US project alone. Remember, just because Saddam goes away doesn't mean the books are wiped clear..... the depts do not go away. One example of this is Israel.... while the US provides plenty of aid to them, they're still paying off enormous amounts of debt from various wars. As I understand it, Saddam owed Russia a lot of money, and they're going to get compensated, as are a lot of other nations that publicly will not take part in any rebuild. Just one more thing to consider here. |
| Apr 6th, 2003 11:55 PM | |
| mburbank |
The U.S. can claim the right to define all international terms from now on, but if we are suprised that other nations are going to co-opt the explanations we use for our actions, then we have a startling lack of imagination. This even was predicted on THIS BOARD months ago. Woe betide the world when I-mockery has a more farsighted grasp of world affiars than the state department. As Vince is fond of saying, actions have consequences. As do foreign policies. |
| Apr 6th, 2003 03:54 PM | |
| Anonymous | Because so far the 70 billion hadn't been turning into oil all on its own. |
| Apr 6th, 2003 03:39 PM | |
| ItalianStereotype |
canada already holds that distinguised position. i think that by now it has been well established that MOST of the important countries in the UN have some kind of vested interest there, the fucking french especially. i don't think that it is too much of a stretch to imagine that the french are trying to reduce our influence in the world in a bid to re-establish some of their former international prestige. so they spend the last 6 months actively working against us and now they are demanding that we allow them into iraq to have a hand in the new government as well as to salvage their businesses there. forgive me for being skeptical of the international "good will." |
| Apr 6th, 2003 03:37 PM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Iraq should become the 51st state. EDIT: On a serious note, just because we don't plan to physically TAKE any land, that doesn't mean we don't have "imperialist" ambitions there, whatever that may mean. Our corporations DO have a vested interested in the place and its rebuilding........notto mention all the oil there. It also doesn't help that we are taking a "unilateral" approach to the re-development of Iraq, rather than allowing the international community a role, like Tony Blair was hoping for. |
| Apr 6th, 2003 03:35 PM | |
| ItalianStereotype | since when did looting require some $70 billion? |
| Apr 6th, 2003 03:31 PM | |
| Anonymous | We're just going to loot their corpse. Not build a house on it. |
| Apr 6th, 2003 03:18 PM | |
| ItalianStereotype | india has territorial ambitions involved here, the US isn't going to annex iraq. |
| Apr 6th, 2003 03:03 PM | |
| Anonymous | Do as I say, not as I do. |
| Apr 6th, 2003 03:02 PM | |
| Protoclown | You gotta be shittin' me. We ACTUALLY tried to tell India "No, you can't do that!"???? |
| Apr 6th, 2003 08:12 AM | |
| FS | Well now. Perhaps it's time to plan a pre-emptive attack on India. |
| Apr 5th, 2003 06:03 PM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
|
| Apr 5th, 2003 05:58 PM | |
| FartinMowler | But will they eat a cow after they smell it cooking in the streets? |
| Apr 5th, 2003 05:44 PM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
India warned not to use pre-emptive measures  http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...orld-headlines U.S. Warns India Against Pakistan Attack By Associated Press April 4, 2003, 6:15 PM EST WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration said Friday that India must not use the U.S.-led pre-emptive war against Iraq as a pretext for an attack on Pakistan. "Any attempts to draw parallels between the Iraq and Kashmir situations are wrong and are overwhelmed by the differences between them," said State Department spokeswoman Joanne Prokopowicz. She was responding Thursday to a comment Thursday by India's Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha that India would be justified in taking pre-emptive action across the Pakistan border. "We derive some satisfaction because I think all those people in the international community must realize that India has a much better case to go for pre-emptive action against Pakistan than the U.S. has in Iraq," Sinha said. He added that India will do whatever is necessary to fight terrorism. Citing Iraq's 12-year refusal to disarm in the face of U.N. Security Council resolutions, Prokopowicz said the circumstances that made military actions necessary in Iraq do not apply in the subcontinent and should not be considered a precedent. "The U.S. recognizes the very serious nature of the situation in Kashmir," she said. "Our joint statement last week with the United Kingdom made clear our repugnance of the killings of innocents that have been taking place in Kashmir with alarming frequency." Copyright © 2003, The Associated Press |
