Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Apr 5th, 2003, 05:44 PM        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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
FartinMowler FartinMowler is offline
Banned
FartinMowler's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: incoherant
FartinMowler sucks
Old Apr 5th, 2003, 05:58 PM       
But will they eat a cow after they smell it cooking in the streets?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Apr 5th, 2003, 06:03 PM       
Reply With Quote
  #4  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
FS is probably a spambot
Old Apr 6th, 2003, 08:12 AM       
Well now. Perhaps it's time to plan a pre-emptive attack on India.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Protoclown Protoclown is offline
The Goddamned Batman
Protoclown's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Protoclown is probably a spambot
Old Apr 6th, 2003, 03:02 PM       
You gotta be shittin' me. We ACTUALLY tried to tell India "No, you can't do that!"????
__________________
"It's like I'm livin' in a stinkin' poop rainbow." - Cordelia Burbank
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Apr 6th, 2003, 03:03 PM       
Do as I say, not as I do.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
ItalianStereotype ItalianStereotype is offline
Legislacerator
ItalianStereotype's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HELL, where all hot things are
ItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty ok
Old Apr 6th, 2003, 03:18 PM       
india has territorial ambitions involved here, the US isn't going to annex iraq.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Apr 6th, 2003, 03:31 PM       
We're just going to loot their corpse. Not build a house on it.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
ItalianStereotype ItalianStereotype is offline
Legislacerator
ItalianStereotype's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HELL, where all hot things are
ItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty ok
Old Apr 6th, 2003, 03:35 PM       
since when did looting require some $70 billion?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Apr 6th, 2003, 03:37 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
ItalianStereotype ItalianStereotype is offline
Legislacerator
ItalianStereotype's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HELL, where all hot things are
ItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty ok
Old Apr 6th, 2003, 03:39 PM       
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."
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Apr 6th, 2003, 03:54 PM       
Because so far the 70 billion hadn't been turning into oil all on its own.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Apr 6th, 2003, 11:55 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Apr 7th, 2003, 01:56 AM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Apr 7th, 2003, 02:49 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Apr 7th, 2003, 03:08 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Apr 7th, 2003, 03:13 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
FS is probably a spambot
Old Apr 7th, 2003, 04:23 PM       
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:29 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.