Peace and Justice in IRAQ

Falstaff · Apr 7, 2003, 08:43 AM

When the conflict is over, will Peace and Justice be the final legacy of a controversial war on tyranny in IRAQ? Do the ends justify the means?

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 7, 2003, 09:34 AM

I sincerely hope......That the Iraq`i people will embrace the coalition...and cooperate with them in creating a democratic system that will be working fast.......It would be the best for all parts as things are.

But....i have little faith that this will actually happen easily.

I hear that in American media they say Americans are welcomed in Bagdad.So far i havenet sen anything of that in the reports from a female Nowegian journalists that has reported from inside Bagdad for weeks in Scandinavian tv.Nor has she.And she was reporting from 200-300 meters from where the actual fighting took place around the presidential palace so i figure she knows what she is talking about.

Bluelight

Falstaff · Apr 7, 2003, 12:08 PM

Watching IRAQI's runnjing before the onslaught of coalition forces may lift a few spirits but I fear they will be lead into a trap..

JavaFox · Apr 7, 2003, 07:42 PM

Well, certainly coalition forces have not been welcomed as much as we all would have liked, but to report that NO Iraqis welcomed us is really kind of silly. Maybe American coverage is biased, but certainly they are not fabricating footage?

Falstaff · Apr 7, 2003, 09:46 PM

Cannot hide all the terrible destruction that is being wrought, my brother, serving within the army intelligence community told me that what we see from the "imbedded side" is actually restricted, the cameramen and journalists enjoy some latitude while reporting from the coalition side. but any wonder what is being recorded and transmitted on the "other side". After the war is over we will no doubt see much of it. I suppose the power of media is so great now that something or some entity has to throttle what is coming out of IRAQ.. but fabrication, I agree, certainly can't be occuring with any regularity or consistency

Falstaff · Apr 7, 2003, 10:15 PM

see this link..http://www.iht.com/articles/92451.html

Smoothdrive · Apr 9, 2003, 06:51 AM

Well the Iraqi's in Basra and Bagdad look pretty happy to me..be it looting..i wonder how many anti-war protesters still feel these people should not be liberated.

I applaude the British policy in Basra where they have apointed an Iraqi to set up local control..hope it works out...if not the UN should grasp it's last oppurtunity for credibility and send in blue-helmets in large numbers to police the area untill local government is established.

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 9, 2003, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Smoothdrive
Well the Iraqi's in Basra and Bagdad look pretty happy to me..be it looting..i wonder how many anti-war protesters still feel these people should not be liberated.

I applaude the British policy in Basra where they have apointed an Iraqi to set up local control..hope it works out...if not the UN should grasp it's last oppurtunity for credibility and send in blue-helmets in large numbers to police the area untill local government is established.

The UN?

Why?

This is an American English operation...Why the UN?

You must be joking...you said yoursef a hundred times that the UN is useless....

Why now??

Bluelight

Falstaff · Apr 9, 2003, 10:31 PM

but this time, without help, they can't keep the peace, the task is too daunting for them, and someone has to pay for it....

eyeguy616 · Apr 9, 2003, 11:26 PM

Although the UN could use its power to aid the development of Iraq, they STILL haven't done that with Somalia. Somalia used to be a great nation, even producing enough electrical power to sell to other countries, but now, even after the UN's "help," they have 2-hour blackouts every 4-hours! Even to have elections, 30% of those running HAVE to be women, and it doesn't matter what they're running for either! Although it's nice they want women to run, there's not always going to be women to actually run. I don't think the UN will do a good job with Iraq. Since the U.S. and G.B. are fighting the war, they must be responsible for rebuilding and reconstructing Iraq. I also watched Iraqies welcoming troops in Baghdad as well as giving the "Victory V" sign and thumbs up. Whether or not these are people posing for the camera or just filtered shots for the U.S. audience, things will get better for the Iraqie people. Now it's only a matter of time, and hopefully some good decisions.
Also, I like advocating a civil approach to debating. Name calling is lame, even if it's not aimed at anyone who's posting. Please try to back your opinions up as I have tried and hopefully it won't turn into a flame war. These kinds of discussion are good for educating everyone who is a part of them since noone can see all sides of this conflict at one time.

~eyeguy616
Be as educated as you can be; read some credible sources like Opinion Journal. I'd also like to see where the rest of ya'll get your material. Not that I'm saying any of you are wrong, but I'd like to read what you read so I can make better comments and not sound stupid for my sake.
Edit: made a thread for this porpose: located here!

Falstaff · Apr 9, 2003, 11:36 PM

will try to give some URLs, and I am familiar with your Wall Street website, not bad, balanced and interesting, but lengthy, ha ha..

Smoothdrive · Apr 10, 2003, 04:39 AM

Why the UN ?

Because the UN is supposed to be bigger better and more loving than any individual state..the UN should keep the peace in cuntries divided by war..why would the UN keep peace in ANY country if not in Iraq ? What better organisation than the UN to keep peace in Iraq ? surely you agree that the coalition ofrces should leave Iraq asap to prevent being seen as invaders rather than liberators.

Yes i've said the UN is useless and i still think it is..that's why i call this their last change to do something good.

If the UN keeps out than they'll loose all respect..it's clear the UN was wrong not to liberate the Iraqi's..it's clear they did not act because they are useless when it comes to these decisions..one country with one veto is what cripples the UN, not only in this case but in many many cases..they can only be usefull by taking a strong role in keeping peace and rebuilding iraq..if they don't act there they are completely useless and a waste of time and money all together.

merry · Apr 10, 2003, 04:45 AM

I'm not that radical about the UN, but altogether I do feel they could've done better. They may need reforming, or maybe this is all you can get from a worldwide organization. However, it's the only "thing" we have that can provide legitimate solutions to an international crysis...

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 10, 2003, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Smoothdrive
Why the UN ?

Because the UN is supposed to be bigger better and more loving than any individual state..the UN should keep the peace in cuntries divided by war..why would the UN keep peace in ANY country if not in Iraq ? What better organisation than the UN to keep peace in Iraq ? surely you agree that the coalition ofrces should leave Iraq asap to prevent being seen as invaders rather than liberators.

Yes i've said the UN is useless and i still think it is..that's why i call this their last change to do something good.

If the UN keeps out than they'll loose all respect..it's clear the UN was wrong not to liberate the Iraqi's..it's clear they did not act because they are useless when it comes to these decisions..one country with one veto is what cripples the UN, not only in this case but in many many cases..they can only be usefull by taking a strong role in keeping peace and rebuilding iraq..if they don't act there they are completely useless and a waste of time and money all together.

My poins that you were telling us how totallt useless the UN is but now when it comes to paying for the fun it is obviously relevant.

that is the thing i dont get.

You do not want to engage yourself in seeing to it that the UN BECOMES a functional organisation but for cleaning up it is apparently good..

Well the UN is ...and was NEVER intended as a cleaning patrol for any of the superpowers.

Bluelight

Smoothdrive · Apr 10, 2003, 10:32 AM

Look Blue..The UN failed miserably in dealing with the Iraq situation and i personally feel that the UN should be drastically reformed.

BUT there IS such a thing as the UN..so why not put it to good use while it is here.

IMO the UN is primarily responsible for keeping order in countries that just ended a war or dispute and are without decent government.

Sure you can shout "The coalition started it" .... so what ??
If someone else knocks someone over does that mean you are not going to help the person up again ? are you gonna turn away and say "he knocked him over so he'll have to help him up again " ?

If you want to do good you do so unconditionally, not looking at who's to blaim.

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 10, 2003, 11:17 AM

Well all im interested is seeing to that the world is NOT dominated by Usa or.....any other superpower for that matter.

That is why i support the UN.

If...any superpower starts a war without consent of the rest of the members in the UN then it is not automatically an obligation to finance the adventures.

Thats all.

Saddam has fallen..that does not make it more right to start wars without the consent of others.

if wee start following THAT....logic...then it will also be fully ok for China to invade Taiwan which is historically ...China...and nothing else.

Bluelight

Falstaff · Apr 10, 2003, 10:18 PM

example where the U.N. has been successful?

Smoothdrive · Apr 11, 2003, 04:39 AM

They have succesfully driven the coalition to go to war without UN support.
They have succefully given Saddam extra years of dictatorship.
They have succesfully helped the anti-US propaganda.

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 11, 2003, 06:56 AM

Bullshit.
Usa decided on their own to wage war against Iraq.They did this at least half a year before they presented a full fact to the UN. at a moment when they had already started to ship troops to the mideast.

Noramlly that is rteferd to as blackmail and can only be used by selfsufficent poerful vountrys.

It is a very good measure on how eager the REALLY are about creating mutual understanding.

They presented is as a take it or leave it suggestion at the same time as they published their foreign politics intentions which clearly states their goial is to rule the agenda totally by their own without asking anybody elses opinion.

Well...that was an idiotic move......unless they were actuyally asking everybody else NOT to be part of the coalition.

These moves WILL bee considered as diplomatic incapability that has seldoim been seen ...and is...considered such already in all tyhe the non rightwing world.

Bluelight

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 11, 2003, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
example where the U.N. has been successful?

Ok......In reply to Jeff and Smoothdrive..

Well then lets do it like this then........

Tear down the UN.

All the world gets to pay tax to Usa to pay for military spendings....and security.

Then we in Sweden and the rest of the world send your 18 year olds to a internatinal "pool" of military. ..directed by American officers h direct orders from the politicians Americans vote in place to suit the needs of Americans

Will that suit you?

It would give the type of securioty you are asking for ....And you would not anymore have to whine about
you paying.
No mare paying to the UN and total control for you.

It is a fairly simple and easy layout that would forever rid us of the UN problem.

Those that refuse can be enemies against who wars can be fought until everybody understands what is best for them...or?

Bluelight

Smoothdrive · Apr 11, 2003, 11:57 AM

Well the UN is another thread now..but you still did not come up with something that the UN has been succesfull at.

Im sure there is something to be found..i just think it will be long time in the past time when the cold war was still here.

I'm glad to see I was right in feeling the iraqi's should be liberated and i am glad the war is as quick as expected..

I just fear Saddam more now than last week..him suddenly dissapearing could very well indicate that he hiding ready for his last trick..launching chemical weapons in major cities in Iraq..if i can't rule, no-one can..hope i'm wrong on that one..

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 11, 2003, 01:33 PM

I could make a list.

Just yesterday i read that the average age before peole dies in the third world has gotten very much higher these last thirty years.

Some of it is explained by different ways of trade but all experts agree that the policy of to UN to push investments etc etc in areas of health etc etc in third world countries have had the biggest influebce of all.

Bluelight

Falstaff · Apr 12, 2003, 12:24 AM

They have succesfully driven the coalition to go to war without UN support.
They have succefully given Saddam extra years of dictatorship.
They have succesfully helped the anti-US propaganda.

Oy! is this an example of rhetorical ballistics? One stone per slingshot please....ha ha..

They presented is as a take it or leave it suggestion at the same time as they published their foreign politics intentions which clearly states their goial is to rule the agenda totally by their own without asking anybody elses opinion.

Say what? We did ask, they (U.N.) didn't agree...

Quote:

bluelight I could make a list.

An excellent suggestion.....we shall move on...U.N. thread here we come...