VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:13:50 03/07/04 Sun
Author: Cousture
Subject: Re: Aristide and Iraq
In reply to: Dave Huber 's message, "Re: Aristide and Iraq" on 10:57:49 03/07/04 Sun

>Your last sentence is the key here. Yes, France had
>every right to oppose US policy, and the US public had
>every right to show its displeasure at the French by
>boycotting their wines, etc. Personally, I've no
>problem with such consumer demonstrations; however,

They had the *right* to do so, that's for sure, but it seems over the top to me. Having the right to do something does not make it the right thing to do.

>changing "french fries" to "freedom fries" and
>French's mustard having to explain they're not French
>obviously are extreme reactions, and I would argue the
>majority of Americans recognize that.

I certainly hope you are right.

>"Paranoia" is an irrational fear of something. The
>actions you describe may be silly and ridiculous, but
>they're not examples of paranoia.

Ah... if paranoia is fear, then you are right, I chose my word poorly. This case is more about anger than fear.

>I would disagree w/you about the "severity" of impact
>regarding your comparison. I understand your feelings
>about a US president voicing his opinion about what
>he'd like to see in Canada; however, they are
>just words, and how would they affect votes on Québec
>sovereignty? Wouldn't it galvanize and strengthen the
>views, if any effect at all, already possessed
>by each side -- {most] Anglos in favor of a united
>Canada, and [roughly half of] Quebecois in favor of
>sovereignty?

I think it had an impact. Not with the people with strong convictions, but to those who hesitate and float from one option to the next (and they are the ones who decide the outcome). After all, it is the President of the most powerful country in the world, your next door neighbour and your biggext economic partner saying he disagrees with what you're trying to do. It's scary for a lot of people.

>France not only opposed US measures in Iraq, they
>actively sought to undermine the US position
>but searching for opposition allies, such as Germany.
>I do not say that is NOT within their right to do so
>-- just as I do not say it is NOT within a president's
>right to express his views on a desired outcome of
>another country's decision-making.

As far as rights are involved, you would be correct.

>This view is shared by many, obviously. I'm not
>entirely certain of my views on Guantanamo prisoners.
>I will say, however, that there is plenty of
>established legal precedent that appears to favor the
>US administration's position on the Gitmo

Thanks for the links, I'll read them with great interest.

>During WW II would you have been in favor of
>"charging" captured German and Japanese troops with
>crimes? Granting them a "right to fair trial?"

No. I think that once the enemy country capitulates, soldiers should be freed unless they have committed war crimes.

>IMO, Bush could have avoided this
>controversy by going to Congress and
>asking for an official declaration.

Only Congress can do that?

>Then any "coalition" is a joke as the US makes
>up the vast majority of the force. (I never said it
>was a "big powerful coalition -- you did!) The
>"coalition" in 1991 was vastly disproportionately
>American, as was the NATO force in Kosovo. So?

Yes, they were both mostly American operations, but the other allies did participate by sending troops and material. In this case, what did Estonia do? What did Bulgaria do?

>>Afghanistan (they're in a real strong position to help
>>anybody), Bulgaria (now there's a force to be reckoned
>>with), Azerbaijan, Colombia, the Czech Republic,
>>Estonia... for crying out loud man. You call that a
>>coalition? Now what Bush Sr. had in 1990, now that was
>>a coalition.
>
>See above. And you sound a bit condescending
>there...or is it me?

Do you mean that it sounds condescending to you or to the countries I named above?

If it sounds condescending to you in any way, I deeply apologize. I'm not sure I see how it could be interpreted that way, maybe it's a second-language thing but it is clearly not intentional. Being a language teacher, you know the difficulty of mastering certain small subtleties of language and how one can accidentally express something he does not mean at all.

If you mean I sound condescending to the countries named, I was not trying to ridicule them, just saying that they do not represent a military force that can be of significant help in the conflict.

>I'd just like consistency all around. Did you know
>even Wesley Clark, who was in charge of forces in
>Kosovo, admitted that, technically, Kosovo was an
>"illegal war"?

Illegal? I think he's right. Just like Hans Blix is right to say Iraq was illegal also. It did not respect UN procedure.

>Sure it's not. But then again, neither Kosovo nor
>Rwanda were after WMDs nor stonewalled UN inspectors
>for over a decade. Nor financed radical Islamic
>terrorists. You believe "genocide" warrants immediate
>military attention, whereas others believe violating
>over a dozen UN mandates after losing a war
>(and agreeing to the mandates) and actively
>seeking WMD programs warrants such.

I am aware of that position, even if I disagree. So do you. We bought felt that war was not the way to go.

>But this takes me back to my original point, to which
>you objected as "putting words in your mouth" --
>killing is killing, whether it is an organzied
>"genocide" as in Kosovo or in a civil war. If many
>more are killed in a civil war -- many more than the
>2000 in Kosovo -- how can non-intervention
>there be justified whereas intervention
>is justified in Kosovo? I'm not saying that was
>the case in Haiti, but there have been regional
>wars and conflicts that have resulted in many more
>than the 2000 deaths of Kosovo.

I will try to be more clear.

In the case of a genocide, the targets are civilians (men, women, children, elderly, etc.) and clearly this is not acceptable or morally defendable in any way. On one side you have the murderers and on the other, the victims. In this case of conflict, I say act quickly and to heck with procedures.

In the case of a civil war, you have two groups of armed soldiers (or militia) shooting at each other. Unarmed civilians are not the target, although they do get caught in the middle sometimes which is a tragedy to be avoided. But when you're a foreign country, the situation is much more complicated. If you want to intervene, who do you aid? Who is right and who is wrong, and most importantly, who are you to decide?

The best solution I see in a case like this is to send in an international peace force to stop the fighting and then organise a supervised election in which the people decide who should lead. Then, you enforce popular verdict if need be.
.
.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.