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: 20:04:49 03/07/04 Sun
Author: Dave Huber
Subject: Re: Aristide and Iraq
In reply to: Cousture 's message, "Re: Aristide and Iraq" on 14:13:50 03/07/04 Sun

>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.

As many Americans believe that the French, even though they opposed US efforts in Iraq, were not right in actively undermining the US position.

>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.

I understand your position here.

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

Using your definition of "capitulation," has al Qaeda capitulated?

>Only Congress can do that?

Technically, the power to declare war is in the Constitution as reserved only for Congress. However, there are over 200 years of precedent that allows a US president to send troops abroad w/o Congressional approval, for limited amounts of time. He is, after all, the commander-in-chief. There is also a thing called the War Powers Act. Do a Google search on that for a quick overview. Many in the US believe we should go back to a strict determination of who can "declare war."

>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?

I'm not certain what those countries did.

>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.

Aucun problème, mon ami. I understand. I was referring to the countries you mentioned. Just b/c the countries are small and may only be able to offer what to the US (or Canada) may seem "small," I don't think we ought to belittle their contributions.

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

I agree that, technically, the current Iraq operation is an illegal war.

>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.

Thanks for the clarification. You make an excellent case. The problem is that the UN's track record on "sending in an international peace force."

[ 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.