|
|
Post by iratherlikeme on Mar 19, 2003 1:30:57 GMT -5
My sociology instructor is from Kuwait and he told us today that he is married to his first cousin (it's his culture, he says). Y'all should've heard what those kids in the classroom were saying.  "Your son was going to be retarded." "How does your son feel about his mother being his cousin?" That's in his culture and they were telling him he was wrong and immoral right to his face, which bothered me. And kind of like you said, Cadeho, we're trying to impress upon others that we're always right and they're always wrong, and, that's nothing but 7-). |
|
|
|
Post by Cadeho on Mar 19, 2003 2:22:12 GMT -5
 Perfect. Says more than I can. |
|
|
|
Post by sukkafu on Mar 19, 2003 2:26:15 GMT -5
their culture is different. we need to promote tolerance, celebrate our differences and give love instead of hate.
it's easy to sit back eating fries and toast and criticizing our president. i voted for clinton and gore and mondale and dukakis and carter in 80.carter in 76.
i do respect your opinion. it is interesting how you and ivory ''know'' that bush has a ''personal vendetta'' against sadaam. yet if i say that sadaam did this and saddam did that you rush to defend a mass murdering
dictator . any country including ours that promotes freedom of speech and freedom of religion promotes
democracy and should defend it. the world deserves freedom to choose right from wrong. sadaam doesn't give his people freedom to choose. they either follow him or die. ask the people in the north of iraq- the kurds. they'll tell you that we have a just cause.
there was a man who spoke against sadaam and today they cut his ear off for speaking like you.
try that for size. they wouldn't allow you to even sit on your duff and waste time at the computer. you'd be working your butt off for nothing and living in oppression and fear and despair.in a hot desert no less!
no snow for cadeho!
north korea is a dangerous rogue nation.
we need to address them as much as iraq if not more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peach on Mar 19, 2003 10:28:34 GMT -5
I have to agree with Sukkafu.... I think people's opinions of Bush are getting in the way of dealing with this free from *emotion.* Read the links I posted over in the thread about Santa Feans for Peace... when I read things like that, it becomes more clear to me. I have been on the fence for a long time where this is concerned. Call it apathy...call it not being too impressed with what I was seeing from Bush. I just didn't have a clear stance and didn't want to go out on a limb and say anything one way or the other. Basically, I was waiting to get more knowledge of activities before forming a stance. I know a lot of us have opposition to "playing Sheriff," but are we to let this go on?
Not only that, but in one of the articles I read--I believe it was the one with a former Iraqi giving her views--she said that Hussein *loves* that there are protestors because that shows division in our country. Division is a weakness in his eyes.
Peach
|
|
|
|
Post by iratherlikeme on Mar 19, 2003 14:16:13 GMT -5
"This is the man who tried to kill my father." Why would he even bring that up if it wasn't personal? I must need to learn how to read because I haven't seen anyone defending Saddam Hussein. Seems to me like some feel that there are better ways to go about this whole situation. I can't offer any solutions, because I'm not trying to be the president. He can do his job, but he might need to remember that what he's doing now and how he's doing it will affect us and our image in later years. Yes, and folks also need stop with the constant sarcasm and stereotyping situations about which they know nothing. But that's another subject (nothing to do with this post; something I was thinking about earlier!  |
|
|
|
Post by sukkafu on Mar 19, 2003 16:31:14 GMT -5
i agree. i met several people with turbans from india called sikhs and their people were being killed after 9-11 by rednecks who thought they were muslims.
i have bahai friends who are also misunderstood and persecuted. my brother and sister in law are muslims
in the denver area. they are against the terrorist attacks.
southern niece, keep fighting for justice and free speech.
you can always express your opinions here as well!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cadeho on Mar 19, 2003 16:44:28 GMT -5
This is going to have a tremendous backlash against us in the future. We never think of the long run or how our actions may come back to haunt us. The fanatics strive for revenge. The Pan-Am bombing was supposedly revenge for the US striking an Iranian passenger plane that was sending the wrong signal and was acting suspiciously. We armed the people of Afghanistan to fight the USSR. Although they did lose we had better equipment, but the fact remains they still had the weapons we gave them and the weapons left behind by the Soviet Union. We armed Iraq when it invaded Iran. We have blood on our hands too. We are not as innocent as we play and believe to be. As long as our policy is self-centered and filled with arrogance and self-righteousness, for years to come, the chickens are going to keeping coming home to roost.
No one defended Saddam. He does lie. He does have those weapons, but what idiot would get rid of their weapons being faced with war? What ruler of any country would do that? Saddam was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Bush was set on invading either way. The world would be better without him, but do we have a right to oust anyone? Think of the precedence this will set. We are breaking international law on account of suspicion and a personal hatred. Yeah, we'll be making others like us alright. Create another democracy as if Liberia worked and at the same time we are setting the example that anyone if they feel a "threat" can accuse and invade without real justification or UN support. Yes Saddam is guilty of violations of UN resolutions and human rights, and it is the UN's responsibility to deal with that, not us with our mother and brother.
And if we lived in Iraq, would we care if we didn't have the Internet? Would we care if there was no freedom of speech? I probably would care not to see pictures of Saddam everywhere, but they seem to like their way of life... and if they don't, they do a good job at fooling us and Saddam. But if we lived there, the Internet would not matter. We can't miss what we never had. Besides, if we were Iraqis, we'd be Muslim and Allah would be more important.
Since there is nothing else that can be done, I can only hope we go into Iraq like a hot knife through butter and watch our backs at home. We live on the new front now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cadeho on Mar 19, 2003 16:48:06 GMT -5
i have bahai friends who are also misunderstood and persecuted. my brother and sister in law are muslims in the denver area. they are against the terrorist attacks. You make it sound like all Muslims support terrorism and those are the select few who don't. |
|
|
|
Post by Cadeho on Mar 19, 2003 16:50:53 GMT -5
Iraq War Illegal but Trial Unlikely, Lawyers Say
By Emma Thomasson
BERLIN (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) and his allies are unlikely to face trial for war crimes although many nations and legal experts say a strike on Iraq (news - web sites) without an explicit U.N. mandate breaches international law.
While judicial means to enforce international law are limited, the political costs of a war that is perceived as illegal could be high for all concerned and could set a dangerous precedent for other conflicts, lawyers say.
The U.N. Charter says: "All members shall refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It says force may only be used in self-defense or if approved by the Security Council.
Many leading legal experts have rejected attempts by Washington and London to justify a war with Iraq without a new resolution explicitly authorizing force.
"There is a danger that the ban on the use of force, which I see as one of the most significant cultural achievements of the last century, will become history again," said Michael Bothe, chairman of the German Society for International Law.
Washington and London have argued that U.N. resolution 1441 passed unanimously last year -- demanding Iraq disarm or face "serious consequences" -- gives sufficient legal cover.
Amid criticism that 1441 does not explicitly authorize war, they have also argued that military action is legitimized by two other resolutions passed before and after the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites), although Russia has fiercely rejected this argument.
Bush has also said that a war would be a legitimate "pre-emptive" act of self-defense against any future attack.
The U.N. Charter says self-defense is only justified "if an armed attack occurs." When Israel tried to justify its 1981 strike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor as an act of pre-emptive self-defense, the Security Council unanimously condemned it.
Bothe said the attempt by Washington and its allies to justify an attack showed the political power of international law despite the paucity of formal legal devices to enforce it.
"There is unlikely to be a court case," he said. "Those responsible won't be jailed but they can be made uncomfortable."
TURNING BACK THE CLOCK
Most experts in international law say they are not convinced either by the argument that military action against Iraq is authorized by earlier U.N. resolutions nor that the U.N. Charter allows self-defense against a perceived future threat.
Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa's Constitutional Court, who was the lead prosecutor in U.N. tribunals on the Rwanda genocide and killings in the former Yugoslavia, said the United States risked undermining international law.
"The implications are serious for the future of international law and the credibility of the U.N., both being ignored by the most powerful nation in the world," he said.
In theory, international law could be upheld in several ways, said Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General of the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists.
"Political leaders in due course could be taken to a national court for an act of aggression," Doswald-Beck said.
Lawyers in the United States, Canada and Britain warned their governments in January that they could be prosecuted for war crimes if military tactics violated humanitarian law.
Alternatively, aggrieved states could take the United States and Britain to international courts, complain to the Security Council, or to the U.N. General Assembly, she said.
But Laetia Husson, a researcher at the International Law Center at the Sorbonne university in Paris, said international action to declare a breach of the U.N. Charter was unlikely.
"There is little chance of condemnation by the United Nations (news - web sites) because they will be paralyzed by the U.S. veto in the Security Council," she said.
Washington and Baghdad do not recognize the International Criminal Court inaugurated last week and it has yet to define a crime of aggression. But it could still try Britain and other U.S. allies that recognize it on any war crimes charges.
Other legal experts say international law might have to adapt to take account of new justifications for war such as the humanitarian concerns used to legitimize the Kosovo campaign in 1999 that lacked U.N. support, but is now questioned by few.
Writing in The Sydney Morning Herald, George Williams, an international law expert at the University of New South Wales, and Devika Hovell, director of the International Law Project, said setting a new legal precedent was playing with fire.
"It may be that international law will adapt after the event to provide a retrospective justification for war," they wrote.
"However, to enter a war based on this expectation sees us revert to the 'just war' theory. In doing so, we fall into precisely the trap the United Nations was established to avoid.
"This decision to wage a just war is based upon an appeal to dangerously subjective standards of morality and the belligerents' conviction that their cause is right. After two world wars, the dangers of this approach are obvious." (With additional reporting by reporters in Geneva, Amsterdam, London, Paris, Johannesburg, Dubai, Beijing, Sydney)
|
|
|
|
Post by Cadeho on Mar 19, 2003 16:53:47 GMT -5
Negative Views of U.S. Are Increasing in Europe, Poll Finds
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS and MARJORIE CONNELLY The New York Times
WASHINGTON, March 19 As the Bush administration drives toward war in Iraq (news - web sites), resentment and hostility are building toward America in general and Mr. Bush in particular, a new poll has found.
Most of America's major European allies and Russia view the United States unfavorably, and overwhelmingly disapprove of the way President Bush (news - web sites) is handling United States foreign policy, according to a nine-country survey released on Tuesday by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
The poll was conducted within the last week in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Russia, Turkey, and the United States. In most instances, it offered a glimpse of hardening, increasingly negative views of the United States, as compared to surveys from last year and 2001.
The survey lends empirical support to critics who say the Bush administration has squandered an outpouring of goodwill and sympathy among American allies and partners in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The nations asserted that American foreign policy has more of a negative effect on them than a positive one with only the British evenly divided. All of them opposed taking part in a war to end Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s rule, even though most believed that the Middle East would be more stable after an American-led invasion.
Every nation surveyed wanted to recast the partnership between the United States and Western Europe to grant Europeans more independence in determining their security and foreign policy. The poll also underscored the extent to which the few governments allied with Washington, particularly Britain and Spain, are bucking the sentiments of their own people.
Mr. Bush came in for special criticism from Europeans. Although his approval ratings have held steady at home, respondents across the Atlantic who viewed American policy negatively mostly blamed Mr. Bush, rather than a "general problem with America."
"Overwhelming majorities disapprove of President Bush's foreign policy, and the boost in ratings he enjoyed post 9-11 in Western Europe has dissipated," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew center. "Western Europeans mostly see Bush as the problem, rather than America more generally."
Most noticeably anti-Bush were the French, three-fourths of whom said the problems created by America were "mostly Bush," while only a fraction 15 percent faulted America in general. Russia and Turkey were the only nations that were inclined to blame America in general rather than the president.
The poll showed a serious disconnect between Americans and their traditional allies. While 59 percent of Americans supported a war to remove Saddam Hussein, only 39 percent of Britons and 13 percent of the Spanish favored military action.
The survey demonstrated how anger and dismay toward America have intensified in recent months as the United States, seeking action against Baghdad, has clashed with members of the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council.
In Germany, for example, America's staunchest ally on the continent during the cold war, only 25 percent of respondents had a favorable opinion of the United States, down from 61 percent last June.
In France, where respondents last year held a 63 percent mostly favorable view of the United States, the number has fallen to 31 percent. Similarly, in Italy, the favorable opinions fell from 70 percent to 34 percent.
Only two nations Poland and Britain held views toward America that were more favorable than not. But that support has sharply diminished over the past year. Poles, who have long embraced the United States because of family ties and as protection against stronger neighbors, held a view that was 79 percent favorable of the United States last year. The new poll places that positive view at only 50 percent.
The erosion of support in Britain is perhaps the most troubling from the American perspective. Tony Blair (news - web sites), the British prime minister, has steadfastly stood by the Bush administration throughout the diplomatic wrangling and has committed troops to any invasion.
But the British despite their claim of a "special relationship" with the United States, and their skepticism toward European integration nevertheless voice growing dislike of the United States and its foreign policy.
Last year, 75 percent of Britons had a generally positive view of the United States. This year, that number plunged to 48 percent, while the negative views more than doubled.
The United States did not fare any better with other partners in the anti-Iraq coalition. The Spanish, for example, held a 74 percent unfavorable opinion of the United States, and 79 percent of them opposed Mr. Bush's policies, even as that country's prime minister, José María Aznar, hews tightly to Washington's strategy.
The antipathy to Mr. Bush and the United States is all the more striking because most of the European nations firmly believe that the people of Iraq would be better off if Saddam Hussein is removed from power and disarmed by the United States and its allies.
By wide margins, they agreed that the Middle East region would be a more stable place after a United States-led ouster of Saddam Hussein. Russia and Turkey were the only exceptions.
In addition to their unhappiness over war, the survey respondents displayed a restive, even sour mood about conditions in their own countries. All the nations were dissatisfied with how things were going internally. The Poles were the most unhappy, with 89 percent dissatisfied. The Germans were highly dissatisfied, at 79 percent, a 13 percent increase over last year. Spain seemed the most at peace with itself, with 47 percent unhappy and 41 percent satisfied.
Americans were 50 percent dissatisfied and 44 percent satisfied in a Pew poll conducted in January.
American views were largely in sync with most European allies on the importance of the United Nations as a broker in international conflicts.
Most Americans 54 percent said the United Nations is still important, with 33 percent saying it is "not so important." That margin was closely followed in Britain, France and Italy. Germany proved to be the biggest backer of the United Nations, with 73 percent asserting that the world body was "still important."
The survey involved about 1,000 adults in the United States and in Britain and about 500 adults in each of the other seven countries. Interviews were conducted by telephone, except in Poland and Turkey, where they were conducted face-to-face. The survey is based on nationwide samples except Poland and Russia, where the survey was only conducted in urban areas. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 to 5 percentage points.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cadeho on Mar 19, 2003 16:59:15 GMT -5
The world is not our mistress.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cadeho on Mar 19, 2003 17:07:18 GMT -5
Russia Says No Proof Saddam Is Threat to U.S.
By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - France and Germany said on Wednesday it was illegal for the Bush administration to depose Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and Russia maintained there was no proof Iraq (news - web sites) posed a threat to the United States.
With war against Iraq inevitable, five foreign ministers spoke at a U.N. Security Council meeting called to hear a report by chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix, who expressed disappointment his inspections were curtailed after only 3 1/2 months.
But their statements were more subdued than in past such meetings, an apparent recognition that the Bush administration was not listening.
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said no U.N. Security Council resolution authorized the use of force against Iraq outside the U.N. Charter and "not one of them authorizes the violent overthrow of the leadership of a sovereign state."
Ivanov said if there were "indisputable facts" showing Iraq posed a direct threat to the security of the United States "then Russia, without any hesitation, would use any means available under the U.N. Charter to eliminate such a threat."
"However, the Security Council today is not in possession of such facts," Ivanov said, in a reference to the Bush administration's linkage of terrorism to Saddam.
The Russian, French and German ministers as well as Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara of Syria, appealed for inspectors to complete their job and for the 15-member Security Council to endorse Blix's work program, which Washington has not done.
DISARMAMENT TASKS
"The fact of the matter is that the situation on the ground will change, and so will the nature of the remaining disarmament tasks," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte told the council. "Considering a work program at this time is quite simply out of touch with the reality that we confront."
But British Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock said he saw a role for U.N. inspectors in verifying disarmament. "A more definitive work program will be possible when there is an administration in Iraq, which is prepared to cooperate fully, actively and unconditionally," he said.
In his address to the council, French Foreign Minister Dominique Villepin said, "We are meeting here today only a few hours before the guns are fired.
He said a war against Iraq would exacerbate terrorism in the Middle East, declaring, "To those who think that the scourge of terrorism will be eradicated through what is done in Iraq, we say that they run the risk of failing in their objective."
But he said Paris, which has led the international diplomatic campaign against a U.S.-led war against Iraq, believed it was now time for the international community to pull together and address Iraq's humanitarian needs.
On Monday, the United States, Britain and Spain gave up diplomacy at the United Nations (news - web sites), withdrew their draft Security Council resolution authorizing force and blamed France for not being able to get the minimum nine votes needed for adoption.
Villepin, in answer to questions later, said: "I believe this kind of criticism that we have seen in the last few days is absolutely unfair. Let us not seek out scapegoats."
MARS AND VENUS
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer was blunter, saying that a large majority of people in Germany and the rest of Europe were troubled by the impending military action, having gone through he horrors of war all too often.
"Those who know our European history understand that we do not live on Venus, but, rather that we are the survivors of Mars. War is terrible," he said. "It can only be the very last resort."
Like Ivanov, he said, "There is no basis in the U.N. Charter for a regime change with military means."
The United States maintains that resolution 1441, adopted by a 15-0 vote on Nov. 8 and giving Iraq one more chance to disclose any weapons of mass destruction, legally justifies war. But many nations, including Syria, who voted for the measure, said they did not authorize force.
Also addressing the council was Francois Fall of Guinea, who presided over the meeting. The foreign ministers of Angola and Cameroon were in New York for another U.N. meeting but U.S. officials persuaded them not to attend, diplomats said.
Addressing the meeting, a day after 134 arms inspectors left Iraq, Blix expressed disappointment that the inspection process was curtailed.
"I naturally feel sadness that three and a half months of work carried out in Iraq have not brought the assurances needed about the absence of weapons of mass destruction or other proscribed items in Iraq, that no more time is available for our inspections and that armed action now seems imminent," he said.
Blix said Iraq had cooperated in the evacuation of the inspectors but not in delivering much of the needed documentation he requested on the banned weapons.
"The value of the information thus provided must be soberly judged. Our experts have found so far that in substance only limited new information has been provided that will help to resolve remaining questions," Blix said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peach on Mar 19, 2003 17:41:39 GMT -5
Well, hell, if *Russia* says it, then it must be so!! Cadeho, did you even bother to read the links I posted? If you're so unhappy with our country, why are you here? If it sucks so much, why would anyone want to stay? And now everyone hates us, too. I'm sorry.... but this isn't just about a dislike for Bush it seems. It appears to run a lot deeper than that. No, I'm not a "My country right or wrong" person, but you're starting to sound like my anti-American brother. Peach
|
|
|
|
Post by sukkafu on Mar 19, 2003 18:54:25 GMT -5
france would never defend themselves-they capitulated to the germans in wwII, they are self serving, they are supposedly democratic but they have supported iraq, china, vietnam,and many other nations with communist or dictatorships, even when the free nations would boycott and embargo them. france has a big mouth and they have no right to belong to the security council.
they are so anti american for an ally.
with friends like that, who need enemies.
russia is not our friend- they owe us $$$-we also have
given so much $$$ to germany.
it's biting the hand that feed's them.
i say- we pull out of the u.n., pull out of the world bank, pull out of nato, pull out of seato, pull out of all the alliances we have had. why should we subsidize the world? why should i give my hard earned money to support countries that criticize us, hate us, and ridicule us?
screw italy!-since 1945, they've had 61 government collapses!
we've had 11 presidents!
when my broker was in florence last week, they had a parade with a giant float of uncle sam bending over and the statue of liberty standing behind uncle sam .
these are our allies?
why spend taxes, tourist bucks, or buy their products?
the germans want us to buy their cars-but they won't buy ours! same with japan and korea!
it's an isolationist thought, and i'm pro diplomacy, but it is ridiculous to see the world against us when we support and sustain the world.
''THE WORLD IS NOT OUR MISTRESS''!
|
|
|
|
Post by Peach on Mar 19, 2003 20:43:37 GMT -5
BTW, Cadeho...you know I love ya, man.  And I'm not saying people aren't allowed to protest the war. (After all, this is America--the land of the free.) ;D But there's one thing, being against the war, and then there is something that's a little different. Maybe I am misunderstanding your barrage of posts, but I get this kind of stuff from my brother, who thinks the US is totally evil. I get tired of it. I can't think of a country I'd rather live in. No, we're not perfect... we're not even close... but I'd much prefer being here than anywhere else. It's all propaganda man....and I'm about ready to go back into apathy mode, like I was in about a month ago. It's safer there!!  Peach |
|
"Your son was going to be retarded." "How does your son feel about his mother being his cousin?" That's in his culture and they were telling him he was wrong and immoral right to his face, which bothered me. And kind of like you said, Cadeho, we're trying to impress upon others that we're always right and they're always wrong, and, that's nothing but 7-).
