The rights of sovereign nations

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Adam, Feb 6, 2003.

  1. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    The USA is currently claiming the right to attackl other nations which have not attacked them, but which they think might attack them in future. Do all nations have that right? Including Iraq, North Korea, and the rest? If not, why not?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Unfortunately, the UN is too manipulated by the US, and the following is only a dream; but it would be so constructive if the UN could initiate a resolution sanctioning the bellicose, inflammatory behaviour of the US and UK, that is in direct opposition to the most basic tenets of the UN charter, and has raised the spectre of global conflict to the highest level of risk since (and comparisons here are debateable) the Turkey Missile Crisis.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ethan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    67
    what's the Turkey missle crisis?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    Prior to the USSR trying to plant nukes in Cuba, the USA planted nukes in Turkey and in the other nations of the NATO cordon along the USSR boundary. This is what prompted the USSR to try an equal response of planting nukes in Cuba.
     
  8. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Thanks Adam! I was starting to wonder if anyone here knew some history. Most Americans are further unaware that the US had to back down, and dismantle the WMDs in Turkey in the bargain.
     
  9. skywalker 3 @ T M 3 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    994
    But all the movies and media cannot show that us backed down. It would look bad and we cannot call it a victory any more. So let it be hush hush.
     
  10. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    OK I won't tell if you won't.
     
  11. ethan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    67
    yes, but officaly this crisis is known as the Cuban Crisis.
     
  12. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Good guys never shoot first.

    That has been a defining characteristic of American culture. It's in our mythology. John Wayne, Gene Autry, all the cowboys, they always let the bad guy get the drop on them. It's in our history. WWI, WWII, we let things get pretty bad before we finally pitched in and cleaned them up. American heroes only shoot when every other option has been exhausted, and then only reluctantly.

    Even in Korea and Vietnam, the government had the pretense of coming to the aid of allies who were under attack. Ditto for Kuwait. We didn't like the way the government fought back at Iraq, and it gave us the first inkling that the Bush Dynasty has no sense of honor, but at least we were coming to the aid of an ally. Iraq fired first.

    The reason that the Cold War never got any Hotter than it did in Korea and Vietnam is precisely that even Russia, arguably the most paranoid nation that ever existed (after all, both Napoleon and Hitler tried to conquer them), knew, deep down in their hearts, that America would NEVER shoot first. They even started building a missile base in Cuba and we STILL didn't shoot anybody. We're the good guys and good guys don't fire the first shot.

    But this time there is no pretense, no excuse to fall back on. Saudi Arabia staffed and financed 9/11. Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal and a lot of citizens who are harboring Al-Qaeda fugitives. Syria has attacked Israel, a country with whom we have a mutual defense treaty (like it or not). Have we done the honorable thing and made war on them? An action which, however unwise, could at least be justified as a response to an attack?

    No. We're going after Iraq. They haven't attacked anybody except their own Kurdish minority, a people that Americans don't seem to give a damn about. Other than that all Saddam has done is shake his fist at us, call us nasty names because most of us are Christians, and perhaps donate (an insignificant amount of) money to organizations that thought 9/11 was a good idea.

    WE ARE GOING TO SHOOT FIRST! Our sacred code. An attribute that defines America as one of the most sober, rational, peaceful nations on earth. And that nookyaler idiot who sneaked into the White House is going to violate it.

    Does anyone have the right to attack a sovereign nation? There is no humanity-wide answer to that question. Many people think the answer is yes. But Americans were always sure that the answer is NO, and the world respected us for it. Until now. One illiterate oaf is going to shame our country forever.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2003
  13. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    Well, apparently Iraq thought it had that right when they attacked Iran and then Kuwait.

    Did Kennedy make a concession to Kruchev over the missiles in Turkey? Possible. Kennedy told Kruchev the US would not invade Cuba if the USSR agreed not to ship the missiles in, whcih Kruchev agreed to. About 4 months later the missiles in Turkey were removed, so it is very possible that those missiles were part of the deal. But I don't think it was a matter of Kennedy backing down. And it's not some hush hush secret. It's part of my course lecture and is in the current university textbook.
     
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Re: Re: The rights of sovereign nations

    Oh yes, the Iran thing. I didn't know any Americans remembered that. The war in which we sided with Iraq and supported Saddam Hussein! Is it any wonder that he figured we'd stand by our good buddy once again when he marched into insignificant old Kuwait?

    We help create these monsters and then we get all righteous and outraged when they continue to grow more monstrous.

    (We did the same thing in Afghanistan, that's where the Taliban came from. For you Americans. The Canadians probably remember all this stuff because they have access to real news.)
     
  15. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    Re: Re: Re: The rights of sovereign nations

    Umm...the question was whether nations other than the US believed they had the right to invade other sovereign states. Iran obviously believed they did. That can't be disputed. And ask the Kuwaitis if they think Kuwait is "insignificant."

    You're exactly right. He is a monster. And if we created the monster then it is our responsibility to take it down.

    Thanks for the geography lesson. Can't imagine how I would get accurate news if it wasn't for the Canadians.
     
  16. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Coldrake I believe it is accepted that RFK was negotiating on the removal of Turkey Missiles, which the US and TUrkish government wished to keep secret, before the Kruschyov and Kennedy agreed. I didn't go check facts (will if u like), but I'm fairly certain. I also believe that beyond American textbooks, it is accepted that Kruschyov had this outcome in mind from the start, and no attempt was made to conceal the missiles once they were being made operational on site.

    But in today's sovereignty test, who will play the shoe-banging kruschyov to America's enthusiastic chest-thumping President? I never thought I'd ever miss the USSR.
     
  17. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    Saddam did say "Mother may I?" before invading Q8, and got a green light from George I. April Glaspie did not take on that responsibility, I'm certain- although she did take the public fall. Communications between CIA and Saddam were just fine in those days.

    My belief is that the US has had a long-standing desire for all the large troop and equipment garrisons they can get in theatre by any means.
     
  18. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Taking down the monster: right and wrong ways.

    Sorry, that was supposed to be sarcasm. If we cheered Saddam's attempt to invade Iran, why would we care about a much smaller country.
    Perhaps in some cosmic sense we do. But there are a whole lot of wrong ways to go about it that will only make matters worse. E.g., reinforcing a 1000-year old well-founded fear in Islamic culture that Christendom is waiting for a chance to annihilate them. The Soviets aren't there any more to automatically oppose us in any conflict; if we move now it will surely look like we believe we've finally got that chance.

    Send some commandos in or better yet let the Israelis do it; they're really good at that kind of action and they owe us about fifty years worth of favors. This isn't Afghanistan, repressed citizens aren't going to welcome the G.I.s. The civilian casualty rate will be unconscionable, even for such a worthy goal. That will inflame the rest of the Muslim world and some of those "moderate" governments will prove to be very unstable.

    Neither our bumbling government nor the U.N.'s Keystone Kops have produced any evidence to convince me that Saddam is enough of a danger to warrant challenging a billion people to fight World War III -- on OUR soil.
    I'm just being flippant, you guys are well informed. But I'm aghast at the number of people I run into who don't even remember that Iran and Iraq fought a war for the better part of a decade, much less which side we were on. Trying to talk with my fellow Americans about world events can be very depressing.

    Bottom line: There are a few countries over there that could and/or already have unleashed some major trouble for the U.S. I do not believe that Iraq is near the top of the list.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2003
  19. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    Actually, you are correct. JFK was negotiating the removal of the missile in Turkey before they were actually moved. He had already been discussing such a removal even before the Cuban crisis. That forced him to back off because off a seeming loss of face if he did so during the crisis. He waited until about 4 months after though to do so. Was it a part of the arrangement? I don't know. Nobody does other than a select few people involved. None of the later released government documents ever showed anything conclusive. Any secondary material is only speculation.

    O agree with you. I miss the USSR too. In a real world there must be a balance of power. And it's much easier to have a stand up enemy in front of you than the ones you can't see.

    <i>Perhaps in some cosmic sense we do. But there are a whole lot of wrong ways to go about it that will only make matters worse. E.g., reinforcing a 1000-year old well-founded fear in Islamic culture that Christendom is waiting for a chance to annihilate them. The Soviets aren't there any more to automatically oppose us in any conflict; if we move now it will surely look like we believe we've finally got that chance.

    Send some commandos in or better yet let the Israelis do it; they're really good at that kind of action and they owe us about fifty years worth of favors. This isn't Afghanistan, repressed citizens aren't going to welcome the G.I.s. The civilian casualty rate will be unconscionable, even for such a worthy goal. That will inflame the rest of the Muslim world and some of those "moderate" governments will prove to be very unstable.</i>

    Don't miss understand me. I'm not promoting war. I've made some sarcastic quips to what I thought were some goofy posts by some others, but I'm not in to unnecessary war. I'm a veteran of a needless war in Vietnam and I'm not eager to see young people today die needlessly, whether American or Iraqi. I would like to see commandos go in but we did that in '91 and simply couldn't find Saddam. I doubt we could today. Not only does he stay mobile, he has so many body doubles. If the Israelis go in that will definitely explode into a regional war. The solution would be an insurrection from within. Not a coup, because that would likely mean someone from the Republican Guard replacing him, but an insurrection of dissidents. The problem is the US supports the INC, which is in exile. The main dissident groups inside are Kurdish and Shiites, and the US may not feel they can control them, which is wrong of course, but still a political reality.

    As far as Iraq being an immediate threat, I agree again. I do not believe Iraq is a clear and present danger. Unfortunately, Bush is like a bloodhound that has picked up the scent and the only thing that is going to stop this is an 11th hour white flag by Saddam. And I seriously doubt that.

    I don't believe this is all just over oil and influence however. If that was the case the US, as the only superpower, could simply move in and grab like an imperial nation. Bush and company likely feel that Saddam is a threat and he probably wants to finish what his father didn't. Unfortunately, I think he overemphasized the danger, but I think 9/11 jolted him. No president wants a blemish like that as his legacy, so he is looking for some international victory to balance the scale back in his favor. Iraq is perfect for that. He's looking for a favorable nod from the later history books, but I think he is miscalculating how history will remember him. JMO.
     

Share This Page