Cable Forum - View Single Post

12-11-2003, 16:24

The problem with that article in The Times is that on the surface a lot of it looks well argued. However, I fail entirely to see why the journalist felt the need to bring up connections with Communism. What it does do though is highlight this journalist's agenda, and just highlight the fact that his politics are clearly very right wing. After that bit of irrelevant rhetoric I see no worth in the rest of the article.

As for the earlier comment about UN resolutions having an expiry date, they do not, but the earlier UN resolutions did not mandate a military campaign. The terminology in these things can be obtuse at times, but it did not go that far.

As for US mandated mass slaughter, I only have to point to the no-fly zones in Iraq. These were never authorised by UN action, they were implemented by the US, UK and French. The French pulled out a long time ago, while the US and UK continued to patrol these areas and attack military targets within the borders of Iraq. Many people will have died in these attacks, yet they had no legitimacy under international law. I`m also in no way convinced that the US government was complicit in the attacks of 9/11, even if through merely turning a blind-eye for political gain, so that's almost another 3000 deaths on the hands of the US government.

As for the US not using suicide bombers, they just use more covert means to bring death and destruction for their own political ends. The US were responsible for the rise of power of General Pinochet and the suffering that caused. The US had a major part in putting Saddam Hussein into the position of power he was in before they decided they didn`t like him. The US illegally carpet bombed neutral countries during the Vietnam war just in case the enemy were there. No matter how much blood was on Saddam Hussein's hands, there is a lot more on the collective hands of the American people and their government.

12-11-2003, 16:24	#34
dr wadd Guest Posts: n/a	Re: 52nd State The problem with that article in The Times is that on the surface a lot of it looks well argued. However, I fail entirely to see why the journalist felt the need to bring up connections with Communism. What it does do though is highlight this journalist's agenda, and just highlight the fact that his politics are clearly very right wing. After that bit of irrelevant rhetoric I see no worth in the rest of the article. As for the earlier comment about UN resolutions having an expiry date, they do not, but the earlier UN resolutions did not mandate a military campaign. The terminology in these things can be obtuse at times, but it did not go that far. As for US mandated mass slaughter, I only have to point to the no-fly zones in Iraq. These were never authorised by UN action, they were implemented by the US, UK and French. The French pulled out a long time ago, while the US and UK continued to patrol these areas and attack military targets within the borders of Iraq. Many people will have died in these attacks, yet they had no legitimacy under international law. I`m also in no way convinced that the US government was complicit in the attacks of 9/11, even if through merely turning a blind-eye for political gain, so that's almost another 3000 deaths on the hands of the US government. As for the US not using suicide bombers, they just use more covert means to bring death and destruction for their own political ends. The US were responsible for the rise of power of General Pinochet and the suffering that caused. The US had a major part in putting Saddam Hussein into the position of power he was in before they decided they didn`t like him. The US illegally carpet bombed neutral countries during the Vietnam war just in case the enemy were there. No matter how much blood was on Saddam Hussein's hands, there is a lot more on the collective hands of the American people and their government.