Guardian:"Israeli officer: I was right to shoot 13-year

Meijin said:
Dave Arc1 wrote:
'Lets not forget that Kuwait was created as a result of broken promise's by the UK government (amongst others) after the end of WW1. How much trouble has that led too?'

Problem is when Iraq signed up to the UN in the late '50s/early '60s it agreed to the sovereignty of Kuwait (Kuwait already being a member), therefore, Iraq had accepted the sovereignty of Kuwait. So, when the invasion of '91 happened it was actually legitimate for the UN powers to get Iraq out of Kuwait

Then Saddam takes power in Iraq - decides he's isn't up for it any longer - and here we are today!
I was only making the general point of the origin of a problem in context with another similar problem or situation.
I wouldn't deny the validity of of the UN resolutions that led to the removal of the Iraqi's from Kuwait.

Whilst on the subject of UN resolutions I would draw attention to this one.

UNSCR 678 29th November 1990

Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."

Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."


Not being an expert in international law BUT to my layman's eye's this gives full authority to actually remove Saddam from power under the black and white terms as highlighted above.

In fact the above is highly relevant to the now less than satisfactory situatiuon within Iraq as a result of a less than clear further resolution

Resolution 1441, drafted and accepted unanimously the year before the invasion, threatened "serious consequences" to Iraq in case Iraq did not comply with all conditions. Russia, People's Republic of China, and France made clear in a joint statement that this did not authorize the use of force but a further resolution was needed. Until a few days before the war, it was the position of the UK, the main US ally in the war, that a further resolution would be desirable before the UK would go to war.

There exists controversy on the question of whether the US intervention broke international law. The Bush administration thinks that the UN Security Council Resolutions authorizing the 1991 invasion, in addition to Resolution 1441, gave legal authority to use "…all necessary means…", which is diplomatic code for going to war.


This was the language of resolution 678 and WMD non-compliance was needed to show that Iraq was in breach of resolution 660 to use that later resolution as a legal basis for invasion and war in 2003.

But I found this to be a good place to start referencing from if you really want to go into the rights and wrongs of it all, but before we go way way off topic it's still not right for soldiers to shoot unarmed 13 year old children any more than it is for a dictator to poison gas people either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
 
Meijin said:
Problem is when Iraq signed up to the UN in the late '50s/early '60s it agreed to the sovereignty of Kuwait (Kuwait already being a member), therefore, Iraq had accepted the sovereignty of Kuwait. So, when the invasion of '91 happened it was actually legitimate for the UN powers to get Iraq out of Kuwait...

Let's get this straight - Kuwait oil companies were slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields across the border, stealing Iraqi oil using equipment leased from a firm owned by Brent Scowcroft, adviser to former President Reagan. Saddam Hussein *asked* the US ambassador to the region what she thought about it, and what the position of her government was likely to be, and was told "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts".

Slant drilling is easily enough to start a war over in the MIddle East, and Hussein thought he had a green light to take action.

But this is off-topic.

J.
 
on or off, a coupla thoughts;

firstly, about the balkans. i'm not entirely sure we can trace their troubles back to the fall of empires; i suppose you could take it as a precursory starting point, but the essence of the balkan conflicts (imo) lies in their geopolitical makeup.

you have essentially different groups of people - orthodox, catholic, muslim, serb, bosnian, croat, etc. - living in concentric circles which bear no relation to their conception of statehood. added to this mish-mash is a long, long memory; i mean, some people in the balkans STILL look back to the battle of kosovo in 1389 as proof of their superiority / raw deal / etc.... so there are some deeply ingrained beliefs which will need to be changed. luckily, i believe they are in the minority, and so do my croat/serb/bosnian friends.

slightly more on-topic:

as an atheist by consciousness & a jew by birth, i find israel's actions - whether it be the construction of a wall to keep terrorists out (so very close to a wall to keep them in :o) or the wholesale violation of - fuck, not human rights but human decency - appalling. i understand that it is difficult to live facing the terror of random bombings, many of which are specifically targetted at taking the youth. but then again, for every israeli who has died since the intifada began, 3 palestinians have died... and palestinian mortality rates are incredibly high compared to israeli rates, across the chronological range.

but you would have thought, honestly, that of ALL peoples; the israelis would recognise the futility of treating the symptoms without identifying the causes, of making an entire populace subject to inferior prisoner-status.

i think it's really very dangerous for the jewish people as a whole, as well. there are plenty of holocaust deniers out there you know, and in the current world political/ideological climate, israel's actions are perceived as representing those of all jewish people. and to be honest, i've met a fair few jewish people who seem to have VERY short memories...

what's the key?

well, perhaps we could start by addressing the economic injustices the palestinian people face. then we could ensure israel no longer bulldozes old people's houses. then we could ensure that healthcare, education & employment facilities approach those in the rest of the developed middle east. then we could force israel to withdraw from illegally occupied land. of course, doing any of this would require an acquiescent white house, which may be some years in the future... maybe if the suicide bombs were going off in washington, we'd see a different response; somehow i doubt it...

it's hard not to become profoundly cynical when thinking/talking about the israeli-palestinian situation. but, as idlewild sayeth, hope is important.
 
seuss said:
terrorists out (so very close to a wall to keep them in ) or the wholesale violation of - fuck, not human rights but human decency - appalling.

I have often wondered why nobody in the political arena has drawn this similarity of previous mistreatment of the the Jewish people's to what they are currently doing to the Palestinians.

As Seuss has so elequently put in his post it would appear to that some have memories that are far too short.
In my opinion it is no defence to say 'Oh the wall is to keeep them out' when by the same token the self same wall can be described as 'to keep them in.'

It may well be worth pointing out to Israel that walls don't work - see Berlin 1989.
 
cunts

yes. its REALLY horrible. i want to cry now.
 
Back
Top