World Politics (Was: Beavers!!!)

[Snuit]

Personaly I think Saddam should have been removed from power from 500 meters with a 50 caliber sniper rifle.  Would have saved everyone a lot of trouble and only cost 50 cents for the bullet.

 

Then what? chaos cause there is nobody to control Iraq!

[Entropy]

What about just bringing him to an international tribunal and condemn him to exactly what the international tribunal decides?

[ShadowKnight]

Na, our judgement is just as good as any tribunal.

 

Besides, unless the tribunal's being bribed, he'll end up with the same fate no matter who the judge is.

[Entropy]

So then why not let a tribunal decide?

[Jimbob]

The UN was already there and can be considered an international tribunal and the US went against their wishes. But thats not the point. after all, werent you talking about beavers?

 

The idea of this being similar to capitalism, the rich getting richer... those that are achieving money through traditional methods are raising their exp while their doing it so they can make even more money even faster. Thats why none of us sat killing rabbits for days on end.

 

this may be allowing noobs to get money fast at the moment, but whats it doing for their skills? Unless they are extremely low level then killing beavers is nothing but a waste of time for nothing but money. That is money that they arent earning, but manipulating higher level characters to pay because there is no other choice

 

Ive seen people killing deer with serpent swords when most of the other players ive seen didnt even have any sword till they reached goblins. What happened to all of the weapons before serpent sword? Noobs should not have as much money as the high level character even if it does seem a good idea to the game designer cos he only just started playing himself.

 

Oh, and entropy i may not be american but i agree with most everything you have said. And Australia is another capitalist country to add to the list

[Kelven]

Snuit, that was a joke.

 

Ent, do you expect him to hand himself over to a tribunal? Now that we have him he will most likely be given over to the new Iraqii government for his own people to decide what to do with him.

 

Hitler killed ruthlessly simply because of a persons race/creed/sexual oreintation. Saddam killed ruthlessly simply because of a persons race/creed/sexual oreintation. The only difference is the magnitude of the autrocity (which isn't very far apart).

 

Most of what I know of the area comes from what my wife tells me as well as talking to my father in law (a shia muslim who lived in Iraq and witnessed many friends "disappear"). Anyways, here are the links to news articles relating to Saddam's reign of terror:

 

http://www.indict.org.uk/witnesses.php Rather graphic.

 

http://www.state.gov/s/wci/fs/19352.htm

 

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cnn-iraq.htm

 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo...l20030922.shtml A good one.

 

Not a link but the book Embedded: very good source from an on the scene journalist and veteran reporter on war crimes.

 

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/15/Worldand...ttributed.shtml Another good one.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...1107238,00.html

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82879,00.html

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105847,00.html Comments on Iran-Iraq war.

 

http://www.thebatt.com/news/2003/04/07/Mai...aq-514399.shtml

 

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat5.htm#Iraq

 

1. Iraq, Shia rebellion in south (1991-92)

o War Annual 6: 40,000

o Ploughshares 2000 cites ...

§ Rebel commanders: 50,000

§ al-Hakim: 300,000

o 22 Feb. 1994 AP at Radwaniyeh prison camp

§ November 1993: up to 2,000 political executions

§ before September 1993: "hundreds"

§ October 1992: 200 in a single day

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm Speech from the US war crimes ambassador.

 

 

Side note: this is the most wondering thread ever...from beavers, to capitalism, to nationalism, to Saddam Huessein....

[Kelven]

Oh, Jim btw the UN passed resolution after resolution condemning Iraq and the history of UN mandates violated by Saddam is simply astounding. The UN spoke out against Iraq in about as harsh a voice possible given that France, Russia, and China would veto anything more proactive that would have jeapordized their economic interests in Iraq.

 

I like hunting beavers, kill 5 and its an easy 15k

[Entropy]

*frown*

Feeding people into a plastich shredered? Umm, sounds cool, but the only problem is that this was total propaganda and 0 truth. There were some articles about where is that device, since no one found it. So that tells alot about your sources.

Anyway, UN didn't condemn Iraq nearly as much as they condemned Israel, who broke the most UN resolutions EVER. Iraq broke only a few, and USA broke far more using their veto power.

[GateKeepeR]

Entropy, shame on you.. getting off topic ;D

 

I thought we were talking about beavers ??

[Kelven]

Ent, read the rest of them. The one quoting the numbers killed is pretty much iron clad...the first one was just the most graphic so I put it first...notice that the reputable ones are saying the same things as the ones just saying "propaganda". Most of the sources are humans rights agencies, government, or news agencies. The link with the statistics I got from a UN website.

 

How has USA broken resolutions using veto power? The power to veto a resolution has been used by all perm members of the security council and is part of the UN charter, so it doesn't "break" any UN resolutions. I looked at the link 75% of those were dealing with Isreal and Palestinean terrorists. I even saw one about ending the trade embargo with cuba...I don't see anything like what we are talking about with Iraq. As for Israel, that is an entirely different and incredably complex situation.

[Entropy]

By vetoing the resolutions, US efectively broke them before they were even started, which is, of course, what's it's all about.

Iraq would have doen the same, if it had veto power in the UN, so it all comes down to who is stronger.

What about thsi vetoes:

Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.

Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.

Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.

!!!!!!!!!!!Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states.

Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.

!!!!!!!!Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.!!!!!!!!!

Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.

Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Many others I was too lazy to quote.

[Kelven]

Ok, didn't look up all of those but I did look up the one about world ecology b/c I remember hearing about it. That one was veto'd because it gave certain rights to the UN that were granted to the US legeslature and therefor violated the constitution of the United States. I have the feeling several of the others also fall under that category. The veto power in the UN is there for a reason; if it wasn't there the UN would never have been formed in the first place. None of the perm security members would have consented without it, and it is there so that they can maintain their own sovernty in making decisions for themselves and not have a case of smaller nations telling them what to do with their own country (I don't know if this is good or not, but that would be an argument for changing the UN charter, not on whether the US shouldn't use its veto). As for the one about chem/biological weapons the US has always done extensive research in both of these fields and indeed it needs to for medical research purposes irregardless of anything else (immagine a world w/o the CDC and Pastuer institute).

 

Second, I feel that we have shifted the focus of the argument once again; going from Saddam to US veto policy in the UN. :? I don't see how it is relevant to Saddam's autrocities and why he should have been removed from power.

 

Oh, I also checked the one about security counsel members ensuring UN decisions about international peace and security: that one also violated the US constitution b/c the US can't do so w/o authorization from the senate in each and every cercumstance. Also, there was concern b/c the bill stated that most of the money for such undertakings would come from the US, but thats just a minor side not compaired to the constitutional incompatibility issue (I will find the ref for this; I found it on the school database and don't know how you can access it but I'm sure I can find it somewhere else).

[Entropy]

The very idea of forming UN was so that there will be world peace, and every state would need to give up some of the things, in order to enstablish a global compromise. Even China, regarded by the americans as a rigid and even hostile contry, or the former URSS(whatever the english name is) used their veto right much less than US did.

 

As for the chemical and nuclear weapons please tell me how exactly are they used for anything benefiecial to the mankind, and how exactly they relate to the Pastuer institute.

For your information, Pastuer's work was dedicated to help the human race (and even the non human lifeforms), as opposed to the US goverment that seek the oposite (investing billions in WMDs, etc.)

 

Also, the fact that an UN resolution was against the USA's constitution is totally irrelevant. Since other countries can do that, so can USA. But then again, USA is too good to do that, [sarcasm] since they are the leaders of the free world [/sarcasm]

[Atreides*]

O/T

I'm with Entropy:

 

For example; The USA has refused to ratify the UN resolution on Genocide. They are NOT a signatory because, they say, that it does not apply to them, and that they are accountale to no-one except their electorate.

 

Two words: Native Americans.

 

The US take the resoulutions of the UN that THEY like/want to use and totally ignore the rest.

/rant.

 

I like the beaver economy, they are easier to find than white Rabbits and there are more spawn points. Good job.

[ShadowKnight]

I know i'm a part of this, but you know this whole thing about Iraq really belongs in off topic. (Never thought i'd have to say that to ent) I agree on the indian thing. That was genocide. Also, i find it hypocritical that the US has or at least had enough nukes to destroy the world several times over, yet the whole war was started because Saddam was thought to have had weapons of mass destruction. But don't get me wrong, Saddam still should have been removed, although not in that way.

[Kelven]

The UN was formed to create world stability and was designed the way it was in order to avoid the problems that made the League of Nations powerless. Its main purpose was to create a forum for communication for the worlds Major powers to prevent tho possibility of a third world war. It was not intended to rob any of these countries of their own sovernty.

 

The resolution you refered to would have eleminated all chemical/biological agents that could be used as weapons as well as eliminate all research done on these agents. Also, since biological agents are also naturally occuring that would have had an effect on the research programs for both the CDC and the Pastreur Institute (which do mostly the same things). This is my background field and both the CDC and the Pastuer Institute do research on biological agents that could be considered "biological weapons". The benifits to mankind for this type of research are staggering but in order to explain them all I would have to post an entire graduate level course in microbiology. Almost all of the US budget for WMD go towards nuclear weapons that were created during the cold war with the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Again, this is an entirely seperate issue.

 

Also, the US has not used its veto power as much as you have indicated nor is it the main vetoer in the UN:

"Since 1945, when the United Nations was founded, the Soviet Union and Russia have used their veto at the Security Council 120 times, the United States 76 times, Britain 32, France 18 and China only five."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/2828985.stm

 

Also, all of the perm. members have used the THREAT of veto to since resolutions just as effectively as an actaul veto (for example France threatening to veto a UN resolution authorizing military invasion of Iraq failed do to the threats). Of the 77 US vetos, 36 where to block resolutions whose only purpose was to criticise Israel. Also, since the collapse of the USSR capitalistic Russia has used its veto power only twice. Indeed during the first ten years of the UN the US did not use its veto at all and the USSR used it 79 times!

 

As for China, the small number of vetos are due to China's seat on the UN security council being occupied by the Republic of China (ROC, or Taiwan) from 1946 to 1971.

 

The fact that a resolution violates the US constitution is not irrelevent; it is at the heart of many issues :!: :!: To consider it irrelevent shows a fundamental misunderstanding of US signed a resolution that violated its consitution it would be immediately overturned by the courts! Indeed, the US does not have the type of government where a central authority can decide to ignore the constitution whenever it wants to. It has absolutely nothing to do with the US being leader of the free world or with other countries being bitter about it. You argued that countries should be respectfull of Iraq's sovergnty but then you easily dismiss the sovergnty of the US.

[Entropy]

The resolution you refered to would have eleminated all chemical/biological agents that could be used as weapons as well as eliminate all research done on these agents. Also, since biological agents are also naturally occuring that would have had an effect on the research programs for both the CDC and the Pastreur Institute (which do mostly the same things).

I think there is a major and obvious difference between biological weapons versus honest medical research. I don't think that resolution was aimed to stop countries from developing vaccines, study biological agents, etc. It was meant to stop the proliferation of the reasearch that is used mainly for developing weapons.

 

The fact that a resolution violates the US constitution is not irrelevent; it is at the heart of many issues   To consider it irrelevent shows a fundamental misunderstanding of US signed a resolution that violated its consitution it would be immediately overturned by the courts! Indeed, the US does not have the type of government where a central authority can decide to ignore the constitution whenever it wants to. It has absolutely nothing to do with the US being leader of the free world or with other countries being bitter about it. You argued that countries should be respectfull of Iraq's sovergnty but then you easily dismiss the sovergnty of the US.

 

USA's constitution applies in USA, it has nothing to do with the international community. No one outside gives a shit if, for example, a war criminal is protected by the US constitution, while s/he commited warcrimes outside of the US.

Besides, in order for the spirit of UN (and spirit of peace as well) to work, countries HAVE to modify their constitution, which is not a bad thing. You have to understand that, as opposed to what most of the americans are tought in schools, USA is not the only important state in the world. It's population is like what, 6% of the world's population?

The pollution generated by the US has negative effects worldwide. If the negatives effects would be confined to USA alone, no one outside the USA would give a shit.

 

Indeed, the US does not have the type of government where a central authority can decide to ignore the constitution whenever it wants to.  

No shit! Then how do you explain the Iraq invasion, that wasn't even approved by the congress, as the USA constitution requires?

What about the USA PATRIOT act, that pees on the USA constitution, which was more or less signed unilaterally, by the Republicans and their monkey in chief?

USA might have been a democracy, but now it isn't.

[Fingolfin]

Wow nice topic, what a spirited argument.

Well Ent, I mostly agreed with everything you said up until this last quote about America used to be a democracy.

I don't want to shatter anyone's sense of reality, but if you check the history, 38 of the US presidents have been related to BOTH Charlamenge in France and King Alfred in England.

Even Kerry and Bush, the two new candidates running are cousins! not to mention they both belonged to skull and bones in yale, along with countless other presidents.

It's all a farce to make you think you have a choice when ther is none. The easiest way to imprision people is by making them think they're free :?

[sam3773]

i assume your talking about the resemblance of beaver fur and sadam husain's beared? overwise, IM MOving this to offtopic!!

[Kelven]

Indeed there is a major difference between medical and weapons research when dealing with biologic>>>>i.e. the intent of the user. However since you can not use that as a standard and since the research itself IS NOT different the resolution applied to both.

 

You are right, the US constitution applies to the USA. The resolutions that were vetoed applied just as equally to the USA as everyone else. The main issue is not about war criminals it is about the seperation and apportionment of powers given by the constitution. Your argument is contradictory; sovergnty for other nations but the US must change the very thing which its government has been based upon since its inception? If a UN resolution violates the US constitution the US will not support it, it would be pointless to do so b/c even if it did the courts would over rule whatever action was mandated by the resolution and it would become resolution on name only. The same thing would happen in other countries, too; for example you can't expect a UN resolution combining religion and state to fly in the ultra secular government of France, it violates the very foundation of what their government is based upon.

 

The invasion in Iraq was authorized by Congress. Congress explicitely stated that the office of the executive could use "any means necessary" to resolve the situation in Iraq.

 

The US Patriot Act was indeed a piece of shit, most of which has been overturned by the court>>>another example of the checks and balances. The act was actually voted into law with huge bipartison support; largely an over reaction to 9/11. That it was inacted by a representative congress in no way invalidates the principle of democracy.

[Entropy]

Indeed there is a major difference between medical and weapons research when dealing with biologic>>>>i.e. the intent of the user. However since you can not use that as a standard and since the research itself IS NOT different the resolution applied to both.

Not quite.

First, biological weapons differ quite a lot than civilian medical research. First, a biological weapon needs additional research, such as how to deploy it, how to construct the bomb mechanism, etc. You can't just take some flu viruses, stick them to some C4, and voila, you have the biological weapon.

Also, genetically engineering aggresive viruses has little or no benefit for medical science, but it's obviously a prerequisite for a biological weapon.

 

You are right, the US constitution applies to the USA. The resolutions that were vetoed applied just as equally to the USA as everyone else. The main issue is not about war criminals it is about the seperation and apportionment of powers given by the constitution. Your argument is contradictory; sovergnty for other nations but the US must change the very thing which its government has been based upon since its inception?

You are confusing sovergnty for stuborness.

It is perfectly normal for a soverign country to change their legislation in order to adapt to and preserve the rest of the world. Changing your own legislation every once in a while for a better one is not giving up your sovergnty. Attacking a soveriegn country, on the other hand, without even declaring war to that country is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Occupying a country liek US does in Iraq is also against the Geneva Convention. And BTW, USA ratified the Geneva Convention pact, so they were supposed to respect it.

 

The invasion in Iraq was authorized by Congress. Congress explicitely stated that the office of the executive could use "any means necessary" to resolve the situation in Iraq.  

The congress did not declare war to Iraq. It was an invasion, not a war, which is illegal.

 

The US Patriot Act was indeed a piece of shit, most of which has been overturned by the court>>>another example of the checks and balances. The act was actually voted into law with huge bipartison support; largely an over reaction to 9/11. That it was inacted by a representative congress in no way invalidates the principle of democracy.

 

The USA PATRIOT Act is not was a piece of shit. It's still pretty much there, with the mention that now it is even more powerfull, such as the FBI being allowed to look at your bank account and such at their own discretion.

The very fact that a certain american prison exists in Cuba is a total violation of the human rights pact, Geneva Convention, and various other international conventions.

Not to mention that it makes the privacy in USA a joke.

[Kelven]

Ok, I agree with most of what you are saying about the Patriot act, excuse the use of past tense. However, the courts HAVE invalidated the most offensive parts of it and Congress is at present drafting a bill to invalidate almost everything else that remains.

 

As for the part about biological weapons: I spend half of my day in a biomed lab and my grad advisor does some of this research (there is a cdc research lab on our campus). The differences you refer to between legitimate research and research for weapons is not as distinct and clear as you say. They are very similar and the language of the resolution you refered to in your post did not make ANY allowances for this. Much of the legitimate research we do (smallpox, avine bird flu) is completely legitimate yet I can easily see how someone with knowledge in our lab could use the literally dozens of current research projects as a "weapon". Most "weapons" are common strands of disease that have been very slightly modified (the addition of a single RNA plasmid or the modification of a single R chain). Beside this research I do think that there is legitimate research being done on actual "weapons" in order to find ways to combat them. Also, many biological agents used as weapons could potentially show up naturally in our environment due to genetic shift and drift and therefor there is a real reason to be researching them.

 

I am not confusing sovergnty with stubbornness. Look the plethora of resolutions that the US has supported or adhered to that required a change in legistlation: there are tons of them! The legislature commonly adopts these types of resolutions. However, it is the few resolutions that REGARDLESS of their name or proposed benifit that violate the constitution (I.E. the fundamental rights of the people and powers of the government) that can not be made into law. To allow another country to modify the US constitution would be tantamount to eliminating its sovergnty and would probably lead to a collapse of the current system of government. Your contentions are an extreme oversimplification of what of this entire process.

 

Congress did not have to declare war on Iraq. It was not illegal to invade Iraq. Under the War Powers Act of 1973(http://www.luminet.net/~tgort/wpa.htm) the congress may authorize the President to use military force with out the declaration of war. This is FAR from being an illegal action. Additionally, under the treaty that ended the Persion Gulf war in which Iraq INVADED Kuwait Saddam himself agreed that if he violoated the peace treaty the US and Iraq would then be at a state of war. The occupation or invasion of Iraq in such a cercumstance is not illegal nor a violation of the geneva convention. I beleive that Saddam did need to be removed from power. I do not support the timing (I think it should have waited and alternatives should have been more aggressively sought out) nor the means at which this was accomplished, but I will not say that it was an illegal action because it simply was not.

[Entropy]

Ok, let's say that biological weapons==biological research. What about the other vetoes? Like banning nuclear tests? Now don't tell me they have a civilian use, such as nuclear reactors.

Also, USA is very well known for violating the Geneva Convention many times, in different countries.

USA is also better than international law concerning war crimes, given the fact that they do not send their war criminals to an international tribunal. So really, there is nothing to be proud about being an american. USA's history is very bloody (killing the natives, using slaves, killing black people in public executions, without any trial, etc.). Sure, every once in a while USA did some good things, like fighting on the right side in two WWs, but, as a whole, USA is the biggest threat to world peace and stability. Just because it has a considerable military power is nothing to be proud of.

[ShadowKnight]

Although persecution is in no way right, it is in no way unique to America. The Spanish conquistadors killed indians as well. Romans tried to take over anglo-saxans. Europe took over Africa. Minority religions have been persecuted too many times to count.

Also, in my opinion, the US isn't the biggest threat. Bush is the biggest threat. America is typically neutral, and often isolationist. While we are a military superpower, we usually don't care enough to be a problem. Sure, we do a lot of peace talks, but we rarely take sides. In WW1, we stayed neutral at first, but Britain subtly manipulated us into helping. In WW2, it was Japan's stupidity.

 

BTW, Beneficial and Harmful research begins the same, but it gradually goes one way or the other.

[Entropy]

USA did a lot of nasty things even before the Bush era. Read the Rotten.com library, they have quite a few articles about how CIA, or some presidents such as Truman, Bush Senior, Regan, etc. did some really nasty things in other countries (Regan and Bush Senior for example sold weapons to Iran, efectively violating an embargo they set).