Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => Politics and Law-Related News => Topic started by: jgruber on May 31, 2004, 11:49:31 AM

Title: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: jgruber on May 31, 2004, 11:49:31 AM
JURIST Contributing Editor Professor Ali Khan says that the current lawlessness in post-war Iraq demonstrates that a single superpower cannot unilaterally manage world affairs.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew119.php
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: thechoson on May 31, 2004, 11:59:30 AM
So much for Gilpin's Hegemonic Stability theory
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: guyutegirl (Jew-Lo) on May 31, 2004, 12:00:59 PM
So much for Gilpin's Hegemonic Stability theory

I love the word Hegemony. That's what i wanna name my firstborn. Well, that's not true-i'm not gonna have kids cuz i hate em but that's what i'll make my sister name my first neice. Sorry, carry on
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: jgruber on May 31, 2004, 12:33:32 PM
At least someone is thinking about what it means to be the lone surviving super power.  I think it's obvious no one in the white house is.
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: Ginatio on May 31, 2004, 02:53:04 PM
Just in case there was any doubt as to who's running this country:


Bundles of Influence
The Bush campaign's Pioneers and Rangers are raising millions to re-elect the president. What do they expect in return? (http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/05/04_405.html)


Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: schoomp on June 02, 2004, 09:22:43 AM
An interesting side note - Bush is in Colorado today.  He just went down to the Springs for the Air Force Academy's graduation.  While he is down there, he is meeting with James Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family...  makes you wonder who is running the country - Bush or his conservative religious friends.
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: jgruber on June 02, 2004, 09:55:26 AM
An interesting side note - Bush is in Colorado today.  He just went down to the Springs for the Air Force Academy's graduation.  While he is down there, he is meeting with James Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family...  makes you wonder who is running the country - Bush or his conservative religious friends.

It makes you wonder why James Dobson didn't come to him.
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: schoomp on June 02, 2004, 10:04:52 AM
Since Focus on the Family is based in Colorado Springs, my bet is that it was just a campaign stop on the way - or that James Dobson is going to the AFA to meet before Bush gives his speech.  From what I have read (it has been in the newspapers a little here), it is to get his conservative base behind him for the election.  Also, Colorado Springs is very right and two of the congresspeople (Musgrave and Allard) who are trying to get the anti-gay marriage amendment passed are from that area.
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 08:23:10 AM
When you have an enitity such as the UN who has profited from a dictatorship such as Iraq and your "allies" such as France who also profited from Iraq...it makes it difficult to be anything but unilateral in your foreign affairs.  Who are you to consult when the world, because of their greed, don't want you to smash their piggy bank?
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 08:25:34 AM
When you have an enitity such as the UN who has profited from a dictatorship such as Iraq and your "allies" such as France who also profited from Iraq...it makes it difficult to be anything but unilateral in your foreign affairs.  Who are you to consult when the world, because of their greed, don't want you to smash their piggy bank?

Share the blame equally willya?  Who bankrolled Saddam to start with?
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 08:28:33 AM
I don't think I understand what you're talking about? ???
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 08:31:23 AM
You criticized the UN and France because they are linked to money and Iraq.  Let's go all the way and include those people who used their money to empower Saddam in the first place.
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 08:37:36 AM
Okay..fine, but I'm talking about our allies that profited from Iraq, thus would suffer from ousting its dictator.  I'm not talking about money used to empower him...money he used to pacify our "allies" (and I use that word loosely).
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 08:39:02 AM
We profited from Iraq for many years. 
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 08:44:17 AM
Verify that.  Let's just say kudo's to you..you verified it.  Now what?  Can we not consult ourselves?  Isn't that the whole basis of unilateralism?
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 08:46:36 AM
Verify that.  Let's just say kudo's to you..you verified it.  Now what?  Can we not consult ourselves?  Isn't that the whole basis of unilateralism?

I am suggesting that instead of picking your enemy of the day to blame look widely and at ourselves, too.  It serves no purpose to single out France as a country that profited from the corruption of Iraq except to make us look hypocritical and myopic.
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 08:58:39 AM
I'm not picking any enemy..just giving a reason why the US acted unilaterally in it's dealings with Iraq.  It DOES serve a purpose to point out the fact that France profited from Iraq because you yourself think that we should have consulted with them on our foriegn affairs.  By pointing out that France had a lot to lose if Saddaam was ousted, its easy to see why their opinion would be extremely skewed to their best interest and not that of the US.  Not doing so would be myopic. 
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 09:02:12 AM
When did I say we should have consulted with France?

I don't care if we never talk to them again.

I'm pointing out that you are accusing other countries of base motives when ours are at the very least questionable.  France had a lot to lose financially.  We had a lot to gain.  Tell the whole story.

I'm not picking any enemy..just giving a reason why the US acted unilaterally in it's dealings with Iraq.  It DOES serve a purpose to point out the fact that France profited from Iraq because you yourself think that we should have consulted with them on our foriegn affairs.  By pointing out that France had a lot to lose if Saddaam was ousted, its easy to see why their opinion would be extremely skewed to their best interest and not that of the US.  Not doing so would be myopic. 
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 09:05:04 AM
Wait a minute.  I just got what you're saying.  We should not consult with other countries because they have different motives from us.  Then who would we ever consult with.  No one will be entirely in agreement with us. 

And are you suggesting that it would have been harmful to talk to France before invading Iraq?  What would have happened?  It's not like it was a secret what dubya wanted to do.

Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 09:15:44 AM
You're getting waaay of track here.  I'm responding to a post questioning the US's reasoning for acting unilaterally with Iraq.  We should always consult our allies in foreign affairs, but if an extreme bias is evident, then their opinion is worthless and should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm not saying it would have been harmful to consult France...just pointless. 
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 09:53:24 AM
I'm only taking your position to its logical conclusion.  We should not consult with those who disagree.

You're getting waaay of track here.  I'm responding to a post questioning the US's reasoning for acting unilaterally with Iraq.  We should always consult our allies in foreign affairs, but if an extreme bias is evident, then their opinion is worthless and should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm not saying it would have been harmful to consult France...just pointless. 
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 10:00:51 AM
that is not the logical conclusion to my arguement.  The logical conclusion would be that we should not consult others who are profiting from the dictator with whom we intend to oust, thus avoiding the inherent bias against our intended actions.
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 10:12:29 AM
You seem to be twisting yourself in knots.  First you say there is no logical conclusion, which would make your statement suspect, and then you tell me what the logical conclusion is, which contradicts you first sentence.

If we should not consult with those who profited from the dictator, we would need to exclude many members of the current administration, wouldn't we?

that is not the logical conclusion to my arguement.  The logical conclusion would be that we should not consult others who are profiting from the dictator with whom we intend to oust, thus avoiding the inherent bias against our intended actions.
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 10:14:47 AM
I didn't say there was no logical conclustion, I said YOUR conclusin wasn't logical.  Come on.

If someone in the current administration was currently profitting from Iraq, then I would have to say that yes, they should have no say in any attacks against the regime of Iraq.
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 10:19:21 AM
Sorry, I misread your statement, so I have to say I was wrong when I said you were contradicting yourself.


Anywayy......

There is evidence that the Bush family, including dubya, benefited from a relationship with the dictator.  Shouldn't the president have stepped aside when discussions of Iraw were underway?

I didn't say there was no logical conclustion, I said YOUR conclusin wasn't logical.  Come on.

If someone in the current administration was currently profitting from Iraq, then I would have to say that yes, they should have no say in any attacks against the regime of Iraq.
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 10:26:02 AM
If he did indeed benefit from a relationship with Iraq, then I think there would have been a serious conflict of interest and he should not have intervened...or had someone else take charge in the attack.

What evidence is there showing this?  I seriously would love to know.  (not being sarcastic)
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 10:28:50 AM
I don't have the exact references, so I can't quote them, but I know there have been a few books and articles suggesting links between Bush and Saddam, Bush and Bin Laden.  I haven't read any of them in depth.  But there is evidence so I keep an open mind on the subject.

If he did indeed benefit frrem a relationship with Iraq, then I think there would have been a serious conflict of interest and he should not have intervened...or had someone else take charge in the attack.

What evidence is there showing this?  I seriously would love to know.  (not being sarcastic)
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 10:30:34 AM
Now you've intrigued me.  I must find these sources and find the truth! (truth being echoed as if shouted from the Grand Canyon)

Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 10:34:06 AM
A quick search found these articles about bush and bin laden connections

http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_07_01/Bush___Bin_Laden_-_George_W__B/bush___bin_laden_-_george_w__b.html

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushmoney.htm

http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=103&row=1

http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/25/feature3.shtml

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/041203metwithbinladen.html



Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 11:32:47 AM
These articles show that George W. Bush had a business relationship with Osama's brother. It doesn't show that he had any ties with Iraq.
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: jgruber on June 03, 2004, 11:37:24 AM
These articles show that George W. Bush had a business relationship with Osama's brother. It doesn't show that he had any ties with Iraq.

That's the best I could do in five minutes.  So I guess he should have been excluded from conversations about Afghanistan and other matters related to Bin Laden because of the conflict of interest.
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: Jeremy on June 03, 2004, 11:43:52 AM
Well, I wouldn't go that far, but I do think that he was wrong when he put a freeze on all accounts that had anything to do with possible terrorist funding.  His own business dealt directly with Osama's brother..so that was hyprocritcal and wrong.
Title: Re: LAWLESSNESS IN IRAQ AND THE FAILURE OF UNILATERALISM
Post by: jgruber on June 05, 2004, 07:35:02 PM
Well, I wouldn't go that far, but I do think that he was wrong when he put a freeze on all accounts that had anything to do with possible terrorist funding.  His own business dealt directly with Osama's brother..so that was hyprocritcal and wrong.

Why wouldn't you go that far.  He had a conflict of interest.