Mandela Slams US Iraq Policy in Galway

by Steve Biko Sat Jun 21, 2003 03:47

Nelson said today that he would have supported the war in Iraq if the U.N had have backed it.

What is the difference between a U.S bomb dropping on innocent civilians and a U.N bomb? Nelsons arguement is simular to the spartacists arguement that North Korea should have nuclear weapons because it is a (workers bomb) as opposed to The Americans capitalist nuclear bomb.

by Anonymous Sat Jun 21, 2003 13:59

I see and take your point Steve. I was asking myself the same thing last night as I was watching the great Mandela say this.

I guess he was saying that he is not necessarily against war and the killing of innocence in all circumstances.

If the U.N. had backed it then there would have been sufficient evidence that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the rest of the world. And hence innocent people all around the world would have been under threat. In order to save these innocent lives he would then have backed a U.N. sanctioned strike. If clear evidence was forthcoming and Saddam refused to do nothing about it, then to not act at this stage would have been a green light for all dictators (and all elected leaders) to do what they wanted to, and the UN would have been rendered a "joke" (as you put it), by an alternative means to what has already happened.

A lesser of two evils type scenario basically.

And I agree with you that the U.N. is being rendered a joke by the actions of the US/K. In such circumstances it is incumbent on you and I and the rest of the world to do something about it. For if the UN is not in control of the world then it will fractionalise into separate competing states once again, and will in all odds, lead to the doom of mankind.

by Steve Biko Sat Jun 21, 2003 21:17

The first Gulf War was backed by the U.N, did Iraq pose a clear and present danger to the world back then?

by jean - essayst Sat Jun 21, 2003 21:53 essays at int dot ms

The USA, the United Kingdom of etc. , Australia and few other US/UK puppets can and will always do what ever they want. And no one stop them, and will never stop them. The US needs war for economic reason, the United Kingdom will never give up their colonies and become a normal peacefull Nation even in the new 'EU', and the UNO is nothing else then a kind of bureaucratic monster who peoples enjoy their life and get tax free shopping with a nice blue passport.
But also let me remaind you that exactly in the above Nation like the USA, like Australia a very large population is Irish, has been Irish or has Irish blood. If I read some comments in US Newspapers, the IHT, USA Today and Australien to, then I can see many time the names like Mcetc., Paddy, Sean and so one. We must alos see that 55,000,000 Irish are in this Nations. A few million in Ireland! In reference of NI from Nelson Mandela, this is really just another case from the United Kingdom. I know from my one experience in NI, that once it comes to elcetion many 'Catholics' voting for the British and they do not want to become Irish. So the United Kingdom is here in a quite strong position. Here Mr. N. Mandela is also wrong.
And the Irish..... I have heard so many in Donegal, they not even want that NI becomes Irish or joint Ireland.

by Sparks Sat Jun 21, 2003 22:27

In '91 Iraq did have nonconvential weapons (which is why it wasn't invaded most likely). And it did have the capability to attack other nations. So in the strict sense, yes, it was a threat to the international community.

Granted, the main threat was to US oil interests, but you did ask....

by tom Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:26

There was a protest against mandela in galway .

"when mandela dies we will kill you whites like flies"
www.africancrisis.org

by dunk Wed Sep 22, 2004 01:13

you can watch the stream of mandelas talk here
it was broadcast live
as will be tomorows universe event
http://www.heanet.ie/services/services.php?serID=0&subID=29

The Search for Simplicity in the Universe
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=66664