The regime the anti-war crowd has been defending

[Next of Kin]

Hopefully, we'll follow the model of our restructuring efforts Germany and Japan, rather than later efforts that were doomed to failure. Perhaps that is why Bush is working to keep the UN out. So far as I'm aware, the UN had little to nothing to do with the rebuilding of Germany and Japan, and pretty much any nation-building effort they've attempted has failed.

Iraq will be too fractured along ethnic lines to form a stable state. Unless the U.S. is prepared to hang around for the next 50 years and squash any resistance to the puppet regime.

[Darth Wong]

We'll show Saddam what the consequences of disobeying the UN are by ... disobeying the UN.

How have we disobeyed the UN? 1441 offers legal justification for the action. Are you saying that additional justification was required?

Is this still going on? MoO, 1441 does not authorize an invasion by any stretch of the imagination, and twisting its language to pretend that it does is dishonest. The relevant excerpt from the horse's mouth:

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

...

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

Resolution 1441 authorizes the Security Council to convene immediately upon receipt of a report of non-compliance to consider the situation, obviously to decide what should be done. At no point does it authorize invasion.

There may be some justifications for the invasion, but saying that Resolution 1441 authorizes it is simply wrong.

[Master of Ossus]

It's hardly a bribe. It's an insentive, but they could have turned it down. In fact, they did for some time prior to the war.

A bribe is a bribe is a bribe. whether it can be turned down or not. Eventually they took it.

Bullshit. By your standards, the French bribed the Americans not to get involved in Iraq. Bribery requires funds or services to be given specifically to officials. This is not a bribe because the funds were offered to the Turks and not to any specific Turk.

Moreover, you ignore the other nations including the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, Kuwait, and numerous others that offered their support for the war without any insentive but their consciences.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not Turkey was bribed, so this is a red herring. Concession accepted.

Yours was the original red-herring. I chose to answer it, and then moved the thread back on to topic with my statement. Concession accepted.

The US didn't want to be identified with supporting the Israeli strike on the Iraqi nuclear plant. That doesn't mean anything. Even Germany has been quietly supporting the war, though admittedly France has been opposed in both action and word.

It DEFINATELY means something. If their consciences are straight, and their words honest, they will have no issue with declaring openly their opinions on this war.

Actually, no. By your standards, the United States should have supported the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facility. My theory explains the American action clearly. Your model confesses it cannot explain that incident. Concession accepted.

Edit: I should also point out that by your standards, every Iraqi person who is currently celebrating in the streets is dishonest. After all, Saddam was elected UNANIMOUSLY by the Iraqi people just a little while back....

[Hamel]

Bullshit. By your standards, the French bribed the Americans not to get involved in Iraq. Bribery requires funds or services to be given specifically to officials. This is not a bribe because the funds were offered to the Turks and not to any specific Turk.

Stop the dancing. Turkey says no, US waves money in her face, and Turkey warms up to the idea. Bribe. Concession accepted.

Moreover, you ignore the other nations including the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, Kuwait, and numerous others that offered their support for the war without any insentive but their consciences.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not Turkey was bribed, so this is a red herring. Concession accepted.

Yours was the original red-herring. I chose to answer it, and then moved the thread back on to topic with my statement. Concession accepted.

My post attacked the 'coalition of the willing' argument, was fully on topic, and was no red herring of any sort. *swipes concession from Ossus*

Actually, no. By your standards, the United States should have supported the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facility. My theory explains the American action clearly. Your model confesses it cannot explain that incident. Concession accepted.

Bullfuckingshit. Your model exists only to stretch concepts for your benefit. Way to be dishonest.

[Durandal]

Bullshit. The French claimed that "a vast majority" of the Council was against the War. The Americans and British claimed there was no need to call it to a vote because of 1441 in wake of the French decision to veto. In reality, the Americans had eight votes on the Security Council. That's a majority, but it's not the nine required to pass a resolution.

1441 does, in no way, allow one nation to arbitrarily invade another.

How have we disobeyed the UN? 1441 offers legal justification for the action. Are you saying that additional justification was required?

See Mike's post.

Most of the EU supported the war. Concession accepted.

The majority of the countries, perhaps, but not the majority of the population of the EU.

Even Germany sent the same number of troops to defend Turkey (in indirect support of the War) as it was asked to send by NATO, and it has allowed the United States and other Coalition members to use its air-space and bases for the war.

Of course they are. They need to be in our good graces because they've sold weapons to Hussein, or else we'll invade them next. "With us or against us," remember?

Obviously. There are also countries that support us. You have SUBSTANTIALLY marginalized them in your statement, and I think you're ignoring their contributions and the risks they've taken to support the United States in its policy against Iraq.

What contributions, aside from their lip service, which may be encouraged by our threats against nations that don't back our agenda? Only a handful are giving us troops or aid.

How have we forced other nations to support the war? Have we placed sanctions on France or Russia or Germany because of their anti-War stance? We're having a disagreement with nations opposed to the war, but the US has never forced another nation to support the war.

I guess you missed the part where Bush said that there would be consequences for countries in the UN not supporting us, like France.

Is this a war against terrorism or a war against Al Qaeda? You're oversimplifying the equation.

You had what I was replying to in your reply; do you have reading comprehension problems? Perinquus claimed that Hussein would sell shit to al Qaeda if left unchecked, and that's pure speculation, which is what I was addressing. Bitch and moan at him for "oversimplifying," not me.

Who cares? He's supported terrorist organizations other than Al Qaeda.

Like? Recently? How?

There's substantial evidence that a plan exists. Concession accepted.

I meant plans other than "wave our magic democracy wand and spend money we may or may not have," Ossus. When have we ever seen a budget projection or timeframe for this little project? When have we ever had details of how it'll be done? Of course there's evidence that it exists, but what does it consist of and how much does it cost? "I've got a plan, trust me" doesn't cut it. I want to know if this plan is workable or not, so I know which side to support in the context of the current situation in the country.

Red herring. The PATRIOT act has nothing to do with Iraq. It further has nothing to do with the plan for Iraq after the War is over.

It's an analogy, genius. I'd expect you to be able to make the distinction.

The entire last half of your post is a pile of bullshit brought about as a consequence of your failure to comprehend text on a screen. Brush up on your literacy sometime.

Excuses? All of your attacks have been bullshit, and based on fiction. You also ignored the contributions of other nations that have agreed with the United States. I don't agree with all of Bush's policies, but in the matter of Iraq I don't see much doubt. You certainly haven't created any.

How about your fiction regarding 1441? How about your fiction regarding Bush's plan? How about your fiction about Saddam actively supporting terrorist organizations? Or your fiction that we won't punish countries for not supporting us, even though we've said so?

[Perinquus]

1441 does, in no way, allow one nation to arbitrarily invade another.

Fine, then we are resuming the military action that a U.N. brokered peace treaty ended in 1991 - a peace Saddam has been violating.

Most of the EU supported the war. Concession accepted.

The majority of the countries, perhaps, but not the majority of the population of the EU.

Since when are our president and congressmen elected to represent the citizens of foreign countries? Their governments support us. That is enough. Or do you think we should decide matters of national security based on opinion polls taken in other countries?

Even Germany sent the same number of troops to defend Turkey (in indirect support of the War) as it was asked to send by NATO, and it has allowed the United States and other Coalition members to use its air-space and bases for the war.

Of course they are. They need to be in our good graces because they've sold weapons to Hussein, or else we'll invade them next. "With us or against us," remember?

False dilemma. You make it sound as though our actions will be either nothing or a full on invasion.

Get serious. Germany is a NATO ally. We are not about to invade Germany, and you damn well know it. If/when we discover archived records of German arms sales to Iraq, there are other measures we can take diplomatically or ecnomically.

What contributions, aside from their lip service, which may be encouraged by our threats against nations that don't back our agenda? Only a handful are giving us troops or aid.

And your point is what? Since when did we fear to take military action unless we can get a lumbering coalition of 20 or 50 nations all to send troops? These other nations have expressed official support of our action. What more is required?

I guess you missed the part where Bush said that there would be consequences for countries in the UN not supporting us, like France.

France is a rather special case. France did not just not support us, France has been working harder than any other country to sabotage or efforts in this case.

You had what I was replying to in your reply; do you have reading comprehension problems? Perinquus claimed that Hussein would sell shit to al Qaeda if left unchecked, and that's pure speculation, which is what I was addressing. Bitch and moan at him for "oversimplifying," not me.

There have already been links established between Al Quaeda and Iraq (British Intelligence uncovered evidence that AL Quaeda operatives were sheltering in Iraq). And Mohammed Atta met at least twice with Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a known Iraqi intelligence officer who worked in the Iraqi Embassy in Prague under diplomatic cover. Atta went to Prague from Hamburg by bus on June 2, 2000, to meet with al-Ani. The next day Atta left for the United States, where he enrolled in a flight school in Florida. Atta then returned to Prague in April 2001 to once again meet with al-Ani. In April, 2001 Czech authorities forced al-Ani to leave the country for "activities incompatible with his diplomatic status," a euphemism for espionage.

Given this, I'm sure the Iraqis would neeeever sell WMDs to Al Quaeda. You're right; pure speculation.

Who cares? He's supported terrorist organizations other than Al Qaeda.

Like? Recently? How?

How about all that money Saddam's been shelling out to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, for starters? I'd call that supporting other terrorists, wouldn't you?

[Darth Wong]

1441 does, in no way, allow one nation to arbitrarily invade another.

Fine, then we are resuming the military action that a U.N. brokered peace treaty ended in 1991 - a peace Saddam has been violating.

And that 1991 war had the goal of ejecting Iraq from Kuwait, not invading Iraq for the purpose of "regime change". Sorry, but there is simply no way to make this war legal. Some may argue that the sanction of international law is unnecessary and that it's justified on moral grounds if not legal ones, but as long as people are going to claim that the war is sanctioned by UN resolutions, others will point out that this is not true.

[Knife]

1441 does, in no way, allow one nation to arbitrarily invade another.

Fine, then we are resuming the military action that a U.N. brokered peace treaty ended in 1991 - a peace Saddam has been violating.

And that 1991 war had the goal of ejecting Iraq from Kuwait, not invading Iraq for the purpose of "regime change". Sorry, but there is simply no way to make this war legal. Some may argue that the sanction of international law is unnecessary and that it's justified on moral grounds if not legal ones, but as long as people are going to claim that the war is sanctioned by UN resolutions, others will point out that this is not true.

And because he lost that war, Saddam was not allowed to have certain things. He did, thus we can go back in. Yes he didn't try to attack Kwuait again, but he still agreed not to have long range missiles, chemical, bio, or nukes. There is substancial evidence that he has them or has not destroyed the ones he had twelve years ago and so we can go back in.

How much shit did Germany have in mid to late 30's that would have violated the treaty of Versi? Would the victors of WWI be with in their rights to attack Germany because it had illegal weapons? Weather or not Germany had attacked anyone at that point?

[Darth Wong]

And because he lost that war, Saddam was not allowed to have certain things. He did, thus we can go back in.

You can only go back in to take actions commensurate with the original resolution. The original resolution did not authorized invasion for the purpose of "regime change".

Yes he didn't try to attack Kwuait again, but he still agreed not to have long range missiles, chemical, bio, or nukes. There is substancial evidence that he has them or has not destroyed the ones he had twelve years ago and so we can go back in.

And to be legal, this must be established to the satisfaction of the UN Security Council. Oh, I know, you can flame the UN Security Council at this point, but if the question is "is it legal", then like it or not, you have to satisfy the UN Security Council. If you don't care whether it's legal, then this is not an issue.

How much shit did Germany have in mid to late 30's that would have violated the treaty of Versi? Would the victors of WWI be with in their rights to attack Germany because it had illegal weapons? Weather or not Germany had attacked anyone at that point?

Ah, the well-worn Nazi comparison card rears its ugly head. It would have very easy to show Germany's noncompliance, and with much better than light circumstantial evidence. Moreover, it would have been easy to show that Germany was a serious and direct threat to its neighbours, unlike Iraq whose military impotence was demonstrated quite clearly in this war.

[Knife]

You can only go back in to take actions commensurate with the original resolution. The original resolution did not authorized invasion for the purpose of "regime change".

The original resolution (688 I think but could be wrong) didn't say anything about NBC either but those were added in in later resolutions.

And to be legal, this must be established to the satisfaction of the UN Security Council. Oh, I know, you can flame the UN Security Council at this point, but if the question is "is it legal", then like it or not, you have to satisfy the UN Security Council. If you don't care whether it's legal, then this is not an issue.

In the preamble of 1441, they state than any member state has the authority to enforce this and subsequent resolutions. This is the legal loop hole that the current administration is using, and there are valid arguments on both sides about it. Legalease is always this way.

Ah, the well-worn Nazi comparison card rears its ugly head. It would have very easy to show Germany's noncompliance, and with much better than light circumstantial evidence. Moreover, it would have been easy to show that Germany was a serious and direct threat to its neighbours, unlike Iraq whose military impotence was demonstrated quite clearly in this war.

You might not like the example and it is not perfect, but would the victors have the right to go back to war with Germany in light of treaty violations that did not include the invasion of France but rather were restrictions placed on Germany after the war?

[Darth Wong]

The original resolution (678 I think but could be wrong) didn't say anything about NBC either but those were added in in later resolutions.

Precisely. Resolution 1441's preamble only authorized enforcement of resolution 678, whose relevant portion reads as follows:

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

In other words, Resolution 1441 authorizes member states to enforce Resolution 678, which in turn allows members to use all necessary means to enforce Resolution 660, which "Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990." At no point is any member state authorized to unilaterally enforce any subsequent resolutions.

In the preamble of 1441, they state than any member state has the authority to enforce this and subsequent resolutions. This is the legal loop hole that the current administration is using, and there are valid arguments on both sides about it. Legalease is always this way.

Incorrect. It says "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area," which means that they are ONLY permitted to enforce Resolution 660 and its associated resolutions, NOT every resolution pertaining to Iraq which has been passed over the last 12 years.

As I said before to somebody else, if you would rather disregard the legal argument and say you have a moral justification, fine. But as long as you're going to claim that it's legal, I and others will point out that it's not.

You might not like the example and it is not perfect, but would the victors have the right to go back to war with Germany in light of treaty violations that did not include the invasion of France but rather were restrictions placed on Germany after the war?

If a clear and present danger existed, yes. This was obviously the case with Nazi Germany. It is not the case with Iraq, whose military impotence was demonstrated quite clearly in this war. That is why the invasion is illegal, and Powell's attempt to twist the language to his ends does not change that. If you say it's illegal but moral, that's different, but saying that it's legal is simply wrong.

[Graeme Dice]

How have we disobeyed the UN? 1441 offers legal justification for the action. Are you saying that additional justification was required?

Resolution 1441 offers no justification for war without the approval of the security council. Have you not read it? It's easily available.

Most of the EU supported the war. Concession accepted.

Sure As "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" stated, Narnia might as well be one of the supporting countries for all we know.

[Knife]

Precisely. Resolution 1441's preamble only authorized enforcement of resolution 678, whose relevant portion reads as follows:
Quote:
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

In other words, Resolution 1441 authorizes member states to enforce Resolution 678, which in turn allows members to use all necessary means to enforce Resolution 660, which "Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990." At no point is any member state authorized to unilaterally enforce any subsequent resolutions.

Execpt for that one little word 'subsequent'. It is this loop hole that allows us to go back in because later resolutions tacked on other demands to include but are not limited to, missiles and NBC. Again, I admit that it is leagalese, but because the resolutions themselves reconise that other demands or terms would/could be added later, it gives us the leway to reintiate hostilities with Iraq. If the preambles said that 'any member state has the authority to enforce resolution 660 and only 660' you would be absolutely correct. But even those inflexable drones at the UN saw that other circumstances needed to be adressed after the failed Kuwati campaign.

If a clear and present danger existed, yes. This was obviously the case with Nazi Germany. It is not the case with Iraq, whose military impotence was demonstrated quite clearly in this war. That is why the invasion is illegal, and Powell's attempt to twist the language to his ends does not change that. If you say it's illegal but moral, that's different, but saying that it's legal is simply wrong.

His tactical weapons perhaps, but as to his stategic weapons.....it is yet to be seen. Even if he lacked a proper or effective way of delievering all of that NBC shit he had in 98 but can't account for now, the simple fact that he has it is a clear and present danger (especially since the international comunity said he can't have it) to his neighbors and indirectly to us.

[Knife]

Quote:

Most of the EU supported the war. Concession accepted.


Sure As "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" stated, Narnia might as well be one of the supporting countries for all we know.

So unless your country's name is France, you are a nobody? But if your county's name is France, you count for a majority of the EU?

[Darth Wong]

Execpt for that one little word 'subsequent'. It is this loop hole that allows us to go back in because later resolutions tacked on other demands to include but are not limited to, missiles and NBC.

Subsequent RELEVANT is the actual phrase, which is no small distinction because it only allows the use of subsequent resolutions which actually related directly to the demands made in 660 (for example, 678 related directly to the demands of 660). Those stipulating additional demands are not relevant to the enforcement of 660.

Again, I admit that it is leagalese, but because the resolutions themselves reconise that other demands or terms would/could be added later, it gives us the leway to reintiate hostilities with Iraq. If the preambles said that 'any member state has the authority to enforce resolution 660 and only 660' you would be absolutely correct. But even those inflexable drones at the UN saw that other circumstances needed to be adressed after the failed Kuwati campaign.

You are excising an individual word out of its sentence in order to generate the appearance of a loophole. Very bad form, Knife.

His tactical weapons perhaps, but as to his stategic weapons.....it is yet to be seen. Even if he lacked a proper or effective way of delievering all of that NBC shit he had in 98 but can't account for now, the simple fact that he has it is a clear and present danger (especially since the international comunity said he can't have it) to his neighbors and indirectly to us.

He presents no offensive threat. By crushing him so easily, the US has inadvertently proved that.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Let's deal with a hypothetical.

Suppose Saddam managed to get nukes, despite inspectors, despite sanctions. There was this piece that suggests that a lot more was going on than originally thought.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=31966

Would the US be justified in a preemptive invasion? Why and why not?

Notice that there is the implicit assumption that nukes make a country a great deal more potent militarily, which I personally disagree with.

He presents no offensive threat. By crushing him so easily, the US has inadvertently proved that.

So you believe that the action was legal only if Saddam was an offensive threat like WW2 Germany? So in order to have a legal war, the US should wait for Saddam to build up to the point where he clearly is a danger to his neighbours?

I dunno, but it seemed that everybody, including the pro-war people, overestimated Saddam's forces. We all believed he was a threat when in fact he wasn't. So whose fault was it for our faulty assessment?

The Nice Guy

[Enforcer Talen]

can this link be confirmed?

[Vympel]

can this link be confirmed?

Of course it can't. It's the typical alarmist nonsense spewed by Worldnetdaily, home of Pat Buchanan.

[The_Nice_Guy]

I haven't seen it anywhere else, so it could be wrong.

Though how a vast underground complex could be interpreted as anything else is going to require a lot of backpedaling.

The Nice Guy

[Coyote]

I never actually thought that the anti-war crowd was "in favor" of Saddam's regime, but I did see them as "enabling" the brutality by manufacturing spin and excuses, rationales, justifications... but it is a moot point now.

The anti-war crowd felt that while Saddam was bad and deserved to be gone, there were other ways to do so without resorting to war. They were against war not against America or "pro Saddam". War is a scary and unpopular thing, and usually rushe dinto be those who are unfamiliar with its consequences or as a refuge for failed diplomats.

That said, I stick to my assertion that this war was just and necessary, and that I do not believe that "options other than war" were going to be sucessful or realistic in bringing about the needed regime change.

Unfortunately, that means sticking to the idea that "some blood spilled now prevents a lot of blood spilled in the long run". Just as I say that anti war types were not "in favor of Saddam" I will expect the antis- to also realize that my pro-war stance does not mean embracing conquest or extermination. Nor do I "enjoy" the blood spilled by either Allied or Iraqi anybody, soldier or civilian.

It was a necessary evil-- emphasis on both "necessary" and "evil".

[Enforcer Talen]

Id agree to that.

[Enforcer Talen]

can this link be confirmed?

Of course it can't. It's the typical alarmist nonsense spewed by Worldnetdaily, home of Pat Buchanan.

heh. gossip, then

[Coyote]

No international support? What, Britain, Australia, Denmark, Poland, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary and the Czech Republic don't count? We do have international support. We just don't have the support of the UN...

Ah yes, the "Coalition of The Willing." And yet the majority of the Security Council doesn't support it. We'll show Saddam what the consequences of disobeying the UN are by ... disobeying the UN...

C'mon, Durandal, you and I know that countries such as France, Russia and Germany were getting cheap oil and selling weapons to Iraq so they have a vested interest in making spin for the Iraqi regime and covering theit own asses. It is precisely the kind of accusation one would normally place at the feet of the US: the Euros were willing to let Saddam continue his dictatorial regime so long as they got cheap oil and a customer for dangerous weapons. Even in your play book that can't be moral.

The countries of the UN that were against the war were basically just covering their own fat-cat business assets and exploitave greed. Don't try to say that they were seriously concerned about the "poor people of Iraq".

[Coyote]

Haha

Coalition of the willing? We had to bribe Turkey, and 15 nations don't even want to be identified as part of the coalition.

On the othet hand, this is the same Turkey that the rest of the EU refused to assist in the event of an Iraqi attack, so there we have EU moral high grounds.... as for the rest of the coalition? They have their own problems, not the leats of which is an arrogant, unilateral bully France that told the Eastern Europeans that if they looked with favor upon this war then they could kiss goodbye any hope of ever joining the EU and getting its benefits.

Golly gee, what a kind hearted and magnanimous gesture on the part of ever-luvvin' France, huh? Certainly no arrogance or unilateralism or bullying on their part, huh?

[Alnilam]

>Most people who's against the war (as me) DOES NOT support Hussein.Most people know what he did to the Iraq people during the years he governed.There're other ways to overthrow tyrants like him rather than killing many innocent civilians,as we've seen on TV,newspapers,etc.

>Remember:goverments of some countries (such as Spain or UK) may support Bush,but their people not.Have you seen the HUGE manifestations against the war around the world? (nonetheless,I agree those countries that were against the war in the Security Council acted so because they did won a lot of money with their bussines on Iraq).

>Think:why does US invade Iraq and does not end with those wars that mass media forget more or less (remember Africa),or overthrow other tyrants that control their countries with an iron fist (i.e.:Saudi Arabia)?

>Don't you think it says much about what really lies behind this war the fact some of the most important people on the Bush administration have (or had) relations with important oil corporations and the lots of oil Iraq has?.This war has been done for nothing more than the Iraq's OIL.[/b]