The War In Iraq Thread

[StevenOtero]

What is your opinion on it?

[Cajuncowboy]

I support it.

Saddam was in clear violation of the UN resolutions that brought a Cease fire to the first Gulf war. He failed to give the inspectors unfettered access and even the inspectors themselves, at the time, said they could no longer verify if Saddam indeed did away with his chemical and biological weapons. This was purely on Saddam.

This is the dirty little fact people forget when moaning and groaning over the Iraq war. Oh and by the way, it was a condition of the cease fire agreement with Saddam the first time around that the UN would be allowed to inspect for this. Now we know the UN was dirty with the revelation of the oil for food program taking bribes from Saddam.

So yes, I support and will continue to do so.

[silverbear]

I support it.

Saddam was in clear violation of the UN resolutions that brought a Cease fire to the first Gulf war. He failed to give the inspectors unfettered access and even the inspectors themselves, at the time, said they could no longer verify if Saddam indeed did away with his chemical and biological weapons. This was purely on Saddam.

This is the dirty little fact people forget when moaning and groaning over the Iraq war.

The dirty little fact that YOU ignore is that if Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions, it was on the UN to take action against them... the United States had no right, legally or morally, to take unilateral action on behalf of the UN... not when that body chose not to take any actions themselves...

Now we know the UN was dirty with the revelation of the oil for food program taking bribes from Saddam.

Which still doesn't give us the right to unilaterally enforce their resolutions... if the UN is so corrupt, we ought to get out of it...

[Jordan55]

Yeah Right, let the UN enforce it, when has the UN enforced anything?
Silverbear same old argument, I believe Hillary was supportive of milatary action at the time, but now she has a new take on it to appease her party.
Sadam, made the wrong call on Bush's resolve and ultimately his bribes to the French,Germans and Russians failed to save him.
These are the members of the UN you wanted to help enforce the resolutions?
So who would be left in the UN, to confront Sadam?
Of course your argument wouldn't exist if there were WMD's found.

[theogt]

the United States had no right, legally or morally, to take unilateral action on behalf of the UN... not when that body chose not to take any actions themselves...Legally? Says who?

Morally? Says you.

[burmafrd]

Should have gone in and taken Saddam out in 93 or 94, when he first started pulling all his crap. Just no one wanted to do anything.
This is exactly what happened in the early 30s when Hitler started to flex his muscles. France and England were too afraid and had weak leaders to do anything. In 34 or 35 they could have stepped in and taken Hitler down easily. But they did not. Instead they let him get too strong. The UN is even worse in some ways- since some countries like Russia and China NEVER want the UN to do anything strong.
We were lucky in that Saddam was so incompetent at anything other then staying in power.

[StevenOtero]

Should have gone in and taken Saddam out in 93 or 94, when he first started pulling all his crap. Just no one wanted to do anything.
This is exactly what happened in the early 30s when Hitler started to flex his muscles. France and England were too afraid and had weak leaders to do anything. In 34 or 35 they could have stepped in and taken Hitler down easily. But they did not. Instead they let him get too strong. The UN is even worse in some ways- since some countries like Russia and China NEVER want the UN to do anything strong.
We were lucky in that Saddam was so incompetent at anything other then staying in power.Yeah, I agree with you. I guess we didn't want to start a quagmire like there is now? I'm not sure why we stopped in the early 90's.

[arglebargle]

We didn't continue back in the early '90's because the wiser heads in that era (including most of the generals in charge) were worried about the power vacuum that would occur then, and the increased power it would offer to other regional foes like Iran. Oops....

Probably should have done it then though, we were at least better set up and prepared. But it is not like there were going to be no consequences.

[Yeagermeister]

Yeah, I agree with you. I guess we didn't want to start a quagmire like there is now? I'm not sure why we stopped in the early 90's.

It wasn't the objective. The objective was to get Saddam back in his own country.

Plus I know someone that was there on the front lines and he said his tank was running on fumes and had one shell left when it was over. We didn't have the supplies needed to overthrow him.

As for the topic....I support it.

[iceberg]

It wasn't the objective. The objective was to get Saddam back in his own country.

Plus I know someone that was there on the front lines and he said his tank was running on fumes and had one shell left when it was over. We didn't have the supplies needed to overthrow him.

As for the topic....I support it.

the topic or the war? : )

[burmafrd]

Yeager, I was in Saudi at the time of the ground war. Either your friend was lying to you or he knew nothing. One fact on the gulf war: not one tank fired a complete load. We had 60 days of Ammunition piled up and ready to move forward. Unlike 3rd Armys move through France in 1944, supplies were NOT a problem in Desert Storm.

Only the battle of (never could remember the number) 43/73 easting did any unit fire even HALF its basic load.

[ThaBigP]

The dirty little fact that YOU ignore is that if Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions, it was on the UN to take action against them... the United States had no right, legally or morally, to take unilateral action on behalf of the UN... not when that body chose not to take any actions themselves...



Which still doesn't give us the right to unilaterally enforce their resolutions... if the UN is so corrupt, we ought to get out of it...

You forget, Resolution 1441 allowed for enforcement of the terms of the resolution by either the UN body as a whole, or any individual(s) member nations. Therefore, bye-bye "illegal if the rest of the UN didn't go along" argument.

I must add, though, that I agree with your sentiments regarding the UN - if it's as bad as we think it is (I think so), then get out.

[burmafrd]

don't bother with Silver- every time you show him wrong he just changes his rant to something else.

[arglebargle]

I do love it when some people -- who hate the UN and think it should be left or disbanded -- use it as justification for things they just wanted to do anyway.

Just because something is allowed, it doesn't make it necessarilly a good idea.

And we do have the right to expect it to be done competantly....

It was mishandled from the get go, and will end up helping our foes more than us. IMO.

[zrinkill]

I support it.

Saddam was in clear violation of the UN resolutions that brought a Cease fire to the first Gulf war. He failed to give the inspectors unfettered access and even the inspectors themselves, at the time, said they could no longer verify if Saddam indeed did away with his chemical and biological weapons. This was purely on Saddam.

This is the dirty little fact people forget when moaning and groaning over the Iraq war. Oh and by the way, it was a condition of the cease fire agreement with Saddam the first time around that the UN would be allowed to inspect for this. Now we know the UN was dirty with the revelation of the oil for food program taking bribes from Saddam.

So yes, I support and will continue to do so.

Good post.

[Yeagermeister]

Yeager, I was in Saudi at the time of the ground war. Either your friend was lying to you or he knew nothing. One fact on the gulf war: not one tank fired a complete load. We had 60 days of Ammunition piled up and ready to move forward. Unlike 3rd Armys move through France in 1944, supplies were NOT a problem in Desert Storm.

Only the battle of (never could remember the number) 43/73 easting did any unit fire even HALF its basic load.

Well he is a car salesman :laugh2:

[Cajuncowboy]

The dirty little fact that YOU ignore is that if Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions, it was on the UN to take action against them... the United States had no right, legally or morally, to take unilateral action on behalf of the UN... not when that body chose not to take any actions themselves...



Which still doesn't give us the right to unilaterally enforce their resolutions... if the UN is so corrupt, we ought to get out of it...

Ok, I have to set you straight my friend. The UN Resolution that he violated was the one that brought a cease fire. Keep in mind that it did not bring a surrender. There is a big difference. We allowed Saddam to stay in power with the understanding he would adhere to these resolutions. Clinton could have exorcised his prerogative at any time to go in and seek unfettered access through the UN. He did not because he had visions of one day becoming the head of the UN. Knowing what we know now, I wonder if he had any knowledge of the Oil for food scandal.

With all that said, Bush acted against the back drop of 9/11 and was not about to watch as some mad man who was a sponsor of terrorism himself, have any opportunity to pass on any WMD. It was Saddam's call all the way and he failed to give that access.

As for the UN, it has less to do with them than it does with the US's security. For those who want to yammer on about morality and about the right to do this, I wonder if it was morally right to prevent more suicide bombers families from getting paid by this guy? I think it was morally right.

And as some of you on this forum like to say...

Whose morals? Mine or yours? What makes your's more right?

At least we demolished the rape rooms and got rid of a sponsor of state terrorism. And that NO ONE can deny.And that is why I support this action and always will.

[Jordan55]

It was mishandled from the get go, and will end up helping our foes more than us. IMO.[/QUOTE


So the situation over there hasn't improved? And are foes that would be
al Queda? that's the ones were supposedly helping.
Yeah it looks like they have the upper hand over there now doesn't it.

[vta]

The war in Iraq is the war with Iran.
We didn't go to Iraq to mitigate a threat imposed by Sadaam himself, with weapons he either didn't have or didn't know how to maintain and keep from degenerating.

We didn't go to Iraq to liberate a people. It was hoped that that would be a beneficial by-product of our actions.

We didn't go to Iraq in furtherance of catching the fool responsible for 9/11.
It was hoped that the consequences of our actions were to be mitigating the spread of such an ideology in a volatile region. Influencing the region with what we would put in place after Sadaam was deposed, is the hope.

Iraq is right between Saudi Arabia, a radical state with plenty of room for terrorism to grow, yet still an ally, and Iran the birth place of most of our Mid-East problems and a very lethal and hateful antagonist.

Sadaam wasn't going to last forever and his sons were idiots. Iran would have filled the void, controlled the very strategic and important Strait of Hormuz and put a major squeeze on American oil flow and thus our power.

A powerful Iran is a dangerous Iran. Allowing them to control that which gives us our way of life would be suicidal. Plainly put, they hate us severely and the United States couldn't afford that scenario.

Iran cannot stand toe to toe with us or Israel so they count on proxy organisations and the influencing of others to behave in a like manner of terrorism and guerilla warfare, all the while holding up their hands and saying 'it wasn't me'. A fine show and shrewdly played for the casual viewer, who's wrapped up in popularity contests and false partisan showmanship.

Right now, America can't really attack Iran, front to front, without causing more strife. To fully put them out of our misery would be to nuke them and that's not likely to happen and it shouldn't. So instead there exists our own proxy war, pretending to liberate a people and fighting insurgents in Iraq, to have a base of operations with which to have a constant finger on the pulse and a base of operations to launch against Iran. Plenty of foreign fighters came to Iraq to fight and were killed in droves. The U.S. does have the manpower and financial resources to wait out anyone, including Iran and will stay in Iraq, no matter what your favorite candidate tells you what he/she will do if elected.

[vta]

It was mishandled from the get go, and will end up helping our foes more than us. IMO.[/QUOTE


So the situation over there hasn't improved? And are foes that would be
al Queda? that's the ones were supposedly helping.
Yeah it looks like they have the upper hand over there now doesn't it.

The upper hand in what? Besides the popularity contest in the United States?

[Sasquatch]

Therefore, bye-bye "illegal if the rest of the UN didn't go along" argument.

Hardly an open and shut case when there are individuals with a little more competence in this realm who beg to differ.

UN RESOLUTION 1441:
COMPELLING SADDAM, RESTRAINING BUSH
Professor Mary Ellen O'Connell (http://www.law.ohio-state.edu/faculty/facultyprofiles/oconnell.html)
Moritz School of Law, Ohio State University
JURIST Guest Columnist

While certain aspects of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/res-iraq.htm) are remarkably vague, two things are clear. First, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein must accomplish a sequence of tasks over the next few months or almost certainly face serious consequences, most likely a US-led invasion. Second, in the event of non-compliance the United States is not automatically authorized to take unilateral military action to effect regime change in Iraq, certainly not before another meeting of the Security Council.


The resolution places a set of difficult, though not impossible, demands on Iraq with regard to weapons of mass destruction: Saddam Hussein must allow unimpeded access by UN and International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. (Para. 5.) He must fully declare within thirty days of the resolution all details of any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD), delivery systems, and/or WMD programs. (Para. 3.) The inspectors will have UN security guards, facilities and broad authorities to support their work. (Para. 7.) The inspectors will report obstruction of their efforts to the Security Council. (Paras. 4 & 11.) The Council will convene immediately upon such a report. (Para. 12.) The resolution calls for serious
consequences in the event of continuing Iraqi non-compliance. (Para. 13.) Weapons inspectors will make an interim report within 60 days of the resolution-January 7, 2003. (Para. 5.) If Iraq fails to meet any demand, President Bush has affirmed that he intends to order force against Saddam Hussein's regime [2 (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php#1%3E1%3C/a%3E%5D.%20%20%20%3Cp%3EBefore%20Resolution%201441 ,%20some%20in%20the%20Bush%20Administration%20had% 20maintained%20that%20the%20US%20could%20launch%20 a%20major%20invasion%20of%20Iraq%20to%20change%20t he%20regime%20without%20Security%20Council%20a)]. The argument is that the ceasefire resolution, 687 (1991), and subsequent resolutions all tie back to the one resolution, 678 (1990), which did explicitly authorize the use of force to oust Iraq from Kuwait and establish peace in the region. Further, members of the Security Council for about a year after the adoption of the ceasefire resolution apparently acquiesced in the interpretation that it implied authority to do more than liberate Kuwait. Few protested the creation of the Kurdish protection zone in northern Iraq or in using force to establish no fly zones in northern and southern sectors of the country. So while Resolution 687 paragraph 34 explicitly reserves to the UN Security Council the decision to take any measures against Iraq beyond sanctions, using force in the no-fly zones is arguably permissible.


On the other hand, members of the Security Council have not acquiesced in using force in connection with Iraqi weapons inspections. The ceasefire resolution declares that sanctions will remain on Iraq until inspectors certify it is free of weapons of mass destruction. The debate since 1991 has been about lifting or leaving the sanctions, not whether states should be able to use military force to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and the means to produce them[4 (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php#3%3E3%3C/a%3E%5D.%20%20When%20the%20US%20and%20UK%20carried %20out%20bombing%20in%20Iraq%20in%20connection%20w ith%20weapons%20inspections%20during%20Operation%2 0Desert%20Fox%20in%20December%201998,%20that%20use %20of%20force%20was%20heavily%20condemned%5B%3)]. No acquiescence has occurred to allow force for enforcing weapons inspections, and certainly none has developed to authorize ousting Saddam Hussein.


This conclusion was underscored when President Bush acknowledged as much in his speech to the UN on September 12[5 (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php#5)]. He said the US would pursue the necessary resolutions in the Security Council, meaning that new resolutions, authorizing force, would be necessary before the US or any other country could carry out lawful enforcement action in respect to any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.


Resolution 1441 provides no new authorization for using force. It states in paragraph 12 that a meeting of the Security Council will be the first step upon a report by inspectors that Iraq has obstructed their activities. Consequences will follow a meeting. Syria has confirmed that it received a letter from US Secretary of State Colin Powell "in which he stressed that there is nothing in the resolution to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq."[6 (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php#6)] Thus, if and when a meeting is called, Security Council members will have an opportunity to state their assessment of whether serious consequences are called for or not.


Yet, if the Council is silent on consequences or even decides affirmatively not to use force, the US and UK may try to argue that once a meeting has been held they are free to act, that holding the meeting is all that is required. The resolution does not state explicitly that results of the meeting will determine future action. The US has stated repeatedly it will use force in Iraq. President Bush said to the UN on September 12: “If Iraq’s regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively, to hold Iraq to account."[7 (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php#7)] The US made this position clear throughout the negotiations of Resolutions 1441 and can point to the fact that Resolution 1441, unlike the ceasefire resolution (687), does not explicitly state it will be for the Security Council to decide on measures to take in response Iraqi non-compliance. Other members of the Security Council, however, have consistently taken the position that the Security Council must decide on consequences. That position tracks both the explicit terms of the United Nations Charter and the general law, discussed further below. As it stands, none of the Security Council resolutions authorize the US or UK to use force to enforce Iraq's obligations to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, including Resolution 1441.


One of the vaguer passages of Resolution 1441 is related to the controversy over implicit authorization. As discussed above, the US and UK generally assert the right to use force in the no-fly zones on the basis of implied authorization. US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has suggested that Iraqi firing on US planes policing the no-fly zones could be part of a “pattern of behavior” that might be taken to the Security Council[8 (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php#8)]. Paragraph 8 of Resolution 1441 may or may not support his view. It states: "Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution....” Since Council resolutions do not establish the no-fly zones, some will argue that the US and UK flights are not upholding any Council resolution. Secretary Rumsfeld sees it differently.


The second version of the argument that prior Security Council resolutions authorize force centers on the “material breach” argument. This argument apparently originated in the UK, but US officials have also mentioned it in recent months. Blair government officials argue that the ceasefire resolution and subsequent resolutions are like any other international agreement. In the case of material breach of a multilateral treaty, in some cases, all the parties may respond, including, where appropriate, by coercive countermeasures[9 (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php#9)].


This is indeed a curious argument. Its main concept "material breach" has made its way into Resolution 1441[10 (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php#10)]. The problem is that "material breach" never was a viable basis for using force against Iraq. Security Council resolutions are not like treaties or other agreements reached through negotiations aimed at achieving consensus. Rather, Security Council resolutions are mandates upon parties and must be respected with or without their consent[11 (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php#11)]. They are enforced, modified, or terminated by the Security Council, not by states in general. Neither the explicit terms of the UN Charter nor the practice of the Security Council supports any other interpretation. Under the UN Charter, states may only use force in individual or collective self-defense in the face of an armed attack or with the authorization of the Security Council when the Council finds a threat or breach of international peace[12 (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php#12)]. Thus, without Security Council authorization, states do not have the right to use force to enforce the Council's resolutions, whether a breach is material or immaterial. The Security Council's history with respect to its resolutions on Iraq make clear that it has not relinquished to the US the right to enforce its resolutions unilaterally.


The concept of material breach, therefore, provides no independent basis for the US or UK to invade Iraq. The concept is, however, now part of Resolution 1441. As noted above, paragraph 1 of the resolution states that in the Security Council's view Iraq is already in material breach, and in paragraph 4 the Council:


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....


Paragraph 11 requires the reporting of any interference with inspection activities and paragraph 12 contains the Security Council's decision to convene immediately upon receipt of a report. Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, has said a delay of as little as 30 minutes in allowing access will result in a report, as will four flat tires, though not one flat tire[13 (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php#13)].


But then it will be for the Security Council to decide the consequences. Under the international law governing enforcement, all coercive measures are limited by the principles of necessity and proportionality, including those mandated by the Security Council itself[14 (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php#14)]. Consequences should be commensurate with the nature of the breach. To this extent the "materiality" of the breach is not as important as finding a remedy that fits the wrong. It will be for Security Council members to calibrate response to any failure to comply. Thus, if the inspectors report even minor obstruction by Iraq, the Security Council should not necessarily authorize major military force.


The third version of the argument that authority existed to invade before the adoption of Resolution 1441 is promoted by the UK alone and not supported by the Bush Administration. The British argue that some of their uses of force against Iraq following the Gulf War are justified as humanitarian intervention[15 (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php#15)]. They argue that the doctrine of humanitarian intervention could also support force against Iraq for regime change. The argument is difficult to sustain. To the extent force has been used in Iraq until 1999, the UK has tended to argue it had implied authority. Humanitarianism alone surfaced after Kosovo. To date, no government is on record as recognizing a crystallized rule permitting the use of force to pursue humanitarian aim. Certainly, the United States does not support such a rule.


In addition to pre-existing authority, we also hear that the some in the Bush Administration espouse the right of preemptive self-defense. They believe that this doctrine would support invading Iraq regardless of what the Security Council says or even of what Iraq does to comply. The doctrine of preemptive force has been described in the new National Security Strategy, in Secretary Rumsfeld's August report, and in President Bush's June speech at West Point. It purports to allow the United States to use military force against a perceived threat or even to prevent threats from developing[16 (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php#16)]. They see Iraq as posing just such a future threat.
As already explained, international law restricts the right to use military force unilaterally to cases of self-defense against an armed attack. Once an attack is underway or will be imminently, the victim nation can use force, provided that the force is proportional and necessary. In cases of threat that lack the objective evidence of an armed attack, either under way or imminent, the defender needs Security Council authorization to use significant military force.


In conclusion, Resolution 1441 is designed to ensure that Saddam Hussein does not have weapons of mass destruction nor the capability to produce them. If applied reasonably by the Security Council, consistently with principles of international law, it is possible for Saddam to comply. To that extent, the resolution is not a cynical exercise to provide legal cover for a US invasion. Indeed, it requires restraint on the part of the US, too. The resolution weakens US arguments of authority to use force under prior resolutions, in the face of material breach or to pre-empt threats. However, Resolution 1441 does open the door for Security Council authorized action, including force, should Saddam fail to comply in good faith.
[1] “Should Iraq fail to comply, President Bush has said, ‘the United States will lead a coalition and disarm him.” Rajiv Chandrasekaran, U.N. Inspectors Arrived in Baghdad; Blix Promises His Team Will Work ‘Objectively…Professionally,’ Wash. Post, Nov. 19, 2002 (available at 2002 WL 102573169).
[2] See sources in John Quigley, The United Nations Security Council: Promethean Protector or Helpless Hostage?, 35 Tex. Int’l L. J. 129 (2000); Jules Lobel & Michael Ratner, Bypassing the Security Council, Ambiguous Authorization to Use Force, Cease-Fires, and the Iraqi Inspection Regime, 93 Am. J. Int’l L. 124 (1999); Ruth Wedgwood, The Enforcement of Security Council Resolution 678: The Threat or Use of Force Against Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, 92 Am. J. Int’l L. 724, 724-26 (1998); Mary Ellen O’Connell, Continuing Limits on U.N. Intervention in Civil Wars, 67 Ind. L. J. 903 (1992).
[3] Mary Ellen O'Connell, Debating the Law of Sanctions 13 EJIL 63 (2002).
[4] See, e.g., the debate at the Security Council with regard to a major US/UK use of force in December 1998, Operation Desert Fox. U.N. SCOR 53d Sess., 3955th mtg., U.N. Doc. S/PV.3955, Dec. 16, 1998.
[5] “My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. … We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions.” In Bush’s Words: On Iraq, U.N. Must Face Up to Its Founding Purpose, N.Y. Times., Sept. 12, 2002, at A10.
[6] Patrick Wintour & Brian Whitaker in Cairo, UK Expects Iraq to Fail Arms Tests (http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,837561,00.html), The Guardian, Nov. 11, 2002.
[7] In Bush’s Words, supra note 5; see also supra note 1.
[8] Tom Squitieri, Rumsfeld: Attacks on Jets Patrolling Iraq Could Spark Invasion, USA Today, Nov. 18, 2002, at 13A.
[9] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature May 23, 1969, art. 60, 1155 UNTS 331; Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, arts. 49 - 54, see G.A. Res. 56/83, U.N. Doc. A/RES/56/83 (2002). Christine Gray, From Unity to Polarization: International Law and the Use of Force Against Iraq, 13 Eur. J. Int’l L. 1, 9-13 (2002).
[10] In paragraph 1 of Resolution 1441, the Security Council "Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687...." See also paragraph 4 reproduced in the text above.
[11] See UN Charter Article 25.
[12] UN Charter Article 51 provides: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs…." Article 39 provides: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." The United Nations Charter is a binding international treaty to which the United States is a party.
[13] Ellen Hale, Inspectors Say Iraq Won’t Be Allowed to Stonewall, USA Today, Nov. 18, 2002.
[14] O'Connell, Debating the Law of Sanctions, supra note 5.
[15] Gray, From Unity to Polarization, supra note 89, at 9-13.
[16] Mary Ellen O'Connell, The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense (http://www.asil.org/taskforce/oconnell.pdf), prepared in conjunction with the ASIL Task Force on Terrorism, 2002.



LINK (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php#5)

[Rackat]

The war in Iraq is the war with Iran.
We didn't go to Iraq to mitigate a threat imposed by Sadaam himself, with weapons he either didn't have or didn't know how to maintain and keep from degenerating.

*snipped*

Iraq is right between Saudi Arabia, a radical state with plenty of room for terrorism to grow, yet still an ally, and Iran the birth place of most of our Mid-East problems and a very lethal and hateful antagonist.

Sadaam wasn't going to last forever and his sons were idiots. Iran would have filled the void, controlled the very strategic and important Strait of Hormuz and put a major squeeze on American oil flow and thus our power.

A powerful Iran is a dangerous Iran. Allowing them to control that which gives us our way of life would be suicidal. Plainly put, they hate us severely and the United States couldn't afford that scenario.

*snipped*

Right now, America can't really attack Iran, front to front, without causing more strife. To fully put them out of our misery would be to nuke them and that's not likely to happen and it shouldn't. So instead there exists our own proxy war, pretending to liberate a people and fighting insurgents in Iraq, to have a base of operations with which to have a constant finger on the pulse and a base of operations to launch against Iran. Plenty of foreign fighters came to Iraq to fight and were killed in droves. The U.S. does have the manpower and financial resources to wait out anyone, including Iran and will stay in Iraq, no matter what your favorite candidate tells you what he/she will do if elected.
A lot of people get so caught up in driving that they don't see the scenery. I agree with you. I thought it was laughable that the loons (on both sides) get so caught up in their own overreactions to Bush or the war that they cannot see the forrest for the trees. Iran is certainly the biggest threat to our economy, and to our people. Their proxy groups can, and have, killed non-military US citizens overseas and have caused havoc in areas where the US has a vested interest.

Reasons why we would not attack and overthrow the current government in Iran:

1. Russia - they are, if not an ally, a partner with Iran. Opening a front in Iran would be opening a front with Russia.
2. Going in and taking over would cause more instability in the region, which we cannot afford to do at this time.
3. Suadi Arabia - they are the devil that we know (metaphorically). What is to keep them as an ally if they no longer fear Iran's influence in their country? Would their mullahs become what the Iranian mullahs had been? It is more strife than we are willing to accept right now.
4. Creating a stable Iraq counterbalances the instability of Iran while keeping Suadi Arabia in check.
5. While the two most influential countries in the region, Iran and Saudi Arabia are in their current position, the status quo will remain. That gives us opportunity to finish stabilizing Iraq and has the added bonus of killing terrorists that come in to Iraq to try and kill Americans.

If I were to use a football analogy, I would say the score right now is 100-3. That is how bad we have been kicking their butts. Yes, we have lost soldiers, and no, I am not trying to diminish their deaths. Of all the wars we have fought, this one has seen the least amount of lives lost over a longer period of time than any other before. Some would argue that one life is one too many, but I would argue that their sacrifice gives us the freedom to continue our way of life.

So, no, we won't be seeing our Democrat or Republican politicians pull us out of Iraq for a long time. No matter what they say to garner votes.

[burmafrd]

Sasqie, I have seen other LAWYERS say just about the opposite of that.
SO your post means nothing. Lawyers will always disagree. THEY mean nothing.

[arglebargle]

Sasqie, I have seen other LAWYERS say just about the opposite of that.
SO your post means nothing. Lawyers will always disagree. THEY mean nothing.


Let me translate that: Burma sez 'I disagree with your position, therefore it means nothing!'

[Rackat]

Let me translate that: Burma sez 'I disagree with your position, therefore it means nothing!'
You speak Burmaeze? :laugh2:

[Sasquatch]

Sasqie, I have seen other LAWYERS say just about the opposite of that.
SO your post means nothing. Lawyers will always disagree. THEY mean nothing.

It means that the claim that the UN Resolution authorized the invasion of Iraq is disputed at best, specious at worst.

[ConcordCowboy]

The War in Iraq was/is a waste.

It isn't worth the 3,923 Military deaths so far or the more that will come.

Removing Saddam wasn't worth this crap.

[burmafrd]

To you sasqie. Not to a lot of other people. You want it to be wrong so therefore it is.

[StevenOtero]

Let me translate that: Burma sez 'I disagree with your position, therefore it means nothing!':hammer:

[StevenOtero]

The War in Iraq was/is a waste.

It isn't worth the 3,923 Military deaths so far or the more that will come.

Removing Saddam wasn't worth this crap.Amen everyday of the week. The fools that say "OMG! They would come over here." Are complete neo-cons.

[WarC]

Amen everyday of the week. The fools that say "OMG! They would come over here." Are complete neo-cons.

1993, 2001 - years in which that occured quite close to home.

Think about it. A war in the middle east radicalizes the region and draws combatants to the theater of operations. That costs money - Money that then cannot be spent in the planning and coordination of attacks overseas (that means here). The same folks that throw militants and grenades our way in Iraq are largely the same ones who'd be financing their own offensive attacks - As they did New York (twice), London, and Madrid all since 1990.

Like Football, defending is an asset that can help lead to victory but it is rarely a reliable way to score a touchdown and win the game.

The illusion that many people suffer in this country is that this conflict is ours to walk away from. It wasn't some purchase we made and can be returned for refund, it was the result of an obligation we are upholding concerning Israel's right that we established through the UN waaay back in 1949. That is the root of a hostility which is older than Saddam's or Iran's.

[Cajuncowboy]

The War in Iraq was/is a waste.

It isn't worth the 3,923 Military deaths so far or the more that will come.

Removing Saddam wasn't worth this crap.

I'm sure those brave men and women would be glad to know you think they died in vain.

Nice.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Surprise!

[StevenOtero]

"Let it be clearly understood there is no authority to wage war against Iraq without Congress passing a Declaration of War..."

"...A UN Resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq, even if it were to come, cannot replace the legal process for the United States going to war as precisely defined in the Constitution..."

"...Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result..."

"The American people become less secure when we risk a major conflict driven by commerical interests. Victory under these circumstances is always elusive, and unintended consequences are inevitable."

-Congressman Ron Paul
March 1st, 2002

[StevenOtero]

"The tired assertion that America "supports democracy" in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil..."

"...and it's false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan - just to name two examples."

-Congressman Ron Paul
December 3rd, 2002

[StevenOtero]

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."

-Dwight D. Eisenhower

[burmafrd]

I am sure that quote from Eisenhower really makes sense after WW2 when if France and England had acted in 35 or 36 how many millions would not have been gassed?

[Jarv]

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."

-Dwight D. Eisenhower

I like Ike !

Ike was a great leader.

You have to wonder how many millions of lives that would have been saved by removing Hitler from power in 1935 tho.

[burmafrd]

By the way, you really need to put certain quotes in context. Do you know when Eisenhower was asked this, and in what manner? Of course not.

[Rackat]

Amen everyday of the week. The fools that say "OMG! They would come over here." Are complete neo-cons.

1993, 2001 - years in which that occured quite close to home.

Think about it. A war in the middle east radicalizes the region and draws combatants to the theater of operations. That costs money - Money that then cannot be spent in the planning and coordination of attacks overseas (that means here). The same folks that throw militants and grenades our way in Iraq are largely the same ones who'd be financing their own offensive attacks - As they did New York (twice), London, and Madrid all since 1990.

Like Football, defending is an asset that can help lead to victory but it is rarely a reliable way to score a touchdown and win the game.

The illusion that many people suffer in this country is that this conflict is ours to walk away from. It wasn't some purchase we made and can be returned for refund, it was the result of an obligation we are upholding concerning Israel's right that we established through the UN waaay back in 1949. That is the root of a hostility which is older than Saddam's or Iran's.

To use another football analogy, you have to win the short game to open up the long game.

There have been two major attacks on the United States on our soil. Both were what could be considered deep throws to a reciever that should have been covered better than he was. But how did they get those long throws? By opening up the underneath routes.

Malasia, Africa, and even Spain have a horrible defense. Even a Rex Grossman could get a deep ball in those countries. But France, England, and the US have three of the best defenses in the world, and yet the terrorists have hit on deep routes in all three countries. Why?

The terrorists dink and dunk on the underneath routes and lull us into a false sense of belief in our defense. "Hey, they're not scoring the big play!" Then, BAM! A Hail Mary over the top of the defender that was sitting on a curl route.

It has been said before, but it bears repeating: The terrorists only have to be successful one time. We have to be successfull every time.

There is logic in fighting, or playing if you will, on the other side of the line of scrimmage. It keeps them off balance and gives us a better chance of success.

[ConcordCowboy]

I'm sure those brave men and women would be glad to know you think they died in vain.

Nice.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Surprise!

This thread asked my opinion on the War and I gave it.

If you don't like it I could give a rats ***.

Those Brave men and women died for and will continue to die for nothing and didn't have to...just like in Vietnam.

[zrinkill]

Those Brave men and women died for and will continue to die for nothing and didn't have to...just like in Vietnam.

Its a sad day when defending our Country from terrorism is considered nothing.

[ConcordCowboy]

Its a sad day when defending our Country from terrorism is considered nothing.

We went there for WMD's...Nothing.

Then is was because there was a BS connection to 9/11 or whatever reason the Bush administration wants to give. Nothing.

We could invade MANY countries that harbor or help terrorists but we don't.

The War in Iraq was/is a waste of our soldiers lives. It didn't have to be.

Aghanistan...worth it.

Iraq...Not not worth it.

I thinks its sad that people are still to this day trying to justify this war.

[fan62]

Vietnam all over again.
Maybe we will leave after 46,000 more die and $$$$$$ spent.

Why is there is all of a sudden no federal money to keep up our streets and highways, so we are going to pay $8.00 more in taxes to fill up my tank. Wonder where my highway money went? Oh it's building new roads in Iraq, that's right, I forgot.

Wonder if that increase in gasoline tax will make inflation go up? Naw, those farmers, truckers, and corporations will just let it come out of their profits.

[zrinkill]

We went there for WMD's...Nothing.

Then is was because there was a BS connection to 9/11 or whatever reason the Bush administration wants to give. Nothing.

We could invade MANY countries that harbor or help terrorists but we don't.

The War in Iraq was/is a waste of our soldiers lives. It didn't have to be.

Aghanistan...worth it.

Iraq...Not not worth it.

I thinks its sad that people are still to this day trying to justify this war.

You can argue the politics of the Iraq war all you want ..... but to say those men and women who died there defending their Country "died for nothing" just so you can further your political agenda is dishonoring their memory and their sacrifice.

Many of those who have died are reenlistments who felt their mission was important ....... are you wanting to discredit that just because you do not like Bush?

I am not gonna argue the pros and cons of the war in this thread ..... I only took umbrage with saying our soldiers died for nothing. They died the same way the soldiers in WW1 and WW2 and every other war or battle died ....... for their Country.

[ConcordCowboy]

You can argue the politics of the Iraq war all you want ..... but to say those men and women who died there defending their Country "died for nothing" just so you can further your political agenda is dishonoring their memory and their sacrifice.

Many of those who have died are reenlistments who felt their mission was important ....... are you wanting to discredit that just because you do not like Bush?

I am not gonna argue the pros and cons of the war in this thread ..... I only took umbrage with saying our soldiers died for nothing. They died the same way the soldiers in WW1 and WW2 and every other war or battle died ....... for their Country.

Oh give me a break...I'm dishonoring no one.

They served their country honorably and should be honored as hero's.

But taking Saddam out was not a good enough reason for these people to die.

It accomplished nothing but making Iraq a breeding ground for terrorists that were not there before.

Brilliant.

It was and is a waste of these soldiers lives.

I can't help it if you can't see the difference in saying it's a waste for a person to die for this BS war and dishonoring them.

Think what you will.

[Sasquatch]

You can argue the politics of the Iraq war all you want ..... but to say those men and women who died there defending their Country "died for nothing" just so you can further your political agenda is dishonoring their memory and their sacrifice.

Many of those who have died are reenlistments who felt their mission was important ....... are you wanting to discredit that just because you do not like Bush?

I am not gonna argue the pros and cons of the war in this thread ..... I only took umbrage with saying our soldiers died for nothing. They died the same way the soldiers in WW1 and WW2 and every other war or battle died ....... for their Country.

They fight for their country but they were deployed for a cynical geopolitical gambit, not because our nation was directly threatened, in any real sense of the term, by the government of Iraq.

Until we stop allowing politicians to shield themselves behind our troops, we're going to continue to see the military used as instrument of foreign policy and politician's treating soldiers' like disposable pawns on a global chessboard.

[iceberg]

They fight for their country but they were deployed for a cynical geopolitical gambit, not because our nation was directly threatened, in any real sense of the term, by the government of Iraq.

Until we stop allowing politicians to shield themselves behind our troops, we're going to continue to see the military used as instrument of foreign policy and politician's treating soldiers' like disposable pawns on a global chessboard.

but this is not uncommon and not strictly a US thing, is it?

[vta]

I thinks its sad that people are still to this day trying to justify this war.

What's even sadder is the blind condemnation of it, based on a mischaracterization, so thoroughly repeated, it's taken as absolute truth, despite evidence to the contrary.

Granted, the final surface condemnation falls upon our administration for lying like a bunch of jerks, but enough information has been afforded, since the outbreak of the invasion, to offer the proper characterization of the war. Not a war to remove a two-bit dictator or to avenge 9/11, but a war about securing our interests and trying to stabilize such a globally effecting, volatile region. Perhaps goals that are truly lofty and hopeful, but evidenced enough to be the truth.

If the mischaracterization of this war maintains it's vise like grip, the debate remains a moot point and our society maintains it's ignorance of what's really at stake and either a continuation of inept leadership ensues, because we're content to fight over an un-truth; or a complete breakdown of our supposedly United States is in the future.

The underlying condemnation falls on our society, which in it's apathy and complacency truly believed it can go about it's luxurious life, with it's leaders unchecked. This includes Bush, Clinton, Bush; the latter enjoying the culmination of the formers' administrations success at dumbing down the public.

[ConcordCowboy]

What's even sadder is the blind condemnation of it, based on a mischaracterization, so thoroughly repeated, it's taken as absolute truth, despite evidence to the contrary.

Granted, the final surface condemnation falls upon our administration for lying like a bunch of jerks, but enough information has been afforded, since the outbreak of the invasion, to offer the proper characterization of the war. Not a war to remove a two-bit dictator or to avenge 9/11, but a war about securing our interests and trying to stabilize such a globally effecting, volatile region. Perhaps goals that are truly lofty and hopeful, but evidenced enough to be the truth.

If the mischaracterization of this war maintains it's vise like grip, the debate remains a moot point and our society maintains it's ignorance of what's really at stake and either a continuation of inept leadership ensues, because we're content to fight over an un-truth; or a complete breakdown of our supposedly United States is in the future.

The underlying condemnation falls on our society, which in it's apathy and complacency truly believed it can go about it's luxurious life, with it's leaders unchecked. This includes Bush, Clinton, Bush; the latter enjoying the culmination of the formers' administrations success at dumbing down the public.

Well when you go War over there for one reason and then that turns out to be BS after they had beaten you over the head with that reason and then you say well that doesn't matter because the real reason was this or that...you're not going to get much leeway.

People are dying for that original reason and IMO unnecessarily.

[vta]

Well when you go War over there for one reason and then that turns out to be BS after they had beaten you over the head with that reason and then you say well that doesn't matter because the real reason was this or that...you're not going to get much leeway.

People are dying for that original reason and IMO unnecessarily.

I completely agree with the emotions in regard to the choice of this administration to so baldly and downright ineptly, lie. The night Bush gave his speech I was disgusted at his choice of tack.

We can debate the lie and there's really no debate: they're lying sacks of____. The war itself is made up of other conditions and can't be judged with the same reasoning; people are not dying because of the lie, we're just divided as a country for it. The war would still exist, no matter how hard the sell would have been.

And in bringing our complicity into it, why do we have to be lied to? What have our generations become that made it necessary to do so? How has our government become a 'them' instead of an 'us'?

Probably because we like our ideals that are not based in reality. The one's that presuppose that everyone is just like us and simply want to get along, even on the world stage. We don't need to worry ourselves with how other nations govern, despite the hardcore, irrevocable fact that our strength is derived from global relationships.

We happily accept being bought off, as long as we can enjoy our comforts and not be told about the deaths that are occuring 'out there', because it sulley's our image in the eyes of other nations.

It didn't matter the number of U.S. Troop deaths during the Clinton years - why? Because France, Russia and China didn't complain? Because the news didn't post tactless body counts?

It's better to understand what is being done to us, than to help perpetuate it by allowing our selves to be polarized with political 'issues'. We're being divided by filthy liars on both sides, where death isn't a tragedy, it's just a bargaining chip to get a larger audience to think like the person who's exploiting them.

Trust me. 2008 wil not see a candidate elected who will bring this country out of Iraq.

[ConcordCowboy]

I completely agree with the emotions in regard to the choice of this administration to so baldly and downright ineptly, lie. The night Bush gave his speech I was disgusted at his choice of tack.

We can debate the lie and there's really no debate: they're lying sacks of____. The war itself is made up of other conditions and can't be judged with the same reasoning; people are not dying because of the lie, we're just divided as a country for it. The war would still exist, no matter how hard the sell would have been.

And in bringing our complicity into it, why do we have to be lied to? What have our generations become that made it necessary to do so? How has our government become a 'them' instead of an 'us'?

Probably because we like our ideals that are not based in reality. The one's that presuppose that everyone is just like us and simply want to get along, even on the world stage. We don't need to worry ourselves with how other nations govern, despite the hardcore, irrevocable fact that our strength is derived from global relationships.

We happily accept being bought off, as long as we can enjoy our comforts and not be told about the deaths that are occuring 'out there', because it sulley's our image in the eyes of other nations.

It didn't matter the number of U.S. Troop deaths during the Clinton years - why? Because France, Russia and China didn't complain? Because the news didn't post tactless body counts?

It's better to understand what is being done to us, than to help perpetuate it by allowing our selves to be polarized with political 'issues'. We're being divided by filthy liars on both sides, where death isn't a tragedy, it's just a bargaining chip to get a larger audience to think like the person who's exploiting them.

Trust me. 2008 wil not see a candidate elected who will bring this country out of Iraq.

While I hope you're wrong...a little thing deep down in my gut says you could be right.

Man after all the *****ing about Iraq if a Dem gets in there they better damn well get us out of there or all credibility (if they ever really had any:D ) over Iraq will be gone come next election.

[burmafrd]

We thought Saddam still had WMDs out the yang and was helping terrorists. Turns out the WMDs were either gone or never existed- an intelligence failure that EVERY MAJOR POWER shared in. Russia, China, Israel and theFrench all thought Saddam had a lot more WMDs then he turned out to have. He DID harbor terrorists- the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking was living in comfort in Iraq; and a facility to train terrorists on how to hijack planes was found near baghdad. So that Info was a little bit better. Now was Iraq worth doing? The answer to that question will not be known for sure untill about 20 years from now.

[vta]

While I hope you're wrong...a little thing deep down in my gut says you could be right.

Man after all the *****ing about Iraq if a Dem gets in there they better damn well get us out of there or all credibility (if they ever really had any:D ) over Iraq will be gone come next election.

But why bother hoping?
Simply leaving Iraq does not insure our interests are no longer in danger, that the world loves us or that terrorism will stop.

Getting out of Iraq doesn't change a thing. Not the lying pretext nor the truth of the matter.

[silverbear]

Yeah Right, let the UN enforce it, when has the UN enforced anything?

Like it or not, the United States has never had the right to unilaterally enforce UN resolutions...

ear same old argument,

Yeah, I do tend to fall back on the truth with some regularity... I know that's confusing to you...

Hillary was supportive of military action at the time, but now she has a new take on it to appease her party...

Guess you don't know that I hold her in utter contempt, too...

These are the members of the UN you wanted to help enforce the resolutions?

Once again, what the UN is or is not is completely irrelevant, we do not, and did not, have the moral or legal standing to enforce their resolutions for them... so we cannot use those resolutions as a justification for invading Iraq...

Period... we signed up to be a member of the UN, we are now bound to play by their rules... now, if you want to argue that we should no longer be a party to the UN's fecklessness, I might agree with you...

Of course your argument wouldn't exist if there were WMD's found.

If there were WMDs found, I wouldn't be opposed to the war...

[silverbear]

Legally? Says who?

Show me where in the UN charter it says the United States can take unilateral action to enforce UN sanctions when the UN itself chooses not to take any action...

Morally? Says you.

Yup, says me... and anybody else with a lick of sense, or character...

[silverbear]

You forget, Resolution 1441 allowed for enforcement of the terms of the resolution by either the UN body as a whole, or any individual(s) member nations. Therefore, bye-bye "illegal if the rest of the UN didn't go along" argument.

I must add, though, that I agree with your sentiments regarding the UN - if it's as bad as we think it is (I think so), then get out.

Actually, I just went back and reread Resolution 1441 (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm), and I can't see where it says anything of the sort...

At one point, it does refer back to Resolutions 660 and 678 from 1990-- 11 years plus earlier, saying:

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,

Both of those resolutions referred directly to the invasion of Kuwait... IOW, those resolutions gave the "Member States" the right to invade in that particular situation... hence the reference to "restoring international peace and security in the area"...

I do not see that as an ongoing permission for the UN's "Member States" to take unilateral action to enforce any and all UN resolutions regarding Iraq from that point forward...

To the contrary, Resolution 1441 goes on to say:

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;

IOW, if Iraq remained in violation of the resolution, the proper action specified was to report it to the Council for assessment... nothing about any Member State taking action to enforce that resolution... rather, the Resolution goes on to discuss what the Member States should do:

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

So, the ONLY action specified for Member States is "to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA"... this seems to be mostly in the area of providing those bodies with intel...

So I don't see the authorization for any Member State to invade Iraq... but the document is heavy reading, lots of legalese, perhaps I missed something... could you show me where Resolution 1441 authorizes Member States to take unilateral action to enforce any UN resolution?? Could you show me where it permits the United States to invade Iraq in the name of enforcing that resolution??

[silverbear]

don't bother with Silver- every time you show him wrong he just changes his rant to something else.

As always, I'm warmed by the contempt of the likes of you... very little gives me greater pleasure than watching you snarl at me...

[silverbear]

I do love it when some people -- who hate the UN and think it should be left or disbanded -- use it as justification for things they just wanted to do anyway.

It is kinda funny, isn't it?? I mean, the folks who are now trying to use the enforcement of UN resolutions as a justification for invading Iraq (every other justification they've offered over these past few years having been completely discredited) seem to be the ones who are quickest to point out how corrupt the UN is, and express the opinion that we shouldn't be part of that body...

They call that talking out of both sides of your mouth, and it is something that the neocons are very good at...

[silverbear]

Ok, I have to set you straight my friend.

Well, you're welcome to take your best shot, though to this point I have yet to encounter a message board political flame warrior who is better informed on this subject than I am...

The UN Resolution that he violated was the one that brought a cease fire. Keep in mind that it did not bring a surrender. There is a big difference. We allowed Saddam to stay in power with the understanding he would adhere to these resolutions.

OK, so far, so good... we're on the same page here... not for long, though...

Clinton could have exorcised his prerogative at any time to go in and seek unfettered access through the UN. He did not because he had visions of one day becoming the head of the UN. Knowing what we know now, I wonder if he had any knowledge of the Oil for food scandal.

This has no relevance, and is in fact little more than yet another right wing attempt to deflect attention away from the real issue by sputtering "but... but... but CLINTON"...

Bill Clinton had nothing to do with Dubya's decision to invade Iraq, and nothing to do with the question of whether or not the United States had the legal or moral right to invade Iraq in order to enforce UN sanctions...

With all that said, Bush acted against the back drop of 9/11 and was not about to watch as some mad man who was a sponsor of terrorism himself, have any opportunity to pass on any WMD. It was Saddam's call all the way and he failed to give that access.

Once again, Cajun, you offer up a nonsequitur... this debate is NOT about WMDs, that issue has already been settled... Saddam did not have them...

As for the UN, it has less to do with them than it does with the US's security.

And again, you fail to focus on the issue at the core of this debate... this is both funny and frustrating, when YOU were the one who first raised the issue at the core of this debate... the implication YOU made was that the US invaded Iraq to enforce UN resolutions... I say we had no right to do that, either legally or morally...

Yes, Dubya offered up the excuse that Saddam had all those nasty ol' WMDs, and was willing to use them, and that's one of the main reasons he gave for us invading... this is why I initially supported the invasion... but that claim has since been disproven, removing it as a legitimate cause for invasion...

In a similar fashion, Dubya's veiled suggestions that Saddam was somehow a co-conspirator in the events of 9/11 has been thoroughly discredited...

Which brings us to the suggestion that we were enforcing the UN's sanctions, which has brought us to THIS argument...

So in your effort to "set me straight", you have completely avoided the topic of this argument...

At least we demolished the rape rooms and got rid of a sponsor of state terrorism. And that NO ONE can deny.And that is why I support this action and always will.

LOL... well, that ain't what you said in your FIRST post to this thread, was it?? Nope, that was the post that brought the UN resolutions into this argument... let me refresh your memory:

Saddam was in clear violation of the UN resolutions that brought a Cease fire to the first Gulf war. He failed to give the inspectors unfettered access and even the inspectors themselves, at the time, said they could no longer verify if Saddam indeed did away with his chemical and biological weapons. This was purely on Saddam.

This is the dirty little fact people forget when moaning and groaning over the Iraq war. Oh and by the way, it was a condition of the cease fire agreement with Saddam the first time around that the UN would be allowed to inspect for this. Now we know the UN was dirty with the revelation of the oil for food program taking bribes from Saddam.

I don't see anything in those two paragraphs about "rape rooms", or "sponsors of state terrorism"... seems that as this thread has progressed, you've kinda changed your arguments...

Nope, your original argument was that Saddam ignored those resolutions (which he did, of course)... clearly, this is you saying that we were right to invade Iraq because we were enforcing those resolutions...

And I say once again we had no right, either legally or morally, to do such a thing... invading a sovereign nation is a VERY serious thing, and should NEVER be done unless there is a clear and unmistakable justification for having done so... "rape rooms" isn't good enough, not is "sponsor of state terrorism", not when there are nations MUCH more heavily involved in sponsoring state terrorism...

Why invade Iraq for being a "sponsor of state terrorism", when Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Iran (to name a few) were all FAR worse offenders?? And why HAVEN'T we invaded them, if that's sufficient justification in your mind for invasion??

Yes, removing Saddam from power accomplished some good things... but those good things were emphatically NOT the justifications we were given for invading at the time, and for you Dubya defenders to now offer them up as a defense of his actions is nothing more than revisionist history... people only engage in revisionist history when they're aware that the real history is not kind to their argument...

So any good that came out of the invasion of Iraq was nothing more than serendipity...

[silverbear]

To you sasqie. Not to a lot of other people. You want it to be wrong so therefore it is.


Unfortunately for you, your extreme right wing, fanatical view of Iraq is a distinct minority in this country... IOW, there are "a lot" more "other people" who disagree with you than agree with you...

Indeed, in the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, conducted January 9-12, the question was asked:

"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"

64 per cent said it was not worth it, 35 per cent said it was... over the same time span, the CBS News/New York Times poll asked:

"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"

58 per cent said we should have stayed out, 36 per cent said it was the right thing...

So you might want us to believe that your extremist, fanatical right wing world view is reflective of mainstream America, but you clearly represent a MINORITY viewpoint...

[silverbear]

I'm sure those brave men and women would be glad to know you think they died in vain.

Nice.

Those brave men and women died for neocon lies... but they were doing their duty, doing what their country asked of them, and they are still to be honored...

It ain't their fault that our leaders were a bunch of murdering liars... that's on you and me, for putting those murdering liars in a position of power...

Well, I get a pass, since I never voted for any of the murdering liars...

This is the source of my RAGE, that so many brave men and women died for neocon lies... it is also the source of my rage at the Republican Party, a rage they can never hope to erase until they purge the neocons from any influence at all within their party...

If at any point the Democrats do anything remotely resembling that, they'll also face my rage...

[silverbear]

By the way, you really need to put certain quotes in context. Do you know when Eisenhower was asked this, and in what manner? Of course not.

Hey, if there's some context that changes the thrust of Ike's words, you're welcome to provide it... simply HINTING that there is some context that would change that thrust doesn't come close to a compelling rebuttal...

[silverbear]

Its a sad day when defending our Country from terrorism is considered nothing.

The invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with defending our country from terrorism... if it did, then those American soldiers would clearly not have died for nothing...

Nobody is suggesting that the fatalities in Afghanistan, for example, are "for nothing"...

[silverbear]

but this is not uncommon and not strictly a US thing, is it?

Sadly, no... but that hardly justifies OUR doing it... we're America, we're supposed to be better than other regimes...

[silverbear]

What's even sadder is the blind condemnation of it, based on a mischaracterization, so thoroughly repeated, it's taken as absolute truth, despite evidence to the contrary.

Granted, the final surface condemnation falls upon our administration for lying like a bunch of jerks, but enough information has been afforded, since the outbreak of the invasion, to offer the proper characterization of the war. Not a war to remove a two-bit dictator or to avenge 9/11, but a war about securing our interests and trying to stabilize such a globally effecting, volatile region. Perhaps goals that are truly lofty and hopeful, but evidenced enough to be the truth.

If the mischaracterization of this war maintains it's vise like grip, the debate remains a moot point and our society maintains it's ignorance of what's really at stake and either a continuation of inept leadership ensues, because we're content to fight over an un-truth; or a complete breakdown of our supposedly United States is in the future.

The underlying condemnation falls on our society, which in it's apathy and complacency truly believed it can go about it's luxurious life, with it's leaders unchecked. This includes Bush, Clinton, Bush; the latter enjoying the culmination of the formers' administrations success at dumbing down the public.

vta, if Dubya had laid out the truth for us, the way you have, he couldn't have gotten the support from the American public that he needed... that's why he lied to us, and why his minions continue to push that lie on us...

[silverbear]

We thought Saddam still had WMDs out the yang and was helping terrorists. Turns out the WMDs were either gone or never existed- an intelligence failure that EVERY MAJOR POWER shared in. Russia, China, Israel and theFrench all thought Saddam had a lot more WMDs then he turned out to have. He DID harbor terrorists- the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking was living in comfort in Iraq; and a facility to train terrorists on how to hijack planes was found near baghdad. So that Info was a little bit better. Now was Iraq worth doing? The answer to that question will not be known for sure untill about 20 years from now.

ROTFLMAO... you freely admit that we were deceived by our leaders as to the reason for invading Iraq, you concede that the reasons we were given were entirely bogus, then you go on to opine that we won't know whether Iraq was worth doing until about 20 years from now...

If we were deceived by our leaders as to the reason for invading Iraq, then the invasion of Iraq was wrong... ANY invasion of another sovereign nation absent a legitimate provocation is wrong...

[silverbear]

But why bother hoping?
Simply leaving Iraq does not insure our interests are no longer in danger, that the world loves us or that terrorism will stop.

Getting out of Iraq doesn't change a thing. Not the lying pretext nor the truth of the matter.

While that's undoubtedly true, I'd submit that remaining in Iraq doesn't change anything either... so why remain??

When we finally do leave Iraq, even if it's 20 years from now, tribal warfare will almost assuredly ensue... the likely result of such warfare will be for another Saddam-esque regional strongman to emerge with control of the country, and we'll be right back to square one...

Of all the miserable failures of the Bush administration, the worst was failing to give even a moment's thought to what happened to Iraq once Saddam was removed... if they HAD given that some thought, they would have HAD to realized that the inevitable result would be a power struggle, Sunni vs. Shiite vs. Kurd...

IOW, pretty much what we're seeing play out right now...

[burmafrd]

I am so glad I have silverbear on my ignore list.

[ConcordCowboy]

But why bother hoping?
Simply leaving Iraq does not insure our interests are no longer in danger, that the world loves us or that terrorism will stop.

Getting out of Iraq doesn't change a thing. Not the lying pretext nor the truth of the matter.

Well If I actually thought staying in Iraq was going to change anything then yes stay there.

But I don't

So I don't want anymore of my money spent over there building roads or whatever when we don't even have the money to build our roads here...Obviously that's just one example...but you get the point.

1.2 TRILLION Dollars so far!

Are you frickin kidding me?

And again obviously the wasted lost of life...which can never be replaced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html

"In the days before the war almost five years ago, the Pentagon estimated that it would cost about $50 billion. Democratic staff members in Congress largely agreed. Lawrence Lindsey, a White House economic adviser, was a bit more realistic, predicting that the cost could go as high as $200 billion, but President Bush fired him in part for saying so."

[ConcordCowboy]

The invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with defending our country from terrorism... if it did, then those American soldiers would clearly not have died for nothing...

Nobody is suggesting that the fatalities in Afghanistan, for example, are "for nothing"...

That's what I said...and it seemed pretty simple to me.

[burmafrd]

Iraq was something that was going to have to be acted on sooner or later. Later would have been bad- since the UN was about ready to drop the sanctions and then Saddam could have started on his merry way making more WMDs. The real problem was that we seriously messed up the aftermath- and if we had done it right there is a good chance that by now we would only have a token pressence in Iraq. Though it could also be argued that if the Iraq government never gets its act together.......

[Rackat]

While that's undoubtedly true, I'd submit that remaining in Iraq doesn't change anything either... so why remain??

I would submit that a good reason for staying is deployment staging. While undoubtedly we can get our troops anywhere in the world in a short time, it is definately easier, and faster, to deploy them from an area close to where the battle will take place. That is/was the reason for staging in Germany to counter the Soviet threat, staging in S. Korea to counter the N. Korean threat, and now staging in Iraq to counter the Iranian threat. It is good military strategy to have combat ready troops in a theater of operation where war is imminent, or most likely to occur.


When we finally do leave Iraq, even if it's 20 years from now, tribal warfare will almost assuredly ensue... the likely result of such warfare will be for another Saddam-esque regional strongman to emerge with control of the country, and we'll be right back to square one...

You may or may not be right in this assessment. Only time will tell. One would hope that with the advancement of technology and the light of freedom that these people will eventually choose to create a free civilization/society rather than continue with tribal warfare and strongman leaders.

Of all the miserable failures of the Bush administration, the worst was failing to give even a moment's thought to what happened to Iraq once Saddam was removed... if they HAD given that some thought, they would have HAD to realized that the inevitable result would be a power struggle, Sunni vs. Shiite vs. Kurd...

IOW, pretty much what we're seeing play out right now...

Hard to argue this point. However, I would say that there is less fighting now. I hope it continues to deescalate.

[vta]

The contention in this debate is still that it's based on the false pretext for the war. Under those conditions, the debate is always going to be futile.

Saddam was never going to surpass Iran as a threat. Period. He did not enjoy any kind of alliance outside of his borders, he was an insular dictator. In effect he was really only a harm to his own people. He tried the expansion crap and was quite easily smacked back into place. Any threatening talks he might have uttered were as relevant and threatening as the garbage he spewed while American warplanes were demolishing his country in the first Gulf War. "Mother of All Battles". Go ahead, it's okay to laugh.

No matter who he may have allowed in to his crappy country, it was like two jobless dirt bags in an alley plotting to overthrow the government: impotent and stupid. It's like comparing the threat of a homeless drug addict to major drug cartel. It's empty.

Focusing on the argument of Iraq as a means of simply dealing with a named faction (Al Qeada), in the overall effort of dealing with global terrorism, is equally as empty. Iraq and Afghanistan are not subject to comparison, as they are not opposing efforts, they are two fronts of the same effort: mitigate the larger threat to our security and our interests. To contain Iran and insure we can react swiftly to any threat they want to rattle to our energy supply. To simply leave Iraq only pulls the chair out from under us. Staying solely in Afghanistan does the same.

And yes, Silverbear, I'm fully aware that no bill of goods would have sold this war to the American public.
The blame for that lies equally on us (the population) and them (the politicians). No one gave a crap about what was happening before this current circus took office, in regard to terrorism and people being killed in large numbers. No one protested our Governments lack of initiative in dealing with terrorism, because it didn't interrupt our luxury time. It was never front and center in our news outlets and the small minority that did give a crap had to their own homework and our administration at the time did not level with us. We were sold a bill of goods about how great we are and we swallowed it happily, en masse. Now, recent history is giving the lie to that assertion and we don't like it. We're not liked on the world stage - news flash! We haven't been for quite some time. It was just easier to stomach the laughter at the former clown than the consequences of fear of the current one.

The very word "Iraq" is no longer about a country with geographical location and people who live there, it's a partisan tool to divide "us" and "them". Terrible. Both sides of our political spectrum should be held to task for this major disservice to us.

Clinton did his part to lay the seeds of plausibility, with his own words in regard to Iraq and it's legitimacy as a threat to the U.S. So next time anyone really thinks they're voting for change, when choosing one party over the other, they should really examine the true behavior of their chosen saviour.

"Iraq" as a metaphor is an indictment of what we've become, through laziness and blind trust of our Government. You get what you deserve; you can't hide behind your plasma TV and your gas guzzler and pretend to have clean hands.

[ConcordCowboy]

Iraq and Afghanistan are not subject to comparison, as they are not opposing efforts, they are two fronts of the same effort: mitigate the larger threat to our security and our interests.


I disagree with this.

At the Start of these wars...

Bin-Laden the man who started ALL of this mess with 9/11 was known beyond a shadow of a doubt to be in Afghanistan as were Al-Qeada.

In Iraq neither Bin-laden nor al-Qeada were there nor were WMD's or any connection to 9/11.

NOW we can say that there are terrorists or Al-Qeada there and compare it to the war in terrorism in Afghanistan...but they weren't before the war started.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html

"A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."

As recently as Aug. 21, Bush suggested a link between Hussein and Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who was killed by U.S. forces this summer. But a CIA assessment in October 2005 concluded that Hussein's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to the report.

Bush STILL...trying to connect Hussein and Zarqawi.

Incredible.

[vta]

I disagree with this.

At the Start of these wars...

Bin-Laden the man who started ALL of this mess with 9/11 was known beyond a shadow of a doubt to be in Afghanistan as were Al-Qeada.

In Iraq neither Bin-laden nor al-Qeada were there nor were WMD's or any connection to 9/11.

NOW we can say that there are terrorists or Al-Qeada there and compare it to the war in terrorism in Afghanistan...but they weren't before the war started.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html

"A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."

As recently as Aug. 21, Bush suggested a link between Hussein and Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who was killed by U.S. forces this summer. But a CIA assessment in October 2005 concluded that Hussein's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to the report.

Bush STILL in 2006...trying to connect Hussein and Zarqawi.

Incredible.

You're completely missing the point.
I've stated that the goals in Iraq have very little to do with 9/11 as an impetus. The U.S. is not in Iraq to avenge 9/11 or capture those responsible for 9/11.

In fact, neither is Afghanistan being used for those purposes. Look at a map of the Middle East, look where Afghanistan and Iraq are situated. Further look where American military is stationed and at dead center of all of this geography is Iran. A perfect bullseye of our military's presence.

Clear your mind of 9/11 and look at the facts.

The facts, -not because I say so, not because this administration says so, which it doesn't, but because they're unavoidable, - are: Iran is the most powerful country in the region. Iran hates the United States. Iran is the sole threat to American resources of energy. Iran is the most powerful exporter and influential force of terrorism.

Iran is surrounded by the American military. Iraq is a foot stool.
bin Laden is a boogeyman, who's probably dead.

[ConcordCowboy]

You're completely missing the point.
I've stated that the goals in Iraq have very little to do with 9/11 as an impetus. The U.S. is not in Iraq to avenge 9/11 or capture those responsible for 9/11.

In fact, neither is Afghanistan being used for those purposes. Look at a map of the Middle East, look where Afghanistan and Iraq are situated. Further look where American military is stationed and at dead center of all of this geography is Iran. A perfect bullseye of our military's presence.

Clear your mind of 9/11 and look at the facts.

The facts, -not because I say so, not because this administration says so, which it doesn't, but because they're unavoidable, - are: Iran is the most powerful country in the region. Iran hates the United States. Iran is the sole threat to American resources of energy. Iran is the most powerful exporter and influential force of terrorism.

Iran is surrounded by the American military. Iraq is a foot stool.
bin Laden is a boogeyman, who's probably dead.

Sorry...can't clear my mind of 9/11...that is the reason why we started this war on terrorism.

And that boogeyman that started it ALL. Until we CONFIRM he's dead...he's still alive.

As far as the rest of your post...I'm sure Iraq will be a great staging ground for Bush to attack Iran...I don't think anyone would disagree with you.

[vta]

Sorry...can't clear my mind of 9/11...that is the reason why we started this war on terrorism.

And that boogeyman that started it ALL. Until we CONFIRM he's dead...he's still alive.

As far as the rest of your post...I'm sure Iraq will be a great staging ground for Bush to attack Iran...I don't think anyone would disagree with you.

Refusing to take the complete history in to account is to be totally handcuffed in understanding, let alone debating a side on the subject.

9/11 happened in the middle of the war, not the start of it; it's just that it is the event that caused Americans to rouse from their dream.

And the boogeyman who empowered our more potent enemy died July 3, 1989.

[CowboyFan74]

Let's say you are walking down the street and you see 2 punks robbing an old lady, you happen to be packing a dirty harry, what do you do? Keep walking?

Let's say you are walking down the street and 3 punks are beating up some helpless nerd for no good reason. You happen to be a kung fu master, do you keep walking?

Let's say you are walking past an alley late at night and 5 punks are raping a 10 year old girl, you happen to be packing that same dirty harry and you're a kung fu master. Do you keep walking?



That's how I feel about war. I'm in no mood for politics, just liberty and justice, for all....:cool:

[StevenOtero]

Let's say you are walking down the street and you see 2 punks robbing an old lady, you happen to be packing a dirty harry, what do you do? Keep walking?

Let's say you are walking down the street and 3 punks are beating up some helpless nerd for no good reason. You happen to be a kung fu master, do you keep walking?

Let's say you are walking past an alley late at night and 5 punks are raping a 10 year old girl, you happen to be packing that same dirty harry and you're a kung fu master. Do you keep walking?



That's how I feel about war. I'm in no mood for politics, just liberty and justice, for all....:cool::lmao:

[ConcordCowboy]

Refusing to take the complete history in to account is to be totally handcuffed in understanding, let alone debating a side on the subject.

9/11 happened in the middle of the war, not the start of it; it's just that it is the event that caused Americans to rouse from their dream.

And the boogeyman who empowered our more potent enemy died July 3, 1989.

I was talking to you about the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and why they can be distinguished/compared from one another as in why we went there...not about the history of terrorism or Iran or Khomeini hating us.

You seem to be saying what we are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan now is all in preparation for fighting Iran...Or are you saying that we started these wars to get a staging point to fight Iran?

And I'm sorry but telling me to forget about 9/11 and Bin-Laden when we are discussing the wars is ridiculous...they can't be forgotten...they are the reason we are there...especially Afghanistan.

Would Bush have started a war in Iraq without 9/11? Maybe...maybe not...but Bush and Cheney were/still are using 9/11 as one of the reasons for waging war in Iraq.

Afghanistan...I don't think there is any doubt why we started a war there...and it wasn't about Iran THEN.

Now if you want to talk about the reason why we are there NOW and not at the start of the wars...OK fine..but that's not what I'm talking about.

[silverbear]

I am so glad I have silverbear on my ignore list.

I figured sooner or later you'd run and hide... you're the type who doesn't want any input that might disturb your rigidly preconceived notions...

You're mind's made up, and you don't want to be bothered by any FACTS... LOL...

[vta]

I was talking to you about the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and why they can be distinguished/compared from one another as in why we went there...not about the history of terrorism or Iran or Khomeini hating us.

You seem to be saying what we are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan now is all in preparation for fighting Iran...Or are you saying that we started these wars to get a staging point to fight Iran?

And I'm sorry but telling me to forget about 9/11 and Bin-Laden when we are discussing the wars is ridiculous...they can't be forgotten...they are the reason we are there...especially Afghanistan.

Would Bush have started a war in Iraq without 9/11? Maybe...maybe not...but Bush and Cheney were/still are using 9/11 as one of the reasons for waging war in Iraq.

Afghanistan...I don't think there is any doubt why we started a war there...and it wasn't about Iran THEN.

Now if you want to talk about the reason why we are there NOW and not at the start of the wars...OK fine..but that's not what I'm talking about.

Yes, what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is about dealing with the greater threat. It's all about mitigating the greater threat in the region. Sticking only to the start of the U.S. Military's deployment to the Mid East, from 9/11 on is an incomplete argument and one that is hampered.

The start of both wars are completely calculated in their relationship to Iran. They are bracketing Iran, as well as the U.S. military positioning of Azerbaijan, Turkey and the Persian Gulf. They are indistinguishable; you can't separate the history from and their relevance to it.

Oops I fell and surrounded my enemy?? Not at all. It's all related and in the same context and clearly calculated. Bush and Cheney did not start this war, they just put the proactive strategy on this administrations shoulders.

Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of politicizing 9/11. Do you really think one fool can elude capture like this? Do really think one man with half a foot and ailing kidneys can truly be this elusive? bin Laden is not the reason we're there, he is just the launching pad of opportunity that gives us validity in fighting terrorism and it's sponsors. If you are seriously hoping for some form of justice in the form of his capture, you're going to be disappointed.

We didn't start a war in Afghanistan, we moved it there, as well as Iraq and it has always been about Iran and to a lesser extent Syria. Iran who is a greater threat than a rag tag group of idiots in the mountains of Pakistan. A threat greater than a two bit dictator like Saddam. It's all about Iran.

Why? because they are the most powerful. Contain them and everyone is on notice, including our 'allies' in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Notice that the U.S. will over step it's bounds in defense of it's resources and won't stand still for acts of terrorism in furtherance of trying to influence U.S foreign policy.

You can't be for the effort in Afghanistan and against the effort in Iraq; they are fully coordinated toward the greater effort.

America will not attack Iran militarily any time soon. But it can. It's a two front war consisting of the stress of constant physical threat and diplomatic overtures to the opposition of Iran's leaders.

Neutralize Iran and the lesser threats will follow.

This is really interesting; if you're willing to accept that the administration lied about it's reasons for going to Iraq, just what do you think they have put American forces in that country for?

[Cajuncowboy]

:lmao:

You find that funny, why?

[silverbear]

I would submit that a good reason for staying is deployment staging. While undoubtedly we can get our troops anywhere in the world in a short time, it is definately easier, and faster, to deploy them from an area close to where the battle will take place.

But don't we already have bases in Saudi Arabia??

That is/was the reason for staging in Germany to counter the Soviet threat, staging in S. Korea to counter the N. Korean threat, and now staging in Iraq to counter the Iranian threat. It is good military strategy to have combat ready troops in a theater of operation where war is imminent, or most likely to occur.

Except nobody in Iraq invited us to build bases in their country... it would be different if we were there by invitation, rather than because we invaded...

Or are you suggesting it's OK for us to invade a country, if that country can be used to our strategic advantage as a staging ground??

You may or may not be right in this assessment. Only time will tell. One would hope that with the advancement of technology and the light of freedom that these people will eventually choose to create a free civilization/society rather than continue with tribal warfare and strongman leaders.

You'd hope that, but those tribes have been hatin' on each other for centuries... Doonesbury had a wickedly funny strip last week, in which an American GI is riding around talking with an Iraqi advisor... they spot this house in which an enemy combatant is rumored to be hiding, and the American says they need to take him into custody... the Iraqi advisor says "this will not be possible, he is my sworn enemy. He killed a relative of mine"...

"When was this", asks the American...

"1387", says the Iraqi... :D

Hard to argue this point. However, I would say that there is less fighting now. I hope it continues to deescalate.

I do too, but I doubt it... we saw the same thing back in Vietnam, there were weeks and months where combat entered a "lull", and our leaders back home quickly told us this was evidence we were "winning"... obviously, we weren't...

[silverbear]

And yes, Silverbear, I'm fully aware that no bill of goods would have sold this war to the American public.

For the record, if you're wondering why I haven't really argued with you, it's because I pretty much agree with what you've said...

[ConcordCowboy]

Yes, what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is about dealing with the greater threat. It's all about mitigating the greater threat in the region. Sticking only to the start of the U.S. Military deployment to the Mid East, from 9/11 on is an incomplete argument and one that is hampered.

The start of both wars are completely calculated in their relationship to Iran. They are bracketing Iran, as well as the U.S. military positioning of Azerbaijan, Turkey and the Persian Gulf. They are indistinguishable; you can't separate the history from and their relevance to it.

Oops I fell and surrounded my enemy?? Not at all. It's all related and in the same context and clearly calculated. Bush and Cheney did not start this war, they just put the proactive strategy on this administrations shoulders.

Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of politicizing 9/11. Do you really think one fool can elude capture like this? Do really think one man with half a foot and ailing kidneys can truly be this elusive? bin Laden is not the reason we're there, he is just the launching pad of opportunity that gives us validity in fighting terrorism and it's sponsors. If you are seriously hoping for some form of justice in the form of his capture, you're going to be disappointed.

We didn't start a war in Afghanistan, we moved it there, as well as Iraq and it has always been about Iran and to a lesser extent Syria. Iran who is a greater threat than a rag tag group of idiots in the mountains of Pakistan. A threat greater than a two bit dictator like Saddam. It's all about Iran.

Why? because they are the most powerful. Contain them and everyone is on notice, including our 'allies' in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Notice that the U.S. will over step it's bounds in defense of it's resources and won't stand still for acts of terrorism in furtherance of trying to influence U.S foreign policy.

You can't be for the effort in Afghanistan and against the effort in Iraq; they are fully coordinated toward the greater effort.

America will not attack Iran militarily any time soon. But it can. It's a two front war consisting of the stress of constant physical threat and diplomatic overtures to the opposition of Iran's leaders.

Neutralize Iran and the lesser threats will follow.

This is really interesting; if you're willing to accept that the administration lied about it's reasons for going to Iraq, just what do you think they have put American forces in that country for?

Well considering Bush's record on the truth anything is possible and I never disagreed with you on what they maybe doing there now.

I just don't think that bracketing Iran was the reason that we went over there to begin with. If it was and it wasn't to avenge 9/11 and get Bin-Laden and Al-Qeada then this administration is way more F'd up that I ever imagined.

Good Lord...I can't believe that I'm actually giving Bush the benefit of the doubt on this.:eek:

[StevenOtero]

I figured sooner or later you'd run and hide... you're the type who doesn't want any input that might disturb your rigidly preconceived notions...

You're mind's made up, and you don't want to be bothered by any FACTS... LOL...:hammer:!!

[Rackat]

But don't we already have bases in Saudi Arabia??
I believe our main base their is at Riyahd(sic). IIRC, we have limited use due to our agreements with the Saudis. Also, if we had to launch and attack from Saudi Arabia it would have to be one, or more likely, a combination of the following:
-Go through Iraq for land attack
-Amphibious landing
-Air strikes launched from carrier(s) and ground installations
If we were not already situated in Iraq, it would be difficult to go through that country in a land based attack.


Except nobody in Iraq invited us to build bases in their country... it would be different if we were there by invitation, rather than because we invaded...
I agree, but the point is moot since we are there.


Or are you suggesting it's OK for us to invade a country, if that country can be used to our strategic advantage as a staging ground??
No, I didn't suggest that. But since you brought it up, I will give you my opinion. No, I don't think it is ok to invade a country solely on the basis of having a strategic advantage if that country is not our enemy and has not sponsored or fostered our enemies. The object of any country, just as it is for an individual, is to survive. Undermining your enemy whether by diplomacy or brute force is done daily around the globe. If you have ever been in a fight, you know that the premise of the fight is to be the victor. You may choose to self-impose limitations on your ability to fight (such as not kicking your opponent after you have knocked him to the ground), or in the case of the US by adhering to the Genva Conventions. However, in the constraints of the self-imposed limitations, the object remains: victory.


You'd hope that, but those tribes have been hatin' on each other for centuries...

Yes, they have. Which is kind of ironic when you reflect on the fact that for a long time they were the leaders in a lot of areas, including science and medicine. Quite frankly, I think the worst thing that ever happened to them was the rise of the Prophet Mohamed. Just as with Christianity, the emergence of "one" true leader (Mohammed/ ) proved to be more divisive than cohesive. It is just that Christianity got it figured out first, and over all, have stopped fighting between the different sects. Yes, there are still zealots in Christianity that will never stop fighting, but for the most part Christianity has become a docile religion. That is not the case with Islam.

Doonesbury had a wickedly funny strip last week, in which an American GI is riding around talking with an Iraqi advisor... they spot this house in which an enemy combatant is rumored to be hiding, and the American says they need to take him into custody... the Iraqi advisor says "this will not be possible, he is my sworn enemy. He killed a relative of mine"...

"When was this", asks the American...

"1387", says the Iraqi... :D
Ain't that the truth!


I do too, but I doubt it... we saw the same thing back in Vietnam, there were weeks and months where combat entered a "lull", and our leaders back home quickly told us this was evidence we were "winning"... obviously, we weren't...
Yes, that is true. I believe though, that even as they were telling us that they were still carpet bombing the hell out of the North. I also believe that had the media of today been around at that time, they would never have gotten away with telling those lies. The difference today is that we not only have the mainstream media, but the blogosphere and access to foreign media where we can gather information as an individual and not have to rely on what Goerge and Dick tell us. And from what I have seen and read on the world media is that there has been a decrease in violence and attacks.

[trickblue]

vBulletin said I closed the thread, but if I did it was on accident...

Double-clicking on the icon will close a thread and I guess I inadvertently did that...

Sorry... and carry on...

[ConcordCowboy]

vBulletin said I closed the thread, but if I did it was on accident...

Double-clicking on the icon will close a thread and I guess I inadvertently did that...

Sorry... and carry on...

Yeah I was wondering why it was closed as it seemed to be pretty civil...for this place.:D

[silverbear]

Yeah I was wondering why it was closed as it seemed to be pretty civil...for this place.:D

I hear the mods are privately kicking around a rule that says any thread in the Political Zone that I post to must be immediately closed...

They're calling it the "Let's Save The Remnants of Burm's Sanity" rule...

[ConcordCowboy]

I hear the mods are privately kicking around a rule that says any thread in the Political Zone that I post to must be immediately closed...

They're calling it the "Let's Save The Remnants of Burm's Sanity" rule...

I think we all know there ain't no saving that.

:D

[BrAinPaiNt]

Yeah I was wondering why it was closed as it seemed to be pretty civil...for this place.:D

Trick is a Vbull terrorist. :p: ;)

I heard him yelling ALLAH and the next thing I knew the thread was closed.

[trickblue]

Trick is a Vbull terrorist. :p: ;)

I heard him yelling ALLAH and the next thing I knew the thread was closed.

I was yelling "Hubbard"... get it right...

[Vintage]

Genocide also goes against the UN.

But we didn't take unilateral action in Rwanda.

Maybe if they had oil....

[Jarv]

Genocide also goes against the UN.

But we didn't take unilateral action in Rwanda.

Maybe if they had oil....

How much oil have we gotten from Iraq and Afgan....

I know my gas and home oil prices have gone up. Where do you live ?