Commentary: Putin's war enablers: Bush and Cheney

[SuspectCorner]

Putin's war enablers: Bush and Cheney
Russia's escalating war on Georgia reveals the consequences of the Bush administration's long assault on the international rule of law.
By Juan Cole / Aug. 14, 2008 / From Salon.com

The run-up to the current chaos in the Caucasus should look quite familiar: Russia acted unilaterally rather than going through the U.N. Security Council. It used massive force against a small, weak adversary. It called for regime change in a country that had defied Moscow. It championed a separatist movement as a way of asserting dominance in a region it coveted.

Indeed, despite George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's howls of outrage at Russian aggression in Georgia and the disputed province of South Ossetia, the Bush administration set a deep precedent for Moscow's actions -- with its own systematic assault on international law over the past seven years. Now, the administration's condemnations of Russia ring hollow.

Bush said on Monday, responding to reports that Russia might attack the Georgian capital, "It now appears that an effort may be under way to depose [Georgia's] duly elected government. Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century." By Wednesday, with more Russian troops on the move and a negotiated cease-fire quickly unraveling, Bush stepped up the rhetoric, announcing a sizable humanitarian-aid mission to Georgia and dispatching Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region.

While U.S. leaders have tended to back Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, there are two sides to every dispute, and in the ethnically diverse Caucasus it may be more like a hundred sides. Abkhazia and Ossetia are claimed by Georgia, but they have their own distinctive languages, cultures and national aspirations. Both fought for independence in the early 1990s, without success, though neither was Georgia able to assert its full sovereignty over them, accepting Russian mediation and peacekeeping troops.

The separatist leaders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia now speak of Saakashvili in terms reminiscent of the way separatists in Darfur speak of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Sergei Bagapsh of Abkhazia and Eduard Kokoity of South Ossetia have come out against conducting any further talks with Georgia, calling instead for Saakashvili to be tried for war crimes. Kokoity told Interfax, "There can be no talks with the organizers of genocide." The Russian press is full of talk of putting Saakashvili on trial for ordering attacks on Ossetian civilians.

All sides have committed massacres and behaved abominably. There are no clean hands involved, notwithstanding the strong support for Georgia visible in the press of most NATO member countries. (Georgia has been jockeying to join NATO, something Moscow stridently opposes.) Still, not everyone in NATO agrees that Saakashvili is a hero. While traveling with the negotiating team of President Nicolas Sarkozy, one French official observed that "Saakashvili was crazy enough to go in the middle of the night and bomb a city" in South Ossetia. The consequence of Russia's riposte, he said, is "a Georgia attacked, pulverized, through its own fault."

An emboldened Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin sarcastically likened Russia's actions to Bush's foreign policy. Pointing to the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Putin said, "Of course, Saddam Hussein ought to have been hanged for destroying several Shiite villages ... And the incumbent Georgian leaders who razed 10 Ossetian villages at once, who ran over elderly people and children with tanks, who burned civilians alive in their sheds -- these leaders must be taken under protection."

In the run-up to the Iraq war, Bush officials repeated ad nauseam the mantra that Saddam Hussein had killed his own people. Thus, they helped create a case for unilateral "humanitarian intervention" of the sort Putin says Russia is now pursuing. Washington had failed to get a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing a war on Iraq, and Iraq had not attacked the United States, so no principle of self-defense was at stake. But since all governments (even the United States under Abraham Lincoln) repress separatist movements, often ruthlessly, Bush was turning actions such as Saakashvili's attack on South Ossetia into a more legitimate cause for an outside power (especially one bordering it) to wage war against Georgia.

Indeed, Putin's invoking Bush's Iraq adventure points directly to the way in which Bush has enabled other world powers to act impulsively. With his doctrine of preemptive warfare, Bush single-handedly tore down the architecture of post-World War II international law erected by the founders of the United Nations to ensure that rogue states did not go about launching wars of aggression the way Hitler had. While safeguarding minorities at risk is a praiseworthy goal, the U.N. Charter states that the Security Council must approve a war launched for this purpose or any other, excepting self-defense. No individual nation is authorized to wage aggressive war on a vigilante basis, as Bush did in Iraq or Russia is now doing in the Caucasus.

Eight years ago, the United States would have been in a position to condemn Russia for its unilateral war without necessarily seeming hypocritical. After all, even the Korean War had been sanctioned by the United Nations, and President Dwight Eisenhower had condemned the 1956 tripartite attack on Egypt by Britain, France and Israel for violating the U.N. Charter.

Bush's recent argument, that a democratically elected government should not be overthrown (no matter what its behavior, apparently), was intended to sidestep comparisons between his own unilateral wars of aggression and ones such as the current Russian intervention. He was implying that his invasion of Iraq toppled a government that lacked the legitimacy enjoyed by Saakashvili's.

In fact, Bush's foreign policy includes a long list of actions intended to undermine elected governments.

Whether the United States was actively involved in the attempted coup in 2002 against Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected president of Venezuela, or merely cheered it on, it is clear that Venezuelan popular sovereignty meant nothing to Bush if it resulted in a government unfriendly to and critical of Washington.

An even more egregious example came with the destabilization and overthrow of the Hamas government, which won control of the Palestine Authority in January 2006. Bush insisted on allowing the participation in elections of Hamas, a fundamentalist party with a covert paramilitary that has struck at Israeli targets, including civilians. When the party unexpectedly won, however, Bush refused to recognize the legitimacy of the new government, denying it funds and sympathizing with the Israeli attempt to overthrow it. Israeli security forces kidnapped elected Hamas representatives and cabinet ministers, and harmed civilians by blocking medical aid and food that might go to people via the Hamas government.

In 2007, Bush and the Israelis supported a takeover in the West Bank by forces of the Palestine Liberation Organization, lead by Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Similar attempts were made in Gaza, but they failed, leaving the elected Hamas government in charge of the small territory. Palestinian popular sovereignty, and Hamas' victory in what were widely judged to have been relatively free and fair elections, were disregarded by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Bush.

Bush and Cheney also repeatedly sided with military dictator Pervez Musharraf against elected civilian politicians in Pakistan. Even when the Pakistani Parliament, elected in open polls last February, initiated impeachment proceedings against Musharraf earlier this week, the Bush administration came out against the idea of Musharraf's going into exile if convicted, urging that he be allowed to stay "honorably" in Pakistan if he stepped down.

Bush's exceptionalism, whereby he implicitly maintained that no international laws or institutions would be allowed to constrain U.S. actions taken in the name of national security, grew out of the sole superpower status of the United States after fall of the Soviet Union. A unipolar world is, however, an exceedingly rare circumstance in modern world history, and it was unlikely to last very long. China may soon have the economic and technological clout to go toe to toe with the United States; and Russia, fueled by the energy boom, is recovering from its economic disaster of the 1990s.

The collapse of the Soviet economy produced tremendous misery and downward mobility. Uncertainty made couples unwilling to risk having children. In one of the great demographic reversals in history, the Russian Federation's population fell by 10 million in the years after 1991. Russian need for U.S. foreign aid and goodwill led Moscow to acquiesce for a time in the expansion of U.S. influence into Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Russia is now reemerging and flexing its muscles. The run-up in the price of oil and gas has filled Moscow's coffers, since it is one of the great producers of natural gas in the world (prices of natural gas tend to track with those of petroleum). Russia has reasserted its influence in countries such as Uzbekistan, which had briefly licensed a base to U.S. forces but then kicked them out, and in Turkmenistan, which recently agreed to pipe its natural gas through Moscow. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin are increasingly acting like Gulf emirs, flush with petrodollars and assured of political leverage because of their control over energy resources.

In a unipolar world, the Bush doctrine of preemptive war allowed Washington to assert itself without fear of contradiction. The Bush doctrine, however, was never meant to be emulated by others and was therefore implicitly predicated on the notion that all challengers would be weaker than the United States throughout the 21st century. Bush and Cheney are now getting a glimpse of a multipolar world in which other powers can adopt their modus operandi with impunity. Bush's rhetoric may have sounded like that of President Woodrow Wilson, but his policy has often been to support the overthrow or hobbling of elected governments that he does not like -- and that has not gone unnoticed by countries that also count themselves great powers and would not mind following suit.

The problem with international law for a superpower is that it is a constraint on overweening ambition. Its virtue is that it constrains the aggressive ambitions of others. Bush gutted it because he thought the United States would not need it anytime soon. But Russia is now demonstrating that the Bush doctrine can just as easily be the Putin doctrine. And that leaves America less secure in a world of vigilante powers that spout rhetoric about high ideals to justify their unchecked military interventions. It is the world that Bush has helped build.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/08/14/bush_putin/

[yeahyeah]

GREAT POST

:toast:

[bbgun]

A longtime Saddam apologist trying to blame naked Russian aggression on Bush and Cheney? Shocking.

[Cajuncowboy]

Why do people actually read this garbage?

[dacarmelking210]

A longtime Saddam apologist trying to blame naked Russian aggression on Bush and Cheney? Shocking.

Nobody blamed Bush or Cheney for anything; they simply likened the two wars (Iraq and Georgia) together. You have to admit, there are clear similarities between the two situations; if Bush was justified for going to war b/c Saddam killed his own people, then Russia is justified for invading Georgia because Georgia slaughtered THOUSANDS of South Ossetian civilians prior to and during this conflict.

I would also like to add, I do not condone Russia's actions during this conflict; they are clearly taking things too far.

[burmafrd]

slaughtered thousands. No proof but Russian statements. It does not surprise me that to this day Liberals are always making excuses for Russia. Been doing it for 80 years- why change?

[dacarmelking210]

slaughtered thousands. No proof but Russian statements. It does not surprise me that to this day Liberals are always making excuses for Russia. Been doing it for 80 years- why change?

Not just during this conflict, but during the decade or so long conflict between the North and South Ossetians.

[ThaBigP]

By the way, the article starts out with a lie. The US *did* go before the UN Security Council....for the better part of a year. And got several resolutions passed authorizing force, not the least of which was 1441. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War

We also went out of our way to make sure the entire world knew what we were up to well in advance. We took along international press embedded with US forces to document the entire affair. We also took along international forces who fought alongside. I also love the abject dismissal of the gassing of Kurds as an "ad nausium mantra".

But in any event, the UN is a waste of time when real problems occur. They are impotent in this crisis. They were only able to get a resolution passed for the Korean War because the Soviet Union was boycotting at the time - they would have vetoed otherwise, so we got lucky - getting it passed by the hair of our chinny-chin-chins. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/united_nations_korean_war.htm

Just as the League of Nations was toothless against the invasion of Ethiopia by Itallian forces, which was the first European shots in WWII, and led to the demise of the League of Nations. It it's place we got the same thing with a different name. http://nhs.needham.k12.ma.us/cur/baker_00/03/baker-mc-03/ethiopia.htm

Read your history before you post crap from others who need to read their history.

[SuspectCorner]

By the way, the article starts out with a lie. The US *did* go before the UN Security Council....for the better part of a year. And got several resolutions passed authorizing force, not the least of which was 1441. We also went out of our way to make sure the entire world knew what we were up to well in advance. We took along international press embedded with US forces to document the entire affair. We also took along international forces who fought alongside. I also love the abject dismissal of the gassing of Kurds as an "ad nausium mantra".

But in any event, the UN is a waste of time when real problems occur. They are impotent in this crisis. They were only able to get a resolution passed for the Korean War because the Soviet Union was boycotting at the time - they would have vetoed otherwise, so we got lucky - getting it passed by the hair of our chinny-chin-chins. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/united_nations_korean_war.htm

Just as the League of Nations was toothless against the invasion of Ethiopia by Itallian forces, which was the first European shots in WWII, and led to the demise of the League of Nations. It it's place we got the same thing with a different name. http://nhs.needham.k12.ma.us/cur/baker_00/03/baker-mc-03/ethiopia.htm

Read your history before you post crap from others who need to read their history.

The Iraq War was a pre-emptive action. If you are unaware of this fact you have only yourself to blame. The information supporting this fact is readily available to anyone with a reasonable desire to cut through Bush Adminstration propaganda and rhetoric and ask a few basic questions.

[ThaBigP]

For clarification on Resolution 1441, the language was left deliberately vague, so as to allow various interpretations allowing force on one hand by any member state, and not allowing force by other interpretations. This, however, is one of the problems with debate clubs masquerading as saviours of mankind from warfare. In order to get your unanimous vote, you must water down the language so much that anybody can read a resolutions and come away with whatever interpretation they want. But at least we had a resolution 1441 - I wonder what UN resolution number it was that Russia obtained in order to go into Georgia.

[ThaBigP]

The Iraq War was a pre-emptive action. If you are unaware of this fact you have only yourself to blame. The information supporting this fact is readily available to anyone with a reasonable desire to cut through Bush Adminstration propaganda and rhetoric and ask a few basic questions.

I'm tired of having battles of witts with unarmed opponents, as the saying goes. I never said it was not a pre-emptive action. On that point you are correct.

[ThaBigP]

Might I also add, that if it was *not* a pre-emptive action (i.e. Iraq attacked us materially), then we would not be talking about UN resolutions, as we would not need one. But...while we're on the subject....how about Iraq firing on coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone on a daily basis? By all measure an act of war. Or had you conveniently forgotten? By any rational measure we bent over backwards to accomodate the UN in this.

[SuspectCorner]

I'm tired of having battles of witts with unarmed opponents, as the saying goes. I never said it was not a pre-emptive action. On that point you are correct. (Incidentally, the word is "wits" - one "t"...)

Your post: "By the way, the article starts out with a lie. The US *did* go before the UN Security Council....for the better part of a year. And got several resolutions passed authorizing force, not the least of which was 1441."


Pre-emptive war is illegal by most international standards and you seem to be suggesting that the US acted under some kind of UN approval with regard to the invasion of Iraq - not so:



Resolution 1441 is ambiguous in two important ways. The first deals with who can determine the existence of a material breach. The second concerns whether another resolution, explicitly authorizing force, is needed before military action against Iraq may be taken.

On the first issue, a senior Bush administration official has said: "Neither Blix nor ElBaradei, nor we, determine a material breach. The facts determine that [there] is a material breach…. Violations with respect to the declarations, falsifying the declarations or failure to cooperate [with] the inspectors, that fact in itself, the way [paragraph] 4 is worded, constitutes a material breach, which then gets reported to the council, either by Blix or ElBaradei, or…[by] any member—not just at the Security Council—any member of the United Nations." British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has explained a similar—though not identical—process by which, "If there is a false statement or omission in the Iraqi Declaration, together with a failure to comply with the resolutions or to cooperate with the inspectors, this can be reported to the Security Council as a further material breach either by a Security Council member or by the inspectors. The council will in any case undoubtedly require the opinion of the inspectors."

But the French, who had lobbied hard to change the phrase "will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12" to "will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12" disagreed—arguing that only Blix or ElBaradei could determine there had been a material breach. The Chinese, too, believed that "only upon receipt of a report by UNMOVIC and the IAEA on Iraq's noncompliance and failure to cooperate fully in the implementation of the resolution, will the Security Council consider the situation and take a position."

Resolution 1441's second ambiguity is even more significant. While the resolution makes clear that the Security Council must reconvene to discuss how to deal with Iraqi noncompliance, it does not make clear whether the council must pass another resolution at such a meeting, authorizing the use of force, or whether member states may simply act on their own.

This difference of opinion came into focus during the discussion following the adoption of Resolution 1441. At that time, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte said: "This resolution contains no 'hidden triggers' and no 'automaticity' with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a Member State, the matter will return to the council for discussion….[But] if the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce the relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security." The British ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, agreed.

But others saw things differently. The French ambassador expressed relief that "a two-stage approach" would ensure "that the Security Council would maintain control of the process at each stage." The Russian representative made clear that "the resolution just adopted contains no provisions for the automatic use of force" and warned against "yielding to the temptation of unilateral interpretation of the resolution's provisions." The Chinese delegate similarly said: "China supports the two-stage approach." Several nonpermanent Security Council members agreed. The Irish delegate noted: "As far as Ireland is concerned, it is for the Council to decide on any ensuing action." The Mexican ambassador stressed that "the use of force is valid only as a last resort, with prior explicit authorization required from the Security Council." The Bulgarian delegate said: "This resolution is not a pretext for automatic recourse to the use of force." The Colombian representative noted: "This resolution is not, nor could it be at this time, a resolution to authorize the use of force." Similarly, the ambassador from Cameroon expressed relief that the resolution "does not contain traps or automaticity." And the Syrian ambassador said: "The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue."

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/

[masomenos]

(Incidentally, the word is "wits" - one "t"...)



I love when people make mistakes like that when they're trying to prove how smart they are. Even if it's just a typo, I still love it.

[ThaBigP]

Mr Suspect, did you read your own post? And mine prior? About the inherent impotence of debate clubs? Your own quote mentioned the deliberate ambiguity of the resolution - a trait almost all UN resolutions have (spelling of wit notwithstanding when one is trying to type on a keyboard at almost 11pm and figures some folks just *might* pay attention to the content).

You also skipped over my pointing out in your prior post about the glorious UN resolution authorizing action in Korea....only because the Soviet Union boycotted. Nope, move along, nothing to see here.

Ask the Poles about inept leadership. Ask the Czechs. Ask France. Ask Finland...Denmark...Luxembourg....Ethiopia... And while you're dashing about hunting for a reasonable facsimile of a history book complete with an unused map, be sure to ask them how that debate club came to the rescue. Again, you are great at feigning superficial knowledge of history, but that don't fly with me.

[Cajuncowboy]

You people have this all wrong as usual. This was NOT a preemptive strike. For the one billionth time. This was also not a new war. This was the enforcement of the UN Resolutions that led to Saddam's agreement to abide by them from the first Gulf War. He was in violation of them. If a byproduct of this was that we got rid of a state sponsor of terrorism then so be it.

People don't want to even address this because it would not give them the green light to bash their favorite whipping boy. It's unfortunate, but the bashers get way to much credibility in the leftist news agencies then the little zombies who follow them just keep mouthing the same line time after time.

[ThaBigP]

I love when people make mistakes like that when they're trying to prove how smart they are. Even if it's just a typo, I still love it.

Eye'm sorrie mie grazp of hiz-tory duz not meat whith ur uh-proval.

[ThaBigP]

You people have this all wrong as usual. This was NOT a preemptive strike. For the one billionth time. This was also not a new war. This was the enforcement of the UN Resolutions that led to Saddam's agreement to abide by them from the first Gulf War. He was in violation of them. If a byproduct of this was that we got rid of a state sponsor of terrorism then so be it.

People don't want to even address this because it would not give them the green light to bash their favorite whipping boy. It's unfortunate, but the bashers get way to much credibility in the leftist news agencies then the little zombies who follow them just keep mouthing the same line time after time.

Well, there is *that* little detail. Violating terms of the cease-fire he agreed to in order to end hostilities. Oh, wait, I'm sorry....I meant "in ordur two ennd hoztiliteez". So the peanut gallery can follow alllllong, you know. Uh.....long.....

[SuspectCorner]

Eye'm sorrie mie grazp of hiz-tory duz not meat whith ur uh-proval.

You Jason Witten fan you...

[ThaBigP]

Might I also volunteer there is a stain on the shirt I'm wearing while typing these posts. That completely undermines my points as well, don't forget.

[ThaBigP]

You Jason Witten fan you...
:cool:

[masomenos]

Eye'm sorrie mie grazp of hiz-tory duz not meat whith ur uh-proval.

:confused:

Chill, I haven't commented on this threads main topic at all, you have no idea whether I think you're right or wrong. All I said is that I like when people make mistakes like the one you did when they're trying to seem smart. It's funny. It happens to me too, it happens to everyone.

[zrinkill]

You people have this all wrong as usual. This was NOT a preemptive strike. For the one billionth time. This was also not a new war. This was the enforcement of the UN Resolutions that led to Saddam's agreement to abide by them from the first Gulf War. He was in violation of them. If a byproduct of this was that we got rid of a state sponsor of terrorism then so be it.

People don't want to even address this because it would not give them the green light to bash their favorite whipping boy. It's unfortunate, but the bashers get way to much credibility in the leftist news agencies then the little zombies who follow them just keep mouthing the same line time after time.


:hammer:


But you will never get them to admit it.

[ThaBigP]

:confused:

Chill, I haven't commented on this threads main topic at all, you have no idea whether I think you're right or wrong. All I said is that I like when people make mistakes like the one you did when they're trying to seem smart. It's funny. It happens to me too, it happens to everyone.

I was trying to be funny. :laugh2: Seriously, it's harder to spell that horrible on purpose. I should just type while tired more often.

[masomenos]

Seriously, it's harder to spell that horrible on purpose.

:laugh2: I'm sure it is more difficult to type that bad on purpose, but then I'm sure your witt helped you out.

;)

j/k

[Cajuncowboy]

:hammer:


But you will never get them to admit it.

Freakin' amazing isn't it.

[masomenos]

You people have this all wrong as usual. This was NOT a preemptive strike. For the one billionth time. This was also not a new war. This was the enforcement of the UN Resolutions that led to Saddam's agreement to abide by them from the first Gulf War. He was in violation of them. If a byproduct of this was that we got rid of a state sponsor of terrorism then so be it.

People don't want to even address this because it would not give them the green light to bash their favorite whipping boy. It's unfortunate, but the bashers get way to much credibility in the leftist news agencies then the little zombies who follow them just keep mouthing the same line time after time.

Well it was still a new war and it was a new war that was not backed by the UN, even if we were entering based on the fact that Iraq was in violation of previous resolutions. Many members of the council supported continued inspections or force if it was deemed necessary by the Security Council. We can't talk about enforcing U.N. resolutions when we, in the same stroke, subvert the process of the Security Council.

[Cajuncowboy]

Well it was still a new war and it was a new war that was not backed by the UN, even if we were entering based on the fact that Iraq was in violation of previous resolutions. Many members of the council supported continued inspections or force if it was deemed necessary by the Security Council. We can't talk about enforcing U.N. resolutions when we, in the same stroke, subvert the process of the Security Council.

Unless of course they are being bribed. Which in fact they were. The US has all the moral right to go in and take him out. Hans Blix said that Saddam was not cooperating and thought they may have something to hide.

Violation.

And add to that the fact he was openly supporting terrorists, he left us no choice. And he paid with his life. Oh well.

[SuspectCorner]

Unless of course they are being bribed. Which in fact they were. The US has all the moral right to go in and take him out. Hans Blix said that Saddam was not cooperating and thought they may have something to hide.

Violation.

And add to that the fact he was openly supporting terrorists, he left us no choice. And he paid with his life. Oh well.

Moral right? Openly supporting terrorists? Where the **** have you been the last seven years?

If the truth were a two-ton anchor that dropped on your head - I doubt you'd so much as open an umbrella.

[Cajuncowboy]

Moral right? Openly supporting terrorists? Where the **** have you been the last seven years?

If the truth were a two-ton anchor that dropped on your head - I doubt you'd so much as open an umbrella.

WTH are you talking about. Don't tell me you didn't know he openly supported terrorists.

And yes, we were morally right to enforce the agreement that WE negotiated with Saddam and that he failed to fulfill.

Saddam was in violation of that agreement and we took him out. We had every right to do so.

[burmafrd]

Suspect- remender the Achille Lauro? The terrorist who headed that atrocity was living in Iraq under Saddams protection. And he was not alone.
But go on- keep it up. You are good for a laugh.

[Cajuncowboy]

Suspect- remender the Achille Lauro? The terrorist who headed that atrocity was living in Iraq under Saddams protection. And he was not alone.
But go on- keep it up. You are good for a laugh.

And yet, even as recent as just prior to his demise he was supporting terrorists as well. But we should just turn our heads to this. Burm, they are never going to admit the truth. They just act like this because that is all they know.

[yeahyeah]

The Iraq War isnt against International and U.S. Law? wow..could have fooled me.

U.N. Charter anyone? We are required to obey it. Under international and domestic law. Why? Look no further than article six of the constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding

So..if we sign a treaty then it then becomes the law of the land and we are bound to it.

What we signed..U.N. Charter


CHAPTER VII

4) Article 39: 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.

Article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions …..

Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by land, sea or air forces of the United Nations.


NOW..members are not required to seek the approval of the security council if they are directly attacked in the case of self defense.

5) Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures to secure international peace and security, Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security

Iraq....did not attack us(article51). Also they did not meet the criterion for articles 39,42

So...we are bound by treaties (domestic) We are bound by the charter (international) we violated both.

Its an illegal war.

[Cajuncowboy]

The Iraq War isnt against International and U.S. Law? wow..could have fooled me.

U.N. Charter anyone? We are required to obey it. Under international and domestic law. Why? Look no further than article six of the constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding

So..if we sign a treaty then it then becomes the law of the land and we are bound to it.

What we signed..U.N. Charter


CHAPTER VII

4) Article 39: 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.

Article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions …..

Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by land, sea or air forces of the United Nations.


NOW..members are not required to seek the approval of the security council if they are directly attacked in the case of self defense.

5) Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures to secure international peace and security, Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security

Iraq....did not attack us(article51). Also they did not meet the criterion for articles 39,42

So...we are bound by treaties (domestic) We are bound by the charter (international) we violated both.

Its an illegal war.

It's not an illegal war. What a drumbeat. :rolleyes:

There was never an end to the Iraq war. It was a cessation of hostilities. Based on terms set forth and then agreed to. It's the same war. Are you people think headed naturally or do you use some kind of ointment to get it that way?

Oh and by the way, he supported terrorists who killed Americans. I know that doesn't sit ell with your whole 'ILLEGAL WAR" thingy but it's a fact.

[SuspectCorner]

It's not an illegal war. What a drumbeat. :rolleyes:

There was never an end to the Iraq war. It was a cessation of hostilities. Based on terms set forth and then agreed to. It's the same war. Are you people think headed naturally or do you use some kind of ointment to get it that way?

Oh and by the way, he supported terrorists who killed Americans. I know that doesn't sit ell with your whole 'ILLEGAL WAR" thingy but it's a fact.

So why is one action referred to as the "Gulf War" and the other as the "Iraq War"? And show me the Americans killed by Saddam terrorist-backing?

Anybody can make statements - now cite your sources... I await your response.

[yeahyeah]

It's not an illegal war. What a drumbeat. :rolleyes:

1) There was never an end to the Iraq war. It was a cessation of hostilities. Based on terms set forth and then agreed to. It's the same war. Are you people think headed naturally or do you use some kind of ointment to get it that way?

2) Oh and by the way, he supported terrorists who killed Americans. I know that doesn't sit ell with your whole 'ILLEGAL WAR" thingy but it's a fact.

1) Well I dont know if im thick headed but i do read and according the UNSCR1441
The U.S. sought approval from the security council for military action and was denied.

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

You see you cant just go at it unilaterally...the security council condemned it and said no..even in the face of previous and current violations at the time thats illegal.
Even when Powell had his little BS picture session..the Security council gave no approval.
That's illegal.

But then i must just be thick headed...dang all that crazy readin stuff...readers is troublemakers.

[masomenos]

Unless of course they are being bribed. Which in fact they were. The US has all the moral right to go in and take him out. Hans Blix said that Saddam was not cooperating and thought they may have something to hide.

Violation.

And add to that the fact he was openly supporting terrorists, he left us no choice. And he paid with his life. Oh well.

I recall hearing about bribes but I don't remember who was involved, can you help me out on that?

Wars can't be based on "moral" rights for a couple of reasons. First, we've ignored other moral obligations that could have been taken care of through military action. Second, morality is subjective and I'm sure that the Taliban would claim that they had the moral right to attack us (not that I'm defending that, I'm just showing why morality can't justify wars).

Just a couple weeks before the invasion Hans Blix actually said that Iraq was being proactive in accelerated cooperation in investigations and inspections.

[AtlCB]

Dumbest article ever. If you think Putin cares at all about the UN (whether the Iraq War happened or not), then you truly are more naive than I thought.

[Ben_n_austin]

1) Well I dont know if im thick headed but i do read and according the UNSCR1441
The U.S. sought approval from the security council for military action and was denied.

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

You see you cant just go at it unilaterally...the security council condemned it and said no..even in the face of previous and current violations at the time thats illegal.
Even when Powell had his little BS picture session..the Security council gave no approval.
That's illegal.

But then i must just be thick headed...dang all that crazy readin stuff...readers is troublemakers.




You handed it to him, but I'm not sure he's re-attached his buttocks to his tail bone yet...or his head to his neck, for that matter.

Even though it's a legal matter, he still doesn't care the law was broken and supports illegal unilateral action because the leader he supports also supports foaming mouthed Christian hate rhetoric.

As long as it's his guy and he throws in there a few times, Cajun is all for 'em.

[Ben_n_austin]

So why is one action referred to as the "Gulf War" and the other as the "Iraq War"? And show me the Americans killed by Saddam terrorist-backing?

Anybody can make statements - now cite your sources... I await your response.

If he won't do it, I'll do it for him. Rush Limbaugh.


...and you don't want to put anything from Rush's butt into your mouth. -- Al Franken

[burmafrd]

yawn.

[iceberg]

Why do people actually read this garbage?

maybe it's me and a bad stereotype that all know i try to avoid, but when i see an article blaming bush, first of all it feels so...retro. like all the cool people USED to do it and some still do it for fun.

then when i see they're giving war and peace a challenge in length, that's like a double shot of too-liberal and i just ignore it. liberals tend to blame anyone but themselves and i tend to start at me and work my way out.

wars were around long before bush came along. yet somehow, it's bush's fault. that's so yesterday.

[iceberg]

Dumbest article ever. If you think Putin cares at all about the UN (whether the Iraq War happened or not), then you truly are more naive than I thought.

putin is trying to regain control over what he used to control and those countries are more interested in our style of government. if you really want to blame someone blame all those who signed that declaration of independance. if they'd not started all this we now take for granted, putin would have to be mad at someone else right now.

[BrAinPaiNt]

It's not an illegal war. What a drumbeat. :rolleyes:

There was never an end to the Iraq war. It was a cessation of hostilities. Based on terms set forth and then agreed to. It's the same war. Are you people think headed naturally or do you use some kind of ointment to get it that way?

Oh and by the way, he supported terrorists who killed Americans. I know that doesn't sit ell with your whole 'ILLEGAL WAR" thingy but it's a fact.

You do know that the US supports terrorists that killed Americans as well don't you?

That is a FACT!

[iceberg]

You do know that the US supports terrorists that killed Americans as well don't you?

That is a FACT!

can you elaborate? not saying we didn't, in 240 years things will go wrong i'm sure. i'd just like to know the specifics around it.

[BrAinPaiNt]

The US helped fund fighters in Afghanistan to fight the russians. I guess freedom fighters in one war turns into terrorists when we are against them.

The Iran Contra affair where we tried to sell weapons to the Iranians for the exchange of american hostages.


If Saddam was a terrorist or supported terrorists (saddam has supported terrorists in saying he would give money to terrorists groups families) then we supported Saddam prior to that in technological avenues and military equipment to help him fight Iran.

The US has supported Jondollah, once again maybe freedom fighters to some but terrorists to others.

During this very war we had a group of terrorists that were killing US soldiers and we made a bargain with them and have been paying them monthly in order to fight with us instead of against us.

[iceberg]

The US helped fund fighters in Afghanistan to fight the russians. I guess freedom fighters in one war turns into terrorists when we are against them.

The Iran Contra affair where we tried to sell weapons to the Iranians for the exchange of american hostages.

If Saddam was a terrorist or supported terrorists (saddam has supported terrorists in saying he would give money to terrorists groups families) then we supported Saddam prior to that in technological avenues and military equipment to help him fight Iran.

The US has supported Jondollah, once again maybe freedom fighters to some but terrorists to others.

During this very war we had a group of terrorists that were killing US soldiers and we made a bargain with them and have been paying them monthly in order to fight with us instead of against us.

to a point i can agree with you. we screwed up big time in aiding saddam. but was saddam a terrorist at the time or just a crazy leader?

my thought when you wrote this was we had a direct action to *want* to kill US citizens with US funded terrorists and i'm not seeing that. indirectly yes. intent, no. not thati can see or understand. yet. : )

[BrAinPaiNt]

to a point i can agree with you. we screwed up big time in aiding saddam. but was saddam a terrorist at the time or just a crazy leader?

my thought when you wrote this was we had a direct action to *want* to kill US citizens with US funded terrorists and i'm not seeing that. indirectly yes. intent, no. not thati can see or understand. yet. : )

We bargained with terrorists (Iran Contra) and we recently bargained with terrorists in the Iraq war as they were killing US soldiers until we started paying them.

Add into the idea that we also funded other groups when they were fighting against other countries and called them freedom fighters when they were the same as the ones we are fighting now.

The US has indeed funded terrorists for their own reasons and just called them freedom fighters. That was ok and dandy when it was against other countries like Russia or Iran.

I am not saying that Iran or others are not funding terrorists...just saying let's not act all innocent and high and mighty because we have done the same.

[burmafrd]

Saddam was giving shelter to the terrorist who staged the Achille Lauro hijacking. He was also allowing others to train for plane hijackings, as a facility for doing that was found south of baghdad.

[sacase]

The Iraq War isnt against International and U.S. Law? wow..could have fooled me.

U.N. Charter anyone? We are required to obey it. Under international and domestic law. Why? Look no further than article six of the constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding

So..if we sign a treaty then it then becomes the law of the land and we are bound to it.

What we signed..U.N. Charter


CHAPTER VII

4) Article 39: 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.

Article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions …..

Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by land, sea or air forces of the United Nations.


NOW..members are not required to seek the approval of the security council if they are directly attacked in the case of self defense.

5) Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures to secure international peace and security, Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security

Iraq....did not attack us(article51). Also they did not meet the criterion for articles 39,42

So...we are bound by treaties (domestic) We are bound by the charter (international) we violated both.

Its an illegal war.

As usual you are wrong

Public Law No: 107-243 (US LAW)

Do a little research instead of just being obnoxious. The justification was Iraq did not abide by the UN Resolution 687 which was a ceasation of hostilities. We temporarily suspending the agreement (which they violated) and resumed the war. So yes it was the same war. Just like The Korean war has no stopped yet.

Oh and as far as Saddam supporting terrorism...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

HE paid their families money. Material support to terrorism.


The UN is a joke and just needs to be terminated. They can't accomplish anything at all. No country respects the UN And everyone pretty much does what they want anyways. Plus you have the former UN President or whatever he is Kofi Annan on the take from Saddam with the whole oil for food thing. When is the last time the UN has actually stopped a war or any fighting.

[iceberg]

As usual you are wrong


yeahyeah ->:spanking: <-sacase

[iceberg]

We bargained with terrorists (Iran Contra) and we recently bargained with terrorists in the Iraq war as they were killing US soldiers until we started paying them.

Add into the idea that we also funded other groups when they were fighting against other countries and called them freedom fighters when they were the same as the ones we are fighting now.

The US has indeed funded terrorists for their own reasons and just called them freedom fighters. That was ok and dandy when it was against other countries like Russia or Iran.

I am not saying that Iran or others are not funding terrorists...just saying let's not act all innocent and high and mighty because we have done the same.

i can agree we picked a side and went with it. but did we ever sponsor a direct terrorist action to go against a US Citizen?

not indirectly - that's a whole 'nother can of worms. i'm also not asking if we ever funded terrorists to go fight other terrorists or just stop fighting us.

i agree we're not "clean" in the overall world of things, but i don't agree that means we stop trying or just sit around and say we're as guilty as they are. i don't think that's what you're saying so no, not assuming that but to a degree that's what i'm reading out of what you're saying. that or it's just a slap to those who think we'd not resort to such measures, which sounds more like it.

[ThaBigP]

So why is one action referred to as the "Gulf War" and the other as the "Iraq War"? And show me the Americans killed by Saddam terrorist-backing?

Anybody can make statements - now cite your sources... I await your response.

The same reason we have a "WWI" and a "WWII" and a "Cold War", even though they were all extensions of one another. WWII (at least in Euope) was brought about by the allies refusing to enforce the terms at the end of WWI (Versaille treaty) - that led to a stalemate of the victorious forces known as the "Cold War". They were distinct conflicts, to be sure, but children of the conflict prior. My source, by the way, is called history.

[Doomsday101]

The same reason we have a "WWI" and a "WWII" and a "Cold War", even though they were all extensions of one another. WWII (at least in Euope) was brought about by the allies refusing to enforce the terms at the end of WWI (Versaille treaty) - that led to a stalemate of the victorious forces known as the "Cold War". They were distinct conflicts, to be sure, but children of the conflict prior. My source, by the way, is called history.

True and just as sacase the War with N. Korea is only in a cease fire the war is not officially over just the fighting but the 2 sides have never came to any agreement. With Iraq they agreed to terms of a cease fire and had to abide by the resolutions and failure to do so could lead and did lead to continuation of hostilities

[yeahyeah]

As usual you are wrong

Public Law No: 107-243 (US LAW)

1) Do a little research instead of just being obnoxious. The justification was Iraq did not abide by the UN Resolution 687 which was a ceasation of hostilities. 2) We temporarily suspending the agreement (which they violated) and resumed the war. So yes it was the same war. Just like The Korean war has no stopped yet.

3) Oh and as far as Saddam supporting terrorism...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

HE paid their families money. Material support to terrorism.


4) The UN is a joke and just needs to be terminated. They can't accomplish anything at all. No country respects the UN And everyone pretty much does what they want anyways. Plus you have the former UN President or whatever he is Kofi Annan on the take from Saddam with the whole oil for food thing. When is the last time the UN has actually stopped a war or any fighting.



1) As per habit of posters on this site..you didnt read my response to the rebuttal. So..I will post it again for ya.

"Well I dont know if im thick headed but i do read and according the UNSCR1441
The U.S. sought approval from the security council for military action and was denied.


13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement)

You see you cant just go at it unilaterally...the security council condemned it and said no..even in the face of previous and current violations at the time thats illegal.
Even when Powell had his little BS picture session..the Security council gave no approval.
That's illegal."




2) Sorry but it dont work like that chief. One country cant just decide to go in again..thus UNITED Nations and Security COUNCIL.
I layed it all out so even a Neo-Con could get it.
Constitution/U.N. Charter/UNSCR1447

3) As for my posts where have I ever said he didnt? Read it...ya gotta read it first smart guy.
I think you are confusing me and the administrations claims that he supported Al Qaeda...now THAT was bull.

4) A joke? Well...that charter is the law of the land buddy. Article 6 says so. So all the right wing goose steppers can call it what they want..old Harry signed it and its a treaty.
A success? Kosova. Thats a success story in the last year. All under U.N. supervision.
Ok..back to Limbaugh with you.

[sacase]

1) As per habit of posters on this site..you didnt read my response to the rebuttal. So..I will post it again for ya.

"Well I dont know if im thick headed but i do read and according the UNSCR1441
The U.S. sought approval from the security council for military action and was denied.


13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement)

You see you cant just go at it unilaterally...the security council condemned it and said no..even in the face of previous and current violations at the time thats illegal.
Even when Powell had his little BS picture session..the Security council gave no approval.
That's illegal."




2) Sorry but it dont work like that chief. One country cant just decide to go in again..thus UNITED Nations and Security COUNCIL.
I layed it all out so even a Neo-Con could get it.
Constitution/U.N. Charter/UNSCR1447




The UN "law" has no power over the US. The UN cannot tell the US government what it can and cannot do. It is not the "law of the land." The only thing we are held to are Specific treaties that we sign. For instance, the Anti-mine Prohibition Act, we did not sign it nor are we bound by it. The UN cannot force us to abide by it.

As far as your #1 issue....once again do a little research and don't be a schill. Try the Vienna Convention of Law on Treaties.

Article 60
Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach
1.A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.
2.A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:
(a) the other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part or to terminate it either:

(i) in the relations between themselves and the defaulting State; or
(ii) as between all the parties;
(b) a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State;
(c) any party other than the defaulting State to invoke the breach as a ground for suspending the
operation of the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a character that a
material breach of its provisions by one party radically changes the position of every party with respect
to the further performance of its obligations under the treaty.
3.A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:
(a) a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or
(b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.
4.The foregoing paragraphs are without prejudice to any provision in the treaty applicable in the event of a breach.
5.Paragraphs 1 to 3 do not apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions prohibiting any form of reprisals against persons protected by such treaties.

This is a UN document. Iraq was in material breach of the treaty we signed with them. We were justified in finishing the war as allowed by UN LAW. So yes we can go at it again, chief.

Kosovo? Ever hear of KFOR (that little NATO Organization). Kosovo is still not a recognized country.

[arglebargle]

Saddam was giving shelter to the terrorist who staged the Achille Lauro hijacking. He was also allowing others to train for plane hijackings, as a facility for doing that was found south of baghdad.


You mean the old decrepeit, non-active terrorist from Achille Lauro infamy? There are worse terrorists living in Washington, London, or the South of France. With permission. I seem to recall we recently gave shelter to a terrorist who blew up a plane. But that must've been okay, since he was targeting Cubans, eh?

Though actually, since he was a former CIA field operative, I think he skated because he knew too much to let out.

[yeahyeah]

1) The UN "law" has no power over the US. The UN cannot tell the US government what it can and cannot do. 2) It is not the "law of the land." 3) The only thing we are held to are Specific treaties that we sign. 4) For instance, the Anti-mine Prohibition Act, we did not sign it nor are we bound by it. The UN cannot force us to abide by it.

5) As far as your #1 issue....once again do a little research and don't be a schill. Try the Vienna Convention of Law on Treaties.

Article 60
Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach
1.A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.
2.A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:
(a) the other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part or to terminate it either:

(i) in the relations between themselves and the defaulting State; or
(ii) as between all the parties;
(b) a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State;
(c) any party other than the defaulting State to invoke the breach as a ground for suspending the
operation of the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a character that a
material breach of its provisions by one party radically changes the position of every party with respect
to the further performance of its obligations under the treaty.
3.A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:
(a) a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or
(b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.
4.The foregoing paragraphs are without prejudice to any provision in the treaty applicable in the event of a breach.
5.Paragraphs 1 to 3 do not apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions prohibiting any form of reprisals against persons protected by such treaties.

6) This is a UN document. Iraq was in material breach of the treaty we signed with them. We were justified in finishing the war as allowed by UN LAW. So yes we can go at it again, chief.

7) Kosovo? Ever hear of KFOR (that little NATO Organization). Kosovo is still not a recognized country.


1) Absolutely right we are soveriegn country. However the INITIAL action was Via the U.N. So any subsequent commencement of hostilities must be cleared through WHOM..........? The Security Council..they said no

2) ANY actions involving parties under treaty (U.N. Charter) are the supreme law of the land. Can the UN tell us what to do with our states? No...but when it involves the UN...as Iraq did...we must respect the terms of that treaty...Read Article 6

3) Right..the UN Charter

4) VERY GOOOOD..we dont have to abide by treaties we dont sign..isnt that novel..point?

5) I promise not to be a schil as long as you promise not to be a cad...deal?

6) huh? Vienna? UNSCR 687 is not a treaty...the UN Charter is the treaty..By signing 687 they are bound by virtue of the charter. They violated 687 thus the charter.
So did WE..by not following the vote of the Security Council and thats the point.
Vienna is just a codification of customary international law. It clarifies so that all member nations have the same "verbage" and understanding of international law. Lots of countries lots of laws.
I dont understand Vienna's place in this argument and how it applies to 39,41, 42 or 51 in the charter.

7) http://www.unmikonline.org/

[sacase]

1) Absolutely right we are soveriegn country. However the INITIAL action was Via the U.N. So any subsequent commencement of hostilities must be cleared through WHOM..........? The Security Council..they said no

2) ANY actions involving parties under treaty (U.N. Charter) are the supreme law of the land. Can the UN tell us what to do with our states? No...but when it involves the UN...as Iraq did...we must respect the terms of that treaty...Read Article 6

3) Right..the UN Charter

4) VERY GOOOOD..we dont have to abide by treaties we dont sign..isnt that novel..point?

5) I promise not to be a schil as long as you promise not to be a cad...deal?

6) huh? Vienna? UNSCR 687 is not a treaty...the UN Charter is the treaty..By signing 687 they are bound by virtue of the charter. They violated 687 thus the charter.
So did WE..by not following the vote of the Security Council and thats the point.
Vienna is just a codification of customary international law. It clarifies so that all member nations have the same "verbage" and understanding of international law. Lots of countries lots of laws.
I dont understand Vienna's place in this argument and how it applies to 39,41, 42 or 51 in the charter.

7) http://www.unmikonline.org/

I guess you will just have to close your eyes and act like your screen name, I showed you where we had both UN law and UN resolution behind us. But of course you choose to ignore it when it is not conveient for you. Nothing new from your kind. If you can't see how 678 is important and the vienna treaty applies to it, then you are purposly avoiding the truth.

[Cajuncowboy]

So why is one action referred to as the "Gulf War" and the other as the "Iraq War"? And show me the Americans killed by Saddam terrorist-backing?

Anybody can make statements - now cite your sources... I await your response.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/15/nyregion/15hamas.html

You can stop waiting now!

[Cajuncowboy]

1) Well I dont know if im thick headed but i do read and according the UNSCR1441
The U.S. sought approval from the security council for military action and was denied.

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

You see you cant just go at it unilaterally...the security council condemned it and said no..even in the face of previous and current violations at the time thats illegal.
Even when Powell had his little BS picture session..the Security council gave no approval.
That's illegal.

But then i must just be thick headed...dang all that crazy readin stuff...readers is troublemakers.




— April 6: Permanent cease fire — Iraq agrees to pay for damages in Kuwait, to destroy its chemical and biological weapons, as well as weapons of mass destruction.

Note this is not a surrender. But a permanent cease fire based on the fulfillment of this agreement.

So how ever you want to defend saddam, go ahead. You look silly doing it.

[Cajuncowboy]

I recall hearing about bribes but I don't remember who was involved, can you help me out on that?

Wars can't be based on "moral" rights for a couple of reasons. First, we've ignored other moral obligations that could have been taken care of through military action. Second, morality is subjective and I'm sure that the Taliban would claim that they had the moral right to attack us (not that I'm defending that, I'm just showing why morality can't justify wars).

Just a couple weeks before the invasion Hans Blix actually said that Iraq was being proactive in accelerated cooperation in investigations and inspections.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1ED4A070-0ABD-4E90-B40D-18AA524CE028

As for the morality issue. If morality is subjective, then I guess we would just have to suck it up when the morality of the radical muslms dictate they kill Americans. Sorry, there is a moral right and we should invoke it when necessary.

From Hans Blix's Reports, the following...

Feb 14 2003/
In my earlier briefings, I have noted that significant outstanding issues of substance were listed in two Security Council documents from early 1999 (S/1999/94 and S/1999/356) and should be well known to Iraq. I referred, as examples, to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles, and said that such issues “deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside…”. The declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December last year, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions. This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.

Then from March 7th Security Council briefing..

"Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated “immediately, unconditionally and actively” with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:"

"It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance."

It's obvious from Hans Blix himself that Saddam was not giving FULL and UNFETTERED cooperation.

No matter how it is sliced, Blix can say all he wants after the fact because he is a pacifist and doesn't agree with war, but being part of the UN and reporting to a group of bribed individuals, he made these assertions. Thinking that we would never go in.

[Cajuncowboy]

You handed it to him, but I'm not sure he's re-attached his buttocks to his tail bone yet...or his head to his neck, for that matter.

Even though it's a legal matter, he still doesn't care the law was broken and supports illegal unilateral action because the leader he supports also supports foaming mouthed Christian hate rhetoric.

As long as it's his guy and he throws in there a few times, Cajun is all for 'em.

I so sick of morons saying the Christian perspective is hate.

Only a real fool and ignoramus would hold that position.
Congrats, you are the king of them all.

As I have posted the fact that are not in question proving this wasn't an illegal war I guess that leaves you with your tail tucked and clinched.

[Cajuncowboy]

to a point i can agree with you. we screwed up big time in aiding saddam. but was saddam a terrorist at the time or just a crazy leader?

my thought when you wrote this was we had a direct action to *want* to kill US citizens with US funded terrorists and i'm not seeing that. indirectly yes. intent, no. not thati can see or understand. yet. : )

Nah, he was just twisting things into the "Well, we did it to" mantra he is famous for. :rolleyes:

[iceberg]

Nah, he was just twisting things into the "Well, we did it to" mantra he is famous for. :rolleyes:

on the surface he's right. trouble is i seldom stop on the surface. i dig in. : )

[Cajuncowboy]

on the surface he's right. trouble is i seldom stop on the surface. i dig in. : )

Ah, the devil is always in the details. ;)

[masomenos]

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1ED4A070-0ABD-4E90-B40D-18AA524CE028


Thanks for the link, there was some information in there that I don't think I had ever read before. Rather interesting that Russia and France were #1 and #2 in terms of oil received from the program, I had never realized that.

As for the morality issue. If morality is subjective, then I guess we would just have to suck it up when the morality of the radical muslms dictate they kill Americans. Sorry, there is a moral right and we should invoke it when necessary.

Well no, it's not a matter of us having to suck it up when ths morality of radical Muslims dictates that they kill American's. The point it that regardless of what their morality is it can't justify the action because it's not based on an absolute standard. Likewise our actions can't be justified on moral grounds for the same reason. We would be in a lot more countries overthrowing regimes if we were to make our decisions based on morality.

From Hans Blix's Reports, the following...

Feb 14 2003/
In my earlier briefings, I have noted that significant outstanding issues of substance were listed in two Security Council documents from early 1999 (S/1999/94 and S/1999/356) and should be well known to Iraq. I referred, as examples, to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles, and said that such issues “deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside…”. The declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December last year, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions. This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.

Then from March 7th Security Council briefing..

"Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated “immediately, unconditionally and actively” with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:"

"It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance."

It's obvious from Hans Blix himself that Saddam was not giving FULL and UNFETTERED cooperation.

No matter how it is sliced, Blix can say all he wants after the fact because he is a pacifist and doesn't agree with war, but being part of the UN and reporting to a group of bribed individuals, he made these assertions. Thinking that we would never go in.
[/QUOTE]

What Blix said in the March 7th speech was that Iraq would initially press for conditions on the inspections, such as raising issue about helicopters and planes flying in no-fly zones, but would then concede and let the inspections continue. On this he said...

This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.

Was it FULL and IMMEDIATE cooperation? No it wasn't, I'll admit that. But with successful ongoing inspections occurring, with illegal weapons, missles and chemicals being destroyed and with a timetable of "months" it was a poor pretext for war. It wasn't illegal for us to go into Iraq, but because progress was being made the decision was and is questionable.

[Ben_n_austin]

I so sick of morons saying the Christian perspective is hate.

Only a real fool and ignoramus would hold that position.
Congrats, you are the king of them all.

As I have posted the fact that are not in question proving this wasn't an illegal war I guess that leaves you with your tail tucked and clinched.

I'm sick of underhanded Christian hate rhetoric.

[iceberg]

I'm sick of underhanded Christian hate rhetoric.

i'm sick of people being sick of things.

i don't feel good.

[Ben_n_austin]

i'm sick of people being sick of things.

i don't feel good.

I hope you feel better if you're being serious. If you don't feel better, take a look at the irony in Cajun's post. That ought to be good for a good chuckle. Hopefully, that'd cheer you up.

[iceberg]

I hope you feel better if you're being serious. If you don't feel better, take a look at the irony in Cajun's post. That ought to be good for a good chuckle. Hopefully, that'd cheer you up.

my apathy kicked in long before i got into these types of arguments. i just inject nonsense for the sake of nonsense and move along.

[SuspectCorner]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/15/nyregion/15hamas.html

You can stop waiting now!

I couldn't find a single reference to Saddam or Iraq - but it sure seems to follow the Hamas "money trail" to Saudi doorsteps... so what do you figure as the timetable for our invasion of Saudi Arabia? :D

Still waiting...

[Cajuncowboy]

I'm sick of underhanded Christian hate rhetoric.

Call it what you want. Truth is truth. It's your sides mantra. If it in anyway conflicts with your leftist views, it must be hate. Much like the change mantra. That's all you have.

And you are supposed to be he party of tolerance.

Now, that's something to laugh at.

[Cajuncowboy]

I couldn't find a single reference to Saddam or Iraq - but it sure seems to follow the Hamas "money trail" to Saudi doorsteps... so what do you figure as the timetable for our invasion of Saudi Arabia? :D

Still waiting...

You honestly don't know that saddam supported them?

You can't be that ignorant. Unless you were taught by an "unnamed" teacher on this forum.

[burmafrd]

Saddam - and this has been very well documented- sent lots of money to the families of "successful homicide bombers".
For someone to claim they knew nothing about this, indicates where they get their data from and should be totally ignored.