NationStates Jolt Archive

Excuse me for being stupid but I honestly cannot see and validity in launching a pre-emptive strike. It's like saying, that guy over there might punch me out, so I'm just going to punch him out first. Iraq might have WMDs so I'm going to send thousands and thousands of his troops over there and see what happens. Once again, if I had WMDs, the perfect time to use them would be when war breaks out in my country. Communists might take over so we are going on a witch hunt. That other imperialistic country might want my land that I claimed so I'm going to attack them. Is that the logic or have I missed something entirely here?

In a war such as the second Iraqi war, a pre-emptive strike is carried out due to the technological ability and the firepower of the aggressor nations to remove the defensive/counter-offensive capability of the enemy.

Think of it like being in a boxing ring, you know somebody's gonna throw a punch, so you try and sucker punch your opponent first.

Still, they weren't in a boxing ring. There were no WMD's, except in Bush's mind. I repeat, there were no WMD's.

No, when the truth of the situation was revealed none existed.

However, if you were a British or American soldier/Pilot you plan for them to be there, not for them "not" to be there :p

Kindly read UN Resolution 1441, that will explain why we went to war with Iraq, not because they had WMDs'.

I thought the UN didn't back the Iraq war. Oh well.

They didn't "support" the war in a sense, but the resolution made it clear that the United States acted within all UN law and within all UN reason. Its mostly ignored thanks in part by our wonderful media who loves to portray the negative parts of life.

The 2nd Iraqi War has a good deal more to do with the American wish to take a pound of flesh for 9-11 than any real strategic reason. Strategically the war is just stupid. A sanctioned Saddam Iraq was no real threat, but was still able to counter balance Iran.

With the Sunni boycotting the election Shia will take political control. The Shia want to build close relations with Iran. So the end result will be a democratically elected anti western government that wants to mesh with Iran. This is just the outcome the CIA originaly helped put Saddam into power to avoid.

Well, what was the reason, according to 1441, to go to war?

Kindly read UN Resolution 1441, that will explain why we went to war with Iraq, not because they had WMDs'.

If you want to use that excuse, then the war should have been carried out by the UN.

Excerpted from UN Resolution 1441

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 (Gives the US authority to use force)

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. 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 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

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;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that 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;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

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;

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

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

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.

I think that pre-emption is a perfectly valid attack method, as long as it is justified. If you know that someone else is a danger to yourself, then it is perfectly fine to do a pre-emptive strike. Incapacitation is the preferable method, as all humans are fallible, as opposed to the easier method of mere decapitation. I do not believe that the US method of pre-emption was right, however. It was poorly executed and based off of false information. We should've been much more sure of what we were doing before we did it.

Thanks.

Well, like Sdaeriji said, it should have been a UN war, then.

No problemo Temme, UN dragged their feet and the US dealing with the aftermath. Lesson learned.

Well, also, if Iraq didn't comply, why is it any of GWB's business to go in and invade? The advice I give my sister might also apply here. "Mind your own business."

The funny thing is how red1stand leaves out the first part of the resolution part of which clearly states (and I quote):

"Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, "

Looks like it was about WMD afterall.

The reason coalition forces invaded Iraq was due to fears that after Iraq's non-compliance with UN weapons inspectors it was in posession of chemical and or biological weapons with a range of I beleive, some 2000 miles (if memory servers - might be wrong). The line that was spun to the British public was that Iraq's weapons capability would have been deployable within 45 minutes, thus the need for swift action was deemed necessary.

Although the war was not technically illegal, the coalition forces decided that waiting for the UN to pick up the pace and pass a resolution to invade was potentially dangerous, and so invaded.

Oh snaps, i'm sorry hippie man. Doesn't matter if they WMDs' or not, they didn't comply with all of the resolutions that were put forth before the conflict. They kicked out inspectors plenty enough times, they had their fate in their own hands.

If the first resolution had autherised the use of force, then why did the Bush administration spend so much time trying to get a second one that did? You know, the one France threatened to block?

Clearly, the first resolution was not enough and the war was not a "legal" war.

Oh, and, Iraq's refusal to abide by resolution isn't a good enough cause, either, since Israel doesn't abide by the resolutions against it either, and you don't see them being invaded. :rolleyes:

Oh snaps, i'm sorry hippie man. Doesn't matter if they WMDs' or not, they didn't comply with all of the resolutions that were put forth before the conflict. They kicked out inspectors plenty enough times, they had their fate in their own hands.


You apparently continue to be uninformed about the facts.

They didnt finish complying because they were invaded before they could. The demands placed on them by that resolution required months to complete. Inspector Hans Blix (the guy in charge of making sure they comply) said in each successive report that there was significant progress towards fulfilling all of the demands of resolution 1441. Cataloguing decades of weapons programs is very difficult work. They had to find out what was destroyed, where, and by whom, and how much of it. That is a process you cannot get the figure off the top of your head, you need to start investigations which take time. Imagine land mines were banned by the UN (as alot of people are wanting to do), and years after they are banned the UN demands that the US put together a list of when and how all of its land mines were destroyed. The US could do it, but itwould take time to dig through all the records. Thats what happened here. Hans Blix kept saying hold on we need more time. Bush kept saying get out of the way Im going to war.

If the first resolution had authorised the use of force, then why did the Bush administration spend so much time trying to get a second one that did? You know, the one France threatened to block?

Oh, and, Iraq's refusal to abide by resolutions isn't a good enough cause, since Israel doesn't abide by the resolutions against it either, and you don't see them being invaded. :rolleyes:

You, are the uninformed one. Hans Blix was not in charge. Richard Butler was the Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq during 2002. :)

So, let's see if I've got this right.

If a nation has Weapons of Mass Destruction, and might attack someone, then its O.K. for anybody to invade them, as part of a pre-emptive strike. Certainly no need to refer the matter to the UN, they wouldn't do anything.

I guess if its a nation that is known to have the most WMDs, and has a history of invading other countries, then they become a legitimate target for all.

Are you with me so far?

Now, what if I think that they might do a pre-emptive strike on me? Can I do a pre-emptive strike first? Or what if I think that they think that I might suspect them of planning a pre-emptive strike? Or....I'm sure you see the problem.

All is fair.

All is fair.

I somehow suspected that the application of a simple logic (in this instance, reductio ad absurdum) to your rather amusing proposition would see it collapse
under the weight of its own unsupported hyptheses.

If the first resolution had authorised the use of force, then why did the Bush administration spend so much time trying to get a second one that did? You know, the one France threatened to block?

Oh, and, Iraq's refusal to abide by resolutions isn't a good enough cause, since Israel doesn't abide by the resolutions against it either, and you don't see them being invaded. :rolleyes:1. The second resolution was needed to involve the general UN in the attack. In other words, troops from places other than the US and UK would be getting car bombed now. It was not needed for legitimacy of the invasion. Heck, I would argue that the *first* resolution was unnecessary. Weapon inspections were part of Iraq's surrender terms. By not complying, they voided their surrender. It wasn't a new war, just a resumption of the previous one. The situation originally was much the same as when a police officer tells people (Iraq) to take their hands out of their pockets and put them over their head while they are patted down (inspected for weapons). It is perfectly legitimate for the police officer to shoot (invade) them if they repeatedly refuse to comply.

2. Israel doesn't invade other countries either. By invading Kuwait in 1990, Iraq surrendered its ability to complain when others invade it. By contrast, resolutions against Israel tend to regard their handling of land seized when other countries attempted to invade it.

Prosecuting a full invasion of Iraq was certainly wrongheaded. Not because of any moral right of Iraq not to be invaded, but simply because it exposed US and UK troops to danger for no reason. It would have made far more sense to have simply conquered the areas they wanted to inspect, inspected them, and then withdrawn.

I've seen a number of people complain that the US is fighting this war for oil. If so, then it has failed. Oil is much more expensive now than prior to the war. Moreover, France clearly opposed the war due to oil. They wanted to buy Iraqi oil with Euros and avoid the danger of currency fluctuations that arises when they purchase in dollars (most of the OPEC countries sell their oil in US dollars). However, no one ever criticizes France for basing its foreign policy in economics.

1. The second resolution was needed to involve the general UN in the attack. In other words, troops from places other than the US and UK would be getting car bombed now. It was not needed for legitimacy of the invasion. Heck, I would argue that the *first* resolution was unnecessary. Weapon inspections were part of Iraq's surrender terms.


That argument clearly fails, weapons inspections were continuing under the UN. It was the UN that had the mandate, and it called for further searching for WMDs (with hindsight, correctly). And plenty of places other than the US and UK are getting bombed now.

2. Israel doesn't invade other countries either. By invading Kuwait in 1990, Iraq surrendered its ability to complain when others invade it. By contrast, resolutions against Israel tend to regard their handling of land seized when other countries attempted to invade it.

Therefore, logically, any nation who has ever invaded another has no right to complain if it, in turn, is invaded. An amusing proposition, but not without its logical flaws.

Prosecuting a full invasion of Iraq was certainly wrongheaded. Not because of any moral right of Iraq not to be invaded, but simply because it exposed US and UK troops to danger for no reason. It would have made far more sense to have simply conquered the areas they wanted to inspect, inspected them, and then withdrawn.

I've seen a number of people complain that the US is fighting this war for oil. If so, then it has failed. Oil is much more expensive now than prior to the war. Moreover, France clearly opposed the war due to oil. They wanted to buy Iraqi oil with Euros and avoid the danger of currency fluctuations that arises when they purchase in dollars (most of the OPEC countries sell their oil in US dollars). However, no one ever criticizes France for basing its foreign policy in economics.

The control of the sources of oil is a far more permanent and far more strategic move than the mere fixing of a price which currently fluctuates madly anyway. You must look at the longer term viewpoint. Every nation bases its own foreign policy on what it deems to be its own best self interest. That does not make it morally correct, or justifiable.

Smeagol-Gollum, I see that you suffer from "Saddam is an angel and all the extremists love me while I fondle myself" syndrome. Tell me how many times the weapon inspectors were forced out of Iraq. Tell me how many times the inspectors were able to access Saddams presidental palaces. Tell me that there were no Migs' buried in the desert. I'm sure you'll deny that my infidel intelligence is futile because your always right. Go ahead, its cool. There a difference between the informed and the ignorant. Plain and simple, its not hard to read, UN Resolution 1441. I even pointed some stuff out. It doesn't matter if there are WMDs' in Iraq or not, thats not the reason Iraq is free from a dictatorship.

And to counter your claim for which my answer was "all is fair". I'll give you a scenario. Three thousand of your best friends, your brothers and your sisters were just murdered in cold blood, in the name of ignorance. So your just going along, minding your own business and then someone with the capability to inflict harm upon YOU stumbles into your path. You try to reason with them and make a little progress. Suddenly the conversation stops cold. No communication at all. Then he starts to be a little finicky. Maybe even a little threatening. You gonna turn tail and run or are you gonna stand up for yourself?

So we ignored the UN in order to uphold the UN?

Patience wears thin in times of pressure.

And to counter your claim for which my answer was "all is fair". I'll give you a scenario. Three thousand of your best friends, your brothers and your sisters were just murdered in cold blood, in the name of ignorance. So your just going along, minding your own business and then someone with the capability to inflict harm upon YOU stumbles into your path. You try to reason with them and make a little progress. Suddenly the conversation stops cold. No communication at all. Then he starts to be a little finicky. Maybe even a little threatening. You gonna turn tail and run or are you gonna stand up for yourself?

I know what I wouldn't do. Murder more then three thousand of their best friends, brothers and sisters, in cold blood, because he was giving me the stink eye.

Its not murder, its war.

Smeagol-Gollum, I see that you suffer from "Saddam is an angel and all the extremists love me while I fondle myself" syndrome. Tell me how many times the weapon inspectors were forced out of Iraq. Tell me how many times the inspectors were able to access Saddams presidental palaces. Tell me that there were no Migs' buried in the desert. I'm sure you'll deny that my infidel intelligence is futile because your always right. Go ahead, its cool. There a difference between the informed and the ignorant. Plain and simple, its not hard to read, UN Resolution 1441. I even pointed some stuff out. It doesn't matter if there are WMDs' in Iraq or not, thats not the reason Iraq is free from a dictatorship.

And to counter your claim for which my answer was "all is fair". I'll give you a scenario. Three thousand of your best friends, your brothers and your sisters were just murdered in cold blood, in the name of ignorance. So your just going along, minding your own business and then someone with the capability to inflict harm upon YOU stumbles into your path. You try to reason with them and make a little progress. Suddenly the conversation stops cold. No communication at all. Then he starts to be a little finicky. Maybe even a little threatening. You gonna turn tail and run or are you gonna stand up for yourself?

Firstly, to oppose the war in Iraq one doesn't need to be an apologist for Saddam. The war was supposedly fought over WMDs. After these mysteriously disappeared, the "Saddam is a butcher" and "Regime change" calls started. There is no doubt that Saddam WAS a sadistic, evil bastard. But he was helped by the US when it suited them (i.e. in the Iran-Iraq War). Kindly look it up, you may learn something which will surprise you.

Secondly, if citizens from my country were subjected to the horrors of which you speak, I would not want to rest until such time as those responsible were brought to justice. I certainly would never willingly permit my nation to turn aside from the hunt for such people by going off on a blind-alley sidetrack, tying down the very troops and forces required to catch those responsible.

After you have looked up "Iran-Iraq War", try looking up "Osama bin Laden".

You may be surprised yet again.

Its not murder, its war.

And those that enacted the attack on the WTC saw themselves as being at war as well.

I'm not justifying it. I'm simply saying that all is not fair in war. In fact, nothing is fair in war period. The very essence of war is a lack of fairness, you might say.

Thanks.

Well, like Sdaeriji said, it should have been a UN war, then.

Seems to me that Bush saved the UN's butt. The UN refuses to supprt its own resolution, and hence turns into a laughing stock like the League of Nations. BUt Bush steps in and enforces it for them. Bush looks like a war-monger, and the UN looks like the epiteme of peace. Kofi Annan ought to slip Bush a $100 for it.

Seems to me that Bush saved the UN's butt. The UN refuses to supprt its own resolution, and hence turns into a laughing stock like the League of Nations. BUt Bush steps in and enforces it for them. Bush looks like a war-monger, and the UN looks like the epiteme of peace. Kofi Annan ought to slip Bush a $100 for it.

In what world does "embaress and publically insult" = "save butt?"

You, are the uninformed one. Hans Blix was not in charge. Richard Butler was the Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq during 2002. :)

I note that you neglected to reply to the rest of the post in favour of nitpicking. So what is your answer to "indexing weapons takes time and the US refused to give that". ?

So, let's see if I've got this right.
If a nation has Weapons of Mass Destruction, and might attack someone, then its O.K. for anybody to invade them, as part of a pre-emptive strike. Certainly no need to refer the matter to the UN, they wouldn't do anything.
I guess if its a nation that is known to have the most WMDs, and has a history of invading other countries, then they become a legitimate target for all.Now, what if I think that they might do a pre-emptive strike on me? Can I do a pre-emptive strike first? Or what if I think that they think that I might suspect them of planning a pre-emptive strike? Or....I'm sure you see the problem.

All is fair.

So are you saying that invading the US, putting it's government into custody and replacing it with a democratically elected one would be the right thing to do ?

In what world does "embaress and publically insult" = "save butt?"

In the bizarre world of those who still want to believe in the magic of evil WMDs and Migs buried in the desert. History has to be re-written quickly, before anyone can record the truth.

Hell, If I was an evil dictator, and had WMDs, I'd bloody well use them to defend my evil regime. You wouldn't catch me hiding down a hole.

Of course, the UN has to be cast as the villain - after all, they disagreed with the USA, and worse, were proved right!

It was none of George Bush's business. If the resolution wasn't upheld, then it's not his problem.

Firstly, to oppose the war in Iraq one doesn't need to be an apologist for Saddam.

If you're not an apologist for Saddam: how would you have proposed to get rid of him then?

If you're not an apologist for Kim Jong Il: how would you propose to get rid of him now?

(ditto Afghanistan, Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Congo, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, and a few other places I can think of that are/were crying for a regime change)

If you bitch about the USA going to war but would say nothing about the evil bastards ruling over those places, well guess what: you are an apologist.

If you criticize everyone proportionately to the amount of evil deeds they do, you may have a plausible claim to impartiality. But you're not actually impartial, are you?

(question: where in the world was the largest number of people killed in mass conflict in the past year? who is saying or doing anything about it?)

The answer to that: diplomacy. Talk it out. I believe that violence never solves anything.

And what about Abu Ghraib? Wasn't that evil? Aren't people who support the war supporting that?

You, are the uninformed one. Hans Blix was not in charge. Richard Butler was the Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq during 2002. :)

Butler left UNSCOM in 1999 (Go find out why). After he left, the UNSCOM was disbanded, and the UNMOVIC was created (in 1999). The guy that lead the UNMOVIC was Hanx Blix, which was the responsible for the disarmement of Iraq in the period of 2002-2003.

If you're not an apologist for Saddam: how would you have proposed to get rid of him then?

If you're not an apologist for Kim Jong Il: how would you propose to get rid of him now?

(ditto Afghanistan, Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Congo, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, and a few other places I can think of that are/were crying for a regime change)

If you bitch about the USA going to war but would say nothing about the evil bastards ruling over those places, well guess what: you are an apologist.

If you criticize everyone proportionately to the amount of evil deeds they do, you may have a plausible claim to impartiality. But you're not actually impartial, are you?

(question: where in the world was the largest number of people killed in mass conflict in the past year? who is saying or doing anything about it?)


There are dictators and dictators. Some can be bribed off, others, honestly, one can isolate, press, but in the end, all we can do is WAIT. You know why? Because its the people of a country that must decide when they are fed up, and when the are, they revolt and kick their asses out. We are not appologists of dictators, we hate them as much or even more as the next man. But whatever we like it or not, it isnt by war that we solve things, because those things are not in our hands. They are in the hands of the people. And it is they that must oust their dictators. Our countries should just have the decency of NOT supporting such dictators. I mean, the west supported Saddam for years, and now we must dictate their people what to do? That's a great show of respect for them. Hell, the USA is the NEW evil bastard running the place there. Great improvement.

The answer to that: diplomacy. Talk it out. I believe that violence never solves anything.

And what about Abu Ghraib? Wasn't that evil? Aren't people who support the war supporting that?

Sadaam in charge: people getting body parts chopped off, gang rapes while the women's family is force to watch, tens of thousands of people found in mass graves (europe sits on ass and says nothing)

Iraq is freed: 20 soldiers out of 100,000 do something stupid and take naked pictures of prisioners (europe bitches nonstop)

Let's try to keep our priorities straight

Sadaam in charge: people getting body parts chopped off, gang rapes while the women's family is force to watch, tens of thousands of people found in mass graves (europe sits on ass and says nothing)

Iraq is freed: 20 soldiers out of 100,000 do something stupid and take naked pictures of prisioners (europe bitches nonstop)

Let's try to keep our priorities straight

No one defends Saddam on chopping body parts off. As no one defends the House of Saud, and they do the same thing.

And 100.000 people dead in iraq dont think that their freedom is that great.

No one defends Saddam on chopping body parts off. As no one defends the House of Saud, and they do the same thing.

And 100.000 people dead in iraq dont think that their freedom is that great.

Ahhh, but based on the mass graves and stories from the survivors, that amount probably would have been killed by Sadaam's henchmen in the next year or two. If we would have done this in the early 90s with Bush1 then imagine all of the net lives that would have been saved

To all the "we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq" people, your telling me that you support the idea that we should not have invaded Iraq. Yes you are. So if the world is just that much safer than five years ago, you would deny that for your kids? Ya'll can argue with brick walls. Resolution 1441 gives you the cold hard facts, read it and understand it.

There are dictators and dictators. Some can be bribed off, others, honestly, one can isolate, press, but in the end, all we can do is WAIT. You know why? Because its the people of a country that must decide when they are fed up, and when the are, they revolt and kick their asses out. We are not appologists of dictators, we hate them as much or even more as the next man. But whatever we like it or not, it isnt by war that we solve things, because those things are not in our hands. They are in the hands of the people. And it is they that must oust their dictators. Our countries should just have the decency of NOT supporting such dictators. I mean, the west supported Saddam for years, and now we must dictate their people what to do? That's a great show of respect for them. Hell, the USA is the NEW evil bastard running the place there. Great improvement.
Europe told Reagan to just WAIT on the Soviet Union. He ignored them, ran their economy into the ground, and behold, the wall comes down, no more Cold War. Hitler told the rest of Europe to just WAIT, marched into Austria. WAIT, Europe, then he marched into Czechoslovakia. Then he took over Europe while they were WAITING. The US and the rest of the world waited on Saddam to fulfill his obligations for 12 years after the 91 Gulf War. How long should we have waited this time?

The fact is, it's none of the USA's business what Saddam does or does not do. Leave it up to the UN.

No one defends Saddam on chopping body parts off. As no one defends the House of Saud, and they do the same thing.

And 100.000 people dead in iraq dont think that their freedom is that great.
A very small percentage of those were actually killed by US forces - most have been killed by Iraqis themselves or foreign terrorist groups. Oh, I forgot, I need to be more politically sensitive - insurgents and freedom fighters.{SARCASM}

Those insurgents and freedom fighters, or whatever you want to call them, wouldn't be doing what they're doing if the US hadn't invaded.

The fact is, it's none of the USA's business what Saddam does or does not do. Leave it up to the UN.
And the UN has just been SO effective - witness Oil for Food, while Iraqis were starving, witness Somalia, where the UN has threatened sanctions and argued over the definition of genocide, while tens of 100's of thousands of people have been killed, where its human rights commission has such luminaries as Libya and China, shall I go on . . .

Those insurgents and freedom fighters, or whatever you want to call them, wouldn't be doing what they're doing if the US hadn't invaded.
They would just be doing it somewhere else. Oh, I forgot, if we make nice-nice, they won't hurt us . . .

Even if the UN does nothing, it's not the USA's job to do something.

The USA is supposed to protect their people, not go on "humanitarian" war missions. It's not their responsibility.

Even if the UN does nothing, it's not the USA's job to do something.

The USA is supposed to protect their people, not go on "humanitarian" war missions. It's not their responsibility.
To those whom much is given, much is required. The USA has undeniably been blessed with a vibrant economy and strong military. If the UN does nothing, then it is the US responsibility to take care of it. At least that's what Europe has been saying about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They've been screaming for US involvement in that for years, but God forbid the US does something outside of European approval.

Ahhh, but based on the mass graves and stories from the survivors, that amount probably would have been killed by Sadaam's henchmen in the next year or two. If we would have done this in the early 90s with Bush1 then imagine all of the net lives that would have been saved

Actually, those mass graves have some thousands, not more (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1263901,00.html), and Saddam regime was killing off a couple hundreds per year. The coalition probably killed more people in a year than saddams political persecutions in a year.

Even if the UN does nothing, it's not the USA's job to do something.

The USA is supposed to protect their people, not go on "humanitarian" war missions. It's not their responsibility.
And when do we decide it is time to do something? After Hitler invades Poland?

The government of the United States of America is responsible for what goes on in the United States of America. They are not responsible for what goes on in Iraq or anywhere else.

Resolution 1441 gives you the cold hard facts, read it and understand it.

Allright, let's stop debating on whether the USA was justified to act without UN consent to enforce an UN resolution.
Let's instead focus on the question: did George W. Bush go to war for this reason ? And if so, why the whole propoganda campaign that gave different reasons for the war every few weeks, starting with "Iraq is hiding WoMD", then changed a.o. into "Iraq is funding Al-Queda" and the final "Saddam is a bad, bad man" argument ?

In the past, when the only attack that someone could mount was conventional, you could afford to wait (of course, Pearl Harbor put the lie to that idea - if you wait until attacked, you could lose a large portion of your forces all at once).

The problem with WMD is that a) your intelligence services can't determine what the truth is, and b) if someone actually has WMD, and you're guessing they don't, you'll be making a politically intolerable mistake.

If you guess that they do have WMD, and you're wrong, you get into a war, a pissing contest, and a lot of people die, but from a political standpoint, most of the casualties are foreign, and your electorate isn't going to sympathize.

If you guess that they don't have WMD, and you're wrong, a lot of your registered voters die, along with people the registered voters care about. It's catastrophic to you and your nation.

So even a small percentage chance that someone has WMD is an intolerable political situation, because you can't afford to be wrong.

Europe told Reagan to just WAIT on the Soviet Union. He ignored them, ran their economy into the ground, and behold, the wall comes down, no more Cold War. Hitler told the rest of Europe to just WAIT, marched into Austria. WAIT, Europe, then he marched into Czechoslovakia. Then he took over Europe while they were WAITING. The US and the rest of the world waited on Saddam to fulfill his obligations for 12 years after the 91 Gulf War. How long should we have waited this time?

Nice arguments, but the Soviet Union was collapsing from within even before reagan. And in the case of hitler, you are mixing things. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, there was action. But Iraq wasnt invading anyone. And the thing is, whatever you like it or not, saddam was fulfilling is obligations- ( http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/S-2003-580.pdf )

That's looking at it from a political perspective, not a human one. The fact is, those lives lost were real ones, and whether it's politically expedient or not shouldn't matter.

A very small percentage of those were actually killed by US forces - most have been killed by Iraqis themselves or foreign terrorist groups. Oh, I forgot, I need to be more politically sensitive - insurgents and freedom fighters.{SARCASM}

WRONG! They were killed by bullets and bombs. Duhh. The USA is responsible for the war, it takes responsability over the casualties of war.

And the UN has just been SO effective - witness Oil for Food, while Iraqis were starving, witness Somalia, where the UN has threatened sanctions and argued over the definition of genocide, while tens of 100's of thousands of people have been killed, where its human rights commission has such luminaries as Libya and China, shall I go on . . .


Do you know how many childreen died in Iraq before the Oil for food program was implemented? 500.000. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/418625.stm )So stop bitching about the flaws of the program, it was the best thing that anyone did, despite its many flaws and abuses. Or would you like what? let them die? And what luminaries are you talking about? Libya and China are cruel nations, that have no respect for human rights. No one pisses them off because the first as oil, and the second is BIG. Still, i dont think they had much leniency in last years report: http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/

In a war such as the second Iraqi war, a pre-emptive strike is carried out due to the technological ability and the firepower of the aggressor nations to remove the defensive/counter-offensive capability of the enemy.

Think of it like being in a boxing ring, you know somebody's gonna throw a punch, so you try and sucker punch your opponent first.

This goes in line of Japan's pre-emptive strike on the United States! Reason being? They didn't want us interfearing in their operations in South East Asia! To bad it didn't help them win the war.

The funny thing is how red1stand leaves out the first part of the resolution part of which clearly states (and I quote):

"Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, "

Looks like it was about WMD afterall.

HAHA!!! That was when the UN Thought they had WMD too!!!

That argument clearly fails, weapons inspections were continuing under the UN. It was the UN that had the mandate, and it called for further searching for WMDs (with hindsight, correctly). And plenty of places other than the US and UK are getting bombed now.

Your logic just failed. Haven't you forgotten that Hussein Kicked the Weapons inspectors out of the country in the early 90s? That was in violation of the Surrender Terms.

Therefore, logically, any nation who has ever invaded another has no right to complain if it, in turn, is invaded. An amusing proposition, but not without its logical flaws.

Good! This explains Japan, Korea, Poland, Russia, Germany, France, China, Indochina, Mexico, Austria, Luxemburg, etc etc etc! The last time the US was invaded? 1812 or if you want to get technical, that would be the Civil War between 1861-1865. In that one, they were tossed out too and took out the South so the South has no right to complain either.

The control of the sources of oil is a far more permanent and far more strategic move than the mere fixing of a price which currently fluctuates madly anyway. You must look at the longer term viewpoint. Every nation bases its own foreign policy on what it deems to be its own best self interest. That does not make it morally correct, or justifiable.

First correct thing I've seen all day!

During the Cold War, the superpowers of the world were engaged in a large chess game, with known opponents, and with the pieces in play visible to all on the board. The nature of the game was conditioned by the culture of the participants, who by and large came from nations with Western viewpoints on history and warfare. Today, things are quite different. There is still a chessboard, but the players on the other end are often unseen, and whether we choose to play or not, we face judgment on our mastery of the game - in which case we may be eliminated at any moment.

The survival value of intelligence has never been proven, and may in fact be more of a liability than an asset. It has a survival advantage until such point that it develops sufficient ability to destroy itself and everything around it. It may be that it always does. The universe may be quiet because it is littered with the silent remains of highly intelligent societies that wiped themselves out.

The sobering truth is that civilizations with advanced WMD are a potential nightmare to anyone living within range of them. The problem is that when delivered by unconventional means, these weapons are never where your intelligence services see them if they see them at all. If their owners turn out to be less than benevolent, they are both unstoppable and enormously destructive.

We largely ignored the fact that groups other than nations would become wielders of such power, or would seek to wield such power. We thought it was merely interesting to think about, perhaps even fun to joke about. But the ability to laugh at a problem is directly proportional to one's distance from the problem. As of 9-11, attitudes changed - the possibilities have to be considered very seriously, and the jokes don't seem funny anymore.

Because WMD are so destructive, no nation can tolerate a single attack. Aside from the mass casualties and economic destruction that would result from a single successful attack, there would be massive political ramifications - the political powers in place would be swept away by an unimaginable hysteria. Additionally, it is likely that there would be no one immediately identifiable as the aggressor - no geographic location on which the political furor could be vented by military means. There also lies within certain WMD the possibility of national destruction.

It was, for example, probably never a good idea for any nation to experiment with smallpox.

We now find ourselves drawn into a game, a game that we would rather not play - a game in which, if we appear to be the vaguest threat to another civilization, and if the resources are available to eliminate us, then it is logical to do so. The game plan, in its simplest terms, is the inverse to the golden rule: "Do unto the other fellow as he would do unto you, and do it first."

We can boil down the behavior of what is essentially an alien culture or civilization (by this I mean non-Western civilization) into the following three rules which will govern their behavior:

1. Their survival will be more important than our survival. If a non-Western culture has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It is difficult to imagine a contrary case; you don't survive by being self-sacrificing.
2. Wimps don't become top dogs. No group makes it to the top by being passive. The group in charge of any given culture will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.
3. They will assume that the first two laws apply to us.

So we ignored the UN in order to uphold the UN?

Yep! We followed through on UN Resolution when the UN Didn't. Under the Charter, the nations that didn't support this could legally be tossed out or that the UN could've been shut down.

Seems to me that Bush saved the UN's butt. The UN refuses to supprt its own resolution, and hence turns into a laughing stock like the League of Nations. BUt Bush steps in and enforces it for them. Bush looks like a war-monger, and the UN looks like the epiteme of peace. Kofi Annan ought to slip Bush a $100 for it.

And hand over documents of the Oil For Food Scandal.

I note that you neglected to reply to the rest of the post in favour of nitpicking. So what is your answer to "indexing weapons takes time and the US refused to give that". ?

They had hmmm.... 12 YEARS????

So are you saying that invading the US, putting it's government into custody and replacing it with a democratically elected one would be the right thing to do ?

Our country has a democratically elected leader and down fairly too I might add.

In the bizarre world of those who still want to believe in the magic of evil WMDs and Migs buried in the desert. History has to be re-written quickly, before anyone can record the truth.

There were Migs buried in the desert. Don't know where you've been living but I did see that report and saw it live I might add!!

Hell, If I was an evil dictator, and had WMDs, I'd bloody well use them to defend my evil regime. You wouldn't catch me hiding down a hole.

He would've known what the response was. If he used chem or bio weapons on my soldiers if I were president, I would have nuked Baghdad and be damned with the rest of the world.

Of course, the UN has to be cast as the villain - after all, they disagreed with the USA, and worse, were proved right!

No, they failed to uphold their own resolutions and now are embroiled in several and I mean several scandals.

Yep! We followed through on UN Resolution when the UN Didn't. Under the Charter, the nations that didn't support this could legally be tossed out or that the UN could've been shut down.

The UN has a long tradition of passing useless resolutions in favor of one thing or another, and then never following through. Only a handful of nations have the physical capability of enforcing some actions (military or economic), and the rest don't have the balls to follow through on anything they vote for.

My personal favorite is the continuous sending of "peacekeepers" to various countries, merely to serve as casual observers to incredible atrocities and massacres. Even when the peacekeepers are militarily capable of intervening in a "peacekeeping" way, and have the authority to do so under the appropriate resolution, they still do nothing. This was one of the arguments used by the Clinton administration during their intervention in Bosnia that the troops should be under NATO control, and not UN control.

Troops under UN control are guaranteed to be participants or observers of an atrocity.

The answer to that: diplomacy. Talk it out. I believe that violence never solves anything.

Talk is cheap and some see that as weakness.

And what about Abu Ghraib? Wasn't that evil? Aren't people who support the war supporting that?

Abu Ghraib is taken care of. Those responsible are being punished. I supported this war and I didn't support Abu Ghraib. I applauded the Army for swift justice against the people responsible.

Our country has a democratically elected leader and down fairly too I might add.

I said government. Not leader. The two are related, but far from the same.

Even if the UN does nothing, it's not the USA's job to do something.

US is a member of the UN and it is our obligation to UPHOLD UN RESOLUTIONS!!!

The USA is supposed to protect their people, not go on "humanitarian" war missions. It's not their responsibility.

And yet we have people in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Israel, Turkey... We were protecting our people. Protecting those overseas.

I think that pre-emption is a perfectly valid attack method, as long as it is justified. If you know that someone else is a danger to yourself, then it is perfectly fine to do a pre-emptive strike. Incapacitation is the preferable method, as all humans are fallible, as opposed to the easier method of mere decapitation. I do not believe that the US method of pre-emption was right, however. It was poorly executed and based off of false information. We should've been much more sure of what we were doing before we did it.

*Shots everybody in the head* "Sorry guys, but it's you or me."

The UN has a long tradition of passing useless resolutions in favor of one thing or another, and then never following through. Only a handful of nations have the physical capability of enforcing some actions (military or economic), and the rest don't have the balls to follow through on anything they vote for.

So friggin true!!

My personal favorite is the continuous sending of "peacekeepers" to various countries, merely to serve as casual observers to incredible atrocities and massacres. Even when the peacekeepers are militarily capable of intervening in a "peacekeeping" way, and have the authority to do so under the appropriate resolution, they still do nothing. This was one of the arguments used by the Clinton administration during their intervention in Bosnia that the troops should be under NATO control, and not UN control.

And for that, I applaud Clinton. One of the smartest things he's done and one of the few things he did that I agreed with.

Troops under UN control are guaranteed to be participants or observers of an atrocity.

Then we should desolve the UN!

I said government. Not leader. The two are related, but far from the same.

We have a democratically elected Government too!

Europe told Reagan to just WAIT on the Soviet Union. He ignored them, ran their economy into the ground, and behold, the wall comes down, no more Cold War. Hitler told the rest of Europe to just WAIT, marched into Austria. WAIT, Europe, then he marched into Czechoslovakia. Then he took over Europe while they were WAITING. The US and the rest of the world waited on Saddam to fulfill his obligations for 12 years after the 91 Gulf War. How long should we have waited this time?

Saddam wasn't Hitler and Iraq was neither Germany nor the USSR. In any case the "evil dictatorship" line is a crock. Or can we expect the US to invade Zimbabwe, Congo, Sudan, Belarus, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Myanmar, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria etc. etc. in the near future? Face it, if it was only dictatorship that was the issue there were plenty of other candidates going around. Ditto UN resolution violations. Why then was Iraq chosen in particular? Answer that question and you have the real reason, rather than a smokescreen.

We have a democratically elected Government too!

No, you have a 'winner takes all' instead of a 'government by coalition' system. Though this theoretically results in a government capable of acting swift and decisive, it also means only the two big parties have any real influence. It has furthermore resulted in a situation where those two big parties have no clear identity, being spread too far across the political spectrum - as demonstrated by the fact that the last presidential elections were more about throwing mud at the opponent than defending different viewpoints on issues.
In short: your government is not an accurate representation of the will/votes of the people - it just caters to the majority.

We have a democratically elected Government too!

Who elected Rumsfeld?

Who elected Rumsfeld?

Under the US Constitution, the cabinet is appointed by the President. The President, House and Senate are elected by the People though the president is done by electoral college, the people decide who gets the state.

No, you have a 'winner takes all' instead of a 'government by coalition' system. Though this theoretically results in a government capable of acting swift and decisive, it also means only the two big parties have any real influence. It has furthermore resulted in a situation where those two big parties have no clear identity, being spread too far across the political spectrum - as demonstrated by the fact that the last presidential elections were more about throwing mud at the opponent than defending different viewpoints on issues.
In short: your government is not an accurate representation of the will/votes of the people - it just caters to the majority.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Democracy where the WInner takes it all. Thus we have a democratically elected government.

Under the US Constitution, the cabinet is appointed by the President. The President, House and Senate are elected by the People though the president is done by electoral college, the people decide who gets the state.


The question was who elected Rumsfeld

the answer, which even I knew was "George W Bush"

Under the US Constitution, the cabinet is appointed by the President. The President, House and Senate are elected by the People though the president is done by electoral college, the people decide who gets the state.

Thank you for the lesson about the US political system, though I studied the subject myself a few years back. The point stands, though, that only two members of the US government are actually elected, the rest are appointed.

The question was who elected Rumsfeld

the answer, which even I knew was "George W Bush"

NO!! Bush appointed him in accordance with the Constitution. It was the Senate the Confirmed him.

Thank you for the lesson about the US political system, though I studied the subject myself a few years back. The point stands, though, that only two members of the US government are actually elected, the rest are appointed.

Your forgetting that the government ISN"T the president and the vice president! It is the US Congress that gets elected into office too! So yes, we do have a democratically elected government. I guess you failed your class.

Iraq did have WMD they either did two thing hid them in another country or the hid them in the desert

Your forgetting that the government ISN"T the president and the vice president! It is the US Congress that gets elected into office too! So yes, we do have a democratically elected government. I guess you failed your class.

Oh c'mon, you know as well as I do that when most people refer to the government they refer to cabinet level positions, ie policy-makers, not the legislature. Or are you going to admit that Iran has, or rather had until recently, a democratically elected government?

Welcome to the wonderful world of Democracy where the WInner takes it all. Thus we have a democratically elected government.
In that case our definitions of what constitutes "a democratically elected government" differ. I think it should fairly represent different interest groups, based on the number of voters each group has, you apparantly that it should just cater to the biggest one. Semantics IOW, and not a real issue ;)

Oh c'mon, you know as well as I do that when most people refer to the government they refer to cabinet level positions, ie policy-makers, not the legislature. Or are you going to admit that Iran has, or rather had until recently, a democratically elected government?

Iran never had a democratically elected government since that Ayattola moron took over in the 70s! It can not be considered democratic when you disqualify candidates because they are reformers who are trying to reform a country. Therefor, Iran's government is not democratically elected.

When I refer to the government, I ignore the cabinet positions because they are the presidential advisors in those areas in which they are the head of. I refer to the government as the President and the Congress.

In that case our definitions of what constitutes "a democratically elected government" differ. I think it should fairly represent different interest groups, based on the number of voters each group has, you apparantly that it should just cater to the biggest one. Semantics IOW, and not a real issue ;)

Well we can agree that our terms of a democratically elected government are different. I suggest we leave it at that :)

Iran never had a democratically elected government since that Ayattola moron took over in the 70s! It can not be considered democratic when you disqualify candidates because they are reformers who are trying to reform a country. Therefor, Iran's government is not democratically elected.

Like I said, until recently. Reformers were only barred at the last election, before then they stood and took a majority of contested seats. And Kharzai, a reformer, was elected president.

When I refer to the government, I ignore the cabinet positions because they are the presidential advisors in those areas in which they are the head of. I refer to the government as the President and the Congress.

In other words only those who are elected (only the legislature and a sliver of the executive branch, no judicial branch at all). Well, of course, if one defines the US government as "those individuals holding elected office at a federal level" then the US has an elected government. Artificial tautologies don't make for a persuasive case, however.

Besides, the cabinet members are manifestly more than mere "advisors". They are the heads of their respective departments. The Pentagon reports to Rumsfeld, not Bush, the State Department to Rice, the Treasury to Snow and so on. Are you telling me this somehow fails to give them governmental authority?

Like I said, until recently. Reformers were only barred at the last election, before then they stood and took a majority of contested seats. And Kharzai, a reformer, was elected president.

I guess you don't realize that they've always barred a certain number of people from the opposition to run because they know that if they allow a full democratic election, they'll lose.

In other words only those who are elected (only the legislature and a sliver of the executive branch, no judicial branch at all). Well, of course, if one defines the US government as "those individuals holding elected office at a federal level" then the US has an elected government. Artificial tautologies don't make for a persuasive case, however.

The President appoints the judiciary! Read the constitution. Congress is elected by the people and they indirectly elect the president. Again read the constitution.

Besides, the cabinet members are manifestly more than mere "advisors". They are the heads of their respective departments. The Pentagon reports to Rumsfeld, not Bush, the State Department to Rice, the Treasury to Snow and so on. Are you telling me this somehow fails to give them governmental authority?

They are advisors as being the head of their respective departments. Your right in your assessment except one! State goes to Powell till RIce is confirmed by the US Senate. As for governmental authority, they have it but they are still answerable to the President as well as to the US Senate!

I think that non-Americans have trouble understanding what a Republic is.

I think that non-Americans have trouble understanding what a Republic is.

I wonder about Americans having trouble understanding this!

Well.. looking at the actual definitions (I looked them up after the semantic difference of opinion ;)) a republic is not a democracy - so neither is the USA.

Which does of course not mean there can be no democratic voting in it. On the contrary ;-)

Well.. looking at the actual definitions (I looked them up after the semantic difference of opinion ;)) a republic is not a democracy. Which does of course not mean there can be no democratic voting in it.

Ok, I'll agree with this!

*Holds up a coke in salute*

I guess you don't realize that they've always barred a certain number of people from the opposition to run because they know that if they allow a full democratic election, they'll lose.

Well they did lose, in fact, in 97 and 2000. And though some candidates were screened (about 10% of the reformists in 2000) out that by itself does not make Iran any less democratic than, say, Turkey. The point is that though the Presidency and Legislature were elected real power did not reside in those positions. So by limiting the government only to the legislature and presidency you legitimise the Iranian government of the past in a way it never really merited.

BTW, I'm happy that nobody spotted the ridiculous howler I made in the last post, naming Mohammad Kharzai as President of Iran rather than Afghanistan. I meant Khatami, of course. Big oops there.

The President appoints the judiciary! Read the constitution. Congress is elected by the people and they indirectly elect the president. Again read the constitution.

I've read the constitution, thank you very much. Do you think you could try not being so patronising in the future? It'd be appreciated.

And what, exactly, is your point here? I pointed out that you ommitted the judiciary in your definition of government, you respond by saying they are appointed by the president. I fail to see the relevance.

They are advisors as being the head of their respective departments. Your right in your assessment except one! State goes to Powell till RIce is confirmed by the US Senate. As for governmental authority, they have it but they are still answerable to the President as well as to the US Senate!

That they are, technically. In reality they sometimes have a lot of sway over the President. In any case, are you prepared to accept that they are part of the government?

Well they did lose, in fact, in 97 and 2000. And though some candidates were screened (about 10% of the reformists in 2000) out that by itself does not make Iran any less democratic than, say, Turkey. The point is that though the Presidency and Legislature were elected real power did not reside in those positions. So by limiting the government only to the legislature and presidency you legitimise the Iranian government of the past in a way it never really merited.

Which is why we no longer have an embassy over there.

BTW, I'm happy that nobody spotted the ridiculous howler I made in the last post, naming Mohammad Kharzai as President of Iran rather than Afghanistan. I meant Khatami, of course. Big oops there.

I figured that is what you ment which is why I ignored it.

I've read the constitution, thank you very much. Do you think you could try not being so patronising in the future? It'd be appreciated.

Well they way your talking, you don't have a grasp of it.

And what, exactly, is your point here? I pointed out that you ommitted the judiciary in your definition of government, you respond by saying they are appointed by the president. I fail to see the relevance.

I omitted it because the Federal Courts are appointed by the President in accordance with Artical 3 of the US Constitution.

That they are, technically. In reality they sometimes have a lot of sway over the President. In any case, are you prepared to accept that they are part of the government?

I never said they weren't! Your assuming I am but I'm not. They are appointed by the President because of the US Consitution.

Well they way your talking, you don't have a grasp of it [the Constitution].

So what, pray tell, have I said that demonstrates this? I pointed out that the only members of the US government (by which I meant the executive) that are elected are the President and VP. I also stated, obliquely, that the Supreme Court is not elected. Maybe I am completely ignorant of the constitution but that was how I read it. Where have I gone wrong?

I omitted it because the Federal Courts are appointed by the President in accordance with Artical 3 of the US Constitution.

And on what basis does this justify their exclusion from government?

I never said they weren't! Your assuming I am but I'm not. They are appointed by the President because of the US Consitution.

*ahem*

When I refer to the government, I ignore the cabinet positions because they are the presidential advisors in those areas in which they are the head of. I refer to the government as the President and the Congress.

Anyway, we now have agreement that the cabinet are part of the government. I think basically this whole argument came down to a simple confusion, I was referring to the executive, you were referring to the executive and legislature. TBH it really wasn't worth going this far with what boiled down to a very simple case of semantics. Your snotty attitude egged me on, when this should have been clarified much earlier. The OP was wrong when he stated the US government was unelected, you were wrong when you stated that it is. Parts are, parts aren't. End of story. Can we put this sorry charade to bed now?

Anyway, we now have agreement that the cabinet are part of the government. I think basically this whole argument came down to a simple confusion, I was referring to the executive, you were referring to the executive and legislature. TBH it really wasn't worth going this far with what boiled down to a very simple case of semantics. Your snotty attitude egged me on, when this should have been clarified much earlier. The OP was wrong when he stated the US government was unelected, you were wrong when you stated that it is. Parts are, parts aren't. End of story. Can we put this sorry charade to bed now?

Yes we can! I like pre-emption and it should stay as a military tool.

Iraq did have WMD they either did two thing hid them in another country or the hid them in the desert

That has to be the silliest argument to come out of the whole Iraq war.

If you have weapons, and your country is being invaded by foreigners determined to forcibly change your government do you use your weapons or hide them?

I know what I would do. I know what anyone would do.

Try applying some logic to the situation, instead of attempting to twist facts to suit your pre-determined ideas.

I think that two intelligence services (US and UK) had flimsy evidence that there *might* be WMD in Iraq.

Now, they are pretty stupid, and pretty ineffective agencies. And the executives for whom they work believed them.

Does that make the executives liars, or does it just make them boobs who rely on flimsy evidence?

And I suppose that there is better intel out there? Not unless you're Israeli, and they have their own agenda.

Now, if you know your intel is dodgy, consider the following:

Acting on a false positive gets you into an insurgency problem.
Not acting on a false negative gets you millions of your own dead.

The combination of really crappy intelligence and the unbalanced nature of WMD effects gives you crazy situations like the one we had.

Even the UN agreed he had some or was trying to acquire it. They just weren't willing to act on it (why should they? who would be the first nation attacked?)

That has to be the silliest argument to come out of the whole Iraq war.

However, could be an accurate one!

If you have weapons, and your country is being invaded by foreigners determined to forcibly change your government do you use your weapons or hide them?

Not if you know your enemy will retaliate with deadlier wmd!

I know what I would do. I know what anyone would do.

And that is?

Try applying some logic to the situation, instead of attempting to twist facts to suit your pre-determined ideas.

Same goes for you!

US is a member of the UN and it is our obligation to UPHOLD UN RESOLUTIONS!!!

Then we should desolve the UN!

One cannot but think that there may be some inconsistancy between these two positions.

And, of course, if it is an obligation on the US, as a member of the UN to uplhold its resolutions, then why are the UN resolutions regarding Israel consistently vetoed by the US?

Welcome to the real world.

One cannot but think that there may be some inconsistancy between these two positions.

No inconsistency. If the UN Can't pass a resolution and uphold it, it is up to the member nations to uphold it even if there isn't a resolution stating to uphold it.

And, of course, if it is an obligation on the US, as a member of the UN to uplhold its resolutions, then why are the UN resolutions regarding Israel consistently vetoed by the US?

Because it doesn't mention the palestinian terrorists that cause Israel to do what they do. The UN Picks on Israel and that isn't right when they are not the only ones doing things. The Palestinians are just as guilty and nothing happens to them! Why?

Welcome to the real world.

Likewise!

Iraq did have WMD they either did two thing hid them in another country or the hid them in the desert

Let us, for the moment, leave aside the logical "if you have the weapons, and your country is invaded, why don't you use them" argument.

Instead, let us see how you can support your allegation - or, rather, your dual and contradictory allegations.

Kindly provide any credible source which supports this, or any reputable figure in government who will support it.

Apart from the allegations providing a marvellous alibi for those who persist in the discredited WMDs theory, they have no foundation.

Or, of course, if they do have some foundation, you only have to provide it.

If the UN Can't pass a resolution and uphold it, it is up to the member nations to uphold it even if there isn't a resolution stating to uphold it.

I'm afraid you rather lost me on that particular sentence.

Explain please.

I'm afraid you rather lost me on that particular sentence.

Explain please.

UN Passes resolution! Nation violates resolution! UN doesn't follow through on Resolution! A nation or groups of nations enforce it anyway. Nation that has the resolution is attacked for violating resolution. UN resolution upheld despite UN Failure to uphold it.

Clear now?

UN Passes resolution! Nation violates resolution! UN doesn't follow through on Resolution! A nation or groups of nations enforce it anyway. Nation that has the resolution is attacked for violating resolution. UN resolution upheld despite UN Failure to uphold it.

Clear now?

I see.

Tell me, should UN resolutions regarding Israel, and vetoed by the US, be "upheld" in the same manner.

Or does this particular methodology only apply in some instances. If so, what is the way to determine which UN resolutions should be "upheld despite UN failure to uphold it"?

And who should be responsible for making such determinations (as, logically it cannot be the UN itself). Any member nations? Only some member nations?
Just who would be "eligible" to make such a decision and why?

If you wish to propose a new working model for the upholding of UN resolutions it must of course contain these elements.

I see.

Good

Tell me, should UN resolutions regarding Israel, and vetoed by the US, be "upheld" in the same manner.

Don't remember any Israel resolution mentioning force. Since they dont, there is no grounds to use force. And the ones vetoed can't be upheld because it was vetoed. Besides, only the UNSC resolutions are binding. Not those done by the General Assembly.

Or does this particular methodology only apply in some instances. If so, what is the way to determine which UN resolutions should be "upheld despite UN failure to uphold it"?

Those that authorize force should be upheld. Those with sanctions should be upheld. Any nation caught violating it knowingly (Meaning the government knew) Should be tossed out of the UN (Looks at Russia and France)

And who should be responsible for making such determinations (as, logically it cannot be the UN itself). Any member nations? Only some member nations?
Just who would be "eligible" to make such a decision and why?

The United Nations Security Council is the only one that is responsible for making such determination.

If you wish to propose a new working model for the upholding of UN resolutions it must of course contain these elements.

I have to come up with something but the UN isn't doing crap to stop violence. ALl it is a bigger versian of the Isaeli Red Cross, The Red Crescent and the International Red Cross.

WRONG! They were killed by bullets and bombs. Duhh. The USA is responsible for the war, it takes responsability over the casualties of war.
I don't recall any mention of sentient bullets or bombs ...

They were killed by bullets shot out of American guns fired by American riflemen, and bombs dropped by Americans. (And the Coalition, of course)

They were killed by bullets shot out of American guns fired by American riflemen, and bombs dropped by Americans. (And the Coalition, of course)
Iraqi military, mostly. Some civilians, yes. Nowhere near the number Saddam was prosecuting when he was in power, and nowhere near the number the "insurgents" are killing everyday. I don't believe the "insurgents" are making the extraordinary efforts the US has made to avoid civilian casualties. I don't believe they are convening a military court to investigate the violations of the Geneva conventions their suicide bombers have committed, their terrorists posing as dead people, etc. Don't recall the last American suicide bomber.

If the Coalition hadn't gone in there, then the insurgents would not be there.

If the Coalition hadn't gone in there, then the insurgents would not be there.
Correct. They'd be killing in some other country, perhaps in Europe, perhaps in the USA.

Correct. They'd be killing in some other country, perhaps in Europe, perhaps in the USA.

Maybe in Afganistan too?

The insurgents are trying to free their country. They're not interested in starting fights with others.

Maybe in Afganistan too?
Quite possibly. Most of these "insurgents" are foreign Islamic terrorists, just going to where they see the greatest "assault" on their faith.

The insurgents are trying to free their country. They're not interested in starting fights with others.
Most of the "insurgents" are not even Iraqi. Witness their targeting of Iraqi citizens. Those that are, are certainly not interested in freeing their country, but restoring the power of the Ba'ath party, that has such a stellar human rights record, and brought peace and goodwill to its citizenry {SARCASM}.

Well, the Iraqis should have any government they want. It's their country, not GWB's.

Well, the Iraqis should have any government they want. It's their country, not GWB's.
Agreed! The majority of Iraqis are Shiite, who, before the Coalition invasion, were ruled by the minority Sunnis. Most Iraqis now want a new government, which is why there is such a big effort to get elections held at the end of January.

Why not a pre-emtive strike that only kills Jezusland warmongers in the White House, will spare the world a lot of missery and save lots of GI's.

Why not a pre-emtive strike that only kills Jezusland warmongers in the White House, will spare the world a lot of missery and save lots of GI's.
With such glowing rhetoric, peace on earth is now assured {SARCASM}

With such glowing rhetoric, peace on earth is now assured {SARCASM}

Glad to meet another sarcast :p

Glad to meet another sarcast :p
;)