NationStates Jolt Archive

There's a big rally planned in Washington, DC this weekend by the United For Peace (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3091) group. This rally "will send a clear message to the White House and Congress: The Iraq war must end".

I think there are two predictions needed for this future fiasco.

First, how many people will show? More than a thousand? More than 10,000? Or just Crazy Cindy and the nut-cases that follow her?

Second, how many prominent Democratic politicians will address the gathering? Will Al Gore be there, reminding us how GWB "played on our fears"? Will Howard Dean be there with his primal scream? Will Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi be there to condemn Republicans? Or will it just be Cindy McKinney and her communist pals?

My prediction is about a thousand people will turn out to see both of the Crazy Cindys and the Democrats that want to be re-elected will stay home.


Let's look at this on Sunday and do a post-mortem.

If one thousand people show, then that is one thousand people standing up for truth, justice, and the American Way.

You need to get over you allergy to dissent. It is a vital part of this country.

I think there are two predictions needed for this future fiasco..I have rite here 10$ that say: "there is going to be more Neocons than Anti-War Demonstrators" :D :D :p :D

I support this. It's nice to see there are still good people left in the US.

Meh, fair enough. We've post-mortemed the abysmal failure which is the Iraq war (well, we would have, but "mission accomplished" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone)and the hideous governmental response to Katrina at all levels. Doesn't hurt to turn the microscope on the other side once in awhile.

I have rite here 10$ that say: "there is going to be more Neocons than Anti-War Demonstrators" :D :D :p :D

Not much of a bet. I mean, does shit attract flies?

If one thousand people show, then that is one thousand people standing up for truth, justice, and the American Way.

You need to get over you allergy to dissent. It is a vital part of this country.
It's not so important how many people show. Although, I guess that's an indication of how seriously this movement is taken by 'normal' people. What is more interesting is how prominent politicians will align themselves. Are they willing to use this forum to blast Bush and the administratioin? My guess is not.

By the way, how does my expectation for a low turnout demonstrate any attitude towards peaceful demonstrations? Other than the fact that I don't think this is a mainstream movement, I mean? Or is it just a friendly little barb that you couldn't resist throwing my way?

http://www.lt-smash.us/

Everyone should read the post "The Most Critical Battlefield" from this blog.



"Don't get stuck on stupid"

Other than the fact that I don't think this is a mainstream movement, I mean? Or is it just a friendly little barb that you couldn't resist throwing my way?

You don't consider the anti-war in Iraq crowd to be mainstream??? :confused:

Have you looked at the polls recently? Apparently not!

You don't consider the anti-war in Iraq crowd to be mainstream??? :confused:

Have you looked at the polls recently? Apparently not!

Those polls give me at least a little bit of hope in the American people.

You don't consider the anti-war in Iraq crowd to be mainstream??? :confused:

Have you looked at the polls recently? Apparently not!
I have looked at the polls. But I don't think that they represent the majority opinion. The last poll that mattered was held last November. It might be different if that same poll were held today, but all other things being equal, I don't think so.

It's not so important how many people show. Although, I guess that's an indication of how seriously this movement is taken by 'normal' people. What is more interesting is how prominent politicians will align themselves. Are they willing to use this forum to blast Bush and the administratioin? My guess is not.

Tell me, what do you mean by "normal"? People who just sit at home and have no opinion whatsover?

You don't consider the anti-war in Iraq crowd to be mainstream??? :confused:

Have you looked at the polls recently? Apparently not!Latest Gallup Poll:
Most Think US Will Lose Iraq.
Most Want Out.

Bet: I have 50$ saying someone will ask me for a link :D :D

You don't consider the anti-war in Iraq crowd to be mainstream??? :confused:

Have you looked at the polls recently? Apparently not!
They don’t support this version of the anti-war movement. Not this hateful, counterproductive bullshit. The average American just wants to see American soldiers stop dieing. They don’t hate Bush and they couldn't care less about the Iraqis.

The average American just wants to see American soldiers stop dieing. They don’t hate Bush and they couldn't care less about the Iraqis.do they want "out" of Vietnam?...I mean Iraq :D

It's not so important how many people show.
...because only politicians matter?

do they want "out" of Vietnam?...I mean Iraq :D
Yes they do, but they aren’t being idiots about it, coming up with conspiracy theories and calling Bush a murderer. They just think mistakes were made, and in the end, they don’t think it was worth it.

I have looked at the polls. But I don't think that they represent the majority opinion. The last poll that mattered was held last November. It might be different if that same poll were held today, but all other things being equal, I don't think so.

Wow, that's just willful ignorance. A September 16-18, 2005, poll by CNN/USA Today/Gallup put Bush's disapproval rating for the war in Iraq at 67%. The same poll put the percentage of Americans that believe sending troops to Iraq is a mistake at 59%. When asked if we should withdraw troops, 30% said withdraw all, 33% said withdraw some, 26% said keep forces the same and only 8% said send more. A September 13-15, 2005, poll by CBS/NYT, found 63% of those polled were uneasy about Bush's ability to make the right decisions in Iraq. The same poll found 50% now feel it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place.

It always amazes me how poll numbers lose their meaning when they don't support your side.

Hmmm. War protests usually turn out to be rather disappointing.

And no one ever seems to be carrying this kind of poster, which is probably at least part of the problem.

http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/posters/clouds.jpg

Latest Gallup Poll:
Most Think US Will Lose Iraq.
Most Want Out.

Bet: I have 50$ saying someone will ask me for a link :D :D

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

One stop quick shop.

They don’t hate Bush

Apparently you haven't seen Bush's latest approval ratings either..

Or should I say lack of approval. :p

Yes they do, but they aren’t being idiots about it, coming up with conspiracy theories and calling Bush a murderer. They just think mistakes were made, and in the end, they don’t think it was worth it.

Agreed. Cindy has gone all Michael Moore and turned a valid point into something skeptical. I understand her drive, anger and determination, but her approach could have been better.

Still, it occurs to me that, even last year, this sort of response would not have been seen period. While Cindy may have squandered her soap box by making accusations and leveling charges that are completely out of the ball park, hopefully it will inspire more moderate views to assemble and let it be known that this is a largely unsupported action and we want our men and women home and safe as soon as possible.

Apparently you haven't seen Bush's latest approval ratings either..

Or should I say lack of approval. :p
Disapproval does not mean hate. I can’t stand many of President Bush’s polices, including the war in Iraq, but I do not hate him. This is something many radicals seem to not understand. I suppose that just because they let their emotions rule them, they think everybody does.

They just think mistakes were made, and in the end, they don’t think it was worth it. "mistakes were made, and in the end...we should just forget about it...and go to the Fooball game"?

If thats the "Democrats" then they fully deserve to have their asses kicked again and again...

Apparently you haven't seen Bush's latest approval ratings either..

Or should I say lack of approval. :p

Meh, not fair, Steph.

No one's seen Bush's approval ratings...unless they have an electron microscope.

Am I the only one who has refused to keep up on the Sheehan debacle? Sometimes ignorance really is bliss. *decides to eat some Old Dutch Bar-B-Q chips instead*

Latest Gallup Poll:
Most Think US Will Lose Iraq.
Most Want Out.

Bet: I have 50$ saying someone will ask me for a link :D :D

And the fact is:

WE'RE WINNING IN IRAQ

Sorry to burst your bubble OceanDrive2 but that is a fact. We'll stay and when they ask us to leave then we'll leave but we won't leave until they do. And they will ask us to leave sooner or later. I'll place money on it.

Meh, not fair, Steph.

No one's seen Bush's approval ratings...unless they have an electron microscope.

Well, the last ones I seen about a week ago had him ranging from 38% - 46%, newsweek having him at the low end at 38%. However I believe the average from all data was 42%. But I haven't seen any polls on his approval rating (over all job approval) at all this week. I'm sure he'll come up at little given his photo opt time spend in Texas as Rita grows ever closer. I think he will try to make up for Katrina.

Am I the only one who has refused to keep up on the Sheehan debacle? Sometimes ignorance really is bliss. *decides to eat some Old Dutch Bar-B-Q chips instead*

I stopped listening to her a long time ago! She really has nothing to say and I would much rather listen to someone from the opposite side that doesn't spout out hate!

Well, the last ones I seen about a week ago had him ranging from 38% - 46%, newsweek having him at the low end at 38%. However I believe the average from all data was 42%. But I haven't seen any polls on his approval rating (over all job approval) at all this week. I'm sure he'll come up at little given his photo opt time spend in Texas as Rita grows ever closer. I think he will try to make up for Katrina.

We'll see. At this point, he might be able to win people back, but when even FOX news is running a huge graphic of Hurricane Rita that's almost as big as him while he's trying to talk about "success" in Iraq...well, that's a clear sign something's wrong.

My prediction is about a thousand people will turn out to see both of the Crazy Cindys and the Democrats that want to be re-elected will stay home.
You talk as if the anti-war people are a minority.

I stopped listening to her a long time ago! She really has nothing to say and I would much rather listen to someone from the opposite side that doesn't spout out hate!Oh I know that...

Repubs prefer to have the Likes of Kerry or Hillary on the opposite side.

You talk as if the anti-war people are a minority.
The crazy ones sure are. You know, the ones who don’t have jobs and just follow hateful conspiracy theorists around the country, ultimately hurting their message.

The crazy ones sure are. You know, the ones who don’t have jobs and just follow hateful conspiracy theorists around the country, ultimately hurting their message.

I will agree there are extremists on both sides of the argument, however mainstream America would put the people who believe it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place in the majority.

Also, sorry about the way I answered that other question, you're correct, low approval ratings do not translate into hate. I should have been more clear. :)

And the fact is:

WE'RE WINNING IN IRAQ

Sorry to burst your bubble OceanDrive2 but that is a fact. We'll stay and when they ask us to leave then we'll leave but we won't leave until they do. And they will ask us to leave sooner or later. I'll place money on it.

Personally, I wouldn't say we're winning.

i'm going to this rally in washington. They've got a permit for 100,000 people, though it doesnt mean that many people will show up. but they have people car pooling from all 48 mainland states...yes even texas. There's also a concert on saturday starting at 3PM, so i think this could be huge. maybe there will be 50,000 people? i dont know. i think more than that though, but not 100,000.

As for the pro-war people, well they can say what they want, which is the great part about this country. but this will not be the last peace march on washington. I'm thinking that Iraq is our next Vietnam, and as much as i think we need to stay there for a bit longer or at least till we can train the Iraqis, i support this completely and i think we really cant win this fight. There are more people in the middle east then there are in our country, if you count everything from afghanistan to Egypt. And there are plenty of people willing to die for osama in Sudan and Somalia. So i think that we really cant win this simply because we cannot force democracy on people that dont want it. Remember how we once had a monarchy forced on us? we didnt like it too much did we? Who's to say that democracy is the best form of government?

I will be there and i encourage anyone else that supports this to be there as well. If you are pro-war, you're free to come as well. But soon you'll be shipped off to Iraq and maybe you'll be shot. Maybe you'll see that war isnt some young guys having fun and shooting evil people. it's hell. it changes you. like it or not, war is not fun. It's not some happy place. It is hell and it will always be hell. Imagine not being able to tell the difference between civilian and terrorist...seeing your best friends get shot or blown up. Have to kill a child because they wont listen to you...and in the heat of the moment your gun goes off. You have to live with that. Many Vietnam vets couldnt. They committed suicide. War is not pretty. War is hell.

i'm going to this rally in washington. They've got a permit for 100,000 people, though it doesnt mean that many people will show up. but they have people car pooling from all 48 mainland states...yes even texas. There's also a concert on saturday starting at 3PM, so i think this could be huge. maybe there will be 50,000 people? i dont know. i think more than that though, but not 100,000.

As for the pro-war people, well they can say what they want, which is the great part about this country. but this will not be the last peace march on washington. I'm thinking that Iraq is our next Vietnam, and as much as i think we need to stay there for a bit longer or at least till we can train the Iraqis, i support this completely and i think we really cant win this fight. There are more people in the middle east then there are in our country, if you count everything from afghanistan to Egypt. And there are plenty of people willing to die for osama in Sudan and Somalia. So i think that we really cant win this simply because we cannot force democracy on people that dont want it. Remember how we once had a monarchy forced on us? we didnt like it too much did we? Who's to say that democracy is the best form of government?

I will be there and i encourage anyone else that supports this to be there as well. If you are pro-war, you're free to come as well. But soon you'll be shipped off to Iraq and maybe you'll be shot. Maybe you'll see that war isnt some young guys having fun and shooting evil people. it's hell. it changes you. like it or not, war is not fun. It's not some happy place. It is hell and it will always be hell. Imagine not being able to tell the difference between civilian and terrorist...seeing your best friends get shot or blown up. Have to kill a child because they wont listen to you...and in the heat of the moment your gun goes off. You have to live with that. Many Vietnam vets couldnt. They committed suicide. War is not pretty. War is hell.50000? WOW thats a lot.

Personally, I wouldn't say we're winning.

Personally, I say we are.

The crazy ones sure are. You know, the ones who don’t have jobs and just follow hateful conspiracy theorists around the country, ultimately hurting their message.
Of course the crazy ones are a minority. But in my experience, all anti-war people will protest together (and even in my country I've seen some huge anti-war protests), and the moderates will put aside their disdain for the extremists.

So i think that we really cant win this simply because we cannot force democracy on people that dont want it. Remember how we once had a monarchy forced on us? we didnt like it too much did we? Who's to say that democracy is the best form of government?
Most people in Iraq want democracy. The violent minority of jihadists don't want it. Remember the elections in January? 60% of voters turned out - higher than in most western countries - despite the threats of violence from the insurgents. I'm pretty sure that most Iraqis want democracy and oppose the insurgents that are trying their best to make life hell for the average Iraqi citizen.

Democracy is better than the alternatives. By standards of human rights, democracy is superior to both dictatorship and theocracy.

50000? WOW thats a lot.
I remember the first anti-war protest in Dublin. 90,000 people turned up.

I'm going to the rally. I'm pro-war, but anti-the way it's being conducted. I also want to see the bands that are playing near the end.

I'd also like to see the evidence that the US is "winning the war in Iraq." There's been an increase in suicide bombings while all of our attention is diverted to Katrina.

I'm going to the rally. I'm pro-war, but anti-the way it's being conducted. I also want to see the bands that are playing near the end.

I'd also like to see the evidence that the US is "winning the war in Iraq." There's been an increase in suicide bombings while all of our attention is diverted to Katrina.
You aren't going to get Good News stories from the mainstream media. But the WSJ has a pretty good roundup of good news from Iraq every two weeks. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007176

Here's a couple samples:

Society. Some Sunnis don't like the proposals, but that's democracy. There's certainly nothing like a major political disagreement to motivate people to engage in the political process:


Angered by Shiite calls for a federal region, Sunni clerics urged followers . . . to vote against the constitution if it contains measures they believe would divide the country. . . .
Iraq's three major Sunni organizations appeared to have taken a united stand both for voting and against demands for federalism after they boycotted the Jan. 30 parliamentary elections. . . .

Sheik Mahmoud al-Sumaidaie, of the influential Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars, told worshippers at Baghdad's Umm al-Qura mosque to register for the upcoming votes because "we are in need to your voice to say 'yes' for the constitution or 'no.' "

Such voices are growing louder and increasingly representative of the whole Sunni community:

The general conference of Sunnis in Iraq, which includes "the Sunni Mortmain," "the Association of Muslim Scholars," "the Iraqi Islamic Party," and a group of Sunni parties and organizations, was held in Baghdad and has urged all Arab Sunnis to participate in the coming elections.
In his speech before hundreds of attendees, Ahmed Abdel Ghafur Al Samera'i said, "Participating in the plebiscite on the constitution is a prescribed duty for all Sunnis."

He added, "I swear to Allah that the greatest privilege, through which you gain the love of Allah, is your efforts in participating in the coming elections and gathering the Sunnis, hoping that Allah would alleviate their suffering."

Alaa Maki, member of the political bureau in the "Iraqi Islamic Party," has confirmed, "The party has suggested the provision of cities of Sunni majority with additional lists, so that everyone would be able to register their information in the electors and plebiscite on the permanent constitution records."

He added, "We would enter the elections with a heavier weight than some people imagine. We would continue in participating in the political process side by side with the constituents of the Iraqi people." He referred to the existence of some misunderstanding among the political blocs, with regard to the elections' law and the mechanism of executing them. He called all Imams and preachers to direct and urge people to participate in the plebiscite on the permanent constitution and participate in the coming elections.

Here's more from Fallujah:


All indications showed that there is high percentage of people in the regions that boycotted the last parliamentary elections are registering their names to participate in the coming October referendum and the general elections next January, Laith Kubba told the press.
In Fallujah, considered one of the major hotbed of Iraqi insurgency, clerics of mosques called on the residents in the city to participate in the constitution referendum scheduled to be held in mid October.

They urged the residents through loudspeakers to participate and say "no" to those who want to isolate them from the political process.

The Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest Sunni party, also distributed handouts calling on the people to participate the referendum. Many of the residents showed support and desire to participate.

"I want to participate and I call on the people of the city to do so because we do not want to let those who came from the other side of the border to rule us again," said Mohammed Uthman, a government employee.

"If we don't participate this time, it means we let the present government to continue, and thus the real ruler would be the Iranians and not the Iraqis," he added.

The U.S. Agency for International Development has been helping to bring the constitutional debate to the people (link in PDF):

The Constitutional Dialogue program has organized over 3,000 dialogues throughout Iraq, reaching almost 80,000 Iraqis who also shared their opinions through 64,000 questionnaires. To date, 210 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have participated, including 151 NGOs contracted by USAID and 59 NGOs working as volunteers. Feedback indicates that the dialogues are achieving their dual purpose; to educate and consult the public.

In other recent USAID initiatives:


Over the past month, USAID arranged for 18 experts to provide assistance to the Iraqi National Assembly's (INA) Constitutional Committee resulting in the production of 72 topical papers in Arabic on issues including federalism, natural resource allocation, human rights and electoral systems. . . .
The final constitutional dialogues were conducted last week, reaching over 79,000 Iraqis in over 3,100 meetings. . . .

USAID representatives organized a workshop to address the advantages and disadvantages of various electoral systems.

Economy. An International Monetary Fund report paints a picture of Iraq beset by problems, but nevertheless with good prospects:

Iraq is suffering from rampant inflation, endemic disease and falling oil production, the International Monetary Fund said yesterday in its first review of the country for 25 years.
Nevertheless, Lorenzo Perez, the IMF director who oversaw the review, said that in the medium term he was "quite optimistic" about the country's prospects, although this will "depend on the level of oil prices."

"It is easy to overlook that the establishment and maintenance of relative macro-economic stability in the midst of violence is an achievement in itself," he added.

The IMF said sweeping reforms were needed in almost every sector of the economy, which is thought to have halved in size between 1999 and 2003, when the invasion occurred.

A formal agency will chase the investment dollar for Iraq:

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Andrew Natsios and Iraq's Minister of Planning signed an agreement in Amman, Jordan, to establish the Iraq Investment Promotion Agency, which will play a leading role in job creation and economic development for years to come.
The agreement commits USAID to equip the new agency's staff and train them in managing the organization and promoting investment.

Support will be delivered through USAID's Izdihar project, whose staff had worked with the Government of Iraq to develop an investment promotion strategy that culminated in the signed agreement.

With the creation of the Iraq Investment Promotion Agency, Iraq will join the more than 160 other countries with similar agencies that compete for approximately $7 trillion annually in foreign direct investment worldwide.

In addition, the work of the new agency will help expand the markets for Iraq's domestic products and services, stimulate economic growth and create new jobs at home.

Authorities are taking some tentative steps toward privatization:

The Ministry of Industry has set up a committee to register eight major state-owned companies on the Baghdad Stock Exchange.
A statement faxed to the newspaper did not say when these firms will go public but stressed that the move will not be initiated until the ministry works out guarantees that tens of thousands of employees that will keep their jobs.

The committee is currently evaluating these companies and would advise the ministry on the price and number of shares that will be available to the public at the Baghdad exchange.

Taha Ismael, who heads a central commission charged with privatizing of state-owned companies, said the move will cover four cement factories, a pharmaceutical firm, and three construction enterprises.

"Employees will be given share options which they can buy and pay for later," he said.


Kurdistan continues to boom:


Fly into Arbil, the regional capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, and you feel that you have arrived in another country.
It is the Kurdish, not the Iraqi, flag that flutters from Arbil International Airport, Kurdistan's new, glass-fronted "gateway" to the world, which saw its first flights from Dubai, Beirut and Amman arrive last month.

The airport was built on a former military base once used by Saddam Hussein's regime to bomb the Kurds of Halabja.

Now it brings in investors. Businessmen, scared away from other parts of Iraq, are coming to Kurdistan instead, and helping its economy to take off.

"Before all we saw was war, and planes bombing our cities and villages," says the airport manager, Kameran Murad, who fought against the regime in the late 1980s.

"Now the aircraft are our link with the outside world. Everything is changing."

Take the town of Suleimaniya. Its skyline is dotted with cranes. Everywhere you look bulldozers are at work.

"Things are booming. The price of land is ridiculous. It's just going up and up and up," says businessman Bettin Saleh, who has two shops in a new mall.

"People have money, people are spending it, they feel it's safe to spend--and build for the future."

And there's no shortage of labour, as Arab Iraqis head north to join the Kurdish workforce.

"I'm here because it's dangerous where I'm from and there are no jobs," says Aziz Abed Ali, from Baghdad. "Here it is safe and there is work."

So does Najaf, thanks to religious tourism:

Property prices in Najaf are being driven through the roof by the Shia visitors who have flocked to its holy sites since the invasion of Iraq by Coalition forces.
Home to the shrine of Imam Ali, a cousin of the prophet Mohammed and a revered figure in Shia Islam, Najaf is considered a top pilgrimage site by members of the denomination.

These include millions living across the border in Iran, who were unable to visit during the reign of Saddam Hussein.

The fall of his regime and accompanying thaw in relations between the two countries has brought with it an influx of pilgrims. And there are plans to spend 20 million US dollars on a new international airport near Najaf, with the help of a low-interest loan from Iran.

At the same time, local real estate agents and entrepreneurs say they are doing a roaring trade.

"Those experienced in religious tourism have started to buy land and buildings in order to turn them into hotels and tourist villages," said Hussein Abdullah, who owns a real estate agency. "They expect [that in the future] Iraq will be the focal point in the world."

Reconstruction. In Baghdad, major telecommunications infrastructure will be rebuilt and renovated:

As of October 1, works would start on rehabilitating what has been destroyed, during the bombing with American planes and rockets, of the telecommunication building and tower in Al Ma'moun region, west of Baghdad, or what has been known as "Saddam Tower" before April 9, 2003.
An Iraqi company would be in charge of the reconstruction, while a European company from Luxemburg would set the new designs for this building, which is considered as one of the most prominent landmarks of Baghdad, according to Javan Ma'sum, Iraqi telecommunications minister.

The minister added that the cost of rehabilitating the building and the tower reaches 20 million dollars, which are designated from the US aid to Iraq. She pointed out that a celebration would be held in Baghdad on this occasion, where the start of works that would totally depend on Iraqi expertise, would be announced.

Ma'sum noted that the design of the building and tower would be totally changed, where modernization and touches that reflect the Iraqi prospective of the project are domineering.

She said that the whole telecommunication building in Al Senk region, on Al Rasheed Street in Baghdad, would be knocked down, to be rebuilt later this year. This is due to the fact that the ministry experts found out that the overhauling and rehabilitation of the building would be more expensive than rebuilding it.

She noted that Spain has promised to provide with the necessary finance for establishing a new exchange, with a high capacity to serve subscribers, in Al Diwaneya province (170 km south of Baghdad).


That's probably more than anyone will read, but there's so much more on the link. This is only new in the last two weeks. There are so many good things happening in Iraq...

I have looked at the polls. But I don't think that they represent the majority opinion. The last poll that mattered was held last November. It might be different if that same poll were held today, but all other things being equal, I don't think so.
LOL. I like that kind of selective memory. It just makes a person look so much better.

You aren't going to get Good News stories from the mainstream media. But the WSJ has a pretty good roundup of good news from Iraq every two weeks. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007176

Here's a couple samples:


That's probably more than anyone will read, but there's so much more on the link. This is only new in the last two weeks. There are so many good things happening in Iraq...
Good news and "winning" mean different things. Are good things happening? Yes, obviously - this isn't all good or all bad contention. Are we doing a better job ending the violence? Recent statistics indicate it's getting worse. What will ultimately undercut everything you cited above? The violence.

I hear a lot of sunni clerics, some influential ones, are backing the constitutional process.

Recent statistics may represent criminal activity within a small number of people in Iraq who oppose the constitutional process. Like it or not, we are on track in Iraq and th process will go forward.. and we, as well as Iraqis will win this decisively.

Good news and "winning" mean different things. Are good things happening? Yes, obviously - this isn't all good or all bad contention. Are we doing a better job ending the violence? Recent statistics indicate it's getting worse. What will ultimately undercut everything you cited above? The violence.
I think that it's significant that such enormous progress is being made in spite of violence.

Every time a couple dozen police officer candidates are killed, a couple dozen more step up to take their places. That's winning.

Sixty percent of Iraqis voted in the parliamentary elections. That's better than we do in the U.S. That's winning.

Iraqis are arresting criminals that commit terrorist acts. They are acting on their own to protect their society. They're responding to tips from other Iraqis. That's winning.

Iraqi authorities are at the moment holding 281 foreign nationals in connection with terrorist activities:

In a press conference, [Leith Kabba, spokesman for the Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Al Ja'fari] said, "Until now, the number of foreign detainees involved in charges that are related, in a way or another to terrorism, is 281." Kabba pointed out, "They are from Egypt (80), Syria (64), Sudan (41), Saudi Arabia (22), Jordan (17), Libya (7), Palestine (10), Algeria (7), Tunisia (6), Turkey (4), Iran (12), Qatar (2), and Britain (1), in addition to other countries." He added, "Most of the reporting about those came on behalf of citizens."

The majority of Iraqis polled are against violence toward coalition members. That's winning.

A total of 81 percent of those polled are against attacks against Iraqis working with the coalition, with 12 percent saying there is justification for the attacks and 7 percent with no opinion.


Read the section on security in my link. It's remarkable how positive the situation really is. That's winning.

Funny how most US soldiers think we are winning in Iraq, eh? Damn, they must not get the same news we get or something, right? Stupid soldiers, what do they know, eh? Stupid to think that they worry about the people back home wanting to pull them out, right? I mean, if we are losing you'd think they'd want to come home to, right?


On a non-sarcastic note, I find it amazing that the anti-war people are now saying that they have hope in Americans. But I thought all Americans are stupid? Why should the anti-war movement now care that Americans are against the war too? After all, they are too stupid to know whether or not we are winning or losing, correct?

On a very serious note, it is my believe that all anti-war protesters are giving aid and comfort to the enemy and thus are traitors to all soldiers fighting and, most importantly, traitors to all Iraqis. I know the NVA certainly loved the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War, it certainly gave them hope.

If one thousand people show, then that is one thousand people standing up for truth, justice, and the American Way.

You need to get over you allergy to dissent. It is a vital part of this country.
Hear! Hear! Well put!

Latest Gallup Poll:
Most Think US Will Lose Iraq.
Most Want Out.

Bet: I have 50$ saying someone will ask me for a link :D :D
Link please? :D

I'm glad that there's rallies to show that Americans want out of Iraq, but do you really think our idiot president and his war-monger administration will realize that that's what we should do? I think not. they were stupid when they went in and now they'll be too stupid to get out. Maybe if America was stupid enough to re elect that asshole we be in this situation right now!

And the fact is:

WE'RE WINNING IN IRAQ

Sorry to burst your bubble OceanDrive2 but that is a fact.
What is the score?

Last I heard it was:

Locals: 2 many Visitors: not enough

We'll stay and when they ask us to leave then we'll leave but we won't leave until they do.
Geee, I wonder where I heard that line before?

Aren't the Democrats here upset at what these people are doing to their party? Do you really want to be known as 'The crazy leftist wackos?' What happened to what was once a proud and nobel party?

I'm glad that there's rallies to show that Americans want out of Iraq, but do you really think our idiot president and his war-monger administration will realize that that's what we should do? I think not. they were stupid when they went in and now they'll be too stupid to get out. Maybe if America was stupid enough to re elect that asshole we be in this situation right now!

Now I would even defend your rights for freedom of speech, and I do defend Sheehan protesting... but you should not use ad hominems towards people you don't like. I learned this on here the hard way. I did call Sheehan a bitch. But I don't think that anymore. Personally, I think she's a very troubled person as far as her opinions go. We were very smart going into Iraq because it was the morally right thing to do, and we are winning this, one brick at a time. No matter how you want to skew the reality.

Novoga, they aren't traitors. They have their right to freedom of speech.. but sure.. I think they are foolish in their opinions...

What is the score?

Last I heard it was:

Locals: 2 many Visitors: not enough

Nice of you to finally admit you want us to lose in Iraq. Nice of you to admit that you wish for more Americans to die.


Geee, I wonder where I heard that line before?

It isn't just me or Bush but most of our troops feel the same way! Yes I want us out but not until Iraq is stable.

NEW POLL! MOST AMERICANS NOT IN IRAQ!

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002336.html

There's a big rally planned in Washington, DC this weekend by the United For Peace (http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3091) group. This rally "will send a clear message to the White House and Congress: The Iraq war must end".

I think there are two predictions needed for this future fiasco.

First, how many people will show? More than a thousand? More than 10,000? Or just Crazy Cindy and the nut-cases that follow her?

Second, how many prominent Democratic politicians will address the gathering? Will Al Gore be there, reminding us how GWB "played on our fears"? Will Howard Dean be there with his primal scream? Will Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi be there to condemn Republicans? Or will it just be Cindy McKinney and her communist pals?

My prediction is about a thousand people will turn out to see both of the Crazy Cindys and the Democrats that want to be re-elected will stay home.


Let's look at this on Sunday and do a post-mortem.

I think any Iraq war demonstrations will have little effect on the electorate until a majority of the protestors are more mainstream than what one usually sees at rallies of this sort.

Ms. Sheehan's group and the normal bunch who protest colonialism, the World Bank, the IMF, and Kentucky Fried Chicken don't have much influence over voters. The political tide will only begin to turn when a significant proportion of the protestors are people who dislike attending rallies.

Attendance numbers have political value, particularly to the media. As you say, we'll see how many show up - and who shows up. My guess is that it won't receive much attention by the press.

Nice of you to finally admit you want us to lose in Iraq. Nice of you to admit that you wish for more Americans to die.
Perhaps you need reading glasses or your mind is not able to process what you see?

Do not put words in my mouth. I did NOT say anything about wanting the US to lose, or Americans die. YOU are the one who wants Americans to die by supporting the illegal US invasion of Iraq in the first place. I am TOTALLY against this war, and have been, even BEFORE it started. So don't give me your utter BS.

i figured out what's wrong with the anti-war movement. no good rhymes.

before:
hey hey, lbj, how many kids did you kill today?

now:
um...
woohoo, w, how many kids did you take to the zoo?

Perhaps you need reading glasses or your mind is not able to process what you see?

Do not put words in my mouth. I did NOT say anything about wanting the US to lose, or Americans die. YOU are the one who wants Americans to die by supporting the illegal US invasion of Iraq in the first place. I am TOTALLY against this war, and have been, even BEFORE it started. So don't give me your utter BS.


No I don't want Americans to die. Do not put words in my mouth. I did NOT say anything about wanting my people to die.

As for the invasion, no it isn't illegal. Last time I checked international law, once a cease-fire is broken, war picks up where it left off. Since Hussein violated the cease-fire, we can legally go in and take him out.

On top of that, Congress authorized the use of Force in Iraq. That makes it 100% legal.

I am for this war because of the fact that:

1) Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions
2) Saddam violated the UN Cease-fire
3) Saddam violating human rights.

I am suprised that you would allow Saddam to continue to violate the Shi'ites Human Rights. So much for your vaunted UN Declaration on Human Rights eh? Not to mention the other Human Rights treaties. I guess you just don't care about Human Rights after all. So don't give me your utter BS!

If one thousand people show, then that is one thousand people standing up for truth, justice, and the American Way.

You need to get over you allergy to dissent. It is a vital part of this country.
Yes, it is, but I don't see many more than about 5,000 supporting the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan.

No I don't want Americans to die. Do not put words in my mouth. I did NOT say anything about wanting my people to die.

As for the invasion, no it isn't illegal. Last time I checked international law, once a cease-fire is broken, war picks up where it left off. Since Hussein violated the cease-fire, we can legally go in and take him out.

On top of that, Congress authorized the use of Force in Iraq. That makes it 100% legal.

I am for this war because of the fact that:

1) Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions
2) Saddam violated the UN Cease-fire
3) Saddam violating human rights.

I am suprised that you would allow Saddam to continue to violate the Shi'ites Human Rights. So much for your vaunted UN Declaration on Human Rights eh? Not to mention the other Human Rights treaties. I guess you just don't care about Human Rights after all. So don't give me your utter BS!
ROFLMAO!!! SIC 'em, Corneliu! :D

What happened to what was once a proud and nobel party?

Whoa, we had a Nobel Party? Why wasn't I informed!?

Well new Orleans is under water again and texas has a hurricane blowing through. Gas prices may go up AGAIN if the refineries get screwed up by the storm . A bus evacuating nursing home patients blew up and 24 died .
and btw a little anti -war rally in washington D.C. might have happened...ummm not sure wasnt really paying much attention . ;)

ROFLMAO!!! SIC 'em, Corneliu! :D

Its the truth unfortunately. Even Hussein's human Rights violations are mentioned in the War Authorization bill.

Why would people want his human rights abuses to continue? :(

Whoa, we had a Nobel Party? Why wasn't I informed!?
And YOU accuse ME of "trolling" and "harrassment!" :rolleyes:

Its the truth unfortunately. Even Hussein's human Rights violations are mentioned in the War Authorization bill.

Why would people want his human rights abuses to continue? :(

Methinks nobody would. The problem is that we invaded under false pretenses.

I'd've been fine with an invasion if it was just to oust Saddam, not about "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

Why would people want his human rights abuses to continue? :(

Ho ho. And yet some of the worst abusers of human rights are staunch US allies? Care to explain how human rights abuses in Iraq are worse than, say Pakistan? Or are you simply trying to cover your ass by retrospectivly claiming that this war was all about human rights?

No I don't want Americans to die. Do not put words in my mouth. I did NOT say anything about wanting my people to die.
Hey pal, it is you that supports the illegal war in Iraq not me. You now have 2,000 less Americans and another 20,000 injured. The war in Iraq should never have been fought. It has been a terrible waste of life on both sides.

As for the invasion, no it isn't illegal. Last time I checked international law, once a cease-fire is broken, war picks up where it left off. Since Hussein violated the cease-fire, we can legally go in and take him out.
This is BS and the world knows it. Someday you may be able to figure it out?

On top of that, Congress authorized the use of Force in Iraq. That makes it 100% legal.
If Congress authorizes the use of force against Canada, that would be 100% legal? NOT.

I am for this war because of the fact that:

1) Saddam violated 17 UN Resolutions
2) Saddam violated the UN Cease-fire
3) Saddam violating human rights.
To fight this war, the US violated Resolution 1491, the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the US Constitution.

I am suprised that you would allow Saddam to continue to violate the Shi'ites Human Rights.
How many Iraqis have the US killed to "protect" their rights?

So much for your vaunted UN Declaration on Human Rights eh? Not to mention the other Human Rights treaties.
You want to talk about human rights? What about the human rights of prisoners detained in Abu Gharib or in Guantanamo Bay? What about the human rights of all the Iraqis that have had their doors kicked in by US troops. How about the human rights of the Iraqis that the US dragged out of their houses and threw in jail?

I guess you just don't care about Human Rights after all. So don't give me your utter BS!
First you say that I want Americans to die, and now you say I don't care about human rights. Perhaps you should go back through my 5,000 plus posts , and once you do, you will realize that you don't know shit from shinola?

Methinks nobody would. The problem is that we invaded under false pretenses.

I'd've been fine with an invasion if it was just to oust Saddam, not about "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

So what about the other things listed in the War Resolution? WMD wasn't the only thing we went in on you know.

But then again, look whom I'm dealing with on here.

So what about the other things listed in the War Resolution? WMD wasn't the only thing we went in on you know.

But then again, look whom I'm dealing with on here.

Right, but WMD's were the main reason. Iraq had none, and the administration knew that from the get-go.

Hey pal, it is you that supports the illegal war in Iraq not me. You now have 2,000 less Americans and another 20,000 injured. The war in Iraq should never have been fought. It has been a terrible waste of life on both sides.

At least I know that in war, people die. And the Iraq war isn't illegal! And I am so glad that you care so much for the Iraqi people.

This is BS and the world knows it. Someday you may be able to figure it out?

The only BS I'm seeing is coming from you.

If Congress authorizes the use of force against Canada, that would be 100% legal? NOT.

Yes it would be 100% Legal! I am surprised that you don't understand this thing called the US Constitution! If Congress gives the President to use force, then the use of force is 100% legal. The UN IS NOT a world government.

To fight this war, the US violated Resolution 1491, the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the US Constitution.

*buzzer* Wrong! The only thing we need is authorization from Congress. We got that and so.....it is legal! The UN IS NOT a world government nor is it the world's legislative body.

How many Iraqis have the US killed to "protect" their rights?

How many Iraqis have the terrorists killed to prevent democracy?

You want to talk about human rights? What about the human rights of prisoners detained in Abu Gharib or in Guantanamo Bay? What about the human rights of all the Iraqis that have had their doors kicked in by US troops. How about the human rights of the Iraqis that the US dragged out of their houses and threw in jail?

Abu Gharib is being taken care of or haven't you been following the news? Those responsible are getting punished for their crimes and they'll have to live with that the rest of their days. As for Gitmo....so far, I haven't seen anything except for lies being reported by the Terrorists themselves.

First you say that I want Americans to die, and now you say I don't care about human rights. Perhaps you should go back through my 5,000 plus posts , and once you do, you will realize that you don't know shit from shinola?

Then why didn't you support the war when Human Rights was one of the things we went in on?

Right, but WMD's were the main reason. Iraq had none, and the administration knew that from the get-go.

Apparently not. Even Bush was highly upset with the Bad intel. Want to try again?

Methinks nobody would. The problem is that we invaded under false pretenses.

I'd've been fine with an invasion if it was just to oust Saddam, not about "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

###







get your facts straight. Thats why we invaded Iraq.
Repeating something like a mantra and then convincing yourself something is true , is not how a reasoned intelligent person who wishes not to delude him/herself acts .

The time for debate over the war being right or not was before the war .
Now you have to face the reallity that the war HAS happened and has moved into a new stage . The reallity is Saddam is in Jail awaiting trial and his former country is struggling to become a democracy .
debate now about the fate of Iraq in reality .

The time for debate over the war being right or not was before the war.I don think so.

BTW I reserve myself the right to debate Katrina Issues...whenever I feel like it...Yes Before, During , and After the events...

God I love free speech. :D

Why would people want his human rights abuses to continue? :(

No one wanted his abuse to continue. No one wanted this (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) .

How many years of Saddam would it be necessary to kill 25000 people? Oh, and do remember that the vast majority of those casualties were due to US/British intervention.

No one wanted his abuse to continue. No one wanted this (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) .

How many years of Saddam would it be necessary to kill 25000 people? Oh, and do remember that the vast majority of those casualties were due to US/British intervention.

Oh we didn't have him violate 17 UN Resolutions!

We didn't have him violate the UN Cease-fire

We didn't have him committing atrocities against his own people

He did all of this himself.

I'm sorry but the war was the only proper thing to do!

[QUOTE=Portu Cale MK3
...How many years of Saddam would it be necessary to kill 25000 people? Oh, and do remember that the vast majority of those casualties were due to US/British intervention.[/QUOTE]

You are aware that by some estimates he has already murdered up to 1,000,000 people? His security apparatus killed 200,000 in prisons and the others are buried in mass graves. This does not even count the war with Iran and the Kurds.

"...The U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed."

How many more might he have killed? Who knows, but his appetite for murder was large. Probably far, far more than the allies killed.

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/09/content_288443.htm

Oh we didn't have him violate 17 UN Resolutions!

We didn't have him violate the UN Cease-fire

We didn't have him committing atrocities against his own people

He did all of this himself.

I'm sorry but the war was the only proper thing to do!

Here's the thing. No one is disputing that he committed human rights atrocities. No one is even disputing that he violated UN cease-fires. What is in disputation is the response to these issues and the fact that neither of them was used as the main justification for action when it happened.

Human rights violations were never used as the main thrust to incite a "Get Er Done" attitude. It was simply, "He's got WMD and is going to use them on us and he has ties with Bin Laden so we have to go in there now."

The fact is that Bush had his sights on Iraq since he was elected. Back in 2000, part of the Republican platform was the implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act (which was, incidentally, passed by Congress in 1998) which outlined, among other goals, the ouster of Saddam and the instatement of the Iraqi National Congress. Bush, of course, won in 2000 and many of his foriegn policy advisors could be traced back the the right-wing think tank, Project for the New American Century. One of the clear goals of this group was the removal of Hussein from Iraq. The second Bush got into office, Saddam was on borrowed time. According to Paul O'Neill, former treasury secretary, Bush's first security council meeting discussed plans to invade Iraq.

A year later, 9/11 happened and, according to aides who were with Rumsfeld at the time of the attack, his first response was to call for info and to determine if it was good enough to hit Hussein as well as Bin Laden. He supposedly gave orders to "sweep it all up. Things related and not." (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml)

Here's where we start getting to it. In 2002, as a fruit of the announced War on Terrorism and the Bush Doctrine, the infamous Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Force Against Iraq passed Congress (296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate). The resolution was worded specifically to encourage approval by the UN Security Council before but not require it for military action to occur. As a matter of international law, however, for the US to use force in Iraq, regardless of cease-fire status, a resolution had to be passed by the UN Security Council authorizing that use of force.

Now, it is ingenuous in the extreme to say that the US was justified to go into Iraq because Saddam broke the cease-fire when the initial resolution authorizing the Bush to use military action basically said, "Fuck you, UN, we'll do what we want." You can't use laws of an institution to justify an invasion while you are basically ignoring those same laws yourself. So any sort of "justification" that the US might have had in invading Iraq because of broken UN treaties or cease-fires falls because the US wasn't intending on observing UN law anyway.

Furthermore, the UN resolution, UN Security Council Resolution 1441, passed in November 2002 and explicitly dealing with weapons inspections in Iraq does not at any time authorize the use of force. Both the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador, Jeremy Greenstock, swore up and down that the resolution contained no hidden triggers to war and neither country would act against Iraq without consulting the UN Security Council first. This was basically a smoke screen as the Bush administration had been planning on going into Iraq since 2000 and smelled the opportunity.

Now we come back to why Bush acted when he did. True, one of the rationales for the invasion was human rights violations. However, I have said from the get go in 2003 that this was never, EVER, presented as the main reason or the "call to action" that necessitated an invasion, right then, in violation of world opinion, UN law and, frankly, common sense. The reason given to stir the US into a fighting frenzy was WMD. Saddam had them, he was going to use them against us in conjunction with al-Qaeda at any time and the only way to prevent another 9/11 was to go in there and get him. As we know now, all of these reasons given for the precipitous action (which really wasn't so precipitous since it was in planning before the WH stationary had even been changed), were false.

Paul Wolfwitz, Deputy Secretary of Defence and Karl Rove's Evil Flying Monkey, said in a May 28th, 2003, Vanity Fair interview, "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction." The timing, the call for action, the whole timetable was based on the "slam dunk" of WMDs in Iraq. Not humanitarian aid. Not UN Security Resolutions. WMDs. Pure and simple.

So say what you like about cease fires and broken treaties, but understand that they are meaningless because we made them meaningless. Say what you like about humanitarian aid. Everyone admits that he was a petty tyrant who not only needed to be removed but tried for war crimes (although the Reagan administration of the 80s certainly didn't feel quite so harshly about him and managed to basically create him). The fact remains, though, that the reasons we were given as a country to invade Iraq when we did, how we did, with as much fallout as we caused were specious and WERE KNOWN TO BE SPECIOUS from the get go. Bush wanted Iraq. He was going to get it. He'd wanted it since his inaugeration and if some good got accomplished while he was going about it, then fine, but Saddam had a target painted on his back from the second Bush was sworn into office. And it is this along with the subsequent lack of follow-up planning and the political spoil system which is Iraq reconstruction that make me high skeptical of any other explanation of our presence over there and uncomfortably aware that Bush himself may be guilty of violating international law.

Latest Gallup Poll:
Most Think US Will Lose Iraq.
Most Want Out.

Bet: I have 50$ saying someone will ask me for a link :D :D
Ok ... where's that link? :D

Here's the thing. No one is disputing that he committed human rights atrocities. No one is even disputing that he violated UN cease-fires. What is in disputation is the response to these issues and the fact that neither of them was used as the main justification for action when it happened.
CORRECT
Human rights violations were never used as the main thrust to incite a "Get Er Done" attitude. It was simply, "He's got WMD and is going to use them on us and he has ties with Bin Laden so we have to go in there now."
CORRECT
The fact is that Bush had his sights on Iraq since he was elected. Back in 2000, part of the Republican platform was the implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act (which was, incidentally, passed by Congress in 1998) which outlined, among other goals, the ouster of Saddam and the instatement of the Iraqi National Congress. Bush, of course, won in 2000 and many of his foriegn policy advisors could be traced back the the right-wing think tank, Project for the New American Century. One of the clear goals of this group was the removal of Hussein from Iraq. The second Bush got into office, Saddam was on borrowed time. According to Paul O'Neill, former treasury secretary, Bush's first security council meeting discussed plans to invade Iraq.
CORRECT
A year later, 9/11 happened and, according to aides who were with Rumsfeld at the time of the attack, his first response was to call for info and to determine if it was good enough to hit Hussein as well as Bin Laden. He supposedly gave orders to "sweep it all up. Things related and not." (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml)
CORRECT
Here's where we start getting to it. In 2002, as a fruit of the announced War on Terrorism and the Bush Doctrine, the infamous Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Force Against Iraq passed Congress (296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate). The resolution was worded specifically to encourage approval by the UN Security Council before but not require it for military action to occur. As a matter of international law, however, for the US to use force in Iraq, regardless of cease-fire status, a resolution had to be passed by the UN Security Council authorizing that use of force.
CORRECT
Now, it is ingenuous in the extreme to say that the US was justified to go into Iraq because Saddam broke the cease-fire when the initial resolution authorizing the Bush to use military action basically said, "Fuck you, UN, we'll do what we want." You can't use laws of an institution to justify an invasion while you are basically ignoring those same laws yourself. So any sort of "justification" that the US might have had in invading Iraq because of broken UN treaties or cease-fires falls because the US wasn't intending on observing UN law anyway.
CORRECT
Furthermore, the UN resolution, UN Security Council Resolution 1441, passed in November 2002 and explicitly dealing with weapons inspections in Iraq does not at any time authorize the use of force. Both the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador, Jeremy Greenstock, swore up and down that the resolution contained no hidden triggers to war and neither country would act against Iraq without consulting the UN Security Council first. This was basically a smoke screen as the Bush administration had been planning on going into Iraq since 2000 and smelled the opportunity.
CORRECT
Now we come back to why Bush acted when he did. True, one of the rationales for the invasion was human rights violations. However, I have said from the get go in 2003 that this was never, EVER, presented as the main reason or the "call to action" that necessitated an invasion, right then, in violation of world opinion, UN law and, frankly, common sense. The reason given to stir the US into a fighting frenzy was WMD. Saddam had them, he was going to use them against us in conjunction with al-Qaeda at any time and the only way to prevent another 9/11 was to go in there and get him. As we know now, all of these reasons given for the precipitous action (which really wasn't so precipitous since it was in planning before the WH stationary had even been changed), were false.
CORRECT
Paul Wolfwitz, Deputy Secretary of Defence and Karl Rove's Evil Flying Monkey, said in a May 28th, 2003, Vanity Fair interview, "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction." The timing, the call for action, the whole timetable was based on the "slam dunk" of WMDs in Iraq. Not humanitarian aid. Not UN Security Resolutions. WMDs. Pure and simple.
CORRECT
So say what you like about cease fires and broken treaties, but understand that they are meaningless because we made them meaningless. Say what you like about humanitarian aid. Everyone admits that he was a petty tyrant who not only needed to be removed but tried for war crimes (although the Reagan administration of the 80s certainly didn't feel quite so harshly about him and managed to basically create him). The fact remains, though, that the reasons we were given as a country to invade Iraq when we did, how we did, with as much fallout as we caused were specious and WERE KNOWN TO BE SPECIOUS from the get go. Bush wanted Iraq. He was going to get it. He'd wanted it since his inaugeration and if some good got accomplished while he was going about it, then fine, but Saddam had a target painted on his back from the second Bush was sworn into office. And it is this along with the subsequent lack of follow-up planning and the political spoil system which is Iraq reconstruction that make me high skeptical of any other explanation of our presence over there and uncomfortably aware that Bush himself may be guilty of violating international law.
http://www.guardfamily.org/B06/B0602/B0602_images/B0602.gif

Perfect score Berky. We sure have missed your posts, and sure are glad you are back!! :)

Ok ... where's that link? :D

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/22/iraq.poll/

enjoy :D

Here's the thing. No one is disputing that he committed human rights atrocities. No one is even disputing that he violated UN cease-fires. What is in disputation is the response to these issues and the fact that neither of them was used as the main justification for action when it happened.

Human rights violations were never used as the main thrust to incite a "Get Er Done" attitude. It was simply, "He's got WMD and is going to use them on us and he has ties with Bin Laden so we have to go in there now."

The fact is that Bush had his sights on Iraq since he was elected. Back in 2000, part of the Republican platform was the implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act (which was, incidentally, passed by Congress in 1998) which outlined, among other goals, the ouster of Saddam and the instatement of the Iraqi National Congress. Bush, of course, won in 2000 and many of his foriegn policy advisors could be traced back the the right-wing think tank, Project for the New American Century. One of the clear goals of this group was the removal of Hussein from Iraq. The second Bush got into office, Saddam was on borrowed time. According to Paul O'Neill, former treasury secretary, Bush's first security council meeting discussed plans to invade Iraq.

A year later, 9/11 happened and, according to aides who were with Rumsfeld at the time of the attack, his first response was to call for info and to determine if it was good enough to hit Hussein as well as Bin Laden. He supposedly gave orders to "sweep it all up. Things related and not." (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml)

Here's where we start getting to it. In 2002, as a fruit of the announced War on Terrorism and the Bush Doctrine, the infamous Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Force Against Iraq passed Congress (296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate). The resolution was worded specifically to encourage approval by the UN Security Council before but not require it for military action to occur. As a matter of international law, however, for the US to use force in Iraq, regardless of cease-fire status, a resolution had to be passed by the UN Security Council authorizing that use of force.

Now, it is ingenuous in the extreme to say that the US was justified to go into Iraq because Saddam broke the cease-fire when the initial resolution authorizing the Bush to use military action basically said, "Fuck you, UN, we'll do what we want." You can't use laws of an institution to justify an invasion while you are basically ignoring those same laws yourself. So any sort of "justification" that the US might have had in invading Iraq because of broken UN treaties or cease-fires falls because the US wasn't intending on observing UN law anyway.

Furthermore, the UN resolution, UN Security Council Resolution 1441, passed in November 2002 and explicitly dealing with weapons inspections in Iraq does not at any time authorize the use of force. Both the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador, Jeremy Greenstock, swore up and down that the resolution contained no hidden triggers to war and neither country would act against Iraq without consulting the UN Security Council first. This was basically a smoke screen as the Bush administration had been planning on going into Iraq since 2000 and smelled the opportunity.

Now we come back to why Bush acted when he did. True, one of the rationales for the invasion was human rights violations. However, I have said from the get go in 2003 that this was never, EVER, presented as the main reason or the "call to action" that necessitated an invasion, right then, in violation of world opinion, UN law and, frankly, common sense. The reason given to stir the US into a fighting frenzy was WMD. Saddam had them, he was going to use them against us in conjunction with al-Qaeda at any time and the only way to prevent another 9/11 was to go in there and get him. As we know now, all of these reasons given for the precipitous action (which really wasn't so precipitous since it was in planning before the WH stationary had even been changed), were false.

Paul Wolfwitz, Deputy Secretary of Defence and Karl Rove's Evil Flying Monkey, said in a May 28th, 2003, Vanity Fair interview, "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction." The timing, the call for action, the whole timetable was based on the "slam dunk" of WMDs in Iraq. Not humanitarian aid. Not UN Security Resolutions. WMDs. Pure and simple.

So say what you like about cease fires and broken treaties, but understand that they are meaningless because we made them meaningless. Say what you like about humanitarian aid. Everyone admits that he was a petty tyrant who not only needed to be removed but tried for war crimes (although the Reagan administration of the 80s certainly didn't feel quite so harshly about him and managed to basically create him). The fact remains, though, that the reasons we were given as a country to invade Iraq when we did, how we did, with as much fallout as we caused were specious and WERE KNOWN TO BE SPECIOUS from the get go. Bush wanted Iraq. He was going to get it. He'd wanted it since his inaugeration and if some good got accomplished while he was going about it, then fine, but Saddam had a target painted on his back from the second Bush was sworn into office. And it is this along with the subsequent lack of follow-up planning and the political spoil system which is Iraq reconstruction that make me high skeptical of any other explanation of our presence over there and uncomfortably aware that Bush himself may be guilty of violating international law.

An Honest and reasoned argument that actually takes into account facts .
Did you get lost and post in the wrong thread ?
I do not aggree although you make very good points. I personally believe that the war was justified and wanted to know why Saddam could get away with all he did after he lost the first gulf war. After 9-11 Saddam became an endangered species because of the theorys on the long run fight against terrorist depended on Iraq being a democracy after the removal of saddam. If you care to look the neo cons actually advocated it to the first Bush but he was concerned ..with good reason ..by the fallout of removing an Arab leader. After 9-11 it became critical to some to put the plan in action .
history will tell if they are right . I believe they are right BUT I do not like the way They are going about it . I am still pissed that the idiots let themselves be fooled by the whole WMD affair and the world will never forgive the United States for it ..and with good reason .
Maybe someday the Democrats will find someone we can vote for and still be able to sleep at night. or maybe both partys will go back to moderation.
Right now I feel I might just as well hope for lesbian monkeys in leather riding unicycles . I am afraid they will be running things before I see another moderate .

I don think so.

BTW I reserve myself the right to debate Katrina Issues...whenever I feel like it...Yes Before, During , and After the events...

God I love free speech. :D


Now think just for a minute why I said " The time for debate over the war being right or not was before the war."

You see that is actully when you could have influenced the debate and maybe have stopped the war from happening. You cant do that now . You can debate untill you are blue from ranting but you cant turn back the clock.
Now you actually have to take into account reallity and what will happen if you suddenly say " hey guys we were wrong time to take our stuff and go home " . Problems like who cleans up after we leave ? And how many lives will it cost ? For how many years ?

Nobody is taking away your right to free speach . Speak away . for all its worth .

Originally Posted by OceanDrive2
Latest Gallup Poll:
Most Think US Will Lose Iraq.
Most Want Out.

Bet: I have 50$ saying someone will ask me for a link

So that makes you happy ? Somehow that would be a good thing ?
What do you think the consequences will be if the United sates was to lose in Iraq ?

...t you cant turn back the clock.
Now you actually have to take into account reallity and what will happen if you suddenly say " hey guys we were wrong time to take our stuff and go home " . Problems like who cleans up after we leave ? And how many lives will it cost ? For how many years ?we left Vietnam...didnt we?

What do you think the consequences will be if the United sates was to lose in Iraq ?depends when we "lose"...

If we lose now we take a 2000 death toll...

If we "lose" in 2009 we take a 7000 death toll...

An Honest and reasoned argument that actually takes into account facts .
Did you get lost and post in the wrong thread ?

Heh, maybe. I rant as much as the next guy. I just tend to try and keep that for religious discussions. :)


I do not aggree although you make very good points. I personally believe that the war was justified and wanted to know why Saddam could get away with all he did after he lost the first gulf war.

And that's fair enough. As a Quaker, I'm never going to say a war is justified. However, setting that aside for a moment, this one may very well have been. The issue, though, isn't, "Was this war justified?" so much as, "Was this war legal?" or, more to the point, "Was this really the war we were told it was?"

Honestly, it's a toss up. I'm a big fan of the United State and our Constitution and I don't like to think that the UN supercedes our rights to act in our own best interests when we are honestly threatened. Hence, were WMDs found and were ties to al-Qaeda found and were a plan to use these WMDs against the US located, it would honestly, and this somewhat shames me to admit, not have mattered what the UN Security Council authorized and what it didn't. The fact is that, while I have a lot of respect for the UN as well and what it tries to accomplish, it is as riddled with corruption as a month old corpse lying on the equator. There exists, to my mind, a serious doubt that, should US interests ever been seriously threatened, the UN would act in our best interests or allow us to act in our best interests.

However, with that said, Steph pointed out a very good thing the other day. We are a founding member and are still a part of it. Thus, until we renounce our membership in it (which I still think would be a mistake, although I'm not as sure about this as I once was), we are honor bound to behave by it's rules and dictates in as they do not conflict with the laws and freedoms of our country. Or language to that effect. It's late.

Anyway, for us to claim to be upholding UN law while flaunting it is a dangerous precedent both for us and for the world and, sadly, that is what I believe we did. If we no longer wish to be constrained by UN regulation, then we must leave it. Otherwise, we're no better than a cheating husband, steping out on a wife who knows we're unfaithful and is powerless to stop us and doesn't even ask us about it anymore because when she opens her mouth, we either ignore her or pop her one or threaten to cut up her credit cards. At least she's powerless until she pulls a Farah Fawcett on us and sets our bed on fire.

This is sort of beside the point, though. The whole UN thing aside, the fact remains that we were consciously misled by our government into the timing of the war. Perhaps the war itself was inevitable (again, working hard to set aside the whole Quaker thing here) and perhaps it was justified. What was not was the rationale given to us for it. That is where I take exception to the behavior of the administration. Not for fighting what was potentially a unavoidable war, but for lying to us to do it and pissing off the rest of the world and furthering the exact kind of destability and hatred that the war was supposedly trying to rectify.


After 9-11 Saddam became an endangered species because of the theorys on the long run fight against terrorist depended on Iraq being a democracy after the removal of saddam. If you care to look the neo cons actually advocated it to the first Bush but he was concerned ..with good reason ..by the fallout of removing an Arab leader.

True. Everyone wanted him gone since the fallout back at the end of the Iran/Iraq war. Bush The Elder should probably have gone ahead and removed him back in GWI, but hind sight is 20/20 and it's very possible that the instability from the recent collapse of the Soviet Union could have created a very nasty situation in that region. And like I mentioned, the Iraq Liberation Act was passed in 1998, under Clinton's watch. Saddam was indeed going down. The thing is, Bush started the ball rolling before the last chad was even counted. He was bound and determined to take him out on his watch. I'm not even going to speculate as to his motivations, because that's an entirely different argument. However, the single-mindedness with which he and his administration approached this goal is highly suspect to me, given the situation as it stands now. Furthermore, it comes back again to the why and wherefore of the timing and what we were told. There was manipulation and plausible deniability on a scale not seen since Iran/Contra. The fact remains, however, that the reason we were given for action to be taken at the time it was taken was wrong. I maintain that the administration, all the way up to the top, knew damn good and well it was wrong, but there's evidence supporting both sides and the truth is the truth is the first victim of politics.


After 9-11 it became critical to some to put the plan in action .

But why? Iraq was not involved in 9/11 in any way, shape or form. What was the rationale for going into Iraq, a country that was stable (if slimey), secular and opposed to al-Qaeda because of it's religious ties? If there were evidence that Hussein was somehow complicit in the 9/11 attacks or even was inspired by them to mount his own offensive against us, then there might have been a legitimate call to action. The fact is, though, that no such evidence exists and no such inspiration occured. Bush's own people have concluded that, even if Hussein could have gotten ahold of WMDs, he wouldn't use them against us, but against Iran...which is exactly what we paid him a shitload of money to do back in the 80s.

No, I just don't see any justification for the war as was presented to us. If it was presented as a humanitarian war, that might have been different. As it was, we were duped and led to believe something that simply wasn't the case. And because of it, our men and women are dead and, in the cold dark part of my soul that I don't always like to acknowledge exists, those men and women are more important to me than some theoretical Iraqis who Hussein was trampling on.


history will tell if they are right . I believe they are right BUT I do not like the way They are going about it .

Well, fair enough. Again, it's such a mixed situation that you can say they are right and wrong at the same time. I'm going to stick with my position that their wrongs are outweighing their rights, though. :)


I am still pissed that the idiots let themselves be fooled by the whole WMD affair and the world will never forgive the United States for it ..and with good reason

That's the thing, though. I don't believe they were "fooled" for a minute. And, frankly, if they were, then I have absolutely NO confidence in their ability to make decisions of this importance. When the whole world is telling you don't do this, and you do it, and then you can't even admit you're wrong, there's a problem and there can't be that kind of problem in the leadership of our country. Those kinds of "mistakes" can't happen. If they do happen...well, any other job on the planet, a mistake of that caliber would have been grounds for a pink slip and a lovely jaunt in the "improving" economy.


Maybe someday the Democrats will find someone we can vote for and still be able to sleep at night.

LOL, fat chance. :)


or maybe both partys will go back to moderation.

LOL, even fatter chance. :) Although, to be fair, the Democrats should get the hell away from moderation and actually remember what the devil they stand for. Of course, the Republicans should move back in from the lunatic fringe and remember what THEY stand for, also.


Right now I feel I might just as well hope for lesbian monkeys in leather riding unicycles . I am afraid they will be running things before I see another moderate .

I'd vote for lesbian monkeys in leather riding unicycles. At least you'd know what you were getting.

we left Vietnam...didnt we?

You know, it's probably a mistake to use Vietnam as an example for either side of this question.

depends when we "lose"...

If we lose now we take a 2000 death toll...

If we "lose" in 2009 we take a 7000 death toll...

only 7000 by 2009? Well, that's progress, at least.

Anyway, that's frankly untrue at this point. We're there. We have to leave there better than it is now or it will get worse than it was before we went there in the first place. Should that happen, then 7,000 dead may very well be a shockingly conservative estimate.

Leaving now solves nothing and just makes the future worse.

Looks like I was 50/50 on my predictions. The United for Peace movement managed to hit their attendance target, according to one source interviewed by the AP.
[/quote]
The rally stretched through the day and into the night, a marathon of music, speechmaking and dissent on the National Mall. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey, noting that organizers had hoped to draw 100,000 people, said, "I think they probably hit that."
[/quote]

On the other hand, prominent Democrats all left town. Al Gore was a no-show, as was Howard Dean. I guess their convictions against the war don't extend this far. I'm really disappointed that Cindy McKinney and John Conyers didn't show up.

So, the UFP group did find a lot of people that had nothing to do on a nice Saturday afternoon, but couldn't find anyone in government that wants to take them seriously. I'd say the radical anti-war movement has a little ways to go before it's mainstream.

Maybe I'm stupid, but I thought the Iraq War ended a long time ago. Aren't we in the reconstruction phase now? Yeah, it's violent, obviously, but so was reconstruction after the American Civil War. Nobody considered that the actual war. Is there any dispute that the American government toppled the former ruler of Iraq and established a new order? So, if the war ended a while ago, the protest's about abandoning the reconstruction efforts, right? I'd just like to clarify terms. Thanks.

I was at the one in London. It was great.

Maybe I'm stupid, but I thought the Iraq War ended a long time ago. Aren't we in the reconstruction phase now?

Correct. We are in the reconstruction phase.

Yeah, it's violent, obviously, but so was reconstruction after the American Civil War.

And the reconstruction in Germany and Japan were also pretty violent as well at the end of WWII

Nobody considered that the actual war. Is there any dispute that the American government toppled the former ruler of Iraq and established a new order? So, if the war ended a while ago, the protest's about abandoning the reconstruction efforts, right? I'd just like to clarify terms. Thanks.

You could say that yea!

Here's the thing. No one is disputing that he committed human rights atrocities. No one is even disputing that he violated UN cease-fires. What is in disputation is the response to these issues and the fact that neither of them was used as the main justification for action when it happened.

Read up on Bush's September 2002 Speech to the United Nations General Assembly. He went into detail of Hussein's Human Rights abuses first thing. That wasn't the only thing he mentioned. He also mentioned the fact that Hussein was violating 16 UN resolutions as well as the UN Cease-fire (which was one of those 16 UN Resolutions but that's a technicality.

Human rights violations were never used as the main thrust to incite a "Get Er Done" attitude. It was simply, "He's got WMD and is going to use them on us and he has ties with Bin Laden so we have to go in there now."

Read Bush's September 2002 speech. He goes into detail about it. :rolleyes:

The fact is that Bush had his sights on Iraq since he was elected. Back in 2000, part of the Republican platform was the implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act (which was, incidentally, passed by Congress in 1998) which outlined, among other goals, the ouster of Saddam and the instatement of the Iraqi National Congress.

WOW! Talk about rewriting history! It was BILL CLINTON that moved for regime changed in Iraq. Congress approved of it in 1998. Don't blame that on Bush. Also, I doubt we would be in Iraq today if we weren't attacked by terrorists.

Bush, of course, won in 2000 and many of his foriegn policy advisors could be traced back the the right-wing think tank, Project for the New American Century. One of the clear goals of this group was the removal of Hussein from Iraq. The second Bush got into office, Saddam was on borrowed time. According to Paul O'Neill, former treasury secretary, Bush's first security council meeting discussed plans to invade Iraq.

I actually doubt that Hussein was on borrowed time when Bush got elected. Its a nice conspiracy theory though but one that doesn't hold any water whatsoever.

A year later, 9/11 happened and, according to aides who were with Rumsfeld at the time of the attack, his first response was to call for info and to determine if it was good enough to hit Hussein as well as Bin Laden. He supposedly gave orders to "sweep it all up. Things related and not." (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml)

Again, nothing more than a full fledged conspiracy theory. I expected better from you. Nice bit of Information however we are talking about people who remained unnamed. I don't trust sources that go unnamed. Anyway, its still a nice conspiracy theory that holds no water what so ever.

Here's where we start getting to it. In 2002, as a fruit of the announced War on Terrorism and the Bush Doctrine, the infamous Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Force Against Iraq passed Congress (296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate).

This passed in October of 2002. Its a nice read.

The resolution was worded specifically to encourage approval by the UN Security Council before but not require it for military action to occur.

Yep! You are indeed correct here.

As a matter of international law, however, for the US to use force in Iraq, regardless of cease-fire status, a resolution had to be passed by the UN Security Council authorizing that use of force.

Wrong. Under International Law, once a cease-fire is violated, war picks up where it left off. All it requires is for the President to have an authorization from Congress (if US troops are going to be used). Since he got that, he doesn't need UN approval for war.

Now, it is ingenuous in the extreme to say that the US was justified to go into Iraq because Saddam broke the cease-fire when the initial resolution authorizing the Bush to use military action basically said, "Fuck you, UN, we'll do what we want." You can't use laws of an institution to justify an invasion while you are basically ignoring those same laws yourself. So any sort of "justification" that the US might have had in invading Iraq because of broken UN treaties or cease-fires falls because the US wasn't intending on observing UN law anyway.

Read the War Resolution. That is precisely what they did. Invoked past UN resolutions to go into Iraq and to remove Saddam Hussein.

Furthermore, the UN resolution, UN Security Council Resolution 1441, passed in November 2002 and explicitly dealing with weapons inspections in Iraq does not at any time authorize the use of force.

Doesn't matter if it did or not though I do find the phrase Serious Consequences in that resolution. Since Hussein violated 16 Previous ones as well as 1441 (even Hans Blix himself said that Hussein wasn't fully cooperating). In that regard, we used serious consequences.

Both the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador, Jeremy Greenstock, swore up and down that the resolution contained no hidden triggers to war and neither country would act against Iraq without consulting the UN Security Council first. This was basically a smoke screen as the Bush administration had been planning on going into Iraq since 2000 and smelled the opportunity.

I'm not buying the "going into Iraq since 2000" bit so it is rather pointless. The fact remains though that Hussein did violate the Cease-fire. Because of this, we were justified to go into Iraq and remove him.

Now we come back to why Bush acted when he did. True, one of the rationales for the invasion was human rights violations. However, I have said from the get go in 2003 that this was never, EVER, presented as the main reason or the "call to action" that necessitated an invasion, right then, in violation of world opinion, UN law and, frankly, common sense. The reason given to stir the US into a fighting frenzy was WMD. Saddam had them, he was going to use them against us in conjunction with al-Qaeda at any time and the only way to prevent another 9/11 was to go in there and get him. As we know now, all of these reasons given for the precipitous action (which really wasn't so precipitous since it was in planning before the WH stationary had even been changed), were false.

The WMD intel was bad. I will give you that one. No one likes Bad intelligence. Because of Bad intelligence, we used WMD as the primary source. However, it was only ONE and ONLY ONE thing we used to go into Iraq. Human Rights was another thing we used to go into Iraq. I love how people only focus on one thing but not the overall picture.

Paul Wolfwitz, Deputy Secretary of Defence and Karl Rove's Evil Flying Monkey, said in a May 28th, 2003, Vanity Fair interview, "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction." The timing, the call for action, the whole timetable was based on the "slam dunk" of WMDs in Iraq. Not humanitarian aid. Not UN Security Resolutions. WMDs. Pure and simple.

Paul Wolfowitz is a dumbass and George Tenet resigned when it became known that there was no WMD in Iraq. Now ALL the intelligence is now centered under one roof.

So say what you like about cease fires and broken treaties, but understand that they are meaningless because we made them meaningless. Say what you like about humanitarian aid. Everyone admits that he was a petty tyrant who not only needed to be removed but tried for war crimes (although the Reagan administration of the 80s certainly didn't feel quite so harshly about him and managed to basically create him).

That was the politics of the times. We didn't like Iraq all that much but we hated Iran too. However, we wanted neither side to get the upper hand and so......

The fact remains, though, that the reasons we were given as a country to invade Iraq when we did, how we did, with as much fallout as we caused were specious and WERE KNOWN TO BE SPECIOUS from the get go. Bush wanted Iraq. He was going to get it. He'd wanted it since his inaugeration and if some good got accomplished while he was going about it, then fine, but Saddam had a target painted on his back from the second Bush was sworn into office. And it is this along with the subsequent lack of follow-up planning and the political spoil system which is Iraq reconstruction that make me high skeptical of any other explanation of our presence over there and uncomfortably aware that Bush himself may be guilty of violating international law.

You are, of course entitled to your own opinions. YOu are free to believe whatever conspiracy theories you like. I'll continue to live in the real world.

I was at the one in London. It was great.thumbs up.

the iraq war was a big expensive mess. i'm not a peace activist, i am however against spending billions on anything thats pointless.

thumbs up.
Were you on the march/ at the rally?

Were you on the march/ at the rally?no. (had work to do)

but i will vote for Sheehan if she runs for vice-pres...senator...or something like that.

also.. took not of the Democratic leaders that lamed out...(the ones that left..when hurricane Sheehan was coming...)

I don't mind if any candidates are against Sheehan views...just take the microphone and spell it out...don't go hiding.

take the Mic Hillary/Kerry...tell us where you stand...

Read up on Bush's September 2002 Speech to the United Nations General Assembly. He went into detail of Hussein's Human Rights abuses first thing. That wasn't the only thing he mentioned. He also mentioned the fact that Hussein was violating 16 UN resolutions as well as the UN Cease-fire (which was one of those 16 UN Resolutions but that's a technicality.
Read up on UN Resolution 1441 (http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/UN1441.pdf) that was drafted by:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America

AND WAS:

Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002

The Resolution says nothing about human rights, ceasefire, or al-Qaida. It refers to specifically WMD, and only WMD, and nothing in the Resolution gave the right to a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.

I'll continue to live in the real world.
Today would be a good day to start?

*snip*

I'm sorry but under Intl. Law, the US had the right to go into Iraq because of the fact that Saddam Violated the cease-fire.

As for me living in the real world, I already do so why don't you come into the real world yourself.

Read up on Bush's September 2002 Speech to the United Nations General Assembly. He went into detail of Hussein's Human Rights abuses first thing. That wasn't the only thing he mentioned. He also mentioned the fact that Hussein was violating 16 UN resolutions as well as the UN Cease-fire (which was one of those 16 UN Resolutions but that's a technicality.

You miss the point to harp on yours. I never said human rights violations weren't mentioned. What I said was they were never given as the main reason for the plunge to war and invasion. His own people admit this. Because Bush gave a single speech detailing human rights violations in iraq does not mean this was the main thrust of the administation or the foundation they chose to use to build their attack plans on.

Furthermore, as I stated, regardless of Hussein violating UN Resolution or cease-fires, the fact remains that Bush and the Congress basically said they didn't care what the UN said or did and we were going to go in when we felt like it. You can't say that and then claim you're following UN structure.


Read Bush's September 2002 speech. He goes into detail about it. :rolleyes:


Sigh. I read it, listened to it and still feel that when his own people admit the issue they chose was WMDs that it has any relevance. Read his State of the Union address in 2003, just before the actual invasion. Pay particular attention the section where he calls Iraq "a serious and mounting threat to our country." Prior to that, Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. . . . The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

The fact remains that the reframing of the call to action happened only after Charles Duelfer's report showed that the 1991 war destroyed Hussein's chemical weapons, his program and his abilities and sanctions and inspections did indeed keep him from rebuilding them. Bush himself, when responding the the UN Security Council's refusal to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, commented, "This is a matter of weeks, not months," six weeks before the invasion commenced.

It is also interesting to note that Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch feels that the level of suffering caused by the invasion as compared the the virtual non-existance of current or immanent human rights violations in Iraq invalidates any notion that this was a "humanitarian action."

http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm#_Toc58744952



WOW! Talk about rewriting history! It was BILL CLINTON that moved for regime changed in Iraq. Congress approved of it in 1998. Don't blame that on Bush. Also, I doubt we would be in Iraq today if we weren't attacked by terrorists.

I fully mention that this happened under Clinton's watch. I will indeed blame it on Bush, however, because Clinton had the good sense to advocate for it but not plunge our nation into a war it can't get out of for murky goals and even murkier rationales.


I actually doubt that Hussein was on borrowed time when Bush got elected. Its a nice conspiracy theory though but one that doesn't hold any water whatsoever.

LOL, okay, you want to dispute the statements of people who were actually there and the paper trail of evidence indicating that indeed this action was planned from the get go, fine.


Again, nothing more than a full fledged conspiracy theory. I expected better from you. Nice bit of Information however we are talking about people who remained unnamed. I don't trust sources that go unnamed. Anyway, its still a nice conspiracy theory that holds no water what so ever.[quote]

Paul O'Neill refuses to be named? Bob Woodward interviewed and quoted Bush specifically, who said that just five days after 9/11 there was pressure and drive to go after Hussein. Falah Aljibury, who served as Reagan's backdoor to Iraq, even claims to have hosted the meetings developing not one, but two plans to ouster Hussein. And lets not forget the Downing Street Memo that shows we were headed to war by the summer of 2002 and Bush was very interested in making sure that the intelligence fit the goal.

Not a conspiracy theory, unfortunately. It still stands. Bush wanted to take out Hussein because that was one of PNAC's stated goals, 9/11 provided the impetus although erroniously.

[quote]
Wrong. Under International Law, once a cease-fire is violated, war picks up where it left off. All it requires is for the President to have an authorization from Congress (if US troops are going to be used). Since he got that, he doesn't need UN approval for war.

No, not wrong. The cease-fire violated was from 1991 and was set up in different circumstances and at a different time for a wholly different reason. According to your rationale, the US can legally evade at any time, in perpetuity. Resolution 678's text and the history after it indicate that the US did not have UN Security Council approval to act upon a percieved violation of the cease-fire. Without that approval, the US acted incorrectly and can not claim to be upholding UN resolutions while it is in flagrant violation of the UNSC.

The first Gulf War occurred within the scrictures of UN Charter 2(4): All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. This principle prohibits the use of force unless the state is acting in self-defence or in response to the UN Security Council. So, as we were clearly now not acting in self-defence, the only other justification lies in authority from the UN Security Council, which we also clearly did not have.

The best you can do here, the very best, is to claim that pehaps the US didn't violate the letter of international law, but it certainly violated the spirit and when you have a gentleman's agreement form of government such as the UN, violating the spirit is almost more important.


Read the War Resolution. That is precisely what they did. Invoked past UN resolutions to go into Iraq and to remove Saddam Hussein.

Past resolutions that they had no right to invoke as they had told an uncooperative UN that they would like their approval, but didn't need it. You can't claim to be protecting something while you're violating it. That's like a rapist claiming to be protecting a victim from her virginity. Furthermore, those prior resolutions gave the US no right to use hostilities against Iraq, so to claim the invasion was justified under them is not only misleading, but plainly false.


Doesn't matter if it did or not though I do find the phrase Serious Consequences in that resolution. Since Hussein violated 16 Previous ones as well as 1441 (even Hans Blix himself said that Hussein wasn't fully cooperating). In that regard, we used serious consequences.

The resolution never authorized the use of force. The UN Security Council made it crystal clear that they did not authorize the use of force. Whatever mandate is conferred by the phrase, "Serious Consequences", it is abundantly clear that the use of force was not intended.


I'm not buying the "going into Iraq since 2000" bit so it is rather pointless. The fact remains though that Hussein did violate the Cease-fire. Because of this, we were justified to go into Iraq and remove him.

So you can't buy that Bush and PNAC wanted Hussein gone since 2000, but you're completely okay with basing an invasion on a 12 year old resolution that never authorized the use of force to begin with and was developed to address a completely different situation? That's nicely selective.


The WMD intel was bad. I will give you that one. No one likes Bad intelligence. Because of Bad intelligence, we used WMD as the primary source. However, it was only ONE and ONLY ONE thing we used to go into Iraq. Human Rights was another thing we used to go into Iraq. I love how people only focus on one thing but not the overall picture.

It was THE one we used to go into Iraq. It was why we used the timetable we did. It was the reason we, as a country, were given for the need to act and act now, when it clearly violated the urging of the rest of the world. His own people have said this and it is clear reframing happened only after, ONLY AFTER, his own inspector, Duelfer, found absolutely no evidence of WMDs stockpiles or a WMD program. I love how people completely ignore the abundance of evidence to reframe their argument.


Paul Wolfowitz is a dumbass and George Tenet resigned when it became known that there was no WMD in Iraq. Now ALL the intelligence is now centered under one roof.

Not even going to touch this one.


That was the politics of the times. We didn't like Iraq all that much but we hated Iran too. However, we wanted neither side to get the upper hand and so......

We sat blithely by while Hussein used chemical weapons on Iran. Amazing how the politics of the times changes, isn't it?


You are, of course entitled to your own opinions. YOu are free to believe whatever conspiracy theories you like. I'll continue to live in the real world.

And you are quite free to believe whatever revisionist history you wish or that International Law can be upheld and violated all at the same time. Maybe next time you get a traffic ticket, you can convince the police officer to let you go because, "You were speeding to catch a speeder."

I'm sorry but under Intl. Law, the US had the right to go into Iraq because of the fact that Saddam Violated the cease-fire.

No it patently did not as it was basing it's action on a a 12 year old resolution that never authorized the continuation of the use of force and was clearing acting against the wishes of the UN Security Council in the here and now. By Article 2, point 4 of the UN Charter, the US had no mandate to invade Iraq.

No it patently did not as it was basing it's action on a a 12 year old resolution that never authorized the continuation of the use of force and was clearing acting against the wishes of the UN Security Council in the here and now. By Article 2, point 4 of the UN Charter, the US had no mandate to invade Iraq.

I'm sorry but you are sadly mistaken. The US did have the right to go back into Iraq because of the Iraqi violation of the Cease-Fire.

Also, we didn't need UN approval to go to war. Last time I checked, all we need is authorization from Congress which the President Got.

I'm sorry but you are sadly mistaken. The US did have the right to go back into Iraq because of the Iraqi violation of the Cease-Fire.

Say it all you want, doesn't make it true.

Fact: The cease-fire in question was based on a 12 year old resolution that was in response to an entirely different situation.

Fact: Article 2, point 4, of the UN Charter clearly states: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Fact: The US action against Iraq, regardless of the 1991 resolution, was clearly against "the Purposes of the United Nations" as displayed by the demeanor of the UN Security Council and the passage of UN Resolution 1441. (by the way, Canuck, I couldn't get your link to work).

Conclusion: The US is in legal violation of international law by an unjustified invasion of a sovereign power without express support by the UN Security Council.

The resolutions funtion under the ambit of the charter. The charter is very, very clear on this point. The US violated the UN Charter, pure and simple.

Was it justified in doing so? That's another argument entirely. But make no mistake that, under purely legal strictures, the US was in the wrong.


Also, we didn't need UN approval to go to war. Last time I checked, all we need is authorization from Congress which the President Got.

This I'm not disputing. Congress gave him authorization and he used it. I would suggest they gave him authorization on false pretenses, but that is another argument entirely.

*snip*

Fact is, it doesn't matter how long a cease-fire was in effect. Once it is violated, war picks up where it lefts off. That is international law. Since Saddam violated the cease-fire agreement, the allies were within their rights to go back in.

Under Intl. Law, that is how it goes. Its always been like that.

This I'm not disputing. Congress gave him authorization and he used it. I would suggest they gave him authorization on false pretenses, but that is another argument entirely.

Your right. It is a debate for another day.

I'm sorry but you are sadly mistaken. The US did have the right to go back into Iraq because of the Iraqi violation of the Cease-Fire.
WRONG again. For about the 100th time:

The United Nations never authorized the no-fly zones. From Iraq's perspective, this is a case of foreign military aircraft encroaching upon the air space of a sovereign nation. As a result, Iraq--like any country--has every legal right to fire upon them.

Give it up Corneliu. Either that or point me to the document that specifically created the no-fly zones and under what authorization. Oh, I know....you can't.

Fact is, it doesn't matter how long a cease-fire was in effect. Once it is violated, war picks up where it lefts off. That is international law. Since Saddam violated the cease-fire agreement, the allies were within their rights to go back in.

Under Intl. Law, that is how it goes. Its always been like that.

And what I'm trying to tell you and what you have offered absolutely no refutation for, is that the resolution that you are basing your claim of International Law on functions only under the charter of the United Nations. A charter which explicitly states that no member nation will use force against another nation if that force usage is not condoned by the United Nations. This superceeds the cease-fire you are referring to.

The US does not have a blank check to invade whenever they feel like it. Resolution 678 only authorizes use of force in cooperation with the government of Kuwait. Resolution 687 only offers one provision for the continuation of hostilities, and that is crossing of the Iraq/Kuwait boarder, and even then only with UNSC approval.

Argue about the advisability of the action or the justification all you want. Do not, however, make the mistake of thinking the US acted in accordance with International Law, because it clearly, CLEARLY, didn't.

No it patently did not as it was basing it's action on a a 12 year old resolution that never authorized the continuation of the use of force and was clearing acting against the wishes of the UN Security Council in the here and now. By Article 2, point 4 of the UN Charter, the US had no mandate to invade Iraq.
There has been lots written on this topic and if anything, it would appear that it is the US that were the violators in this regard:

Annan Says Iraqi No-Fly Zone Firing No Violation (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/nofly/2002/1119nofly.htm)

The United States is alone among the 15-member Security Council member states in insisting that the no-fly zones are included in the resolution and that firing on the aircraft policing the two zones is therefore a breach of 1441.

The Abuse of the No-Fly Zones as an Excuse for War (http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0212nofly.html)

However, the United Nations never authorized the no-fly zones. From Iraq's perspective, this is a case of foreign military aircraft encroaching upon the air space of a sovereign nation. As a result, Iraq--like any country--has every legal right to fire upon them. When the cease-fire in the Gulf War went into effect in March 1991, the Kurds in the north and the Shiite Muslims in the south launched a rebellion against Saddam Hussein's regime. The United States banned the use of Iraqi fixed-wing aircraft, which could be of danger to American personnel, but allowed Iraq to use helicopter gunships, which were crucial in reversing the tide of the rebellions and resulted in brutal repression by the Iraqi armed forces against the rebellious populations. In response, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 688, demanding that Iraq cease its repression of minority communities in the country. No enforcement mechanisms were specified, however.

Expect continued denial from another poster. He will NEVER give up, even though he is dead wrong. :eek:

Expect continued denial from another poster. He will NEVER give up, even though he is dead wrong. :eek:

Meh, I can deal with denial, just so long as it's backed up with at least some facts and reasoning, rather than a "Nuh-uh, you're wrong!" repetition argument.

WRONG again. For about the 100th time:

The United Nations never authorized the no-fly zones. From Iraq's perspective, this is a case of foreign military aircraft encroaching upon the air space of a sovereign nation. As a result, Iraq--like any country--has every legal right to fire upon them.

Give it up Corneliu. Either that or point me to the document that specifically created the no-fly zones and under what authorization. Oh, I know....you can't.

Where did this come from? No where in this entire debate did I mention the No Fly Zone. Nice try though CanuckHeaven!

Meh, I can deal with denial, just so long as it's backed up with at least some facts and reasoning, rather than a "Nuh-uh, you're wrong!" repetition argument.
This is the problem. He can't back it up and you and I know it. It is just his opinion, so do not expect any "facts" from him.

Where did this come from? No where in this entire debate did I mention the No Fly Zone. Nice try though CanuckHeaven!
Okay then, please state when, where, and how, according to YOUR claim that Iraq violated THE ceasefire. Please back it up with PROOF.

Okay then, please state when, where, and how, according to YOUR claim that Iraq violated THE ceasefire. Please back it up with PROOF.

By not fully complying with all 17 UN Resolutions. By not complying with the cease-fire resolution passed by the UN!

By not fully complying with all 17 UN Resolutions. By not complying with the cease-fire resolution passed by the UN!
PROOF? Please state when, where, and how. You don't have any proof whatsoever because none is available. :eek:

By not fully complying with all 17 UN Resolutions. By not complying with the cease-fire resolution passed by the UN!

And again I point out that those resolutions are only good under the domain of the UN Charter, which the US clearly violated by going against the expressed wishes of the UNSC. Any material breach by Iraq is superceeded by the gross breach of UN charter by the US.

Show me any proof or evidence suggesting that those resolutions overpower the original charter that gives them purpose, and perhaps you would have a point. However, when the UN agrees that there was no cease-fire break in the first place, your argument has all the impact of cobwebs.

Okay then, please state when, where, and how, according to YOUR claim that Iraq violated THE ceasefire. Please back it up with PROOF.

Well, possibly he's referring to the supposed acquisition of arms specifically banned in Iraq by UN resolution.

You 2 believe what you will. No amount of proof will ever convince you that the war in Iraq is 100% legal so I'm no longer going to try.

And what I'm trying to tell you and what you have offered absolutely no refutation for, is that the resolution that you are basing your claim of International Law on functions only under the charter of the United Nations. A charter which explicitly states that no member nation will use force against another nation if that force usage is not condoned by the United Nations. This superceeds the cease-fire you are referring to.

The US does not have a blank check to invade whenever they feel like it. Resolution 678 only authorizes use of force in cooperation with the government of Kuwait. Resolution 687 only offers one provision for the continuation of hostilities, and that is crossing of the Iraq/Kuwait boarder, and even then only with UNSC approval.

Argue about the advisability of the action or the justification all you want. Do not, however, make the mistake of thinking the US acted in accordance with International Law, because it clearly, CLEARLY, didn't.


You can actually see the United States attempt to justify not acting in accordance with the UN in the senate resolution. The same resolution that attempts to justify the action under international law . Saying that they acted against international law is a stretch .

The United States acted for what it considers its own best interest ...period end of story..leave the bullshit to the lawyers .

You 2 believe what you will. No amount of proof will ever convince you that the war in Iraq is 100% legal so I'm no longer going to try.

Actually, you failed to convince me too.

Well, possibly he's referring to the supposed acquisition of arms specifically banned in Iraq by UN resolution.

:D Look at the dates

Security Council Warns Iraqis to Halt Cease-Fire Violations
By John M. Goshko
The Washington Post
United Nations

The U.N. Security Council warned Iraq Thursday to immediately stop violating the Persian Gulf War cease-fire agreement, and U.N. officials said the first test of Baghdad's intentions could come next week when a U.N. team goes to Iraq, possibly with instructions to destroy disputed missiles.

Even if Iraq cooperates and allows the missiles to be destroyed, the officials said, it still would be about two months before they could tell if President Saddam Hussein's government is complying with all the cease-fire conditions it accepted last April after its defeat in the war.

The officials said Iraq's actions in the next two months should make clear whether it no longer is seeking to evade the agreement's requirements that it give up all its large-scale weapons, such as ballistic missiles, and the remnants of its nuclear arms program, including a scientific research center at Al-Atheer, 40 miles from Baghdad.

In the meantime, diplomatic sources here said, the Security Council probably will have to mark time before deciding whether to increase the pressure on Iraq through new economic sanctions or renewed military action. In an echo of the threats that have been used to overcome Iraq's past attempts to defy U.N. inspectors probing its weapons activities, there has been speculation here that the United States might make an air strike against Al-Atheer to put Baghdad on notice that further evasions of the cease-fire will not be tolerated.

The council Thursday ended a special two-day meeting on the issue by rejecting Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz's arguments that Baghdad has met the cease-fire conditions in Security Council Resolution 687. Instead the council issued a statement endorsed by all 15 members that concluded:

"The government of Iraq has not yet complied fully and unconditionally with those obligations, must do so and must immediately take the appropriate actions in this regard. The council hopes that the goodwill expressed by the deputy prime minister of Iraq will be matched by deeds."

Rolf Ekeus, head of the U.N. special commission charged with eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, said he is sending a technical team to Iraq this weekend and is considering giving it instructions to get rid of missiles and related equipment that Baghdad wants to preserve. Ekeus added that if the team has orders to destroy the missiles and encounters interference from Saddam's government, he will have to report to the council that Iraq still is failing to observe the cease-fire agreement.

Both Ekeus and Hans Blix, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, refused to set deadlines for Iraqi compliance with the provisions of Resolution 687, but said that the next two months should provide a fair test of whether Iraq is cooperating.

Blix, whose organization would be responsible for disposing of the Al-Atheer complex, said the IAEA plans "very soon" to announce its proposals for what to do with the installation. He refused to elaborate, but gave a strong signal that the IAEA will recommend destruction when he was asked about Iraqi contentions that the complex has dual-use capabilities that could be used for peaceful purposes and thus should be preserved.

"Does any part of it have dual-use capabilities?" he replied. "I suppose that the cafeteria does."

Iraq has used that argument to thwart attempts to destroy other arms-related equipment, even though Resolution 687 says Ekeus's commission has sole authority to decide what should be eliminated. Ekeus said Thursday that his commission will continue to insist that destruction of Iraq's missile arsenal must include not only its long-range ballistic missiles but launchers, production and repair facilities and cruise-type non-ballistic missiles.

"There can be absolutely no exceptions," he said. "That would be totally unacceptable."

In Washington, CIA Director Robert M. Gates also urged caution, saying, "We believe Baghdad has been able to preserve significant elements of each of the special weapons programs."

Gates, speaking at a conference sponsored by Richard M. Nixon's presidential library, said, "And of course Iraq's scientists and engineers retain their know-how. So once Iraq is free to begin rebuilding its special weapons capabilities, it will not start from scratch."

The question now, U.N. diplomats said, is whether Baghdad will bow to the Security Council's demands, or, as British Ambassador Richard Hannay said, "It is deeds, not words that will determine what happens next."

Some sources here expressed mild encouragement at Aziz's comments to the council Thursday. Wednesday, he took an uncompromising line, apparently trying to convince the Third World members that Iraq is being victimized by a U.S.-led plot to force Saddam out of power.

However, that tactic failed to dent the council's united insistence that Iraq live up fully to all the obligations in Resolution 687. Thursday he shifted to a more flexible line, talking about consulting closely with Ekeus and Blix to reach a satisfactory resolution of weapons issues.

On Wednesday, he had avoided addressing charges that Iraq has committed massive human rights violations against its Kurdish and Shiite Muslim minorities. Thursday he characterized charges that Iraqi forces have made artillery bombardments and other attacks on civilian targets as "an accusation, not a question. I reject the accusation."

He denied that Baghdad is blockading Kurdish areas in northern Iraq, saying that Kurdish rebel control over these regions has prevented the central government from delivering food and medical supplies or paying the salaries of civil servants. He also said that any attacks on Shiites or other refugees in the south are the work of "outlaws," fostered in some cases by agitation from Iraq's hostile neighbor, Iran.

Aziz urged the council not to renew a resolution permitting Iraq to sell $1.6 billion in oil exports to meet its basic needs, because Baghdad rejects the monitoring provisions as an infringement of its sovereignty. Instead he suggested that Iraq be permitted to sell oil to Security Council members-including former customers such as the United States, France and Britain-in exchange for agreement to buy food and medicine from them.

However, his arguments failed to impress U.S. Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, who said: "I am left with the final, unfortunate conclusion that ... Iraq has every willingness to discuss but not to comply. I think that is a miscalculation, and I hope that miscalculation will be reconsidered."

Gates, in Washington, described Saddam's hold as slipping but said it was questionable whether an internal opposition could be mounted.

Saddam's control of his country's "territory and people is eroding, mainly because he has not been able to extract his country from the grip of U.N. sanctions," despite his "cynical manipulation of food and medical supplies," Gates said.

"Even so," he added, "fear and intimidation continue to prevent his opponents from acting individually, while disunity and the pervasive security system impede the formation of a collective resistance.

"Consequently, it is difficult to say when public frustration or political and military defections will lead to his overthrow."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 1992 by The Tech. All rights reserved.
This story was published on Friday, March 13, 1992.
Volume 112, Number 13
The story began on page 2 and jumped to page 3.
This article may be freely distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice, but may not be reprinted without the express written permission of The Tech. Write to archive@the-tech.mit.edu for additional details.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Options:

In their own words you will find the aswer you so despirately seek . :D

March 19, 2003

LEGAL BASIS FOR USING FORCE IN IRAQ

United Nations Security Council resolutions already adopted by the Council provide authority under international law for use of force against Iraq.

Before the Gulf War, the Security Council adopted UNSCR 678, authorizing use of "all necessary means" to uphold UNSCR 660 (demanding Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait) and subsequent resolutions, and to "restore international peace and security in the area." This was the basis for use of force against Iraq during the Gulf War.

In April 1991, the Security Council imposed weapons of mass destruction obligations on Iraq as a condition of the cease-fire declared under UNSCR 687. Because Iraq has materially breached these weapons of mass destruction obligations, which were essential to the restoration of peace and security in the area, the basis for the cease-fire has been removed, and the use of force is authorized under UNSCR 678.

This has been the longstanding position of the United States and has been reflected in the Security Council's practice since UNSCR 687 was adopted in 1991. For example, when coalition forces used force against Iraq in 1993 in response to Iraqi violations, the UN Secretary General stated publicly that the coalition "had received a mandate from the Security Council according to resolution 678, and the cause of the raid was the violation by Iraq of Resolution 687 concerning the cease-fire. So, as Secretary General of the United Nations, I can say that this action was taken and conforms to the resolutions of the Security Council and conformed to the Charter of the United Nations." No new resolution authorizing "all necessary means" was required.

Coalition forces also relied on Iraq's material breaches of the UNSCR 687 cease-fire conditions - namely Iraq's ongoing weapons of mass destruction activities and its refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors -- as the international legal basis for airstrikes against Iraq in 1998, in Operation Desert Fox.

In UNSCR 1441 (2002), the Security Council unanimously decided again that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687. In the same resolution, the Council recalled that it had warned Iraq repeatedly that it would face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

The Council decided, however, to afford Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply with its disarmament obligations. Regrettably, Iraq failed to submit a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of its weapons of mass destruction holdings and failed to cooperate fully in the implementation of the resolution. The Council had decided previously that such violations of UNSCR 1441 "shall constitute a further material breach."

The legal authority to use force to address Iraq's material breaches is clear. Nothing in UNSCR 1441 requires a further resolution, or other form of Security Council approval, to authorize the use of force. "Material breaches" of the cease-fire conditions serve as a predicate for use of force against Iraq. And there can be no doubt that Iraq is in "material breach" of its obligations, as the Council reaffirmed in UNSCR 1441.

As President Bush has said, we are now acting to compel Iraq's compliance with these resolutions because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.


Press Services



Press Release Archive

Foreign Press Center




Information Services



Information Resource Ctr.

Dept. of State Publications
Electronic Journals
LISTSERVs
Washington File
World Factbook File - Ukraine

Information Offices:
White House
Department of State
NATO
United Nations



Other topics



Economic Reform
International Security
Democracy & Human Rights
Global Issues


Top

You 2 believe what you will. No amount of proof will ever convince you that the war in Iraq is 100% legal so I'm no longer going to try.
You are "no longer going to try" because you don't have any proof to offer, and for you to suggest that it is our ignorance to blame in this matter is disengenuous.

You lost this debate because you don't have the facts, period.

I posted the facts for you . Or are the facts not good enough facts ? Is it because you do not feel that they represent the alternate universe you seem to inhabit ? These events actually happened during the 10 years after the first Gulf war . You must have missed them . :D

You can actually see the United States attempt to justify not acting in accordance with the UN in the senate resolution. The same resolution that attempts to justify the action under international law . Saying that they acted against international law is a stretch .

The United States acted for what it considers its own best interest ...period end of story..leave the bullshit to the lawyers .

It's no more of a stretch than saying we are within our legal rights to use the umbrella of a 12 year old resolution passed, with very specific provisions to determine the continuation of the use of force, in a different time for a different situation which was clearly not the will of the contemporary UN Security Council. That's a blank check for force that was not intended and does not exist.

As for the other, you're very right. The point of contention, however, was the legality of that action.

:D Look at the dates
In their own words you will find the aswer you so despirately seek . :D
Did you check the dates involved?

Copyright 1992 by The Tech. All rights reserved.
This story was published on Friday, March 13, 1992.

That was long before UN Resolution 1441. Nice try though. :eek:

You are "no longer going to try" because you don't have any proof to offer, and for you to suggest that it is our ignorance to blame in this matter is disengenuous.

You lost this debate because you don't have the facts, period.

Sorry but under I.L., you violate a cease-fire, war picks up where it left off. That is international law. That is a known fact.

Saddam has violated International Law. Beer and Guns provided evidence of it even though, those of us who actually follow the news could tell you.

You are so closed minded that you can't even comprehend when someone spouts a truth from the otherside.

Have I lost the debate? No I didn't. I have decided to take the better part of valor and retreat before I say something that could and would be considered flaming.

More forgotten history :D
Tracking Number: 190820
Title: "Aid to Iraq Must Be Controlled Externally, Says US." Sharply denouncing Iraq's violations of the cease-fire agreement that ended the Persian Gulf war, US Ambassador Thomas Pickering insisted that any provision of aid to Iraqi citizens must be strictly controlled and supervised by the international community. (910718)

Translated Title: Ayuda a Irak debe controlarse desde el exterior, afirma EU. (910718)
Author: GOMEZ, BERTA (USIA STAFF WRITER)
Date: 19910718

Text:
*POL409

07/18/91

AID TO IRAQ MUST BY CONTROLLED EXTERNALLY, SAYS U.S. (Pickering, Bolton decry Iraqi defiance) (820) By Berta Gomez USIA Staff Writer

Washington -- Sharply denouncing Iraq's violations of the cease-fire agreement that ended the Persian Gulf war, U.S.Ambassador Thomas Pickering insisted July 18 that any provision of aid to Iraqi citizens must be strictly controlled and supervised by the international community.

"First and foremost we must continue to deny (Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein) any external financial resources," added Pickering, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Testifying before a joint hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittees on Europe and the Middle East and on Human Rights and International Organizations, Pickering noted that reports of significant suffering on the part of Iraqi civilians have led the United States and its allies to consider a partial easing of the sanctions that were imposed after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait last August.

Several post-war reports, including one prepared by Prince Saddrudin Aga Khan, the U.N. coordinator for relief efforts in Iraq, have suggested that Iraq be allowed to sell a portion of its oil to pay for food, medicine and other badly needed materials.

However, the Baghdad regime's "dismaying" behavior over the past year, and particularly since the cease-fire, require a careful handling of any such program, Pickering warned.

The U.N. must have "total control" over the proceeds of any future Iraqi oil sales, and over any purchases made with those proceeds, he said. Similarly, the United Nations must be allowed to conduct "strict monitoring" of the distribution of food and other humanitarian goods "to ensure that Saddam cannot continue his practice of diversion of foodstuffs from the needy to his party and military cronies," he said.

Pickering emphasized that Iraqi oil revenues should be used to pay for the implementation of the cease-fire resolutions, such as the costs of destroying its stocks of weapons of mass destruction.

He described the overall implementation of the cease-fire resolution as "sharply mixed." While the United Nations and its specialized agencies have demonstrated competence,


GE 2 POL409 creativity and professionalism, "we have been repeatedly frustrated and -- in the case of its nuclear weapons program -- dismayed by a pattern of Iraqi behavior."

That behavior, he said, has ranged "from delaying tactics in some areas -- such as in the repatriation of people and property -- to grave and outright violations of the cease- fire agreement in the area of Iraq's nuclear activities."

The ambassador warned that "Iraq must not miscalculate a second time. Its pattern of reckless defiance of the expressed will of the international community is intolerable."

He noted that the Security Council's July 12 resolution, which demands from Iraq a full accounting of its nuclear program as well as its total cooperation with the United Nations inspection team, is designed to address that problem. "The United States, together with other members of the Security Council," Pickering said, "are determined that it cannot be allowed to continue."

Pickering was joined at the hearing by John Bolton, assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, who was similarly harsh in his assessment of Iraq's comportment.

The Baghdad regime, he said, has lied to the United Nations about the extent and nature of its nuclear program, has harassed and threatened Iraqi civilians and has interfered with the distribution of humanitarian relief -- all in clear violation of the cease-fire agreement signed by the Baghdad government. "In short," Bolton said, "Saddam Hussein is a liar."

Bolton briefly discussed a resolution sponsored by Representative Timothy Penny (Democrat of Minnesota), which would have the United Nations release frozen Iraqi assets and turn them over to UNICEF (the United Nations Children's Fund) for the provision of relief in Iraq.

"While we are all sympathetic to the needs of the Iraqi people and to the intentions of this amendment," Bolton said, "we believe that the first initiative must come from Baghdad. They have shown no such humanitarian indications."

He added that a number of U.S. citizens have legitimate legal claims against those assets and that, moreover, "President Bush has made it clear that we would not lift sanctions in that regard against Iraq while Saddam Hussein remains in power."

When asked if the United States and its coalition partners have the authority to use force to assure Iraqi compliance with the cease-fire agreement, Bolton replied that


GE 3 POL409 President Bush has indicated that existing U.N. resolutions "do give us sufficient authority."

He added that an additional U.N. Security Council resolution dealing specifically with Iraq's violations of the cease-fire agreement "is being discussed."

Asked by committee members to specify "at which point" military force would considered to be an appropriate response, Pickering said he was unable to answer because "that's the sort of thing that presidents decide." NNNN


File Identification: 07/18/91, PO-409; 07/18/91, EP-422; 07/18/91, EU-415; 07/18/91, NE-413; 07/19/91, AR-507; 07/19/91, AS-510
Product Name: Wireless File
Product Code: WF
Languages: Spanish
Keywords: IRAQ/Economic & Social; HUMANITARIAN AID; LIVING CONDITIONS; MALNUTRITION; MEDICAL CARE; FOOD SUPPLY; PERSIAN GULF WAR; ARMISTICE; PICKERING, THOMAS; CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY; HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS CMTE; AGA KHAN, SADRUDDIN; IR

some insight

Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq’s Final Opportunity to Comply with Disarmament Obligations
By Frederic L. Kirgis
November 2002


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1441 (November 8, 2002), unanimously deplored Iraq’s lack of compliance with Resolution 687 (1991) on inspection, disarmament and renunciation of terrorism in Iraq, and went on to make several decisions under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. Resolution 687, like Resolution 1441, was adopted under Chapter VII. Chapter VII gives the Council the authority to determine the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, and to take action accordingly.

In paragraph 1 of Resolution 1441, the Council decided that “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations” under relevant resolutions, including Resolution 687, in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with authorized inspectors and its failure to disarm in several respects, including destroying all chemical and biological weapons and placing all of its nuclear-weapons-usable materials under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Council decided to afford Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions.” Resolution 1441 then sets up an enhanced inspection regime and orders Iraq to submit “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 . . . .” Inspections are to be conducted by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the IAEA. Iraq is directed to provide UNMOVIC and IAEA unimpeded access to any and all areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records and means of transport that they wish to inspect, as well as unimpeded and private access to all officials and other persons they wish to interview. The resolution affirms that it is binding on Iraq and demands that Iraq confirm within seven days its intention to comply fully with it. Iraq has reluctantly done so.

In paragraph 4 of Resolution 1441, the Council “Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below.” Paragraph 11 directs the heads of UNMOVIC and IAEA to report immediately to the Council any Iraqi interference with inspection activities, as well as any Iraqi failure to comply with its disarmament obligations. Paragraph 12 decides that the Security Council will “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.” Finally, paragraph 13 says that “the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.” [1] The phrase “serious consequences” has been widely understood to include the use of armed force.

The U.N. Charter obligates all member states to comply with Security Council resolutions adopted under Chapter VII. Consequently, such resolutions are similar to (but not exactly the same as) multilateral treaties in that they are binding instruments under international law. The language of “material breach” in Resolution 1441 is keyed to Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is the authoritative statement of international law regarding material breaches of treaties. Under Article 60 of the Vienna Convention, a material breach is an unjustified repudiation of a treaty or the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of a treaty. Article 60 provides that a party specially affected by a material breach of a multilateral treaty may 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. Article 60 also provides that any non-breaching party may suspend the operation of a multilateral treaty if the treaty is of such a character that a material breach by one party “radically changes the position of every party with respect to the further performance of its obligations under the treaty.”

When the Security Council asserted in paragraph 1 of Resolution 1441 that Iraq is in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including Resolution 687, it appears to have treated those resolutions as being sufficiently like multilateral treaties to be subject to Article 60 of the Vienna Convention. Alternatively, since the U.N. Charter says that Security Council decisions embodied in Chapter VII resolutions are binding on all members, a material breach of such a resolution by a U.N. member state (such as Iraq) would be a material breach of the Charter itself. Since the Charter is a multilateral treaty, Article 60 of the Vienna Convention would apply directly to any material breach of it.

Security Council Resolution 687, adopted at the end of the Gulf War, includes a provision declaring a formal cease-fire between Iraq, Kuwait and the member states (such as the United States) cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with Resolution 678 (1990). Resolution 678 authorized member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area, and thus provided the basis under international law for the allies’ military action in the Gulf War. The determination in Resolution 1441 that Iraq is already in material breach of its obligations under Resolution 687 provides a basis for the decision in paragraph 4 (above) of Resolution 1441 that any further lack of cooperation by Iraq will be a further material breach. If Iraq, having confirmed its intention to comply with Resolution 1441, then fails to cooperate fully with the inspectors, it would open the way to an argument by any specially affected state that it could suspend the operation of the cease-fire provision in Resolution 687 and rely again on Resolution 678. It might also invite an argument that any party to the U.N. Charter could suspend the operation of the cease-fire provision because the material breach would pose a threat to international peace and security and would therefore radically change the position of all U.N. member states under Resolution 687. The argument would point out that the breach would relate to weapons or materials capable of mass destruction that, if put to use, could have an impact not just on regional security, but on worldwide security.

The United States could argue that it is a specially affected state because it is the most prominent target of terrorism, and Iraq’s noncooperation presumably would stem from its intent to develop or retain terrorist capabilities that would likely be directed at U.S. interests. Some other states could be expected to argue, though, that Resolutions 678 and 687 were aimed primarily at neutralizing any viable threat of Iraqi military action directed against other Middle Eastern states, so a violation of Resolution 687 and related resolutions would not “specially affect” the United States. But if the violation poses a broad threat to international peace and security, the United States (and any other like-minded state) might assert that every U.N. member state’s position under Resolution 687 has been radically changed, as outlined above. The counter-argument would be that even if the breach constitutes a threat to the peace, it would not radically change the position of “every party” to the U.N. Charter with respect to its obligations under the resolution.

In any event, the terms of Resolution 1441, paragraph 4 (above), make it clear that a failure of Iraq to cooperate, if reported to the Security Council, would not justify either the United States’ or any other state’s unilateral suspension of the cease-fire provision without giving the Security Council an opportunity to consider the situation and to act under paragraph 12. Resolution 1441, however, does not specify what is to happen if the Security Council convenes under paragraph 12, but does not take action or only takes action that some states, in particular a specially affected state, do not consider adequate under the circumstances. Nor does Resolution 1441 specify what is to happen if a specially affected state at some point concludes that Iraq is not cooperating fully, but the inspectors disagree and thus do not at that point contemplate making a report to the Council under paragraph 4. In such circumstances, the United States and its allies could argue that a material breach has occurred and nothing stands in the way of their suspension of the cease-fire that was based on Resolution 687. They would further argue that, since Resolution 678 (the resolution that authorized member states to take action against Iraq in the first place) has never been rescinded, it provides continuing authority to use “all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area.”

Other states could argue that since the Security Council has decided in Resolution 1441 that certain conduct by Iraq amounts to a material breach, but the Council did not at the same time suspend its own cease-fire and instead decided to give Iraq another chance to comply with its obligations under Resolution 687, only the Council can decide later that Iraq has not cooperated fully in the implementation of Resolution 1441 and that the cease-fire consequently is no longer in force. For example, the representative of Mexico (a current member of the Security Council) said after the vote on Resolution 1441 that the use of force is only valid as a last resort and with prior, explicit authorization from the Council. Mexico does not stand alone in taking that position. It is based on the Charter-based principle that disputes should be settled peacefully, and that only the Security Council can determine when there is a need for coercion. It would be argued that, in light of the emphasis in the Charter on peaceful dispute settlement, Resolution 678 could not be used as an authorization for the use of force after twelve years of cease fire, unless the Security Council says so.

There is some support for the position of Mexico and like-minded states, stemming from the negotiating history of Resolution 1441. The U.S. draft resolution, in paragraph 12 on the reconvening of the Security Council upon receipt of a report of Iraqi noncompliance, said that the purpose would be “to restore international peace and security.” As noted above, paragraph 12 as adopted by the Council says that the purpose is “to secure international peace and security.” The substitution of “secure” for “restore” departs not only from the language proposed by the United States, but also from the language quoted above from Resolution 678. It could imply that the situation now is not the same as it was in 1990, when Resolution 678 was adopted.

The position of Mexico and like-minded states does not regard paragraph 13 of Resolution 1441 (repeating the Council’s warnings to Iraq that it will face “serious consequences” as a result of its continued violations of its obligations) as an explicit authorization of the use of force. The United States might reply that paragraph 13 does authorize the use of force if the Security Council fails to achieve its goals in Iraq, because of the widespread understanding of what is meant by “serious consequences.” Paragraph 13, however, is in the form of a reminder rather than an authorization for action.

Finally, the United States government has argued, wholly apart from Resolution 1441, that it has a right of pre-emptive self defense to protect itself from terrorism fomented by Iraq. For discussion of pre-emptive self-defense in the terrorism context, see the ASIL Insight, “Pre-emptive Action to Forestall Terrorism” (June 2002). [2]

About the Author:
Frederic L. Kirgis is Law School Association Alumni Professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law. He has written a book and several articles on United Nations law, and is a member of the Board of Editors of the American Journal of International Law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Didnt the senate resolution also list the Iraqi violations of the cease fire aggreement ?

I posted the facts for you . Or are the facts not good enough facts ? Is it because you do not feel that they represent the alternate universe you seem to inhabit ? These events actually happened during the 10 years after the first Gulf war . You must have missed them . :D

Its only CH! He can't see facts if they disagree with his viewpoint.

:D Look at the dates

I did, but I'm not sure I see your point.


In their own words you will find the aswer you so despirately seek . :D

Could you provide a link for that second piece? It's interesting and I'd like to read it.

The issue still remains that these resolutions are under UN Charter and, regardless of what happened back in 1991 and 1992, the demeanor of the UNSC as of March 2003 was that the use of force in Iraq was unacceptable at that time. Thus, the US was in violation of the UN Charter themselves.

Its only CH! He can't see facts if they disagree with his viewpoint.

Pot. Kettle. I'm sure you two have met. :rolleyes:

I also posted the legal arguments ..BY A LAWYER... :eek: So now you acually have a basis for rational discussion without pulling shit out your ass and posting it . It will require that you actually read it and can get past all the big words . :D

Sorry but under I.L., you violate a cease-fire, war picks up where it left off. That is international law. That is a known fact.
You keep coming back to this issue. WHEN, WHERE, and HOW did Iraq violate the ceasefire.

Saddam has violated International Law. Beer and Guns provided evidence of it even though, those of us who actually follow the news could tell you.
The US violated International law by invading Iraq, in violation of the UN Charter.

You are so closed minded that you can't even comprehend when someone spouts a truth from the otherside.
Nice ad hominen. You do this when the debate is slipping away?

Have I lost the debate? No I didn't. I have decided to take the better part of valor and retreat before I say something that could and would be considered flaming.
Too late?

I did, but I'm not sure I see your point.


The point is this all started soon after the first Gulf war . The history of cease fire violations and the efforts by Saddam to thwart the UN .
But suddenly in this debate it has all been overlooked and forgotten by one side . I find it rather amusing thats all ;)



Could you provide a link for that second piece? It's interesting and I'd like to read it.

The issue still remains that these resolutions are under UN Charter and, regardless of what happened back in 1991 and 1992, the demeanor of the UNSC as of March 2003 was that the use of force in Iraq was unacceptable at that time. Thus, the US was in violation of the UN Charter themselves.

I'll wait while you look over my follow ups , to answer the ; " where is the proof " question on cease fire violations . I also posted the legal point of view.


http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh92.htm
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/910918-197697.htm
http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V112/N13/iraq.13w.html
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/910718-190820.htm
http://kiev.usembassy.gov/press/030319_iraq-legal_eng.html

I also posted the legal arguments ..BY A LAWYER... :eek: So now you acually have a basis for rational discussion without pulling shit out your ass and posting it . It will require that you actually read it and can get past all the big words . :D
An International lawyer? Please post the link.

International Law Aspects of the Iraq War and Occupation (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm)

This sections examines the legality of the 2003 US-UK war on Iraq. Shortly before the outbreak of hostilities, UN Secretary General stated that the use of force without Council endorsement would "not be in conformity with the Charter" and many legal experts now describe the US-UK attack as an act of aggression, violating international law. Experts also point to illegalities in the US conduct of the war and violations of the Geneva Conventions by the US-UK of their responsibilities as an occupying power. The section also looks at wartime violations on the Iraqi side.

Read the links.

I hate to break this news to you but ...Lawyers do not always aggree on a point of law...in fact I think thats why you have a court and judges. :D

Read what the lawyers say is jutification ...then read what your opposing counsel :D has to say .

BTW are you that much of a moron that you will take a paragraph out of context in a document I have provided and try to use it to prove a point ?

Ummm wait ..you did do that ?

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh92.htm
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/910918-197697.htm
http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V112/N13/iraq.13w.html
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/910718-190820.htm
http://kiev.usembassy.gov/press/030...-legal_eng.html

Go back and take your time reading .

An International lawyer? Please post the link.

International Law Aspects of the Iraq War and Occupation (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm)

This sections examines the legality of the 2003 US-UK war on Iraq. Shortly before the outbreak of hostilities, UN Secretary General stated that the use of force without Council endorsement would "not be in conformity with the Charter" and many legal experts now describe the US-UK attack as an act of aggression, violating international law. Experts also point to illegalities in the US conduct of the war and violations of the Geneva Conventions by the US-UK of their responsibilities as an occupying power. The section also looks at wartime violations on the Iraqi side.

Read the links.

Pay special notice to the part where it says legal basis etc.
because you see that is the part where the attempt to prove the legal basis for attacking will be found . :D

March 19, 2003

LEGAL BASIS FOR USING FORCE IN IRAQ

United Nations Security Council resolutions already adopted by the Council provide authority under international law for use of force against Iraq.

Before the Gulf War, the Security Council adopted UNSCR 678, authorizing use of "all necessary means" to uphold UNSCR 660 (demanding Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait) and subsequent resolutions, and to "restore international peace and security in the area." This was the basis for use of force against Iraq during the Gulf War.

In April 1991, the Security Council imposed weapons of mass destruction obligations on Iraq as a condition of the cease-fire declared under UNSCR 687. Because Iraq has materially breached these weapons of mass destruction obligations, which were essential to the restoration of peace and security in the area, the basis for the cease-fire has been removed, and the use of force is authorized under UNSCR 678.

This has been the longstanding position of the United States and has been reflected in the Security Council's practice since UNSCR 687 was adopted in 1991. For example, when coalition forces used force against Iraq in 1993 in response to Iraqi violations, the UN Secretary General stated publicly that the coalition "had received a mandate from the Security Council according to resolution 678, and the cause of the raid was the violation by Iraq of Resolution 687 concerning the cease-fire. So, as Secretary General of the United Nations, I can say that this action was taken and conforms to the resolutions of the Security Council and conformed to the Charter of the United Nations." No new resolution authorizing "all necessary means" was required.

Coalition forces also relied on Iraq's material breaches of the UNSCR 687 cease-fire conditions - namely Iraq's ongoing weapons of mass destruction activities and its refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors -- as the international legal basis for airstrikes against Iraq in 1998, in Operation Desert Fox.

In UNSCR 1441 (2002), the Security Council unanimously decided again that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687. In the same resolution, the Council recalled that it had warned Iraq repeatedly that it would face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

The Council decided, however, to afford Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply with its disarmament obligations. Regrettably, Iraq failed to submit a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of its weapons of mass destruction holdings and failed to cooperate fully in the implementation of the resolution. The Council had decided previously that such violations of UNSCR 1441 "shall constitute a further material breach."

The legal authority to use force to address Iraq's material breaches is clear. Nothing in UNSCR 1441 requires a further resolution, or other form of Security Council approval, to authorize the use of force. "Material breaches" of the cease-fire conditions serve as a predicate for use of force against Iraq. And there can be no doubt that Iraq is in "material breach" of its obligations, as the Council reaffirmed in UNSCR 1441.

As President Bush has said, we are now acting to compel Iraq's compliance with these resolutions because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.


Press Services



Press Release Archive

Foreign Press Center




Information Services



Information Resource Ctr.

Dept. of State Publications
Electronic Journals
LISTSERVs
Washington File
World Factbook File - Ukraine

Information Offices:
White House
Department of State
NATO
United Nations



Other topics



Economic Reform
International Security
Democracy & Human Rights
Global Issues


Top





Now after you read this you may find that you have reason to dissagree , and I can tell you I have seen legal opinions that do not aggree at all with this .
But because documents like this exist ergo sum and until JUDGED otherwise by a court with the proper jurisdiction , a LEGAL basis exist . EVEN though you do not aggree with this reality it will not go away .
But you keep plugging away sport ...this is fun ! :D

About the Author:
Frederic L. Kirgis is Law School Association Alumni Professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law. He has written a book and several articles on United Nations law, and is a member of the Board of Editors of the American Journal of International Law

folow the link...

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh92.htm

Here's some more lawyers for you .

Authority for Use of Force by the United States Against Iraq under International Law
Author: John B. Bellinger III


April 10, 2003
Council on Foreign Relations

To: Members of the CFR/ASIL roundtable

From: John B. Bellinger, III

Date: April 10, 2003

The United States has clear authority under international law to use force against Iraq under present circumstances.


Since 1990, United Nations Security Council resolutions have authorized UN member states to use force to compel Iraq to comply with its international obligations. No additional authority is required for member states to use force against Iraq.


Prior to the Gulf War, the Security Council adopted UNSCR 678, authorizing use of “all necessary means” to uphold UNSCR 660 (demanding Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait) and subsequent resolutions, and to “restore international peace and security in the area.” This was the basis for use of force against Iraq during the Gulf War.


At the end of the Gulf War, the Security Council imposed obligations on Iraq requiring it to end its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, as a condition of the cease-fire declared under UNSCR 687. Because Iraq has materially breached these WMD obligations, which were essential to the restoration of peace and security in the area, the basis for the cease-fire has been removed, and the use of force is authorized under UNSCR 678.


This has been the longstanding position of the United States and has been reflected in the Security Council’s practice since UNSCR 687 was adopted in 1991. When coalition forces used force against Iraq in 1993 in response to Iraqi violations, the UN Secretary General stated publicly that the coalition “had received a mandate from the Security Council according to resolution 678, and the cause of the raid was the violation by Iraq of Resolution 687 concerning the cease-fire. So, as Secretary General of the United Nations, I can say that this action was taken and conforms to the resolutions of the Security Council and conformed to the Charter of the United Nations.” No new resolution authorizing “all necessary means” was deemed necessary.


Coalition forces also relied on Iraq’s material breaches of the UNSCR 687 cease-fire conditions— namely Iraq’s ongoing WMD activities and its refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors—as the international legal basis for airstrikes against Iraq in 1998, in Operation Desert Fox. These airstrikes were conducted without objection from the Security Council.


When the Security Council has ended an authorization to use force in the past, it has done so in one of two ways: either expressly terminating the prior authorization or by setting an up-front time limit on the authorization. See, e.g., UNSCR 1031 (1995) (Bosnia) (deciding that “the authority to take certain measures conferred upon States by [various UNSCRs] shall be terminated”); UNSCR 954 (1994) (extending the mandate for the U.N. Mission in Somalia (UNOSOM II) for a “final period” until March 31, 1995). Unless the Security Council clearly states, using such language, that it has terminated UNSCR 678’s authorization for the use of force, that authorization continues.


In UNSCR 1441 (2002), the Security Council unanimously decided again that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687. In the same resolution, the Council recalled that it had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.


The Council decided, however, to afford Iraq a “final opportunity” to comply with its disarmament obligations but warned that violations of UNSCR 1441 “shall constitute a further material breach.” Regrettably, Iraq failed to seize this final opportunity by failing to submit a currently accurate and complete declaration of its WMD holdings and failing to cooperate fully in the implementation of the resolution.


The legal authority to use force to address Iraq’s material breaches is clear. Nothing in UNSCR 1441 requires a further resolution, or other form of Security Council approval, to authorize the use of force. A “material breach” of the cease-fire conditions is the predicate for use of force against Iraq. And there can be no doubt that Iraq is in “material breach” of its obligations, as the Council reaffirmed in UNSCR 1441.


Accordingly, at the outset of hostilities, the United States formally advised the United Nations pursuant to UNSCR 678 that military operations in Iraq “are authorized under existing Council resolutions, including resolution 678 (1990) and resolution 687 (1991).” The United States noted that “Iraq repeatedly has refused, over a protracted period of time, to respond to diplomatic overtures, economic sanctions, and other peaceful means designed to help bring about Iraqi compliance with its obligations to disarm Iraq and permit full inspection of its WMD and related programs.”


Although United Nations Security Council resolutions provide clear authority for the U.S. to use force to compel Iraq to comply with its international obligations, the U.S. also has the right to use force in its inherent right of self-defense, recognized under Article 51 of the UN charter. Article 51 provides that “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 the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”


The United States has long taken the position that a state’s “inherent right of self-defense,” which preexisted the UN Charter, permits states, in appropriate circumstances, to use force in anticipation of an armed attack, even if an armed attack has not yet occurred. International law has long recognized that the right of self-defense includes the right to act in anticipation of an attack or aggression, and that right was not cut off in the UN charter. Especially in the modern age in which terrorism and the proliferation of WMD pose grave risks to global security, states cannot be required to wait for an attack before they can lawfully use force to defend themselves against forces that present a clear and present danger of attack

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5862

Here's more rational argument ..

Kofi Annan's Iraq Blunder
by James Phillips and Nile Gardiner, Ph.D.
WebMemo #567

September 17, 2004 | |



United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan described the war with Iraq as an “illegal” violation of the U.N. Charter in a September 16 interview with the BBC, adding that “I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time.” [1] Annan’s remarks were immediately condemned by U.S. allies who had supported the liberation of Iraq, including Great Britain, Australia, Poland, Bulgaria, and Japan, and are likely to also draw a strong response from the White House.[2]

Kofi Annan’s ill-considered jibe undercuts efforts to stabilize postwar Iraq that have been endorsed by the U.N. Security Council. It stigmatizes the embryonic Iraqi government, while strengthening the hand of Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists determined to strangle democracy in Iraq and inflict a defeat on the U.S.-led, U.N.-backed security force in the country. It is difficult to understand why Annan would want to undermine the U.N.’s own efforts in Iraq at a time when the international organization faces increasing criticism for its failure to respond effectively to international crises.

Annan’s statement that the war was “illegal” is both false and spurious. By Annan’s logic, the 1999 U.S./British-led intervention in Kosovo, which was conducted without benefit of a Security Council resolution, also would be “illegal” despite the fact that it was widely supported by the international community. It is true that Washington failed to convince Paris and Moscow to vote for a final Security Council resolution that explicitly endorsed the use of force if Iraq’s dictatorship continued to renege on its legal commitments to disarm. But the Security Council did unanimously pass Resolution 1441 in November 2002, which threatened “serious consequences” if Iraq failed to do so. Iraq also defied sixteen other Security Council resolutions on disarmament, human rights, and support for terrorism.

Moreover, Iraq put itself in a state of war with the United States by violating the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Gulf War. Iraqi forces shot at American and British warplanes assigned to enforce the U.N.-imposed “no-fly zones” over Iraq on a daily basis long before the 2003 war. While the Clinton Administration chose to ignore these and most other cease-fire violations, the Bush Administration correctly decided to take action in view of Iraq’s manifest failure to prove that it had dismantled its prohibited weapons programs. The U.N. Charter explicitly recognizes the right of every state to act in self-defense, a fact that Annan curiously neglects.

An Ill-Timed Intervention

Kofi Annan’s ill-timed comments should be seen as a poorly conceived attempt to undercut the U.S. President’s impending address to the U.N. General Assembly and to indirectly influence the electoral debate in the United States. The notion of U.S. isolation, a prominent theme advanced by Senator John Kerry, is a myth that Annan is keen to promote on the world stage. He ignores the fact that the U.S. is backed by over 30 allies with troops on the ground in Iraq, including 12 of the 25 members of the European Union and 16 out of 26 NATO members states.[3]



The U.N. Secretary-General’s gratuitous comments were an extraordinarily undiplomatic and inappropriate intervention from a world figure who is supposed to be a neutral servant of the international community. They raise serious questions about Annan’s judgment and his suitability to continue in his post. The United States should press Secretary-General Annan to clarify his harmful remarks and should demand an apology for the offhand, gratuitous manner in which they were offered.



UN Insecurity

Kofi Annan’s attack on the United States over its decision to go to war with Iraq is indicative of the insecurity running through the corridors of power (or what’s left of them) at the U.N. headquarters in New York. The prestige and reputation of the U.N. is running at an all time low. The world organization failed spectacularly to deal with the Iraqi dictatorship under Saddam Hussein, is failing to provide leadership in disarming Iran, and is weak-kneed in the face of genocide in the Sudan. At the same time, the U.N. faces serious allegations of mismanagement and corruption relating to its administration of the Iraq Oil-for-Food Program. The U.N. is a world body in steep, possibly terminal decline, struggling for relevance in the 21st Century, and Mr. Annan’s remarks only further underline his organization’s growing impotence.

James A. Phillips is Research Fellow in Middle Eastern Affairs, and Nile Gardiner Ph.D. is Fellow in Anglo-American Security Policy, at the Heritage Foundation.




more interesting stuff

U.S. and U.K. Offer Letters of War
Stewart Stogel
Saturday, March 22, 2003
NEW YORK (United Nations) – NewsMax has obtained copies of the letters sent by the United States and United Kingdom informing the U.N. Security Council about the war with Iraq.
The U.S. letter was sent by U.S./U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte, the U.K. by its U.N. representative, Sir Jeremy Greenstock.

The verbatim reads as follows:

U.S. Letter


The Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations

March 20, 2003

To: Mr Mamady Traore
President - Security Council
United Nations
New York, New York


Excellency:

Coalition forces have commenced military operations in Iraq. These operations are necessary in view of Iraq's continued material breaches of its disarmament obligations under relevant Security Council resolutions including 1441 (2002). The operations are substantial and will secure compliance with these obligations. In carrying out these operations, our forces will take all reasonable precautions to avoid civilian casualties.

The actions being taken are authorized under existing Council resolutions: including resolution 678 (1990) and resolution 687 (1991). Resolution 687 imposed a series of obligations on Iraq, including most importantly, extensive disarmament obligations, that were the conditions of the cease-fire established under it. It has been long recognized and understood that a material breach of these obligations removes the basis of the ceasefire and revives the authority to use force under resolution 678. This has been the basis for coalition use of force in the past and has been accepted by the Council, as evidenced, for example, by the Secretary General's public announcement in January 1993 following Iraq's material breach of resolution 687 that coalition forces had received a mandate from the Council to use force according to resolution 678.

Iraq continues to be in material breach of its disarmament obligations under resolution 687, as the Council affirmed in resolution 1441. Acting under the authority of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Council unanimously decided that Iraq has been and remained in material breach of its obligations and recalled its repeated warnings to Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations. The resolution then provided Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply, but stated specifically that violations by Iraq of its obligations under resolution 1441 to present a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction programs and to comply with and cooperate fully in the resolution's implementation would constitute a further material breach.

The Government of Iraq decided not to avail itself of its final opportunity under resolution 1441 and has clearly committed additional violations. In view of Iraq's material beaches, the basis for the cease-fire has been removed, and the use of force is authorized under resolution 678.

Iraq repeatedly has refused, over a protracted period of time, to respond to diplomatic overtures, economic sanctions, and other peaceful means designed to help bring about Iraqi compliance with its obligations to disarm and to permit full inspection of its WMD and related programs. The actions that coalition forces are undertaking are an appropriate response. They are necessary to defend the United States and the international community from the threat posed by Iraq and to restore international peace and security in the area. Further delay would simply allow Iraq to continue its unlawful and threatening conduct.

It is the Government of Iraq that bears full responsibility for the serious consequences of its defiance of the Council's decisions.

Sincerely,


(signed)
John D. Negroponte


U.K. Letter


From Sir Jeremy Greenstock GCMG

20 March 2003

To HE Mamady Traore
President of the Security Council


Excellency:

I have the honor to inform you on behalf of my Government that the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom - in association with those of the United States and Australia - engaged in military action in Iraq on 20 March 2003. The action is continuing.

The action follows a long history of non-cooperation by Iraq with UNSCOM, UNMOVIC and the IAEA and numerous findings by the Security Council that Iraq has failed to comply with its disarmament obligations imposed on it by the Council, including in resolutions 678 (1990), 687 (1991) and 1441 (2002). In resolution 1441 (2002) the Council reiterated that Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction constitutes a threat to international peace and security; that Iraq has failed, in clear violation of its obligations to disarm; and that in consequence Iraq is in material breach of the conditions for the ceasefire at the end of hostilities in 1991 laid down by the Council in resolution 687 (1991). Military action was undertaken only when it became apparent that there was no other way of achieving compliance by Iraq.

The objective of this action is to secure compliance by Iraq with its disarmament obligations as laid down by the Council. All military action will be limited to the minimum measures necessary to secure this objective. Operations will conducted in accordance with the international laws of armed conflict. Targets have been carefully chosen to avoid civilian casualties.

Please accept Excellency, the assurance of my highest consideration.

(signed)
Jeremy Greenstock



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/22/195522.shtml


If you bother to read this you will note the justification under international law that was used .
Its a matter of debate as to who is right . What is not a matter for debate is that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power and his country is under occupation and struggling to form a democracy . No ammount of debate can make the world go back to the day before the war started .

Beer and Guns. You are spamming the thread. Why not post a small salient point and a link? BTW, a few of your posted links are not working.

Beer and guns, you are the person :D

Beer and Guns. You are spamming the thread. Why not post a small salient point and a link? BTW, a few of your posted links are not working.

Actually, he is providing the info you require. Just as I thought. YOu really are closed minded.

The truth is spam ? You gotta be kidding me . :rolleyes: If the links are not working for you , you can read the text posted in full with attribution. Its a simple matter for you to take that info and google it to a link that works for you . Its all public record and has been posted on multiple sites for the most part . So if someone post facts to back up his view its spam ? You needed the info and were very unaware of its existance it was necessary to post the whole text for accuracy and for context. It was also neccessary to give those with an opposing view a basis for a proper counterpoint .
It was done this way in the interest of fairness to all points of view.
Spam... :rolleyes:




Spam — A canned meat made largely from pork

Beer and guns, you are the person :D

Actually, he is providing the info you require. Just as I thought. YOu really are closed minded.
The information before Resolution 1441 is irrelevant. When you get your facts together (tall order), then bring them forward, and we can debate from there. Your nonsense about a "ceasefire" has not been supported, and if you read the material that I posted, you would understand why.

Focus on Resolution 1441 (http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/UN1441.pdf), because that is the Resolution that gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply. That is in Paragraph 2 of the Resolution.

The point is this all started soon after the first Gulf war . The history of cease fire violations and the efforts by Saddam to thwart the UN .
But suddenly in this debate it has all been overlooked and forgotten by one side . I find it rather amusing thats all ;)

Yes, fine, but how does this remove the responsibility of the US to obey UN strictures? The fact remains that, despite Iraq playing an international game of russian roulette, as of March 2003, the tenor of the UN was not to pursue force against Iraq. No evidence or reasoning has yet been offered to counter this point.

Did he break the cease-fire? Immaterial, really. It doesn't change the fact, though, that the resolution was a UN Resolution which means the UN then has the right to decide the next course.


I'll wait while you look over my follow ups , to answer the ; " where is the proof " question on cease fire violations . I also posted the legal point of view.


http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh92.htm
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/910918-197697.htm
http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V112/N13/iraq.13w.html
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/910718-190820.htm
http://kiev.usembassy.gov/press/030319_iraq-legal_eng.html

Again, regardless of him breaking the cease fire, there is no refutation of the basic charge I have been leveling all afternoon, which is that cease-fire is only valid under the UN Charter which explicitly states exactly when force is authorized and which the US patently broke by going against the expressed wishes of the UN Security Council.

Additionally, if I had time, I would show you exactly why the legal justifications in your last link are shaky at best, but suffice it to say that even if their chain of logic was valid it still does ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to address the fundamental breach of UN charter the US was in by invading Iraq, regardless of previous resolutions, against the desire of the UNSC.

And the fact is:

WE'RE WINNING IN IRAQ



Define winning....

The information before Resolution 1441 is irrelevant. When you get your facts together (tall order), then bring them forward, and we can debate from there. Your nonsense about a "ceasefire" has not been supported, and if you read the material that I posted, you would understand why.

Focus on Resolution 1441 (http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/UN1441.pdf), because that is the Resolution that gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply. That is in Paragraph 2 of the Resolution.

Well, this is where I disagree with you, Canuk. Resolutions 678 and 687 are also important. However, close examination of them will show that they do not now and never did provide a legal justifcation for an invasion of Iraq, simply on their own merits. I just don't have time to break it down, piece by piece.

Yes, fine, but how does this remove the responsibility of the US to obey UN strictures? The fact remains that, despite Iraq playing an international game of russian roulette, as of March 2003, the tenor of the UN was not to pursue force against Iraq. No evidence or reasoning has yet been offered to counter this point.

Did he break the cease-fire? Immaterial, really. It doesn't change the fact, though, that the resolution was a UN Resolution which means the UN then has the right to decide the next course.



Again, regardless of him breaking the cease fire, there is no refutation of the basic charge I have been leveling all afternoon, which is that cease-fire is only valid under the UN Charter which explicitly states exactly when force is authorized and which the US patently broke by going against the expressed wishes of the UN Security Council.

Additionally, if I had time, I would show you exactly why the legal justifications in your last link are shaky at best, but suffice it to say that even if their chain of logic was valid it still does ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to address the fundamental breach of UN charter the US was in by invading Iraq, regardless of previous resolutions, against the desire of the UNSC.

I never said nor did I ever think that the US was following the lead of the UN.
The fact is I think the United States felt that the UN was not doing its job and decided along with its group of supporters to do what was right and in the United States best interest . As I have also stated many times .
I feel that they are using arguable legal points to make their case .
It would be spurious by the United States to claim that they were following UN dictates in pursuing the war. But the United States has a very valid point in pursuing the war without UN sanction . They also have a case to back the actions that they took . Contrast the actions of the United States with past actions by other countries when acting in their interest around the world and throughout history .
Look at the hoops they jumped through to gain a concensus . Use a rational and realistic view of the world and how nations interact . then take an objective look and unbiased by your idiology make your point about " legality " I always look to intent. What was the intent of the law . What was is promising ? Do nations have the right of self defense ? The UN charter says yes . it does not say you can only defend your self when we say so . Now argue forever who the United States was defending itself from ..because that seems to be to me the gist of the argument before the UN .

I never said nor did I ever think that the US was following the lead of the UN.
The fact is I think the United States felt that the UN was not doing its job and decided along with its group of supporters to do what was right and in the United States best interest .

Fair enough, but the point that is being addressed is the assertation that the US was within International Law to invade Iraq. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.


I feel that they are using arguable legal points to make their case .

Well, obviously they are, or Bush would be in front of an International court or something. The situation with this discussion is rather frustrating and I'm sorry you're just coming into it now. So far there has been very little evidence or argument presented from the other side and it's refreshing to actually have some.


It would be spurious by the United States to claim that they were following UN dictates in pursuing the war. But the United States has a very valid point in pursuing the war without UN sanction .

Indeed, perhaps we do. However, that doesn't lift the onus of breaking International law to do it. While we may not agree with the UN, so long as we are still a member, we obligate ourselves to observe their rules. If we don't, instead of just being a rogue state, we're also hypcritical and as big a threat to world stability as any dictator we happen to run across because we show a contempt for the laws we're supposedly upholding.


They also have a case to back the actions that they took . Contrast the actions of the United States with past actions by other countries when acting in their interest around the world and throughout history .

Of course they have a case, but that case is shaky at best. For example, UNR 678 very explicitly uses "restore" language. This resolution serves as the chief justification for the use of force. However, the resolution itself clearly intends the use of force only for the reestablishment of an ex ante environment, not a regime change which was the goal of the 2003 invasion. Thus, this throws a hefty amount of doubt on UNR 678's application.


Look at the hoops they jumped through to gain a concensus . Use a rational and realistic view of the world and how nations interact . then take an objective look and unbiased by your idiology make your point about " legality " I always look to intent.

Very pragmatic, but also very destructive. To say we can just ignore international law and convention because others do so is to basically admit that laws are useless in which case the whole of society crumbles.

And I am looking at intent. What I'm seeing is that we made an agreement. We agreed to be bounded by the UN and it's Charter. Instead of functioning under our agreement, we do what we will whenever it suits our purposes. If we want to do that, fine, but at the very least lets be honest about it and leave the UN. Seriously, right now, the US is no better than an adulterous husband.


What was the intent of the law . What was is promising ? [quote]

The intent of the law, UNR 678, is very clear. Remove Iraq from Kuwait and restore ex ante in the region. Not regime change. Not disarmament, even. Just get Iraq out of Kuwait.

[quote]
Do nations have the right of self defense ? The UN charter says yes . it does not say you can only defend your self when we say so .

Okay, but we now know we were not in any immediate threat period. Indeed, if anything, we are in more danger now than we were prior to the invasion. True, if we had gone in there and found milions of gallon of Sarin or loads of anthrax or a functional nuclear weapons program, things might have been different. But we didn't. And there is convincing evidence to suggest that at least some in the administration knew we wouldn't before we went looking. In any event, we are now culpable for the error.


Now argue forever who the United States was defending itself from ..because that seems to be to me the gist of the argument before the UN .

Frankly, if the United States wants to defend itself from something, we should really consider defending ourselves from our own politicians.

Oh we didn't have him violate 17 UN Resolutions!

We didn't have him violate the UN Cease-fire

We didn't have him committing atrocities against his own people

He did all of this himself.

I'm sorry but the war was the only proper thing to do!

It wasn't our place to "fix" any of that. We now have our nose where it doesn't belong.

I stopped listening to her a long time ago! She really has nothing to say and I would much rather listen to someone from the opposite side that doesn't spout out hate!

I've never really heard anything hateful from her. Or is any view not the same as yours considered hate? How could you "listen to someone from the opposite side" if you think their opinions are hate?

She must have had something worth listening to because the estimates say there may have been more than a quarter million people there at the rally.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=2404

Fair enough, but the point that is being addressed is the assertation that the US was within International Law to invade Iraq. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.



Well, obviously they are, or Bush would be in front of an International court or something. The situation with this discussion is rather frustrating and I'm sorry you're just coming into it now. So far there has been very little evidence or argument presented from the other side and it's refreshing to actually have some.



Indeed, perhaps we do. However, that doesn't lift the onus of breaking International law to do it. While we may not agree with the UN, so long as we are still a member, we obligate ourselves to observe their rules. If we don't, instead of just being a rogue state, we're also hypcritical and as big a threat to world stability as any dictator we happen to run across because we show a contempt for the laws we're supposedly upholding.



Of course they have a case, but that case is shaky at best. For example, UNR 678 very explicitly uses "restore" language. This resolution serves as the chief justification for the use of force. However, the resolution itself clearly intends the use of force only for the reestablishment of an ex ante environment, not a regime change which was the goal of the 2003 invasion. Thus, this throws a hefty amount of doubt on UNR 678's application.



Very pragmatic, but also very destructive. To say we can just ignore international law and convention because others do so is to basically admit that laws are useless in which case the whole of society crumbles.

And I am looking at intent. What I'm seeing is that we made an agreement. We agreed to be bounded by the UN and it's Charter. Instead of functioning under our agreement, we do what we will whenever it suits our purposes. If we want to do that, fine, but at the very least lets be honest about it and leave the UN. Seriously, right now, the US is no better than an adulterous husband.


What was the intent of the law . What was is promising ? [quote]

The intent of the law, UNR 678, is very clear. Remove Iraq from Kuwait and restore ex ante in the region. Not regime change. Not disarmament, even. Just get Iraq out of Kuwait.



Okay, but we now know we were not in any immediate threat period. Indeed, if anything, we are in more danger now than we were prior to the invasion. True, if we had gone in there and found milions of gallon of Sarin or loads of anthrax or a functional nuclear weapons program, things might have been different. But we didn't. And there is convincing evidence to suggest that at least some in the administration knew we wouldn't before we went looking. In any event, we are now culpable for the error.



Frankly, if the United States wants to defend itself from something, we should really consider defending ourselves from our own politicians.


Here's the thing we all should be asking . " How did the United Nations fail to prevent the war in Iraq" ? What made the United States a country that never before in its history wasge a pre - emptive war , declare war on Iraq ?
What could the UN done to prevent it ?
After the first gulf war saddam signed a cease fire requiring him to live up to conditions set by the Un . After 10 years he was still not in compliance.
I lived through this period and its still recent history to me . I know the frustration that was felt for years that Saddam was making fools out of the UN and by extension the US . Then after 9-11 things changed . It was now critical to keep a person like Saddam from working with terrorist to attack the United States . The United States tries to work with the UN to get Saddam to live up finaly to his cease fire obligations ..he doesnt . Now all or most reasonable people in the US are saying " screw this ..the UN is worthless , they cant after all this time get this crackpot to do what is needed by the cease fire " . Our leaders tell the UN that they will do what it takes to bring Saddam into compliance. still the UN doesnt satisfy the United States government or its people that it can do its job . The UN fails for over ten years to do its job. It then fails again when the United States has to do its job for it . by doing so a big can off whoop ass worms are now loose in the world . Because by failing to prevent the Iraqi war the relevance of the UN is called into question and dangerous precident has been set .
The United States by its actions before the war during the war and after the war has proven to be reasonable about it . The United Nations by failing to get Saddam to comply and by creating conditions that led the United States to believe that only by working without the United Nation could it protect it people and its national interest has IMO failed miserably .
This war never had to happen . Forcefull action by the United Nations to bring Saddam into line would have prevented it .
To me thats the big issue . 80 percent or more of the people of the United States supported the decision to attack Iraq . Our congress voted overwhelmingly to authorise the use of force to meet our goals . Thats all the justification I require . The United Nations bumbled and wobbled for too long . They were given more than a reasonable amount of time to do their job . They failed miserably . If they cant satisfy the United States enough to keep them out of a war. What hope do they have with a true evil aggressor ?
Notice that the UN has very little relevance with North Korea and Nukes. also look at UN involvement with the Nukes in Iran. They are next to invisible.
The true tradgedy of the Iraqi war is the United Nations and all that this portends for the future .

I am sorry I did not answer your statements directly , I felt it was important to be clear as to where I am in this debate . I support the war and the policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East . I feel its a long time comming and would hope to live to see the day when there are no more dedspots in that area. I want the United States to work for democracy in every country it supports in the area and support those who want to form them in countrys that the US doesnt support . I want the United States to work hard at helping those new democracys to prosper . I want the United States to treat the Pallestinians fairly . I support a free and democratic Afghanistan and a free and democratic Iraq as part of the begining of the war on terror . I feel the United Nations needs reforms badly . And I support tracking down the terrorist and all those who would support them and destroy them .

Frankly, if the United States wants to defend itself from something, we should really consider defending ourselves from our own politicians

And I support that statement wholeheartedly ! :D
in a country this great is the current crop the best we can do ?

The War on Iraq: Legal Issues
After months of trying to rally international support for a war and a two-day ultimatum demanding that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein step down, the United States attacked Iraq on March 19, 2003. The goal, U.S. President George W. Bush said in a speech, was "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

Experts disagree as to whether the war was legal under international law. Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a party, a nation's use of force is authorized under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42.

Self Defense

Since it was not directly attacked by Iraq the United States did not have an obvious right to self-defense. The administration, though, argued that it had a right to defend itself preemptively against a future possible attack. In his speech to the United Nations on September 12, 2002, President Bush described Saddam Hussein's regime as "a grave and gathering danger," detailed that regime's persistent efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and spoke of an "outlaw regime" providing such weapons to terrorists. For an extensive discussion of international law and the preemptive use of force, see the Congressional Research Service's Report for Congress of September 23, 2002.

While arguing for preemption, the administration also suggested that the United States had a right to self-defense on the grounds that the Iraqi regime was connected to Al Qaeda, the organization responsible for the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001. In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations Security Council that Iraq was harboring a terrorist cell led by Abu Musab Zarqawi, a suspected associate of Al Qaeda. Powell also said that senior Iraqi and Al Qaeda leaders had met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist militia group, was also suspected of ties to Al Qaeda, and was based in a lawless part of northeast Iraq, though it was not known to have cooperated with Saddam Hussein.

For more information on Iraq and the use of terrorism, see Iraqi Ties to Terrorism from the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Security Council

The 15-member United Nations Security Council did not authorize the March 19, 2003 attack on Iraq. It unanimously passed Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, calling for new inspections intended to find and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. (The Arms Control Association provides a chronology of previous weapons inspections in Iraq.) Iraq accepted the renewed inspections, which were to be carried out by UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Under the terms of the resolution, if Iraq obstructed their work, the chief inspectors were to report promptly back to the Security Council, which would "convene immediately" to consider the situation and "the need for full compliance." The resolution also threatened "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to comply.

The United States, backed by Britain and Spain, began to seek a second U.N. resolution to declare Iraq in material breach of its obligation to disarm. Veto-wielding permanent members France, Russia and China, as well as a number of other members, preferred to give inspectors more time on the premise that inspections were working. Up against a deeply divided Council, the U.S. pulled its proposal on March 17.

The U.S. administration argued that it had enough legal support for its subsequent military action, based on resolution 1441 as well as two previous Security Council resolutions: 678, which in 1990 authorized the U.N. to take military action against Iraq, and 687, which set the terms of the cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Administration lawyers said that because Iraq never lived up to the terms of the cease-fire, the use force was now valid.

In answer to a question in parliament, Great Britain’s Attorney General Lord Goldsmith issued a March 17th statement supporting the use of force against Iraq. The Australian Attorney General’s Department issued a memorandum on March 18th, also supporting the use of force against Iraq.

Other Legal Issues

Nations at war are required to follow the law of war, also known as international humanitarian law. Based on the Geneva Conventions of 1949 as well as customary international law, the law of war regulates military operations in an attempt to protect civilians from the devastation of war. The Center for Defense Information and Human Rights Watch both offer useful discussions of humanitarian law.

DOCUMENTS
Charter of the United Nations. Chapter VII, Article 42 states that if peaceful means have not succeeded in obtaining adherence to Security Council decisions, the Security Council may take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Chapter VII, Article 51 allows for states to use force in self-defense.
Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols. Parts of the Conventions are also available here.
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America
U.N. Security Council Resolution 678 adopted November 29, 1990, authorizing the U.N. to take military action against Iraq.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 adopted April 3, 1991, setting the terms of the cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Also available here.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1284 adopted December 17, 1999, establishing UNMOVIC.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 adopted November 8, 2002, calling for renewed weapons inspections.
Iraq's letter to the United Nations of November 13, 2002, accepting renewed arms inspections.
United States Code Title 50, Chapter 33, the War Powers Resolution.
U.S. House Joint Resolution signed October 16, 2002, authorizing the president to attack Iraq.
British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith’s March 17th statement supporting the use of force against Iraq. This statement is also available here.
The Australian Attorney General’s March 18th memorandum supporting the use of force against Iraq.

ARTICLES AND COMMENTARY
David M. Ackerman, International Law and the Preemptive Use of Force Against Iraq, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, (September 23, 2002).
David M. Ackerman, Response to Terrorism: Legal Aspects of the Use of Military Force, Congressional Research Service, (September 13, 2001).
Hilary Charlesworth and Chris Maxwell, Iraq: Unjustified War, published on Australian Policy Online by the Centre for International and Public Law, Australian National University, (March 27, 2003).
Thomas M. Franck, When, If Ever, May States Deploy Military Force Without Prior Security Council Authorization? 5 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 51 (2001).
Gavan Griffith, Notes on the Legal Justification for the Invasion of Iraq and Security Council Resolutions 678 and 1441, Sydney Morning Herald, (March 21, 2003).
Richard F. Grimmett, U.S. Use of Preemptive Military Force, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, (September 18, 2002).
Devika Hovell and George Williams, Nowhere to Hide Behind the Letter of the Law (Sydney Morning Herald, March 19, 2003).
International Humanitarian Law Issues in a Potential War With Iraq, Human Rights Watch, (February 20, 2003).
Iraq: Questions Regarding the Laws of War, Center for Defense Information ‚ Terrorism Project, (March 18, 2003).
Ali Khan, Above and Beyond International Law: George W. Bush as the Austinian Sovereign, JURIST ‚ University of Pittsburgh School of Law, (March 31, 2003).
Michael Kelly, Could the New International Criminal Court try Americans for War Crimes in Iraq?, JURIST ‚ University of Pittsburgh School of Law, (March 17, 2003).
Frederic L. Kirgis, Armed Force in Iraq, ASIL Insights, (March 18, 2003).
Lawrence J. Lee, Mark R. Shulman et al., The Legality and Constitutionality of the Presidentís Authority to Initiate an Invasion of Iraq, 41 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 15, (2002).
Mary Ellen O'Connell, The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense, The American Society of International Law Task Force on Terrorism, (August 2002).
The United Nations Charter and the Use of Force Against Iraq, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, (October 2, 2002).

OTHER RESOURCES
American Society of International Law ‚ Iraq Index
American Society of International Law ‚ President's FYI
The Arms Control Association
Bill Slomanson's page on UN Security Resolution 1441
Boston University School of Law‚ International Law and the Iraq Crisis
Columbia International Affairs Online Special Section on U.S. Policy and Iraq
Crimes of War Project ‚ The War in Iraq
Crisis in Iraq from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Electronic Iraq : International Law
Iraqi Jurist's Association
Links on International Law and Iraq from the Global Policy Forum
Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy
Lawyers Against the War
Legal Resources for U.S. Involvement in Afghanistan from the U.S. Department of State
The International Atomic Energy Agency
Terrorism Answers from the Council on Foreign Relations
University of Amsterdam International Law Library‚ The Conflict with Iraq
UNMOVIC

Written January 29, 2003; Last updated May 29, 2003.



To follow the links provided in this article you have to go to the web site ;
here ....http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/Iraq.html

There is a ton of relevant information . All aspects and all sides are represented .

Sorry, but given the weaseling the US has done with NAFTA, (and been smacked down every time) I'd have to suggest that the US lawyers are far more corrupt than the UN.

What was the intent of the law . What was is promising ?


Here's the thing we all should be asking . " How did the United Nations fail to prevent the war in Iraq" ? What made the United States a country that never before in its history wasge a pre - emptive war , declare war on Iraq ?

Well, okay, there are several ways to answer this question. However, the one I'm choosing is the Bush Doctrine. I know this sounds like I'm blaming everything on him, but I'm not. I'm also blaming PNAC. :)

Way back in 1992, Paul Wolfowitz (who really could give James Carville a run for his money in a "Angry Evil Leprechaun" pagent), then serving as undersecrtary for policy at the Defense Department, drafted a 46-page memo, the Defence Planning Guide, that outlined a new approach to US foriegn policy. Basically, this document is "Empire Building for Dummies". With the Cold war over, instead of advocating for a reduced, more specialized armed force, it insists on maintaining it and using our larger force to dissuade other nations from providing their own security. It also contemplates US preemptive action for cases of nuclear, biological or chemical weapon activity, even when that activity has no direct bearing on the US.

To quote an article appearing in The Washington Post on March 11, 1992, ("Keeping the U.S. First: Pentagon Would Preclude a Rival Superpower") shortly after this document was leaked to the press:

"The central strategy of the Pentagon framework is to "establish and protect a new order" that accounts "sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership," while at the same time maintaining a military dominance capable of "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

Needless to say, this document when it was leaked caused a huge stink. So much so that it was extensively rewritten. But it is here that the idea of preemptive strike first comes into play.

Flash forward to post-9/11. If you examine the original Defense Planning Guide (excerpts of which can be found here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/wolf.html . It seems very hard to find an original copy of the guide anywhere else) and look at the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States, there is a glaring coorespondence between the principles outlined in 1992 and the ones endorsed in 2002. It can't be coincidence that this coorespondence exists when many of the advocates of the initial document (who are also involved with PNAC) are now in positions of power and influence in the Bush administration.

So it's not because we were under threat that we struck first. It's because the current administration has very defined foriegn policy goals. The correctness of the Bush Doctrine is one thing. The real question is why were we given incorrect rationales to lead us to a war that was never about protecting US safety and can we extend trust to an administration that would use such blatent manipulation to achieve it's shadowy goals?


What could the UN done to prevent it ?
After the first gulf war saddam signed a cease fire requiring him to live up to conditions set by the Un . After 10 years he was still not in compliance.
I lived through this period and its still recent history to me . I know the frustration that was felt for years that Saddam was making fools out of the UN and by extension the US .

So did I. Here's the thing, though. The Rule of Law is important. It is the only way we as a civilization and as a species can hope to ensure our continued survival and growth. Without it, the frustration you felt is meaningless. Did he break the law? Quite probably. Was he in violation of UNR 687, that's more debatable, but it is certainly something to consider. Does a violation of UNR 687 mean use of force under UNR 678 is justified? No, most likely not, but a case could be made for it. Ultimately, though, is any of this relevant when the UN of 2003 made it quite clear that answering the Iraq question with force was against it's purpose and, thus, against it's charter? Only in that the US broke the laws it swore to uphold and by breaking that law, we diminish the effectiveness of not only other laws, but of our moral mandate to uphold and defend them.

I have never once claimed Hussein was anything more than a petty, tinpot dictator with a cruel and evil streak a mile wide. I have also never claimed that he should not have been gotten rid of. What I have claimed from the get go is that we went about it the wrong way. By our precipitous actions, we not only failed to keep blame focused on Hussein, where it belonged, but called into question the entire system of rules and agreements which keeps the world from degenerating into a massive shooting war.

This is the problem. We can't claim to be upholding law by breaking it. If we do, we are no better than the dictator we attempt to remove, neither one of us showing respect for the legal agreements that we pay lip service to. With Iraq, the U.S. took a dangerously long step down that road and, if that's where the country really wants to go, well, that's one thing. However, my contention is that we took that step under false pretenses and incorrect advice given to us by the people we have entrusted to lead us safetly. I contend that this breach of trust by the administration not only makes this action on thier part invalid and potentially criminal, but also casts serious doubt on their ability to lead the nation as a whole and not just their pet piggy bank causes. It casts every action they now take in an unfavorable light because the wise man must always ask himself, "Well, are you lying to us again?" And the even wiser man will just assume they are.


Then after 9-11 things changed . It was now critical to keep a person like Saddam from working with terrorist to attack the United States .

But he wasn't. He had no ties to 9/11. He had no ties to terrorists. If he got WMDs, he would use them against Iran, not us. And he didn't have WMDs or any way of getting WMDs. Any weakening of the sanctions evaporaed in the wake of 9/11, so there wasn't even the possibility of him getting a program, let alone a functional WMD supply.

The Bush Doctrine is not a plan for defense, but a roadmap to continuous war. We can not go around slapping nations and leaders because they look at us funny. We can not invade on potential. The reasons given were incorrect and there is a substantial amount of evidence out there suggesting that many in the high levels of the decision making process damn well knew the reasons were incorrect. Like I said before, had they turned out to be correct...well, this conversation would probably not even be happening. However, they were and instead of having to take responsibility for not only what they did but how they convinced people to do it, the administration is acting like they did nothing wrong.


The United States tries to work with the UN to get Saddam to live up finaly to his cease fire obligations ..he doesnt . Now all or most reasonable people in the US are saying " screw this ..the UN is worthless , they cant after all this time get this crackpot to do what is needed by the cease fire " .

Well, fine, if that is indeed what most people are saying, then why did we continue to be a part of the UN? That's the thing. A law only has the effectiveness given to it by mutual agreement. We agreed to be bounded by the UN Charter when we helped develop it and signed it. The action in Iraq violates that Charter and is only questionably authorized under its resolutions. We can't just say, "UN, you're useless, so from now on we'll do what we like, say we're protecting you and still remain a member." That's the action of a tyrant. And it's exactly what we did.

Is the UN outmoded? Perhaps. Are there serious questions as to its effectiveness, given that Hussein could flout its resolutions for over a decade? Probably. Is the answer to further weaken it by treating it as inconsequential except to provide a flimsy justification to invade a country that posed no immediate or direct threat to us? Absolutely not. This is where the US acted not only illegally, but unethically and immorally.


Our leaders tell the UN that they will do what it takes to bring Saddam into compliance. still the UN doesnt satisfy the United States government or its people that it can do its job . The UN fails for over ten years to do its job.

"Its job." Those are the two key words here. It wasn't our job to bring Hussein into compliance. It wasn't our job to flout the wishes of the UN, much as Hussein did, while claiming to support them. If we wanted to go over there and kick his ass, fine (well, not fine, but certainly different). However, we need to understand we didn't do it to support the UN or even to make the US safer. We did it because we wanted to. It wasn't a matter of international law or national security. It was a vendetta.


It then fails again when the United States has to do its job for it .

But it is not the US's job to do the UN's dirty work, certainly when the UN tells us not to. Indeed, if one truly thinks that the UN is outmoded, the best one could have done was sit back and do nothing while Iraq continued to ignore UN resolutions (although, with the evidence we have today, even that is debateable as he had no WMDs, no program and was out of Kuwait, the only obligations tasked to him by UN resolutions). This would have illustrated exactly how ineffective and corrupt the UN had become.


by doing so a big can off whoop ass worms are now loose in the world . Because by failing to prevent the Iraqi war the relevance of the UN is called into question and dangerous precident has been set .

But by the Bush Doctrine another, even more dangerous precedent has been set because, at the end of the day, the UN is powerless. The only force it has is from the agreement of it's member nations. Our avowed policy of preemptive strike, basically whenever we feel threatened, and our huge arsenal of conventional and nuclear weapons, makes us a global threat.


The United States by its actions before the war during the war and after the war has proven to be reasonable about it .

I have to take exception here. The Bush Doctrine is not reasonable. Plotting to take out Hussein because of a completely unrelated 9/11 is not reasonable. Breaking international law in order to uphold it is not reasonable. Still invading Iraq when Hussein offered to accept exile is not reasonable. Using incorrect intelligence to paint Iraq as a direct and immediate threat to coax an already skittish country onto a war footing is not reasonable. Entering into a conflict with no clear exit strategy is not reasonable. Equating anyone who disagrees with the invasion to a traitor or terrorist is not reasonable.

There has been absolutely no reason in this affair, except of the most cold-blooded, selfish variety. Two administrations, acting unilaterally, for their own personal reasons, have drug their countries through the mud.


The United Nations by failing to get Saddam to comply and by creating conditions that led the United States to believe that only by working without the United Nation could it protect it people and its national interest has IMO failed miserably .

Fine. Perhaps that's true. But it is still illegal and incorrect for us to assume "control" of the UN and act as it's attack dogs. If it failed, if it's useless, if it engenders more harm than good, then we should say so, leave it and then do whatever the hell we want. If we are still a member of it, though, and break it's rules to do whatever we want, that says more about us and our contempt for the laws we have sworn to up held than it does for the UN's effectiveness.


This war never had to happen . Forcefull action by the United Nations to bring Saddam into line would have prevented it .

The war never had to happen anyway. Inspections were working. Sanctions were working. Duelfer's report, Bush's own man, showed that because of the dismantling of the Iraq army after 1991 and the sanctions that were on it, Hussein had no WMDs, no program to get them and no hopes of developing one. What he was stupidly doing was playing "Find the Lady" with the UN inspectors. Even so, that didn't merit the US response.


To me thats the big issue . 80 percent or more of the people of the United States supported the decision to attack Iraq . Our congress voted overwhelmingly to authorise the use of force to meet our goals . Thats all the justification I require .

And that's fine. I'd argue we were misled, but whatever. The point is, if that's all the justification you need, great, but do not mistakenly think we acted legally under international law, which was the original point of this debate. Furthermore, without the justification of international law, we effectively say we have the same contempt for the UN as Hussein did and, in a way, lower ourselves to his level.


The United Nations bumbled and wobbled for too long . They were given more than a reasonable amount of time to do their job . They failed miserably . If they cant satisfy the United States enough to keep them out of a war. What hope do they have with a true evil aggressor ?

And that is a scary statement. Satisfying the US enough to keep us out of a war is not the job of the UN. Furthermore, there is nothing the UN could have done to "satisfy" the US because the Bush administration was hell-bent on getting Hussein.


Notice that the UN has very little relevance with North Korea and Nukes. also look at UN involvement with the Nukes in Iran. They are next to invisible.
The true tradgedy of the Iraqi war is the United Nations and all that this portends for the future .

I agree, the true tragedy of Iraq is how it has changed the paradigm of international relations. I would wager, though, it is less the UN and more the US that has shattered the model and set us on a path to a darker future, a future where retaliation happens before crime and anyone who disagrees with you is a potential threat.


I support the war and the policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East . I feel its a long time comming and would hope to live to see the day when there are no more dedspots in that area.

The question, though, isn't about the war. Indeed, I must admit that I would like to see democracy flourish in the Middle East as well. However, democracy is based on a respect for the rule of law. I can not see how the US can encourage its spread when the US is clearly showing disrespect for the rule and process of law. The end does not justify the means if the means taint the end. Any democracy won in Iraq is a forced transplant not organic, and is thus going to be weaker and more prone to infection and disease than had it home grown.

The question, as always, lies in the justification for the war. What the facts actually were in relation to what we were told the facts were. The two do not sync up.


I want the United States to work for democracy in every country it supports in the area and support those who want to form them in countrys that the US doesnt support . I want the United States to work hard at helping those new democracys to prosper .

Which is one thing. If a country wishes to move towards democracy or even has a portion of it's population that wants to move towards democracy, that's fine. However, it is not a quantity to be exported at gun point.


I want the United States to treat the Pallestinians fairly .

Wow, that's an entirely different kettle of fish that I'm not even going to touch in this thread.


I support a free and democratic Afghanistan and a free and democratic Iraq as part of the begining of the war on terror .

But which one is more important, free or democratic? If a country is free, it surely has the right to chose it's own poitical system. That means that, while it may chose democracy, it may not. If it does not, do we have a right to force it on them and, if we do, can we really say we're protecting a country's "freedom"?


I feel the United Nations needs reforms badly .

I completely agree.


And I support tracking down the terrorist and all those who would support them and destroy them .

I agree as well. However, I feel I must point out again, that Hussein was not a part of 9/11, was not a part of al-Qaeda and was not harboring WMDs. So, while it is important to find terrorists, what we have now is a man who had no ties to 9/11 in custody, a country in serious need of rebuilding and teetering on the edge of civil war and the man who was directly responsible for 9/11 still roaming free, four years later. It doesn't sound to me like we're hunting the terrorists.


And I support that statement wholeheartedly ! :D
in a country this great is the current crop the best we can do ?

God, I hope not. Time will tell, I suppose.

For those who think the UN needs reform.. this movie may be for you:

www.brokenpromisesmovie.com

I support this. It's nice to see there are still good people left in the US.

it should have been titled, "United Against Iraqi Freedom"

hehe (true though)

just like the Vietnam demonstrations should have gone under the banner, "United For A Communist Vietnam"

lol

people who fail to see what we're accomplishing there are not good americans... just naive, blind americans.

For those who think the UN needs reform.. this movie may be for you:

www.brokenpromisesmovie.com

Meh, Ron Silver isn't nearly as clever or intelligent as he thinks he is and, frankly, this little propaganda piece has about as much political relevance as "Fahrenheit 9/11". "Documentaries" that wear their political convictions on their sleeves are never to be taken seriously.

just like the Vietnam demonstrations should have gone under the banner, "United For A Communist Vietnam"

lol

people who fail to see what we're accomplishing there are not good americans... just naive, blind americans.

Yes, yes, all wars America engages in are right, everyone else is wrong, including Americans who disagree, Uncle Sam is God, they can have my gun when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers, blah, blah, blah, fishcakes. :rolleyes:

You don't consider the anti-war in Iraq crowd to be mainstream??? :confused:

Have you looked at the polls recently? Apparently not!

There's people who think that Bush is making mistakes in Iraq, and don't really care. And there are those that think that Bush is making mistakes in Iraq, and they care so much they protest.

The number that don't care is very, very high. Yes, they'll answer a poll question. But that's about all they will do - because the war is having no real effect on their lives that they can see or feel.

They might just as well change their mind in a week or two, if something really good happened overseas.

Apparently, you believe the polls, and believe their numbers are absolutes that correspond to your beliefs. What a mistake.

Yes, yes, all wars America engages in are right, everyone else is wrong, including Americans who disagree, Uncle Sam is God, they can have my gun when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers, blah, blah, blah, fishcakes. :rolleyes:

Your'e wrong. All engages are wrong, but everybody does it for a reason, you can't just go to war! The americans attacked Iraq because it has a dictatorship goverment adn because they were afraid of a nuclear assault.
And look at Israel's mission "Body gourd":
The Jihad organizations attacked us because of their belief, and we did a mission called "Body guard" that killed 5 Jihad leaders and 18 inocent men and women because we were frightened, no one sais that his attacks are right and nobodoy claims that he his attack were a mistake, it just has to be this way.

Yes, yes, all wars America engages in are right, everyone else is wrong, including Americans who disagree, Uncle Sam is God, they can have my gun when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers, blah, blah, blah, fishcakes. :rolleyes:

Both Vietnam and Iraq were/are justified:

Vietnam: Do you think it was right for Communist Vietnam to take over free South Vietnam?

Iraq: Do you think it was okay for Saddam to oppress 80%+ of his people? Now that he's gone, do you think we should leave the Shi'a and Kurds (not to mention the peaceful among the Sunnis) to fend for themselves against the wacko insurgents?

What is wrong with standing up to Communism when it isn't wanted (in South Vietnam) or to Saddam/insurgents when they're not wanted (Iraq)?

Yes, yes, all wars America engages in are right, everyone else is wrong, including Americans who disagree, Uncle Sam is God, they can have my gun when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers, blah, blah, blah, fishcakes. :rolleyes:

Your'e wrong. All engages are wrong, but everybody does it for a reason, you can't just go to war! The americans attacked Iraq because it has a dictatorship goverment adn because they were afraid of a nuclear assault.
And look at Israel's mission "Body gourd":
The Jihad organizations attacked us because of their belief in palestinian country on our land, and we did a mission called "Body guard" that killed 5 Jihad leaders and 18 inocent men and women because we were frightened, no one sais that his attacks are right and nobodoy claims that he his attack were a mistake, it just has to be this way because you can't make it different, so no one can say that any war is right or wrong.

War Is Not The Answer!

Your'e wrong. All engages are wrong, but everybody does it for a reason, you can't just go to war! The americans attacked Iraq because it has a dictatorship goverment adn because they were afraid of a nuclear assault.
And look at Israel's mission "Body gourd":
The Jihad organizations attacked us because of their belief, and we did a mission called "Body guard" that killed 5 Jihad leaders and 18 inocent men and women because we were frightened, no one sais that his attacks are right and nobodoy claims that he his attack were a mistake, it just has to be this way.

I have absolutely no idea what your point is.

Yes, yes, all wars America engages in are right, everyone else is wrong, including Americans who disagree, Uncle Sam is God, they can have my gun when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers, blah, blah, blah, fishcakes. :rolleyes:

Your'e wrong. All engages are wrong, but everybody does it for a reason, you can't just go to war! The americans attacked Iraq because it has a dictatorship goverment adn because they were afraid of a nuclear assault.
And look at Israel's mission "Body gourd":
The Jihad organizations attacked us because of their belief in palestinian country on our land, and we did a mission called "Body guard" that killed 5 Jihad leaders and 18 inocent men and women because we were frightened, no one sais that his attacks are right and nobodoy claims that he his attack were a mistake, it just has to be this way because you can't make it different, so no one can say that any war is right or wrong.

Both Vietnam and Iraq were/are justified:

Perhaps. My point is that, under the reasons we were given, Iraq clearly was not.


Vietnam: Do you think it was right for Communist Vietnam to take over free South Vietnam?

Not even going to touch Vietnam. Don't like it when anti-war protesters invoke it, don't like it when war supporters invoke it. Not germaine to the conversation at hand.


Iraq: Do you think it was okay for Saddam to oppress 80%+ of his people? Now that he's gone, do you think we should leave the Shi'a and Kurds (not to mention the peaceful among the Sunnis) to fend for themselves against the wacko insurgents?

Sigh. Did you even read the rest of the thread and what I've been saying? Here, lemme recap for you.

1. The war, while perhaps justified, was incorrectly based on specious legal reasoning by the Bush Administration and false intelligence was used to portray Iraq as an immediate and direct threat to the US.

2. While humanitarian violations may have existed, the level of suffering caused by the war exceeds the level of immediate threat of human rights violations that existed before March 2003. This is direct from Human Rights Watch. Furthermore, humanitarian concerns, while given a cursory mention prior to March 2003, were never given as a main cause for the March 2003 action and their importance has only been the focus since Duelfer's report showed WMDs in Iraq were a red herring.

3. The United States engaged in illegal action by invading Iraq under international law by violating both UN Charter and incorrectly interpreting UNR 678 to remove Hussein from power, a provision it never covered.

4. Regardless of the mistakes that led up to the invasion, the fact is now that we must maintain our presence there until some sort of enduring order has been established. To leave without establishing this would be to create a worse situation than the one that existed pre-March 2003. We broke it, we have to at least try and fix it.


What is wrong with standing up to Communism when it isn't wanted (in South Vietnam) or to Saddam/insurgents when they're not wanted (Iraq)?

How about it's not our job? How about that wasn't why we were there? Again, not touching Vietnam and I would suggest you not, either. The situations are vastly different.

Your'e wrong. All engages are wrong, but everybody does it for a reason, you can't just go to war! The americans attacked Iraq because it has a dictatorship goverment adn because they were afraid of a nuclear assault.
And look at Israel's mission "Body gourd":
The Jihad organizations attacked us because of their belief in palestinian country on our land, and we did a mission called "Body guard" that killed 5 Jihad leaders and 18 inocent men and women because we were frightened, no one sais that his attacks are right and nobodoy claims that he his attack were a mistake, it just has to be this way because you can't make it different, so no one can say that any war is right or wrong.

I still have absolutely no idea what your point is.

If you're saying we have to fight wars and no one can ever claim a subjective right or wrong and no one can blame leaders...well, frankly, that's bullshit. However, that is not what's even being debated here. The issue at hand (even if it is fairly off topic) is if the US had legal justification to go into Iraq. The clear answer is no.

BerkylvaniaYetAgain


I am having trouble with the server at this forum.. :D As usual its like being on a dialup thats on valium ...So I wont attempt right now to answer you point for point . I have access to the so called " Bush Doctrine " and have read it along with neo con ideas from all the evil gnomes behind the scenes :D ..also the CIA action plan and the State departments plan for fighting terrorist and lots more from 1991 to date . if you need any ??
At any rate think on this , If the UN would have dealt with Saddam like the loser of a war and threatened force ( available in abundance right on his doorstep ! ) and actually held him immediately responsible for cease fire violations , by having the army escort the inspectors if needed until they looked where they wanted when they wanted . The United States would not have had that reason to go to war. No threat of WMDs or WMD programs ..no horse and pony show by Colin Powell , and I dont care what doctrine was followed ..NO SUPPORT FOR A WAR . PERIOD END OF STORY . ( like the caps for emphasis ? ). What enabled the war was support at home and some may say encouragement by the people of the United States ..some who thought that Saddam should have been removed the first time ! After 9-11 ? Sadddams days were NUMBERED . The average American saw him as a proactive threat . Do not discount the opinion of the average guy. We wanted war . Saddam was a threat. We got our war . The UN could have put a sock in it by not getting kicked around like a crack head . The American public who thought we won a war was appalled by the UN's inability to do its JOB . No faith in the UN and an attack on American soil plus an evil text book dictator = perfect conditions for war. get it done right this time kind of war .
thats the reality. We can argue legal points till we are blue in the face. It really doesnt matter to the average voter . Its much simpler . Bad man with evil intentions left to run wild by everyone but the red white and blue. If you want a job done right you have to do it yourself . If you are in charge of the UN and do not see this ..your a nincompoop . :D

Remember we not only won but we creamed the friggin guy ! ..Then he pops up and gives everyone the finger ! Year after year after year,,when will he go away ....didnt we bomb this ashole into the stone age ? .The UN screwed up big time . how much do you think lack of faith in the UN has played into the neo -con thinking ? ;)

Perhaps. My point is that, under the reasons we were given, Iraq clearly was not.



No you are wrong . If wmd's existed as we believed no one in their right mind would be debating the legality. The United States makes an excellent case that Saddam was a threat and that we have the right to self defense . The UN charter recognises this claim . We now have the benifit of hindsite and whoops hehehehe no wmds...ummm we was robbed ! NOW you have a big case for debate . Before the war and before no wmds were found you are on very shaky ground arguing against the right of self defense . Now you can debate intent , and who new what when and you will be making a legal case that they existed because all evidence pointed to that fact , so our intent was right . And then you can fight over the other cover your ass reasons that were included . But because a legal case was presented and excepted a legal case exist . Period. You read the documents sent to the UN so no case can be made that their was NO legal justification. If it ever comes to the point of a dispute in court , then a judge will decide if the legal justification was RIGHT .

BerkylvaniaYetAgain


I am having trouble with the server at this forum.. :D As usual its like being on a dialup thats on valium .

Meh, tell me about it. Still, it's better than the old server.


..So I wont attempt right now to answer you point for point . I have access to the so called " Bush Doctrine " and have read it along with neo con ideas from all the evil gnomes behind the scenes :D ..also the CIA action plan and the State departments plan for fighting terrorist and lots more from 1991 to date . if you need any ??

Actually, if you had a full copy of Wolfowitz's 1992 memo, the Defense Planning Guide, I would VERY much like to have that.


At any rate think on this , If the UN would have dealt with Saddam like the loser of a war and threatened force ( available in abundance right on his doorstep ! ) and actually held him immediately responsible for cease fire violations , by having the army escort the inspectors if needed until they looked where they wanted when they wanted . The United States would not have had that reason to go to war. No threat of WMDs or WMD programs ..no horse and pony show by Colin Powell , and I dont care what doctrine was followed ..NO SUPPORT FOR A WAR . PERIOD END OF STORY . ( like the caps for emphasis ? ).

I never said the UN didn't screw up. Of course it did. Should the UN have advocated for removing Hussein from power back in 1991? Probably. However, it didn't and it can make a thousand mistakes and that still does not make it okay for us to break laws we agreed to uphold in order to invade a country with no legal mandate to do so. You can't say, "Well, they screwed up, so we can screw up, too." Sure, the UN should have to answer for its mistakes and, hopefully, will become a stronger institution because of them (although I find that unlikely). But those mistakes don't give us a blank check to walk in 12 years later and claim to be righting wrongs.

Could the UN acting differently in 1990-1991 have avoided the 2003 invasion? Sure. Does that remove culpability from the US for carrying out the 2003 invasion. Absolutely not!


What enabled the war was support at home and some may say encouragement by the people of the United States ..some who thought that Saddam should have been removed the first time ! After 9-11 ? Sadddams days were NUMBERED .

His days were numbered before 9/11. Wolfowitz back in 1991 advocated along with many in the Bush The Elder Administration to go to Baghdad and take him out. Bush very wisely said no because the UN mandate did not extend to regime change in the region.


The average American saw him as a proactive threat . Do not discount the opinion of the average guy. We wanted war . Saddam was a threat. We got our war .

And do not discount the ability of an hawkish administration to manipulate the opinion of the average guy. That's what happened and what I take exception to. The administration painted a false picture of who Hussein was, what he was capable of and when he was capable of doing it specifically to encourage pro-war sentiment. They gave us a reason to go to war that didn't exist because they wanted to go to war and they knew the only way to get the country behind them was to make us fear Hussein. Not care about Iraqis, not worry about the implications of breaking a 12-year-old cease-fire agreement, but fear Hussein as a terrorist imminently plotting to create another 9/11-scale attack on US soil. I would go further and say not only did they do this, but they did it in bad faith, knowing good and well that the allegations they charged Hussein with were false and that he never had the capability to be the imminent threat to the US which they painted him as.


The UN could have put a sock in it by not getting kicked around like a crack head .

Perhaps. But their failure to do their job does not justify our failure to do ours, which is what we did when we didn't obey the laws we agreed to.


The American public who thought we won a war was appalled by the UN's inability to do its JOB . No faith in the UN and an attack on American soil plus an evil text book dictator = perfect conditions for war. get it done right this time kind of war .

But again, and this is key, that perception was incorrect and it was incorrect because the administration intentionally painted it incorrectly. I'm not arguing that the US wanted war. What I'm arguing is that the US wanted war against terrorists and the Bush administration deliberatly and with malice of forethought abused that generalized desire for justice and incorrectly linked Hussein to an attack he had absolutely NOTHING to do with. 9/11 and all those dead Americans became no more than a scapegoat to let the Bush administration take a shot at Hussein, an action they'd been planning since before 9/11 even happened.


thats the reality. We can argue legal points till we are blue in the face. It really doesnt matter to the average voter . Its much simpler . Bad man with evil intentions left to run wild by everyone but the red white and blue. If you want a job done right you have to do it yourself . If you are in charge of the UN and do not see this ..your a nincompoop . :D

Perhaps you're right. I think the average voter, if it was explained to them, might feel a little differently, though. Most people are horrified when they hear of someone murdering someone else. Most people don't like to find out they've been lied to. Indeed, most people would probably go on record as saying adultery is wrong. These issues may seem unreleated, but they really are not. The United States is adulterous, because we swore to uphold the laws of the UN, but we didn't, and instead of saying, "Look, this isn't working, I think we need to see other people," we went out and did whatever the hell we wanted. Furthermore, yes, perhaps the equation you outline did exist, but it only existed because of false information and a willing attempt on the part of this administration to make it exist. When 9/11 happened, the first thing on people's minds was not, "It must have been Hussein." Bush and his people made sure, however, that within a couple of months that's exactly what people were saying, even though it simply wasn't true.


Remember we not only won but we creamed the friggin guy ! ..Then he pops up and gives everyone the finger ! The UN screwed up big time . how much do you think lack of faith in the UN has played into the neo -con thinking ? ;)

Well, not as much as greed and empire-building, but I see your point.

No you are wrong . If wmd's existed as we believed no one in their right mind would be debating the legality.

But they didn't and there's provocative evidence to suggest that we damn well knew they didn't exist.


The United States makes an excellent case that Saddam was a threat and that we have the right to self defense .

Where? It leveled charges that Hussein was an imminent threat because he had WMDs and plans to use them. After the fight, not only were there no WMDs, but there hadn't been any WMDs for years, since the Gulf War destroyed them and the infrastructure required to make them and sanctions kept that infrastructure from being rebuilt. This is a matter of public record. The case that was made by the Bush Administration was false. The only question is was it intentionally false or were they just the victims of bad intel.

I would wager it as intentionally false given that the administration, both in it's official capacity and all the way back to 1991, was so damn hot in the biscuit to take Hussein down. There is enough evidence to suggest, at least to my mind, that at least certain high-ranking members in the decision process knew Hussein was not a threat and were playing dirty pool to get him.


The UN charter recognises this claim . We now have the benifit of hindsite and whoops hehehehe no wmds...ummm we was robbed ! NOW you have a big case for debate .

Exactly. That's what I've said. If WMDs were found or if there was even any info found linking Hussein to 9/11 or showing he was plotting some sort of big terrorist attack against the US, this debate would probably not be happening. But it was all smoke. The fact is, if you engage in a war and you find out you entered into that war under false pretenses, even if your intentions were nothing but good, you have acted illegally. It's sort of like manslaughter. You may not have meant to fuck up, but you fucked up and now people are dead and this is your fault.


Before the war and before no wmds were found you are on very shaky ground arguing against the right of self defense .

No, not really. What you're saying is that, should I be walking down the street, I have the right to open fire on someone and then later say, "Well, I thought I saw him going for a concealed gun. Still, he was probably guilty of something and I'm sure I did the world a favor, on the whole." Sure, you can open fire on someone, but there are consequences, not the least of which is that you have broken the law.


Now you can debate intent , and who new what when and you will be making a legal case that they existed because all evidence pointed to that fact , so our intent was right .

No, all evidence didn't point to that fact. That's the point. The evidence was either A) old, or B) unclear.


And then you can fight over the other cover your ass reasons that were included . But because a legal case was presented and excepted a legal case exist . Period.

Sure. It exists. Its validity is what's under question.


You read the documents sent to the UN so no case can be made that their was NO legal justification.

Okay, now you're arguing semantics. Yes, the US presented legal justification. That justification, however, is shaky and cumbersome and, in many cases, clearly a reinterpretation of the facts in order to achieve an end not in line with the wishes of the UN.


If it ever comes to the point of a dispute in court , then a judge will decide if the legal justification was RIGHT .

Given, but that's still semantics. I am stating my opinion and giving the exact reasons why I feel my opinion to be correct. Does it carry legal weight? Of course not, otherwise there would be a lot of people in jail right now. Doesn't mean I can't stomp for my opinion and call it right.

No just stuff that claims to draw from it ..some people claim it doesnt exist and others claim it doesnt mean what it says but the actual "memo" Actually, if you had a full copy of Wolfowitz's 1992 memo, the Defense Planning Guide, I would VERY much like to have that. doesnt seem to exist ...anymore...if it did . :D Lots of other stuff seems to refer to it or something like it .

April 25, 2003



1992 "Defense Planning Guidance" Draft Excerpts:

U.S. post-Cold War political and military strategy should be preventing the emergence of a rival superpower and be prepared to take unilateral action

Introduction:This story from PBS/Frontline's "The War Behind Closed Doors" highlights excerpts from Paul Wolfowitz's then-controversial "Defense Planning Guidance" draft. Since then, many of the goals in the draft have become the hallmarks of the Bush foreign policy doctrine. From the Frontline page: The 46-page classified document circulated for several weeks at senior levels in the Pentagon. But controversy erupted after it was leaked to The New York Times and The Washington Post and the White House ordered then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney to rewrite it. Three primary points from the draft:

The number one objective of U.S. post-Cold War political and military strategy should be preventing the emergence of a rival superpower.

Another major U.S. objective should be to safeguard U.S. interests and promote American values.

If necessary, the United States must be prepared to take unilateral action.

Full story with key excerpts and quotes from the DPG draft. A professor at Yale has posted the full text of the Washington Post article from 1992, which includes much fuller excerpts from the DPG draft.Posted by Lance Brown at April 25, 2003 04:37 AM |





If you have the time to track down the refrences..thats what I usually do. I find most of my stuff from the " opposing view " :D

But they didn't and there's provocative evidence to suggest that we damn well knew they didn't exist.



Where? It leveled charges that Hussein was an imminent threat because he had WMDs and plans to use them. After the fight, not only were there no WMDs, but there hadn't been any WMDs for years, since the Gulf War destroyed them and the infrastructure required to make them and sanctions kept that infrastructure from being rebuilt. This is a matter of public record. The case that was made by the Bush Administration was false. The only question is was it intentionally false or were they just the victims of bad intel.

I would wager it as intentionally false given that the administration, both in it's official capacity and all the way back to 1991, was so damn hot in the biscuit to take Hussein down. There is enough evidence to suggest, at least to my mind, that at least certain high-ranking members in the decision process knew Hussein was not a threat and were playing dirty pool to get him.



Exactly. That's what I've said. If WMDs were found or if there was even any info found linking Hussein to 9/11 or showing he was plotting some sort of big terrorist attack against the US, this debate would probably not be happening. But it was all smoke. The fact is, if you engage in a war and you find out you entered into that war under false pretenses, even if your intentions were nothing but good, you have acted illegally. It's sort of like manslaughter. You may not have meant to fuck up, but you fucked up and now people are dead and this is your fault.



No, not really. What you're saying is that, should I be walking down the street, I have the right to open fire on someone and then later say, "Well, I thought I saw him going for a concealed gun. Still, he was probably guilty of something and I'm sure I did the world a favor, on the whole." Sure, you can open fire on someone, but there are consequences, not the least of which is that you have broken the law.



No, all evidence didn't point to that fact. That's the point. The evidence was either A) old, or B) unclear.



Sure. It exists. Its validity is what's under question.



Okay, now you're arguing semantics. Yes, the US presented legal justification. That justification, however, is shaky and cumbersome and, in many cases, clearly a reinterpretation of the facts in order to achieve an end not in line with the wishes of the UN.



Given, but that's still semantics. I am stating my opinion and giving the exact reasons why I feel my opinion to be correct. Does it carry legal weight? Of course not, otherwise there would be a lot of people in jail right now. Doesn't mean I can't stomp for my opinion and call it right.


The biggest difference we have is I think they are fighting the war for the right reasons . I think Saddam needed to go . I believe they are some dopey bastards to act on bad evidence but I think they believed it. You know I believe much of what was put out is bullshit and double talk ...like most legal justification IMO . I keep it simple Saddam needs to be dead and the world will be safer and a better place so perhaps I am being more forgiving then if , say the US got involved on the wrong side of a civil war especially when the US promised the leader of the side it was FIGHTING that it would back their independence . The same guy that used the declaration of Independence as a template . :D I also support the goal of freedom for the Iraqis ..even if they use that freedom to form an Islamic stae or WHATEVER .. ;) As far as I am concerned they are better off now than under Saddam . And we are better off being rid of him .
After all that I would be insane not to be concerned and dismayed by HOW we have gone about it. I just wish that SOMEONE would run for office thats better than the assholes we have . Until then I'll stick with the devil(s) I know .

The Washington Post

March 11, 1992, Wednesday, Final Edition

Keeping the U.S. First;



Pentagon Would Preclude a Rival Superpower

BYLINE: Barton Gellman, Washington Post Staff Writer



In a classified blueprint intended to help "set the nation's direction for the next century," the Defense Department calls for concerted efforts to preserve American global military supremacy and to thwart the emergence of a rival superpower in Europe, Asia or the former Soviet Union. The 46-page memorandum describes itself as "definitive guidance from the Secretary of Defense" for preparation of defense budgets for fiscal 1994 through



1999. It defies the predictions of some outside analysts that the Pentagon would relax resistance to further budget cuts after the turmoil of the election year. Instead it mounts a detailed argument for maintaining the current "base force" of 1.6 million active-duty troops to the end of the decade and beyond.



Though noting that "the passing of the Cold War reduces pressure for U.S. military involvement in every potential regional or local conflict," the document argues not only for preserving but expanding the most demanding American commitments and for resisting efforts by key allies to provide their own security.



In particular, the document raises the prospects of "a unilateral U.S. defense guarantee" to Eastern Europe, "preferably in cooperation with other NATO states," and contemplates use of American military power to preempt or punish use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, "even in conflicts that otherwise do not directly engage U.S. interests."



The memo was drafted under supervision of Paul Wolfowitz, undersecretary for policy. Although it is not supplied to Congress and was not intended for public release, the document represents a response at the highest levels of the Pentagon to a growing call in the American political debate for retrenchment from commitments abroad.



First reported Sunday in the New York Times, it provides the rationale for U.S. involvement around the world as "a constant fixture" in an era of fundamental change.



The central strategy of the Pentagon framework is to "establish and protect a new order" that accounts "sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership," while at the same time maintaining a military dominance capable of "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."



"While the U.S. cannot become the world's 'policeman,' by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations," the document states.



Much of the document parallels the extensive public statements of Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney and Gen. Colin L. Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Believing this year's defense debate is a pivotal moment in development of a post-Cold War security framework, the two men have given unusually detailed briefings to Congress of the rationale for the force they designed after collapse of the Warsaw Pact in late 1989.



Like their public statements, the classified memo emphasizes the virtues of collective action and the central U.S. interest in promoting increased respect for international law and "the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems."



Also like their public statements, the document describes a reorientation of U.S. defenses away from the threat of global war with the former Soviet Union and toward potential regional conflicts.



But the new memo gives central billing to U.S. efforts to prevent emergence of a rival superpower, a diplomatically sensitive subject that has not been prominent in public debate.



That objective, the document states, "is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East

Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union and Southwest Asia."



Distributed Feb. 18 to military service chiefs and secretaries, the commanders in chief of worldwide military theaters and other top Pentagon officials, the memorandum is a nearly final draft of this year's long overdue " Defense Planning Guidance," the defense secretary's cornerstone statement of policy and strategy.



Senior officials said the document has not been given final approval by Wolfowitz or Cheney. But they acknowledged that both had played substantial roles in the document's creation and endorsed its principal views. "This is not the piano player in the whorehouse," one official said.



The policy plan restates support for a set of seven classified scenarios prepared by the Pentagon describing hypothetical roads to war by the end of the century. Those scenarios, reported late last month by the New York Times and Washington Post, included an American-led defense of Lithuania and Poland from invasion by Russia, wars against Iraq and North Korea to repel attacks on their southern neighbors and smaller-scale interventions in Panama and the Philippines.



The scenarios came under congressional attack by political figures in both parties, and senior defense officials then suggested that they might be revised or abandoned.



Air Force Secretary Donald B. Rice, for example, said in an interview that the scenario set "was a staff product. It was just about to be circulated for higher level review, and it could have benefited from that review."



The new document, by contrast, directs military services and defense agencies to measure their purchasing and training decisions against the requirements of the war scenarios.



The services are told, for example, to buy enough "threat-oriented munitions" -- such as missiles, bombs and artillery shells -- to provide 80 percent confidence that they would destroy 80 percent of the expected targets "in the two most demanding Major Regional Conflict scenarios."



Among Democrats on Capitol Hill, the policy memorandum has already come under bitter attack. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), an advocate of deep cuts in defense spending to pay for domestic needs, called the Pentagon strategy "myopic, shallow and disappointing." "The basic thrust of the document seems to be this: We love being the sole remaining superpower in the world and we want so much to remain that way

that we are willing to put at risk the basic health of our economy and well-being of our people to do so," he said.



Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), attacking what he said was the document's emphasis on unilateral action, ridiculed it as "literally a Pax Americana. . . .



It won't work. You can be the world superpower and still be unable to maintain peace throughout the world."



Senior Pentagon officials angrily disputed the charge, first made in Sunday's New York Times, that the new strategy was "the clearest rejection to date of collective internationalism."



They cited the document's pledge, on its first page, to "continue to support and protect those bilateral, multilateral, international or regionally based institutions, processes and relationships which afford us opportunities to share responsibility for global and regional security."



"What is just dead wrong is this notion of a sole superpower dominating the rest of the world," a ranking defense official said. "The main thrust of what the secretary has to say and what that draft also says is that the key to maintaining the rather benign environment we have today is sustaining the democratic alliances we've shaped over 40 years."



Harold Brown, a former defense secretary, agreed in an interview yesterday that there is no contradiction between collective security and desirability of maintaining the United States as the world's strongest military power.



"Take the Persian Gulf situation," he said. "That was clearly a collective security arrangement but it clearly wouldn't have happened if the U.S. hadn't taken the lion's share, by which I mean almost all, of the military burden. That is a demonstration of how you can have both at the same time."



Academic criticism of the new strategy centered, by contrast, on its treatment of Russia. Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy analyst at Johns Hopkins University, argued that the logic of preventing reemergence of a hostile superpower suggests "far greater involvement in the economy and democratization of the Russians and the Ukrainians."



But in the current political debate, he said, "giving them money seems to be a taboo word." Cheney has spoken in glowing terms of potential U.S.-Russian friendship "if

democracy matures," even suggesting the possibility of combined military action against regional aggressors.



But he has also expressed skepticism that the United States or Western Europe possesses any great influence over Russia's internal development.



The new strategy describes a delicate balance between supporting the former Soviet republics "in their efforts to become peaceful democracies with market based economies" and the need to "hedge against the possibility that democracy will fail."



"Our strategic challenge," the memo states, "is to construct the security hedges against democratic failure in such a way that we do not . . . increase the likelihood of a democratic failure."



In that context, Brown and others also criticized the document's suggestion that the United States or NATO might extend security guarantees to Eastern Europe, describing it as provocative of Russian nationalism and ignoring "the same grave danger of nuclear war" that prevented Western intervention there for 45 years.

No just stuff that claims to draw from it ..some people claim it doesnt exist and others claim it doesnt mean what it says but the actual "memo" doesnt seem to exist ...anymore...if it did . :D Lots of other stuff seems to refer to it or something like it .

Yah. Lots of references and excerpts, but no actual 46 page document. Once it got rewritten because of the political outcry, the original copies mysteriously evaporated. And it did exist, or are you postulating a bigger conspiracy theory than anything I've come up with so far. ;)

The biggest difference we have is I think they are fighting the war for the right reasons . I think Saddam needed to go . I believe they are some dopey bastards to act on bad evidence but I think they believed it. You know I believe much of what was put out is bullshit and double talk ...like most legal justification IMO . I keep it simple Saddam needs to be dead and the world will be safer and a better place so perhaps I am being more forgiving then if , say the US got involved on the wrong side of a civil war especially when the US promised the leader of the side it was FIGHTING that it would back their independence . The same guy that used the declaration of Independence as a template . :D I also support the goal of freedom for the Iraqis ..even if they use that freedom to form an Islamic stae or WHATEVER .. ;) As far as I am concerned they are better off now than under Saddam . And we are better off being rid of him .
After all that I would be insane not to be concerned and dismayed by HOW we have gone about it. I just wish that SOMEONE would run for office thats better than the assholes we have . Until then I'll stick with the devil(s) I know .

Well, we've probably taken this just about as far as we can go, but thanks for keeping it civil and issue-oriented. Always a pleasure when that happens.

I guess it just boils down to a difference between our world perceptions. You perhaps have a point that Saddam needed to go, but I can't subscribe to the end justifying the means. The war may have been justified, but if it truly was, then why the subterfuge misdirection to get us there? No, even if the war itself was justified, the way we went about doing it was wrong and that taints any good that might be theoretically done. A kind and belevolent tyrant is still a tyrant and not what the United States is supposed to be about.

This is what they say are the goals and policy to defeat terrorism .

III. Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent Attacks Against Us and Our Friends

“Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not yet have the distance of history. But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil.War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. The conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing.”

President Bush
Washington, D.C. (The National Cathedral)
September 14, 2001

The United States of America is fighting a war against terrorists of global reach. The enemy is not a single political regime or person or religion or ideology. The enemy is terrorism— premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents.

In many regions, legitimate grievances prevent the emergence of a lasting peace. Such grievances deserve to be, and must be, addressed within a political process. But no cause justifies terror. The United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals with them.We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them.

The struggle against global terrorism is different from any other war in our history. It will be fought on many fronts against a particularly elusive enemy over an extended period of time. Progress will come through the persistent accumulation of successes—some seen, some unseen.

Today our enemies have seen the results of what civilized nations can, and will, do against regimes that harbor, support, and use terrorism to achieve their political goals. Afghanistan has been liberated; coalition forces continue to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaida. But it is not only this battlefield on which we will engage terrorists. Thousands of trained terrorists remain at large with cells in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and across Asia.

Our priority will be first to disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations of global reach and attack their leadership; command, control, and communications; material support; and finances. This will have a disabling effect upon the terrorists’ ability to plan and operate.

We will continue to encourage our regional partners to take up a coordinated effort that isolates the terrorists. Once the regional campaign localizes the threat to a particular state, we will help ensure the state has the military, law enforcement, political, and financial tools necessary to finish the task.

The United States will continue to work with our allies to disrupt the financing of terrorism.We will identify and block the sources of funding for terrorism, freeze the assets of terrorists and those who support them, deny terrorists access to the international financial system, protect legitimate charities from being abused by terrorists, and prevent the movement of terrorists’ assets through alternative financial networks.

However, this campaign need not be sequential to be effective, the cumulative effect across all regions will help achieve the results we seek. We will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations by:

direct and continuous action using all the elements of national and international power. Our immediate focus will be those terrorist organizations of global reach and any terrorist or state sponsor of terrorism which attempts to gain or use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or their precursors;
defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders.While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of selfdefense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country; and
denying further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists by convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities. We will also wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international terrorism. This includes:
using the full influence of the United States, and working closely with allies and friends, to make clear that all acts of terrorism are illegitimate so that terrorism will be viewed in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide: behavior that no respectable government can condone or support and all must oppose;
supporting moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation;
diminishing the underlying conditions that spawn terrorism by enlisting the international community to focus its efforts and resources on areas most at risk; and
using effective public diplomacy to promote the free flow of information and ideas to kindle the hopes and aspirations of freedom of those in societies ruled by the sponsors of global terrorism.
While we recognize that our best defense is a good offense, we are also strengthening America’s homeland security to protect against and deter attack. This Administration has proposed the largest government reorganization since the Truman Administration created the National Security Council and the Department of Defense. Centered on a new Department of Homeland Security and including a new unified military command and a fundamental reordering of the FBI, our comprehensive plan to secure the homeland encompasses every level of government and the cooperation of the public and the private sector.

This strategy will turn adversity into opportunity. For example, emergency management systems will be better able to cope not just with terrorism but with all hazards. Our medical system will be strengthened to manage not just bioterror, but all infectious diseases and mass-casualty dangers. Our border controls will not just stop terrorists, but improve the efficient movement of legitimate traffic.

While our focus is protecting America, we know that to defeat terrorism in today’s globalized world we need support from our allies and friends.Wherever possible, the United States will rely on regional organizations and state powers to meet their obligations to fight terrorism. Where governments find the fight against terrorism beyond their capacities, we will match their willpower and their resources with whatever help we and our allies can provide.

As we pursue the terrorists in Afghanistan, we will continue to work with international organizations such as the United Nations, as well as non-governmental organizations, and other countries to provide the humanitarian, political, economic, and security assistance necessary to rebuild Afghanistan so that it will never again abuse its people, threaten its neighbors, and provide a haven for terrorists.

In the war against global terrorism, we will never forget that we are ultimately fighting for our democratic values and way of life. Freedom and fear are at war, and there will be no quick or easy end to this conflict. In leading the campaign against terrorism, we are forging new, productive international relationships and redefining existing ones in ways that meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.




Do you see Iraq mentioned ? :D

Well, we've probably taken this just about as far as we can go, but thanks for keeping it civil and issue-oriented. Always a pleasure when that happens.

I guess it just boils down to a difference between our world perceptions. You perhaps have a point that Saddam needed to go, but I can't subscribe to the end justifying the means. The war may have been justified, but if it truly was, then why the subterfuge misdirection to get us there? No, even if the war itself was justified, the way we went about doing it was wrong and that taints any good that might be theoretically done. A kind and belevolent tyrant is still a tyrant and not what the United States is supposed to be about.

Yep and now a good war will forever be tainted . We both take seperate paths to the same conclusion.

Do you see Iraq mentioned ? :D

In this particular part of the NSS? No. But I do see concordence between the 1992 Defense Planning Guide and the November 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States in other areas. For example, Part V mentions Iraq explictly.

"At the time of the Gulf War, we acquired irrefutable proof that Iraq’s designs were not limited to the chemical weapons it had used against Iran and its own people." Laying the groundwork, based on intelligence that was 10 years old at that point, to claim Iraq was not only a terrorist nation, but capable of being an imminent threat.

And the infamous "Strike First" clause from the same section:

"The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."

Maybe we should start a thread on the goals of the United Staes in re. to terrorism and put the neo cons Ideas out there. :D

They have been gaining influence for years ...I wish I could remember the titles of the books I read on them and by them . I got back into history and Churhills biographys so my mind is somewhat saturated .. :D

And now all this ... I'll be koo koo soon enough . The thing is alot of plans were tossed around before 9-11 and after the cold war because the US had to come up with a policy for the use of its military. So much of it was discarded and some of those have been used as examples of " policy " I hate to fall into that trap ..but its still interesting to see the thoughts of those who would lead us and create policy and what they think the " reality " of the world is .