We Got the Government We Deserve!

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Simon W. Moon:
Pre-emptive strikes need no justification. They've been recognized as legit for centuries.
Invading Iraq was preventive, not pre-emptive.

I don't agree. For this to be true, Iraq would have had to be a direct and imminant threat to the US. Which couldn't have been further from the truth. They don't have a navy. Drones don't fly this far. And this is a country that barely has running water and electricity. It is also a country that never killed an American on its soil until we showed up. Iraq was not a threat to the US. An attack from them was not imminant. Therefore, Pre-emptive or Preventive strikes were not justification to attack.

The final UN report by Hans Blix stated Iraq had no WMD's since 1992 and, due to decade long sanctions, they were incapable of making any.

Those UN sanctions were so harsh that Iraq's infant mortality rate rose 50% during that time. We also dropped more ordinance on that country than all the bombs from all the armys of WWII combined.

Originally posted by C.J.:
Resolution 678 was still active. The charter itself fully preserves the right of nation-states to individual and collective self-defense, including the customary international law doctrine of "anticipatory" self-defense.

This does not mean that the U.S. was not in violation of it's international obligations, but there was no international law violation.

Iraq was not getting ready to attack us. They hardley shot back when we tried to provoke them with over 20,000 sorties dropping over 600 bombs on over 300 selected targets in 2002. We tried everything we could think of to get them to give us a reason to attack. Finally, Bush just lied to the nation by exaggerating the threat (against the advice of the CIA), told UN inspectors he couldn't guarantee their safety and sent in the marines.

There are only two ways a country can launch an attack on another. One is if your were attacked with a significant presence of troops. The other if you get UN Security Councel approvel. We had neither.

...a consensus of international lawyers did not accept that such an authorization existed here, or that the UK and US were entitled to revive Resolution 678 (November 1990) from the start of the first Gulf War. The UK and US argued that the wording of Resolution 1441 (8 November 2002) allowed them to rely on Security Council Resolution 678 as they were entitled to interpret Iraq's behavior post 1441 as constituting a further "material breach" of Resolution 678 (Article 1) in circumstances where Iraq had been given its "final opportunity" to disarm (Article 2) and was warned of the "serious consequences" of non-compliance (Article 13). This is referred to as the revival doctrine. Not surprisingly, that is not the way international law works post the UN Charter. If the Security Council wish to authorize force, they do so in clear terms, latterly using the phrase "all necessary means" or "all measures necessary"

Neither of these phrases are being used in 678 or 1441.

Originally posted by C.J.:
International law cannot overrule our constitution, and therefore any action considered legal by our system. I don't believe anything in International law says a country cannot handle a "grave and gathering" threat.

I don't expect it to over-rule our Constitution. But if you belong to an organization, your obligated to adhere to there rules. If you don't think so, then say anything you want to on this message board. Forget the rules of this board as explained by Vauge. Because thats what your saying when you don't respect International Law. These laws are not outragous. Your reactions to them are.

We attacked a country that did nothing to us. How do you people sleep at night. Just what the hell kind of human beings are you?

 

[Fantasea]

Here's the particular UN Articles and Resolutions in question.

The Crime of Aggression

International Law is surprisingly clear and easy to understand on whether the Iraq war was lawful. First, war was abolished by the adoption of the UN Charter in 1947. Thereafter, contracting states entered into a compact. In return for giving up their right to wage war each vested the right to use force in the collective security provisions of chapter VII of the UN Charter. Second, Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter provides that:

"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 any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations".

Just how does this apply to Syria, the Palestinians, numerous African and Asian nations?

How would you know with your head stuck up that far? That position has got to hurt your back after a while. Whenever it pops out from there, here's a refresher coarse.

Coarse, indeed, you may be. Humorous, indeed, not.

This means that Bush knew the documents were unreliable and still went ahead and announced them as a fact. Which it wasn't. Things that are not true, are false. When you say things that you know are false, you lie. Now go wipe your ears, your head is beginning to smell real bad!

To this day, the British stand behind the integrity of their information and, as things leak out, we are beginning to see that the travels of Democrat Joe Wilson to Africa, and the reporting, or lack thereof, submitted by him, is rapidly deteriorating.

Maybe you should actually read the sources before you respond. Then again, it makes sense you don't see Bush lying. If your not concerned about the truth, how could you possibly know its a lie? You have to know one, in order to recognize the other.You've got to be the poster boy for the Ad hominum croud.

Kvetching may make you feel better, but that doesn't solve the problem.

You still haven't quoted a single, specific, phrase or sentence from the President's 2003 State of the Union address which you have been able to substantiate as a lie.

If you wish to try again, these are the simple steps to follow:

1. Cut & paste a specific phrase or sentence from the President's 2003 SOTU.

2. Present your evidence to prove that the specific phrase or sentence which you have cut & pasted is a lie.

I'll respond.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Fantasea:
Kvetching may make you feel better, but that doesn't solve the problem.

You still haven't quoted a single, specific, phrase or sentence from the President's 2003 State of the Union address which you have been able to substantiate as a lie.

If you wish to try again, these are the simple steps to follow:

1. Cut & paste a specific phrase or sentence from the President's 2003 SOTU.

2. Present your evidence to prove that the specific phrase or sentence which you have cut & pasted is a lie.

I'll respond.

The answers you seek are in the sources I provided, with earlier posts, on this thread. I only gift wrap the information once with a bow.

If you really want to know, you got to do some work yourself. And if you do go to those sources, here's a little of what you might find:

Asked about the British report, the administration released a statement that, after weeks of questions about the president's uranium-purchase assertion, effectively conceded that intelligence underlying the president's statement was wrong.

 

[Fantasea]

There's a difference between pre-emptive and preventive war. Both of which might be considered ""anticipatory" self-defense." There was a dearth of information that Iraq was likely to initiate either a direct attack or an attack via proxy on the US. This relegates the attack on Iraq to the realm of a preventive war.

If Iraq had been an imminent threat to the US then the war was not an agressive war. It is part of a long sanctioned tradition of preemption.

"Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike."
​

As we all know, "[f]or centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat..."

Yet, since Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US, just a "grave and gathering" one, the war was an example of a "preventive war".

"Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war."
​

Pre-emptive strikes need no justification. They've been recognized as legit for centuries.
Invading Iraq was preventive, not pre-emptive.

Your comment regarding "imminent threat" was addressed by the President in his 2003 SOTU as appears below. It seems to me that he was on good ground. Congress thought so, too.

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/

 

[nkgupta80]

i would believe that this was the reason for iraq. But at the same time we're not just ignoring Pakistan, we're helping them. That is why I just can't take Iraq seriosuly. Sadaam had some vague connections with Al Queda, Pakistan harbors taliban and al-queda members. Its blatant hypocrisy.

 

[Fantasea]

The answers you seek are in the sources I provided, with earlier posts, on this thread. I only gift wrap the information once with a bow.

If you really want to know, you got to do some work yourself. And if you do go to those sources, here's a little of what you might find:

That is incorrect. You did not cite a single quote from the SOTU. All you did was repeat the same old generalizations.

Face it. You can't meet the challenge. So you huff and puff and bluster as you try to bluff your way out.

 

[C.J.]

Iraq was not getting ready to attack us. They hardley shot back when we tried to provoke them with over 20,000 sorties dropping over 600 bombs on over 300 selected targets in 2002. We tried everything we could think of to get them to give us a reason to attack. Finally, Bush just lied to the nation by exaggerating the threat (against the advice of the CIA), told UN inspectors he couldn't guarantee their safety and sent in the marines.

There are only two ways a country can launch an attack on another. One is if your were attacked with a significant presence of troops. The other if you get UN Security Councel approvel. We had neither.

Actually they did, through oversights of the U.N. Leaving 688 open ended, and then a resolution authorizing force, that they didn't close the loopholes on. Additionally the premise of self defence doesn't actually require a real threat, only a reasonable belief that a threat existed. Hence the "criminal" approach flies out the window.

...a consensus of international lawyers did not accept that such an authorization existed here, or that the UK and US were entitled to revive Resolution 678 (November 1990) from the start of the first Gulf War. The UK and US argued that the wording of Resolution 1441 (8 November 2002) allowed them to rely on Security Council Resolution 678 as they were entitled to interpret Iraq's behavior post 1441 as constituting a further "material breach" of Resolution 678 (Article 1) in circumstances where Iraq had been given its "final opportunity" to disarm (Article 2) and was warned of the "serious consequences" of non-compliance (Article 13). This is referred to as the revival doctrine. Not surprisingly, that is not the way international law works post the UN Charter. If the Security Council wish to authorize force, they do so in clear terms, latterly using the phrase "all necessary means" or "all measures necessary"

Neither of these phrases are being used in 678 or 1441.

A consensus of international government lawyers obvopusly disagreed. Also when you say a "consensus of international lawyers, just exactly what does that mean, a consensus of those polled, or a consensensus of every single International lawyer????

I don't expect it to over-rule our Constitution. But if you belong to an organization, your obligated to adhere to there rules. If you don't think so, then say anything you want to on this message board. Forget the rules of this board as explained by Vauge. Because thats what your saying when you don't respect International Law. These laws are not outragous. Your reactions to them are.

Sure you do, otherwise you would not have needed to start your second sentence with, " But if you." There is a huge difference between the pre war events and this board, and I am sure you are not so desperate to make an emotional point as to try this type of ploy.

We attacked a country that did nothing to us. How do you people sleep at night. Just what the hell kind of human beings are you?

Real easy, and I believe I previously explained that I believed, and still believe a ground war was not the proper action, I just do not see the illegality from an international standpoint.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Fantasea:
That is incorrect. You did not cite a single quote from the SOTU. All you did was repeat the same old generalizations.

Face it. You can't meet the challenge. So you huff and puff and bluster as you try to bluff your way out.

Stop lying to yourself. You and I both know your mind is made up and you have know intention of looking at this objectively. Putting so many pre-conditions on how you receive information has more to do with being subjective than objective.

I've answered your questions. I'm not going to force you to understand them. That's completely your call.

When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by C.J.
Actually they did, through oversights of the U.N. Leaving 688 open ended, and then a resolution authorizing force, that they didn't close the loopholes on. Additionally the premise of self defence doesn't actually require a real threat, only a reasonable belief that a threat existed. Hence the "criminal" approach flies out the window.

You considered Iraq a threat? Is this reasonable? Especially when DSM proves Bush was going to attack all along. That's not reasonable, that's by design.

Originally posted by C.J.
A consensus of international government lawyers obvopusly disagreed. Also when you say a "consensus of international lawyers, just exactly what does that mean, a consensus of those polled, or a consensensus of every single International lawyer????

I believe I provided a source. You can go there for more info.

Originally posted by C.J.
Sure you do, otherwise you would not have needed to start your second sentence with, " But if you." There is a huge difference between the pre war events and this board, and I am sure you are not so desperate to make an emotional point as to try this type of ploy.

Sure I do what? The Constitution stops at our borders. It doesn't go beyond them. That's why we have International Laws. To handle intra-country jurisdiction.

Originally posted by C.J.
Real easy, and I believe I previously explained that I believed, and still believe a ground war was not the proper action, I just do not see the illegality from an international standpoint.

Alright, one more time...

If the Security Council wish to authorize force, they do so in clear terms, latterly using the phrase "all necessary means" or "all measures necessary"

Neither of these phrases are being used in 678 or 1441.

 

[teacher]

When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.

Who's ready?

 

[Fantasea]

i would believe that this was the reason for iraq. But at the same time we're not just ignoring Pakistan, we're helping them. That is why I just can't take Iraq seriosuly. Sadaam had some vague connections with Al Queda, Pakistan harbors taliban and al-queda members. Its blatant hypocrisy.

First things first. What makes you think that Pakistan is not on the short list of candidates for serious attention.

After Afghanistan, Iraq was logically next in line. Some, like Libya, Syria, and North Korea, seeing the handwriting on the wall have already mellowed considerably.

 

[C.J.]

You considered Iraq a threat? Is this reasonable? Especially when DSM proves Bush was going to attack all along. That's not reasonable, that's by design.

Once again, yes I took the administrations bait.

And once again, I did not believe the evidence justified a ground war.

I believe I provided a source. You can go there for more info.

The source only confirms 16 U.K. International professors, hardly evidence of a large scale consensus.

Sure I do what?

Expect "international law" to over-rule our Constitution

The Constitution stops at our borders. It doesn't go beyond them. That's why we have International Laws. To handle intra-country jurisdiction.

The Constitution makes no mention of there being a border limitation on wars. The international laws mentioned are toothless rules, which carry no consequences other than unenforcable resolutions.

Alright, one more time...

If the Security Council wish to authorize force, they do so in clear terms, latterly using the phrase "all necessary means" or "all measures necessary"

Neither of these phrases are being used in 678 or 1441.

It is used in paragraph 2 of 678

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

 

[C.J.]

Who's ready?

Do it Teacher

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by C.J.
The source only confirms 16 U.K. International professors, hardly evidence of a large scale consensus.

I appreciate the way you articulate your postions on the issue. But were going to have to agree to disagree on this one. In any event, here's Kofi Anan's take on this issue:

Iraq War was Illegal and Breached U.N. Charter, Says Annan
By Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger
The Guardian U.K.

Thursday 16 September 2004

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr. Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

The UN chief had warned the US and its allies a week before the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate the UN charter. But he has hitherto refrained from using the damning word "illegal".

Both Mr. Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, claim that Saddam Hussein was in breach of security council resolution 1441 passed late in 2002, and of previous resolutions calling on him to give up weapons of mass destruction. France and other countries claimed these were insufficient.

No immediate comment was available from the White House late last night, but American officials have defended the war as an act of self-defence, allowed under the UN charter, in view of Saddam Hussein's supposed plans to build weapons of mass destruction.

However, last September, Mr. Annan issued a stern critique of the notion of pre-emptive self-defence, saying it would lead to a breakdown in international order. Mr. Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorising war against Iraq. Mr. Blair and Mr. Straw tried to secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to the war but were unable to convince a sceptical security council.

Mr. Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_091704D.shtml

 

[Fantasea]

I appreciate the way you articulate your postions on the issue. But were going to have to agree to disagree on this one. In any event, here's Kofi Anan's take on this issue:

Iraq War was Illegal and Breached U.N. Charter, Says Annan
By Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger
The Guardian U.K.

Thursday 16 September 2004

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr. Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

The UN chief had warned the US and its allies a week before the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate the UN charter. But he has hitherto refrained from using the damning word "illegal".

Both Mr. Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, claim that Saddam Hussein was in breach of security council resolution 1441 passed late in 2002, and of previous resolutions calling on him to give up weapons of mass destruction. France and other countries claimed these were insufficient.

No immediate comment was available from the White House late last night, but American officials have defended the war as an act of self-defence, allowed under the UN charter, in view of Saddam Hussein's supposed plans to build weapons of mass destruction.

However, last September, Mr. Annan issued a stern critique of the notion of pre-emptive self-defence, saying it would lead to a breakdown in international order. Mr. Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorising war against Iraq. Mr. Blair and Mr. Straw tried to secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to the war but were unable to convince a sceptical security council.

Mr. Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/printer_091704D.shtml

I wonder why the Secretary General waited well over a year to make his pronouncement. His timing is certainly gives rise for one to suspect his motives. (No politician ever does anything for which there is no motivation.)

I think, perhaps, the timing is related to the large number of alligators, in the form of the UN Oil for Food Scandals, which were beginning to bite him in the ass.

Since it is well known that Bill Clinton has aspirations of succeeding Mr. Annan, is it possible that Mr. Annan was getting some inside advice on how to get embarrassing stuff off the front pages? You know, like the way Bill used to bomb something in order to deflect attention whenever there was a 'bimbo eruption'.

 

[C.J.]

I appreciate the way you articulate your postions on the issue. But were going to have to agree to disagree on this one. In any event, here's Kofi Anan's take on this issue:

You do quite well yourself, and I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this. To me it is not a real big issue between my belief that the war was wrong, but not necessarily illegal, and your belief that it was wrong and illegal.

Kofi Annan merely expressed his opinion based (I assume) on his understanding of the U.N. charter, and offered no opinion on international law based on custom, and general principles of law. He was and is in no position to pronounce judgement, merely his opinion.

 

[C.J.]

I wonder why the Secretary General waited well over a year to make his pronouncement. His timing is certainly gives rise for one to suspect his motives. (No politician ever does anything for which there is no motivation.)

Since he stated this in the middle of September 2004, just prior to our elections, perhaps he wanted to damage Bush's chances a little. :roll:

I think, perhaps, the timing is related to the large number of alligators, in the form of the UN Oil for Food Scandals, which were beginning to bite him in the ass.

Could be, but perhaps it was his honest opinion and was tired of biting his tongue.

Since it is well known that Bill Clinton has aspirations of succeeding Mr. Annan, is it possible that Mr. Annan was getting some inside advice on how to get embarrassing stuff off the front pages? You know, like the way Bill used to bomb something in order to deflect attention whenever there was a 'bimbo eruption'.

Haven't heard of Clinton's aspirations, although his name has been released by rumor central. More than likely the next Secretary General will be Asian.

 

[Fantasea]

Since he stated this in the middle of September 2004, just prior to our elections, perhaps he wanted to damage Bush's chances a little. :roll:




Could be, but perhaps it was his honest opinion and was tired of biting his tongue.

The comment in your first sentence qualifies your words, "honest opinion", in the second, as an oxymoron, doesn't it?

Haven't heard of Clinton's aspirations, although his name has been released by rumor central. More than likely the next Secretary General will be Asian.

Anything's possible.

However, I would much prefer someone from a fully developed 'first world' nation. Someone with the vision and understanding of how things work who is able through motivation, negotiation, and cooperation to move third world basket cases into the twenty-first century for the betterment of their own people, as well as everyone else.

 

[C.J.]

The comment in your first sentence qualifies your words, "honest opinion", in the second, as an oxymoron, doesn't it?

Was I being too transparent???

Anything's possible.

However, I would much prefer someone from a fully developed 'first world' nation. Someone with the vision and understanding of how things work who is able through motivation, negotiation, and cooperation to move third world basket cases into the twenty-first century for the betterment of their own people, as well as everyone else.

Unfortunately the SG is not chosen because of his vision and understanding, but rather is chosen by geographic area, and it was Asia's turn when Annan was selected for a second turn. Since Asia was overlooked then, that puts the ball back there for the next selection.

 

[Fantasea]

Was I being too transparent???

Crystal clear.

Unfortunately the SG is not chosen because of his vision and understanding, but rather is chosen by geographic area, and it was Asia's turn when Annan was selected for a second turn. Since Asia was overlooked then, that puts the ball back there for the next selection.

The flowery wording of the UN Charter notwithstanding, it's nothing but a gentlemen's social club which permits its delegations to live like kings in New York.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by C.J.:
Kofi Annan merely expressed his opinion based (I assume) on his understanding of the U.N. charter, and offered no opinion on international law based on custom, and general principles of law. He was and is in no position to pronounce judgement, merely his opinion.

Please keep in mind that his particular opinion, when in regards to the meaning of UN Resolutions and Charter, is much more an authority on this subject than you or I. Therefore, when he states the invasion of Iraq was not in conformity with the UN Charter, he ought to know.

You have every right to disagree. I don't have a problem with that.

 

[C.J.]

Please keep in mind that his particular opinion, when in regards to the meaning of UN Resolutions and Charter, is much more an authority on this subject than you or I. Therefore, when he states the invasion of Iraq was not in conformity with the UN Charter, he ought to know.

You have every right to disagree. I don't have a problem with that.

I totally agree that his understanding of UN Resolutions and Charter are far superior to mine, but when he used the word "illegal" he stepped off of his turf, and when he stated it in a manner which appeared more like a judgement than his opinion, he then stepped on to the turf of others.

 

[Fantasea]

Please keep in mind that his particular opinion, when in regards to the meaning of UN Resolutions and Charter, is much more an authority on this subject than you or I. Therefore, when he states the invasion of Iraq was not in conformity with the UN Charter, he ought to know.

You have every right to disagree. I don't have a problem with that.

How come it took him a year and a half to come to that conclusion?

Can you say, "Presidential Election"? (Anti-Bush statement)

Can you say, "Food for Oil Scandal"? (Paul Volker turning up the heat)

Well, maybe it was all just coincidence.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Fantasea:
How come it took him a year and a half to come to that conclusion?

Can you say, "Presidential Election"? (Anti-Bush statement)

Can you say, "Food for Oil Scandal"? (Paul Volker turning up the heat)

Well, maybe it was all just coincidence.

There might be some truth to what you say. At the moment, I don't think so. But if it is, I no problem of admitting such.