 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:31
|
|
The fact is that if weapons were "found" close to election time, the cynicism would be such that it would not6 be a boon to Bush but probably lead to some scandal or another.
As for the justification for the war: I keep hearing from some , even Plato, that fine, the justification given oin public was incomplete or phoney, depending of their backing of Bush, but the war was still right. What I think this missesw is that the same mindset in this admin. that made people think they needed a phon4ey excuse to go into war ASAP has lead to the questionable followthrought. The sins at the birth of this operation have and will have consequences thorught the whole aftermath: that Bush faked the rationale is not just past history: it affects things daily: if someone in the mid-east, not some sympathetic US adinece looks and asks : "The US said it was about WMD's, but none was found..so why?", do you guys think they will come up with an answer favorable to the invasion?
My ENTIRE anti-war arguement months ago was based on this very notion: a war beguin on a lie, even if well intentioned, will NOT go particualrly smoothly afterwards: we are payting for the admins reluctance on truthtelling.
As for the UN, Sandman is correct, there is nothing Iraq could have done, short of allowing an inspector into every inch of Iraq, maybe even Saddams rectum itself, that would have satisfied US demands against HIM. Remember folks that in 1998, the US made it its policy to dethrone Saddam.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PLATO
|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:31
|
|
Certainly this has caused problems. It will almost assuredly effect the way the US is perceived in the region. It has strained relations with long term allies. The real question is...why?? I would wager that as bellicose as Saddam was that we could eventually have had unity on an invasion. Why, if there was no imminent threat, did we have to go right then? I can't help but imagine that there was some type of compelling reason. It may be for history to show us, or it may simply be a gross miscalculation by the administration. Eithier way, damage has been done to some long term important relationships and have left us holding the bill in Iraq.
Fortunately, if we are ultimately sucessful in changing the face of the ME, the world will look more kindly on the rush to war. There can be no doubt, after seeing the atrocities and corruption, that a regime change was needed. Saddam was brutal, corrupt, and criminal...he had no business at the helm of a country.
Finally, 1441 did call for serious consequences. It is historically left up to the members to interpret the final meaning of this in lieu of a more definitive resolution. The invasion was legal. Additionally, the UN had endorsed the terms of the 1991 cease fire. Saddam was clearly in violation of the cease fire as well. Under international law a resumption of hostilities was justified.
This thread was not created by me to call into question the legitimacy of the invasion. It was created to say that the justification of an iminent threat of WMD from Iraq was bull$hit...and it was.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO
Why, if there was no imminent threat, did we have to go right then? I can't help but imagine that there was some type of compelling reason. |
That bizarre faith into a hopelessly corrupt and incompetent government is simply stunning.
They wanted that war, they had everything in place for that war, and their contempt for everyone and everything else meant "us? wait? no way!", and there we go.
As for the invasion being legal - no, no, and another no. No matter how people twist 1441 or the rest of international law, no. I'm getting seriously tired of this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
Then what is the reason according to you? |
Well Plato covered it pretty good. Remember, these are Neo-conservatives. The oil doesn't mean much to them. They are much more interested in the influence a democratic Iraq can wield on Mid-East politics. It's basically a long term goal to attempt to make the Mid-East a bit more friendly (even though in the short term the ME would be less friendly). |
Well it's a mix of motives. Iraq's oil plays a minor role; that Iraq is right in the middle of 2/3 of the world's oil supplies plays a much bigger role. For those who find the goal of a "democratic Iraq" puzzling and implausible, don't forget that the neocons live in their own world where democracy means kleptocracy and a "democratic" Iraq will kiss the Likud's ass, invite the US to have bases, sell out everything on the cheap to US corporations and be a nice poodle just like Blair.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
I wouldn't call that a minor role. There's the oilman approach (we want a puppet regime in the middle of all that oil), and the necocon approach (we want a puppet re ... I mean, a friendly democracy, in the middle of all that terrorism swamp). Both converged on invading Iraq, but are totally clueless on the next stage.
Before the war I said that the strategy for post-war Iraq is "we'll hold hands with jubilating Iraqis and pump happily ever after" - that was a joke, I thought we'll see a quick track puppet regime. Now it turns out that was a perfect description...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
Re: Powell. He had photos, diagrams of mobile labs, and intercepted phone calls. Were these lies? No. The problem appears to be is that the evidence was ambiguous. There was no definite proof of what the evidence showed, one way or the other.
Now, add in Saddam's history. He once had the weapons and had used them. Anyone who has not seen the dead Iranian soldiers has to be in a state of denial.
Under the Clinton regime, everyone, US and UN, had concluded that he still had materials to create chemical and bio weapons and was not being cooperative in demonstrating what happened to these materials.
In response to 1441, he still did not explain where these materials were and refused to cooperate by threatening the scientists who could verify what had happened to the materials.
Since the invasion, we have not found stockpiles of chemical and weapons. It is not clear whether we have found the materials to make weapons, although we did find the "bio" labs. We also found labs and other R&D facilities intended to make chemical and bio weapons.
I have seen news reports that the entire alleged stockpile could be hidden in two garages. Rumsfeld has made the point that we have found Saddam's air force buried under the sand. If the chemical or bio weapons, or their precursor materials, are buried under the sand, we are not going to find them unless someone who knows where they are tells us.
Since the war, two scientists who began to cooperate with us have been attacked. One died. Saddam is still alive. The Fedayeen remains active. The Ba'athists remain loyal to Saddam and hostile to the US. The people who are happy to have the old regime gone, the vast majority of the people, are not the Ba'athist, are not the Fedayeen and are not the foreign reinforcements. The people cannot help us find the buried treasure.
IIRC, the threats Bush said were most troubling were the threats to give the chemical or bio weapons to terrorists who would then use them against the US. Bush did not say that Saddam would launch nuclear missiles against the US.
A large al Qaeda ally terrorist base did exist in Iraq. It was overrun, but the terrorists fled to Iran. They have now returned and have joined with the Ba'athists. In addition, Osama bin Laden has asked that his fighters go to Iraq and join the fight. Clearly there is a loose aliance at the least between al Qaeda and Saddam. Given that Saddam did have materials at one time and given that he did have illegal weapons programs, the threat against America was real.
The fact that Saddam is no longer in power has significantly lessened the threat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO
Well actually I think the UN or The Hague is the place most file complaints about illegal international activity. |
Oh, you think? Wow. Well, think again. You don't file formal complaints in international law if there is no predefined jurisdiction. You don't need to file any formal complaint to express an opinio iuris as a state. Rambling in the SC is a prefectly legitimate way to do it.
There was no motion for resolution in the SC as it was certain to be vetoed, and neither the ICC nor the ICJ (whatever you mean by "the hague") have jurisdiction. What, they don't teach that at your highschool?
That you claim I'm the only one to state that position can only be attributed to overdosing on Fox "news".
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-11-2003 07:27
No nation has even stated this. Several have said that we did the wrong thing, but no one has challenged the legality of it. The attack fits every legal test it is put up against. Violation of cease fire...enforcement of 1441...Iraqi attacks against UN forces patrolling no-fly zone...etc... Really, the statement that it was illegal is extremely boring
You call yourself a history major and can't even remember what did or didn't happen in your own lifetime. 
Iraq stopped using chem weapons in 1989, when the 1st Gulf War (Iran-Iraq) ended. Iraq did not use them in the 2nd Gulf War (UN - Iraq) or at any point since then.
|