Did we have justification?

[CanuckMA]

OTOH they also cheered loudly when the non-country of 'Palestine' entered the stadium.

 

[loki09789]

OTOH they also cheered loudly when the non-country of 'Palestine' entered the stadium.

True, but we here in the USA recognize the Samoan 'nation' and certain Native American 'nations' as cultural/'non-countries' a well. It was just nice to see them cheer.

 

[PeachMonkey]

I was watching the opening ceremonies for the summer olympics and really cheered and noticed the Greek spectators cheering heartily when the Iraq and Afg. contingencies were announced

Loki, you raise an interesting point.

I was watching the ceremonies as well, and seeing those olympic teams really was touching, particularly after having watched the HBO report about the torture practiced by Uday Hussein on Iraq's sportsmen. It was also nice to see Afghanistan's athletes.

It reminded me that, although the war in Iraq was not justified as a way to free Iraq from Saddam by its proponents until WMDs were not discovered, and that I *still* think it was the wrong, illegal, immoral, and just plain idiotic thing to do, there have been positive developments from it for some, and the potential long-term for positive developments for many.

However, I can't say I'm optimistic. I supported the campaign in Afghanistan, but doubted our ability and desire to actually put the country back together, and my fears are panning out there... I don't have much higher hopes for Iraq.

 

[kenpo tiger]

OTOH they also cheered loudly when the non-country of 'Palestine' entered the stadium.

That, my friend, is a whole other thread. KT

 

[loki09789]

Loki, you raise an interesting point.

However, I can't say I'm optimistic. I supported the campaign in Afghanistan, but doubted our ability and desire to actually put the country back together, and my fears are panning out there... I don't have much higher hopes for Iraq.

It is interesting how on one hand we aren't suppose to be there and are seen as the commercial empirialists, but on the other hand (when we have opened the door to a potential for a government that represents and responds to the citizenry in a democratic structure) it becomes our job to put the country back together. I am not directly attacking you as much as this logic.

If we have dismantled the Taliban or SHussein's seriously F*ed Up power structures, tried (notice that these things aren't as clean and easy as we would like them to be - remember the enemy doesn't WANT to let your plan work) to establish some form of stability AND THEN help to hand a situation of potential nationalistic and political energy back into the hands of the locals, how is it our fault that it failed? It is not our job to rebuild anything in either place, that is the responsibilty of the citizens to step up. If they say they want sovereignity, want a more democratic process and can't make it work because they can't overcome their own cultural or historical rivalries.... how is that our fault.

Analogy time:

I stop an abusive husband from killing his wife and children. I shelter them, set the mother/wife up in counselling and educational opportunities so that she can be self reliant. After that, she goes off with another abusive type...is that my fault? If these abusive governments have been ousted, but the citizenry - once the power to choose and act is back in their hands - allow or vote in another abuser... doom on them. But it is easier to blame those "Damn Americans" because we didn't do more.... How can we do more without being seen as the evil empirialists?

I break up the fight between two people in a bar. I talk them down and they shake hands on it and say they want to let it drop....then continue to bash each other senseless how is that my fault? I acted based on my personal values to try and make a positive difference. If, at the point where I step out of it, the other parties involved can't play nice that is on them.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

...how is it our fault that it failed? It is not our job to rebuild anything in either place, that is the responsibilty of the citizens to step up. If they say they want sovereignity, want a more democratic process and can't make it work because they can't overcome their own cultural or historical rivalries.... how is that our fault.

Analogy time: I break up the fight between two people in a bar. I talk them down and they shake hands on it and say they want to let it drop....then continue to bash each other senseless how is that my fault? I acted based on my personal values to try and make a positive difference. If, at the point where I step out of it, the other parties involved can't play nice that is on them.


The analogy fails. We started the fight, recall, and entered the bar swinging. We also have gotten a fairly bloody lip from it all, with nearly a thousand dead. A thousand ruined and broken American families and we exit saying, "Oh, well...too bad they couldn't get it together. Better luck next time." Shall we do that?

Surely someone knew entering into the Iraqi fray the sheer complexities of the politics of the region. Two ethnic groups (Arab/Kurd) struggling against each other, along with two competing religious sects (Shia/Sunni) who have been at each other's throats for 1,300 years. Did we bother consulting with any experts?

Prior to the invasion of Iraq the US Army War College published an assessment predicting the present day situation and suggesting we avoid an invasion. The report stated that we'd run into heavy guerrilla activity and get bogged down in urban warfare and hot insurgency---which we have.

The report was ignored.

In George H.W. Bush's biography he specifically stated that he didn't move into Baghdad in '91 and oust Saddam because he was concerned we'd get bogged down in urban warfare with guerrillas.

His son apparently didn't read the book.

As far as your suggestion that the Iraqis step up to rebuild their country, I agree we should let them. Why then are we paying for the reconstruction? Democrats pushed to have Iraqi oil funds pay for the reconstruction when negotiating Senate Bill 1689, yet Republicans resisted it every step of the way.

The bulk of the reconstruction is being paid by US the taxpayer. Why?

Why are we paying American truck drivers $10,000 per month to work there--albeit at great risk--when we can pay an Iraqi a third of that to do the same job? We've outsourced the Iraqi jobs to ourselves.

Iraqi unemployment stands now at 70%.




Regards,


Steve

 

[Phoenix44]

In George H.W. Bush's biography he specifically stated that he didn't move into Baghdad in '91 and oust Saddam because he was concerned we'd get bogged down in urban warfare with guerrillas.

His son apparently didn't read the book.

That's because, as Dubya himself said, he gets his advice directly from God--he doesn't need his father's advice.

IMO, no the war was not justified. Iraq did not have WMD. Not only did the UN weapons inspectors not find any, but neither have our own troops who've been there for 17 months.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, though Bush thinks if he keeps saying so it becomes true (and unfortunately that seems to hold true for all the Fox News watchers).

Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States.

Bush lied to us to gain support for the war.

We are now LESS safe than before. Maybe those of you in Michigan and Indiana feel safer...those of us on the East coast with the elevated terror alert do not feel safer. And Bush has done nothing substantive to increase our readiness... I guess he thinks changing the color of the alert works well enough. (And he then has the gall to have the Republican National Convention in already over-burdened NYC)

We are now essentially alone in Iraq--there is no coalition. We have no support in the world. Terror attacks have INCREASED. We have lost nearly 1000 young Americans. There's a good chance we will have to institute a draft to feed this meat grinder war (There are already twin bills in the House and Senate to do exactly that). The world community hates us. And we have an untenable deficit.

I believe the sole purpose of this war was to enrich Bush's cronies, and it has certainly achieved that end.

 

[Cryozombie]

Firstly, when did we decide to be the global police. I know I didn't vote us into that job. Second, it isn't that I have a problem punishing someone who broke the rules, but how about all the other criminals that GW seems to be ignoring, despite the fact that they commited crime 12 years ago and are still committing crimes today. If you are going to enforce a law, your have to enforce it on everyone, not just the ones that took a shot a Dad.

I can agree with that.

 

[lvwhitebir]

Congress made an official declaration of war to attack the axis powers in WWII, something I have yet to see for Iraq.

I know that the President only has the authority to keep troops in action for 60 days. After that, Congress must approve it. I wonder what their method of "approval" is? Anybody?

Also, what happened to the Congressional Intelligence Subcommittee? Did they not see the same material as Bush? If they didn't respond to the same intelligence "lapse" that we're blaming Bush for, what good are they? If they did, why didn't they tell Congress to get the troops out because this whole business was unjustified? If they didn't see it, what in the heck are they doing?

If the UN placed the sanctions, who are we to enforce them without UN approval? In a sense we have become vigilantes or some would say bullies, as opposed to police.

I agree we probably should have had UN approval. I don't know what the resolutions said, but they said something to the fact that non-compliance would lead to military action. And, before the war, there was some discussion that said our military action was not against international law. If anybody knows the sides of that story it might add to this discussion.

I won't argue that he obstructed the inspectors, but the jist of the operation and the sanctions was POSSESSION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, yet no one seems to be able to find any.

Actually the gist of the resolutions was to declare, disarm, and prove compliance with the disarmament. Iraq obstructed all of them. Even the inspectors believed there *were* WMDs there, at least at one time. Iraq couldn't account for its distruction so couldn't discount them.

I find it funny that just before the war started up to now, the inspectors didn't think there was anything there. But until then, they believed there was something or at least weren't able to say for sure either way...



CNN 4/24/1998
As described in the latest report, the criteria is threefold: "full declaration by Iraq, verification by the Commission, and destruction, removal or rendering harmless under international supervision."

Butler argued that while Iraq may claim to have fully declared all of its weapons, its "consistent refusal" to provide UNSCOM with needed information and materials to back up the claims fails to satisfy the second step -- verification. That makes the destruction of all of Iraq's prohibited weapons programs impossible, the report said.


CNN 10/26/1998
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- International arms experts validated U.S. tests indicating Iraq put the deadly nerve gas VX into warheads before the 1991 Gulf War, contrary to Baghdad's denials, according to a U.N. report.


CNN 9/9/2002
According to the terms of the 1991 U.N. cease-fire resolution that ended the Gulf War, Iraq was supposed to destroy all stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, along with the machinery and precursors to make them, and dismantle its entire nuclear-development program. By the time the U.N. inspectors left Iraq for the last time in Dec. 1998, sizable chunks of Saddam's weapons program were gone: 39,000 chemical munitions, 690 tons of chemical agents, 3,000 tons of precursors, 426 pieces of production equipment. The U.N. had also dismantled or accounted for 817 Scud missiles, which might have lofted toxic warheads at Iraq's neighbors.
...
Even so, in those seven years, the inspection teams were never sure of their accounting. While they were in Iraq, Saddam admitted to just a fraction of his missile and chemical stores and falsely denied the existence of a biological program. After Saddam finally quit cooperating in 1998 and the U.S. and Britain bombarded Iraq for four days, the inspectors were gone for good, immensely disturbed by what they had not found. Yet they knew, based on discrepancies in Iraqi documents they had seized, that Iraq still hid 6,000 chemical bombs. They discounted Iraq's contention that it had destroyed all of the 3.9 tons of deadly VX nerve poison that it admitted to having produced or the 500 tons of precursor chemicals to make more. They suspected Iraq retained 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.
...
Saddam's biological-weapons program was the deepest black hole. Despite more than 30 searches for various unconventional arms, inspectors did not even know of its existence until mid-1995, when Saddam's defecting son-in-law Hussein Kamal revealed that secret labs buried in Iraq's security, not military, apparatus were cooking up deadly germs. Iraq subsequently admitted it made batches of anthrax bacteria, carcinogenic aflatoxin, agricultural toxins and the paralyzing poison botulinum. Iraqi officials reported they had loaded 191 bombs, including 25 missile warheads, with the poisons for use in the Gulf War. They said they destroyed them after the conflict, but they presented no proof, and Western officials don't believe them.


CNN 1/31/2003
Blix told the council Monday that Iraq has not fully accounted for its stocks of chemical and biological weapons and has not fully accepted its obligation to disarm under U.N. Resolution 1441.


CNN 3/14/2003
The United Nations has been waiting for months for Iraq to provide information that could prove what happened to chemical and biological weapons it possessed in the 1990s.

As much as 1,000 tons of VX are unaccounted for. Iraq also cannot account for as much as 2,245 gallons [8,500 liters] of anthrax.
...
Iraqi Air Force documents found by inspectors in 1998 show that Iraq dropped more than 13,000 chemical bombs during the Iraq-Iran War that lasted from 1983-1988. Iraq previously claimed that 19,500 bombs were used, which could mean that 3,500 bombs -- with more than 1,000 tons of VX -- are unaccounted for.


WhiteBirch

 

[lvwhitebir]

Apparently you're not looking closely enough. It's particularly interesting that your CNN article listings end in 2001, *before* Iraq actually allowed inspectors *back into the country*.

Not really. My argument was strictly non-compliance. The articles I presented clearly showed that Iraq was not complying with the resolutions. Whether they allowed them back into the country or not, they kicked them out which was non-compliance.

Not surprisingly, just before the war, Iraq said it would start complying...

UN Weapons Inspectors Return To Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/17/blix.iraq.cyprus/index.html

The Inspections So Far:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/03/timep.inspections.tm/index.html

Yes the inspectors came back in the country and yes they did something while they were there. As always, I applaud their effort. But they didn't stand a chance against a country who was not willing to help them.

UN Weapons Inspectors State No Evidence of WMDs Before War:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/05/sprj.irq.blix.intl/index.html

This one kills me. The title doesn't do the article justice. So he says that WMDs are not there..., well... we think... (highlights added by me)

The U.N.'s chief weapons inspector has said no evidence was found before the U.S.-led invasion that Iraq had restarted its chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons programs.

Hans Blix has said he cannot conclude that Iraq is free of banned weapons, but is urging the U.S.-led occupation forces to allow U.N. inspectors back into the country.

Wow, they did so well for the first 12 years. A few more will really get to the bottom of this.

UN Weapons Inspectors Claim War Was Not Justified:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

UN Chief Weapons Inspector Attacks WMD 'Spin':
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/18/sprj.irq.blix.bush/

Gotta like Monday-morning quarterbacking.

And... Highlights added by me.

In an interview on Australian radio on Wednesday, Blix said he believed that Iraq had destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago but maintained the appearance it had them to deter a military attack.

Ok, so we think they're gone, but we don't know. We had 12 years to find out, but we haven't yet, and Iraq is maintaining the appearance that it has them. So all of this could have been averted if Iraq would have complied with the resolutions!

WhiteBirch

 

[Flatlander]

Not really. My argument was strictly non-compliance.

Yes, everyone agrees that Saddam was a non-compliant, generally evil and bad man, certainly unfit to play nice with others, but

I agree that the reason for going in was non-compliance with the 12-year-old UN resolution. That was our first intention until the UN disagreed.We then had to come up with other reasons.

This is the fundamental crux of the argument. Yes, Saddam was non-compliant, but why did the US and the 'coalition of the willing' then have "to come up with other reasons"? Upon which authority were they justified in moving forward? Where is the justification?

Non compliance is a justification under UN authority. The war in Iraq is not sanctioned by the UN. Ergo, non compliance is no justification.

The only justification that can be validly argued, given that there was no clear and present threat to the United States, nor ANY other member of their coalition force, would be one based on "ethics and human compassion". But this is neither what you are arguing, nor what the President tried to sell us. Furthermore, it is an argument based upon opinion and emotion, which I do not find as sufficient reasons to risk so many lives.

 

[OULobo]

I know that the President only has the authority to keep troops in action for 60 days. After that, Congress must approve it. I wonder what their method of "approval" is? Anybody?

Also, what happened to the Congressional Intelligence Subcommittee? Did they not see the same material as Bush? If they didn't respond to the same intelligence "lapse" that we're blaming Bush for, what good are they? If they did, why didn't they tell Congress to get the troops out because this whole business was unjustified? If they didn't see it, what in the heck are they doing?

Bush rode the post 9/11 anger, fear and nationalism into congress and basically dared anyone to defy him. He won out by gaining the approval from congress to wage war on anyone cart blanche. I personally don't see anything intelligent about the Congressional Intelligence Subcommittee. They are still a bunch of polititians, not a valid cross-section of the people.

I agree we probably should have had UN approval. I don't know what the resolutions said, but they said something to the fact that non-compliance would lead to military action. And, before the war, there was some discussion that said our military action was not against international law. If anybody knows the sides of that story it might add to this discussion.

Yes, military action, with UN approval. As to the US breaking international law, I'm sure it has more to do with us being the global big boy more than legitimacy.

Actually the gist of the resolutions was to declare, disarm, and prove compliance with the disarmament. Iraq obstructed all of them. Even the inspectors believed there *were* WMDs there, at least at one time. Iraq couldn't account for its distruction so couldn't discount them.

I find it funny that just before the war started up to now, the inspectors didn't think there was anything there. But until then, they believed there was something or at least weren't able to say for sure either way...

Actually, it seems to me they met all of those resolution criteria. They declared disarmament 2 years after the first war, they seem to have indeed disarmed (seeing as we have no proof they didn't), and they allowed initially for inspections to prove compliance. I almost don't blame them for saying enough is enough.

CNN 4/24/1998
As described in the latest report, the criteria is threefold: "full declaration by Iraq, verification by the Commission, and destruction, removal or rendering harmless under international supervision."

Butler argued that while Iraq may claim to have fully declared all of its weapons, its "consistent refusal" to provide UNSCOM with needed information and materials to back up the claims fails to satisfy the second step -- verification. That makes the destruction of all of Iraq's prohibited weapons programs impossible, the report said.

It doesn't make it impossible that they disarmed, just that it may be impossible to provide enough proof for the UNSCOM to be satisfied.

CNN 10/26/1998
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- International arms experts validated U.S. tests indicating Iraq put the deadly nerve gas VX into warheads before the 1991 Gulf War, contrary to Baghdad's denials, according to a U.N. report.


CNN 9/9/2002
According to the terms of the 1991 U.N. cease-fire resolution that ended the Gulf War, Iraq was supposed to destroy all stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, along with the machinery and precursors to make them, and dismantle its entire nuclear-development program. By the time the U.N. inspectors left Iraq for the last time in Dec. 1998, sizable chunks of Saddam's weapons program were gone: 39,000 chemical munitions, 690 tons of chemical agents, 3,000 tons of precursors, 426 pieces of production equipment. The U.N. had also dismantled or accounted for 817 Scud missiles, which might have lofted toxic warheads at Iraq's neighbors.
...
Even so, in those seven years, the inspection teams were never sure of their accounting. While they were in Iraq, Saddam admitted to just a fraction of his missile and chemical stores and falsely denied the existence of a biological program. After Saddam finally quit cooperating in 1998 and the U.S. and Britain bombarded Iraq for four days, the inspectors were gone for good, immensely disturbed by what they had not found. Yet they knew, based on discrepancies in Iraqi documents they had seized, that Iraq still hid 6,000 chemical bombs. They discounted Iraq's contention that it had destroyed all of the 3.9 tons of deadly VX nerve poison that it admitted to having produced or the 500 tons of precursor chemicals to make more. They suspected Iraq retained 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.
...
Saddam's biological-weapons program was the deepest black hole. Despite more than 30 searches for various unconventional arms, inspectors did not even know of its existence until mid-1995, when Saddam's defecting son-in-law Hussein Kamal revealed that secret labs buried in Iraq's security, not military, apparatus were cooking up deadly germs. Iraq subsequently admitted it made batches of anthrax bacteria, carcinogenic aflatoxin, agricultural toxins and the paralyzing poison botulinum. Iraqi officials reported they had loaded 191 bombs, including 25 missile warheads, with the poisons for use in the Gulf War. They said they destroyed them after the conflict, but they presented no proof, and Western officials don't believe them.


CNN 1/31/2003
Blix told the council Monday that Iraq has not fully accounted for its stocks of chemical and biological weapons and has not fully accepted its obligation to disarm under U.N. Resolution 1441.


CNN 3/14/2003
The United Nations has been waiting for months for Iraq to provide information that could prove what happened to chemical and biological weapons it possessed in the 1990s.

As much as 1,000 tons of VX are unaccounted for. Iraq also cannot account for as much as 2,245 gallons [8,500 liters] of anthrax.
...
Iraqi Air Force documents found by inspectors in 1998 show that Iraq dropped more than 13,000 chemical bombs during the Iraq-Iran War that lasted from 1983-1988. Iraq previously claimed that 19,500 bombs were used, which could mean that 3,500 bombs -- with more than 1,000 tons of VX -- are unaccounted for.


WhiteBirch

Basically all the articles talk about the opinons of the inspectors and anylists. None of that matters if there are no WMDs. That is what it comes down to, if they broke the rules and had them, then where are they?

 

[lvwhitebir]

This is the fundamental crux of the argument. Yes, Saddam was non-compliant, but why did the US and the 'coalition of the willing' then have "to come up with other reasons"? Upon which authority were they justified in moving forward? Where is the justification?

From what I recall, their justification was that Iraq was in non-compliance and had the means and will to attack the US or at a minimum provide the means to the terrorists. The Intel at the time supported that, at least in the eyes of the government. We had documentation pointing to the fact that he had chemical, biological, and nuclear capabilities that were unaccounted for. He had the previous 4 years to do anything he wanted with those capabilities because there were no inspectors in the country.

Both the House and Senate voted and approved to allow military action against Iraq in October 2002. What evidence was provided to them is unknown to me. They voted strongly in support.

Non compliance is a justification under UN authority. The war in Iraq is not sanctioned by the UN. Ergo, non compliance is no justification.

The UN agreed that they were non-compliant and gave multiple resolutions and sanctions towards that fact. The sticky part was a line that said if he didn't play nice there would be consequences. I guess the international-law argument was that we were going to provide those consequences.

The only justification that can be validly argued, given that there was no clear and present threat to the United States, nor ANY other member of their coalition force, would be one based on "ethics and human compassion".

Actually the President argued that there *was* a clear and present threat to the US and to the world. That's the second argument he gave to Congress for the attack after the UN vote failed to pan out. Congress agreed to the argument and voted to allow us to attack.

We found out afterwards that we were wrong, but that doesn't dismiss what we thought to begin with, unless a whole lot of people are just lying... more than just the President mind you. The majority opinion of the *government* was that there was a threat and Bush believed he had to address it.

Even Kerry says he would still have voted for the war, even knowing that we wouldn't find WMDs.

IMO, we weren't lied to. The government thought something was true when it was found to be not true, months after the fact. And I would hate to be beat up for making an informed decision that turned out to be the wrong one. For example, someone runs into a school carrying a backpack. The metal detectors say it might be a weapon, they don't know. The cop tells the teen to stop, but he only runs faster. He chases the teen down and tackles him. The teen fights back until the officer forcibly subdues him. When the officer only finds paper in the backpack, was he justified for his actions? Can the teen sue him? Do we revile the cop or congratulate him for his vigilence? What if there really was a weapon in the bag?

I believe our pre-war condition was much like the cop's. We believed the weapons were there. We believed he was helping the terrorists. He wasn't submitting to our request to prove he didn't have the weapon, and according to the weapons inspectors held on to the illusion of having them. What choice did we really have? Wait for him to attack?

To me, it sounds like too many people are reviling the cop (Bush). We don't have to necessarily congratulate him, but we shouldn't outright attack his character either. One, he's human and will make mistakes. Two, our government is not a one-man show. We can't only blame him for what happened. Congress was at fault too, as was the intelligence providers. The UN was at fault for not being diligent enough to enforce its earlier resolutions. Iraq, IMO, was the most at fault for not submitting to the resolutions. They are not the innocent victims some are pointing them out to be. I think the US showed great restraint by waiting for 12 years.

Actually, it seems to me they met all of those resolution criteria. They declared disarmament 2 years after the first war, they seem to have indeed disarmed (seeing as we have no proof they didn't), and they allowed initially for inspections to prove compliance. I almost don't blame them for saying enough is enough.

Even the inspectors were disappointed with the Iraqi declarations and found weapons during their inspections that were never declared. There were multiple resolutions condeming Iraq for not complying with 1441. They may have disarmed, but the resolution was that they had to provide evidence that they had. They failed to provide it.

The problem was that Iraq wasn't forthcoming as they were *required* by the resolution. Had they been forthcoming, I think Saddam would have won a great political blow against the US by showing that he indeed didn't have the weapons we said he had. Bottom line... why didn't he do it? Was he still trying to hide something?

WhiteBirch

 

[lvwhitebir]

It doesn't make it impossible that they disarmed, just that it may be impossible to provide enough proof for the UNSCOM to be satisfied.

But that was their *required* action under the UN resolution.

Basically all the articles talk about the opinons of the inspectors and anylists. None of that matters if there are no WMDs. That is what it comes down to, if they broke the rules and had them, then where are they?

The opinions of the inspectors are important IMO because they show what the mind-set of the government was. I believe this is close to the information that the US government had to justify the attack. We believed he had all of those weapons. We had information that the weapons were there at one time and no information that they were ever destroyed, ergo the weapons are still there.

Even in our society, if you're known to be hostile (a felon) and are known to carry a weapon the cops have a more leeway in dealing with you. Unannounced searches and seizures are allowed.

Just because the information we had was wrong, doesn't mean the war wasn't justified based on the information we had at the time. It's always nice being a Monday-morning quarterback. You can do no wrong!

WhiteBirch

 

[OULobo]

Actually the President argued that there *was* a clear and present threat to the US and to the world. That's the second argument he gave to Congress for the attack after the UN vote failed to pan out.

The problem is the notion of a clear and present danger. The danger was neither clear, not in this case, present. Sounds like two strikes.

The UN was at fault for not being diligent enough to enforce its earlier resolutions.

or more level headed in not wanting to start a war over something that they weren't sure existed and today we are pretty sure infact didn't exist.

We had information that the weapons were there at one time and no information that they were ever destroyed, ergo the weapons are still there.

That is faulty logic. It would only be true if there were not other options except that they still had the weapons. There are however many other options, like that they may have destroyed them and just not documented it, sold them, someone stole them, ect.

But that was their *required* action under the UN resolution.

Now we are chasing our tails. You say Saddam didn't comply, I say the UN gets to make that decision, not GW.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

There were multiple resolutions condeming Iraq for not complying with 1441. They may have disarmed, but the resolution was that they had to provide evidence that they had. They failed to provide it.

The problem was that Iraq wasn't forthcoming as they were *required* by the resolution. Had they been forthcoming, I think Saddam would have won a great political blow against the US by showing that he indeed didn't have the weapons we said he had. Bottom line... why didn't he do it? Was he still trying to hide something?

WhiteBirch

Well, we required proof of a negative. We made the allegations they had them, and required them to prove they didn't have the weapons. We have yet to provide any proof that they DID exist. I would think it rather difficult to prove they didn't exist...particularly given our desire to believe they did.

The UN didn't back the invasion. How can the US go against the wishes of the Security Council and invade? How does that work? We cite the UN sanctions and decisions concerning the Iraq as a casus belli, and then flout the UN in ignoring their authority regarding the issue of invasion.

And since when did we get picky regarding the enforcement of UN sanctions? We've violated UN resolutions and ignored sanctions in the past when they've been directed against us or our allies. Do we merely pick those that we deem convenient?

Russia, France and China remain implacable in their opposition to a redrafted US resolution that threatens Saddam Hussein with "serious consequences" if he resists UN weapons inspections and twice accuses him of being in "material breach" of earlier resolutions - language which they say implicitly authorises George Bush to use military force without returning to the security council.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,817793,00.html


Regards,


Steve




Regards,


Steve

 

[Deflecting_the_Storm]

This is what I find funny. Its funny how americans now are asking if we were justified in going to Iraq? When has America been justified in doing anything? When does America stop? Oh when nuclear force is threatened. For this countries whole entire lifespan we have been doing things that are completely wrong and not justifiable and I find it so funny that it took a conflict in the 60's to bring that out. The United States almost destroyed a whole entire race. They took their land, moved them to another part of the country, and gave them nothing else. Well now they have reparations but you cant put a price on life. It almost takes a revolution for anything here to be changed. It took women around this country to fight for years so that their rights can be recongnized. One Hundred years after the slaves were freed, they had to fight for equality. So in essence they had to end the fight for their freedom. All this started not by politicans, but by the people. We pay the government to lie, cheat, and keep us in this "Matrix" lifestyle that we enjoy. Not telling us all of threats and dangers headed toward us because we as a society cannot take it. So we pay them to lie to us. And then when we ask them why do they lie? What are the suppose to say? The common answer. The reason why we pay them. To keep us safe. No matter who you vote for it will be like this. The minority rules the majority. The president doesnt lead this country. He just represents it. He is the guy who speaks for us. But the others behind the scenes make the choices. We are being duped right now into thinking that by voting for president we actually have a say in how this country is run. Who cares if GWB lies, or if Kerry lies. Thats what you want! If you dont think so, all the great presidents were just good at not getting caught when it comes to a lie. And when a president gets too powerful, he is removed, assainated, or just right out "Bushed" out of the election. Like I have said before I am not going to vote right along with the other 75% of the country, because there is no right choice. We can make a right choice. But this is america. Land of the free, home of the greedy. If it doesnt effect you, you dont care. But thats the whole idea of capitalism. But if we can grow as a country, do we grow at all? Or do we all just fall together? Everyone always says that when it comes to voting, you are picking the lesser of two evils. Thats ok, I will pass that by. Because I believe that in order to give a man the position to speak for the better good of me and this country, he has to be far from evil. But I guess, noone else has to be justified to vote for him do they?

 

[Flatlander]

You've touched on a number of different subjects here, most of them rather unrelated to the discussion at hand.

 

[lvwhitebir]

The problem is the notion of a clear and present danger. The danger was neither clear, not in this case, present. Sounds like two strikes.

I believe that the evidence at that time showed that there was a clear and present danger. Congress agreed too, thus the war.

Perhaps knowing what we do now, however, we should not have simply gone in. That to me doesn't mean the decision at that time was wrong or a lie.

or more level headed in not wanting to start a war over something that they weren't sure existed and today we are pretty sure infact didn't exist.

I don't know if anyone is really saying this. All they're saying is that we're not finding it. It could be the items were removed from the country during the 4-year absence of the inspectors. It could be they were removed during the war itself. A lot of weapons and people crossed into Iraq, who's to say those items didn't cross out of Iraq.

That is faulty logic. It would only be true if there were not other options except that they still had the weapons. There are however many other options, like that they may have destroyed them and just not documented it, sold them, someone stole them, ect.

But without knowledge that they were destroyed, sold, or stolen, we *had* to assume they still existed. According to the resolution it was Iraq's responsibility to document what they had and what they destroyed. The UN and the weapons inspectors agreed that they did not do this.

Now we are chasing our tails. You say Saddam didn't comply, I say the UN gets to make that decision, not GW.

The UN made the decision multiple times. They just chose not to do as much about it. They authorized some airstrikes and such throughout the 90's, but never authorized anything with real teeth. IMO, that weakens the UN because countries will believe that the resolutions are useless.

I guess there are three parts to this discussion:

1) Was Iraq fullfilling it's obligations according to the UN resolutions?
2) Was there a clear and present danger from Iraq? Did the evidence at that time suggest WMDs and/or ties with terrorist organizations?
3) Were we legally justified to attack, either because of the UN resolution or because of some international law that allows it when there's a "clear and present danger?"

WhiteBirch

 

[lvwhitebir]

Well, we required proof of a negative. We made the allegations they had them, and required them to prove they didn't have the weapons. We have yet to provide any proof that they DID exist. I would think it rather difficult to prove they didn't exist...particularly given our desire to believe they did.

That's the way the UN resolution worded it. Iraq was to declare what they had and what they destroyed. The weapons inspectors were there to verify the declaration. We had plenty of proof of many weapons that were used during the Iraq/Iran war and those used against the Kurds. The inspectors also found several items that weren't in the declaration and had information on items that weren't declared and were never found.

CNN 2/17/2003
Hans Blix report to the UN
"To take an example, a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for. I must not jump to the conclusion that they exist; however, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented."


CNN 10/30/1997
"The chemical and biological (weapons), there is no ambiguity," [chief weapons inspector Richard] Butler said. "They are able to produce those weapons."


In short, the UN believed the weapons were there and sent the inspection team in to verify the weapons had indeed been destroyed. If the UN didn't believe the weapons were there, the original resolution would have been concluded.

CNN 10/26/1998
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- International arms experts validated U.S. tests indicating Iraq put the deadly nerve gas VX into warheads before the 1991 Gulf War, contrary to Baghdad's denials, according to a U.N. report.
...
"The experts as a whole said the whole picture is that Iraq put chemical weapons in these warheads," said Richard Butler, chairman of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). "What's critical ... is that for years (the Iraqis) said they never did any such thing, so that blows this wide open."

Iraq has admitted putting sarin, a gas that causes spasms, nausea and possible death, into warheads but has denied it was able to load VX before the 1991 Gulf War.


CNN 9/9/2002
Before the Gulf War, U.S. intelligence estimated that Iraq was five to 10 years away from building a nuclear bomb. When the International Atomic Energy Agency team went in after the war, it discovered Saddam was just six months from a crude device. Iraqi scientists had devised a workable weapon design, cobbled together tools and parts and had come very close to refining all of the 44 lbs. of highly enriched uranium necessary to fuel one bomb.
...
Yet they (the inspectors) knew, based on discrepancies in Iraqi documents they had seized, that Iraq still hid 6,000 chemical bombs. They discounted Iraq's contention that it had destroyed all of the 3.9 tons of deadly VX nerve poison that it admitted to having produced or the 500 tons of precursor chemicals to make more. They suspected Iraq retained 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.
...
Despite more than 30 searches for various unconventional arms, inspectors did not even know of its existence until mid-1995, when Saddam's defecting son-in-law Hussein Kamal revealed that secret labs buried in Iraq's security, not military, apparatus were cooking up deadly germs. Iraq subsequently admitted it made batches of anthrax bacteria, carcinogenic aflatoxin, agricultural toxins and the paralyzing poison botulinum. Iraqi officials reported they had loaded 191 bombs, including 25 missile warheads, with the poisons for use in the Gulf War. They said they destroyed them after the conflict, but they presented no proof, and Western officials don't believe them.


CNN 3/14/2003
Iraqi Air Force documents found by inspectors in 1998 show that Iraq dropped more than 13,000 chemical bombs during the Iraq-Iran War that lasted from 1983-1988. Iraq previously claimed that 19,500 bombs were used, which could mean that 3,500 bombs -- with more than 1,000 tons of VX -- are unaccounted for.



So we, the UN, had intelligence that there were 1000s of tons of chemical agents in Iraq's possession. They had antrax, botulinum, VX, and sarin. The IAEA said they were 6-months away from being able to produce a nuclear bomb. All of this was not declared by Iraq, but was found after the fact. What more evidence did we need, a bomb blowing up in the US with Saddam's fingerprint on it?

The UN didn't back the invasion. How can the US go against the wishes of the Security Council and invade? How does that work? We cite the UN sanctions and decisions concerning the Iraq as a casus belli, and then flout the UN in ignoring their authority regarding the issue of invasion.

That to me is really the issue. It has nothing to do with what we have or haven't found to date. The decision was based on intelligence at the time, which is really an educated guess. I don't know anything about international law nor about how the UN charter works. All I know is that before the war there was discussion saying we weren't violating international law and that since the war I know of no resolution in the UN denouncing our effort nor some international court going against the US for violating Iraq's sovereignty. If anyone has a deeper understanding of the legal justification, please respond. We can jump up and down all we want, but I don't believe the US did anything "illegal."

Do we merely pick those that we deem convenient?

Historically, yes. We pick the fights that have the most "value" to the country. We the people are paying for it, so I for one don't care about small African nations duking it out. There are other ways we can help that cause that are more cost effective. I care about more influential countries that can cause more global distress. We ignore resolutions against Israel because that would be a political hotbed that would cause more problems than solve. You may not like it, but it's my version of the truth.

There are threads on here all the time about martial artists attacking first when they believe there is an imminent threat. Many people believe it's morally justified even if the law says you shouldn't. What's so different in this case? Boil this down to three people, Iraq who is the ex-con possibly armed and coming at you, the US the possible victim, and the world stage who represent the law. As far as you know, he has the ability, the intent, and the opportunity to attack you. Do you strike first believing that to do so would represent less harm to you and your family or wait and see what he does possibly losing a family member in the process?

WhiteBirch