Yes…My bad there.
You forgot to add the part where the US went to the UNSC to get a resolution backing the “resumption of hostilities” as you call it and then never called for a vote on it when it became obvious that it would not pass.
Well no, if the vague claims were correct they would prove little. If some of the claims that had absolutely no basis in truth were correct (and the fact that they were not correct was known in many cases at the time) then there were potentially some dangers but by no means any impending disaster. (Clearly, the facts on N. Korea…or at least their claims…are more dangerous than anything believable that was claimed about Saddam.)
Well, I don’t think that anyone is crying about the fact that Saddam is gone. However, some of us do not believe that the ends necessarily justify the means. And the way in which this was done…both the lying and deception and the harm done to the U.S. reputation internationally…may cause harm in the long run. Besides which, it is unclear what the future of Iraq should be.
At any rate, the whole point of democracy is to give people a say in their government and this can only be done if the government is honest about its intentions and motivations. If the U.S. government wanted to make the case for a humanitarian intervention in Iraq, for example, that case should have been made. They should not have come up with pretexts.
Of course, this leaves aside the whole issue of whether this war has done more to fight terrorists or recruit them.
On this, we agree.
You’re still saying that that cite says something that it doesn’t say.
You’re making an assumption.
You’re assuming that when the CIA said, “The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa’ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs,” they really meant to say, “Iraq’s likely to supply aQ with banned weapons.”
Yet, if it’s true they meant to say that it was likely, we’re left wondering why they described the likelihood of Hussein "initiating" an attack as “low” and described such a thing as an “extreme step” to be taken only as a "last chance."
One way to avoid this contradiction is to take what they said at face value. There’s reason to suspect that our intel agencies take time to carefully craft the language of their reports with a goal of accuracy.
YMMV.
Because Iraq was likely to try to supply aQ with banned weapons, it’s likely that Iraq tried to supply aQ with banned weapons.
To paraphrase a national security advisor re Iraq,
"if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.”
“National obliteration” is against national interests.
This quality of inference is woefully insufficient for a matter of this extreme gravity. (Of course, you may not consider this military, foreign policy venture in Iraq a very serious matter.)
GWB and UbL both despise Hussein. Each has called for the death of Hussein. They have a mutual enemy. Therefore it’s “likely that they would have some sort of working relationship.” In this case, US support of the Mujahedin in Afghanistan is good enough to demonstrate the likelihood of GWB and UbL working together.
If they’re crazy, why do you think they’d act in a logical manner?
If they’re acting in a logical manner, how do you know they’re crazy?
Because Hussein was likely to work together with UbL, it’s likely that Hussein worked together with UbL.
Having a common goal does not mean that one need to work with another, noor does it even mean that it’s “probable.”
The mere assertion of probability does nothing to establish the actuality of probability.
Resolution 1441 (and all the rest) clearly stated that SH was violating the ceasefire, which was all the US ever needed. The push for a “second resolution” was merely for consensus-building, political purposes: to get more members for the coalition and to help out Tony Blair. Not getting it was unfortunate, but a footnote as far as the legal situation.
So lemme get this straight…
- Saddam Hussein violated UN resolution 1441.
- Ergo, the United States had a just cause to go to war – namely, to enforce the UN’s resolution…
- …even though the UN didn’t want the US to go to war with Iraq.
Was the US appointed executor of UN policy, and I missed the announcement? Or is the disjoint between items #2 and #3 proof that the Bush apologists will use any lame-ass excuse available, even when it defies all logic?
Well, as long as your pouring over the Resolutions, might you point out to us the Resolution that appoints the USA Sheriff of the Planet? The one that allows a special exemption for the USA when it comes to agressive and/or preemptive war? The one that appoints the USA to decide which UN Resolutions shall be enforced by war, and which are just so much rhetoric?
You cannot simultaneously ignore UN authority and then drape your illegal actions with the same authority.
But, truly, that was one of GeeDubyas finest moments, when he insisted he was going to put that 2nd resolution out there, no matter what! He thrust his manly chin out and swore he was gonna see everybody’s cards, yessireeBob. Oooopsy. Gonna lose big time. Winston Churchill, instantly morphs to Emily Littella…“Never mind!”
The war was over injustices done to Kuwait by Iraq. So not only is the example flawed in that there’re no treaties that involve relinquishing the right to self-defense, but the UN was not a mediating party bewteen the US and Iraq, rather, the US, via the UNSC, was a member of the mediating party.
Actually, it’s resolutions 686 and 687, not 678 that pertain to the ceasefire.
Res 678 outlines the authorization of the use of military force to bring about compliance with Res 660.
There’s no language authorizing the resumption of hostilities in the resolutions that establish the ceasefire.
What “says UN approval was required for the resumption of hostilities,” is Chapter VII of the Charter.
“The Security Council shall determine…what measures shall be taken…to maintain or restore international peace and security,” and “The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council…shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine,”
And, UNSC Res 1441 was not “all the US ever needed.”
It specifically states,
There’s no provision for the authorization of the use of military force in UNSC Res 1441
Read it through. If you find one that I overlooked, please post it here.
So while it may be your opinion that “when one party breaks the terms of a cease fire, the other party is released also,” there’s still nothing, (not even in your opinion), relieving the US from its obligations to abide by the supreme law of the land, as per Article VI of the Constitution, namely ratified treaties, particularly Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
AAAAGH!!!
Don’t you fall for the newspeak too.
Pre-emption is unquestioned and undeniably legitimate. It has been recognized as just for centuries. However, an imminent threat is necessary for a war to be a pre-emptive war.
What we did to Iraq was a preventive war. Which is much different.
Here’s the gist of the letter I sent to GOP headquarters, (in my capacity as a GOP Team Leader), in response to the request that I write to my conressmen and tell them to support the Bush policy of pre-emption.
If Iraq was an imminent threat to the US then the war is 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, “For 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—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.”
IMHO, one could make the case that the need to “adapt the concept of imminent threat” as laid out in the National Security Strategy Chapter V*, led to the actual adaptation the “concept of imminent threat,” in the national security strategy of the USA to include the threat presented by “rogue states and terrorists” and thus a change in what qualifies as preemption.
If Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US then the war may’ve been 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."
*(“We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries, [“rogue states and terrorist”]”)
The message I had entered was too short. I’ve lengthened my message to at least 10 characters. 
“statements of policy, belief or appreciation” Sigh. I’ll respond here then I’m done.
“Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687”
There was a ceasefire, the ceasefire was violated, Iraq was given a last chance after 1441, and Saddam still failed to comply. The US is bound by its own treaties; but as you pointed out, there was no treaty, only a ceasefire. If you know of a treaty where the US gave veto power to anyone over its right to levy war, I’d like to see it. You do offer that
, but this is why further debate is pointless.
IANAL, so I don’t like to get into analyzing legalese. As a more common sense approach, I invite you to find for me news reports from the period of the UN’s founding wherein it is stated that in the future all military action not authorized by the UN is “illegal.”
Look, you may well believe that the world would be better off if we had a supranational government, and maybe you’d be right. But we don’t. The United Nations, for better or worse, is not a lawmaking body, if for no other reason that they have no capacity to enforce anything. That’s why they’re called “resolutions:” because they are not binding in the way that laws are. They are “statements of policy, belief or appreciation” and not binding statutes. You can claim that the UN charter proscribes all military action without UN approval all you want, but that is not the way the way any US administration has ever interpreted it, and it is not the way even the sharpest current critics of the Iraq war see it (cite and cite). Indeed, if the UN tried to claim for itself the authority you want it to have, most of the membership would quit.
Sorry, but I’m not going to go on wrangling over the legalese with you for the same reasons I don’t argue with people who insist that the income tax is unconstitutional.
furt:
Sure. No problem. Article II of the UN Charter states:
Now, this is a treaty entered into by the United States government, and fully ratified by Congress; the government is thereby bound, both legally and by its honor, to either follow the precepts of the agreement or withdraw from the UN. Clearly, the US cannot claim the right to be a member of good standing in the UN while flaunting the rules of the UN at its whim; such actions are dishonorable.
At the very least, if the US now feels it has a right to launch “preventative” wars, it should also withdraw from the UN, which clearly and specifically prohibits such actions.
I don’t think that your link works how you intended it to. You might want to check on this.
This is not language that authorizes the use of military force.
Language that authorizes the use of military force looks like this, (from UNSC 678),:
"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 foregoing 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;"
Note the use of the word “authorizes” in this excerpt. The word “authorize”, all of its cognates and all of its synonyms are conspicuously absent from the section that you’ve quoted. In what you’ve quoted, there’s absolutely no mention of any authorization to use any means to uphold, implement or otherwise enforce anything.
The difference between the two quotes is a a gross, non-technical one- one says Iraq is and has been in breech, the other says “authorizes…all necessary means.”
Since, as per your own admission, I’ve already stated that we didn’t enter into a treaty with Iraq to this effect, it is, at least, EXTREMELY disingenuous of you to suggest I’d said, or implied we were bound by a treaty that does not exist. The treaty that I did reference the US being bound by is the UN Charter.
Even though “veto power” isn’t the most apt way of describing things…
The treaty you’d like to see is precisely that which you use as your excuse as to why "further debate is pointless."
I appreciate you invitation.
In what way is common sense is precluded from understanding the very straightforward language that’s been used already?
Article VI of the US Constitution says that ratified treaties are the supreme laws of the land.
The UN Charter is a ratified treaty.
Therefore, the UN Charter is a supreme law of the land.
This supreme law of the land 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,”
AND
“The Security Council shall determine…what measures shall be taken…to maintain or restore international peace and security,” and “The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council…shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine,”
This is very conducive to understanding via common sense. Your contention that you don’t understand this does not seem at all genuine, at all truthful nor a bit honest.
Even though you may disagree with the importance of honoring the asset of American credibility in this specific way and instance, surely you do advocate rendering our obligations to any newly onerous treaties null and void through due process of law rather than through a strategy of simple disregard, correct?
I don’t think that we would be, nor do I think that there is such an entity.
I don’t think that this link works as you intended it to.
I assume you meant to link to this definition of resolution which defines resolution this way:
“a determination of policy of a corporation by the vote of its board of directors. Legislative bodies also pass resolutions, but they are often statements of policy, belief or appreciation, and not always enactment of statutes or ordinances.”
This does absolutely nothing to advance, (nor even establish), your contention that UNSC resolutions are categorically, non-binding, and that this indicated by the use of the word “resolution.”
UNSC resolutions certainly can be binding resolutions even though the word "resolution is used to describe them.
You intentionally left out crucial qualifiers and phrases from the definition you’ve cited. This is remarkably dishonest.
First, I’ve not claimed that the UN Charter does what it doesn’t, namely proscribe all military action without UN approval. This is yet further dissembling on your part.
Second, you’re citing quotes such as “We are not going to give the United Nations veto power over our foreign policy,” as evidence the UN Charter is not a binding treaty? The quote, (irrelevant as it is to determining or establishing what effects treaties can or cannot have), uses the phrase “foreign policy” not war. If you are indeed unclear on this, (and not simply posting this in an attempt at something distatseful which involves provocative and dishonest posting), while all war is an example of foreign policy, not all foreign policy is an example of war.
Could you please cite someting, (most anything at all), to support this?
We have yet to wrangle over legalese. The closest we’ve come to it was when you presented a deceitfully truncated definition of “resolution,” and I called BullShit.
SimonX, it seems you may cry “liar” in every thread I go into until I respond to you here, so very well:
No, it’s not. I’m not claiming that the UN authorized the 2003 conflict; I’m aguing that it doesn’t matter whether they did or not. UN approval, is something to be desired, and I certainly think W could have tried harder to get it, but it is not determinative. The fact that they use “authorized” does not perforce make them an authority; it’s more like the old gag when the phone rings at my friend’s house and I bark at him to answer it. He was going to answer it anyway, but I can pretend that it was my order that made him do it.
Oh, please. I quoted your words to restablish an already agreed-on point and move the discussion forward. Are you always this petty?
You quoted me but left out some of the words in between! Liar, liar pants on fire!
I never said I didn’t understand it, I said I didn’t want to discuss it! A blatant lie! (childish, isn’t it?)
Oh, get serious. I LINKED TO IT simply so you could see where I got it, and that I wan’t pulling it out of my ass, and you call that dishonest? :rolleyes:
No, I’m pointing that while you say this is not the case, the rest of your positions amount the same thing.
(notice how I did that without throwing out gratuitous personal shots?)
Consider the following 6 hypotheticals. I think this exhausts the possibilities but I could be wrong:
[ol]
[li]Action that meets traditional criteria for justified war (self-defense, defense of an ally, etc.), and which has explicit approval of the UN.[/li][li]Action that does meet traditional criteria, but meets with DISapproval from the UN.[/li][li]Action that meets traditional criteria, and where the UN makes no statement.[/li][li]Action that does NOT meet traditional criteria for justified war (i.e. naked aggression) but that nevertheless has approval of the UN, [/li][li]Action that does not meet traditional criteria for justified war and which has disapproval of the UN. [/li][li]Action that does not meet traditional criteria for justification, and where the UN makes no statement.[/li][/ol]
I submit that war is justified under 1, 2, and 3. Please tell me which you would describe as “illegal”; I think this will clarify both our positions
Now I submit 4 claims in my chain of reasoning; tell me at what point you disagree:
A) The 1991 war falls under category #1. HOWEVER, even if the UN had disapproved (#2), it would have made no difference, because the US had the right, indeed the obligation, to defend an attacked ally.
B) If one side in a conflict clearly violates a cease-fire agreement, the other side is no longer bound and may resume hostilities.
C) The fact that the cease-fire terms were codified in a UN resolution does not mean that either party waives their rights under B)
D) The 2003 conflict was fought under the legal auspices of Iraq’s failure to comply with the terms of the cease-fire. As this is a valid reason to resume conflict (B), the UN’s approval or disapproval is irrelvant.
If you disagree with A), then how is this substanatively different from granting the UN the power to “proscribe all military action without UN approval?” If, OTOH, you agree with A), how do you square this with your interpretation of the UN charter?
B seems like a straightforward legal fact; but I have not checked it, so I’ll allow that I could be wrong.
C seems much the same. I do not see anything in the UN resolutions where the coalition gave up their rights, but you may interpret differently.
D seems to follow from A, B and C.
The reason that it’s pointless to debate the UN charter is that there can never be any answer; there is no independent court to ajudicate. You say the war was illegal? Fine, but Bush and Blair and Howard and Aznar and the heads of Poland and Denmark and Japan disagree. You got lawyers; they’ve got lawyers. On what legal basis is your interpretation definitively better than theirs?
I suppose you could say that the UN has the right to interpret its own charter … seems sorta like Congress or Ashcroft being the sole interpreter of the constitution, but OK. So the UN interprets its own charter … and nothing stops the world court from ruling that in order to comply with the charter, all nations must surrender their arms. Who’s to say that isn’t a valid interpretation? It’s an absurd prospect, of course, exactly because the member nations would never give the UN the authority to do anything contrary to their interests (as they percieve them).
The only time the UN has that ability is if they are endorsing one state or groups of states over another. The UN cannot, in and of itself, do anything to restrain or punish anyone.
In the end, I submit that there are two things that make laws more than just recommendations, one is that someone’s interpretation must be definitive, and the second is that they must be enforcable. Neither obtains in regards to the UN charter as putative international law. Which is exactly my point about the income tax people: they can argue until the cows come home about how they want interpret the tax laws, but it makes no difference, because once the courts have ruled, their opinion doesn’t matter. Even if they persuade me, it makes no difference, because my opinion doesn’t matter. The courts have ruled and the cops have come.
The case of the UN charter is only different in that there is no court to ever decide the issue so we won’t even get to enforcement. It’s perhaps more like arguing Ruth vs. Aaron or Beckenbauer vs. Maradona, except not nearly as interesting.
I would hope you answer the questions I’ve asked above, as I think they will clarify our differences. Otherwise, I am entirely content to let you have the last word.
Dude, that’s a really messed up simile train of thought. It’s like the train drove right past the “no” sign, past the flashing lights, through the intersection, and that school bus full of kids should have looked both ways before it got hit, dammit.
Well, seeing as Sofa King resurrected the thread, I’d like to point out that the answer to the OP is YES, the Bush Admin Did Make the Case that Iraq Presented an Imminent Threat.
Video confirmation is available through the Pit thread: Rumsfeld caught lying (i know, it’s nothing new, but i thought you should know)
To which I might humbly direct Dopers to my late-stage post as it addresses “imminent”
Please ignore pit-worthy pentameter and concern yourselves with the quoted materials.
While I’ve not the time currently to engage the bulk of your post, it would help if you would examine th elanguage of the ceasefire agreement, which I post earlier*, IIRC, and could find the language in the agreement that establishes this “straightforward legal fact.”
W/o an example of this language, all that you’ve presented is your assertion that you think this is the way you think it should be, (the exact kind of thing that the law is notorious for not giving a speckled damn about).
[QUOTE=SimonX]
While I’ve not the time currently to engage the bulk of your post, it would help if you would examine th elanguage of the ceasefire agreement, which I post earlier*, IIRC, and could find the language in the agreement that establishes this “straightforward legal fact.”
[QUOTE]
What I was saying was that I assumed, that this is/was a standard principle of cease-fires, not one specifically encoded in this particular agreement. It seems absurd on its face to suggest that if two parties enter into a mutual ceasefire, both are still bound even if one violates it. If North Korea starts shelling Seoul tonight, do we expect the South Koreans to still be bound by the 1953 cease-fire? How do they go about getting approval, and from whom?
Nonetheless, I remain open to correction if there is some sort of universally-recognized precedent or ruling I am unaware of.
This is mere assertion on your part.
As is tradition on this board, you’re going to provide evidence of your own assertions just any minute now, right?
If you do, I’ll decide if a rebuttal or refutation is in order.
Until then it would be sufficient to counter with another mere assertion that this is not the case.
In addition, even if your mere assertion were correct, the ceasefire is between the UNSC and Iraq, not *the US and Iraq. *
Therefore, even if you mere assertion were true, it would only apply to an UNSC resumption of hostilities with Iraq
IIRC, the UNSC decided not to engage in renewed hostilities w/ Iraq.
IIRC, it was a US led coalition who were explicitly not acting on the UNSC’s behalf.
So, your mere assertion, even if correct, is a non-sequitur.
This’s become a bit hijacked, eh what?