No. I’m trying to show that Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was hypocritical and that his stated motivations were extremely disingenuous.
Inavding NK would guarantee that those nukes would be used. Use your head, man.
Oh, good, this is GD, not the pit. Can I have a cite for how the invasion was “illegal”?
**
**
Here you go.
http://www.post-
gazette.com/forum/comm/20030319lob0319p1.asp
**
**
So then you admit that Iraq probably doesn’t have nuclear weapons. I think that you should maybe use your head. :wally
Let me try that again-
http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/comm/20030319lob0319p1.asp
**
Good point. Thank goodness we were completely justified in going in there to begin with.
Marc
There are two legal justifications for aggression:
1.) self-defense (your country has already been attacked)
2.) You can prove (to the satisfaction of the UN, not Tony Blair and Micronesia) that another country poses an imminent threat. You have to prove it *before * you invade, not afterwards.
Which justification did the US meet?
“Illegal” doesn’t apply. The UN is not an international form of Congress, passing binding laws on its members. We negotiated a resolution stating that serious consequences would result from Iraq’s non-complicance. We then agreed NOT to have a vote on the precise nature of those serious consequences, and do not need explicit permission to invade.
Hypothetical: Some country, explicitly hostile to the US, announces they have nukes, have delivery systems, and would enjoy bombing NYC, Washington, and Amarillo, Texas just for the sheer pleaure it will give them. The rest of the world, for some strange reason, decides they could care less, and our UN proposal to invade and neutralize this hypothetical country is voted down 157-1, But everyone is the US, INCLUDING YOU, is scared shitless and thinks we’re surely toast if we don’t do anything.
What’s your recommendation? Do we invade “illegally” or do we die? Remember, you believe with all your heart that this threat is real and dire.
Your call.
But why exactly do you believe this? Is it because the posited “some country” actually said this stuff? Or because your own government said it, despite the lack of any real evidence, and despite the lack of such a statement from the “some country”?
An interesting hypothetical. More interesting because it applies very closely to North Korea, and not even remotely to Iraq. NK does indeed have, or will have, nukes and has indeed publicly expressed hostility. So, of course, we invaded Iraq.
The quote about “believing” is also telling. Did GeeDubya believe that Iraq posed a direct and immediate threat to the US? We are given to believe that he did. But on what basis? Some form of international clairovoyance? One can only hope that we are not being led to war by men who accept utterly flimsy forgeries as fact. But, absent any other intelligence, this must currently stand as plausible.
As it currently stands, we are compelled to conclude that GeeDubya is sincerely stupid or cleverly mendacious.
As to our dealings with the UN, it is hard to imagine a less impressive display of diplomacy, short of Colin Powell unzipping his trousers and peeing on Koffi Anan’s shoes. We obtained R. 1441 by explicitly promising that we would not imply or assert that it automaticly justified war in the event of Irai non-compliance. We sent our ambassador to the UN, Mr. Negoponte, carrying exactly that message: we would return to the UN and seek a authorizing resolution, thus explicitly recognizing UN authority in this matter.
You will recall, I’m sure, Fearless Misleaders display of chin-jutting machismo, as he resolutely declared he would seek that 2nd resolution regardless of the “whip count” so that we could “see all the cards.” Perhaps there is another interpretation possible, other than “bald faced lie.” Please be so kind as to share such, if you have it.
Did we ever work out who bugged all those offices in the EU buildings?
Lucy–“We obtained R. 1441 by explicitly promising that we would not imply or assert that it automaticly justified war in the event of Irai non-compliance.”
Cite?
“We sent our ambassador to the UN, Mr. Negoponte, carrying exactly that message: we would return to the UN and seek a authorizing resolution, thus explicitly recognizing UN authority in this matter.”
Open up your dictionary to the “ex-” page: you seem to lack a clear understanding of what “exactly” and “explicit” mean.
The “exact” message, according to you, was that we would “seek” an authorizing resolution. We did seek one for a couple of weeks there, and when it became apparant that it was going to be vetoed, no matter what arguments or agreements we made, we stopped. Show me where we promised, explicitly or implicitly, to bang our heads against the wall.
“Explicitly recognizing” UN authority? No, that’s (at best) an implicit recognition. An explicit resolution would have stated, unambiuously, that the US will abide by the security council’s decision, no matter how it contradicts our own position. I don’t think even you would claim that’s what we did.
The UN is a debating society, where international pressures can be voiced, and deals can be struck. If Bush changed his mind–or his rhetoric, or even lied–it has no binding commitment to any policy.
Your logic seeks merely to trip Bush up verbally, which he is quite efficient at doing himself, thanks. Of course he may have more demonstrable proof that NK is dangerous than Iraq is–but if NK is SO dangerous that the point past which an invasion could go badly is in the past, then we can’t invade NK anymore, but may instead have to rely on diplomacy without the backing of force, which is not so wonderful an idea. We got outselvs into this situation with NK because Bush understood that he could never sell going to war with NK without AT LEAST the tangible proof that they have WMD and intend to use them. Or are you advocating invading NK with the full knowledge that your warnings about invading Irag would be even more sound than they are regarding NK?
Demostylus–“But why exactly do you believe this?” No, no, no. In my hypothetical, YOU believe this. Doesn’t matter why. I’m jumping six steps ahead of you, and putting the ball in your court. Or are you saying that you refuse to believe that any country will ever intend to do the US harm until after the harm has been committed?
Rockford-
Where did I say Iraq did have nukes?
I thought I was going to get quoted those U.N. definitions of agression. What all of you don’t seem to understand is that the US is a soverign nation, and one of the perogatives of a soverign nation is to invade another one. They also have to deal with the consiquences of their actions, as stated in the passages you quoted.It is up to the UN to charge the US with violating these provisions and they have not done so ( to my knowledge ). Finally, singning the UN charter is not the same surrending your soverignty to the rest of the world.
If the UN is to be legitimate it needs to act legitimately. It’s inaction against crimes committed by heinous governments is apalling. To keep siting their articles is absurd at best. I’m not talking about just Iraq. Do a history check of the UN. If the UN wants to question the legitimacy of this war then maybe they should start by questioning their own legitimacy. Below is a speech from Kofi Annan. I’d say 16 resolutions later, several useless arms inspections and still no results after 12 years makes military action quite legitimate, legal, and very justified. Logic to the contrary still amazes me.
un.org/news/press/docs/2002/sgsm8378.doc.htm
If there’s no actual proof they have nukes, you have no right to do anything. If you can prove another country has both the means and the intent to harm you, then you have an imminent threat, but you would still have to prove your case to the UN before you started killing babies over there.
Believing something “with all your heart” is a pretty lame reason to kill people, and in the case of Governor Bush, we have someone who is extraordinarily credulous about the flimsy and/or fabricated evidence. Bush is also a guy who believes “with all his heart” that Jews can’t go to Heaven, so I really have no confidence in Junior’s personal certitude. It’s now becoming embarrassingly apparent, after all, that Iraq had no ability at all to hurt the US, and Bush was either confident and wrong or he was lying through his teeth. Either way, his word is obviously worthless. I’d rather see some proof, thank you very much.
Agreed. One definitely has to consider what is meant by “Russians”. Is it the Russian government, acting either officially or through backdoor channels, or is it rogue elements, ex-KGB, organized crime, and/or a combination of groups? One could legitimately say, “the Saudis were behind 9-11,” if one is playing fast and loose with the definition of “Saudis”.
We definitely need more detailed information on this before jumping to any conclusions and making any motivational linkage.
OK guys, hold on. Do we actually have any evidence North Korea has nuclear weapons? They’ve admitted they’re developing them, and I think we can all agree on that, indeed that they might have them within a relatively short time frame, but that doesn’t mean they have them yet. Unless I’ve missed the news and someone would like to provide a cite… Furthermore, it’s a pretty fair bet they don’t yet have the missile technology to deliver warheads to the US even if they had warheads to deliver. Clearly they’re working on that too.
OF COURSE North Korea is a threat. But you know, this is still GD.
I just did a funny internet search: Taepo Dong (western city). For example: Taepo Dong San Francisco. Taepo Dong Seattle. Taepo Dong Los Angeles.
You try it, it’s fun. If you live in Florida, hate Tim Robbins, and support ABMs, it’s hilarious.
Possible, but the Americans were there before the looting started, maybe their too busy to stop the looting of hospitals and private homes but they should have tried to secure valuable intelligence scources. In my mind there are only two possible scenarios A)The papers are fake B) U.S. Intelligence has once again dropped the ball and proven their incompentance with regards to dealing with terrorists despite all the new powers the USA PATRIOT act gave them.
You’re all missing something. For the U.N. to be the source of legitimacy, it has to be, well, legitimate.
If this intelligence proves true (and it’s now being reported on MSNBC and CNN), then this evidence is kind of like finding out a jury member on a trial is taking kickbacks from a mob boss. It taints everything.
Russia was saying that sanctions could work. It was saying it needed more evidence of WMD. Those were its stated reasons, and those were the hoops Colin Powell was trying to jump through in order to gain their vote.
Now it turns out that in fact Russia was violating the sanctions, and Russia knew damned well that there were WMD programs in Iraq. Furthermore, Russia was actively spying FOR Saddam, passing along sensitive conversations of Tony Blair’s. AND, Russia was providing information Saddam could use to KILL western leaders.
And you guys still think was was illegitimate unless the U.N. SC, over which Russia holds a veto, had to approve the war?
I find it amazing that some of you who are so quick to accuse the U.S. government of incompetence, bad faith, and conspiracies are so quick to assume that the U.N. is the sole source of legitimacy, and to take the statements of the SC as unquestioned fact.