# Hubris: The Iraq War **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 19, 2013, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759 "2013-02-19T02:07:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/461 "2013-03-01T12:26:06Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > **NotfooledbyW** : it would be helpful if you would include the username in the quotes you’re arguing against. You’re making me scroll up to see WHO omitted the word “or” It was Human Action. I post the user name with date and time for my records and verification accuracy. > [@](#): > > Got all that? The President is empowered to do a1 and/or a2 using military force, if he’s willing to sign a document stating that he thinks it’s necessary. How is that any restraint aempowered to do a1 and/or a2 using military forcet all? -Human Action #451 Today, 02:12 PM 59 ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/462 "2013-03-01T13:11:53Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The Levin Amendment did not force the UN & Iraq to act immediately because it did not show the threat of force already decided. Disagree, it certainly demonstrates the willingness to use force, just not unilateral force. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And the LA was not passable in the House or would be agreed by the White House. If that’s all the Republicans could have gotten, I suspect they’d have taken the Levin Amendment over no authorization at all. If not: > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Bush likely would rather wait, take the no vote to the voters, than turn US national security decisions on the threat from Iraq to the UN. So be it, then. Doesn’t mean passing the war resolution was the right thing to do. As previously noted, if Bush has to wait for the 108th Congress and its Republican majority in the Senate, then the war is a purely Republican one. That would make it easier to oppose and end. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And and… AND! (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. > > UN Res 1441 was a UNSC Resolution that covered all preceding resolutions that gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply. > Now who can tell me that Bush ENFORCED 1441 or did he defy it? > That is strong in the UAMF. Note: ALL relevant UNSC resolutions. The administation cited UNSC Resolutions 678 and 687. 687 states that: > [@](#): > > 1. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: > (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities; 678 states that: > [@](#): > > 1. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; Thus; Iraq must cooperate with weapon inspections, and Member States can use all necessary means to implement all relevant resolutions, including subsequent ones like 687. Resolution 1441 affirms that Iraq had been in breach of 687: > [@](#): > > 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); There was not a later resolution stating that Iraq was now in compliance with 687. 1441 is quite vague on the consequences for non-compliance, or who may make the determination that non-compliance is or is not occuring and when. It does say this, however: > [@](#): > > 1. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; The Iraq War was a disaster and a mistake, but the idea that it was illegal is far from settled. For one, the UN has never ruled on the matter, for two, the above Resolutions do supply some degree of justification, in the absence of a UN ruling. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/463 "2013-03-01T13:19:01Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > “The President is empowered to do a1 and/or a2 using military force” > Why did you add the “or” to “a1 and a2”? The AUMF (Oct 2002) does not have an “or” there. Do you agree there is no “or” there? That’s not how I read it. Again, the text is: > [@](#): > > (a) Authorization.— The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to— > (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and > (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. I read that as two distinct authorizations, that the President is able to use force to defend the national security of the UN against Iraq and to enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions. If your reading is correct, and the conditions of 1 and 2 had to be satisfied to use force, Bush would have been unable to use force to enforce UNSC resolutions unless he could also demonstate that it was needed to defend the US from Iraq. Clearly, that’s not the case, so I suspect my reading is correct: two separate authorizations. ---
**Author:** ![rdamurphy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b5ac83/32.png) [@rdamurphy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rdamurphy)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/464 "2013-03-01T13:29:16Z")
Pounding over and over and over on the “no wmd” meme while ignoring the other dozen and a half reasons for the Iraqi war is known as a “Straw Man Fallacy.” Repeating “it was a mistake” over and over and over is gainsaying. I’ve yet to see any leftwinger anywhere put up a coherent argument against the invasion of Iraq… ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/465 "2013-03-01T14:21:21Z")
> [@rdamurphy](#): > > Pounding over and over and over on the “no wmd” meme while ignoring the other dozen and a half reasons for the Iraqi war is known as a “Straw Man Fallacy.” > > Repeating “it was a mistake” over and over and over is gainsaying. > > I’ve yet to see any leftwinger anywhere put up a coherent argument against the invasion of Iraq… I’m no leftwinger, but my coherent argument would be that what was gained (the removal of the Hussein regime from power) is easily outweighed by what was lost (thousands of American lives, over a hundred thousand Iraqi lives, billions of dollars, stability, respect for American honesty and morality). ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/466 "2013-03-01T14:25:06Z")
> [@rdamurphy](#): > > Pounding over and over and over on the “no wmd” meme while ignoring the other dozen and a half reasons for the Iraqi war is known as a “Straw Man Fallacy.” > > Repeating “it was a mistake” over and over and over is gainsaying. > > I’ve yet to see any leftwinger anywhere put up a coherent argument against the invasion of Iraq… Why don’t you put up a coherent argument for the war? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/467 "2013-03-01T14:32:32Z")
> [@rdamurphy](#): > > Pounding over and over and over on the “no wmd” meme while ignoring the other dozen and a half reasons for the Iraqi war is known as a “Straw Man Fallacy.” > > Repeating “it was a mistake” over and over and over is gainsaying. > > I’ve yet to see any leftwinger anywhere put up a coherent argument against the invasion of Iraq… You are kidding right. The only reason that justified the war was the threat of the potential nexus between WMD and global terrorists getting ahold of them. There were no humanitarian/genocide issues and there was no immediate threat or attack that justified the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war. If you know of any let us know? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/468 "2013-03-01T14:49:24Z")
> [@](#): > > ``` > I read that as two distinct authorizations, that the President is able to use force to defend the national security of the UN against Iraq and to enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions. -Human Action #463 Today, 08:19 AM 060 > > ``` To read it the way you read it, you were correct to change it to and/or. You do not get to change legal language after the fact of passage. Why is HRC tied to your modification based upon your interpretation? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/469 "2013-03-01T14:50:20Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Why don’t you put up a coherent argument for the war? I think it’s pretty easy to do that, as long as one does not think that Iraq had to be a threat specifically to the US in order to justify it. The AUMF is full of reasons. Additionally, one might argue that the No Fly Zone was the only thing holding SH back from reverting to his old tricks, and the US was under no obligation to fund and support that indefinitely. There are plenty of people who don’t buy into the whole UN must sanction any military action idea, including (obviously) the previous and current Secretaries of State, both Democrats. I know that position is anathema to many on this MB, but not so much for Americans. We disregard it all the time. n.b.: None of those reasons, in my opinion, are worth going to war over. But I am, in many ways, a radical pacifist. I was opposed to the first Gulf War. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/470 "2013-03-01T15:07:04Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] n.b.: None of those reasons, in my opinion, are worth going to war over. But I am, in many ways, a radical pacifist. I was opposed to the first Gulf War. [/QUOTE] I’m not a radical pacifist, nor did I oppose the war at the time, but I agree…none of these were good enough reasons to make going to war in Iraq a worth while endeavor. > [@](#): > > Additionally, one might argue that the No Fly Zone was the only thing holding SH back from reverting to his old tricks, and the US was under no obligation to fund and support that indefinitely. Plus the embargo, not just from the US but everyone else we got on board with it. The food for oil thingy alone was starting to bypass it and allow Saddam to buy ‘food’ for the money he was getting for selling his oil, and there was rife, systemic corruption in the entire process. While he wasn’t using that money, in hindsight, for buying WMD, he WAS using it to buy a lot of conventional (and unconventional, paramilitary type) weapons and systems. Again, nothing here that warrants the expense and loss of life we incurred by this stupid adventure, but there were rational reasons if one wanted to disregard the negatives and focus only on the cherry picked positive aspects. > [@](#): > > There are plenty of people who don’t buy into the whole UN must sanction any military action idea, including (obviously) the previous and current Secretaries of State, both Democrats. I know that position is anathema to many on this MB, but not so much for Americans. We disregard it all the time. Yeah, that was always the weakest argument, to me. The US doesn’t need the UN to sanction our military action, and the way the UN is set up with the SC makes a joke out of requiring that. Just look at the Syrian situation. Not that I think the US (or EU) SHOULD get involved, but if we had too there is zero way we’d get UN sanction for it, since 2 of the 5 members are completely opposed. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/471 "2013-03-01T15:13:17Z")
When Duelfer’s ISG revealed Iraq had no WMD it became clear that France, Russia, China and 8 or 9 other members of the UNSC were right to not authorize war in order to let the inspections continue. No way war was justified for mass graves of Kurds decades past for example. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/472 "2013-03-01T15:31:00Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > To read it the way you read it, you were correct to change it to and/or. > > You do not get to change legal language after the fact of passage. > > Why is HRC tied to your modification based upon your interpretation? I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not in a position to say whether my reading of the language is correct or not. I’m not “changing” it, I’m reading it how I understand it. I’ll do some research to see what the consensus is on this. Either way, though, as noted, the second authorization can be satisfied as enforcing UNSC Resolutions 687 and 678. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/473 "2013-03-01T15:45:10Z")
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] No way war was justified for mass graves of Kurds decades past for example. [/QUOTE] And as far as I know, no one in this thread is saying that it was…so, unless someone is, this is a strawman. > [@](#): > > When Duelfer’s ISG revealed Iraq had no WMD it became clear that France, Russia, China and 8 or 9 other members of the UNSC were right to not authorize war in order to let the inspections continue. Do you have a cite for this so we can put it in context? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/474 "2013-03-01T19:06:52Z")
> [@](#): > > .Do you have a cite for this so we can put it in context? -XT today yes today it was RdaMurphy > [@](#): > > . RDAMurphy #464 Today, 08:29 AM > > Pounding over and over and over on the “no wmd” meme while ignoring the other dozen and a half reasons for the Iraqi war is known as a “Straw Man Fallacy.” > > Repeating “it was a mistake” over and over and over is gainsaying. > > I’ve yet to see any leftwinger anywhere put up a coherent argument against the invasion of Iraq… ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/475 "2013-03-01T19:13:05Z")
Um, do you have a real cite with a link? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/476 "2013-03-01T21:37:23Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ll do some research to see what the consensus is on this. > > Either way, though, as noted, the second authorization can be satisfied as enforcing UNSC Resolutions 687 and 678. - Human Action #472 > Today, 10:31 AM No it says “all” Resolutions. And in the setup to what was specifically why military force was being ‘potentially’ authorized, mentioned continued support for diplomatic efforts that of course means going into the future. That of course is reference to the ‘future’ and we know now that UN Resolution 1441 came about because of the continuous diplomatic efforts that were going on at the time. All Resolutions include 1441, the product of continued diplomatic efforts. It became a real resolution an Bush pushed for it and got what he said he wanted. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/477 "2013-03-01T21:44:49Z")
This is for KT: > [@rdamurphy](#): > > Pounding over and over and over on the “no wmd” meme while ignoring the other dozen and a half reasons for the Iraqi war is known as a “Straw Man Fallacy.” > > Repeating “it was a mistake” over and over and over is gainsaying. > > I’ve yet to see any leftwinger anywhere put up a coherent argument against the invasion of Iraq… ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/478 "2013-03-01T22:06:01Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m not a radical pacifist, nor did I oppose the war at the time, but I agree…none of these were good enough reasons to make going to war in Iraq a worth while endeavor. -XT #470 > Today, 10:07 AM Having not opposed the war do you think Bush was correct to force the abandonment of UN inspections that were working and producing the same results that killing 100,000 Iraqis, and caused the deaths of 4,484 members of our armed forces, was a good idea? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/479 "2013-03-01T22:47:37Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ll do some research to see what the consensus is on this. - Human Action #472 Today, 10:31 AM That’s good. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759/480 "2013-03-02T00:06:27Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > That’s good. Ok, I’ve done some further research. The vast majority of legal opinions on the Iraq War are about international law, rather than the domestic law we’re discussing, which in itself is evidence that it was legal under domestic law. I was not able to find an analysis that addressed the specific issue under dispute, but further reading of the statute makes me think I am correct. Here’s the relevant portions: > [@](#): > > (a) Authorization.— > > ``` > The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to— > (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and > (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. > > ``` Again, my view is that this constitutes two separate authorizations. The President may use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and the President may use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. If we go to the next section we see: > [@](#): > > (b) Presidential Determination.— > > ``` > In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that— > (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either > > (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or > > (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and > > ``` > > (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. So, in order to use the authorization, the President must determine that reliance on diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, OR is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq. If, as you maintain, the authorization constitutes a single authorization that must be trigger by BOTH defense of the U.S. AND enforcement of UNSC resolutions, then why in the next section would the determination needed for both triggers be that diplomacy would faith to achieve EITHER protection of the U.S. OR enforcement of the UNSC resolutions? Also, note the change in format. The separate aims within 3(a) and 3(b) are numbered (1) and (2), subsections like the determination part of 3(b) are lettered, (A) and (B). Again, separate authorizations. Anyone else want to weigh in here? Am I off base, or am I reading this right? Again, not a lawyer, and Google didn’t help me much on the domestic law issue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hubris-the-iraq-war/650759.md?page=25)