This would not be a legal justification, but I recognize the difference in moral intent. However, “liberating the Iraqi people” is not, and has not been the stated justification for the invasion. Bush’s repeated, stated justification is that we are protecting ourselves from WMDs. A causus belli which is obviously bullshit. The decision to invade Iraq came first, the justification second. I think that the White House’s real motivations are two-fold; to provide a surrogate boogeyman who can serve as an effigy for the still at-large ObL (remember him?) and to jumpstart the economy. I thjink that Bush is hoping that this invasion will give him the appearance of having won a war on terror without actually having to win one. It’s helpful that Hussein is (was?) a genuinely evil motherfucker who deserves to die like a dog, but there are many countries with oppressive governments or dictators and we don’t try to liberate them, even though some of them have much nastier WMDs tha Iraq ever did and they hate us just as much.
You’re using a lot of the standard war-protestor words strung together, like ‘unilateral’ and ‘cowboy’, but you haven’t made a case that US actions are illegal. The original UN resolution authorizing the US to use force in Iraq back during Gulf War I has not been repealed, and Saddam Hussein has violated the terms of the cease fire which ended Gulf War I. Therefore, US intervention is completely within international law. If you disagree, please explain what would constitute a legal invasion under international law and why a UN resolution authorizing the use of force is not sufficient for the invasion to be legal.
Unless you can provide something better than prattle about unilateral cowboys and assault rifles, you’re just blowing smoke.
bravo, Diogenes the Cynic.
BTW, is anybody else pissed about kosovo? Bill Clinton = international terrorist? I wonder why the anti-war protests weren’t so strong for him. [/hijack]
DtC, You do raise an interesting point. Correct me if I’m wrong (can that be abbreviated? CMIIW? I can start a trend), but you seem to put sort of an evil slant on GW’s motives. If invasion of Iraq gets rid of the dictator AND jump-starts the economy, that’s good, right? If I’m wrong, then I would have to agree with you.
As for “Other dictator countries,” I think that Saddam is basically the easiest to deal with at the moment. If you DO think that we should also get rid of those other dictators, shouldn’t we start with the easiest first?
NOTE NOTE NOTE
“If I’m wrong” is refering to my thought about the Evil slant, just to eliminate confusion.
An excellent letter to the editor of San Jose’s Mercury News mentioned how, if you dug a large trench somewhere in California’s central valley and then buried several tons of biochemical agents and warheads, that no one, not even all the UN inspectors combined would find them within the next few centuries.
Don’t count on Saddam using WMD during this war to prove we were right.
I think it’s a cynical slant, at least. Is jumpstarting the economy worth spending human life for? Would you* be willing to be tortured and killed, on the other side of the world, without any contact with family or loved ones in order to jumpstart the economy? If you would be willing to die for the economy, then I guess it’s a noble cause.
I personally think that it’s not a good reason to sacrifice troops, and furthermore, I think it will be ineffective. We may see a short term jump in the stockmarket, but the economic cost of the war, itself, is also enormous. Bush has complicated matters by ruling out any possibility of a tax increase, so we’re back to deficit spending.
I would argue that Iraq was not the easiest dictator we could have taken out. Castro, for instance, is a veritable tomato can, and we would be perfectly situated, geographically speaking, to go in there…hell, we’re already in there. Russia’s not going to send any boats after us this time, they could give a shit about the Beard anymore. Castro has been oppressiong Cubans for far longer than Hussein has been oppressing Iraqis. So what are we waiting for, let’s go kick some commie ass in Cuba.
The original resoution did not authorize an attack on sovereignty. An attack on sovereignty is only justified under the UN charter for self defense, or if it can be clearly shown that another country is an “imminent threat.” The Iraq situation met neither of these criteria.
And this is what I despise in the media,at least Fox type productions.
The OP dropped in one time to clarify a point of order,or something to a sidetrack of the Op-to wit,justification for a war (I think).
Now I like to read both sides of a debate as well as anyone,** but ** when the original quote (US finds war chemical factory) is completely disproven in one or two followups,it’s then sidetracked into war positions (pro and con) and runs to 50+ replies,which you’d think,without opening the thread,that there’s been much discussion on the ramifications of that “fact”.
The average Joe that reads the headlines,or sees the blur come across the Times ticker or CNN,et als, news scrolls at the bottom of the screen-a big percentage of “newswatchers” latch on to this as fact.
Mods,at least have the decency to change the title to ** alleged factory ** in the interest of stamping out ignorance to some percentage of driveby lurkers.
Even if American forces found a million tons of nerve gas tomorrow, it still won’t change the fundamental fact about this war – that it was carried out by the United States on an artificial pretext of danger from Iraq, and without the sanction of the United Nations. All the right-wing "told ya so"s in the world won’t change that.
Dio, as I’m pretty sure you already know, I don’t fault your reasoning. The use of the word “murder” is shouting “Theater!” in a crowded fire.
Because it is Bush leading it.
We already know that Saddam has WMD. The Left needs a red herring to distract the world from the evidence we are going to find. Simply yelling “fake!” every time won’t, probably, do it, although the more extreme elements (hi, elucidator!) will believe anything is faked. They need some more plausible reason to disbelieve if they are going to retain any scrap of dignity. So they are going to insist that this war is illegitimate even if it is clearly justified.
Sort of like a defense attorney arguing that the murder weapons with the defendant’s finger prints all over it, and the clothing with the victims’ bloodstains, and the signed confession, should all be excluded, because the police didn’t say “pretty please with cream and sugar” before making the arrest.
Whether or not it will work to convince anyone who is not willing to convince himself is another matter.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan: “The Left needs a red herring to distract the world from the evidence we are going to find. Simply yelling “fake!” every time won’t, probably, do it, although the more extreme elements (hi, elucidator!) will believe anything is faked. They need some more plausible reason to disbelieve if they are going to retain any scrap of dignity. So they are going to insist that this war is illegitimate even if it is clearly justified.”
Shodan, that’s not even close to what anyone is saying or feeling; just your own garbled view of the matter. As has been pointed out in several recent threads, antiwar posters not only have not insisted that Saddam has no WMDs, they have often made the case that to the extent that he has such weapons, the war will give him a motive for using them and/or passing them off to someone else who will. And as was just pointed out a few posts ago, the preemptive doctrine is unprecedented and controversial, especially when applied in the absence of clear UN support, and in defiance of most world opinion. You don’t have to agree with any of that, but you shouldn’t distort the positions of those who do.
Hans Blix said: (here:)
Do you think that the inspectors couldn’t possibly have found this building (with no obstacles and a paper trail to follow) but some troops, under fire and with very different priorities, just happen to run into it, declare it as a chemical weapons factory, and expect everyone to just accept their initial findings?
Several of the inspectors were quoted on Ceefax (BBC teletext service) this morning as being “extremely sceptical” about this supposed find. Perhaps, like them, waiting for evidence before jumping to conclusions would be a more practical course.
Well said, rj.
It is a shame this specific issue so often gets overlooked.
The pro-war folk strike me as similar to the “Bible-code” folk. As long as they go into it without a specific target, they can be assured of finding something.
If they find a nuclear program, they’ll say, “Aha, we were justified!”
If they find chemical weapons, they’ll say, “Aha, we were justified!”
If they find biological weapons, …
If they find evidence of tortured ethnic minorities …
If we institute a quasi-democratic and/or pro-US government …
If we succeed in defeating Iraq with relatively little loss of life to US forces…
If collateral damage is minimal …
If we manage to kill Saddam and his boys …
It seems to me that the opposing viewpoints are really approaching this at cross purposes.
The anti-war folk object to the very process that led to the current action. We acknowledge that there are some really shitty folk/governments in this world. However, we question the US’s authority to change them should we have the will and power. We consider containment, inspections, and multilateral attempts far preferable - even if less successful and less easy for the US to control, than unilateral/small coalition military action.
Whereas the pro-war folk believe the process was sufficient, and any deficiencies will be outweighed by nonspecific hoped-for results.
The original UN resolution did NOT authorize the US to use force, it authorized the UN coalition to use force. Persuant to that same resolution, no one country has any authority under it to unilaterally use force.
That perogative belongs strictly to the UN, NOT the US.
You have a problem here, Diogenes. A truism is “the law is what the courts say the law is.” This means that all law, being written in imperfect language, is open to interpretation, and the “correct” interpretation is not set until an arbiter with whom authority is entrusted considers and rules upon the issue.
In this case, there are two possible arbiters. One is the UNSC, and the other is (perhaps) the ICJ. Neither have taken up the issue.
Now that doesn’t mean the war is legal, either. It simply means that its legality is undetermined. When you claim that the war is illegal, you are stepping into the shoes of the UNSC and/or the ICJ and asserting what the correct interpretation of the law is. No one has given you the authority to do so.
There is a word for asserting one’s own interpretation of the law is the only proper one. It’s “vigilatism.” The Bushies are guilty of that. But, so are you.
Sua
Hey, Milum:
“Officials downplay reports of chemical weapons plant”
http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm13818_20030324.htm
“Washington and London say their forces have so far not found any evidence of chemical or biological weapons and none of the missiles fired by Iraq have been Scuds, despite initial reports to the contrary.”
Still care to bet? Ill take it! 
I’m glad my last post in this thread said “if.” From what I understand, which honestly is not that much, chemical plants almost always appear to be dual use. I don’t understand all the technical aspects of that. But, it does mean we will have to wait for an investigation. I’m pretty sure of that.
It is interesting if what a former UN inspector said is true. It was alleged on TV last night that this site was new, not on any inspections list, or known by intelligence. That could mean there is much more we don’t know about. Iraq is a wonderful country to hide things in. Or, it could be nothing. But, why camouflage nothing? Practical joke?
Then we need to learn to use the language we already possess perfectly.