Huge Chemical Weapons Factory found by coalition forces. What a surprise.

[RandySpears]

Some reasons:

Any resolution to condemn the US would have to pass the UNSC, the US has veto.

The US does not recognize the ICJ (International Court of Justice) since the nicaragua vs US case of 1986.

More importantly: Russia is economically dependent on the US. France is a long time ally of the US and a member of NATO.

Saying the war is illegal is valid because it is illegal given that you recognize the UN charter. Actually dragging the US “to court” would be a lose-lose situation for all involved.

[Ranchoth]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
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.

Underlining mine. I just didn’t want good irony to go to waste.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by AZCowboy *
I’m close to the middle on this spectrum. I share you the sentiments you offer, yet I can see the peacenik position, and understand it. I can also see the hawks’ arguments. To break the issue down to such absolutes ignores the enormous complexities underlying many different dimensions that one must weigh to arrive at a comfortable conclusion.

While true, you cannot “almost” or “Sorta” or “not black and white” bomb people. Bombs drop, they explode, people die. Similarly, you cannot “kinda” not bomb them: you simply don’t. If the decision is to war or not to war, then I don’t think it is a false dichotomy. MHO.

Two sentences to the OP: This thread stands testament to the anxiety the hawks quietly express. They need for WoMD to be found.

I thought we should have run S.H. out long ago, WMD or not, for the way he treats his own people. Fortunately for some and unfortunately for others this is not a simple task to politicize. There are as many “reasons” to go to war as there are “critiques” about why we shouldn’t. That’s a democratic republic appeasing its citizens as best it can to accomplish the ends that were set in motion. I don’t know why that should surprise anyone.

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by RandySpears *
Saying the war is illegal is valid because it is illegal given that you recognize the UN charter.

::sigh:: What is an “imminent threat”? Is that the threat of attack in 2 minutes, 2 hours, 2 years? What is a threat? Actual gunfire? Nasty words?

What is self-defense? Is it self-defense to attack an enemy who has massed its troops on your border, but not yet attacked? Must they be in your territory? Must they have killed some of your citizens?

These and others are questions that only the duly constituted authority may answer definitively. Until it speaks, all anyone can do is express an opinion as to the legality of the war.

Saying the war is illegal is as accurate as saying that Emannuel is guilty of kidnapping Emily Smart. You may believe it with all your heart, but it is simply not true until the appropriate authority says that it’s true.

You have listed several reasons why other countries won’t go to the UNSC or the ICJ. None of them are legal reasons; they are political or economic ones.* So what you are saying is that these purported upholders of international law consider there are things more important than international law. So, they are just like the US. Oops.

Sua

*The fact that the US doesn’t recognize the ICJ is irrelevant; it is still a duly constituted arbiter of international law. After all, Milosevic doesn’t recognize the Hague tribunal. Does that mean that his trial is illegitimate? No.

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by erislover *
I thought we should have run S.H. out long ago, WMD or not, for the way he treats his own people. Fortunately for some and unfortunately for others this is not a simple task to politicize.

Amen. In my personal view, the worst thing that could have happened is that Saddam cooperated with inspectors and disarmed. Had that happened, he would have been left alone to oppress and kill his people and continue his genocides of the Kurds and the Ma’dan.

As you might imagine, not many people agree with me.

Sua

[Mtgman]

erislover, as a member of a democratic republic, I don’t want to be appeased. I want to be accurately represented. I didn’t abrograte some of my rights and my resources to build up the government of this country just so they could do whatever the hell they want and then “appease” me. I give political power to my representatives because I want the to represent me. The burden is on them to shift public opinion to support this war, not on me to accept their decisions.

And FTR: I would have supported action against Hussein, probably not full-scale war, but some action, on humanitarian grounds.

Enjoy,
Steven

[elucidator]

Well son-of-a-gun! Looky here! Seems that Fox News was full of shit. Who’d a thunk it?

And some of the Usual Suspects just couldn’t wait to rush in yelling “smoking gun!”. Cooler heads offered avuncular advice, watch out, they said, don’t count your dead chickens before they rot, they said.

[Belushi]But NOOOOOOOOOO[/Belushi].

Couldn’t wait to rub it in, could you? Had to get up there and crow, didn’t you?

I am pleased that some of my comrades, fellow travelers in the pursuit of destroying all that is clean and noble, had the good taste not to gloat and name names. This shows admirable restraint and good breeding. It is an example I admire, but have not intention of emulating.

Oh, before I forget…

… Simply yelling “fake!” every time won’t, probably, do it, although the more extreme elements (hi, elucidator!) will believe anything is faked.

Well, howdy, Shodan!

[Nightime]

And FTR: I would have supported action against Hussein, probably not full-scale war, but some action, on humanitarian grounds.

What action would that be?

Actually, I think this really goes to the heart of the matter. It seems a lot of people agree that we should do something about the brutal treatment of Iraqis by their dictator, but don’t agree with war. But what other action could accomplish that goal?

[RandySpears]

Sua:

What is self-defense? Is it self-defense to attack an enemy who has massed its troops on your border, but not yet attacked? Must they be in your territory? Must they have killed some of your citizens?

These and others are questions that only the duly constituted authority may answer definitively. Until it speaks, all anyone can do is express an opinion as to the legality of the war.

I understand why this would be a common way of reasoning for citizens of countries whos law systems are heavily based on precedents like f. e. the united states.

Even so, I am pretty sure that you will have a hard time find any precedent with an interpretation of “self-defence” much different from “enemy troops or weapons inside your borders” or something of the likes.

An interpretation like f. e. “this country alledgedly cooperates with organization so-and-so which has assaulted this other country” or “this country has weapons so-and-so which may one day be used to attack this other country” would hardly be made new precedents. For obvious reasons. You wouldn’t wan’t that. I wouldn’t wan’t that. No one would.

Saying the war is illegal is as accurate as saying that Emannuel is guilty of kidnapping Emily Smart. You may believe it with all your heart, but it is simply not true until the appropriate authority says that it’s true.

Well you are entitled to this opinion. But I believe you would still find saying “you can’t just take my car, it’s illegal” meaningful should someone steal your car? Of course it’s fine by me if you chose to say “i believe that would be illegal” instead

You have listed several reasons why other countries won’t go to the UNSC or the ICJ. None of them are legal reasons; they are political or economic ones.* So what you are saying is that these purported upholders of international law consider there are things more important than international law. So, they are just like the US. Oops.

Here I just read you wrong. I assumed you meant “legal” with a meaning similar to “well-founded”. But now I understand this as a claim there exists some kind of legal obligation of memberstates of the UN to “report crimes”?

[Nightime]

…And I meant to add, that this is the kind of thing we should be looking at when considering if the war is a good idea. We should be looking at how we can help end the brutality of the current regime, rather than focusing on legality.

It was illegal to go after Milosevic, but we did it anyway. Obviously some things are more important than legality.

[sezyou]

Nightime, we had a working action in place with containment, that could have been stepped up even further. Saddam is a pathetic, smalltime dictator. The level of bombardment we are using against this piece of crap is probably the zenith of his self important life.

[RandySpears]

Sua:

But to be honest I do think it is a shame that the united states won’t “dragged to court” on this one. An impartial court without vetos. Since we then would have international courts and legal systems by the same standards as we do have national.

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by RandySpears *
Here I just read you wrong. I assumed you meant “legal” with a meaning similar to “well-founded”. But now I understand this as a claim there exists some kind of legal obligation of memberstates of the UN to “report crimes”?

No, I don’t think there is such an obligation. But, to extend the legal metaphor earlier, if you accuse someone of a crime, and you don’t report them, you are opening yourself up to one hell of a lawsuit for slander.

Sua

[RandySpears]

Maybe so in your average national state. But the UN charter has no “slander” article. Even so I very much doubt it would be even in the least the US interest in this case to file suit.

How about adressing the (more interesting) issues in my previous post?

[Mandelstam]

Red" “…read Mandelstam’s latest post, as he captures my position – and that of most people the world over – perfectly.”

:bows:

Not that it really matters, but I am a she not a he (and an expectant mother at that. )

[elucidator]

a pregnant pause…

Congratulations!

[Sam_Stone]

The ground is many and varied; while Bush is above Hussein (a position shared by such luminaries as Fidel Castro and Idi Amin), he is below Jacques Chirac, highgroundwise.

You mean the Jacques Chirac who’s country may have sold Iraq illegal rocket fuel?

You mean the Jacques Chirac who’s country has been selling weapons and spare parts to Iraq’s military in violation of the U.N. sanctions which Jacques Chirac says ‘are working’?

You mean the Jacques Chirac who’s country has been intervening militarily in Angola, in order to continue exploiting the country’s oil and diamond resources, and without U.N. approval? The France that has 3,000 troops on the Ivory Coast, and soldiers in Djibouti, Senegal, Chad and Gabon?

You don’t meaan that Jacques Chirac, do you?

[elucidator]

Wow, Sam, cites, links and everything! Very impressive! Unless, of course, you can read. Which I can. And you can Google. Which I cannot do with the impressive elan of the Googlemeister, the Dreaded Duck Duck Goose.

But I do what I can.

Lets see know, the Washington Times. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that the paper owned by the Rev. Sun Yung Moon? The newspaper that is just about three full steps to the right of Fox News? Why, yes, I believe it is. Way to go for the ol’ impartial news sources there, big guy.

Moving right along…

The Daily Times…The voice for a new Pakistan? Huh? Whaaa? Never heard of 'em, heard of that other Times, you know, the mouthpiece for all of us scurrillous leftie creeps, but this one escapes me. But the name Gertz, that rings a bell.

Ah,yes, Gertz. Author of Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security. Say, isnt that the book that ripped the lid off the scandal about how Bill Clinton sold American defense secrets to the Commie Chinese? It is, isn’t it!

Theres another Gertz/Google reference, a meeting between him and Rush Limbaugh, the Orca of the Airwaves,
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/folder/sept_5_bill_gertz___el_rushbo.LogIn.html but I cant get in because I’m not a member. Imagine my disappointment.

This will probably work for the Usual Suspects, Sam, the same crew that rushed into this thead to breathlessly advise us the Fox News had another scoop. You remember, right? Proof positive, smoking gun.

Others of us might want…a bit more. But thanks for the insight into your reading habits. I mean, geeez, Sam…the Washington Times? The Moonie Science Monitor?

[Bugs]It is to laugh[/Bugs]

[CyberPundit]

About the weapons sales all you have are allegations by unnamed officials. Even then the second story specifically says that there is no indication that the French government approved or even knew about the transfers. How exactly does that damage Chirac’s credibility?

As for the military interventions surely you understand that sending soldiers to a country isn’t the same as invading a country for the purpose of regime change. Have any of those countries complained to the UN about the French soldiers?

[elucidator]

Are we really all done talking about how Fox News is full of shit? And how some of the Usual Suspects are totally gullible when it comes to stories they want to believe? Really?

Well, OK. Darn. I was having such a good time!