In keeping with the anit-French sentiment, should they not be called “FREEDOM (Free Rocket Emitting Explosions During Overground Missions) missles”?
Why is this a difficult concept? Any nation has the right to act in its own self-interest. At times, the leaders of that nation may believe their self-interest would best be served by attacking another country. Does that make the nation in question correct in doing so? Of course not. History is replete with examples of this.
I’m at a loss to understand why this is too complex for some to grasp.
Under the UN Charter, which the US has signed, a nation does not have the right to act in its own self-interest if that act consists in attacking another nation without the excuse of self-defence or UNSC approval.
But a key reason for Security Council objections to the invasion were not only that WMDs have not been found. Another reason was that, if these WMDs do indeed exist in Iraq (which is certainly a possibility), then the best way to go about getting them is to let the inspections continue rather than to invade an give Saddam Hussein a direct incentive to use them. But of course, the US decides to invade, and now if Iraq does have WMDs they will definitely be “destroyed.” The only problem is that their “destruction” could involve them being launched at Israel or anyone else within SCUD range.
I’m keeping up just fine. Your own post says that France will join “if WMDs were used.” This is not the same as saying France would join “if WMDs were found.”
But tacit support is not sufficient to make this a legal or justifiable action. The possibilty for that has passed and can never be resurrected, even if every nation on earth decides to join the US. The reason is that the US and its allies chose to invade without UN approval, and thus violated the UN Charter. This is an action that can’t be called back, no matter how many ex post facto justifications or rationalizations are given. And while France and the others opposing the invasion might have said they would join if WMDs were used, they have not, as i pointed out above, said that they would join if such weapons were simply found to exist.
May i suggest that you read the UN Charter, paying particular attention to Articles 2 (4), 42, and 51. Although you have made it quite clear that the legality or otherwise of this action is not of great concern to you.
I never said it was OK. What i said was that, at a time when inspections seemed to be working, the US felt the need to park the world’s most powerful army on Iraq’s doorstep with every indication that it would attack. The fear of imminent attack is not the sort of thing that is conducive to getting a nation to hand over its weapons. I don’t think it’s OK for Iraq to have those weapons, but the US, with its belligerence (and its constant bombing of the country over the past years) must take some blame for this defensive attitude.
And you’re right - it’s been 13 years since Iraq agreed to UN demands. And the UN is the organization that has the authority to decide on what punishment Iraq ahould receive for its violation of the agreements - not the US. Bush has spent much effort telling us that this war is justified because of Iraq’s snubbing of the UN, but at the same time he has made it very clear that he thinks it’s OK for the US to snub the UN when it’s convenient. “We’re going to defend the integrity of the UN by defying the UN” seems to be Bush’s genius argument.
But being wrong is not an option here. Not because i’m some genius or because i’m never wrong, but because the invasion is already illegal, no matter what happens after. The fact that the invasion is illegal will not change no matter what weapons the US finds (or does not find) in Iraq. The fact that it is illegal will not change even if every Security Council member joins in. It may become legal if the UNSC decides to vote to approve it, but this legality will not be retrospective; every day of war without Security Council approval is illegal. And under the UN Charter, it is not only illegal, it is unjustified.
Nope, it’s probably not bullshit. But I hope you can see the circular argument inherent in your statement. We’re now fighting (a rather entertaining, so far) war to take away the dangerous weapons which the Iraqis are smart enough not to use, even under the most ideal conditions. So what’s the point of fighting, dammit?
(And I think that Chemical Ali would find it irresistible to use chemical weapons in order to slow down the Allied advance. The most potent weapon the Iraqi leadership has is time, because only by prolonging this war do they have any chance of surviving it.)
We’ll find out soon enough. CNN is now reporting that Marine forces have crossed the DMZ.
How will this war be regarded if no WMD are ever found, yet the regime change is successful and the lives of Iraqis are genuinely improved?
I wouldn’t worry about that, Gangster - we humans have a great capacity for rationalization and for excusing each others’ rationalizations, especially after the fact.
Stricter standards of honesty do apply when one is engaged in fighting ignorance, though - the battle we have all enlisted in by registering on this site.
Whether or not the long range missles used & possessed by Saddam are “WMD” or not is a matter of semantics.
It doesn’t really matter, both sides have a good arguement. However, “WMD” or not, they are certainly & clearly illegal, and at one time SH did claim he had no such illigal weapons. Then he said he did- but he was “working on destroying them”. :rolleyes: They are packed with explosives for gods sake, just blwo them up!
Just another lie & delaying tactic. Saddam was in clear violation of the UN accord- even if semanticly speaking these long range missles aren’t “WMD”.
It’s like that thread in GD where some loon was suggesting we impeach Bush. He claimed Bush lied, and to back up that claim, he pointed out the bit about the aluminum tubes. Now, these tubes COULD possibly be used to develope Nuclear weapons. But they aren’t really designed for it. His cite went on to point out that they likely weren’t bought for the purpose of nukes, they were instead almost 100% likely bought for the purpose of making conventional motar rounds. They were SO very happy that SH had been absolved by this. Except, all ye completely clueless dudes- SADDAM WASN’T SUPPOSED TO BE BUYING CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS EITHER! So, nuke or motar, he was violating the Law. Sure, nukes are more scary, but the cite completely proved that SH was buying innocent looking supplies, with the idea to turn them into weapons. If he was wiping his hairy ass with that section of the Law, why do you so blithely assume he wasn’t on the WMD sections also?
My god, dudes, it’s like some dude claiming he wasn’t guilty of the murder, as he was across town raping someone. But, since we only have proof of the rape, we are gonna let him go- after all, the murder charges are thus doubtful. :rolleyes:
Err, I just did a Google search on
“George Bush” “goat” “sex”
and came up with 2640 hits!
Ergo, our President must be a pervert…
:wally
however, if your thesis is (as is presently) that we must invade this country and dispose of it’s leader 'cause he has these WOMD, and capability and intent to use them against his neighbors and the US etc etc etc, it’s rather problematic if you find that instead of WOMD (as commonly held, ie chemical, biological, nuclear) you find he had a box of cleanser, a scientist with the flu, and some matches. (methaphorically speaking)
Well, you could also argue that the war should end now because (SH having firing the missiles) he clearly doesn’t have them any more, and has thus tardily complied with 1441!
No? Well, it makes about as much sense as anything else in this damned thread.
I’m suggesting that firing the whatever the fuck they were does not ‘prove’ that he has WOMD. Because we’re now finding out that the range estimations were incorrect, it’s not even clear that these were weapons he wasn’t supposed to have (keep in mind that disarmament did not apparently involve him having no defenses at all, after all, there’s Iran next door who hates him too).
I haven’t commented on ‘does he have stuff he’s not supposed to?’.
I know this is the pit and all but
"The CIA can hardly be cited as credible sources. They have in the last 4 months produced false evidence, manipulated facts and taken them out of context, lied, and lied. "
Cite??
LOL! Methinks you need to take a reading comprehension class Milo. Not the part of the statement that says AS WELL AS, and has a comma. Nowhere in any of your links has SCUDS been called WOMDs. They have just been mentioned together.
“The House is guarded by a security fence as well as big doberman pinchers.” Does that mean the dogs are really fences?
Perhaps not the best analogy. The sites you give talk about WMD’s which are a violation, AS WELL AS talk about having SCUDS, which are also a violation. NOWHERE, let me repeat that. NOWHERE in your statements does it say otherwise. Or even suggest it. Learn to read your cites before you post em. Thouroughly and with some comprehension.
There’s an out for that, too - remember Dubya’s (and the rest of the RW commentariat’s) referring to what Saddam wanted to do and could do if given the opportunity and time? Not being based on facts at all, and therefore invulnerable to contrary facts, it’s a wonderfully sound argument.
Odd how that snippet hasn’t been picked up anywhere else, isn’t it? They report, we decide - and it’s easy to decide about that, isn’t it?
Because, of course, the inspections have been so successful so far. By definition, if inspections went on for eight years (before the inspection teams were pulled out because of Iraqi non-compliance) and were later resumed before again being halted, and yet WMDs still exist in Iraq, the inspections were not successful.
I’m not arguing legality. I thought I had made this clear. I do believe something can be justified without being legal. Lawyers make fortunes on debates like this all the time. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that.
Once again, I’m not arguing legality. However, I’m not sure the Articles you’re quoting do a whole lot to bolster your case. Article 2 (4) has been essentially waived for the past 13 years in this instance as part of the agreement Iraq made with the UN. Articles 42 and 51 don’t seem to apply; 42 basically lays out the actions the UNSC can take to maintain international peace and security, while 51 basically says Iraq has the right to defend itself if it’s attacked. Which they’re doing.
In the first place, the inspections didn’t seem to be working. In the second place, the U.S. provided several opportunities for Saddam to end this peacefully, which for the most part asked him to comply with the 13-year-old agreement he signed.
I’ll say it again – 13 years. And the “constant bombing” was in response to anti-aircraft fire directed at U.S. planes over the no-fly zones and other activities that Iraq had agreed (once again) not to do.
Now, having said all that, I firmly believe Bush was looking for any excuse to start the war. Based on the information I’ve seen, he (and the U.S.) are not justified in attacking. Perhaps they have other information I’m not privy to which clearly indicates the presence of WMD and other violations; in that case, I believe the attack was justified. Legal? Probably not. Again, international law isn’t my bailiwick, and I don’t think the UN Articles you mentioned cover this situation.
They’ve invaded North Korea?!?
SCUDs can be converted to WMD if they are equipped with nnuclear, chemical or nuclear warheads, but so far we haven’t even seen any SCUDs much less WMD equipped ones.
I’m amazed at all theback pedalling now by those who were so convinced that Saddam was sitting on piles of ICBMs. If we don’t find any WMDs will any of you admit you were wrong, or will you just try to redefine your justifications?
Nah, we have to plant the evidence first, spin the story and then end the war. Oh wait, we have to level the place first.
Can’t agree less, i’m afraid. Article 2(4) was in no way rescinded or waived because of the post-Gulf War ceasefire agreement. The articles to which i referred you specifically state that member nations should refrain from threat or use of force in international relations, and that the only exceptions are :
a) self-defence
b) when the UNSC approves the use of force
It’s pretty clear. I suppose you can try to make a distinction between legal and justifiable as you have attempted to do, but when the US signed the UN Charter and committed itself to follow the rules of international law, it bound itself to obey the charter and stay within the law. Everything that Saddam Hussein has done, or might have done, is thus irrelevant, because the US snubbing of the UN and international law is, in itself, unjustifiable.
I’m not crying too many tears for Hussein and his cronies right now. And if they end up exiled or dead, i won’t lose any sleep. But this whole action is predicated on the notion of unilateralism (yes, yes, i know the US has a few allies, but none of them would buck the UN without the US taking the lead), and the idea that the US alone will decide when international law and the UN should be obeyed, and when they should be ignored.
I’d have less of a problem with the whole thing if the US actually had the guts to say “Fuck the UN; we resign.” At least then we could avoid the hypocrisy that comes with asserting the value of the UN when it’s convenient, and telling the UN to piss off when you don’t agree with it. If the US would show its true colours and leave the UN, thus confirming its belief in its own rectitude and its scorn for world opinion, then at the very least the rest of the world would know where it stood.