Once again America seems to be going to war. Where is the moral right to do so?

[Estilicon]

So much ignorance, where to begin:

1. The UN is not a sovereign nation and does not get to ordinarily tell any nation what to do.

2. The UN represents nothing more than the individual interests of its memnber states. These usually conflict.

No one argues that the U.N. is a sovereign state (a nation can have no state as the kurds or a state several nations, as the late Austro-Hungarian Empire). It’s an international organazation and it’s functions and powers are set by it’s members. Check this
Regarding the second part, that is not true each member of the U.N. has it’s own interests but the U.N. interest is the one of the majority of it’s members. Decissions are reach by consensus

3. The UN does not get any final say in how military force is allocated.

** Article 24 inc 1: In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations,its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.**

** Article 45: In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.**

Exception:

** Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. **

As you see the U.N. Charter makes no provission for the right of preemptive strike.

5. Since the UN resolutions don’t really have anything to do with why we are going to war, your entire argument falls apart like a piece of wet kleenex.

Oh, sorry thinks there is not much else we can discuss, after all if you hold this view all of the above is meaningless.

[mozart]

Wow! this has been very informative. I agree and disagree with much but the single thing I most take offence to is the unjust comment about Canadian beer! Have a pint of “Rickards Red” and rethink that one.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Sam: Thanks for the reply. Nice post, btw.

I’d like to know just what the U.S. could have done to cause France to forget about its 30 billion dollars in oil contracts, or to not worry about the U.S. finding evidence that it had violated sanctions by supplying Iraq with arms. I’d like to know what the U.S. could have done that would cause Russia to write off the billions of dollars Iraq owes it, for the good of the world.

Briefly: France will always be France. But Germany wasn’t always France and South Korea wasn’t always France. Heck, even Canada has become France, as far as I can tell. (Rhetoric stolen from T. Friedman.)

In a post-Saddam sanctions-free Iraq, there is no reason why French and Russian ties to Iraq could not be strengthened. Before 2002 (say) there was stalemate: sanctions were eroding, but most of the benefits flowed to nations that bordered on Iraq (via illegal oil sales). The US lacked the ability to strengthen sanctions, but Russia and France couldn’t do away with them altogether either. If France and Russia simply held the door for the US, an Iraqi invasion would be consistent with their economic interests. (Pissing us off, OTOH, puts their assets at risk.)

I suspect you are overestimating the harm that will flow to France, once its sanctions-busting behavior is exposed. My take is that French behavior is simply reflecting popular sentiment in every single European nation.

I haven’t seen any signs of broader US accommodation in the European subcontinent. No charm offenses. No calls for greater multilateral cooperation yada yada. No signs of good faith.[sup]1[/sup]

--------- The way I see it, many of the ‘alliances’ that supposedly existed pre-911 were an illusion, and when the cards were finally laid on the table and the world was asked to put up or shut up, it turned out that different national interests trumped all.

Again, the national interests you cited seem thin to me. Thin with regards to Russia and France and thinly based in that you have not explained the reticence of Latin America, South Africa et al. More generally, the media focus on France alone seems to me a little misplaced.[sup]2[/sup]

As I see it, swinging even a solid 35% of European public opinion over to the US’s side would make the latter’s position seem credible. From there, diplomatic pressure would be sufficient. European diplomatic cover, in turn, would have helped us with the Saudis (unnecessary, as it turns out) and the Turks (woops, another miscalculation).

As it is, total US victory and successful post-war reconstruction will make all pre-war fissures irrelevant. It’s when things go bad that we might regret our uncompromising stance.

Bottom Line: Last September, Robert Wright penned a rather good list of suggestions for dealing with the WMD proliferation among non-state actors.

The suggestion that I have in mind is, Policy Prescription #1: * Take your bitter medicine early.* The menu of terrorism is full of short term/long term tradeoffs. It’s better to favor the long-term, “because in 10 or 20 years, terrorism will have much more lethal potential than it has now.” Thus the necessity for investing in international cooperation right now. Unlike Clinton, 911 endowed Bush with a rather sizable stock of political capital and international sympathy. It is a shame that W never moved to leverage it with a few well-timed concessions.[sup]3[/sup]

---

[sup]1[/sup]For an example of a public show of US diplomatic good faith, recall the shuttle diplomacy undertaken by Alexander Haig during the early part of the Falklands conflict. There was a solid attempt at a diplomatic solution, but once it was not forthcoming, the special relationship came into play.
[sup]2[/sup] Q: What do you call a Frenchman advancing on Baghdad? A: A salesman.
[sup]3[/sup]For another example of a “well-timed” concession, see Reagan’s performance during a population conference in Mexico. He had deflated expectations so much so that even small concessions were greatly welcomed. Admittedly, a similar phenomenon occurred when W proposed greater AIDS funding in sub-Saharan Africa.

[antechinus]

For gods sake - why do you keep carrying on about 1) Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and 2)Iraq increasing the risk of terrorism.

1. The Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are useless. They cannot be deployed. They may have some chemical and biological - but it is up to the weapons inspectors to find that out. Do you really need to think hard about that? What do you think the likelihood of Iraq attacking the USA is? Not very bloody much. Why not look for the weapons - even if it takes years?
2. The only reason that terrorism has been linked to Iraq is because a terrorist group knocked down a couple of buildings in New York. This is simply an EXCUSE for the Bush administration to attack. There is no link. Do you think all of a sudden that there is an increased risk of terrorism because of Iraq? Most terrorist events experienced in the USA is from USA citizens.

There will be an increased risk of terrorism around the world after the USA has invaded Iraq. This does not require a cite, just a few brains.

WMD and terrorism are excuses to attack, both are just as feeble as “He tried to kill my Dad.” The link is an illusion that has duped you poor fools.

[Weird_AL_Einstein]

*Originally posted by RickJay *
**Okay. Let’s assume Iraq is in violation of a UN resolution by not proving, on its own, that it’s complying with the resolution.

Now construct an argument why this necessitates war.
**

War is necessary because of the possibility that Saddam Hussein has, or is trying to acquire, weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.

There, one sentence. I see from your posts that you are not so concerned with legal niceties, at least for the purposes of this thread, which is about what gives us a moral right. Fair enough. As to the issue of moral rights…is it actually your position that we need to have “hard proof” that the likes of Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons before we will use force to disarm him? Is that seriuosly what you are saying?

[antechinus]

Weird_AL_Einstein: Using this logic it is also necessary to attack all other countries on the planet “…because of the possibility that…” they are “…trying to acquire, weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.”

This is crazy talk.

[buttonjockey308]

Moral right? C’mon…Morality has nothing whatsoever to do with legality, which is the true basis for any potential actions taken by the US.
Legality, however is easliy sidestepped by the reality that the US, despite the grumblings of the rest of the world, remains the biggest dog in the fight. France can veto all it wants, Russia can bitch and whine, but the truth is they cannot stop us, nor will they should we decide to go forward.
We’re not truly in defense of an impending danger or doom, truth is, Iran and North Korea are as much a danger as Hussein, but this, I believe, is the start of a very, very long conflict.

The scenario will unfold like this…We defy the UN, and enter Iraq starting with the immediate seige of Saddam International Airport, holding it until ground troops make it in to set it up as a base of operations. We will begin, as we take the airport, the bombing campaign. The ‘coalition forces’ will then, as the war quietly subsides, and our handpicked government takes power in Iraq, slip over the border and destroy the recently discovered Iranian nuclear production facilties. This will incite the dissident faction in Iran, which we will quietly fund and support causing major civil unrest. We will do that as an under-the-table show of force to Kim Jong Il, who will cave, under inscrutible pressure to “feed, clothe and educate his people” and will accept a weapons-for-food type of agreement with the UN and the US, agreeing not to build, sell or otherwise broker in anything more dangerous than a crate of AK-47s headed for the streets of LA, with that, there will be UN inspectors on the ground in N. Korea.

This will cause an incredible spike in global terror attacks until the groups run out of money and direction and their supporters are driven underground. Israel will decimate Palestine after there are incredibly destructive attacks in major Israeli cities and many hundreds, if not thousands of Jews and Palestinians are killed. Though the same type of things are happening there as happened in Bosnia or Rwanda, we will stand mute.

In those terror attacks, many will be on American soil, and many will be far more pedestrian and far more see-spot-run than our office of homeland security is leading us to believe. The unseen specter of WMD having cast an impotent shadow on bleary-eyed stress-addled, overworked americans, will leave us missing the obvious, while we coccoon ourselves in visquine and duct tape, eating powdered eggs and drinking stowed water.

Eventually, this scenario has the potential of leading us into a 3rd world war, yet even if that is the case, I believe that when the time comes, more will be with us, than against us.

And for the record, I support the troops, not necessarily my government.
I think the celebs and stars should shut the bloody hell up, we pay them to entertain us, that’s it.
I couldn’t give less of a damn about the jaded opinions of a has been actor, whose employer lives vicariously through his (or her) faded youth. Susan Sarandon, Barbara Streisand, Marty Sheen, Tim Robbins and the rest of the half-witted hollywood pseudo-pundits.

[Estilicon]

Moral right? C’mon…Morality has nothing whatsoever to do with legality, which is the true basis for any potential actions taken by the US.

Saint Thomas Aquinnas would disagree with you on that one pal.

[MSU_1978]

At present, Bush has not made his case and there is no moral justification for the war. Responsible leaders resort to war only after every reasonable alternative has been exhausted. In my opinion, war is justified if one of these things happens:

• Iraq kicks out Hans Blix and his inspectors
• Blix finds weapons that Iraq will not destroy
• Iraq uses weapons of mass destruction
• Iraq invades another soverign nation
• A smoking gun is found linking Iraq to 9/11

In the absence of one of the above happening, war is unjustified and immoral. We have inspectors on the ground, we have spy planes in the air, we have satellites that can read license plates from space. Don’t tell me that if these weapons exist, we can’t find them. And if we do find them, we have missiles that can fly into specific windows of an apartment building across the globe, surely we can destroy whatever is found if the Iraqis don’t.

Not only is the war unjustified, it could lead to a long occupation where US soldiers are the targets of the local population and anti-American sentiment around the world reaches new heights. It wasn’t that long ago that German and French citizens waved American flags and expressed solidarity with the US in the wake of 9/11. Bush has squandered that good will with his warmongering. And don’t get the idea that Thomas Jefferson is waiting in the wings to transform Iraq into America East. It’s much more likely that this war will bring about the fall of the House of Saud. Not that they are anything but corrupt, but if they fall, then other regimes will follow and we’re going to have widespread war in the region. Bush is leading us into an endless quagmire that could reach epic proportions. Let’s stop this insanity before it starts.

[ElJeffe]

• Iraq kicks out Hans Blix and his inspectors
• Blix finds weapons that Iraq will not destroy
• Iraq uses weapons of mass destruction
• Iraq invades another soverign nation
• A smoking gun is found linking Iraq to 9/11

I seem to remember seeing similar lists many moons ago. The only difference is that the lists included the following:

• We can find a reasonable number of allies to support us
• We find evidence that Saddam has or is currently building WMDs, verified by UN weapons inspectors

Oddly enough, after those two conditions were met, they dropped clean off the list of acceptable terms under which we should go to war. I suppose it could just be coincidence, but something tells me that if we were to find a photo of Saddam and bin Laden smiling and shaking hands next to a nuke with a big “New York or Bust” sign slapped on it, the acceptable terms of war would shift yet again. At least in the minds of the Great Legion of Those Who Cannot Be Convinced.
Jeff

[Weird_AL_Einstein]

*Originally posted by antechinus *
**Weird_AL_Einstein: Using this logic it is also necessary to attack all other countries on the planet “…because of the possibility that…” they are “…trying to acquire, weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.”

This is crazy talk. **

“(A)ll other countries on the planet” are not run by Saddam Hussein. Or do you seriously believe that there is no fundamental difference between, to pick a name out of the hat, Hussein and Vicente Fox of Mexico?

[DrDeth]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Not an easy choice, but, more importantly, not our choice to make.

We are a member of the UN, the UN is not a member of the United States. In mathish, we are a subset of the class “UN”, hence, the UN cannot be a subset of the US.

To belabor a metaphor I have nearly beaten senseless, Tennessee is a member of the US. If the US decides to go to war with Canada over its relentless production of inferior beer (overlooking our own crimes in the exportation of Coors), then Tennessee goes along. It is not, however, the privilege of Tennessee to conduct such a war on its own, even if South Carolina and Missouri agree.

To my knowledge, the UN has not pinned a tin star to our vest and declared us “Enforcer of the Will of the UN”. A coalition of the recently purchased may indeed make war against Iraq, but draping UN legitimacy over such an action is smoke-and-mirrors. **

Incorrect. The USA is- as are most of the “members” of the UN- a sovereign nation. Thus, it has the legal right to declare war & wage war on who ever they want. The US Constitution is the highest Law in the land, and it specifically states so. Ture, we have signed treaties- but such treaties rank below the Constitution.

What they DON’T have is the right to say they are doing it on behalf of the UN unless the UN agrees. Indeed, unless the UN agrees to issue that “tin star” we have no right to even allude we have that right.

Your analogy is specious; the USA has not given up any of it’s soveriegnity to the UN- although the various States in the USA have all done so to the Union.

[antechinus]

*Originally posted by Weird_AL_Einstein *
**"(A)ll other countries on the planet" are not run by Saddam Hussein. Or do you seriously believe that there is no fundamental difference between, to pick a name out of the hat, Hussein and Vicente Fox of Mexico? **

So your reasoning is that: because the country is “run by Saddam Hussein” then that is key to attacking.

What if another leader took over Iraq - one that had a different name - should the US still attack?

It seems you are brainwashed into thinking: we should attack because it is SH, even though there is evidence of a threat to the USA.

[antechinus]

I left out one little word in the last post - an important word.

*Originally posted by Weird_AL_Einstein *
**"(A)ll other countries on the planet" are not run by Saddam Hussein. Or do you seriously believe that there is no fundamental difference between, to pick a name out of the hat, Hussein and Vicente Fox of Mexico? **

So your reasoning is that: because the country is “run by Saddam Hussein” then that is key to attacking.

What if another leader took over Iraq - one that had a different name - should the US still attack?

It seems you are brainwashed into thinking: we should attack because it is SH, even though there is no evidence of a threat to the USA.

[elucidator]

Dr. Deth:

…Your analogy is specious; the USA has not given up any of it’s soveriegnity to the UN- although the various States in the USA have all done so to the Union…

Not hardly. Every nation sacrifices some degree of sovereignty when it signs a treaty, it limits its own freedom of action. At least in theory, when the United Nations was formed, it was formed out of a collective cession of some sovereignty.

As for international law, keep in mind that America is an essential founder of “international law”. Relying on the legitimacy provided by the theory of “international law”, we tried Germans and Japanese leaders of a sovereign nation for crimes against humanity. Hence, as a nation we have already recognized the existence and the international authority of a law that supercedes national laws and sovereignty. Eminent domain, so to speak.

Several Germans indeed offered the perfectly plausible defense that thier actions were not illegal in Germany, and as Germany was a sovereign nation, they could not be guilty of a crime. We hanged them.

[galrion]

The US Constitution is the highest Law in the land, and it specifically states so. Ture, we have signed treaties- but such treaties rank below the Constitution.

Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution states:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and of all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”

As soon as a treaty is approved it becomes equal with the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. We’re just as obligated to obey the UN laws as we are the Constitution.

[Shaolinrabbit]

Ok, I’ll throw my hat in. You’ve twisted my arm.

Many people have pointed out the necessity of a ‘unilateral’ move against Saddam Hussein. Ok, I’ll go for it. But, say the world isn’t for it. Not just some, but all. What then? Say the world doesn’t have the interests of the U.S. in mind, and that the interest is in removing Saddam, in the interest of National Security. American lives may be at risk. What then?

Does Saddam Hussein have WMD? Sure. According to every available source, including the UN, he does. The UN does not dispute this. Hans Blix has found no evidence of the existance of much of what was reported. UNSCOM did. Hans does not report on what UNSCOM found, only on what he has found.

Would more inspectors make a difference? Believe it or not, that’s not what they’re for. UN inspectors are there to verify disarmament. That’s it. Saddam, if he is in compliance, is supposed to show the inspectors his stuff and then destroy it in front of them. No one disputes this stated purpose of the UN inspectors. Perhaps, more inspectors will make it easier for Saddam’s mobile anthrax labs to reach an inspection area. God knows they’re short on gasoline, right?

Saddam must be connected to Osama Bin Laden for him to be a focus of the war on terror. Correction, they have to be caught fucking in order for there to be a remote connection between Saddam and the war on terror. Pardon my french. Here’s why I am livid enough to even speak french at a time like this:

1. Saddam trained Abul Nidal in the 1970’s and supported his terrorist efforts until it was discovered that he was also running terror for Syria. Iraq took Nidal in after he ran from country to country following his participation in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Nidal was named by informants as a possible master mind of the bombing of flight 103. He is known to have killed at least 280 people.

2. Saddam has supported his very own terrorist organization the Arab Liberation Front. Saddam has intermittently called for volunteers to bomb Israel and the West Bank, promising to pay $25,000US to the families of suicide bombers. The State Department verified that such moneys had changed hands on several occasions.

3. Saddam has hosted the wonderous Abu Abbas and his Palestinian Liberation Front.

4. Saddam maintained a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, complete with an airline fuselage for practicing hijacking. The State Department under FP Clinton uncovered evindence that the terrorist organization Hamas had used this training ground.

5. Iraqi Intelligence, under Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate FP Bush, Sr. This was in 1993 BTW, three years after his presidency had ended.

6. There was even a report that the Deputy Chief of Iraqi Intelligence met with Osama Bin Laden himself in Afghanistan in 1998.

These were reported by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, all in 1998.

Is George W. Bush the only person making wild, speculative claims about Saddam(Based only upon the evidence of the State Department and the CIA)? Nope. Check this out:

“We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaida going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression. We have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaida members, including some who have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities.”
-George Tenet, Director of the CIA, in a letter to Senator Robert Graham, Wall Street Journal, 2003 (A Clinton Appointee, BTW)

Or this one:

Senator Joseph Lieberman informed us that “we have evidence of meetings between Iraqi officials and leaders of Al Qaida, and testimony that Iraqi agents helped train Al Qaida operatives to use chemical and biological weapons. We also know that Al Qaida leaders have been, and are now, harbored in Iraq.”
Senator Joseph Leiberman(D), Wall Street Journal, 2002

On December 12, 2002, the Washington Post reported credible intelligence indicated that Iraq had delivered the highly lethal chemical nerve agent VX to an Al Qaida cell in Lebanon, presenting the U.S. and our allies with an unprecedented, ominous threat.

It would appear that Saddam is in violation of UN resolution 1441(Disarmament), as well as UN resolution 687(Harboring, financing, supporting terrorists, Iraq specific), and Un resolution 1373(Global anti-terror). Saddams verified attempt on FP Bush, Sr violated 687 all by itself. His globally verified $25k offer violates 1373 clearly.

Incidentally, Saddam is also in violation of UN resolution 688(Human Rights Violations), and has refused to allow a human rights inspector into Iraq.

Donald Rumsfeld outlined much of these in his press conferences, and President Bush hit all of it in his address to the UN, when he got 1441.

I count 16 books published by international journalists establishing a clear link, over 100 international publications that have specified various links, including the London Evening Standard, London Times, New York Times, Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the State Department.

Try www.wallstreetjournal.com, www.newyorktimes.com, www.cia.gov, www.un.org.

[Shaolinrabbit]

Almost forgot, www.wn.com.

[DrDeth]

*Originally posted by galrion *
**Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution states:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and of all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”

As soon as a treaty is approved it becomes equal with the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. We’re just as obligated to obey the UN laws as we are the Constitution. **

SCOTUS disagrees, as does any class I have ever taken. Treaties are just below the US Constitution.

[buttonjockey308]

Estilicon said…

Saint Thomas Aquinnas would disagree with you on that one pal.

I’d like to say that I doubt that, since St. Tom is long since deceased. Still, i never really said that I disbelieve in the need for a moral right, rather that one simply just ain’t there…

Aside from that though, I wonder if you’re a student of Aquinas ? If so, how do you draw that conclusion that he would disagree?