You can call it “mere opinion”, but it’s certainly the opinion that Dubya’s actions gave me, and friends that I’ve talked with - that he’s had nothing but contempt for world opinion.
Purely anecdotal, I freely admit, but that “mere opinion” would make me highly reluctant to see Canadian troops there unless they wear the UN blue helmet, not as part of the US/UK military occupation forces.
Of course, the administration said there would be a “role” for the UN. It was to provide the cash to pay U.S. companies for their bid-free entitlements to “restore” Iraq while providing bodies to serve as blue-helmeted targets while the U.S. took its soldiers and went haring after the next available target of unconsidered opportunity. (Bush used his meeting with the Italian PM, today, to make more unsubstantiated allegations against Iran and Syria.)
GeeDubya has to have a troop withdrawal, and he has to have it soon. Political poison is bubbling up from the “working class”, the proles, the social class most soldiers come from. Thier spouses and parents are complaining to thier friends and neighbors, about how they’re not home yet. And maybe this wasn’t all that hot an idea to begin with, you know, with all that stuff we’re hearing now. If a general discontent amongst the soldiers and their dependents becomes public knowledge GeeDubya is road kill. And if he don’t know it, Uncle Karl sure as hell does.
He needs to be seen giving brave and defiant speeches amongst adoring crowds of returning heroes, and he needs it soonest.
That’s why he’s going to be willing to go to the UN, hat in hand and kiss whatever is proferred. And he’d best get used to it, cause as soon as he gets done begging for soldiers, he’s gonna have to practice up so’s he can beg for money.
He’s between Iraq and a hard place. And it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
But I’d be perfectly willing to see him dive into the UN and come up smelling like a rose, carried out on the shoulders of cheering delegates to an adoring and grateful America…if it works. If we can get our people the hell out of there, it would be worth it. Not saying I wouldn’t puke my guts out. Just that it would be worth it.
elucidator:
This was the risk taken by the administration, and those who advocated war, from the beginning. They knew it might happen; folks who opposed the war argued stridently that it probably would happen; they chose to invade, anyway. I say the community of nations should wash its hands of this issue. It’s time for the blusterers, the war-mongers, and the unilateralists to learn their lesson.
But then again, maybe I’m too angry about the unfolding of events to think straight.
Tee:
The operant word of that sentence being, “yet.”
I’ve not written anything about “verbal abuse,” in my response. But as for a “dismissal of the whole process” in relation to the UN, that’s not a matter of opinion. The US made a mockery of the UN during the run-up to the war, and its attack against Iraq – along with the that of any country also advocating the war – is a direct violation of the UN Charter. The US/”Coalition of the Willing” had NO Security Council mandate for its invasion.
Technically, that means the invasion was as illegal as Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.
Go Heels:
Unless you also agree that without UN approval and support the US should have backed down, then you are still a unilateralist. Bush said, in effect, “We want the help of our ‘allies,’ but we will invade Iraq even without such help.” That’s the unilateral approach.
This is where we disagree most profoundly. But if you are convinced that the was war legitimate and necessary, that must surely mean that you are willing now to stick it out the end, to the bitter consequences, come what may.
Very big of you to risk your cousin’s life and all that. If he came home in a body bag, do you think you would still be of the same opinion? I doubt that’s something anyone can really prepare themselves for.
I haven’t. The issue isn’t one of whether you have a “stomach” to deal with loss. Look, if your cousin is wounded or killed, what possible difference will the state of your stomach make, to anyone besides yourself?
And with regard to the “liberation of Iraq,” you might even be right – it might be worthy of sacrifice, at least if it was conducted within an international context.
But I would guess that when your cousin joined the military, he took a pledge to “defend the United States from all aggressors, foreign or domestic.” And that’s his job – to defend the United States. Not to run around the world knocking off tin-pot dictators at the whim of a bunch of power-mad idiots playing at realpolitik.
To risk one’s life and limb in the defense of one’s country, and one’s family, is one thing. To die in Iraq, now, is something totally different.
Oh, so that’s the real reason! Silly me; I thought we got involved in this to protect the US from Iraq and its “WMDs”. Where could I possibly have gotten that idea?
You can say that again.
Well, I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.
Maybe. I know this is an emotional issue for people from both sides of the argument, because so much is at stake. Maybe I’m callous because as an ex-pat, I don’t have any real contact with anyone actually serving over there right now. Anyway, I sincerely hope your cousin gets back okay.
”Score points?” What does that mean?
All I’m saying is that you and yours supported this thing. You say you have the stomach to finish it, and I say you have a moral responsibility to do so as well.
I was not the one who advocated sending your cousin into danger, you were; I was not the one who advocating following a course of action that might lead Iraq to “sink into chaos and civil war, you were. Had the US followed the course of action I advocated, your cousin would probably still be stateside, livin’ large, and Iraq would not be on the brink of civil war. To the extent you supported (and support) US actions, that’s your responsibility, not mine. So it makes no sense to try to blame me now that things have gotten sticky.
I would have stopped it from happening if I could.
He done good didn’t he. Don’t worry, lots of people underestimate our lil Johnie. He’s on a roll. Picks up the kudos, gets a nights kip down on the GwB ranch, maybe even a decent free trade agreement, keeps the diplomatic and trade arrangements with Iraq and yet no more than a couple of band-aids were needed on Australian personell. If it hadn’t been for Bali it would have been a resounding triumph.
If he’s on his best behaviour, reads his lines and suitably fakes the sincerity, he might just get the soldiers and administrators … but he’s going to have to pick up the entire tab for the janitor’s bill (and the backpay) and substantially concede administrative control of Iraq. I fear that price is too high for the PNAC, being ideologues, not pragmatists.
Beautiful. 
Great. Seems like GoHeels has convinced himself that this invasion was carried out for all kinds of altruistic reasons and lofty minded goals. Add a little more suspense – WMDs, they could rain down on US troops any minute? – throw in some Shock and Awe action, cast Bruce Willis as your superhero, private Lynch as the love interest, and Dubya as the shoot-from-the-hip Commnader in Chief, and I’d say you have the makings of a pretty good Hollywood action flick. You know, one of those were we, the rest of the world, are once again reminded of just how incredibly magnanimous American interventions really are.
Geez, brings a tear to the eye just thinking about it. We should all be so lucky as to have the pleasure of having those dashing Americans and their good intentions rain death upon us. After all, it’s clearly being done for the greater good of world peace and stability. Obviously, the desire to grab the world’s second largest oil reserves from a tin-pot dictator with a barely functioning military, while loudly proclaiming him to be “an inminent threat” to the USA and the rest of the world, were simply diversionary tactics to keep us, ‘America-haters’, entertained. Nicely done.
Glad you cleared that up for me, GoHeels. Must admit I was a bit worried before I read your…script.
PS-Must admit, with the current messes in Afghanistan (remember them?) and Iraq, your sequel is bound to be a blockbuster. I bet Bruce&Co sort it all out in no time. But does he marry Pvt Lynch and live happily ever after in the ending? Can’t wait, the suspense is…er, killing me?
Bushco doesn’t have the balls to go hat in hand to the UN. Not now. Not ever. Wasn’t it just 2 weeks ago he said… “Bring it on?”
Glad my fellow Tarheel (I’m in Charlotte) has come around but he’ll never get his fellow Repubs to do the same.
And I’d be fairly certain the gentleman from Canada is correct. After all the Bushco mouthing off against The UN, France, Canada, etc… the phrase that was used during Watergate becomes relevant re Bush… The whole world wants to watch him slowly, twist in the wind.
This is the first time in my life, at age 53, I’ve ever seen our “allies” wish the US ill will. There was some disagreement during Nam but nothing like this that Bushco has fostered.
I’d like to ask Tarheel this… Assuming The UN and no one else pulls this Bush-person’s balls out of the fire… what do you see as the end game for The US in this Iraq invasion/occupation?
Yes, that is your opinion. Technically we didn’t need a Security Council mandate, since the invasion was about removing a threat. I believe that’s been mentioned here before and summarily dismissed by the opposition - “he’s no threat to the US, he’s a secular kinda guy” - with straight faces. Unfortunately popular opinion alone isn’t in the position of granting or deciding anything. Most of the Security Council agreed that Saddam posed a threat but differed on what to do about it. (See Resolution 1441.)
With the fall of Saddam’s regime, the US and UK petitioned the Security Council for a Resolution granting them the authority as occupying powers to administrate Iraq. This was granted in late May. (see Resolution 1483.) Part of it includes:
…and so the main objection from certain other states and not others, from what I can see, is that they do not want the “Authority” to be the Authority. Instead of the this UN plan to work together, the fledgling Iraqi gov’t plus the US and UK plus the UN Special Representative in Iraq, it has to be a complete UN job to have real relevance. (A nice way of saying “Yankee Go Home”, perhaps.) There is no chance of this. Authority will go directly from the coalition to the Iraqis, like it says in this Resolution.
A threat that was declared imminent by the president, but for which no evidence has been produced–further refuted by the fact that the military did not even take steps to secure sites where WoMD might have been stored, thus allowing them to be pillaged and redistributed to real terrorists (if there had actually been any).
We were told we had to go to war to defend ourselves, but we have not demonstrated any such need and have taken steps that indicate that we did not believe our own rhetoric.
Lacking a genuine (to say nothing of imminent) threat, our invasion was not legal.
Yep, “Bring it on” seems a while ago already . . .
Nor are the US military going to put up with this forever. Senior Officers aren’t going to wait for morale to drop so far that discipline is threatened, they’ll speak out much earlier. Last thing they need is for US public confidence in the ‘elite’ forces to be undermined.
The first pressure cracks will come from that direction, so Bush has as long as the military can keep morale from hitting the floor before it’s open season on Administration policy.
After that, things could unravel quite quickly. Very tricky times for the president. I would imagine ‘Old Europe’ is watching with a degree of schadenfreude, not to mention Kofi Annan.
Just to clarify one point, I don’t want my previous post to be interpreted as wishing the U.S. ill will. Everytime another report comes in of another UK or US soldier killed in Iraq, I grieve. And the possibility of all out civil/guerilla warfare in Iraq is scary, on a whole lot of levels. I sincerely hope it doesn’t happen.
I’m simply saying that if we’re to ask our troops to go into a very dangerous part of the world, the Canadian gov’t is obliged to do everything it can to minimize the risks they face. Insisting on a UN mandate, rather than joining the occupation forces, is one way to do that.
Tee:
Well, it is my opinion in the sense that all statements about the universe are ultimately, at the epistemological level, indistinguishable from opinion. For what it’s worth, it is also my opinion that the earth revolves around the sun.
Your argument is extremely disingenuous, and I’ll bet dollars to donuts you damn well know it. If you can quote the text of UN resolutions, then you sure as hell must have read the Charter. You must therefore know that there exists no provision within that Charter that allows for member states to “strike preemptively” against a “potential threat.” In fact, the Charter specifically forbids such actions. Military action against a state can only be undertaken in the case of self-defense (i.e., when territory of a state has been attacked), or with the full support of the Security Council. The US-led assault against Iraq met neither of these preconditions.
The US government twists the spirit of Article 51 to justify its aggression against other states, but that is an argument for power-mongers, hypocrites, and idiots. No one outside of the US – with the possible exception if Israel – concurs with that interpretation.
It’s really quite simple. Try as you like, Tee, 1483 cannot be interpreted in any reasonable sense as an ex post facto Security Council approval of the invasion.
Coupled with the points raised by tomndebb, and on the grounds of standard international relations the actions taken by the US and its allies are simply indefensible.
Note your own underlined. When a state has been attacked, it’s already too late for “self-defense” obviously. That’s one of the key arguments used in debating the UN Charter, also called “preserving a rogue state’s right to first-strike.” Your argument could just as easily apply to North Korea if we encounter a Chinese veto in the UNSC. Another is the conflict with the US Constitution. US laws says (afaik, ianal) that we must act upon perceived threats in self-defense, and no international treaty supercedes the authority of the Constitution on matters of US national security. The UN is aware of this, the balance of power issues between international bodies and sovereign states in matters of defense, even if you’re not.
Fine. It can be interpreted as UN involvement in Iraq, and is relevant to the idea that “we need the UN in Iraq.”
Piffle. FDR took lots of heat specifically because he maintained that the U.S. could not afford to indulge in pre-emptive strikes against Japan.
Even in 1846, we went through the charade of having our forces attacked (by pretending our border was farther than we could legitimately claim and sending troops to “defend” it).
There is no law that says the U.S. must act against threats and Bush was roundly criticized for declaring a first-strike capability for the U.S. when he declared in the summer of 2002 that we were going to go rogue.
Mr. Svinlesha
I posted that “With the presence of a powerful force in Iraq, terrorism supporters like Syria and Iran must be mindful of their Ps and Qs.”
You responded:
Well, OK, but what do you think aboutIran announcing it has al-Qaida members in custody?
Interesting how Bush sabre-rattled on Monday when he was meeting with Berlusconi that Iran (as well as Syria) were harboring terrorists. Less than 36 hours later, Iran makes the announcement of some big al-Qaida fish in its custody.
That announcement had nothing to do with 150,000 American troops on its western borders, and another 10,000 troops on its eastern border, huh? Just a coincidence, I suppose. :rolleyes:
My point was that the strategic objective of the war in Iraq is a) empower moderates in the MENA region and b)to convince terror-sponsoring countries such as Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia to rethink their support of Islamist terror groups. It seems readily apparent that the Saudis are responding with some small form of behavior modification (admittedly not a complete rethink, but it’s a start) in the wake of the attacks in Riyadh in May, and Syria is nervously making noises about redeploying troops from Lebanon, and now we hear this from Iran.
Frankly, I’ve got no problem with these countries being nervous.
I don’t think the Administration felt it could adequately explain this strategy to the American public, and used WMDs (which it thought it would find) as its excuse to give to the public.
Obviously, you can argue whether or not this is the right or wrong strategy (or if it’s even the real strategy), and whether or not this was a legal strategy according to international law (probably not, although I’m less troubled by this than everyone here seems to be) or whether it’s morally sound (which I firmly believe it is, although I’m sure the majority here will disagree).
The point of my OP was that building a stable and decent Iraq will be a most powerful weapon in empowering moderates and give them the ability to take on the radical Islamists and Arab nationalists. No matter the disagreements between the U.S. and Europe, it always seemed that both of us wanted what was best for the Iraqi people, and bringing in the UN seemed the best way to ensure Iraqis that their well-being was the will of the world.
By the way, I do sincerely appreciate your concern for my cousin, thank you.
RedFury, I suppose I could ridicule the anti-warriors as dictator-appeasing pussies who would sell out the oppressed people of Iraq, but that would be completely wrong, unfair and an unnecessary cheap shot. So I’ll just settle for a :rolleyes:
Replace “American public” with “international community” and I agree with you. I think he focused on terrorism here and on weapons in the UN, with predictable results.
Are you still insisting on a UN mandate? Just wondering…
A promising start, gone wrong.
Reiteration, they announced this previously.
It may very well have, although only indirectly, insofar as it is clear to anyone following the situation that the US military is at present bogged down in guerilla warfare and in no position to launch an attack on Iran, whatever the posturing by the President to play to the Red Meat crowd.
How it is going to do that remains beyond my comprehension as a specialist in the region. A bizarre fantasy at best.
SA never provided official nor direct support to Islamist terror groups targetting Western targets. Direct support to Palestinian movements in the Territories, but not to “Islamist terror groups” generally. Same for Syria.
Al-Qaeda and its kin have never depended on state sponsorship for the real operational cap, ex Sudan for a brief period. Afghanistan was a convenient base, but obviously Afghan support was…land.
It’s painful to read this sort of tripe as ‘analysis.’
Syria has been in the process of pulling back from Lebanon for the past several years, and this has nothing at all to do with 11 September or the US It’s Syro-Leb politics. They’ve been in this process for around five years now, accelerating with Bashir coming to power, although it actually is stalled out.
SA, see above, you fundamentally misunderstand the situation. It is not American threats to SA, it was the internal attack by al-Qaeda on the SA power structure that has prompted a relooking.
Iran has never been very friendly to al-Qaeda - which represent Sunni extremism which in general is anti-Shiite, see Pakistan. Iran holding al-Qaeda people is not new.
Depends on the context. Nervous that the US will take further irrational action is not a good thing, it will provoke negative results. Nervous the US will take rational and well supported action, that is not so bad.
The Administration’s policy in re the Middle East is incoherent and based on fundamentaly flawed assumptions. It is, in short, ridiculously misinformed, much like your analysis above.
Eg. see:
Is almost amusing if it were not the actual thinking of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
Tee:
Well, I think you’ve missed the meat of my argument, but let’s go through your objections one by one and see how they stack up.
Sorry, this claim makes no sense at all. It would imply, for example, that the preemptive strike launched by Japan on Hawaii during WWII was, by your standards, principally legitimate, as the Japanese no doubt had concluded (probably correctly) the US was bound to be a threat to their “security” sooner or later. By your logic we are therefore compelled to label Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor a legitimate act of “self-defense,” not an act of military aggression; and the US response to Japan’s “self-defense,” in its turn, could only be seen itself as an act of aggression – as, in fact, I am sure many Japanese saw it.
In short, your argument makes a mockery of the concept of “self-defense,” turning it on its head.
The UN Charter specifically forbids states from using “force or the threat of force” in their relations with other states. Disputes are to be resolved within the UN forum, and, as a last resort, the Security Council can mandate military action if all else fails. States are forbidden from engaging in military action against other states except in the case that they have themselves been attacked, and then only until such time as the SC can convene and arrange for international military support. Since you quote Security Council resolutions at me, I assume that you know this, fully understand the context in which the resolutions are drafted, and simply choose to glibly ignore it.*
Which is ridiculous. In fact, your statement is a tautology. All states, even “rogue” states, are forbidden from “striking first.”
So how does one define a “rogue” state? Well, broadly, one that fails to follow the rule of law, and is willing to “strike first.” When Iraq attacked Kuwait, without provocation or SC approval, it was therefore appropriately labeled a “rogue” state.
And what does that mean? Well, since the US failed to follow the rules laid down in the UN Charter, we can safely classify it as a rogue state.
Murder, as you know, is illegal. That does not give you the right to murder someone you suspect may eventually become a murderer, without becoming a murderer yourself.
If that’s one of the “key arguments” used (by whom, I wonder?) in debating the UN Charter, then it sounds like a pretty weak debate to me. Further, getting back on target, if one rejects the UN Charter, then it is of course a self-contradiction to at the same time appeal to the UN for help.
Don’t really know what you mean with this statement.
I think you may need to go back and do some more homework. I know of no law that requires the US to “act upon perceived threats in self-defense,” particularly not in the Constitution. However, in Article VI the Constitution does stipulate that it, along with all treaties entered into by the United States government under its auspices, shall constitute “the supreme law of the land,” to wit:
If the UN Charter, of which the US government is a signatory, does not constitute a treaty “made…under the authority of the United States,” then I sure as hell don’t know what does. Since the Article goes on to stipulate that “… all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution,” I would say that a good case could be made for the unconstitutionality of Bush’s Iraq War, and for his failure to uphold the Constitution – an impeachable offense.
Finally, regarding this:
Oopsy!
Should’ve thought about that before y’all started this thing in the first place. The fact that the US now has its ass in a sling doesn’t morally justify jack. You were warned, but were to busy “flirting with unilateralism,” I guess. If the UN – specifically, Russia, China, France, and Germany – refused to hop in and help out now, they would in my opinion be fully justified.
Hopefully, for the sake of the people of Iraq, as well as the many US soldiers placed recklessly in harm’s way over there, the UN will be more mature about this than I am.
Go Heels:
What Collounsbury said.
Your analysis is overly simplistic IMO.
As seen in the OP and your subsequent posts on this thread, if there’s one thing you’re good at vis-a-vis the Iraq invasion, it’s supposing without any concerns about being “utterly wrong.” So go right ahead, take all the cheap shots you’d like. This one in particular fits right in with your fantas…er, script. The “anti-warriors” bit is particularly creative and somewhat amusing as insults go. And trust me, as a someone staunchly opposed to this madcap chapter of unilateral American adventurism from the start, I’ve heard them all.
Along those lines, I have also read and/or heard just about every possible “justification” in the book for the actions taken. In that regard, your own spin is not particularly novel, accurate or particularly credible – although I have no problem conceding that you’ve done a darn good job convincing yourself of the inherent benefits in the actions taken.
In a nutshell, I think the following comment you wrote says it all:
**
See, by now, I think we can all agree that the real reasons for the invasion were not what this Administration purported them to be. Which is exactly what “non-warriors” such as myself had been saying from day one. But while people such as yourself find no outrage into being led to war under patently false premises and merrily go into apologist mode, I, and many more like myself, only feel more outraged/sickened at the confirmation of our well-founded original objections.
Does that mean I’d like Iraq to turn into this Administration’s particular Waterloo? Although my feelings are completely irrelevant to the final outcome, yes and no. Yes, because this whole mess you’re in was predictable from the start and it is only a logical continuation of the piss-poor planning shown by your so-called leaders from the beginning. Perhaps a large dose of humble-pie is just what is needed to stop the neocon cabal from engaging in further imperialistic adventurism. Sadly, that humble-pie comes by way of tremendous suffering to all involved but the real culprits. Needless to say, the ones that are dying on a daily basis are not the “warrior” chicken-hawks crying “bring them on.” So, looking at it from that angle, no, I do not wish failure or impending doom after the fact. But as I mentioned above, my feelings have scant little to do with what will actually happen.
For what is happening every day, I simply need read and watch the news – and not being Stateside, I also feel I get a much more accurate picture than what the general American public does. Then again, on a message board such as this one, you, or anyone else that is interested, has the luxury of reading any number of different sources that go beyond the shallow coverage of mainstream US news outlets. Heck, love him or hate him, the SDMB’s own “man on the ground,” Collounsbury, has done real yeoman’s work bringing to light some of the many misconceptions about both the ME in general and the invasion in particular. If you haven’t yet, allow me to suggest you read some of the threads he’s opened on the topic.
Then again, there’s no worse blindman than the one who refuses to see. Unfortunately, in the current American political climate, it appears to be the case that the blind are leading the blind.
Thus we get scripts like yours…and possibly the same cast of characters beyond 2004.
:::shudder:::
Interesting. After 50 years we can objectively view all the events of WWII in their entirety. Officially the record shows that the US was neutral while European countries fell like dominos and the sneak-attack on Pearl Harbor finally catapulted us into war against the Axis. In reality, the US was violating every concept of neutrality ever invented, almost from the beginning. Europe was depending on Britain, and Britain was depending on the US. Had the issue of Pearl Harbor gone to court it could have won the Japanese “legitimacy.” Which is purely academic at this point. I don’t think the Japanese give a shit either, but admittedly I’m not up on it.
The definition of “self-defense” means defending oneself against an attack, not after an attack, not against an attack with approval, not an attack that a certain percentage of world opinion is against…really, I’d love to see your working definition. This conflicts the UN Charter if it were against another state which was following the UN Charter, and if that were the case its Head of State wouldn’t be publicly involved in jihad, for one, so I guess the point is moot. The authority here is the Constitution, which gives Congress exclusively the power to wage war. And we did. Which leads us to…
…the fact that I’m not actually expecting anything more from the UN that we don’t already have, a point you’ve evidently missed. The OP was calling for a UN mandate, I’m still wondering why we would need one in light of 1483.