War on Iraq illegal...who will enforce this?

[More_Cowbell]

MSNBC has an article on this with some useful info.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by Debaser *
Your notion of the US “acquiring” the oil fields is laughable, however. Bush said in his speech the other night, that they are a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Was he lying?

Bush lied about the Atomic Energy Commission report saying Iraq would develop nuclear weapons within a year. Bush also lied about Iraq buying nuclear materials from Nigeria. And he also lied about Iraq having ties with al Qaeda. In light of that, what makes Bush lying about invading Iraq to secure oil fields for American petroleum companies so hard to believe?

Heck, Newsweek has an article on this already:

THE JOCKEYING HAS already begun, and the race seems likely to be won by American and British firms: ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, Shell and BP. According to industry insiders, these giants are now the front runners in part because British and American troops are likely to end up in control of Baghdad, which can’t help but influence Iraq’s choice of business partners…

To protect the tens of billions they will need to pour into a postwar Iraq, the oil giants are likely to push a controversial form of contract that gives them an ownership stake in the oilfields and guaranteed relief from national tax and environmental laws for the life of the project… Often adopted as law by the host country’s Parliament, these deals override domestic environmental, tax and safety laws for years—sometimes for more than half a century. If conflicts arise between the companies and the government, they’re decided by private arbitrators in London or Paris, circumventing the local courts. Best of all for the company, the contract gives them an ownership stake that can be booked as an asset on their balance sheet, which tends to push up their stock price.

*Originally posted by Debaser *
We are already buying the oil in Iraq anyway. Do you seriously think that we are going to steal the oil after the hostilities are over?

Sure – Dick Cheney advocated the exact same thing back in the summer of 2001. It’s part of the White House’s energy policy, in fact.

(And as for justifying war with Iraq’s violation of UN resolutions, I’ll simply remind you that Israel has violated 34 UN resolutions for the last 40+ years. Shall we invade them, too?)

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by AZCowboy *
Now, this is clearly in error, as 1441, the return of the inspectors, and even the destruction of the al-Samoud’s clearly exceed the threshold of “nothing”.

I was specifically referring to action being taken. Both times I said “nothing” I included the phrase “nothing was done”. After ignoring 16 resolutions, passing a 17th doesn’t exactly impress.

I will concede that the destruction of the missiles does qualify as “something”. So, my hyperbolic statement doesn’t stand if taken literally. Congratulations.

This is silly. You admit, as any reasonable person would, that Saddam has more of these missiles. This makes him in violation. Soon this will be proven when the war is over. Arguing about it now is academic and serves no purpose.

Now, clearly there cannot be proof that he didn’t - you can’t prove the negative.

Yes, but the onus was on Saddam to prove that he did destroy them because we knew he had them.

Your notion that Saddam was about to hand over all his weapons right before the mean ol USA started the war is just nuts. It was obvious that Saddam was trying to save himself by pulling a few missles out of a bunker and destroying them for us to see. For you to be pointing to this as proof of compiance with the UN resolutions I cannot understand.

[AZCowboy]

I am not pointing to it as proof of compliance - never have.

Where we differ is that I can understand the other side - that circumstantial evidence “ain’t enough”. And that given more time, I suspect the UN inspectors would have proven it, for all the world to see.

Alas, we shall never know if they would have. And I have no doubt that the US will find something. I just hope it is indisputable and compelling.

[Debaser]

rjung, did you take a long break from posting until recently? I haven’t been seeing your username. If so, welcome back. It was you and wring driving me fucking nuts way back when I was a lurker that first got me to start posting on the SDMB.

*Originally posted by rjung *
Bush lied about the Atomic Energy Commission report saying Iraq would develop nuclear weapons within a year. Bush also lied about Iraq buying nuclear materials from Nigeria. And he also lied about Iraq having ties with al Qaeda. In light of that, what makes Bush lying about invading Iraq to secure oil fields for American petroleum companies so hard to believe?

Cite, cite, and cite, please.

In light of that, what makes Bush lying about invading Iraq to secure oil fields for American petroleum companies so hard to believe?

Bush blatantly lying in an address to the nation like that would not be stood for and he knows it. The US doesn’t need to steal the oil. We have plenty of money to pay for it.

Sure – Dick Cheney advocated the exact same thing back in the summer of 2001. It’s part of the White House’s energy policy, in fact.

It’s part of the White House energy policy to invade Iraq and steal the oil without paying for it? Cite.

(And as for justifying war with Iraq’s violation of UN resolutions, I’ll simply remind you that Israel has violated 34 UN resolutions for the last 40+ years. Shall we invade them, too?)

I’m not saying we should invade every time the UN makes a resolution. I am saying that when the UN repeatedly makes dozens of resolutions against anyone and they are ignored with no meaningful consequences, it erodes it’s credibility.

The Isreal resolutions damage the UN credibility also, but not nearly as much as the Iraq situation has, IMHO. Iraq was much more visible.

Did you demand that Clinton go to the UN during any of the five times he used the military?

[AZCowboy]

Debaser wrote:
Bush blatantly lying in an address to the nation like that would not be stood for and he knows it.

President Bush, Press Conference
No matter what the whip count is, we’re calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It’s time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.

When you present such absolutes, it is easy to shoot down.

[Debaser]

That wasn’t a lie. He believed it when he said it.

Someone asked him the question and he answered with what his plan was. Later, he changed his mind.

Holding politicians to every word that they say is why we end up with people who won’t commit to anything or answer a direct question. I would rather have them put the old foot in the mouth once in a while, but be actually telling us what they are thinking and planning.

[AZCowboy]

Hmmm, what could have caused him to change his mind… was it, perhaps, the whip count?

Sorry, I don’t buy it. Sure, he intended to call the vote. But only if he knew the result. The first two statements were a bold lies, at a time he thought he could get nine votes.

Feel free to suggest any plausible reason he changed his mind.

[Apos]

The UN looks pretty silly at this point. William Saletan tells it pretty funny:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2080389/

“The Security Council has not failed,” Fischer told fellow council members. “The Security Council has made available the instruments to disarm Iraq peacefully. The Security Council is not responsible for what is happening outside the U.N.”

Wait, let’s hear that again. The Security Council is not responsible for what is happening outside the U.N.

And to think some people said the United Nations was useless.

Fischer went on: “The negotiations on the Iraq crisis … have shown how relevant and how indispensable the peacemaking role of the Security Council is. There is no alternative to this.”

Let’s see. The Security Council negotiation process failed to give pro-war nations the legitimacy they sought. It failed to give anti-war nations an effective veto. It failed to keep the peace. A massive American-led assault on Iraq is underway—I’d call that an alternative—and nobody’s paying attention to Fischer’s urgently relevant remarks. I’ve underestimated the German sense of humor.

Of course, it’s also pretty silly of Bush to claim that for the U.N. to be relevant, it had to do what he wanted regardless of the voting proceedures, and then that he’s going to enforce UN resolutions by acting outside the authority of the UN.