While the media runs through another Bush-bashing frenzy, the main point is ignored.

Great Debates
101

Sorry, those are not proper justifications for unilateral invasion. Unilaterally attacking a country for the purpose of regime change is disallowed under international law. The only evidence that could have legally justified the invasion would be evidence that showed an imminent danger to the United States. And none of that evidence panned out. Resolution 1441 spells out the consequences for Iraq’s non-compliance with previous UN resolutions. U.S. invasion was NOT authorized under 1441. In fact, the UN EXPLICITLY rejected the U.S.'s bid to invade.

Perhaps an analogy would help: A policeman is not allowed to shoot me for stealing a loaf of bread. While it may be true that I stole the bread, the prescribed action to be taken is to arrest me, not shoot me.

Likewise, the prescribed action under 1441 was to require Iraq to furnish a list of weapons (which they did), and to conduct inspections, period.

And please don’t try to dodge the subject. I’m still waiting for a cite as to how 1441 authorized the U.S. invasion. YOU brought it up, for Pete’s sake. “Determined to insure immediate and full compliance” is not an authorization for the U.S. to unilaterally attack. The previous resolutions are incorporated into 1441 and the consequences are spelled out as I already indicated.

I think YOU are the one who didn’t “actually read” 1441, smart guy.

102

Airman Doors at least needs to watch what he says. The military, understandably, does not take kindly to public criticism from within the ranks.

103

Okay. You asked:

“Geez, do you just take everything the government says at face value?”

No. If our internet paths had ever crossed before, you would already know that. Does that help?

104

  1. The Brits still stand by the story. They must have more intel on this story than one phony document.

  2. I am not happy that Dr. David Kelly is apparently dead.

:frowning:

  1. The FBI has started an investigation into who might have made a profit off the phony document. Good. That’s where the real story is. Of course it won’t get nearly as much press because it’s not as sexy or politically correct as Bush-bashing.

:wink:

105

GOM,
When the majority of the country thinks that Bush is doing a bang up job, why do you think it’s politically correct to “bash” him?
What difference does it make as to who forged the docs?
Why is the authorship of the documens more important than the use that was made of reportedly crude forgeries?

106

Let me guess - the other intelligence is “secret”, right?

107

Maybe…

:wink:

HTH

108

Follow me here.

Nowhere in Resolution 1441 does it give the US authorization to invade Iraq for the purpose of a regime change.

It is the failure to comply with Resolution 1441 that gives the UN authorization to invade Iraq for the purpose of a regime change.

However, the UN is a spineless organization.

Also, a good portion of the members of the UN are dictatorships themselves. The major reason the UN voted against action against Iraq was because a slippery slope was detected. If the UN takes action against Iraq, a dictatorship, then who would be next? It was only common sense that the UN would vote against the action. It was known way before the vote how the UN would side, atleast by the US. Colin Powell’s speech was simply for formality reasons, and to recruit other nations into the coalition against Iraq.

So then the US and the coalition, not unilaterally, took it upon themselves to get the job done. “Uni” means “one”. There was more than one nation against Iraq.

Why is the UN spineless? Because, if our actions against Iraq were so out of line, then where is the UN’s actions against us? Why isn’t the UN trying to punish the US for stepping out of line?

The end result is that the UN refused to enforce a series of resolutions that it itself adopted. The US and the coalition enforced the UN resolutions by themselves. These resolutions were put into place as punishment for Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and to supply Iraq with the humanitarian aid that was needed. Now Saddam is gone (but probably still alive) and the seeds of democracy are being planted in his place. I sleep better at night knowing this.

109

To further your analogy. How many times would you be able to resist arrest (as Iraq has) before the police officer was justified in shooting you?

110

You’ve confused the UN w/ the UNSC. Most of the memebrs of the UNSC, whose resolution UNSC resolution 1441 is. are in fact democracies.

The UN didn’t vote on it.

Please cite where members of the UNSC cited the slippery slope argument you mentioned against a hurried invasion in Iraq, if you can. I suspect that this reasoning may not actually be attributable to UNSC members.

The UN is “punishing” us by letting us be responsible for our own actions. Haven’t you wondered why there is no formal request to the UNSC for assisstance in rebuilding Iraq despite the need for it and the many boons that an international face on the occupation would give?

The UNSC didn’t “refuse to enforce” these resolutions. They were satisfied with the enforcement that was ALREADY underway.

The UNSC resolutions weren’t punishment, (please cite relevant language to the contrary in the resolutions if you can), they were to insure international stability and peace in the region.

Don’t let Bush be your role model- be a fact-checker. Once you have your facts straight, we can engage in debate over the issues.

111

This is very interesting to watch…

The Bush supporters are now left with only one argument - that the end justifies the means. They suggest that they sleep better at night - that the world is a better place, because Dubya ousted that evil Saddam.

It doesn’t matter that it was in violation of international law. International law no longer applies to the US - who is going to enforce international law against us?

It doesn’t matter that Iraq was no threat, imminent or otherwise, to the US. They were a threat to their neighbors.

It doesn’t matter that their neighbors, with only the exception of Kuwait, didn’t support our efforts. We know what is best for them. And democracy is best for the Iraqi public as well.

It doesn’t matter that our allies in the area also maintain repressive regimes, suppress religious freedom, and leverage their wealth from oil to create foriegn underclasses of subservient labor. They don’t need democracy, just the Iraqis.

It doesn’t matter that a gullible public supported the effort based on false premises. We know what is best for the American public, too.

It doesn’t matter that this President was elected on the promise to “restore integrity to the office of the President”. Integrity is in the eye of the beholder.

No matter what happened in the past, we are better off. The end justifies the means.

And while the Bush supporters have now been forced into this single line of reasonable thought, do they really believe it? Will they apply that axiom more generally? Should we simply go execute OJ Simpson, because we all know he is guilty? Should we do away with our concept of “innocent until proven guilty” because it threatens our national security?

Alright, perhaps some conservatives will argue that the end justifies the means. But can the case be made that the “end” is beneficial?

First, we haven’t seen the end. Iraqis have nothing close to democracy (yet). They don’t even have a stable society. Power distribution is still spotty. The streets aren’t as safe for their children as it was under Saddam. The US is spending $4 billion a month occupying the country. Over 30 families have lost a son or daughter since the end of hostilities. The rate of lost lives has recently picked up. And whether it was suicide or foul play, you can add the name of David Kelly to the list of casualties (a tragic story, I hope we could all agree).

The promise of peace and stability in Iraq is still an open question. The cost of establishing it, even if possible, is unknown. And the cost/risk of the alternative (leaving Saddam in power) will forever remain unknown.

If the Bush supporters wish to resort to the “we’re better off” argument, you need to support both underlying assumptions - that the means, that of due process, is a useless concept, and that we, or the world, is actually better off.

From my perspective, either argument is troublesome.

112

Also for the “we are better off” arguement you have to argue that Bush is doing a good job in Iraq.
When you see stuff like

That doesn’t exactly inspire confidence does it?

113

I refuse to debate someone who refuses to deal with logic and reality, then turns around and acts condescending. Start off here:

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/1441.pdf

It is the official Resolution 1441 by UNSC. I apologize for not specifying the UNSC over the UN, but you are just splitting hairs.

There is no way to cite the slippery slope, it is just logical human nature. This preemptive strike made everyone nervous. Preemptive = slippery slope. That is why it was voted against. And there was a vote by the UNSC, which reports to the UN, which has dictatorships within its membership. This isn’t too hard to grasp. This is all logical.

Don’t you remember, at the end of the war, when victory was assured, that the UN, France, and Germany all wanted a piece of the action then? We rebuffed them, that is why there is no formal request. We don’t want their help.

If you read the document at the above link, you will see that they are anything but satisfied. I cannot quote it because it is in PDF format, but here is some brief snippets:

Deploring the fact the Iraq has not provided…complete disclosure…

Deploring further that Iraq repeated obstructed…

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring…

Deploring also…

How can you say they were satisfied? That is just illogical. They specifically state that they are not satisfied.

Yes, the whole purpose of the resolutions was to promote stability and welfare. However, Saddam was subverting these resolutions, thus no stability and welfare - for twelve years. How are you going to change that and have them enforced? Military action.

And the resolutions were there to punish Iraq. The word punishment was not used, but that’s what it is when an action taken by the UN limits the amount of goods and products that can be imported and exported from Iraq, and limits the way that Iraq can use these proceeds. These were put in place by result of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. If you want a cite for this, just read the resolutions.

And, AZCowboy, the ends do not justify the means. Me being able to sleep at night is simply a pleasant side effect. It was an extrememly minor point in my argument.

Now, SimonX, I have point by point addressed your previous post, with cites when available. Everything you are arguing against is right there in the resolutions.

114

We haven’t gotten to the debating part yet.

It’s an exceptionally large hair to split. The majority of UNSC memebrs are not dictatorships.

Give me a break here. You’re asking me to believe that countries like Germany and Mexico didn’t want to approve the use of military force to enforce res 1441 because they were afraid that the US would in turn try to impose regime change in their countries.
I have grave doubts as to whether Germany, France, China and Russia didn’t want to vote to approve the use of force because they were afraid that the US would choose to institute regime change in those countries next.
Please stick to what these various countries actually said.

You could cite the actual arguments provided by the memebr of the UNSC who were content w/ how things w/ Iraq were progressing. If none of these member nations cited the slippery slope argument that you say they used in making their decision then there is only your say-so as to what they were “really thinking,” which I see no reason to regard as anything other than extremely dubious.

If the UNSC wasn’t happy w/ how things were progressing in Iraq w/o the resolution calling for the use of military force, then why weren’t they willing to vote for a resolution that called for the use of force?

What you have done is pull some stuff from who knows where and say, “This is an obvious conclusion from human nature,” which it is not.

Lastly, resolution 1441 does not contain any language that describes how the members of thw UNSC felt about the subsequent enforcement of resolution1441. If you’ll think a moment, you’ll realize that the enforcement of 1441 couldn’t begin until AFTER the resolution was passed, and that the resolution had to be written BEFORE it was passed. Therefore, it CANNOT contain any description of how the members felt about an outcome that had yet to be determined.

115

Your reading of the resolution is in error. You need to continue reading past all the “deplorings” to the part that actually says what they are going to do. It starts out like this:

They DECIDED to resume inspections, and were SATISFIED that the inspection process was going as planned, at least for the time being. I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that because the resolution has the word “deplore” in it, that it equals carte blanche for the U.S. to begin bombing.

If the U.N. had decided to take military action against Iraq, there would be a paragraph in there, starting with the word “DECIDES”, and spelling out the military action to be taken. There is no such paragraph.

116

No, it isn’t. It’s merely a testimony of your infamiliarity with how the UN works.

A)Demanding that someone who breaks international law doesn’t run away with the loot isn’t ‘wanting a piece of the action’.

B)Your claim that their help is not wanted is false. I suggest checking the news a bit more often.

For the same time, the US was violating and subverting the very same resolutions. You see, they did not just impose duties on Iraq, but on all member countries.

Only if killing people is the only way you can articulate yourself. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case.

You are mistaken. It is not sufficient to read the resolutions. The resolutions work within the framework of the UN charter. And the UN charter says ‘The invasion of Kuwait is irrelevant to the current problem’. The UNSC authorized military action for specific threats to world peace. With the Iraqi troops driven out of Kuwait, the authorization for military force from back then was null and void, because it had become obsolete. The UN does not hand out Carte Blanche for military action.

The UN charter is clear and explicit: The UNSC has to authorize any military action explicitly that is not in defense against clear and present danger, not international, and not upon invitation by all parties involved, i.e. in all cases of international disputes beyond immediate self-defense against attack.

How do you hope to understand the resolutions if you a)only read those resolutions you wanted to, i.e. can’t compare with others, and b)do not know the context of the resolutions?

The UNSC has always authorized military force with clear, case-by-case wording, such as when supporting any means necessary to restore order in Haiti and bring in a democratic government. ‘Any means necessary’ is something completely different than threatening grave consequences. If you had actually read the UN charter, you would know that there are specific provisions for continous and obstinate violations of UN principles that the UN can sanction a member nation with.

117

Well, that is factually untrue on all counts.

(a) Neither France nor Germany approached the US in the immediate post war period in any formal manner.
(b) “We” -meaning the US government do indeed want their help, there are current discussions on this. You may refer to my Iraq Recon thread for further information.

I suggest, my dear Newbie, that you might wish to lurk for a while and observe rather more closely the standards of this forum. It will considerably reduce your pain.

118

In addition to using the word ‘learned’ which implies an affirmative, he also uses the word ‘recently’. Now, ‘recently’, based on what we know today, is clearly untrue and a sign of lack of intelligence or an intentional malfeascent stretch of the truth.