Look if Bush wants to invoke UN ceasefire violations he has to abide by the whole UN proces. There is nothing in the ceasefire which says that if Iraq violates them then that gives US the right to attack it in the manner of its choosing and install a government of its choosing. There is nothing automatic about UN ceasefire violations that trigger a war; that is a matter for the UNSC to decide.
If Bush wants to ignore the UN then he needs to come with some other causus belli apart from UN ceasefire violations. But he can’t have it both ways: invoking UN rules when he wants and ignoring them when he doesn’t.
Sure he can. Nothing in the UN Charter prevents member states from taking defensive action. You and I can argue about where to draw the line in the sand regarding ‘defensive action’ all day. I’m NOT saying that Bush has or will use that argument. I concede that public information has not in my estimation met a sufficient level of imminence. And I’ve looked. A lot. I do believe Saddam is an ongoing threat to the region; Israel is daily threatened by hi financial incentives to suicide bomber families, which complicates our ability to address peace there in any form.
I AM saying two things: first, that Bush IS in fact taking the diplomatic route all the whiners are, uh, whining about, going to Congress and the UNSC. That he is anticipating/preparing for Iraqi non-compliance cannot realistically be argued as unreasonable, given Saddam’s lengthy history. It’s rational policy to demonstrate our resolve, so Saddam doesn’t think this is another resolution easily ignored. Second, I’m arguing that it is entirely reasonable to believe that the W. has access to information not publically available. And if, as other posters have suggested, this is a test of Iraq’s compliance on 12/8 in supplying a complete list of all proscribed items, why the hell would we not stage a test in the early hours of the enforcement of UNSCR1441? We should play the game for another decade before knowing whether Saddam has legitimately complied? Surely you jest.
“You and I can argue about where to draw the line in the sand regarding ‘defensive action’ all day”
Not really. Defensive action means you fight back after being attacked. Iraq hasn’t attacked the US.
There is a phrase, if I recall correctly, imminent threat. That is also considered cause for defensive action. That is the point that you and I would, I suspect, quibble over. Define ‘imminent’. That and such. Is tomorrow the only possible definition? How about next month, or next year? You see my point, I’m sure. Am I bound by your definition, or you by mine?
The argument, if I’ve got it right, seems to be that despite Iraqi non-compliance for more than a decade with terms of the ceasefire Saddam signed, no steps should be taken to enfore the terms which ended military action. The resolutions passed to date certainly have been a less than stellar demonstration of U.N. authority.
Let me see. I know the analogy to Hitler '38 is overdone, though quite a neat comparison. So let me use logic instead.
Saddam has launched a preemptive war, on two separate occasions, against two of Iraq’s neighbors.
Saddam has launched missiles against Israel, a non-participant in military action against him in response to the second preemptive war he launched. That a small number of deaths resulted is a poor excuse for dismissal of his actions.
Saddam has failed to abide by the terms of multiple UNSC resolutions resulting from his defeat in 91.
Saddam has demonstrated his willingness to use chemical weapons, and against his own people. Though I doubt Saddam considers the Kurds to be his people.
Saddam is currently threatening Israel again, in the event of further military action.
Saddam funds suicide bombers in Israel. This is a contributing factor to the instability in the region and one more big reason we’re unable to secure any peace there.
Although Saddam’s henchmen claim Iraq is WMD free, the actual statement seems to be “We don’t have any WMD. But we’ll use them if we have to”. Yes. Very comforting.
Now, what do all these points have in common? Saddam. Same maniac. If we were talking about a change in leadership, a new government, perhaps the arguments for giving Iraq more time would be more persuasive. No, we still have the same problem over there, and it’s not getting any better. Let’s figure out the best way to deal with him and do it. If you have a better idea, let’s hear it. I ,too, do not want war. I just don’t hear any credible alternatives.
War in the face of an “imminent” threat is not defensive war; it’s called “pre-emptive war” for example if your enemy’s troops are massed at your border and threatening to attack. However no one believes that Iraq is preparing to attack any one let along the United States and in fact the CIA has specificaly gone on record saying that Iraq was unlikely to attack the US (unless attacked first).
What we have here is an even more problematic category: “preventive war” which AFAIK has no place in international law. IIRC when Israel attacked the Osirak reactor it was unanimously condemned by the UNSC including presumably the US. And that was much less than a full-scale war to replace a regime.
None of your points constitute a causus belli for the United States to act alone. The violation of UNSC resolutions are possible grounds for war but as stated above only if the UNSC so decides.
As for pragmatic problems with “regime change” and alternative solutions I have discussed this in other threads. The point of this thread is to show that a US war on Iraq without UN support would be a departure from previous norms accepted by the US.