debaser

Except that we did not violate the UN charter, the US was permitted to attack Iraq by UN Security resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. It is a very clear case of just because you are allowed to do something doesn't neccessarily mean you should do it.

And Godwins law strikes again! I fail to see how this is relevent. If a leader of the US ever removed the other branches of government and declared himself dictator, you would see the military rise against him, this has not happened yet...

Jus ad bellum is not the laws of war (though it is sometimes erroniously lumped in with them), it is the justification used for going to war. The military is a tool of foreign policy, not a maker of foreign policy. The military has no place making policy in a republic.

__________________

Willravel

I've just reread those resolutions in case I missed something the first few times.
That resolution was put into effect, the Gulf War happened, and then it was over. We are not working with Kuwait currently, so 678 doesn't apply.

687 is about Kuwaiti soverignty, and that has nothing to do with what's going on now. 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations", and the only way to determine whether that opportunity was wasted was by a determination by the UN...which never happened. The UN never had the opportunity to clearly rule that Iraq had no complied with the UN's requirements.

This page should show conclusively that the US broke our treaty in the UN Charter when we invaded Iraq. I've read this page a dozen times or more and I can't find any fault with the conclusions. These are some of the foremost lawyers in the US, who are experts.
I dare you to explain why Bush was allowed to bypass FISA, suspend habeas corpus, and cheat in two presidential elections.

BTW, Godwin doesn't mean I'm wrong, it just means the situation is so bad it can be compared to the Nazis.
I'm not asking anyone to make foreign policy. I'm saying that following an illegal order is wrong.

debaser

687 is the cease-fire agreement that prevented the UN coalition from removing Hussein in 1991. It is absolutely vital to what is going on now, because Iraqs failure to abide by the terms of the ceasefire justifies military action against them.

Here is the full text: http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

1441 was merely a PR stunt, Bush had made up his mind at that point. That being said, the Iraqis still didn't live up to their end of 687.

This conflict is very much just a continuation of the Gulf (1991)War.

From your article:
Both of these circumstances exist. There was never a formal cessation of hostilities with Iraq, and since they failed to comply with the terms of the ceasefire agreement (passed by the UNSC) then the action taken was authorized by the UN.

Spineless legislative and judicial branches.
The jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and artists might disagree with you on that one.
I agree with you 100%, except that there haven't been any illegal orders given in regards to the initiation of hostilities.

__________________

Willravel

That's not how this works. The UN had to rule that they haven't ceased, then everyone votes, then, if it passes, everyone gets to invade. That's not how it happened. The US doesn't just get to say, "No fair, they are breaking the rules!" and then invade. Think back to what was necessary for Desert Storm. I realize I was 8 when it happened, and probably more concerned with Duck Tails, but I've had a chance to look back and study a bit. Also, I love Duck Tails.
Yes, it was a stunt. Yes, the Iraqi's didn't hold to the cease fire....but it's very likely that they destroyed all of their serious weapons over a decade ago. They weren't a threat.
The UN said no to invading Iraq in 2002, so that's not true. Powell tried to push an invasion back in Feb of 2003 and then withdrew it when they realized it was going to fail. This was when the security council procedures, the reason the invasion is illegal, went out the window. By ignoring the procedures that are a part of being in the UN, we acted outside of their backing.
Neither exist. We weren't under attack or under the threat of attack (OBVIOUSLY), and resolution 51 was an armed response of the attack on Kuwait. There was a termination of hostilities, back in 1991, and thus a new resolution was necessary for an invasion to be legal.
On this we can agree.
Strawman.

debaser

Yes, the US can just say, "No fair, they are breaking the rules!" and then invade. We were a party to the ceasefire agreement as well. If it has been voided through the actions of one party, then the other party is no longer responsible to the terms.
This is true, but from a legal perspective it is irrelevent.
No, we interpreted prior resolutions as giving us the right to legally invade Iraq.

UN1441 states:

AND


Here is a complete text: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement

But there was no termination of hostilities, only a ceasefire. So both conditions still existed in 2003.

It's not a strawman, will. This administration has done a lot of shitty things, Hell, I'll even go so far as to agree with Carter. But they are not even in the same ballpark as the Nazis, not even close. To suggest they are is to trivialize the evil of the third riech.

__________________

Willravel

I forgot to thank you for starting a new thread.
If the UN rules it so, yes. They didn't. We didn't follow the procedures of the security council that we are a part of. We tried to get the UN to support us, but they didn't. The US had the right to say, "They broke the rules, so we need to do something", and Poewll said as much to the security council....right before they voted no.
It suggests the use of misinformation to characterize Iraq as a threat so that they could try to squeak through on the second UN Charter situation, the imminent threat thing.
That's not how resolutions work. Resolutions are put in place, and if tyhey are broken, then the security council determines what response is appropriate. They didn't, and the US doesn't have the power to legally bypass the security council unless we are threatened.
Exactly, so the UN security council was trying to figure out what action was the best. Invasion was not the decision of the council, only a minority of it's members.
Hitler didn't have to cheat to win. Not seeing the similarities, though obviously at different levels, doesn't make sense to me. No, no genocide (outside of Darfur and Iraq) is going on, but habeas corpus is gone, the Patriot act reads like an updated version of the Enabling Act, and we're acting unilaterally placing or military where it doesn't belong. No, we're not Nazi Germany, but we're closer to it now than we were 10 years ago.

Plan9

(slides in cue card)

We're not the US Army anymore... we're the United States Police Force.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Baraka_Guru

I'm sorry, can I ask for a clarification? Does this mean the U.S. should be before the International Court of Justice, regardless?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

I believe an investigation is warranted, and that investigation should be done by non-US officials, considering the misinformation in our own agencies. Once guilty parties are found, the World Court (ICJ) should handle sentencing and further interaction with the US.

The main problem with this plan, which seems to me like the prudent response to the current situation, is that the US withdrew from the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ sometime in the 80s, so the US government can choose to accept or ignore the court's rulings when they wish (I believe, I'm just a novice at stuff at this level). The only real way to do this would be in conjunction with impeachment proceedings (so Bush can't just say no to the jurisdiction of the ICJ), which would bring up jurisdictional issues with people who may not be up to snuff on such things. It would need to be done in tandem with full cooperation, which isn't precedented as far as I know. We'd be in new territory, but it would go a long way to repair the reputation of our country and to prevent future wars of aggression.

Plan9

(slides in another cue card) In the end, even war surrenders.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Ourcrazymodern?

W blew it, shaming himself and the rest of US.

The military hasn't risen up against him because we are sheep.

An orderly withdrawal becomes more problematical every day.

We fail to be a republic.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

debaser

You are welcome, my apologies for forgetting about this for so long.
The UN already ruled it so. That was SC 687. It laid down the specific conditions under which the Iraqi government could expect to survive without the continuation of hostilities.
The misinformation is a moot point, any reasonable person would agree that the Iraqis were not adhering to the strictures of 687. Again, legal but ill-advised.
The appropriate response is built into the resolution itself, read the full text of any of the SC resoultions I have posted. For example:
Bold supplied by me.

This is the way it works:

UN 660 - Tells Iraq to get out of Kuwait.
UN 678 - Authorizes force.
UN 687 - Ceasefire. This suspends, not reovkes, the right of member states to use force based upon certain requirements of Iraq.
UN1441 - States that the requirements have not been met, therefor the suspension of use of force is lifted.
The security council decided that in 1991, and have offered no superceding resolutions since.
Gimme a break, we have no part in the genocide in Darfur (other than our passive acceptance, and the use of the word is innapropriate for Iraq. If you wish to use inaction as a benchmark, the Clintons administraion is obviously a bunch of brownshirts for allowing the Rwandan genocide to proceed unnopposed.
Habeas corpus is alive and well, the judicial branch is sorting that out right now. The Patriot Act reads nothing like the enabling act, and will soon be history at any rate. The US has always acted unilateraly when it served our interests (or the interests of the administration in power). China, Vietnam, Iran, Grenada, and Libya have all felt the brunt of our unilateral action (and those just since the founding of the League of Nations). Of course, if you will refer to my arguments above you will see that the attack on Iraq was not unilateral.

So again, your comparison of the United States with Nazi Germany is as distastful as it is insulting. The Germans put the Nazi party into power, allowed themselves to be duped by the Riechstag fire, and then either actively participated in or turned a blind eye to the military conquest, rape, and pillage of the continent of Europe, including the systematic murder of as many as 11 million people. The United States invaded Iraq under the authority of UN678 and UN1441.

If you can draw a parrallel there, more power to you.

__________________

Willravel

Since the end of hostilities with the Kurds, which was back in 1992, the ruling had been finished. There was a reason Powell spoke to the UN, and there was a reason the US tried to push the UN to invade. A new ruling was necessary to invade Iraq for WMD charges.
Misrepresenting intel on a country in order to reach a favorable ruling would have probably landed us off the security council.
That's not how it works. First, they laid down their arms and stopped their attack on the Kurds. There was a ceasefire. It wasn't permanent, but the council didn't require a permanent ceasefire. The weapons inspectors never found anything. The matter was closed, and it was just about sending inspectors in every now and then to make sure he wasn't a threat. He was an idiot and kicked them out now and again, but they never found anything.
I suggested that Darfur was a genocide, not that we were involved besides not interfering.
“Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.” §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742.. "Military Commissions Act of 2006".
Not only that, but:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000
This means that aliens or civilians are no longer protected.
The US invaded Iraq under the guise of WMDs and links to 9/11 and then the populace either actively participated in or turned a blind eye to the military conquest of Iraq, including rapes, pillaging, and the systematic murder of 600,000-1,000,000 Iraqis.

Germany legally gave Hitler the power to do what he wished to do because he managed to trick everyone in Germany into thinking that Communists and Jews were behind terrorist attacks and used them as a way to enrage and make militant the populace....

Bush and Bushco lied to the public about who was responsible for 9/11 by linking it to Saddam, and said that Saddam had the capability to strike and kill Americans, and use them as a way to enrage and make militant the populace.

Not seeing the eery similarity does insulting to those who gave their lives in WWII to stop tyranny, tyranny like we're starting to see develop here in the US. No, this isn't WWII, but you can't ignore the glaring similitude.

Ourcrazymodern?

Wait, I need to go devise the means to become a suicide bomber...

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

debaser

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The resolutions previously referenced have nothing whatsoever to do with Iraqs treatment of the Kurds. The only two SC resolutions passed in 1992 were 773 and 778, niether of which have anything to do with the Kurds. As I stated before, any attempt to push a resolution through the SC prior to the invasion of Iraq was done for PR purposes only, the legal justification already existed, it was only the moral justification we lacked (and still do).
And how would that have happened? Perhaps you need to re-familiarize yourself with the UN charter, but the only body within the UN that can pass binding resolutions is the Security Council, and since the US is one of the five permanent members with veto power, it is very unlikely they would approve of themselves being removed from the council.
Again, the Kurdish issue was not dealt with by the UN in any of these resolutions. There is a very good reason that all of the resolutions from 660 to 1557 are titled "The situation between Iraq and Kuwait ". This is not a coincidence. The UN understands that the entire chain of events is linked to the invasion of Kuwait and Iraqs failure to abide by UNSC resolutions. Resolution 687 stated that inspectors would be given free and unfettered access to all sites they deemed worthy of inspection. They never, NEVER recieved that access, so to casually state that they never found anything is sheer hypocracy, especially if your argument is founded on the (erronious) premise that the US is guilty of violating the UN charter.

First off, the statement by Gonzales is just that, a statement. It is not policy, and would not withstand judicial review if it were. Second, the MCA does not refer to aliens as whole, but those specifically detained as enemy combatants. This too has been overturned via judical review. So how does this compare, in even the most remote way to:
And JFK used the same fear and hysteria of communism to justify the troop increase in Vietnam in the early Sixties. Is he a Nazi as well?
I think you are far too quick to jump on the Nazi bandwagon, will. Throughout history there have been poor leaders who put thier nations to war for poor reasons and use hysteria as thier proschema. None of them, with the possible exception of Stalin and Tamerlane have risen to the the level of moral apathy (or outright evil) that the Nazis have, and to use them as a benchmark to measure the United States shows a carelessness in your reason, or worse, a agenda in your argument.

__________________

Willravel

Desert Storm was about protecting the Kurds. What was the title of resolution 773? It was UN Security Council resolution 773 on Iraq-Kuwait boundary. Nothing to do with the Iraqis and the Kurds? As for Resolution 778: we broke it. 778 required a machanism for providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi population. Instead there were embargoes and over a million Iraqi children died.

So there you go. We had no legal right to invade Iraq.
Simple. The US can be removed from the Security Council by the General Assembly, then the Security Council can call on recommend to the General Assembly that the US be expelled for repeatedly violating the principles in the Charter. The General Assembly votes again, and we go home.
AGAIN, the UN has to vote for any action, and the action of Desert Storm is over. That was an action, this would be another action, and this action would need a vote from the Security Council. It doesn't matter if you think the matter is still open. It doesn't even matter if they never complied. I hope that's clear. Even if you're right, EVEN IF YOU'RE RIGHT, and the matter is still 100% open we still can't rush in their without the Security Council vote. That's just how it works.
Like torture? Yeah, I wish Gonzales didn't have the power that he does...but he does.
So there aren't any 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo anymore? You'd think that would be all over the news.
He used tactics similar to the Nazi Party. And it's not a sin to admit that. I think JFK was a stand up guy most of the time, but he made big mistakes and not holding people in power's feet to the fire is stupid and a great way to end up losing our freedom. And there's no sin in explaining that tactics—be they legal, propagandistic, military, etc.—are similar or the same as those used by the Nazi party. It helps to put the worst outcome of those tactics in perspective.

Maybe I should put it this way. I'm similar to the Nazis because I love cheap and efficient cars. It's a Godwin, sure, but it's correct and shouldn't be shot down just because it has the word Nazi in it. Next thing you know, you won't be able to name any negative figure or organization in history in an argument because it will be dishonoring someone or something. My arguments are 100% reasonable, even when I cite the Nazis.
See this is why it's so difficult to discuss things like this. Go to all my posts and tell me where I put our actions on the same level on the whole as Nazi Germany. Cant' find anything? That's because I never said that. If I were to say, "My Mitsubishi Eclipse has a turbo. The Porsche 911 turbo has a turbo.", am I saying my car is as fast as a Porsche? Of course not. I'm comparing similarities, that's all.

Debaser, you're hardly the first to run screaming when I mention the Nazis in a comparison, but I know you're damn smart and that you can see the different between what I'm saying—our government is using similar tactics as the Nazis— and what you're presuming I'm saying—we're as bad as the Nazis or are operating at the same level as them.

debaser

The Kurds had exactly nothing to do with Desert Storm. Where did you get that? Source? Please?

EDIT - We complied with the exact letter of the law concerning SC 773. The failure was on the part of the UN to properly administer the account.
Again, source?
The GA cannot remove permenant members of the SC.
No, it's not. Put some sources behind your assertions. I have shown you again and again in the past few posts where it is specifically in UN resolutions that we are justified legally in our actions. Show me something to the contrary.
The Attorney General had nothing to do with the unfortunate and illegal memorandums by the SecDef. They also have since been quashed by the rule of law.
Hmmmmm...

I hate to seem glib, but here are a few for starters:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2914735.shtml

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070612/...y_combatant_30

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19172214/

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/11/te...ion=cnn_latest

http://au.news.yahoo.com/070611/2/13q17.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...okillamericans

http://abcnews.go.com/ad/travelintro...s0312?ROS=true

http://www.star-telegram.com/nationa...ry/133211.html

Them why not compare them to Athenian tactics, or Zulu tactics, or Sioux tactics? Nazi is a loaded, yet very powerful word. To use it as you did then explain it away above and below smacks of sophistry, and we can't have that.
But as we have explored reasonable doesn't mean right. I breath air like a Nazi, but to say so is ridiculous. Isn't it?
Ahem:
And I'm saying that comparisons to Nazi Germany are so overused to have made them pointless. The Third Reich was an autocratic, genocidal, expansionist regime that threatened the very existence of democracy on the planet. That is the defining aspect of it, and when you compare another regime to it that is what first enters the minds of your audience. They are not thinking of fuel efficient cars or the risks of smoking.

If I compare the NAACP to the Klu Klux Klan, do you assume off the bat that I am talking about the fact that both organisations offer scholarships? I think not...

__________________

Willravel

Oh fuck. Kuwaiti, not Kurdish. Hahahaha....well I've been wrong before, so this is hardly the first time. I apologize completely, and I hope that my shame is enough to prevent me from confusing Kurds and Kuwaitis in the future.
I'm looking for a link, but I'm almost certain. It wouldn't make sense to allow the big five to just sit there and rule the UN.
Sure.
http://www.wslfweb.org/docs/Iraqstatemt.htm
[QUOTE=debaser]Hmmmmm...

I hate to seem glib, but here are a few for starters:[QUOTE]
Is Guantanamo empty of enemy combatants?
And how many laymen are familiar with the named above? TFP has people of all education levels and in order to get your message understood, you can't make reference to the obscure without a link, and I doubt most would want to read about the Sioux just for a comparison.

Still
Racism, deception and control of the populace, invasion, murder; these are not so obscure as breathing when considering the Nazis.
Compared to, not the same as. Going to the turbo, my turbo runs off the pressure from my exhaust just like the Porsche. Again, not at the same level, but the process is similar and can be compared.
Okay, comparison on a different level time
The Bush Administration has gathered power in the Executive branch, so that the president, a single person, can have more power.
We are responsible for the deaths of 600,000-1,000,000 people in Iraq. This is borderline genocide because it is a mass killing, and it is only one nationality. The only difference is the inability to prove intent (I'm not saying that's a small difference, but it's the only one).
The US has 737 military bases outside of the US.
Bush stole 2 elections, which is an affront to democracy here in the US.

See? Comparisons that do show similarities, but on a different level of severity. The idea, as you surely understand, is to prevent anything even similar to WWII and the holocaust.

debaser

It does not make any sense, but that is how it is.
Will, that is the same page you linked in your original post, which I have spent many posts and many days proving is incorrect. By its very definition, once the terms of a ceasefire are broken you are permitted to start shooting again. That is why it is called a ceasefire instaed of a peace treaty.
Gitmo is in a state of transition right now, in which almost all of the detainees need to be re-charged as illegal enemy combatants. Where it goes from there is anyones guess, but it will be according to the rule of law, as recent rulings have shown.
Well, if you are appealing to the ignorance of the readers here then it is even more reason to be very careful about accusations on that level. Who knows what the prols might think, eh?
Racism and murder? What are you refering to exactly?
Presidents have always fought for more power. The line item veto for example. I don't recall any being compared to Hitler for it. Now granted, Bush has done some things that are unprecedented, but so was the 9/11 attack, so I would expect a bit of a shake up. The real blame lies on the other two branches of government for allowing his actions.
So by enacting UN 687 we are directly responsible for every death that resulted since the invasion? Who is responsible for all of the deaths in Iraq prior to the invasion then? Would that be the UN, or is that also the United States fault for not miracling Hussien out of power before he killed so many Kurds and Shia?
This unto itself is not expansionist, we lay no claim to any territory outside our national boundaries. Yes, our military has global reach, and I would put to you that the world has been better off for it over the past 60 years.
Bush did not steal 2 elections. He did not have the means. To suggest that is to suggest that an individual is more powerful than the institutions and laws of our country. The election iof 2000 was decided 7-2 by the Supreme Court. Bush was (unfortunately) just as valid as John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Grover Cleveland. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it illegal. The 2004 election was the first election since 1988 that a candidate recieved a majority of the popular vote, and since Kerry did not dispute Ohio, I would say Bush won that one hands down.
The idea is to brow beat the reader with the most severe case possible, so that any rational discourse is buried under the rhetoric and hysteria.

__________________

Willravel

Normal ceasefires are like that, but not with the UN. It's very bureaucratic by nature, and requires a great deal of deliberation in order to make any action. If a ceasefire is broken, then the UN creates another resolution to deal with it. They don't fall back on the previous agreement, which was finished once the ceasefire started.

That article is written by professional lawyers who deal with this type of law. Everything I've read confirms what they postulate and conclude. I'm a layman, of course, but I cannot find an error in their letter.
That hardly explains how Gitmo was allowed happen in the first place. I'm not even sure how we can have a military base on the land of an unfriendly country. Is it simply because the Cubans can't do shit? If that's the case (you're going to love this), the base is there illegally.
It's not an appeal to ignorance any more than using Apollo instead of Hermod is an appeal to ignorance. No one knows everything, and just because I happened to been fascinated with the Germanic mythological figure of Hermod when I was younger doesn't mean everyone is going to know what the hell I'm talking about. More people are familiar with Apollo, so I'd use Apollo. Likewise, when mentioning things like increasing executive powers leading to autocracy, what's the most commonly known example? Nazi Germany! So there you have it.

Prols?
I'm sure you're familiar with Homeland Security's policies when it comes to racial profiling Arab Americans. There have bee stories about it on and off since 9/11. It's racist. A terrorist can be of any race, gender, or creed. Murder? 600,000-1,000,000 people are dead in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. Many, many of those are civilians (60,000-750,000, depending on who you ask). There have been interviews with soldiers coming back from Iraq where they've described being ordered to shoot at unarmed cars. There was one such interview on Democracy Now about a year back.
Presidents have not always fought for more power. Bad president have fought for more power. Washington, Adams, Jefferson; I could name plenty of presidents who didn't fight for more power. Shoot, Carter didn't fight for more power.
Compare the likely death toll in Iraq had we not invaded with the numbers now. Saddam was an evil son of a bitch, but there's no way he had the means to start a civil war that would have resulted in the deaths of a million Iraqis. Why would he have wanted to?
I'm sure that the previous inhabitants of Diego Garcia would love for you to explain to them why that's true.
I'll give you links to reading on this subject below. Both elections were stolen for him.
This is an amazing article from Rolling Stone that will either convince you, or put you into denial. Most people I've shown the article to have come away with the understanding that the election was stolen.
Check out "unprecedented: the 2000 presidential election" on youtuve. It's an interesting video.

debaser

Well, thats not how a ceasefire works, any ceasefire, and waving a wand and making vague statements about bureaucracy won't change that. If the previuos agreement was over once it had taken effect, then why were there specific terms attached to it for the continuation? This is a ceasefire:
The only relevent part of your 5 year old letter is the following:
Which offers no legal basis for the position, only an issue of public perception. If the US had not gone to the UN in 2002 you would have no argument at all in this case. Again, (and I don't think you are interested in changing your mind, but I'll try nonetheless) 678 allowed us to fight Iraq, 687 temporarilly lifted that authority, then 1441 reinstated that authority by affirming the Iraq was in material breach of 687.

It looks something like this:
Honestly a good case could be made that the ceasefire was never truely in effect, since Iraq never complied fully with the terms of 687. But just in case you feel it was:

And so you see, or maybe not...

Cuban-American Treaty of 1903

Proletariat.
True, but the ones we are concerned with at present tend to be muslim males, and generally of arabic descent. But I guess out of fairness we should give equal time to 80year old black grandmothers, right? Again, the guidline given out by the Stasi, oops, Homeland Security have been quashed. It is now up to the discretion of the individual officer to pay more attention to the shifty guy with the coat on in summer.
Hell, I've shot at unarmed cars. The thing is that when they are accelerating toward your checkpoint at night it is pretty fucking hard to tell if they are unarmed or not. I suppose the proper thing to do is wait to see if they are going to blow us limb from limb, and once they do then return fire?

And as for murder, how dare you suggest that the US is responsible for that hienous act. It is war, and people get killed in war. Our military is the most careful in the world regarding civilian casualties. Mistakes happen, but every attempt is made to minimize civilian deaths. It is a major portion of the planning process for any mission.

Now you could point your finger at the savage thugs who are cutting off heads and murdering upwards of a 100 people a day in Bagdad as part of a bloody sectarian civil war, but I suppose that is the US's fault as well, isn't it? If we had put our boot on the peoples throat like Saddam had they wouldn't be fighting now, would they?

You need to wake up to the realities of Iraq. The only semblence of stability in that country at all is the American and British presence there.

Except for two new cabinet positions...
No he was killing an equal amount of people to prevent a civil war. Perhaps if we started strapping explosives to people or throwing them off bridges things would calm down, huh?
ROTFLMAO, and you had the gall to call my argument a strawman...

You'll have to ask the British about DG, will. They are the ones who closed the plantations there.
Well, as interesting as Mr. Kennedys article is, it doesn't offer any substantial proof. He uses statistical chicanery to throw doubt on the process nation wide, then talks about GOP intimidation through the use of "goon squads" and even law enforcement agencies. The only part of it I can't figure is why niether I nor any of my aquaintences observed any of this in our experience at the polls.

I supervised they first two democratic elections in Iraq. I know what intimidation and ballot stuffing looks like. I didn't see anything in Iraq that even comes close to the lawlessness described in the Rolling Stone article. If this is the case, wouldn't someone have spoken up? Wouldn't Kerry have had the guts to pursue a legal challenge in Ohio? If you truly believe it, why isn't there a rifle in your hands as you storm Capitol Hill?

Tin foil hats? Indeed.

__________________

Willravel

It's still under the authority of the UN, and thus the UN must make the determination as to a response when they feel one is necessary. They broke the cease fire. We broke the cease fire. The UN gets to say whether an invasion is necessary, not the US.
That's your interpretation, and you've not proven that the move was a PR move. It doesn't even make sense that they'd try to do it, because it was clear that it would not pass. If the US wanted good PR in the situation, they would have wanted something to pass.
Do you see international peace and security?
You're not reading that right.
Read this language carefully. You seem to be reading it as 'contingent on the continuing adherence to the above provisions, a formal cease fire will be effective.'

That's not what it says. Iraq accepted the provisions then and there was a cease fire. Since then the ceasefire was broken a few times and kicked out inspectors (which is a result of being immature, not guilty), but other than that, they have no chemical or biological weapons, long range ballistic weapons, and do not have nuclear capabilities.
That allows a Naval base, not a detention center.
I don't think of there being that type of system on TFP. There are people.

Tim McVeigh


Unibomber


Bobby Frank Cherry


Samuel Bowers


Samuel Byck


Robert Edward "Dynamite Bob" Chambliss

People who resort to the guerilla tactic of terrorism come in all shapes, sizes and colors. To think that only Arabs are a danger to us is stupid, and the Office of Homeland Security is stupid.
So better you kill an unarmed civilian than you risk them not being civilian. That sounds like a great defensive strategy, but it's morally bankrupt. Collateral damage is another way of saying 'we don't care enough to not kill civilians'.
What do you mean suggest? Many US soldiers in Iraq are guilty of murder. It entirely possible that you yourself are guilty of willfully killing an innocent person in that unarmed car. This shouldn't shock you. It's war, after all.
We sparked the sectarian war by creating a power vacuum. It doesn't take any responsibility from those doing the head cutting, but we get some of the blame for creating the instability, of course. They weren't doing that under Saddam.
There is no stability in Iraq. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.
Oh boy, I dare you to explain to me how you cane to the conclusion that under Saddam, the death toll was over 100,000 a year. I double dare you.
International military bases mean the world has been better off for 60 years? Not the people who have been victimized by that.
Of course they were, and now the US and the UK are fighting their right to return.
Because you and your acquaintances were at the only polls in the US?

It's amazing how you read the whole article and the only thing you can mention is voter intimidation. What about the overseas ballots? What about the shredding of registrations? What about malfunctioning machines? What about 357,000 mostly Democratic voters in Ohio not being able to vote?

As for 'no substantial proof', he cited his work. That's more than most people on TFP can do.
No bombings then? No IEDS? I think it's easy to imagine that elections in the US and Iraq might be slightly different.
Oh boy, there's a great argument. "You're crazy, therefore I'm right".

debaser

As a party to the ceasefire, we are allowed to react as we see fit if the other party fails to adhere to the strictures. Again, and for the last time because I can't break through your dogma, that is why it is call a cease-fire, not a peace treaty.
It is my opinion backed up by the UNSC resolutions I have clearly posted over the past week. What have you got other than a 5 year old letter by some "professional lawyers"? Where is the move on the part of any nation or body in the UN to bring us to task for our supposedly illegal action?
Do you see international peace and security?
The cease-fire was contingent upon Iraq submitting to the terms of the cease-fire. How circular can your arguments get? An eight year old can understand the principle here. The terms of the cease-fire must be met in order for the cease-fire to remain in place.

Again, the terms of the cease-fire must be met in order for the cease-fire to remain in place.

And, three being the magic number, the terms of the cease-fire must be met in order for the cease-fire to remain in place.

By the way, Gitmo is a naval base. It includes, as do all naval bases, a brig (sometimes known as a detention facility)

You are the one who defended your reasoning through the ignorance of the other members.

Who said Arabs were the only danger to us? The fact remains that the DHS was formed after a bunch of Arabs flew some planes into our buildings, and that there is a continued threat from that region of the world. DHS has apparently done a good job of stopping "Dirty White Boy" terrorism, since there hasn't been any since its inception. Does it not make sence to focus on a known threat?
Your damn right it is. What the fuck do you know about it?

The words used were "semblence of stability". Can you imagine what the country would be like if we left right now?

Why would I do that? The figures you quoted were 60-750 thousand civilian dead (a ridiculous spread). Lets take a median and say 350 thousand (still inconcievably high). Over 4 years that is approximately 88 thousand a year, well with the limit of what Hussein was doing to his own people.

Besides, it is a moot point. Hindsight is always 20/20. Since you are so fond of Nazis, imagine all the lives that would have been saved if we had not landed in Normandy, and the Russians had stopped at the Polish border?

Well ask them how they would be doing if the SOviet Union was in charge of them. Remember, it was our projection of force that prevented a third major world war in the later half of the twentieth century.


A good portion of those overseas ballot were military, which would have gone overwhelmingly to Bush. Again, where is the outrage, where are the lawsuits, where is the ACLU working for the re-enfranchisement of these voters? Where is the PROOF?

Not in our AO.

Yeah, the ones described in Rolling Stone seem far more dangerous.
The "tin foil hats" was drawn from your own article, or didn't you read all of it?

__________________

Willravel

As we see fit? I hope you're joking. So if we had decided a proper response to unconfirmed Iraqi fire on American jets was a tactical nuclear strike, we would have been excused because they broke the ceasefire?
I don't need that link to know that you've misinterpreted the way the UN works. As to no one stopping us, 1) we're the most powerful country in the world, and we're in a bad mood and 2) we hold veto power on the Security Council. They're stuck.
I've not lived in a time with international peace and security, but it's much worse since the invasion.
The ceasefire was a one time thing. There was a ceasefire. It was broken later, but there was one. It was that momentary peace that ended the whole situation.
Ignorance is a relative term. I'm ignorant to a hell of a lot, and when people like Roachboy or Host are able to dumb down their posts a bit, I appreciate it because it's easier to understand.
DHS is only a few years old, and no known acts of terrorism, Arab or White, have been reported in the US in those short years. As for known threats, we have no idea who all wants to kill us. We may be a few years away from terrorism coming from South America, for example, but no one is pulling ovr Salvadorans for conspiracy to blow up JFK Airport.
What do I know about what? Morality? I know that killing on cold blood is wrong, and that collateral damage is another way of saying 'we don't give a shit about civis, we only care about killing the people we think are bad'. I remember when killing civilians was considered something to be concerned about. Now it's just considered to be a 'reality' of war. I call BS on that idea. These civilians who are dying were persecuted under Saddam, only to find that their liberators don';t really care if they are accidentally (or even intentionally) killed. The only time that their feet ar held to the fire is in cases of rape that can be proven.
The same. There would be a civil war. The only difference would be that the responsibility would lie with the Iraqi security forces instead of the US led coalition. I doubt we'd see a rise in moralities.
Link? Maybe you can explain to m where you get the idea that Saddam was killing 88,000 people per year.
My sight was just fine back in 2002. I said the war was bullshit and the idea that we'd be greeted as liberators was insulting. I wasn't alone, either. If you go back to 2002-2003 on TFP, you can see many members who have been around here for longer than I also were calling bullshit long before the Invasion went downhill. It was a massively stupid idea.
It was mutual, and mutually destructive. We prevented them from taking over and they prevented us from taking over. In that struggle for supremacy, we saw many lives lost and wars started. Why do you think the US Military has a base on Diego Garcia? It was established during the cold war because it was so close to the Soviet Union.
Not in 2004. In 2000, many were Bush votes, but not 2004.

The outrage is right here, but the ignorance is what prevents the lawsuits and such. The ACLU is working with the disenfranchisement of the voters, and they did so for both the 2000 and 2004 elections. The proof is in the citations, just as I said.
Of course. The way in which you used it was an attempt to turn it around. I wasn't making the arguments that those who don't believe the election was stolen are nuts, that was the article, and I don't believe in ad hominem arguments.

This is exhausting. Here's the deal:
The US didn't invade Iraq because they broke the ceasefire. We bombed them in the 90s when they broke the ceasefire, as a function of necessary means. We invaded because of Bushco pushing bad intel on Iraq having biological, chemical, and even nuclear weapons, which would have been a breach of the UN resolutions. The obvious problem with this was, of course, that they had not acquired or produced any weapons of this kind, and were not even looking to acquire them. Saddam was not a threat to anyone outside his boundaries, and even his strength inside his borders was waning. I read articles in the late 90s about how Iraq was headed towards revolution, which would have been a healthier and certainly more efficient way to topple Saddam's regime. We acted in response to nothing, and it's because of that we are in error. "All necessary means", quoted from UN resolution 678, does not excuse excessive force, which was clearly the case in the invasion and subsequent occupation. We, the US, said no more to the weapons inspectors, favoring the invasion tactic. Please note that the weapons inspectors said, repeatedly, that there was no evidence of the weapons.

xepherys

I think that, perhaps, bringing rules and regulations into this argument is where everything falls apart. While I agree that Bush is an asshat who has violated the rights f many Americans and deserves to be impeached, I also don't believe that we should abide by the decisions of the UN, NATO or any other non-US institution. There's a reason we're who we are, a reason we can get away with so much and a reason that we successfully (though not always) throw our weight around.

We see injustice and react. In the case of the recent invasion of Iraq, we were not wholly in the right, though the removal of Saddam Hussein was, even retrospectively, a good move. Staying in he region for fear of "regional instability" is bullshit, however, since much of the middle east hasn't had a very good track record regarding peace in thousands of years.

The US is expected to get into everyone's business (regional aid due to natural disasters or genocide, financial aid to suffering countries via direct influx of cash into their economy or by purchasing their exports, military assistance in the name of spreading democracy, et cetera) except when we're supposed to stay out of everyone's business (for all of the same items). In the end, we just have to do what's right. We won't win 100% of the time, but we can't just sit around and do nothing. We take on most challenges presented to us, and it would seem we do more good than harm.

Fuggit! We're America and we'll do what we please. If anyone was really THAT upset across the pond, we'd see it in a bigger way than some whining in French or German newspapers. Sure, the jihadists showed us they were unhappy with us... but then they're unhappy with pretty much everyone.

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

Willravel

We have to abide by the UN because they make the ultimate call in things like this. We signed on to the UN, and as such, we answer to them. When it comes to matters concerning the US, if we are threatened, we can do what we want essentially, as far as the UN is concerned. That's not the case here. When it comes to policing the world and enforcing UN resolutions, we legally need their oversight. We signed on to the UN Charter, which is a US treaty that is US law.

Plan9

Ever get the feeling that your US Army name tape says "World Police" in Dari, Farci, Arabic, and Pashtu?

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

xepherys

Yeah, pretty much. Will, I think the point you're missing is that, despite there being a "law" regarding it, though international law is a bit flaky to begin with, in my opinion, the US military is far too taxed and far too strained helping the whole damned world with all of their problems as it is. When we decide we need to use them for something we deem suitable, to hell with the UN. Again, regardless of what UN precept we violated, where is our punishment? There isn't one, nor will the UN ever take action against the United States. To do so would be to dismiss the UN entirely. Frankly, look at the UN as more of a kingdom, of which the US is the ruling state, and the others merely vassals. Whether it should be that way or not is a matter for debate, but that it IS that way is more or less fact.

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

Willravel

The US is on the Security Council, so it can't take action against us. We'd simply veto it. Breaking a rule isn't defined by it's punishment but by it's act. We have broken the UN Charter. We've invaded a sovereign nation that was not a threat to us. These acts are illegal. These acts are immoral. As a direct result of the power vacuum we created, there is now a civil war that we've gotten sucked in to.

If you kill someone but you're too powerful to be arrested by the police, a crime has still been committed.

xepherys

Whoa, wait! The power vacuum we created has led to a civil war? I thought it was a civil war before, you know... when there was genocide against the Kurds? I'm pretty sure the Sunni vs. Shi'ite/Shia "civil war" has been on going for a little while before we got there. I'm pretty sure droves os people have been dying in Iraq for a long time. Oddly enough, mostly they still are not dying at the hands of Americans. So where have we strayed from the righteous path exactly?

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

The_Jazz

xepherys - I think that the best you could argue was that there was a "cold" civil war going on, but the Kurds were/are by no means solely an Iraqi problem. Just ask the Turks. Then go back in time and ask the Ottomans.

As far as the Sunni vs. Shiia conflict, that was Saddam's creation for the most part, but it certainly wasn't a "hot" war. At best, it was state-sponsored repression of a group.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

xepherys

Jazz,

War isn't the same in the region in many respects. First of all, outside of big cities, the vast majority of middle easterners will wage a war based on culture, tribal status/name and religion and most will not wage a war for a government or country. That holds true especially in both Iraq and Afghanistan where we currently fight. It's about ideals, not about "god and country". Okay, maybe it's about "god and ideals", but it's still not the way we think about things.

Also, a "hot" war makes no sense to these people... people who will hold a grudge against another tribe for a thousand years over the death of a son and avenge it on the deathbed of the 8th or 10th generation. "Hot" wars have never really been foughtn the middle east unless there was an outside influence. They're happy to amble about and take their time in their murder and genocide. Guess that makes it alright...

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

Willravel

Maybe it should be made clear: before 2003, the annual death toll in Iraq had ben relatively low since the end of Desert Storm. Now, the death toll is headed towards 1,000,000 since 2003. That's the difference between hot and cold.

The_Jazz

xepherys - with the facts that will listed above in mind, I think that we're arriving at the same conclusion from different roads and using different terminology. My point in re the Kurds had more to do with their villanisation in region by the Ottomans, Turks, Syrians, Iraqis etc. over the past 100+ years.

I completely agree with your interpretation of the schools of thought in that region and their differences from ours. That said, I still like my "hot/cold" analogy, not that anything makes war ok.

How the hell did we get to the point where I'm going harken back to the good old days of the Ottoman Empire?

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo