Why Did We Invade Iraq? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

rukkyg · 09-18-2004, 12:22 PM

I see a lot of people on these boards saying we invaded Iraq for a lot of different reasons: WMDs, oil, terrorists, hussein is an evil evil man, etc. And of course these are what you're supposed to think. That's what the government told you.

I'd like to introduce you to the Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/). Their statement of principles was written in 1997:

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

I'm sure you will recognize a few of the people who signed this statement:

Quote:

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Other people on this list are in the administration, but not as well known (by me at least).

Now I'd like to show you a letter that the group sent to Bush when he was President and the highlighted people above had already implanted themselves as the makers of foreign policy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm

September 20, 2001

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We write to endorse your admirable commitment to “lead the world to victory” in the war against terrorism. We fully support your call for “a broad and sustained campaign” against the “terrorist organizations and those who harbor and support them.” We agree with Secretary of State Powell that the United States must find and punish the perpetrators of the horrific attack of September 11, and we must, as he said, “go after terrorism wherever we find it in the world” and “get it by its branch and root.” We agree with the Secretary of State that U.S. policy must aim not only at finding the people responsible for this incident, but must also target those “other groups out there that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.”

In order to carry out this “first war of the 21st century” successfully, and in order, as you have said, to do future “generations a favor by coming together and whipping terrorism,” we believe the following steps are necessary parts of a comprehensive strategy.

Osama bin Laden

We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current war on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy his network of associates. To this end, we support the necessary military action in Afghanistan and the provision of substantial financial and military assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country.

Iraq

We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth….” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.

Hezbollah

Hezbollah is one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world. It is suspected of having been involved in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Africa, and implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Hezbollah clearly falls in the category cited by Secretary Powell of groups “that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.” Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority

Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism. We should insist that the Palestinian Authority put a stop to terrorism emanating from territories under its control and imprison those planning terrorist attacks against Israel. Until the Palestinian Authority moves against terror, the United States should provide it no further assistance.

U.S. Defense Budget

A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United States to engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war.

There is, of course, much more that will have to be done. Diplomatic efforts will be required to enlist other nations’ aid in this war on terrorism. Economic and financial tools at our disposal will have to be used. There are other actions of a military nature that may well be needed. However, in our judgement the steps outlined above constitute the minimum necessary if this war is to be fought effectively and brought to a successful conclusion. Our purpose in writing is to assure you of our support as you do what must be done to lead the nation to victory in this fight.

A public letter to the POTUS just 9 days after 9/11 from a "non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership", whose former members list includes Cheney, Rumsfield, and Wolfowitz says that we should invade Iraq. They knew that 9/11 brought them the opportunity that they had needed since 1997: a catastrophe that would unite the american people in such a way that they would believe anything as long as they were reminded of the catastrophe and its connections.

9/11 = terrorist = bad = hussein = iraq.
Iraq = evil dictatorship with suffering people = { North Korea, Iran, etc. }
The leap is not a large one after what has already happened.

So I say to my fellow war-haters, don't cite North Korea and Iran as reasons to not go to war with Iraq. If the neoconservative members of the PNAC stay in power for another 4 years, we will be at war with both these soverign nations and others in a public "desire to spread democracy and stop terror" and a private "desire to assert american leadership (read dominance) upon the world".

09-18-2004, 04:34 PM

I'm not sure exactly what the motives of the Bush administration are - they very might well be part of the world domination conspiracy theory you have spoken of, or the Halliburton "controversy", but I take all conspiracy theories with a large dose of salt - and sometimes I don't agree with how the war is conducted (read: certain bombing campaigns in Fallujah, failure to appeal to the people of Iraq, or Abu Ghraib), but my own rationalization goes something like this:

(this was written by me for another forum, and has been cross-posted)

America has been engaged in Iraq for eleven some odd years before 2003.
During this time, America has nearly occupied, shot cruise missiles at Iraq under the pretense of destroying weapons of mass destruction facilities, established joint no flyzones over their territory with France and the UK, and conducted controversial bombing campaigns. We have denied them aid and then provided money directly to Saddam Hussein to give us oil in the Oil for Food scam. This problem was inherited and had to be solved by the Bush administration.
This occurred during the previous two presidents terms of office, and Clinton left the Oval Office convinced that Saddam still had stockpiles of chemical weapons hidden somewhere (possibly out in the mountains bordering Iran, where they could be kept indefinitely and possibly used at some later date). The most liberal estimate of the destruction caused by airstrikes against Saddam's weapons capacity was in the 70 percent range. Clinton also believed that regime change was the only possible solution.
Saddam deceived weapons inspectors, shipped equipment and possibly the weapons away from chemical weapons facilities that inspectors visited.
Saddam shot at around 700 planes in the no fly zone.
Saddam had made contacts outside Iraq for slipping past the sanctions.
He used the Foodscam money to pay for palaces and new weapons while his people starved and the infrastructure of Iraq fell into disrepair.
Surveillance showed Saddam always rebuilt weapons facilities after attacks.
America and the so-called civilized world is responsible for the deaths of Iraqis that starved under the sanctions, which were put in place to force him to give up his weapons of mass destruction.
Osama bin Laden used the Iraq sanctions as his primary motivator in his "kill all Americans" speech in the 90s.
Connections to Al Qaeda are tenuous but warrant investigation. I am not convinced that they have been fully investigated and that early dismissal is foolish.
Needless to say, Saddam is one murderous tyrant, and his sons, who were likely to inherit the place, were worse. Saddam at least gave moral support to terror in Israel.
Iraq is situated geopolitically in a favourable position to disrupting the theocracies and dictatorships of the Middle East. It has vast quantities of fresh water that could be provided to parched Iran in exchange for concessions. It borders on Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which puts it in a position to pressure them into cracking down on the terrorists that ferment within their borders.
This, by the way, is the only means of preventing terrorist training in the Middle East that I have come across and am open to less violent suggestions.
Iraq was frankly an easy target to begin with. Iran, North Korea and dictators in Africa and such places are both harder to get to and harder to defeat than the flood plains of Iraq, which are easily accessed from Kuwait.

War is not pretty, but isolation is not the answer. Neither are half-witted sanctions that prey on the people of Iraq, but not the regime that controls it. I would have preferred a slower invasion, but that would have provided Saddam with even more time to bunker down.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke

Maybe the Bush administration are not good men, but what were they to do?

irateplatypus · 09-18-2004, 06:19 PM

rukkyg,

i think your preconceived notions clouded your reading of this. the article says nothing about about invasion, all it does is state the removal of saddam hussein as a valid and necessary objective. invasion is, of course, a method of doing just that... but not the only way. in fact, it provides specific statements concerning backing anti-saddam groups within iraq... suggesting an internal coup rather than an invasion. if you had read this before the war i think you would have derived significantly different conclusions about its intent.

also, people don't "implant themselves" into foreign policy, they are chosen and appointed.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-18-2004, 06:48 PM

Wolfowitz doctrine...

This war is about oil and colonial interests, just not in the current context as thought by leftie's/anti war people...

Who gets the majority of their oil from Iraq/ South East Asia ( Japan, China), Western Europe (France, Germany). The longterm establishment of an American presence in Iraq will ultimately assure a lower global military build up of troops and interests in the middle east. If we have military dominance in the ME region over the nations that have direct natural resource interests, this will assure a lower military buildup in said nations (Primarly(sp) Western Europe and hopefully China). They will have no exports of global military interests in the ME region because we are there and regulating it.

powerclown · 09-18-2004, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rukkyg

...They knew that 9/11 brought them the opportunity that they had needed since 1997: a catastrophe that would unite the american people....

A fine example of the power of meaning-metamorphosis.
What about this twist on the same words: 9/11 confirmed everbody's worst fears about fundamentalist terrorism? That, in fact, it IS a danger to be dealt with and not only the paranoid delusions of some frantic CIA operative working 20 hours a night in the bowels of the intelligence labs, a la Richard Clarke?? Call it 'having a contigency plan'.

OFKU0 · 09-18-2004, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rukkyg

I see a lot of people on these boards saying we invaded Iraq for a lot of different reasons: WMDs, oil, terrorists, hussein is an evil evil man, etc.

Well you got one out of 4 right but failed to mention other reasons that supercede the obvious selection(s). But I like the way you think.

smooth · 09-18-2004, 07:27 PM

first of all, many of us had read those papers before the war. And we were the ones explaining to people that the posturing Bush was doing was immaterial--we were definately headed for war.

And we cited those papers as our evidence that the war plans were drafted and waiting for an opening.

Secondly, the way mojo described the war for oil situation is not contrary to leftist positions. He just wants it to be, because it happens to be correct. Depending on how many threads this current version of TFP still has, one can run a search on my name and find a similar, although more in-depth, exposition of the left's position in regards to "war for oil."

I don't know if he lifted those thoughts from that thread, but he certainly didn't appear to agree when many of us posted those same assertions long ago.

In any case, I'm very interested to see the data on freshwater bodies in Iraq. I find that tidbit more interesting and problematic than oil reserves.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-18-2004, 07:59 PM

Smooth I never argued that the war was about oil, the only time I argued was when people were like...

"No blood for oil1!1!!1111 Bushco is teh ghey and lam50rs!

Rekna · 09-18-2004, 08:06 PM

money, money, money..... no not the average tax payers money. I'm talking money for big buisness.

maximusveritas · 09-18-2004, 08:42 PM

There's no secret conspiracy here, it's all right in the open. The thing is, hardly anyone has been paying attention.
PNAC was a think tank formed by so-called "neoconservatives" in order to develop a new foreign policy for conservatives in the post-Cold War environment. This policy had nothing to do with countering the threat of terrorism here at home. Instead, it had to do with asserting American power and influence abroad in the hopes of maintaining order and challenging unfriendly regimes.

When 9-11 occurred, these guys saw their opportunity and tried to use the threat of terror against the United States as an excuse to push their unrelated agenda. Afghanistan was merely a launching pad from which to begin their previously determined plans in Iraq. Even though they said that a "key goal" should be to "capture or kill Osama bin Laden", they were all too ready to move onto goal #2 before the primary mission had been accomplished. As a result, they severely compromised the War on Terror.

It would be alright if the War in Iraq would have made us safer or at least benefitted us in some way. I mean I'm happy for the Iraqi people who can now live without fear of Saddam, I really am. But I'm also sad for the 1000 American soldiers who have lost their lives, the thousands more who have been maimed beyond repair, and the thousands of Iraqi civilians who have been caught in the crossfire. I'm sad that my children and potential grandchildren will have to pay off the $200 billion and counting bill. All for what? I don't think anyone knows, not even PNAC.

Any way you look at it, this war was a mistake, a colossal mistake. If this is the new American century, I want no part of it. Some like Pat Buchanan are saying that the neocons are out, but I don't believe it. Not as long as Cheney, Wolfowitz, and their ilk roam the White House. The only way to get them out is to vote for John Kerry this November and so that's what I'm doing.

09-19-2004, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

I'm sad that my children and potential grandchildren will have to pay off the $200 billion and counting bill. All for what? I don't think anyone knows, not even PNAC.

$120 billion.

rukkyg · 09-19-2004, 06:25 AM

I would not say this is a conspiracy theory at all.

Cheney was picked for vice president. Then he influenced Bush to pick a few of his buddies from the PNAC. They all believe that the only way to continue in the world is to assert american dominance on the rest of the world, in effect, advancing america at the expense of anyone who doesn't agree with our values.

I'd be the first to say that *I* think our values are the best, but I don't think that everyone should be forced at gun- or cruise missle-point to accept them as well.

maximusveritas · 09-19-2004, 08:00 AM

Thanks for pointing that out jconnolly, i had quickly tried to get an estimate of the cost of the war and all i could find was what Kerry said.

woOt? · 09-19-2004, 08:24 AM

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

roachboy · 09-19-2004, 12:25 PM

if you read the project for a new american century site through, you can see what i think is a more coherent vision that underpinned war in iraq: it was the theater across which the american state, in its military expression, was to be inserted as lone hegemon, not answerable or bound to international law, represented by the un.

the motives for the second war link directly to the neocon understanding of the first.

i have thought from the outset that this adversarial relation to the un explained the shabbiness of the administration's case--it does not take much to see in it an expression of contempt for the institution itself--a contempt that the neocons might have thought vindicated if the war in iraq had gone as they fantasized it would.

i think the wolfowitz crowd had a vision, believed it, threw the dice on the basis of that vision, and lost--horribly, completely, entirely.

in a rational world, this gamble and loss should spell a parallel, ignominious defeat for the adminsitration as a whole in the next election---much of what i have been posting over the past week or so has been directed at trying to point out how the political culture being developed by the right is geared toward making it possible to explain away this fiasco.

a capacity for collective denial which is itself a kind of horrifying glimpse of what a future would look like should this political tendency become dominant for any period of time. if these people retain power long enough to enforce their view of the world, their version of history, and of politics onto children via the political instrument of education, then future historians will find themselves having to explain the early phases of a collective retreat into fantasy as the first phase of the collapse of the american empire, and the passage into a different arrangement. they will probably look to questions like lead in the wine to explain it.

what no-one wants to say, but what seems obvious, is that american troops have died in numbers now over 1000 and 12-15,000 iraqis have died---all for a hallucination of american global military hegemony--the primary function of which was to keep the world safe for the increasingly outmoded entity known as the nation-state, and that only--and i mean only--because the right in particular (traditional and neocon alike) cannot think of how it could possibly operate outside that framework.

lots of people are dead because the bush administration chose to indulge this absurd attempt at political self-preservation engineered by a particular rightwing faction.

there is a way to link the war to oil as well, but i think it explains less about the administration's actions than does the nationalist project.

onetime2 · 09-19-2004, 02:28 PM

The purpose of invading Iraq was to cement, in the minds of state leaders, that they will pay a price for open or covert support of terrorist actions against the US. Without regard to UN or other "allied" positions the US would, in the future, act to defend itself by going on the offensive.

If there was another state who stood so blatantly in opposition to the US for decades and supported terrorism regardless of the presence of oil we would have invaded them as well. Look at Libya as an example. We attacked them on several occasions with the trigger very nearly being pulled on invasion when the Marine barracks was bombed in Lebanon. A key decision that shaped US response to terrorist acts was made in those days. That decision was one of not going tit for tat with terrorists. Deny them a resonse and a world stage and they would slink away. Since then states sponsoring terrorism and terrorist networks themselves learned the US would take being bloodied with only the mildest and most ineffective response and they learned that they could take the world stage by inflicting massive injury on innocents.

Denying terrorists safe havens and unobstructed support is the first step in protecting the US. Allowing terrorist organizations to fester and grow with no serious constraint resulted in the exponential growth in audacity and civilian death tolls we've seen over the last 3 decades.

roachboy · 09-19-2004, 02:54 PM

except that iraq had no connection to the war on terrorism....

iraq was a central agenda item for the project for a new american century folk from 1991--check out their letter to clinton from 1998--same rationale, point for point, for attacking iraq.

every inquiry has pointed out that there was no such link between hussein and "terrorism" as is presently defined.
if this is the case, then why do reasonable people continue to float this argument?

smooth · 09-19-2004, 02:56 PM

The reason I don't believe your scenario, onetime, is because I do not agree with the premise: that nations believed that the US would remain idle while they supported attacks against the population.

I look at things like the fact that we have secured a springboard on one side of Iraq and are currently working to secure one on the other side. That one springboard is literally on an incredible resevoir of oil, and that our current military depends on oil to operate, leads me to recognize the long-term, stategic import of our actions.

However, I disagree that our current reliance on military aggression was the only, or even the best, method of securing safety for our citizens.

I find most disturbing (and this is the issue I am most upset about in regards to being opposed to the war) that the plans as laid out for the military planning were not described to the people. Not only could the citizens decide, on an informed basis, whether they wanted to support those plans, the issue is not even part of the official canon.

So when people like roachboy or myself raise them, we look like loons screaming in the wilderness. Some conservatives have agree with this mini-analysis, but argue that the safety of the public hinges upon some secrecy in government.

I don't agree with that. That is when this boils down to ideology for me. The other issues, if allowed to be discussed in public discourse (as of yet, they are not due to our own government's obfuscation of the underpinnings) are discussable rationally.

maypo · 09-19-2004, 03:38 PM

Finally, an intelligent non-ranting discussion. Kudos to everyone involved.

Roachboy has produced the clearest analysis I have read. The rationale of the pre-emptive strike falls apart completely due to our utter failure of connecting Saddam Hussein to terrorist acts. It was the basis of an entirely new doctrine and it failed!
If it were not for Americans new belief that "the only thing we have to fear... is everything" there would be a political reckoning. Going to war to show other countries you can't be messed with is the worst possible case for war. Would you give your life for such a rationale?

onetime2 · 09-20-2004, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

except that iraq had no connection to the war on terrorism....

iraq was a central agenda item for the project for a new american century folk from 1991--check out their letter to clinton from 1998--same rationale, point for point, for attacking iraq.

every inquiry has pointed out that there was no such link between hussein and "terrorism" as is presently defined.
if this is the case, then why do reasonable people continue to float this argument?

We can debate the links between Iraq and terrorism to no end but the simple fact is it doesn't matter.

Iraq was the prime example of the "worst" that could happen to states who stood in opposition to the UN and US. The net result? Saddam's lifestyle didn't change. His money didn't go away. His power remained virtually in tact. Even when invading and dissecting a sovereign neighbor Saddam ended up losing his military and control of his airspace. Hardly a significant price to pay given the potential gain he would have seen if the world allowed his invasion of Kuwait to stand. Hell he even tried to assassinate the first President Bush and he still enjoyed his many palaces and cars.

The fate of Hussein was the very worst that states who sponsored terrorism would face. Now that fate has changed. Now they are absolutely aware that the things these state leaders have worked for most of their adult lives, power and position, can be taken away without following the normal political channels that can drag on for decades.

Dane Bramage · 09-20-2004, 06:31 AM

One word... Oil.

Oh wait... one more...

Vendetta.

onetime2 · 09-20-2004, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dane Bramage

One word... Oil.

Oh wait... one more...

Vendetta.

And how does the US make out with Iraqi oil? Is it similar to how we made out with Kuwaiti oil?

roachboy · 09-20-2004, 07:03 AM

onetime: i suspect that we are actually close to agreement at the level of content, in your response to my last post--i would frame it differently and derive different conclusions--but i think you can, if you are so inclined, insert your last analysis into the logic of the post about the pnac project and see for yourself.

powerclown · 09-20-2004, 07:13 AM

Kerry this morning in a speech: "Saddam was indeed a devil who deserved to go to hell."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Iraq & the UN....
"In November 2002, the U.N. Security Council voted on its 17th resolution ordering Iraq to disarm. All 15 Security Council members — including France, Russia and China — voted for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. The resolution warned of “serious consequences” should Saddam fail to comply this time."

"The resolution warned of “serious consequences” should Saddam fail to comply this time."

What kind of ridiculous game is it when a world body such as the UN has to warn an aggressive dictator 17 times to come into compliance?? It is unfortunate that the UN lacked the resolve to enforce any 17 of their own resolutions. Which brings up the question: What credibility does the UN 'Security Council' have when it fails to live up to responsibilities it sets out for itself? What kind of security does it provide to the world - what type of example does this set to those behaving illegally - when it has proven itself too weak to carry out its own rules?

A list of the 17 UN Security Council Resolutions broken by Hussein.
Security Council Resolutions Concerning Iraq

Grounds for punishment were laid out by the UN, and carried out by the US.

onetime2 · 09-20-2004, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

onetime: i suspect that we are actually close to agreement at the level of content, in your response to my last post--i would frame it differently and derive different conclusions--but i think you can, if you are so inclined, insert your last analysis into the logic of the post about the pnac project and see for yourself.

pnac?

Nevermind got it.

Not sure why you think my first post doesn't also coincide then.

DJ Happy · 09-20-2004, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

What kind of ridiculous game is it when a world body such as the UN has to warn an aggressive dictator 17 times to come into compliance?? It is unfortunate that the UN lacked the resolve to enforce any 17 of their own resolutions. Which brings up the question: What credibility does the UN 'Security Council' have when it fails to live up to responsibilities it sets out for itself? What kind of security does it provide to the world - what type of example does this set to those behaving illegally - when it has proven itself too weak to carry out its own rules?

A list of the 17 UN Security Council Resolutions broken by Hussein.
Security Council Resolutions Concerning Iraq

Grounds for punishment were laid out by the UN, and carried out by the US.

So when is the US going to invade Israel? How can you keep touting this violation of UN resolutions as being a justification for war when Israel has the worst record of all nations in flouting Security Council resolutions with the express aid and approval of the US? Surely by your reasoning both Israel and the US should be "punished" as well?

onetime2 · 09-20-2004, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

So when is the US going to invade Israel? How can you keep touting this violation of UN resolutions as being a justification for war when Israel has the worst record of all nations in flouting Security Council resolutions with the express aid and approval of the US? Surely by your reasoning both Israel and the US should be "punished" as well?

I was under the impression that Israel hadn't violated any Security Council resolutions. Am I mistaken?

roachboy · 09-20-2004, 07:40 AM

onetime---all you would have to do is excise the link to terrorism and substitute the neocon nationalist agenda, and we would be in parallel places. i would maintain that the "link" is fictional, as was the rest of the case bush presented...but apart from that, the logic you outlined in the post i referenced is not far from the neocon position as i interpret it.

sorry about the acronym...

DJ Happy · 09-20-2004, 07:41 AM

Israel has indeed ignored Security Council Resolutions, which is quite a surprise considering the veto power of the US:

http://www.vicpeace.org/fact-sheets/FactSheet6vpn.pdf

Here are some of the other Security Council Resolutions that would've passed had it not been for the US vetoing them. In almost all the cases the US is the only Security Council member to vote against them:

http://freepalestine.com/US%20Vetoes...0Palestine.htm

powerclown · 09-20-2004, 08:35 AM

Great links Happy....

I particularly like Resolution 1172.
"1998. India/Pakistan. Calls upon India & Pakistan to cease their development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles." Yeah, when Hell freezes over.

I would address the situation this way: It is in the best interests of the US (and don't forget that every country only ever does anything out of self-interest) to see a democratic ally like Israel firmly rooted in a resource-critical area like the Middle East which is otherwise populated by unstable governments run by oligarchies (Saudi Arabia), dictatorships (Syria), religious theocracies (Iran). The fact that these entities sit upon - and thus control - the rest of the world's oil supplies is troubling to say the least. In this context, supporting Israel as a Democracy, a deterrent, a spy, an ally is geopolitically desireable.

onetime2 · 09-20-2004, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

Israel has indeed ignored Security Council Resolutions, which is quite a surprise considering the veto power of the US:

http://www.vicpeace.org/fact-sheets/FactSheet6vpn.pdf

Here are some of the other Security Council Resolutions that would've passed had it not been for the US vetoing them. In almost all the cases the US is the only Security Council member to vote against them:

http://freepalestine.com/US%20Vetoes...0Palestine.htm

Thanks for the links, I stand corrected.

As far as why we're not invading them, Israel's continued existence (or the current leadership's control of the state) does not encourage other states to attack the US or dismiss UN wishes without fear of retribution. At least not IMO.

DJ Happy · 09-20-2004, 11:38 PM

Israel's mere existence does not encourage attacks on the US, but Israel's current leadership (who is one of the most hated figures in the Muslim world, even before he was elected to power) and the US's support of him, does.

Anyway, the reasons for the invasion seem to have shifted again. Are you now saying that it was Saddam's public hatred of the US that was the justification for the invasion?

onetime2 · 09-21-2004, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

Israel's mere existence does not encourage attacks on the US, but Israel's current leadership (who is one of the most hated figures in the Muslim world, even before he was elected to power) and the US's support of him, does.

Anyway, the reasons for the invasion seem to have shifted again. Are you now saying that it was Saddam's public hatred of the US that was the justification for the invasion?

I am not "now" saying it, I've been saying it from the beginning. Hussein's regime stood as a shining example to all nations that the "worst" punishment they'd see from the US and UN from any action the took was to be sanctioned and allowed to rule indefinitely while controlling income from programs like "oil for food". Now, the worst punishment nations who support terrorism or "threaten" the US can face is regime change. That's a significant motivator for nations not to be caught working to undermine US stability or supporting terrorism.

DJ Happy · 09-21-2004, 05:08 AM

That has to be the most disgraceful reason for invasion that I've yet heard.

"Don't say nasty things about us or we'll invade your country (and prove you wrong???)"

To be quite honest, I'm shocked.

onetime2 · 09-21-2004, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

That has to be the most disgraceful reason for invasion that I've yet heard.

"Don't say nasty things about us or we'll invade your country (and prove you wrong???)"

To be quite honest, I'm shocked.

What are you talking about? "Saying nasty things about us"? It went a hell of a lot farther than that. Do you not know anything at all about the last decade?

DJ Happy · 09-21-2004, 08:05 AM

In your previous post you were talking about "Now, the worst punishment nations who support terrorism or "threaten" the US can face is regime change."

What did Saddam do to the US in the last decade that I can't remember right now?

gcbrowni · 09-21-2004, 08:23 AM

How about continually locked on to planes in the no-fly zone, and firing AA guns and SAMs at them?

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...l/iraq/1817943

roachboy · 09-21-2004, 08:43 AM

it does not matter, really, whether hussein did not did not threaten to united states.
what matters, as i argued above, is that the neocons saw in the first gulf war a nasty precedent in which the agreement about extent of engagement fashioned amongst the members of the coalition limited what they saw as the johnwayne narrative about american unilateral military action---again, the second iraq war follows from teh first, not from anything in between. hussein was a symbol, whose importance and actions had to be inflated so that he was understood as important enough to warrant a rerun the second time around.

the neocons saw hussein as violating the rules of the game as they understood it--but without the first gulf war framing the matter, he would have been of no consequence, his actions overlooked, as the americans are wont to do with dictators whose general politics are convenient for the americans and their interests.

when i agreed in general terms with onetime, i posed teh caveat that the agreement was predicated on inserting the narrative he outlined into the framework outlined by the project for a new american century, for example--which enables onetime's narrative to operate, but with all the terms for understanding that narrative switched to other grounds.

roachboy · 09-21-2004, 08:45 AM

it does not matter, really, whether hussein did not did not threaten to united states.

what matters, as i argued above, is that the neocons saw in the first gulf war a nasty precedent in which the agreement about extent of engagement fashioned amongst the members of the coalition limited what they saw as the johnwayne narrative of american interests, which was about legitimating unilateral military action---again, the second iraq war follows from the first, not from anything in between.

hussein was a symbol, whose importance and actions had to be inflated so that he was understood as important enough to warrant a rerun of the first gulf war.

the neocons saw hussein as violating the rules of the game as they understood it--but without the first gulf war framing the matter, he would have been of no consequence, his actions overlooked, as the americans are wont to do with dictators whose general politics are convenient for the americans and their interests.

when i agreed in general terms with onetime, i posed the caveat that the agreement was predicated on inserting the narrative he outlined into the framework outlined by the project for a new american century, for example--which enables onetime's narrative to operate, but with all the terms for understanding that narrative switched to other grounds.

onetime2 · 09-21-2004, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

In your previous post you were talking about "Now, the worst punishment nations who support terrorism or "threaten" the US can face is regime change."

What did Saddam do to the US in the last decade that I can't remember right now?

Hussein continually thwarted weapons inspectors, attempted to assassinate former President Bush, used oil for food programs to import banned technology (missile parts, dual use chemicals and equipment, banned weapons, etc), attempted to shoot down American planes in the no-fly zones, continued to build his military capabilities, modified missiles to extend their range(s), and continually claimed he wasn't doing any of these things. Each time he would be given a deadline, it would pass, then, when confronted with irrefutable proof, he'd admit to his violations and claim that now he needed time to comply with the aforementioned terms of the cease-fire. He did this for the better part of a decade with the world knowing full well what he was doing.

And yes, now countries do face the prospect of regime change. In the last 30 years the US hasn't put its military at substantial risk to achieve political ends. That's no longer the case. Of course, it's unlikely we'll be doing it again in the near future but there was most assuredly a price paid by Hussein's regime and by the leaders of the Taliban.

09-18-2004, 04:34 PM	#2 (permalink)
jconnolly Guest	I'm not sure exactly what the motives of the Bush administration are - they very might well be part of the world domination conspiracy theory you have spoken of, or the Halliburton "controversy", but I take all conspiracy theories with a large dose of salt - and sometimes I don't agree with how the war is conducted (read: certain bombing campaigns in Fallujah, failure to appeal to the people of Iraq, or Abu Ghraib), but my own rationalization goes something like this: (this was written by me for another forum, and has been cross-posted) America has been engaged in Iraq for eleven some odd years before 2003. During this time, America has nearly occupied, shot cruise missiles at Iraq under the pretense of destroying weapons of mass destruction facilities, established joint no flyzones over their territory with France and the UK, and conducted controversial bombing campaigns. We have denied them aid and then provided money directly to Saddam Hussein to give us oil in the Oil for Food scam. This problem was inherited and had to be solved by the Bush administration. This occurred during the previous two presidents terms of office, and Clinton left the Oval Office convinced that Saddam still had stockpiles of chemical weapons hidden somewhere (possibly out in the mountains bordering Iran, where they could be kept indefinitely and possibly used at some later date). The most liberal estimate of the destruction caused by airstrikes against Saddam's weapons capacity was in the 70 percent range. Clinton also believed that regime change was the only possible solution. Saddam deceived weapons inspectors, shipped equipment and possibly the weapons away from chemical weapons facilities that inspectors visited. Saddam shot at around 700 planes in the no fly zone. Saddam had made contacts outside Iraq for slipping past the sanctions. He used the Foodscam money to pay for palaces and new weapons while his people starved and the infrastructure of Iraq fell into disrepair. Surveillance showed Saddam always rebuilt weapons facilities after attacks. America and the so-called civilized world is responsible for the deaths of Iraqis that starved under the sanctions, which were put in place to force him to give up his weapons of mass destruction. Osama bin Laden used the Iraq sanctions as his primary motivator in his "kill all Americans" speech in the 90s. Connections to Al Qaeda are tenuous but warrant investigation. I am not convinced that they have been fully investigated and that early dismissal is foolish. Needless to say, Saddam is one murderous tyrant, and his sons, who were likely to inherit the place, were worse. Saddam at least gave moral support to terror in Israel. Iraq is situated geopolitically in a favourable position to disrupting the theocracies and dictatorships of the Middle East. It has vast quantities of fresh water that could be provided to parched Iran in exchange for concessions. It borders on Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which puts it in a position to pressure them into cracking down on the terrorists that ferment within their borders. This, by the way, is the only means of preventing terrorist training in the Middle East that I have come across and am open to less violent suggestions. Iraq was frankly an easy target to begin with. Iran, North Korea and dictators in Africa and such places are both harder to get to and harder to defeat than the flood plains of Iraq, which are easily accessed from Kuwait. War is not pretty, but isolation is not the answer. Neither are half-witted sanctions that prey on the people of Iraq, but not the regime that controls it. I would have preferred a slower invasion, but that would have provided Saddam with even more time to bunker down. "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke Maybe the Bush administration are not good men, but what were they to do? Last edited by jconnolly; 09-18-2004 at 04:41 PM.. Reason: Editing.

09-18-2004, 06:19 PM	#3 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	rukkyg, i think your preconceived notions clouded your reading of this. the article says nothing about about invasion, all it does is state the removal of saddam hussein as a valid and necessary objective. invasion is, of course, a method of doing just that... but not the only way. in fact, it provides specific statements concerning backing anti-saddam groups within iraq... suggesting an internal coup rather than an invasion. if you had read this before the war i think you would have derived significantly different conclusions about its intent. also, people don't "implant themselves" into foreign policy, they are chosen and appointed. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

09-18-2004, 06:48 PM	#4 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Wolfowitz doctrine... This war is about oil and colonial interests, just not in the current context as thought by leftie's/anti war people... Who gets the majority of their oil from Iraq/ South East Asia ( Japan, China), Western Europe (France, Germany). The longterm establishment of an American presence in Iraq will ultimately assure a lower global military build up of troops and interests in the middle east. If we have military dominance in the ME region over the nations that have direct natural resource interests, this will assure a lower military buildup in said nations (Primarly(sp) Western Europe and hopefully China). They will have no exports of global military interests in the ME region because we are there and regulating it. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-18-2004, 07:27 PM	#7 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	first of all, many of us had read those papers before the war. And we were the ones explaining to people that the posturing Bush was doing was immaterial--we were definately headed for war. And we cited those papers as our evidence that the war plans were drafted and waiting for an opening. Secondly, the way mojo described the war for oil situation is not contrary to leftist positions. He just wants it to be, because it happens to be correct. Depending on how many threads this current version of TFP still has, one can run a search on my name and find a similar, although more in-depth, exposition of the left's position in regards to "war for oil." I don't know if he lifted those thoughts from that thread, but he certainly didn't appear to agree when many of us posted those same assertions long ago. In any case, I'm very interested to see the data on freshwater bodies in Iraq. I find that tidbit more interesting and problematic than oil reserves. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

09-18-2004, 07:59 PM	#8 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Smooth I never argued that the war was about oil, the only time I argued was when people were like... "No blood for oil1!1!!1111 Bushco is teh ghey and lam50rs! __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-18-2004, 08:06 PM	#9 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	money, money, money..... no not the average tax payers money. I'm talking money for big buisness.

09-18-2004, 08:42 PM	#10 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	There's no secret conspiracy here, it's all right in the open. The thing is, hardly anyone has been paying attention. PNAC was a think tank formed by so-called "neoconservatives" in order to develop a new foreign policy for conservatives in the post-Cold War environment. This policy had nothing to do with countering the threat of terrorism here at home. Instead, it had to do with asserting American power and influence abroad in the hopes of maintaining order and challenging unfriendly regimes. When 9-11 occurred, these guys saw their opportunity and tried to use the threat of terror against the United States as an excuse to push their unrelated agenda. Afghanistan was merely a launching pad from which to begin their previously determined plans in Iraq. Even though they said that a "key goal" should be to "capture or kill Osama bin Laden", they were all too ready to move onto goal #2 before the primary mission had been accomplished. As a result, they severely compromised the War on Terror. It would be alright if the War in Iraq would have made us safer or at least benefitted us in some way. I mean I'm happy for the Iraqi people who can now live without fear of Saddam, I really am. But I'm also sad for the 1000 American soldiers who have lost their lives, the thousands more who have been maimed beyond repair, and the thousands of Iraqi civilians who have been caught in the crossfire. I'm sad that my children and potential grandchildren will have to pay off the $200 billion and counting bill. All for what? I don't think anyone knows, not even PNAC. Any way you look at it, this war was a mistake, a colossal mistake. If this is the new American century, I want no part of it. Some like Pat Buchanan are saying that the neocons are out, but I don't believe it. Not as long as Cheney, Wolfowitz, and their ilk roam the White House. The only way to get them out is to vote for John Kerry this November and so that's what I'm doing.

09-19-2004, 06:25 AM	#12 (permalink)
rukkyg Loser Location: RPI, Troy, NY	I would not say this is a conspiracy theory at all. Cheney was picked for vice president. Then he influenced Bush to pick a few of his buddies from the PNAC. They all believe that the only way to continue in the world is to assert american dominance on the rest of the world, in effect, advancing america at the expense of anyone who doesn't agree with our values. I'd be the first to say that I think our values are the best, but I don't think that everyone should be forced at gun- or cruise missle-point to accept them as well.

09-19-2004, 08:00 AM	#13 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Thanks for pointing that out jconnolly, i had quickly tried to get an estimate of the cost of the war and all i could find was what Kerry said.

09-19-2004, 08:24 AM	#14 (permalink)
woOt? Crazy Location: Miami, FL	$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

09-19-2004, 12:25 PM	#15 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	if you read the project for a new american century site through, you can see what i think is a more coherent vision that underpinned war in iraq: it was the theater across which the american state, in its military expression, was to be inserted as lone hegemon, not answerable or bound to international law, represented by the un. the motives for the second war link directly to the neocon understanding of the first. i have thought from the outset that this adversarial relation to the un explained the shabbiness of the administration's case--it does not take much to see in it an expression of contempt for the institution itself--a contempt that the neocons might have thought vindicated if the war in iraq had gone as they fantasized it would. i think the wolfowitz crowd had a vision, believed it, threw the dice on the basis of that vision, and lost--horribly, completely, entirely. in a rational world, this gamble and loss should spell a parallel, ignominious defeat for the adminsitration as a whole in the next election---much of what i have been posting over the past week or so has been directed at trying to point out how the political culture being developed by the right is geared toward making it possible to explain away this fiasco. a capacity for collective denial which is itself a kind of horrifying glimpse of what a future would look like should this political tendency become dominant for any period of time. if these people retain power long enough to enforce their view of the world, their version of history, and of politics onto children via the political instrument of education, then future historians will find themselves having to explain the early phases of a collective retreat into fantasy as the first phase of the collapse of the american empire, and the passage into a different arrangement. they will probably look to questions like lead in the wine to explain it. what no-one wants to say, but what seems obvious, is that american troops have died in numbers now over 1000 and 12-15,000 iraqis have died---all for a hallucination of american global military hegemony--the primary function of which was to keep the world safe for the increasingly outmoded entity known as the nation-state, and that only--and i mean only--because the right in particular (traditional and neocon alike) cannot think of how it could possibly operate outside that framework. lots of people are dead because the bush administration chose to indulge this absurd attempt at political self-preservation engineered by a particular rightwing faction. there is a way to link the war to oil as well, but i think it explains less about the administration's actions than does the nationalist project. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-19-2004, 02:28 PM	#16 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	The purpose of invading Iraq was to cement, in the minds of state leaders, that they will pay a price for open or covert support of terrorist actions against the US. Without regard to UN or other "allied" positions the US would, in the future, act to defend itself by going on the offensive. If there was another state who stood so blatantly in opposition to the US for decades and supported terrorism regardless of the presence of oil we would have invaded them as well. Look at Libya as an example. We attacked them on several occasions with the trigger very nearly being pulled on invasion when the Marine barracks was bombed in Lebanon. A key decision that shaped US response to terrorist acts was made in those days. That decision was one of not going tit for tat with terrorists. Deny them a resonse and a world stage and they would slink away. Since then states sponsoring terrorism and terrorist networks themselves learned the US would take being bloodied with only the mildest and most ineffective response and they learned that they could take the world stage by inflicting massive injury on innocents. Denying terrorists safe havens and unobstructed support is the first step in protecting the US. Allowing terrorist organizations to fester and grow with no serious constraint resulted in the exponential growth in audacity and civilian death tolls we've seen over the last 3 decades. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

09-19-2004, 02:54 PM	#17 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	except that iraq had no connection to the war on terrorism.... iraq was a central agenda item for the project for a new american century folk from 1991--check out their letter to clinton from 1998--same rationale, point for point, for attacking iraq. every inquiry has pointed out that there was no such link between hussein and "terrorism" as is presently defined. if this is the case, then why do reasonable people continue to float this argument? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-19-2004 at 02:57 PM..

09-19-2004, 02:56 PM	#18 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	The reason I don't believe your scenario, onetime, is because I do not agree with the premise: that nations believed that the US would remain idle while they supported attacks against the population. I look at things like the fact that we have secured a springboard on one side of Iraq and are currently working to secure one on the other side. That one springboard is literally on an incredible resevoir of oil, and that our current military depends on oil to operate, leads me to recognize the long-term, stategic import of our actions. However, I disagree that our current reliance on military aggression was the only, or even the best, method of securing safety for our citizens. I find most disturbing (and this is the issue I am most upset about in regards to being opposed to the war) that the plans as laid out for the military planning were not described to the people. Not only could the citizens decide, on an informed basis, whether they wanted to support those plans, the issue is not even part of the official canon. So when people like roachboy or myself raise them, we look like loons screaming in the wilderness. Some conservatives have agree with this mini-analysis, but argue that the safety of the public hinges upon some secrecy in government. I don't agree with that. That is when this boils down to ideology for me. The other issues, if allowed to be discussed in public discourse (as of yet, they are not due to our own government's obfuscation of the underpinnings) are discussable rationally. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

09-19-2004, 03:38 PM	#19 (permalink)
maypo Tilted	Finally, an intelligent non-ranting discussion. Kudos to everyone involved. Roachboy has produced the clearest analysis I have read. The rationale of the pre-emptive strike falls apart completely due to our utter failure of connecting Saddam Hussein to terrorist acts. It was the basis of an entirely new doctrine and it failed! If it were not for Americans new belief that "the only thing we have to fear... is everything" there would be a political reckoning. Going to war to show other countries you can't be messed with is the worst possible case for war. Would you give your life for such a rationale?

09-20-2004, 06:31 AM	#21 (permalink)
Dane Bramage Insane Location: Charlotte, NC	One word... Oil. Oh wait... one more... Vendetta. __________________ Every passing hour brings the Solar System forty-three thousand miles closer to Globular Cluster M13 in Hercules — and still there are some misfits who insist that there is no such thing as progress. Kurt Vonnegut - Sirens of Titan

09-20-2004, 07:03 AM	#23 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	onetime: i suspect that we are actually close to agreement at the level of content, in your response to my last post--i would frame it differently and derive different conclusions--but i think you can, if you are so inclined, insert your last analysis into the logic of the post about the pnac project and see for yourself. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-20-2004, 07:13 AM	#24 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Kerry this morning in a speech: "Saddam was indeed a devil who deserved to go to hell." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regarding Iraq & the UN.... "In November 2002, the U.N. Security Council voted on its 17th resolution ordering Iraq to disarm. All 15 Security Council members — including France, Russia and China — voted for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. The resolution warned of “serious consequences” should Saddam fail to comply this time." "The resolution warned of “serious consequences” should Saddam fail to comply this time." What kind of ridiculous game is it when a world body such as the UN has to warn an aggressive dictator 17 times to come into compliance?? It is unfortunate that the UN lacked the resolve to enforce any 17 of their own resolutions. Which brings up the question: What credibility does the UN 'Security Council' have when it fails to live up to responsibilities it sets out for itself? What kind of security does it provide to the world - what type of example does this set to those behaving illegally - when it has proven itself too weak to carry out its own rules? A list of the 17 UN Security Council Resolutions broken by Hussein. Security Council Resolutions Concerning Iraq Grounds for punishment were laid out by the UN, and carried out by the US.

09-20-2004, 07:40 AM	#28 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	onetime---all you would have to do is excise the link to terrorism and substitute the neocon nationalist agenda, and we would be in parallel places. i would maintain that the "link" is fictional, as was the rest of the case bush presented...but apart from that, the logic you outlined in the post i referenced is not far from the neocon position as i interpret it. sorry about the acronym... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-20-2004, 07:41 AM	#29 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	Israel has indeed ignored Security Council Resolutions, which is quite a surprise considering the veto power of the US: http://www.vicpeace.org/fact-sheets/FactSheet6vpn.pdf Here are some of the other Security Council Resolutions that would've passed had it not been for the US vetoing them. In almost all the cases the US is the only Security Council member to vote against them: http://freepalestine.com/US%20Vetoes...0Palestine.htm

09-20-2004, 08:35 AM	#30 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Great links Happy.... I particularly like Resolution 1172. "1998. India/Pakistan. Calls upon India & Pakistan to cease their development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles." Yeah, when Hell freezes over. I would address the situation this way: It is in the best interests of the US (and don't forget that every country only ever does anything out of self-interest) to see a democratic ally like Israel firmly rooted in a resource-critical area like the Middle East which is otherwise populated by unstable governments run by oligarchies (Saudi Arabia), dictatorships (Syria), religious theocracies (Iran). The fact that these entities sit upon - and thus control - the rest of the world's oil supplies is troubling to say the least. In this context, supporting Israel as a Democracy, a deterrent, a spy, an ally is geopolitically desireable.

09-20-2004, 11:38 PM	#32 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	Israel's mere existence does not encourage attacks on the US, but Israel's current leadership (who is one of the most hated figures in the Muslim world, even before he was elected to power) and the US's support of him, does. Anyway, the reasons for the invasion seem to have shifted again. Are you now saying that it was Saddam's public hatred of the US that was the justification for the invasion?

09-21-2004, 05:08 AM	#34 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	That has to be the most disgraceful reason for invasion that I've yet heard. "Don't say nasty things about us or we'll invade your country (and prove you wrong???)" To be quite honest, I'm shocked.

09-21-2004, 08:05 AM	#36 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	In your previous post you were talking about "Now, the worst punishment nations who support terrorism or "threaten" the US can face is regime change." What did Saddam do to the US in the last decade that I can't remember right now?

09-21-2004, 08:23 AM	#37 (permalink)
gcbrowni Tilted Location: Indianapolis	How about continually locked on to planes in the no-fly zone, and firing AA guns and SAMs at them? http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...l/iraq/1817943 __________________ From the day of his birth Gilgamesh was called by name.

09-21-2004, 08:43 AM	#38 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it does not matter, really, whether hussein did not did not threaten to united states. what matters, as i argued above, is that the neocons saw in the first gulf war a nasty precedent in which the agreement about extent of engagement fashioned amongst the members of the coalition limited what they saw as the johnwayne narrative about american unilateral military action---again, the second iraq war follows from teh first, not from anything in between. hussein was a symbol, whose importance and actions had to be inflated so that he was understood as important enough to warrant a rerun the second time around. the neocons saw hussein as violating the rules of the game as they understood it--but without the first gulf war framing the matter, he would have been of no consequence, his actions overlooked, as the americans are wont to do with dictators whose general politics are convenient for the americans and their interests. when i agreed in general terms with onetime, i posed teh caveat that the agreement was predicated on inserting the narrative he outlined into the framework outlined by the project for a new american century, for example--which enables onetime's narrative to operate, but with all the terms for understanding that narrative switched to other grounds. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-21-2004, 08:45 AM	#39 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it does not matter, really, whether hussein did not did not threaten to united states. what matters, as i argued above, is that the neocons saw in the first gulf war a nasty precedent in which the agreement about extent of engagement fashioned amongst the members of the coalition limited what they saw as the johnwayne narrative of american interests, which was about legitimating unilateral military action---again, the second iraq war follows from the first, not from anything in between. hussein was a symbol, whose importance and actions had to be inflated so that he was understood as important enough to warrant a rerun of the first gulf war. the neocons saw hussein as violating the rules of the game as they understood it--but without the first gulf war framing the matter, he would have been of no consequence, his actions overlooked, as the americans are wont to do with dictators whose general politics are convenient for the americans and their interests. when i agreed in general terms with onetime, i posed the caveat that the agreement was predicated on inserting the narrative he outlined into the framework outlined by the project for a new american century, for example--which enables onetime's narrative to operate, but with all the terms for understanding that narrative switched to other grounds. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite