News on the security report that was leaked

[Dilbert1234567]

In response to the leaked report stating that we had no conclusive evidence supporting Saddam making or hiding WMD, one US official (nameless) said

"What's been reported is accurate but you have to take it in context of the entire report, which is classified,"

What’s been reported: No evidence to justify all the Administrations Claims
Accurate

But was taken out of context: ???

Because the rest is classified?

WHa?

Any one want to make some sense out of this for the rest of us, or is there just no sense in it
linky

[The_Dude]

"As the Bush administration was pushing last fall for a war against Iraq because of alleged weapons of mass destruction, a defense department report said it did not have enough "reliable information" Iraq was amassing these weapons, a defense official said on Friday." - so bush lied

[Sparhawk]

Gulf of Tonkin Redux

[Shokan]

Big surprise there...

[Liquor Dealer]

A White House spokesman said Friday that a portion of the still-classified report is being taken out of context of the entire document's conclusions, which match what the Bush administration argued all along.

"The entire report paints a different picture than the selective quotes would lead you to believe," said Michael Anton, a spokesman with the White House's National Security Council . "The entire report is consistent with what the president was saying at the time."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88767,00.html

[Dragonlich]

Dutch TV reports that the document says that there is no reliable evidence that Iraq is building *new* WMDs, *AND* it is likely they still have them.

We could also say there's no reliable evidence they're NOT building new WMDs, thanks to Saddam's refusal to cooperate fully with the UN inspections. Given their history, it is indeed likely they still have them - after all, a lot of WMDs were "missing".

[Dilbert1234567]

"What's been reported is accurate"

What has been reported is that there was no evidence showing that saddam and the iraq government was making WMD, no evidence that they could strike us in 40 Min, no evidence that they had 500 tons of chemical Agent

How the hell could this be out of contex?

[seretogis]

Originally posted by Dilbert1234567
"What's been reported is accurate"

What has been reported is that there was no evidence showing that saddam and the iraq government was making WMD, no evidence that they could strike us in 40 Min, no evidence that they had 500 tons of chemical Agent

How the hell could this be out of contex?

Read the two posts directly above yours, Dilbert.

[4thTimeLucky]

Classified, classified, classified.

The CIA and MI6 would like to apologise for the inconvenience currently being caused to Justice, Truth and Democracy. Even though the Iraq regime has been removed we remain unable to reveal the nature of our classified material, because it has been marked classified. Furthermore we are concerned that it may lead to reprisals against key agents and persons mentioned in the reports. We are particularly concerned for the electoral saffety of Messrs. Bush and Blair, who have been of great service to the CIA in the preparation for this war and who put their trust in the Intelligence Services and deserve our continued protection.

Normal service will be resumed.... at some point.

[Liquor Dealer]

The electoral safety of Blair may be in question. The candidate who can beat Bush in 2004 hasn't been born yet. I don't claim to be nearly as smart as some of you apparently are but I am literate - unless you are reading different news than what I am seeing (below) I don't see where you are getting most of you fire and brimstone from.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88767,00.html
WASHINGTON — Senior Defense Department officials intend to declassify and release a defense intelligence report from last September that said agents could not prove Iraq had ongoing chemical or biological weapons facilities, officials told Fox News on Friday.

The report could be released as early as this weekend.

The classified report, revealed to senators on Friday, was completed as the administration stepped up efforts to persuade the United Nations that Iraq's weapons programs were a menace and the country should be disarmed immediately.

Critics say the findings add fuel to claims that the Bush administration hyped the menacing nature of Iraq to justify war.

An official said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (search) approved the release of the report, and the Pentagon is now working out how to deal with photographs and other aspects of the report that might suggest how the United States obtained some of the information.

"Part of this problem is our obsession with classification," the official said.

Officials say the text of the report is not regarded as controversial and will support U.S. contentions that a body of evidence existed supporting U.S. assertions that Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs were real.

"We want to get it out because it will show there was plenty of evidence to suggest they had weapons," a senior official told Fox News. "It refers to intelligence evidence that the Iraqis were moving things around in preparation for a coming war. You don't move things around and disperse them if you don't have them."

[4thTimeLucky]

The fire and brimstone (though I would associate that more with the religious right than the liberal left) comes from this line:

"agents could not prove Iraq had ongoing chemical or biological weapons facilities"

Seeing a country "moving things round" is not an adequate excuse for going to war. Certainly not for going to war without Security Council authorisation.

IMHO the war would have been illegal and wrong regardless of whether America did or did not know that Iraq had WMD.
BUT if the US knew for certain that there were WMDs and they were a genuine secruity threat, then I can at least say that their motives were good even if their actions were wrong.
HOWEVER if the US didn't know Iraq had WMD or, even worse, they suspected that they didn't have them, then the US not only broke international law, but they did so in a shroud of lies and for culpable reasons.

Now if WMD are found in Iraq then we will never be sure of what the US did or did not know and we will have to give them the benefit of the doubt. BUT if no WMDs are found in Iraq and we learn that there haven't been WMD for some time, then the US could not have known Iraq had them, coz they didn't, and the US and UK should/will be in a lot of trouble.

[Dilbert1234567]

here is a sample of quotes (in order) from Bush on whether or not iraq has WMD and how deefinitive the Knowlage of there Weapons Program is.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

at this time, the clasified document states that there is no hard evidence, just 'maybes', but bush drones right on with THEY ARE expanding...

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

Iraq Has Strockpiles of weapons, and is rebuilding its capabilities (so we know where they are rebuilding?)

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

even the IAEA said the aluminum toobing excuse was bull shit

we also have Photographs of the locations where they are rebuilding, if we know where they are why cant we find them, we can watch the 24 hours a day if we wanted to.

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

you cant just destroy 500 tons of agent in a little more than a month and leave no traces does any one know how much 500 tons of sarin acualy is? Its Just Shy of 15000 Cubic Feet of substance (14695.83 cubic feet).

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003

No Doubt, none at all


(note all quotes are from CNN)

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
...

IMHO the war would have been illegal and wrong regardless of whether America did or did not know that Iraq had WMD.
BUT if the US knew for certain that there were WMDs and they were a genuine secruity threat, then I can at least say that their motives were good even if their actions were wrong.
HOWEVER if the US didn't know Iraq had WMD or, even worse, they suspected that they didn't have them, then the US not only broke international law, but they did so in a shroud of lies and for culpable reasons.

Now if WMD are found in Iraq then we will never be sure of what the US did or did not know and we will have to give them the benefit of the doubt. BUT if no WMDs are found in Iraq and we learn that there haven't been WMD for some time, then the US could not have known Iraq had them, coz they didn't, and the US and UK should/will be in a lot of trouble.

How shall I put this delicately...

1) The war was not illegal and wrong. The legal bit is just like the discussion about God: both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. There is no set of *fixed* international laws, and thus the war wasn't illegal. I can argue that resolution 1441 speaks of "serious consequences"; and because war is certainly a serious consequence, 1441 was enough to start the war. The other side can argue that "serious consequences" does not mean war (which would be "all means necessary"), and that 1441 does *not* allow war. Technically speaking, both arguments would be correct.

To me, the war also wasn't wrong, because of the many mass graves we're finding these days; how can it be wrong to topple a murderous dictator? Oh, and don't give me that nonsense about other dictators not being attacked, because that's irrelevant to the morality of this war. After all, would you suggest the police should not arrest any murderers just because they cannot catch them all? Removing a murderous dictator is a GOOD act, no matter how you twist and turn the discussion.

2) Iraq had WMDs; that is a fact. Saddam and friends spend years producing chemical and biological weapons, and they've used them before, even on their own people. Iraq had to prove they did not have these weapons anymore, and failed to do so; given the fact that UN inspectors themselves indicated a lot of WMDs were missing, it is not unreasonable to assume Iraq still had them.

3) The US did NOT suspect Iraq had no WMDs, and the declassified report never said that. It said that the CIA and such couldn't find any credible proof that Iraq was *producing* new WMDs. That does not mean they weren't producing it after all, and it certainly doesn't mean that Iraq have no remaining stockpiles of nerve gas hidden away. In fact, given that Iraq had not provided any evidence that this large cache of WMDs had been destroyed, and given the fact that Iraq had lied about their forbidden weapons on numerous occasions, one can only assume these weapons were still around.

4) If no WMDs are found, that does not mean they weren't there, and it doesn't even mean they don't exist... It simply means we haven't found any *yet*. And even if there are no WMDs around anymore because Iraq had indeed destroyed all of their weapons years ago, the US would *still* be right in attacking: Iraq should have provided *evidence* of this destruction. After all, without evidence, one cannot know for sure that the WMDs are gone. One rumor or bit of misinterpreted intelligence info would be enough to make the US doubt Saddam's story.

[Dilbert1234567]

Yes Saddam Had WMD, we GAVE them to him in the 80's, we Know he HAD them, the question was Does He Still Have them and If he Does, Do they Pose an Immediate Threat To our National Security.

[debaser]

Look, lets get real for a second.

1. We know he had the stuff because we kept the receipts. The US sold Iraq a good portion of the material in question during the 80's.

2. It was Iraqs responsibility under the terms of the '91 ceasefire to account for all of said material.

3. Iraq could not or would not do that. If it was destroyed, it was their responsibility to show proof of that destruction. If it was sold to another power, it was their responsibility to account for that. Such is the price of remaining in power once you have lost a war.

4. Iraq failed to account for the material we know they had (see #1). Therefor they were in breach of the '91 ceasefire, nevermind the multiple UN resolutions that followed.


This being said, I personally think the entire WMD thing was a red herring. The real purpose behind this war was far more important than WMD, oil or freedom (but that is the substance for another thread).

[Dragonlich]

Contrary to what *some people* seem to think, the US did NOT give Saddam his chemical weapons.

- German companies build a couple of chemical weapon factories in Iraq, which allowed Saddam to make these himself (and boy, did he make them...).

- French companies build a nuclear plant in Iraq, which was bombed into oblivion by the Israelis.

- The US gave Saddam some samples of biological agents, but that's it.

- France and Russia supplied most of Saddam's weapons.

Just because everyone you know says something doesn't mean it's true, you know...

[debaser]

Originally posted by Dragonlich


- The US gave Saddam some samples of biological agents, but that's it.

And the raw components to make more. The samples are the most crucial part in the process, without them all the labs and material in the world aren't going to avail you anything.

Just because everyone you know says something doesn't mean it's true, you know...

[4thTimeLucky]

Dragonlich

1) Yes, the legal situation situation may never be resolved. Legal experts have supported both sides of the argument. My own personal assesment of those arguments is that the US and UK most definitely broke the spirit of the law and probably the letter of the law too. But I don't think there is much more we can say on the legal issue other than that we fall on different sides of the fance. But I can offer you a link to a very interesting mock trial set up by the BBC's Today Programme. It seems very fair and is worth listening to if you have the time.

Was it wrong? Does the 'selective policeman' argument stand up? Again, my answer to the first and (to some degree) second question is Yes.
@ I believe it was wrong because it defied the UN in an act of raw American power and international vigilante justice. There were other options open that would have saved the thousands of lives that the war took and would have supported rather than undermined the good work of the UN. The justification given by the coalition (and the only legally acceptable one) was that there was an imminent (45 minutes, said Blair) threat to the security of the world. We are now seeing that that was probably nonsense.
@ As for the 'selective policeman' I have two points. Firstly, America is not an international policeman, it is an international citizen and therefore any justice it enacts will be vigilante justice. Secondly, if a policeman consistently shows a selectivity in which criminals they pursue and which they do not, then one must ask whether the policeman is not acting from alterior motives and is abusing their power.

2) Yes they held WMDs once and yes they were being evasive about compliance with a UN resolution. The same applies to Israel and a whole host of nations. "Reasonable assumptions" are not enough to wage war and sacrifice thousands of lives. You need evidence.

3) "you can assume". See (2) and Dilbert's post.

4) How long do we wait? Three months, six months, a year, five years? I have no doubt that given long enough they will "find" something in Iraq. But remember that you and I were told that there was a serious, imminent threat to our national security and that is why we had to, and legally could, risk our troops lives invading another country. How serious a threat could it have been to have left so little trace? Yes, I know. Iraq is bigger than France. But note that weapons inspectors can detect particles at the nanogram level. To paraphrase the words of one inspector, "if WMDs have ever been here, we'll know about it". And still we are turning up nothing but three dodgy trucks.

[Dilbert1234567]

Originally posted by Dragonlich
- The US gave Saddam some samples of biological agents, but that's it.

we suplied the means to create the Agents, there for we gave him the WMD, i dont see how you are trying to say we did not give them the WMD.

[Dilbert1234567]

There is no set of *fixed* international laws

what do you mean no international laws, are you like the Bush administration and forgeting about the UN, htey have Tons of international laws. 2 of which the administration broke by attacking iraq

[suviko]

Hands up: who is suprised to hear there wasn't that much proof of bio weapons or nukes as was hinted? Who is amazed to hear that the costs of the war operation were hugely underestimated?


....

Yeah, thought so.



Dilbert1234567:
You don't now understand how this works! USA went against UN's opinion and attacked Iraq to make the iraqians obey international laws & UN..

[reconmike]

Resoultion 1441 nuff said

[seretogis]

Originally posted by suviko
Hands up: who is suprised to hear there wasn't that much proof of bio weapons or nukes as was hinted? Who is amazed to hear that the costs of the war operation were hugely underestimated?

Who is surprised that the Democratic cries of "millions of Americans will die in this war!" couldn't have been farther from the truth?

[suviko]

I am not US citizen, so wouldn't know about that.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by suviko
I am not US citizen, so wouldn't know about that.

edit: Nevermind, I'll let someone else deal with this one.

[Dilbert1234567]

Originally posted by seretogis
Who is surprised that the Democratic cries of "millions of Americans will die in this war!" couldn't have been farther from the truth?

i dont think any democrat said there would be millions of causaties, but the pentagon expected them, they bought 70,000 body bags befor teh war (thats 70,000 extra)

and second 1441 realy doesn't say that much, have you acualy read it? it does notsay we should attack iraq if they do not comply, it says

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

Recallingall its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling alsoits resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizingthe threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recallingthat its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recallingthat its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploringthe fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring furtherthat Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploringthe absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring alsothat the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recallingthat in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determinedto ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recallingthat the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Notingthe letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq’s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting furtherthe letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirmingthe commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

Determinedto secure full compliance with its decisions,

Actingunder Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub- components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

[reconmike]

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);


If I am reading this correctly, this states that Iraq was in violation of a cease fire from 1991.

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by Dilbert1234567
we suplied the means to create the Agents, there for we gave him the WMD, i dont see how you are trying to say we did not give them the WMD.

I am not saying the US didn't give Iraq WMDs. I am saying that many other countries gave Iraq WMDs too, and that the US was only a small supplier.

Somehow, many people seem to "forget" about the other countries, and turn the whole situation into a scenario where the US gave Saddam *all* his WMDs. This is then used in discussions to somehow make it seem less evil of Saddam to have used them: after all, the US supplied them, therefore the US is the bad guy...

Originally posted by Dilbert1234567
what do you mean no international laws, are you like the Bush administration and forgeting about the UN, they have Tons of international laws. 2 of which the administration broke by attacking Iraq

Yes we have the UN, but the UN is not the sole arbitrator of international law. There are tons of laws indeed, but many of them conflict with other laws, or are so vague that anyone can use them for their own ends.

The whole 1441 discussion is a perfect example: what are "serious consequences"? Any reasonable person must at least admit that war is a serious consequence; therefore 1441 allows war. That is the letter of the law for you.

The spirit of the law might say that in 1991, Saddam pledged to give up his WMDs, and in 2003, he still hadn't fully complied; this situation was made worse by sanctions, which were taking a terrible toll on his population, but didn't weaken Saddam's regime at all (hence the news now about the "sea of oil" Iraq floats on, which makes sanctions useless.)

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Dragonlich

...

Was it wrong? Does the 'selective policeman' argument stand up? Again, my answer to the first and (to some degree) second question is Yes.
@ I believe it was wrong because it defied the UN in an act of raw American power and international vigilante justice. There were other options open that would have saved the thousands of lives that the war took and would have supported rather than undermined the good work of the UN. The justification given by the coalition (and the only legally acceptable one) was that there was an imminent (45 minutes, said Blair) threat to the security of the world. We are now seeing that that was probably nonsense.
@ As for the 'selective policeman' I have two points. Firstly, America is not an international policeman, it is an international citizen and therefore any justice it enacts will be vigilante justice. Secondly, if a policeman consistently shows a selectivity in which criminals they pursue and which they do not, then one must ask whether the policeman is not acting from alterior motives and is abusing their power.

2) Yes they held WMDs once and yes they were being evasive about compliance with a UN resolution. The same applies to Israel and a whole host of nations. "Reasonable assumptions" are not enough to wage war and sacrifice thousands of lives. You need evidence.

...

4) How long do we wait? Three months, six months, a year, five years? I have no doubt that given long enough they will "find" something in Iraq. But remember that you and I were told that there was a serious, imminent threat to our national security and that is why we had to, and legally could, risk our troops lives invading another country. How serious a threat could it have been to have left so little trace? Yes, I know. Iraq is bigger than France. But note that weapons inspectors can detect particles at the nanogram level. To paraphrase the words of one inspector, "if WMDs have ever been here, we'll know about it". And still we are turning up nothing but three dodgy trucks.

Was it wrong? It defied the UN, which was obviously (to me) a bunch of bickering politicians, all looking at their own agendas, and all interested in maintaining the status-quo, which was not acceptable to the US. Other options were tried since '91, and had failed - Saddam would not have left, leaving his citizens in the same situation they were in before. Again: removing a dictator is GOOD, no matter how you twist and turn it.

The policeman: if the US is not the policeman, who is? The UN? They have shown themselves to be a policeman unable to deal with any criminals at all. They aren't the police either. Someone has to stand up and *do* something once in a while, because the UN certainly wasn't doing anything in this instance. Let's say there is *no* policeman at all, and we're all at the mercy of other countries, some of which are on our side, while others are not.

WMDs: don't drag Israel into this discussion, because they have nothing to do with it. Iraq was asked to disarm, and *prove* it in the '91 cease-fire agreements. They did not do so, and thus the US was justified in attacking. Furthermore, sacrificing thousands of lives to save millions of other lives is a reasonable choice, especially if there were no other ways of removing Saddam from power. Why would *we* need to proof anything at all when Iraq clearly didn't proof their side of the story? Technically speaking, Iraq was in breach of the cease-fire agreements, and therefore Iraq restarted the war...

Time to wait: How long would we have waited for UN inspectors to find things? If Hans Blix and friends (who did some great work, by the way) had been allowed to continue their search, the end result would likely have been the same as before. Iraq would have claimed they had cooperated, while the inspectors had reasonable doubts. This would have dragged on forever. Oh, and inspectors may be able to detect particles, but not when those particles are hundreds of miles away from their location because they simply don't know where to look...

Besides, are you suggesting that US soldier's lives may only be risked if the US is directly threatened militarily? I could explain the whole oil issue, with Iraq right in the middle of one of the most volatile regions on earth, on top of one of the largest stockpiles of essential resources in the world... But I'll just point at the millions of Iraqis that will now be able to lead their lives in the knowledge they won't be executed by Saddam's thugs; isn't that worth dying for? Are you so egotistical that you'd deny these people their freedom over technicalities? That line of reasoning would have prevented you from joining in the two world wars, and would have left the Korean people at the mercy of the communists... gee, thanks.

[4thTimeLucky]

For my reasons for believing that it was against the spirit and letter of the law, listen to themock trial set up by the BBC, or at least to the court's judgement at the end.

It defied the UN, which was obviously (to me) a bunch of bickering politicians, all looking at their own agendas, and all interested in maintaining the status-quo, which was not acceptable to the US.

Erm, hello? Are you trying to say that the US is not a bunch of politicians trying to maintain the status-quo? Are you really saying that its wasn't "appectable to the US" so you can just trample over the obvious general will of the UN and its member states?

The policeman: if the US is not the policeman, who is? The UN? They have shown themselves to be a policeman unable to deal with any criminals at all. They aren't the police either. Someone has to stand up and *do* something once in a while, because the UN certainly wasn't doing anything in this instance. Let's say there is *no* policeman at all, and we're all at the mercy of other countries, some of which are on our side, while others are not.

No, lets not say that.
The UN Security Council (or those they appoint) are the policeman/sherif of the world. It is elected (with the exception of the permenant five) to act as sherif by the rest of the international community. It runs the international court (ICJ) and is the only organisation with the power to legitimately use state level force in conditions other than self defence.
And yes the five permenant members have the right to veto action. That safeguard is put in their to prevent conflict between the 'big five'. In fact since the mid-80s the US has used its veto more than any of them - and mostly over issues relating to the Middle East.

I could explain the whole oil issue, with Iraq right in the middle of one of the most volatile regions on earth, on top of one of the largest stockpiles of essential resources in the world... But I'll just point at the millions of Iraqis that will now be able to lead their lives in the knowledge they won't be executed by Saddam's thugs; isn't that worth dying for? Are you so egotistical that you'd deny these people their freedom over technicalities? That line of reasoning would have prevented you from joining in the two world wars, and would have left the Korean people at the mercy of the communists... gee, thanks.

This seems to say it all. The security threat was oil (or something similar), but the cover was humanitarian intervention. And that is precisely why we have the UN and the UN Charter. To prevent states using humanitarian intervention (which could be used as an excuse to go to war in dozens of states) as a cover for less acceptable motives (fuelling their SUVs).
BUT there *are* real humanitarion disasters in the world. So what do you do about those? Well, it is set out in the UN Charter: Any state can bring a case to the UN and then they will vote on whether it is a genuine case that deserves intervention or not. Then if it is, they will intervene. What you do not do is charge straight on in there, only to find that you are in the midst of a messy regime change that you don't have the mandate or skills to handle.

My line of reasoning would not have led to two world wars and the Communist take over of south Korea. In fact I might argue that yours would. Why? Because the UN and its Charter were created precisely to prevent another world war ever occuing again. Its guiding principle - the true spirit of the law, which the US broke - is that war is a disaster that must be averted at any cost and must only be waged (a) as a *very last* resort and (b) with the agreement of the international community (through the Security Council). The US seems to think that its military is so strong and its moral compass so true, that it can ignore the part about *very last resort* and make war and the threat of it, one of its main foreign policy tools.
And then we have Korea. Have you fogotten that intevention in Korea was done under a UN mandate and under the UN flag?
Now lets try and think of an Asian war that wasn't conducted under a UN flag. Hmm, Vietnam?

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Erm, hello? Are you trying to say that the US is not a bunch of politicians trying to maintain the status-quo? Are you really saying that its wasn't "acceptable to the US" so you can just trample over the obvious general will of the UN and its member states?

I am not saying the US is perfect, but do agree with the line of reasoning of the Bush administration. The UN had no obvious general will. It had an obvious general unwillingness to enforce it's own resolutions because they feared the consequences. If the US then *is* willing to enforce the rules, I accept that.

No, lets not say that.
The UN Security Council (or those they appoint) are the policeman/sheriff of the world. It is elected (with the exception of the permanent five) to act as sheriff by the rest of the international community. It runs the international court (ICJ) and is the only organization with the power to legitimately use state level force in conditions other than self defense.
And yes the five permanent members have the right to veto action. That safeguard is put in their to prevent conflict between the 'big five'. In fact since the mid-80s the US has used its veto more than any of them - and mostly over issues relating to the Middle East.

The UN security council has only allowed TWO wars to be fought in it's name. It has ignored many situations where military force might have produced a solution, and has had a tendency to ignore problems until they grow out of control, only to "keep the peace" afterwards. Had the UN actually done something when Serbia attacked Croatia, the whole Bosnian war might have been avoided. That is only one example of how the UN cannot deal with everyday world problems. The UN does nothing but talk, discuss and compromise. Sometimes you *cannot* compromise for fear of losing all your credibility.

The US has indeed used it's veto more than any other member, often to safe Israel from biased resolutions entered by the many hostile Arab states around it. If you want to see an example of how other big members abuse the UN, take a look at the whole China-Taiwan issue...

This seems to say it all. The security threat was oil (or something similar), but the cover was humanitarian intervention. And that is precisely why we have the UN and the UN Charter. To prevent states using humanitarian intervention (which could be used as an excuse to go to war in dozens of states) as a cover for less acceptable motives (fueling their SUVs).
BUT there *are* real humanitarian disasters in the world. So what do you do about those? Well, it is set out in the UN Charter: Any state can bring a case to the UN and then they will vote on whether it is a genuine case that deserves intervention or not. Then if it is, they will intervene. What you do not do is charge straight on in there, only to find that you are in the midst of a messy regime change that you don't have the mandate or skills to handle.

Funny. I did NOT say that it was about oil for SUVs. The reasons for this war were many, with oil being one of them (and probably a minor reason...) Oil is a valuable resource, and without it, the world economy would collapse. This makes an unstable regime in the middle of an oil-rich area a severe security threat to the entire world. That has nothing to do with SUVs, but everything with my economic future, as well as yours. Imagine what would have happened if Saddam had been allowed to take over the entire middle-east in '91. He would have controlled most of the world's oil supplies, and could have blackmailed us into submission.

And as I already said, the UN has only allowed TWO wars to be fought, when many more might have been warranted. And as Bosnia shows, the UN is also pretty bad at handling regime change... (Besides, it has only been a few weeks since the end of the war, what did you expect to happen in Iraq had the UN attacked? A stable government does not appear out of thin air, you know; there is ALWAYS a period of transition and anarchy.)

My line of reasoning would not have led to two world wars and the Communist take over of south Korea. In fact I might argue that yours would. Why? Because the UN and its Charter were created precisely to prevent another world war ever occurring again. Its guiding principle - the true spirit of the law, which the US broke - is that war is a disaster that must be averted at any cost and must only be waged (a) as a *very last* resort and (b) with the agreement of the international community (through the Security Council). The US seems to think that its military is so strong and its moral compass so true, that it can ignore the part about *very last resort* and make war and the threat of it, one of its main foreign policy tools.
And then we have Korea. Have you forgotten that intervention in Korea was done under a UN mandate and under the UN flag?
Now lets try and think of an Asian war that wasn't conducted under a UN flag. Hmm, Vietnam?

Again you put words in my mouth; I did not say that your line of reasoning would have LED to the world wars. I said that line of reasoning would have prevented the US from JOINING IN the wars. That would have meant that Germany would most likely have won both of them. The Korea war has the same problem: by the line of reasoning of technicalities above human lives, the US would not have fought the Korean war, and the communists would have won.

There is no spirit of the law. There is no international law. There is only a set of agreements that can support any claim from anyone. What you seem to forget, is that international "law" exists because countries agree that these laws are beneficial to them. When one country (the US) then becomes more powerful than others, it can basically dictate it's terms to the rest of the world. That may not be a nice idea, but it's a simple fact of life. You can be glad that the US is a relatively *good* country, because most other potential super-powers (China, Russia) would have abused their power on a much larger scale. Most previous super-powers (Roman empire, Ottomans, British) did...

[4thTimeLucky]

There is no spirit of the law. There is no international law. There is only a set of agreements that can support any claim from anyone. What you seem to forget, is that international "law" exists because countries agree that these laws are beneficial to them. When one country (the US) then becomes more powerful than others, it can basically dictate it's terms to the rest of the world. That may not be a nice idea, but it's a simple fact of life.

There IS an international law in the same way that there is a US Constitution and US law.

History of America: In the US a few founding fathers established a Charter (Constitution) which has governed the USA ever since. It did not have every states support/involvement at the time, but it had validity nonetheless. Then the people elected governments who passed laws within that Constitutional Framework to flesh things out. If the laws were broken then you could be taken to the US Court.

History of the UN: A few founding fathers established a Charter which has governed the world ever since. It did not have every states support/involvement at the time, but it had validity nonetheless. Then the member states directly passed laws within the UN to flesh things out. They also ected reprsentatives to the Security Council. If the laws were broken then you could be taken to the ICJ or face economic sanctions or war.

International law is codified and signed by those under it. The law doesn't just "support any claim from anyone". There are courts to preside over it and there are measures that can be taken to enforce it.

Yes the laws exist because we (including the US) have agreed they are beneficial to us and everyone else. Law is one of the cornerstones of civilization and society - though America seems to forget that. However *all* the laws in *every* democratic state, including America, exist because the people (or their elected representatives) have agreed they are beneficial. If the people en-masse do not support the laws then a change of government, through elections or revolution, and a change of laws will occur. BUT if only one or a few people do not like the laws then they tend to simply use their power and wealth to abuse them, and when this occurs we do not praise them for standing up against the law and the general will. Instead we criticise them and point to their abuse of power and the effects it has for undermining the law.
If one person (be they a president, a general or a president of Microsoft) becomes significantly more powerful than all others is it okay for them to bend the law to their wishes or break it if they feel fit? Of course it isn't. And the same applies to international law.

You can be glad that the US is a relatively *good* country

This is what many positions seem to boil down to. America is 'good' so we can break laws and conduct our own justice, because we would only do what is right. The best form of rule is by a wise, benevolent dictator - so what is wrong with wise, good America throwing its weight around? America just can't see what all the fuss is about. They don't understand why the world is biting the hand that feeds it.

The problem is that you and America think that you are good, and that means nothing.
France thinks they're good. Germany think they're good. Egypt thinks they're good. Iran thinks they're good. Palestine thinks they're good. Israel thinks they're good. China thinks they're good.
What you need is some form of less subjective assessment and *that* is the UN and international law.

America has proved time and time and time again that it can do terrible damage by doing (and I am giving it a huge benefit of the doubt) what it thinks is best.
You put dictators into power left , right and centre . You support undemocratic organisations one year and then try and destroy them the next.
Even in Iraq, the very country you now say you know what is best for, you used Saddam as a CIA agent and you helped put the Ba'ath party in power - giving them a death list of hundreds of communist, opposition members who were then murdered.
To put it bluntly you have form . In fact worse than that. You not only have a form list the length of your arm, but you have very rarely intervened to for non-selfish reasons, in fact you have very rarely intervened to prevent humanitarian disasters full stop.

Is it any wonder we don't believe American leaders when they say "trust us"?
Is it any wonder we want to see some sort of international check against the power of the US?
Is it any wonder we don't want to put the fox in charge of the chicken coop?

Edit:> I have used "you" a lot here. Where i do so it is lazy shorthand for America. I don't blame any of these things on you personally or the citizens of the US. I don't want this to be personal. It is just my take on what the government of the USA has been, and still is, responsible for. Nor does my non-inclusion of what the UK has done mean that I condone it. The UK is as guilty over Iraq as the US.

[KillerYoda]

You guys have to remember, the same government that apparently didn't notice a plane flying over the Pentagon for an hour decided we had enough proof to invade Iraq. I'm not surprised at all by this.

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Edit:> I have used "you" a lot here. Where i do so it is lazy shorthand for America. I don't blame any of these things on you personally or the citizens of the US. I don't want this to be personal. It is just my take on what the government of the USA has been, and still is, responsible for. Nor does my non-inclusion of what the UK has done mean that I condone it. The UK is as guilty over Iraq as the US. [/B]

I understand that. I just hope you read my location tab: I'm not a Yankee, I'm Dutch.

Anyway... as long as the UN is *not* democratic (and it isn't), I will not trust them, nor will I respect them. To paraphrase many other people: I do not accept moral judgments from an organization that has Libya as head of it's human rights commission, which had recently nominated Iraq as head of it's disarmament commission, and which denies membership (and even entry to it's halls!) to Taiwan because China says so.

As for international law: I suspect you're no expert in the field. Neither am I. However, recently, a Dutch international law expert explained that those laws are *not* fixed and firm. They are deliberately vague and open to interpretation, and might not even be legal in the first place.

Think about it: if the US can argue it has the right to attack Iraq, it will most certainly have made sure that is indeed the case. If France argues that the US cannot attack Iraq, they will have done the same. Apparently, both sides are right. How can this be, if international law is clear?

You have to remember that the UN charter is not the only set of international laws; there are countless other agreements (laws) and treaties. In fact, any time the UN passes one of their vague resolution, it becomes part of the vast library of international laws. There is *always* some law or rule that supports your side of the argument, just like there is always a law or rule that opposes it.

Now, even if I were to accept that international law was clear, simple and just; what about the enforcement? The UN is theoretically capable of enforcing the rules. In practice, they're always dependent on the (economic/military) support of the member countries. You get a sort of ad-hoc militia (or lynch mob) every time the UN tries to enforce their rules. That is hardly the basis of realistic international law enforcement.

We all know the end result: In simple terms, the UN talks and talks, while the "criminals" can do whatever they want. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to live in a world where that is the case, especially when the "good guys" are criticized for breaking the rules when they decide to confront a "criminal".

Where is the enforcement in the case of Iraq? Sanctions were criticized for killing the Iraqi people, and they didn't even work. War wasn't an option either, according to you. What then? Do you have any other options?

By the way... just curious here: did you agree with NATO's intervention in Kosovo? That war also didn't have the UN's seal of approval, because Russia opposed. In fact, where were the peace protesters then? Could it be that many people are only opposed to the war in Iraq because 1) the US did it alone, and the US is seen as evil by many, and 2) Iraq has oil, while Kosovo does not...

[4thTimeLucky]

No I hadn't noticed the Dutch thing. My mistake.

Why I think NATOs war in Kosovo was wrong:
Please read this short Guardian article. It will give you Deja Vu.

Here is the BBC's (shortish) account of the war

- NATO did not want to pursue diplomatic or economic means of solving the problem. They wanted to jump to war (as they the collation has jumped to war in Iraq). So they gave Milosevic a set of proposals that would unacceptable to any state leader, especialy a stubborn one. These included (a) giving Kosovo a referendum and (b) allowing *NATO* troops unrestricted access into all of Yugoslavia.
He, as we thought he would, refused. So then we bombed. And we bomed some more. And we kept on bombing. But it wasn't working. Then Russia (who we had deliberately ignored) allied with Germany to send in a secret diplomatic mission. This turne out to be successful and Milosevic agreed to let UN and Russian troops jointly enter Kosovo.
Where are those two demands that proved to be deal breakers before? Nowhere. Kosovo remains a part of Yugoslavia and *UN* troops remain confined within it.
All that bombing achieved nothing beyond what could have been agreed at Rambouillet and in the end it was Russia's diplomacy that brought about a resolution and saved NATO face.

- The bombing turned 45,000 refugees into 800,000 and took three times as many lives per day as the events before it had.

- NATO got into the problems they did and caused the mass exodus they did because they refused to be patient with diplomacy and as soon as it looked like Russia might veto, they ingored the UN and went to war. In the end it was Russia and the UN that had to pick up the pieces.

Other articles:
"Kosov and the UN"
The NATO war was illegal - even the British think so
Amnesty International accuses NATO of war crimes

Some books:
Masters of the Universe: NATO's Balkans Crusade
Nato's Empty Victory
Kosovo: Contending Voices on Balkan Intervention

[Dragonlich]

4thTimeLucky, although I disagree with you, I must at least admit that you are consistent.

I'm just curious: how would you have solved the Iraqi crisis? Weapons inspections cannot go on forever, and the sanctions would have had to be lifted eventually. If there was still uncertainty about Iraq's weapons after this current round of inspections (to be expected), the sanctions could not possibly have been lifted; that would have major victory of Saddam over the UN, and it would have been a clear message to any dictator: you can ignore the UN if you do it long enough.

Frankly, I didn't see, and still don't see any other solution but war - it was not as if Saddam was willing to step down. With him remaining in power, one could never be sure Iraq would not become a threat again... And the Iraqi people would *still* be fucked.

I take it you disagree? If so, what's your take on things?

[4thTimeLucky]

Ooh, I got a smiley!

Indeed weapons inspections cannot go on forever. Nor need they.
Either he had a WMD threat or he did not.

@ IF he did NOT (and I think that current circumstances are leaning in this direction) then I grant that we could never realistically 'discover' that fact. To prove the non-existence of something is pretty much impossible. But the level of technology was such that we could have put enough pressure on Saddam that we investigated every site that the CIA said he held or produced WMDs at. Then we would have found (as we are with unlimited access) that there were neither any WMDs nor any traces of WMDs. We would have said: "Look, we've searched everywhere the intelligence agencies told us to. We've spoken to Iraqi sceintists and even repatriated some to tell us more. Still we have nothing. With such a total lack of findings [as there now is] we must conclude that there is no serious threat to the world's security."

@ IF he DID have WMD, then a thorough search of the sites the CIA listed would have found it (or traces of it) and would have meant a second Security Council vote on whether to respond with force or some other means.

Now I dislike Saddam as much you do. But I see a very clear distinction between the two justifications for war. There is security and there is humanity. So far it looks like we would have failed to get him on the security charge and any war based on that would be illegal. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't address the humanitarian issue. So.....

@ A member state should bring the case to the UN that Saddam is causing a humanitarian disaster to his own people. The UN would then debate it. Is he? Isn't he? How much is down to the sanctions? Should we be intervening in Iraq when lots of other states do worse?

What would I like to see? Well one accetable outcome of such a debate would be a decision by the UN to act under Chapter 7 to do what America has just done on its own. However, I suspect this would not occur. And as senctions have disasterously failed the Iraqi people, I suspect another tack would be used. That is not to shun Saddam and give him the tool (sanctions) to oppress his people, but instead to treat him as returned friend. Crazy? Its what we did with North Korea and besides the recent silly show of force, it has meant that thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved from starvation and the relationship kept 'cool'.

We could use the UN to invade countries with bad leaders, but war is a last resort and a crude tool. Far better is to use our combined intelligence and resources to help these countries. Saddam was once an ally and could have been a partner again. This time in helping his people, not fighting communism. Democracy will never flourish in poverty. What you need is to rebuild the Iraqi middle class and give its people prosperity. Then they will take their fate into their own hands.

Talk of an 'axis of evil' is nonsense. These are not 'evil' leaders or 'evil' states. They are merely very self interested and very ruthless. What we need to do is chanel that self interest so that it works to the benefit of the population, not against it.

[Dilbert1234567]

Originally posted by Dragonlich


Yes we have the UN, but the UN is not the sole arbitrator of international law. There are tons of laws indeed, but many of them conflict with other laws, or are so vague that anyone can use them for their own ends.

Only international law applies, our laws in the US do not apply to Iraq, we cannot just push our way of life onto them. The only laws that can rationally apply are those that are set up by the world as a whole (the UN) not but the US

Originally posted by Dragonlich


The whole 1441 discussion is a perfect example: what are "serious consequences"? Any reasonable person must at least admit that war is a serious consequence; therefore 1441 allows war. That is the letter of the law for you.

The spirit of the law might say that in 1991, Saddam pledged to give up his WMDs, and in 2003, he still hadn't fully complied; this situation was made worse by sanctions, which were taking a terrible toll on his population, but didn't weaken Saddam's regime at all (hence the news now about the "sea of oil" Iraq floats on, which makes sanctions useless.)

Series consequences could mean heavy sanctions, ostracizing them as a country, and sending in UN forces to distribute AID instead of just delivering it to the Iraq Government.

Originally posted by Dragonlich


Was it wrong? It defied the UN, which was obviously (to me) a bunch of bickering politicians, all looking at their own agendas, and all interested in maintaining the status-quo, which was not acceptable to the US. Other options were tried since '91, and had failed - Saddam would not have left, leaving his citizens in the same situation they were in before. Again: removing a dictator is GOOD, no matter how you twist and turn it.

The policeman: if the US is not the policeman, who is? The UN? They have shown themselves to be a policeman unable to deal with any criminals at all. They aren't the police either. Someone has to stand up and *do* something once in a while, because the UN certainly wasn't doing anything in this instance. Let's say there is *no* policeman at all, and we're all at the mercy of other countries, some of which are on our side, while others are not.

Just as the LAPD has no jurisdiction in Sweden, we have no Jurisdiction in the World. An LAPD officer cannot shoot a criminal in Sweden with out suffering the consequences of that action.

Originally posted by Dragonlich

WMDs: don't drag Israel into this discussion, because they have nothing to do with it. Iraq was asked to disarm, and *prove* it in the '91 cease-fire agreements. They did not do so, and thus the US was justified in attacking. Furthermore, sacrificing thousands of lives to save millions of other lives is a reasonable choice, especially if there were no other ways of removing Saddam from power. Why would *we* need to proof anything at all when Iraq clearly didn't proof their side of the story? Technically speaking, Iraq was in breach of the cease-fire agreements, and therefore Iraq restarted the war...

Iraq's cease-fire was with the UN, they were not at war with us, yes Iraq did break the cease fire but it is the UN who has juristiction over that, Not the US. further if we Knew where the weapons were why could we not just bomb them as we did in 98 and if we know where they are why cant we find them at all

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

Originally posted by Dragonlich
[B]
Time to wait: How long would we have waited for UN inspectors to find things? If Hans Blix and friends (who did some great work, by the way) had been allowed to continue their search, the end result would likely have been the same as before. Iraq would have claimed they had cooperated, while the inspectors had reasonable doubts. This would have dragged on forever. Oh, and inspectors may be able to detect particles, but not when those particles are hundreds of miles away from their location because they simply don't know where to look...

if we realy wanted to we could search iraq and find every weapon if they realy did exist, we have the tecnology we did not have the man power to do it. if we would have put more inspectors on the ground and had constant over flights we could sniff anything out. further even if we could not find them, having constant searches would divert any attention to making them to hiding them if they are hidden they can not be used.

Originally posted by Dragonlich

Besides, are you suggesting that US soldier's lives may only be risked if the US is directly threatened militarily? I could explain the whole oil issue, with Iraq right in the middle of one of the most volatile regions on earth, on top of one of the largest stockpiles of essential resources in the world... But I'll just point at the millions of Iraqis that will now be able to lead their lives in the knowledge they won't be executed by Saddam's thugs; isn't that worth dying for? Are you so egotistical that you'd deny these people their freedom over technicalities? That line of reasoning would have prevented you from joining in the two world wars, and would have left the Korean people at the mercy of the communists... gee, thanks.

What the hell do you mean it would have left us out of the 2 world wars?

Have you ever heard of the Zimmerman telegram or Pearl Harbor?


Because you probably haven’t ill explain them to you.

First, the Zimmerman telegram:
This was a telegram from Germany to Mexico, stating that if Mexico was to attack the US, to keep the US out of the war, Germany would give a portion of the US to Mexico when they conquered it this was intercepted and was one of the main reasons for going to war with Germany (Mexico did not go with the plan)

Second, Pearl Harbor:

The Japanese attacked us. we were blindsided (not really) and were bombed into joining the war

Both wars also fall into 2 of the 3 reasons that a country may go to war with another legally (UN not formed yet I know)
The Zimmerman telegram was an imminent threat to our Sovereignty and Pearl Harbor was a direct attack.

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by Dilbert1234567
Only international law applies, our laws in the US do not apply to Iraq, we cannot just push our way of life onto them. The only laws that can rationally apply are those that are set up by the world as a whole (the UN) not but the US

That would be cool, if those international laws were clear and unequivocal. They are not.

Series consequences could mean heavy sanctions, ostracizing them as a country, and sending in UN forces to distribute AID instead of just delivering it to the Iraq Government.

Yes, but serious consequences can *also* mean going to war, removing the regime and installing a new one. (I also doubt your version would work - the sanctions are useless, the ostracizing doesn't seem to work, and sending in the UN will only get them slaughtered...)

Just as the LAPD has no jurisdiction in Sweden, we have no Jurisdiction in the World. An LAPD officer cannot shoot a criminal in Sweden with out suffering the consequences of that action.

The world isn't as simple as that. There is no world policeman that actually does something, and countries are not people. Just as an example: Who will "arrest" the US for attacking Iraq?

Iraq's cease-fire was with the UN, they were not at war with us, yes Iraq did break the cease fire but it is the UN who has jurisdiction over that, Not the US. further if we Knew where the weapons were why could we not just bomb them as we did in 98 and if we know where they are why cant we find them at all

The US is part of the UN, and was the main party in the '91 coalition. They most certainly do have jurisdiction over the cease fire. And the US did *not* know exactly where the weapons were, and couldn't bomb them if they did. That would have been an act of war, which wasn't allowed by the UN, was it? Clinton did the same in '98, but apparently that was different. Clinton even launched a similar air-strikes-only war in Kosovo, which also was illegal, according to 4thTimeLucky. So, sorry, can't do that, sir.

if we really wanted to we could search Iraq and find every weapon if they really did exist, we have the technology we did not have the man power to do it. if we would have put more inspectors on the ground and had constant over flights we could sniff anything out. further even if we could not find them, having constant searches would divert any attention to making them to hiding them if they are hidden they can not be used.

It doesn't work that way. Iraq didn't cooperate with the inspections, and certainly would not have agreed to massive numbers of inspectors and constant over-flights. In theory it might sound nice, but in practice it wouldn't have happened. That's basically the end of that story; please stick to realistic options.

What the hell do you mean it would have left us out of the 2 world wars?

Have you ever heard of the Zimmerman telegram or Pearl Harbor?

Because you probably haven't ill explain them to you.

First, the Zimmerman telegram:
This was a telegram from Germany to Mexico, stating that if Mexico was to attack the US, to keep the US out of the war, Germany would give a portion of the US to Mexico when they conquered it this was intercepted and was one of the main reasons for going to war with Germany (Mexico did not go with the plan)

Second, Pearl Harbor:

The Japanese attacked us. we were blindsided (not really) and were bombed into joining the war

Both wars also fall into 2 of the 3 reasons that a country may go to war with another legally (UN not formed yet I know)
The Zimmerman telegram was an imminent threat to our Sovereignty and Pearl Harbor was a direct attack.

Actually, I did know about both events, and probably know more about them than you think. Hell, I might even know more about them than you. (/showing off mode)

The Zimmerman telegram was the *official* reason; the last straw. It was a big mistake of the Germans to send it, but wasn't that big a deal to anyone. It also wasn't a declaration of war on the US.

Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, not the Germans (duh!). It was only because the Germans declared war on the US that you attacked them; had they not done so, it would have been infinitely more difficult for Roosevelt to join the war in Europe.

Anyway... neither of these really matter. The point I was making was this: If legal technicalities about international law are more important than saving human lives and spreading democracy and freedom, then you would have been much more reluctant to fight either of these wars, even if they had been pushed upon you. (In this particular case, the Iraqi people don't seem to matter at all - all that matters is the legal wrangling about proof and international law. Oh, and if people do admit that the people matter, they always point at other countries that aren't liberated... damned if you do, damned if you don't.)

Just an example of technicalities: in WW1, Mexico could *never* have successfully attacked the US, so why would you go to war over such a silly telegram, which might even be false? Can you prove that the Germans actually send the thing, or might it have been a US conspiracy? The Lusitania was sunk by German submarines, which might have been a reason to fight, were it not for the fact that the ship was (secretly) used to transport weapons... These technicalities and doubts would have been enough to keep you out of the war.

[Sparhawk]

A small point to Dragonlich: Germany declared war on the US out of its treaty obligation to Japan. Had they not done so, we most certainly would have- FDR and the rest of the government always saw the Germans as the bigger threat.

Also, are you trying to say that the side effects of the war (i.e. saving human lives, spreading democracy and freedom) are important enough to be new justification for it (to replace original justification of threat of WMD)? There are plenty of peoples I'd like to see living in freedom and democracy, it's too bad they aren't "sitting on a sea of oil"*, otherwise something would be done about it.

*Wolfowitz

[Hotmix]

hey yall, its not our responsibility to find any proof that Iraq had WMD. It was Saddam's responsibility to prove that he destroyed the weapons and chemicals that he had already admitted to having. He did not do this and was extremely uncooperative.


Stop picking at Bush

thx