THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bill, Arguing the UN Resolutions is not why the US attacked Iraq on the last go-around. They claimed it was because of WMDs and it's eminent danger to the American People. That's what they told the American People and the world.

Without the benefit of inspections, the US had no way to verify the existence of WMD's or the lack thereof. The UN resolutions provided us with a legal right to this verification. Given Saddam's past behavior, I think it is reasonable for the Administration to suspect illegal behavior. I have not defended this administrations exaggerations or lies if you prefer, in any of my posts. Again, support for the action is not synonymous with support for the administration.

cicerone imposter wrote:

This administration then changed it to, "it's for the Iraqi People" when no WMDs were found.

This was my reason for backing the action from day one, regardless of what the administration was using to sell it.

cicerone imposter wrote:

In the mean time, the US and UK are responsible for killing over 15,000 Iraqis - most of whom were innocent men, women and children. THAT'S THE PROBLEM! Saddam and any WMD's (if they had any) were contained. Saddam was not a threat to anybody outside of Iraq.

My concerns do not begin or end with "the people outside of Iraq". The people inside Iraq are human beings and should be entitled to just as much compassion as their neighbors. Furthermore, we've recently uncovered proof that Saddam had already put a down payment for 2-stage missile technology from N Korea. This weapons delivery system is not designed to hit targets nearby. It is an ICBM.

cicerone imposter wrote:

So you're saying, because Saddam failed to live by UN Resolutions, we had the right to kill all those innocent people?

That is precisely what I am saying. I believe Saddam's continued rule would result in far more than 15,000 innocents being slaughtered. If his past behavior is indicative of future results; 15,000 is a relatively small number.

I hope you don't mind my dissecting your post. I feel somewhat hypocritical after chastising HB for doing it to me. I hope you realize my intentions are to clarify my points, not to attack you.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

from the UN cease-fire resolution:

Quote:
The Security Council: The destruction of all these weapons of mass destruction will be monitored by U.N. inspection teams and will review the sanctions periodically to determine whether they should be modified or lifted.

this is the wording accepted by the US and gives the security council sole authority for determination of compliance, ergo the US is in violation of the UN resolution it is signatory to by usurping said authority without UN sanction.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you derive from that; the UN has the sole authority. I don't believe the US ever surrendered its sovereign right to defend itself against perceived threats. I believe that either the US or the UN had the authority to decide whether the terms of the ceasefire were met. Again, I think we are at a brick wall on that issue; as I don't believe there is sufficient proof either way.

0 Replies

Something is up...

Quote:

Posted on Wed, Dec. 17, 2003
Concerns surface about Iraq timetable
By WARREN P. STROBEL, JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY and JONATHAN S. LANDAY
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - President Bush's top envoy in Iraq has told Washington that he wants as many as 1,000 additional personnel to beef up the U.S. occupation authority amid growing concern that the effort to return Iraqi sovereignty by next summer is falling far behind schedule.

The recent request by L. Paul Bremer, which is being fiercely debated by the president's aides, underscores growing alarm in some sectors of the government that Bush's exit strategy for Iraq is in trouble.

It's been plagued by a political stalemate among Iraqis over how to choose a new government, delays in assembling an Iraqi security force, shortfalls in communication and other problems.

Under the accelerated timetable agreed to last month by Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority and Iraqi leaders, an interim Iraqi parliament is supposed to be in place by May 31. It is to select an interim government by June 30, formally ending the U.S. occupation.

"Clearly, CPA is behind schedule on the accelerated timeline for handing over to the Iraqis," said one senior official.

"Jerry Bremer has put us on standby, warning that he is going to need 1,000 additional people. We are waiting to hear precisely what he needs," the official said.

He and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the request hasn't been made public and is the subject of intense debate, and because the administration's public posture is more optimistic.

Another top official said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is resisting Bremer's request, arguing that the CPA should be slimming down, not beefing up, in anticipation of the sovereignty handover.

"Rummy tells me downgrade, and I need more," a State Department official quoted Bremer as telling Secretary of State Colin Powell in recent weeks.

Bremer has asked for experts in running elections and finance, as well as people with expertise in telecommunications, this official said.

White House press officials declined to comment, referring phone calls to the Pentagon. A Pentagon spokesman didn't return a call for comment.

Senior officials said Bremer fears he doesn't have enough U.S. personnel in Iraqi government ministries and its 18 provinces, known as governates, to accomplish a smooth transfer of power.

That transfer is key to Bush's hopes of eventually withdrawing many of the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and leaving behind a stable country.

A request for 1,000 additional personnel would effectively double the size of the CPA.

Bremer and others believe additional personnel are especially needed in the governates to help organize as many as 108 caucuses that are to select members of the interim Iraqi parliament.

Bremer's plans to return power back to Iraqis have run into a major political roadblock.

The leading religious figure among Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority, Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini al Sistani, has insisted on direct elections to choose members of the interim parliament.

Bremer and many other U.S. officials believe that Iraq isn't ready for elections because there isn't time to develop accurate voter rolls and because of the possibility of fraud or violence.

Bremer and the advisory Iraqi Governing Council are exploring compromises, such as elections in some parts of Baghdad and other cities. But some officials fear that, with the deadline looming, Sistani and others will be able to hold out and force the United States to cave.

U.S. officials, including some in the CPA, privately concede that Bremer and his aides have made three crucial errors, including failing to reach out earlier to Sistani.

The other errors are the disbanding last summer of the entire Iraqi army and failing thus far to bring the Sunnis into the political process.

A recent unclassified assessment obtained by Knight Ridder cited numerous problems with the planning for the handover, particularly with strategic communications.

The assessment questioned whether Iraqi security bodies, such as police, border enforcement and customs, could be staffed up and integrated in time for the handover.

It remains unclear where additional U.S. government personnel would come from.

The Defense and State departments have wrangled since the fall of Baghdad in April over sending personnel to Iraq.

The State Department official said Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's No. 3 official, is continuing to block some people on a list submitted by State for deployment to Baghdad.

Security concerns and lack of housing have slowed the fielding of U.S. diplomats and other civilian personnel to Iraq.

Another official expressed concerns over whether Bremer's request could be met.

"We don't have 1,000 people who have any experience in that part of the world," the official said.

Source

0 Replies

Bill, I do not feel you are attacking me at all, even though I disagree with your opinions. We only have a difference of opinion on much of this subject. Just because some tyrant kills his own people, I don't feel we have any right to kill innocent men, women and children to "stop the killing." There are other options.

0 Replies

CHECK THIS OUT!!!!

Quote:

Editor's Note | It has been two years and three months since America absorbed the horrific attacks of September 11. A fight has been waged since then to determine the facts behind that terrible day: How did it happen? Why was it not stopped? The Bush administration has fought the official investigations into these attacks every step of the way, going so far as to nominate master secret-keeper Henry Kissinger to chair the investigation. They failed in this nomination, and wound up with former New Jersey Governor and fellow Republican Thomas Kean. Today, Kean has fired an incredible broadside across the bow of the White House, stating bluntly that the attacks of September 11 could have and should have been stopped, and that blame for this failure rests squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration. - wrp

Go to Original

9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable
CBS News

For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.

"This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean.

"As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen."

Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.

"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.

To find out who failed and why, the commission has navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena to gain access to the president's top-secret daily briefs. Those documents may shed light on one of the most controversial assertions of the Bush administration - that there was never any thought given to the idea that terrorists might fly an airplane into a building.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

"How is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four New Jersey widows who lobbied Congress and the president to appoint the commission.

The widows want to know why various government agencies didn't connect the dots before Sept. 11, such as warnings from FBI offices in Minnesota and Arizona about suspicious student pilots.

"If you were to tell me that two years after the murder of my husband that we wouldn't have one question answered, I wouldn't believe it," Breitweiser said.

Kean admits the commission also has more questions than answers.

Asked whether we should at least know if people sitting in the decision-making spots on that critical day are still in those positions, Kean said, "Yes, the answer is yes. And we will."

Kean promises major revelations in public testimony beginning next month from top officials in the FBI, CIA, Defense Department, National Security Agency and, maybe, President Bush and former President Clinton.

-------

SOURCE

0 Replies

Glad to hear that CI I understand completely that my points are hard to swallow. If separated; I appear to like the idea of war and the killing of innocents. If you take them as a whole, I hope it is obvious that it is merely my belief that war is sometimes the lesser of two evils. I do not permit heinous acts to take place in front of me. If I can help, I feel it is my responsibility to do so. I feel the same way about my country and feel far more shame when we don't get involved than when we do. We have the power. We have the economic resources. We have the military might. If only we had the desire, I believe we could free millions of men, women and children from the chains of their oppressors. I don't mean to project a lack of compassion for the innocent victims of war. I simply believe that inaction will cause more suffering than action. It's the ugliest equation I've ever pondered, but when it comes to countries like Iraq and N Korea, I believe the collateral damage is the lesser of two evils. I know that most disagree with my conclusions, but do understand that in the end, I desire peace just like everyone else. I just don't believe it is possible, while turning a blind eye to crimes against humanity. Sometimes you have to kill the killer. Of course; that's just my opinion I could be wrong.

0 Replies

Well, Churchill let Coventry be bombed rather than let the Germans know their enigma signals were being intercepted. Some decisions are not easy, and even hindsight isn't 20/20, but Germany was defeated for one reason or another.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

Well, Churchill let Coventry be bombed rather than let the Germans know their enigma signals were being intercepted. Some decisions are not easy, and even hindsight isn't 20/20, but Germany was defeated for one reason or another.

I'm not sure that this is scientifically proved:
some historians say, Churchill knew of the raid in advance and intentionally allowed Coventry to be bombed so that the Germans would not realize that their Enigma secret code had been broken. Others argue that the British had no advance warning.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

from the UN cease-fire resolution:

Quote:
The Security Council: The destruction of all these weapons of mass destruction will be monitored by U.N. inspection teams and will review the sanctions periodically to determine whether they should be modified or lifted.

this is the wording accepted by the US and gives the security council sole authority for determination of compliance, ergo the US is in violation of the UN resolution it is signatory to by usurping said authority without UN sanction.

Further clarification: You are quoting the terms of Iraq's official ceasefire with the UN. Prior to this, there was a period of unofficial ceasefire, presumably with the US, in which we demanded such a document be agreed to by Iraq. Unless there is some specific words in that document that specifically state the US is giving total control to the UN; we would still have every right enforce the conditions we set with Iraq in the first place. I believe the two coincide, but are not necessarily the same thing. Again; this is all conjecture on my part, as I am not an expert on international law. The international community itself seems unable to figure this one out. I still think we need to agree to disagree on this particular point in the debate.

0 Replies

nimh

capital punishment. I can't remember exactly what I said but what I meant was that its use or not is some measure of a civilised society and in this context I find it no surprise at all that the United States still employs it.

george

As Britain never made a case for regime change, Lord Goldsmith the Attorney General fell back on the argument that the war was legal under UK law because we were threatened by Iraqi WMD. So British troops were acting legally to disarm Iraq by force, and can legally remain in Iraq whilst the hunt for them goes on.

Walter

Coventry...I will have to do some digging on this. I seem to remember that we found a way of distorting the Luftwaffe navigation beams so effectively moving the bomb drop zone. It was in an effort to save vital aircraft engine facilities that we allowed certain other targets to be hit, thus keeping secret the fact that the German beam system was compromised.

0 Replies

If i recall correctly from Churchill's The Second World War (straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak), he states that in order to protect London from the V-weapons, the German agents who had mostly all been rounded up at the beginning of the war, were used to feed false targeting information to the Germans. In sending messages that the v-bombs were falling west of the targets, the "re-targeting" had them falling farther east, and missing London--to the obvious damage of Surrey and Kent. However one looks at it, or what one believes, people like Churchill are faced with tough choices in such matters, and it is easy to second guess them from a comfortable chair a half-century later.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

...As Britain never made a case for regime change, Lord Goldsmith the Attorney General fell back on the argument that the war was legal under UK law because we were threatened by Iraqi WMD. So British troops were acting legally to disarm Iraq by force, and can legally remain in Iraq whilst the hunt for them goes on.

This argument, however useful it may be with respect to some arcane feature of British law, does not bear on the rightness of the action from the perspective of international law and strategy. There, other, excellentt arguments come into play. Your Prime Minister, Tony Blair has laid them out quite clearly and fully made the case for the rightness of the intervention.

0 Replies

Set,

Yes that was certainly done. Places like Croydon were vitually flattened by V1 flying bombs to save central London. But that was later in the war. I was thinking of this:-

BEAM BENDERS
No.80 (Signals) Wing 1940 -1945
by Laurie Brettingham

For the first time, the reclusive endeavours of the RAF's specialist 80 Wing, based at Radlett in Hertfordshire, appear in print in the form of a dedicated history.

The wing was involved in the delicate art of deception; charting and calibrating German navigation beams, and without raising suspicions, 'bending' them - sending bombers off course away from cities and strategic points.

Much of the work was tedious and all of it 'behind closed doors' but countless lives were saved and the contribution of 80 Wing to the outcome of the war cannot be overstated.

and from http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jeremy_condliffe/folks13.htm

The Germans used radio beams, in the forms of dots and dashes, which
merged into a continuous note when an aircraft was on its target, and could
release its bombs. When the bombers passed over Mow Cop on their way to
Manchester and particularly Liverpool, the Mow Cop station interfered
with those dots and dashes, so that they gave the bomber crews the wrong
signal. "In effect, we bent the beams", Jim explained.

The result was that the bomber unknowingly released its deadly cargo
away from its target, hopefully over open countryside, where no-one would
be hurt and no damage inflicted, at least, not on our war effort.Jim says
one of their biggest successes they had was when bombers were so wildly
misled by the Mow Cop signals that they continued to Ireland and dropped
their bombs there!.

and from

http://www.halisp.net/listserv/manowar/0214.html

R. V. Jones, CH, CB, CBE, FRS, wartime intelligence scientist and
Professor
of Natural Philosophy, University of Aberdeen, 1946-81, died in Aberdeen
on
December 17 aged 86. He was born on September 27, 1911.
When, in June 1940, an obscure Air Ministry scientific officer, R. V.
Jones, was told to report to the Cabinet Room where Churchill was
convening
a meeting, he at first thought that his summons was a joke. Although he
had
been working for some months on Germany's innovative aerial weaponry
Jones
had no idea that he and his research had become a matter of such
pressing
concern at so high a level. But the new Prime Minister - a man of very
different kidney from his predecessor - was alive to the vital
importance
of winning the scientific war at all costs. Abandoning all
considerations
of rank in that august company, he invited this extraordinarily
young-looking man to tell the War Cabinet everything he knew about the
German capability to bomb Britain.
Jones explained to the meeting that Germany had perfected techniques by
which its bombers could fly along radio beams to bomb targets with
hitherto
unimagined precision. Britain would be vulnerable to pinpoint attack in
any
weather and at night. This was at a time when RAF attacks conducted in
such
conditions were missing their targets by a margin of several miles.
"When
Dr Jones had finished," recorded Churchill, "there was a general air of
incredulity". As a result Jones was given all the resources he needed to
develop ways of combating this menace, and the bomber was bested.
Churchill
revelled in what he called "The Wizard War" and always acknowledged
Jones
with gratitude as "the man who broke the bloody beams".

0 Replies

Fortunately, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern irland is neither the law nor it's chief interpreter there - for the first, it's the Parliament, for the second still the Attorney General. (The British attorney general and his assistant, the solicitor general, represent the crown in the courts and are legal advisers to the sovereign and the sovereign's ministers. The attorney general is a member of the government but not of the cabinet. He is consulted on the drafting of all government bills, advises government departments on matters of law, and has a wide range of court-related duties.)

0 Replies

Good lookin' out, Steve, thank you . . .

0 Replies

Blair is a lawyer himself but not of course in the office of pm. If there is one thing that irks any government its being shown to have acted contrary to the law. So Blair always promised any action Britain took would be compatible with UK and International law (although he went a bit quiet on the International law front after the failure to get the so called second resolution).

The Attorney General is appointed by the pm. Its his job to ensure the government acts within the law. In the case of Iraq there was a great deal of fretting as to how an attack could be justified. But Goldsmith did his stuff and eventually pronounced that Government policy was indeed legal. (Surprise surprise). But fortunately for the government, by custom and practice, the detailed deliberations of the Attorney General in matters such as this are never made public. There are calls for disclosure in this case (unlikely) because most lawyers who know their stuff seem to think the government's legal arguments to be risible.

"I disagree fundamentally (with Goldsmith). This cumulative backwards argument is very suspect," Guy Goodwin-Gill, professor of international law at Oxford University, told Reuters.

"The Security Council has already decided that Iraq should be disarmed under international supervision, they have not decided that Iraq should be the object of attack at the whim of any individual member states."

But we are raking over old coals here. What's done is done and now we have to make the best of it. In this respect I don't think the public humiliation of Saddam helps.

0 Replies

c-span .............. discussion of religious implications in Iraq ... for the interested.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

But we are raking over old coals here. What's done is done and now we have to make the best of it. In this respect I don't think the public humiliation of Saddam helps.

Lot's of good points Steve, but I do think the public humiliation of Saddam helps. It sends a message to others like him; "F with the bull, you get the horn. If we are really trying to send a message to terrorists, and those who harbor them, I want it to be as loud and as clear as possible.

0 Replies

And thanks for the tip Gelisgesti.

0 Replies

Quote:

"F with the bull, you get the horn. If we are really trying to send a message to terrorists, and those who harbor them, I want it to be as loud and as clear as possible.

razorless bill

This is a commonplace idea, repeated in coffee shops and from everyone at the White House..."they only respect force" being the notion. Particularly, it is repeated in reference to Arabs.

It's a curious assumption and one wonders how the truth of it might be empirically established. Whenever I bump into it, I have some trouble not immediately thinking of a fellow in a muscle shirt discussing how one's wife ought to be managed. Please understand I'm not alluding to you in any personal way here, you are a thoughtful guy. I am though, suggesting that it's equally possible that when Don Rumsfeld makes this claim, we aren't learning far more about him than about Arabs.

0 Replies

THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know