Walter--
You know what I'm saying-- I posted that I draw a distinction between the groups under the UN auspice. Some can be valued, even if all aren't.
Members of the SC were found to be profitting from Saddam and the OFF program. Therefore, IMO, the SC perverted their responsibility to the world. Their decision was based on their pockets.
Re: aw
What does one generally mean when one concludes something is probably true? I think one means that one judges it better to act as if that something were true than to act if that something weren't true.
Facts shown in boldface black.
Nimh questions shown in boldface violet.
ican answers shown in boldface blue.
1. Saddam helped finance and equip Palestinian terrorists
- How does the fact that Saddam financed Palestinian terrorists imply that he "was secretly financing and equipping" Al Qaeda around the world"? The fact that Saddam helped finance and equip Palestinian Terrorists implies he probably financed other terrorists as well; that in turn implies that Al Qaeda was probably among those other terrorists that Saddam financed, because he had no reason not to help and lots of reason (e.g., hatred of Americans) to help Al Qaeda.
2. Osama declared Saddam an infidel prior to 9/11/2001 but did not terrorize Saddam (or any member of his government or any Iraqi citizen) as a consequence. - How does the assumption that al Qaeda "did not terrorize Saddam" mean Saddam must therefore have financed and equipped them? The fact that Osama declared Saddam an infidel but did not terrorize him or his people implies that Osama's declaration was probably made to mislead Americans into thinking Osama and Saddam had nothing to do with each other; this in turn implies that Saddam probably had lots to do with each other; that in turn implies that Saddam probably secretly helped Osama in some ways to murder Americans.
3. A Boeing 727 fuselage and training site was discovered in northern Iraq [The commission] concluded that there were contacts, but that they never led to anything. The fact that this training site existed in Iraq implies that Saddam probably helped aid Osama train some of his Al Qaeda people in Iraq; that in turn implies that Saddam probably helped Osama train some known murderers of Americans; that in turn implies these contacts probably amounted to something.
4. Saddam defrauded the UN Oil-for-Food Program and distributed $billions of Iraqi oil revenue to both secret and non-secret accounts all around the world. - How does the fact that Saddam defrauded the UN Oil-for-Food Program and siphoned off the loot to his secret accounts mean that he must have been financing Al Qaeda with it (as opposed to, say, stuff his own pockets with it, like every other dictator)? The fact that Saddam sent much of that revenue to secret accounts as well as non-secret accounts all around the world implies that he was probably using some of that money for purposes other than stuffing his own pockets; that in turn implies that he probably wanted those other purposes kept secret; that in turn implies that he was probably financing terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda.
5. Some members of Al Qaeda fled Afghanistan after the US entry into Afghanistan, and through Iran entered Iraq to join up with other Al Qaeda in Iraq who were there prior to the US entry into Afghanistan and Iraq. [The commission] concluded that there were contacts, but that they never led to anything. The fact that many Al Qaeda fled Afghanistan for Iraq after the US 10/2001 entry into Afghanistan and prior to the US 3/2003 entry into Iraq implies that Saddam probably provided them sanctuary in Iraq; that in turn implies that Osama and Saddam probably had working agreements in place prior to the US entry into Iraq; that in turn implies that Osama and Saddam probably were working together to murder Americans and that work probably did amount to something.
6. More Al Qaeda went into Iraq after the US entry into Iraq. - How does the fact that "More Al Qaeda went into Iraq after the US entry into Iraq" - i.e., when Saddam wasn't even in power anymore - imply that he must have been equipping them? The fact that more Al Qaeda went into Iraq after Saddam's removal implies that the Al Qaeda probably did that in their attempt to restore the Oil-for-Food revenues lost to them when Saddam was removed.
7. Al Qaeda members met with members of Saddam's government prior to 9/11/2001 [The commission] concluded that there were contacts, but that they never led to anything. The fact that Al Qaeda members met with members of Saddam's government prior to 9/11/2001 implies that their contacts were probably deliberate and productive and did amount to something.
8. Osama and Saddam hated Americans and did not willingly share intelligence with the US -- In other words, they tried to keep secrets from the US (we too late learned of when they succeeded). - How does the fact that "Saddam did not willingly share intelligence with the US"- he kept secrets from us! - mean that he must have been financing Al-Qaeda (Hint: most countries in the world do not willingly share intelligence with states they disagree with).? The fact that Osama and Saddam probably shared secrets with each other but not with other governments implies that Saddam was probably aiding Osama accomplish his objectives of murdering Americans; that in turn probably explains why this secrecy led the 9/11 Commission to falsely conclude that there were contacts, but that they never led to anything .
Again, what does one generally mean when one concludes something is probably true? I think one means that one judges it better to act as if that something were true than to act if that something weren't true.
cicerone imposter wrote:Just in case you missed my earlier post, "What makes timber's argument false is that this administration went to war on two justifications: 1) Saddam's WMDs (none have been found, so in essence he's followed the mandates of the UN and the US), and 2) because Saddam is a tyrant."
Wrong!
This administration gave many reasons for going to war with Iraq. The leftist news media and many leftists chose to emphasize only two: (1)The danger of Saddam equipping TMM (i.e. Terrorist Miurderers and Maimers) with WMD; and (2)Saddam is evil.
In my opinion, the primary reason was to prevent the Saddam government of Iraq from sponsoring (i.e., financing, and/or equipping) TMM for future 9/11 type terrorist attacks against Americans. I think it primary because we already had proof that thousands of American residents could be murdered with TMM equipped with nothing more than money, box cutters and hijacked airliners. A pre-emptive strike was a necessity for that reason alone.
Pre-emptive war against Saddam's regime was but a part of what is required to limit the probability of more such acts. Also a necessity to further reduce the chances of future Iraqi sponsorship of TMM attacks against American residents, is the evolution of a representative democratic government in Iraq to lessen the probability of another Saddam-like tyrant rising to power there.
We have the same problem with many wealthy Saudi Arabian citizens sponsoring TMM. Many of these sponsors are members of the Saudi royal family but are not part of the current Saudi government. The governments and/or citizens of other middle eastern states are doing the same thing, sponsoring TMM against Americans. It will probably be necessary for us to eradicate these people to stop them from continuing their sponsorship of TMM. However, currently we are trying to motivate the Saudi government to perform that eradication.
Repeatedly we hear the argument that we should have waited for UN support before we acted. How many more thousands of our residents would probably have succumbed if that continued to be our approach? We knew the French and Russians, each with their veto power, would not support deposing Saddam because it was too profitable for them to retain Saddam. For us not them, "time was of the essence."
Alternatively, it has been argued we should have confined our attention to those TMM in Afghanistan. That argument is based on the irrational belief that the TMM in Afghanistan would remain there for us to eradicate them and not flee to Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, or Syria. We know that's a fallacious argument.
Still another fallacious argument is we should not have attacked Iraq until after we attacked Saudi Arabia's government. There are approximately 30,000 members of the Saudi royal family. Should we have killed 'em all first or only a token number?
What the hell is wrong with you people? Saddam was not, ever, in complete compliance with his obligations. Period. You are lying to yourself and others to say otherwise. 1441 would never have been called for, let alone passed unanimously if that wasn't the case
and yes: that was more than a decade after the ceasefire. Bitch and moan all you want about our chosen method of remedy, whether or not it was legal, just or any other damn detail but stop pretending Saddam was in compliance! That part is not a matter of opinion.
FACT: Al Samoud II was designed and built and stockpiled with an engine diameter that exceeded agreed to limits: This is not an opinion. It is a fact. Forget about the mountains of other violations for a moment; it only takes one to not be in compliance. Are you getting this, damn it?
NIMH, "80%" or "most" or even the "vast majority" is NOT full compliance. Full compliance was demanded and wasn't received
for over a decade. This is NOT opinion
it is fact.
c.i.: Saddam wasn't obligated to follow "in essence". FULL COMPLIANCE is what was demanded and agreed to by our defeated foe. He did not comply.
Walter: did you really think I wasn't referring to the UN in this specific theatre when accusing them of irrelevance? Or did you think it would be easier to evade the point with that tirade?
Ican: I admire your stamina!
OCCOM BILL wrote:Ican: I admire your stamina!
Bill, I admire your stamina too!
By the way, as you probably recall, Ayn Rand in "Atlas Shrugged" (the birthplace of John Galt) wrote that the competent went on strike and retreated to a secret valley until the incompetent agreed to get out of the way of the competent. Three things wrong with that piece of fiction: (1) there can be no such secret valley; (2) the incompetent can only criticize the choices of the competent, but not themselves choose competently; and (3) the incompetent aren't competent enough to recognize their need for the competent. So to survive, the competent have only the choices to find ways to help the incompetent evolve to competents, or to die.
Takes stamina, lots of stamina. :wink:
LOL, I think I may have found the perfect location to found Galt's Gulch... Costa Rica. When I figure out how to make it happen, I'll send d'Anconia or Danneskjold to fetch you.
In Paragraph 9, Item a, The Gulf War Ceasefire Instrument, UNSCR 687 of 3 April 1991, directed that Iraq within 15 days provide a full and comprehensive disclosure of all proscribed weapons, facilities, and capabilities. Additionally, other obligations and responsibilities were imposed on Iraq, pertaining primarily to humanitarian issues, reparations, repatriation of Kuwaiti citizens and assets, border demarcation, and certain specific import/export restrictions, among other considerations
Previous to UNSCR 687 was UNSCR 678, authorizing "All necessary means" to uphold and enforce UNSCR 660, the resolution demanding, on pain of military intervention, that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait, and all subsequent pertinent resolutions. When coalition forces used force against Iraq in 1993 in response to Iraqi violations, the UN Secretary General stated publicly that the coalition "had received a mandate from the Security Council according to resolution 678, and the cause of the raid was the violation by Iraq of Resolution 687 concerning the cease-fire. So, as Secretary General of the United Nations, I can say that this action was taken and conforms to the resolutions of the Security Council and conformed to the Charter of the United Nations." No new resolution authorizing "all necessary means" was deemed necessary. The 1998 "Desert Fox" strikes against Iraq likewise were deemed mandated by UNSCR 678, in consideration of Iraq's violation of UNSCR 687, and met with no Security Council objection.
In all past instances of The Security Council ending or rescinding the prior authorization for the use of force, one of two methods have been employed. Either a specific time limit has been incorporated into the authorization instrument, or a subsequent resolution withdrawing authorization for the use of force has been adopted. Unless The Security Council specifically states that it has terminated an authorization provided by a resolution which was not in and of itself time-limited, that resolution and its authorization for the use of force remain operative.
In UNSCR 1441, the Security Council unanimously found, decided, and declared Iraq had been and remained in material breach of its obligations and responsibilities as delineated in UNSCR 687, and subject to sanction as provided in UNSCR 678, and all the subsequent relevant resolutions, each of which specifically referrenced UNSCRs 678 and 687. The Security Council "Recalled" Iraq had repeatedly been warned of serious consequences as a result of continued violation of these obligations and responsibilities. In January of 2003, the Security Council found and held that Iraq continued to remain in "Material Breach" of the pertinent mandates. Nothing in UNSCR 1441 required a further resolution, or other form of Security Council approval, to authorize the use of force. A "material breach" of mandated ceasefire conditions is the predicate accepted both by International Law and by The Charter of The United Nations for resumption of use of force to uphold and enforce the conditions of that ceasefire.
As of March 20, 2003, we were still waiting for Iraq to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities mandated by UNSCR 687, which, I remind all who are still following along, was the Ceasefire Instrument suspending Gulf War hostilities. 627 weeks, or 4,389 days, is a helluva lot more than the 15 days allotted by UNSCR 687. Two previous military interventions, and the No-Fly Zones, were deemed to be legitimate and authorized pursuant to Security Council findings of Iraq's "Continued Material Breach of UNSCR 687", in precisely so many words. UNSCR 1441 allowed Iraq, in precisely so many words, "A final opportunity" to avoid military intervention as authorized by UNSCR 678 and reaffirmed by UNSCR 687. That final opportunity expired with the Security Council finding of January 27, 2003, pursuant to UNSCR 1441 and all previous pertinent resolutions that Iraq remained in material breach of UNSCR 687.
Just what is so hard to understand about that? Or is it just unpleasant and inconvenient to accept? Regardless, and all opinion aside, it is fact.
Wow! If I was so well spoken, that's what I'd have said! Extremely well done Timber... thank you.
McGentrix wrote:
I can agree with this.
You can agree with the statement that it does not matter whether the invasion was legal?
timberlandko wrote:In Paragraph 9, Item a, The Gulf War Ceasefire Instrument, UNSCR 687 of 3 April 1991, directed that Iraq within 15 days provide a full and comprehensive disclosure of all proscribed weapons, facilities, and capabilities. Additionally, other obligations and responsibilities were imposed on Iraq, pertaining primarily to humanitarian issues, reparations, repatriation of Kuwaiti citizens and assets, border demarcation, and certain specific import/export restrictions, among other considerations
Previous to UNSCR 687 was UNSCR 678, authorizing "All necessary means" to uphold and enforce UNSCR 660, the resolution demanding, on pain of military intervention, that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait, and all subsequent pertinent resolutions. When coalition forces used force against Iraq in 1993 in response to Iraqi violations, the UN Secretary General stated publicly that the coalition "had received a mandate from the Security Council according to resolution 678, and the cause of the raid was the violation by Iraq of Resolution 687 concerning the cease-fire. So, as Secretary General of the United Nations, I can say that this action was taken and conforms to the resolutions of the Security Council and conformed to the Charter of the United Nations." No new resolution authorizing "all necessary means" was deemed necessary. The 1998 "Desert Fox" strikes against Iraq likewise were deemed mandated by UNSCR 678, in consideration of Iraq's violation of UNSCR 687, and met with no Security Council objection.
In all past instances of The Security Council ending or rescinding the prior authorization for the use of force, one of two methods have been employed. Either a specific time limit has been incorporated into the authorization instrument, or a subsequent resolution withdrawing authorization for the use of force has been adopted. Unless The Security Council specifically states that it has terminated an authorization provided by a resolution which was not in and of itself time-limited, that resolution and its authorization for the use of force remain operative.
In UNSCR 1441, the Security Council unanimously found, decided, and declared Iraq had been and remained in material breach of its obligations and responsibilities as delineated in UNSCR 687, and subject to sanction as provided in UNSCR 678, and all the subsequent relevant resolutions, each of which specifically referrenced UNSCRs 678 and 687. The Security Council "Recalled" Iraq had repeatedly been warned of serious consequences as a result of continued violation of these obligations and responsibilities. In January of 2003, the Security Council found and held that Iraq continued to remain in "Material Breach" of the pertinent mandates. Nothing in UNSCR 1441 required a further resolution, or other form of Security Council approval, to authorize the use of force. A "material breach" of mandated ceasefire conditions is the predicate accepted both by International Law and by The Charter of The United Nations for resumption of use of force to uphold and enforce the conditions of that ceasefire.
As of March 20, 2003, we were still waiting for Iraq to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities mandated by UNSCR 687, which, I remind all who are still following along, was the Ceasefire Instrument suspending Gulf War hostilities. 627 weeks, or 4,389 days, is a helluva lot more than the 15 days allotted by UNSCR 687. Two previous military interventions, and the No-Fly Zones, were deemed to be legitimate and authorized pursuant to Security Council findings of Iraq's "Continued Material Breach of UNSCR 687", in precisely so many words. UNSCR 1441 allowed Iraq, in precisely so many words, "A final opportunity" to avoid military intervention as authorized by UNSCR 678 and reaffirmed by UNSCR 687. That final opportunity expired with the Security Council finding of January 27, 2003, pursuant to UNSCR 1441 and all previous pertinent resolutions that Iraq remained in material breach of UNSCR 687.
Just what is so hard to understand about that? Or is it just unpleasant and inconvenient to accept? Regardless, and all opinion aside, it is fact.
The USA is not the executive branch of the UN, nor was it mandated to act in the way it did, and so the action was illegal.
timberlandko wrote:Just what is so hard to understand about that? Or is it just unpleasant and inconvenient to accept? Regardless, and all opinion aside, it is fact.
I saw a lot of glurge above this. Just what are you trying to assert is a fact?
McTag wrote:McGentrix wrote:
I can agree with this.
You can agree with the statement that it does not matter whether the invasion was legal?
More sloppy bob and weave action... This is an excerpt from what he agreed with:
OCCOM BILL wrote:Bitch and moan all you want about our chosen method of remedy, whether or not it was legal, just or any other damn detail but stop pretending Saddam was in compliance! That part is not a matter of opinion.
I'd say Timber subsequently provided a damn strong case for legality anyway (certainly more convincing than your unsubstantiated proclamation to the contrary), but that is not what McG was agreeing with. This is the type of fact avoidance that drives me crazy.
OCCOM BILL wrote: I'd say Timber subsequently provided a damn strong case for legality ...
Do you have any idea of what criteria would make it legal?
If not, sounds like a desire to be convinced might be playing a big part in what you perceive as convincing.
Craven de Kere wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote: I'd say Timber subsequently provided a damn strong case for legality ...
Do you have any idea of what criteria would make it legal?
Am I declaring myself qualified to interpret international law? No. Are you? Or is anyone else in this discussion? Last I checked the TOS didn't require me to be an expert to comment.
What impressed me was the example of past reactions to past actions that could be deemed similar. Can you provide other examples where the UN reacted contrarily to the examples Timber provided? Match his examples; and you will level my opinion. Exceed them and you are liable to win it. Until you provide some reason that his examples shouldn't be considered precedents, I'll continue to think they should be.
Your suggestion that I simply desire it to be so is every bit as useful as accusing me of thinking UNICEF (a charity I contribute to, incidentally) is irrelevant when I'm pointing out a lack of action by the SC.
Could it be
your political leanings are skewing
your viewpoint?
I am asserting as fact the provisions and conditions of the relevant Security Council resolutions and the progression of events, including the 1993 and 1998 military actions, leading up to the resumption of hostilities pursuant to Iraq's contiuec abrogation pf UNSCR 687.
McTag, it may have been unpopular, and it may not have been specifically approved by the Security Council, but it was legal.
Quote:UN SC RESOLUTION 678
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2963rd meeting on 29 November 1990
The Security Council,
Recalling, and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August (1990), 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of of 29 October 1990 and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990.
Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council,
Mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of international peace and security,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;
4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;
5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
UNSCR 678 authorizes "Member States" to employ "all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions ". That authorization includes any or all, but does not specify or limit which "Member States". UNSCR 687 set forth the conditions by which hostilities authorized under UNSCR 678 were suspended; those conditions specifically called for Iraq's full and unreserved, unconditional compliance with the terms of UNSCR 687. As a "Member State", The US and/or any other "Member State" was fully authorized to employ "All necessary means" to enforce Iraq's compliance with UNSCR 687, irrespective of further resolutions or authorizations. Not even Kofi Anan maintains otherwise. The UN was unhappy The US persisted, but the US did so with the support of relevant law and finding, as exemplified and precedented by the actions undertaken in 1993 and 1998. In legal matters, what one has is law and precedent, and nothing more nor less. UNSCRs 678 and 687 laid down the law, 1993 and 1998 provided precedents for action taken absent specific additional resolution or authorization, and UNSCR 1441 established a "Final Opportunity", which "Final Opportunity" the Security Council found and declared to have been unmet. The US acted within the requirements of The UN Charter and the relevant resolutions. A legal finepoint perhaps, but nonetheless legal.
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Am I declaring myself qualified to interpret international law? No. Are you?
Yes. I am well versed in this facet of International Law.
Quote: Or is anyone else in this discussion? Last I checked the TOS didn't require me to be an expert to comment.
Nobody's preventing you from commenting. The TOS comment is
really stupid.
Quote:What impressed me was the example of past reactions to past actions that could be deemed similar. Can you provide other examples where the UN reacted contrarily to the examples Timber provided? Match his examples; and you will level my opinion.
Your opinion has precious little to do with what is and what is not legal.
Again I will ask:
Do you have the foggiest idea of what makes an invasion like the one in Iraq legal?
I don't think you do and from what Timber says I'm pretty sure he doesn't either.
So I asked a simple question. If you have no idea what would make it legal according to law, then of what value is your opinion on how convincing a case for its legality exists?
Quote: Exceed them and you are liable to win it.
Win what? Your opinion on its legality? Again, if you do not demonstrate a modicum of understanding of the laws in this regard what is your legal opinion worth?
Quote: Until you provide some reason that his examples shouldn't be considered precedents, I'll continue to think they should be.
Ok, here's a reason:
Merely deciding to think something is legal does not make it legal.
Quote:Your suggestion that I simply desire it to be so is every bit as useful as accusing me of thinking UNICEF (a charity I contribute to, incidentally) is irrelevant when I'm pointing out a lack of action by the SC.
You make no sense. You either do know the law or you don't.
I've given you ample opportunity to assert that you do, and we both know the reason you are not is because you don't.
So, it is clear that your opinion is not in any way formed by what IS the law.
What does that leave us with?
Quote:Could it be your political leanings are skewing your viewpoint?
It could be, but I at least have the intellectual curiosity to aquaint myself with the law before forming an opinion on it.
Do you? Do you know anything at all (I'm talking knowledge that can be expressed in 3 sentences) about the law in this regard?
And if you do not have enough understanding of these laws to form 3 sentences, then what is your opinion on the legality based upon?
timberlandko wrote:
McTag, it may have been unpopular, and it may not have been specifically approved by the Security Council, but it was legal.
The US acted within the requirements of The UN Charter and the relevant resolutions. A legal finepoint perhaps, but nonetheless legal.
Timber, I will ask you the very simple question as well.
Do you even know what the law is in this regard or are you just basing your opinion that it is legal based on something other than the law as well?
From your statements it is very clear that you do
not know the law.
If you think you do, by all means please provide just a one or two sentence summary of what it is.
If your knowledge of this law can't adequately fill one or two sentences, I assert that your opinion on whether it is or is not illegal is worthless as legality is based on law, not what Timber thinks is legal.
