0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 10:19 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Quote:
It's still all about the oil!


(Stilloilman. Shush. If the secret gets out it will ruin a perfectly good argument).


Naaaah! It's all about buildings and the people in those buildings. Cool

Either way, oil or buildings, it's still self-defense. Right? Smile
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 10:40 am
Steve, if we knew precisely what we were going to find in Iraq as you suggest, don't you think the planners would have done a better job of wording the threat… instead of setting themselves up to be called liars for all eternity?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 11:28 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
I think we agree on the following history:
1. Osama's 1996 declaration of war against Americans;
2. Osama's 1998 declaration of war against Americans;
3. The 9/11/2001 Osama led attack on Americans;


Yes


I infer we agree all these events occurred, call them, respectively, A1, A2, and A3.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
4. The American 10/2001 attack on Osama's troops (i.e., Al Qaeda trained terrorists and support personnel) in Afghanistan;
... mostly Taliban...


I used the term "support personnel" for non-terrorist Al Qaeda, Taliban et al. I infer we agree this event did occur; call it A4.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
5. The American 3/2003 attack on Saddam in Iraq;


Since the beginning, my criteria for accepting this war was the capability of the US to convince others of the threat.


I was not asking whether you agree event 5 should have occurred; only whether you agree it did occur. I infer we agree this event did occur; call it A5.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
6. Osama's 2004 declaration of war against Americans.


What declaration? If anything all the repeated items of declarations should in fact be reaffirmations.


Ok, have it your way:
6. Osama's 2004 reaffirmation of his previous declarations of war against Americans.

I infer we agree this event did occur; call it A6.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
I think we disagree on the following history:
1. Osama and Saddam's pre 9/11/2001 secret agreement that Saddam will aid Osama's preparations for Osama led attacks on Americans;


I have not yet fully evaluated this. I don't think anyone anywhere has.
My suspicion is that it sounds more juicy than it was.


I infer you're leaning toward disagreeing this event occurred; call it D1.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
2. Osama and Saddam's post 9/11/2001 secret agreement that Saddam will aid Osama's preparations for Osama led attacks on Americans;


Ican, I'd love to see you try to make a case for these things.


I infer you're leaning toward disagreeing this event occurred; call it D2.


Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
3. Saddam's post 10/2001 harboring of some of Osama's troops that fled the American attack in Afghanistan on Osama's troops in Afghanistan.


Is this a misleading way of saying: "Some bad guys went to Iraq"


No! This is a way of saying exactly what I wrote, no more and no less. I infer you're leaning toward disagreeing this event occurred; call it D3.


In summary, you agree that events A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6 occurred, but you are leaning toward disagreeing that events D1, D2, and D3 occurred.

I1: I infer from A1, A2, A3, and A6 that Osama says what he means, means what he says, and does what he says. Should it be discovered that Osama is dead, then substitute his replacement's name for Osama. I would probably make the same inference for any of his replacements.
Do you agree with this inference (call it I1)?

I2: I infer from A5 that the present administration believed that A4 was necessary to reduce the probability of the occurrence of another A3 event.
Do you agree with this inference (call it I2)?

I'd like your response to this post before I go further.

While you are of course free to try and anticipate the rest of my argument, why not wait for it before you comment further than what I've asked for here?

I'll be back this evening.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 11:34 am
Ok, I'll play.

I anticipate that the argument is about I2 and no I do not agree with that inference.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 11:40 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Steve, if we knew precisely what we were going to find in Iraq as you suggest, don’t you think the planners would have done a better job of wording the threat… instead of setting themselves up to be called liars for all eternity?


BINGO! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 11:42 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Steve, if we knew precisely what we were going to find in Iraq as you suggest, don't you think the planners would have done a better job of wording the threat… instead of setting themselves up to be called liars for all eternity?

what a concept!!!
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 11:42 am
Playing up the WMDs and a threat were a legal necessity.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 11:49 am
But it seems there are no consequences for the threat being bogus; or that after our preemptive strike on Iraq, the threat has increased - not decreased. People seem to forget all the "terrorism alerts" we're getting in this country after our engagement in Iraq. Nothing like assurances of security in our homeland.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 11:51 am
But, terrorism went down last year, right Question
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 11:54 am
BillW wrote:
But, terrorism went down last year, right Question


No, not at all:

The U.S. State Department, in an embarrassing admission, said Tuesday that 625 people were killed in terrorist attacks last year, more than twice what it initially reported in April.

The new report says 625 people were killed by acts of terrorism, more than twice the 307 first reported. And the number of wounded was put at over 3,600, again, more than twice the figure cited two months ago.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 03:04 pm
Neh, echt?! Where did Hegel say that, Walter??

Anyway, the State Department is the least of our problems - if Seymour Hersch is right there's more trouble in Kurdistan:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 03:05 pm
P.S. sorry typo - he spells his name "Hersh"
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 03:24 pm
HofT wrote:
Neh, echt?! Where did Hegel say that, Walter??


No idea, HofT :wink: - the German original quote is: "Aus der Geschichte der Völker können wir lernen, dass die Völker aus der Geschichte nichts gelernt haben, oder auf Grund daraus abgeleiteter Prinzipien handelten."
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 05:10 pm
<waves at HofT>

CdK, responding to me wrote:
1) You claimed, in no uncertain terms that the war was "legal". You said so multiple times.

2) The evidence you cite for legality contains ridiculous errors (I'll point some out in this post) and I asked you if you even know anything at all about the law in this regard. Just a couple of sentences worth.

I trust this clears it up. You claimed the war was legal and I think you are bluffing. I do not think you know a whit about what the law is in this kind of case and I am asking you if you know the law and use it to form the basis of your opinion.

So again I ask:

Timber, you claimed that the war in Iraq was "legal" multiple times, do you have any idea at all as to what the law is and what factors would make it legal?

If so, please tell us what the law is (nothing fancy, a few sentences will do).

If not, what is your repeated opinion about the war's legality based if not on law?



CdK later on wrote:
revel wrote:
So, the Bush administration is trying to use the old resolution that concerned Kuwait to justify invading Iraq even though we already went to war about kuwait?


Not really, the Bush administration is not nearly silly enough to try to make that case.


Cdk, as a matter of US Public Law, specifically US Public Law 243-107, adopted in Joint Session of The House and The Senate October 16, 2002, the Official US Position on the legitimacy and justification for the recent military action in Iraq is precisely congruent with the argument I have been maintaining (and which has been my stated position all along; see This November '02 post of mine)


Quote:
Public Law 234-107: AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ243.107]

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002


Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - [H.J. Res. 114]>>

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;


Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;


Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace
and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';


Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;


Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.


(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Approved October 16, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.

<all>


Whether you find it laughable or silly or whatever, that's the law, the US law, anyway, and that's a fact.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 05:46 pm
Timber, the US law is such that the US can invade whatever nation it pleases.

That was never in dispute. US laws merely cover what protocols are needed to do so.

The dispute was always over international law.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 05:47 pm
I thought I cleared that up already? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 05:50 pm
LOL

Well it was a joke but in many ways it is true. As it stands there is no possible way to declare what the US did illegal because we do in fact have the power to prevent it.

Any resolution trying to do so could simply be vetoed.

Side note: it should come as no surprise why the US steadfastly opposes things like the ICC.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 06:21 pm
SUMMARY

Craven de Kere and I agree the following events occurred:

A1. Osama's 1996 declaration of war against Americans;
A2. Osama's 1998 declaration of war against Americans;
A3. The 9/11/2001 Osama led attack on Americans;
A4. The American 10/2001 attack on Osama's troops (i.e., Al Qaeda trained terrorists and support personnel) in Afghanistan;
A5. The American 3/2003 attack on Saddam in Iraq;
A6. Osama's 2004 declaration of war against Americans.

Craven de Kere disagree with me that the following events occurred:

D1. Osama and Saddam's pre 9/11/2001 secret agreement that Saddam will aid Osama's preparations for Osama led attacks on Americans;
D2. Osama and Saddam's post 9/11/2001 secret agreement that Saddam will aid Osama's preparations for Osama led attacks on Americans;
D3. Saddam's post 10/2001 harboring of some of Osama's troops that fled the American attack on Osama's troops in Afghanistan.

Craven de Kere agrees with my following inference.

I1: I infer from A1, A2, A3, and A6 that Osama says what he means, means what he says, and does what he says. Should it be discovered that Osama is dead, then substitute his replacement's name for Osama. I would probably make the same inference for any of his replacements.

Craven de Kere disagrees with my following inference:

I2: I infer from A5 that the present administration believed that A4 was necessary to reduce the probability of the occurrence of another A3 event.


A PRESIDENT'S DILEMMA

A president, call him George, discovers that intelligence information regarding when, where, and how Osama's troops will attempt to destroy additional American buildings, is incomplete and inconsistent, and in some cases incorrect.

George had almost eight months to correct this problem before A3, but failed to do so. George began to correct this problem with an act of Congress (e.g., Homeland Security) about two years later.

George knows A1 through A6 occurred.

George knows Osama will attempt to destroy additional American buildings.

George knows that Osama and some of Osama's troops are in Afghanistan, while others are in other countries within the middle east.

George orders A4, an invasion of Afghanistan. The mission of the invasion is the eradication of Osama and his troops (i.e., trained terrorists, support personnel and Taliban, et al) in Afghanistan.

Did George act lawfully?

George receives intelligence that some of Osama's troops originally in Afghanistan left Afghanistan for Iraq, after A4.

George orders A5, an invasion of Iraq. The mission of the invasion is the eradication of Osama and his troops in Iraq (i.e., trained terrorists, support personnel including some Baathists, et al), and eradication of Iraq's ability to finance and equip Osama and his troops, and any other terrorist troops.

Did George act lawfully?


Craven de Kerr, please respond.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 06:23 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Playing up the WMDs and a threat were a legal necessity.
Okay, now I'm confused.

Craven de Kere wrote:
As it stands there is no possible way to declare what the US did illegal because we do in fact have the power to prevent it.
Which is it?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 06:27 pm
Macht machts Recht.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 04:45:12