THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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?

which is what Bill? There is absolutely no conflict between the two.

The US decided to try to make a case for the war in the UN.

To do so, there is only one legal case they could make other than the non-compliance (which is at the determination of the UN, not the USA) and that was the issue of a threat.

That was the only legal case we could make to try to win security council approval.

Now we can't have our actions declared illegal by the security council unless we so desire because we can veto any such resolution.

0 Replies

Timberlandko,
I admire both your stamina and erudition.

0 Replies

I see your point now, CdK ... I was a bit obtuse ... and stubborn to keep pounding on the issue. When you stated " ... the Bush administration is not nearly silly enough to try to make that case", when in fact that precisely is their case, it just sorta got me goin'. And I agree that US opposition to things like the ICC, and the Kyoto Protocols, etc, is perfectly understandable in light of The US Self Image. Of course, in light of that same self image, the suspicion and distrust directed toward the US by much of the rest of the world is perfectly understandable too, more's the pity. The most aggravating arrogance is arrogance based on real power and capability. Even when doing the right things, The US has an uncanny ability to foster an impression of doing them for the wrong reasons.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Side note: it should come as no surprise why the US steadfastly opposes things like the ICC.

I agree it should come as no surprise. After all the US now trusts the UN as far as it trusts Osama. Do you have a good argument why the US should trust the UN now more than it trusts Osama?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Timberlandko,
I admire both your stamina and erudition.

Thanks, ican ... you don't do bad there, either. And among the well read stubborn mules around here, CdK merits singular mention.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

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.

You infer incorrectly as the desire to invade Iraq predated A3. there is AMPLE evidence toward this and I'll provide just a nugget because I am lazy.

This is a Google search for a particular quote.

This is the quote:

Quote:

While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

This is from a plan for "Pax Americana" that predates A3.

This plan was drawn up by Dick Cheney (vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff).

The title of this plan is called: "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century" and was released by the PNAC (Project for the new American Century).

This plan was written in September of 2000.

As you may or may not be aware, that is a date prior to A3 (9/11) which you state as the motivation to invade Iraq.

The fact that they wanted to invade before A3 shoots some pretty big holes in your inference.

Saddam is a stated pretext, a desire to change our footprint and projection of power is the stated reason.

So there is no need to infer (i.e. make wild guesses). The stated motivation to invade Iraq is well documented and predates what you infer is the motivation for doing so.

The desire to project power and take advantage of Saddam's "justification" to establish a new footprint is the stated motivation.

9/11 gave political capital, the idea to go after Iraq predated it and just about every main player in the administration was publically voicing the desire to use the justification of Saddam to establish that footprint long before 9/11.

Your inference is incorrect.

As to your questions of whether Bush acted in a legal manner it is my personal opinion that he did not. The only legal justification for invading Iraq that we had was self defence and I think the notion that Iraq posed a legitimate threat to us is idiotic.

Of course, there are people who think differently, and unfortunately no mechanism to reconcile these differences of opinion.

So my contention remains: I think it was illegal. There is no means through which to have this determination settled, so I therefore can't claim it was illegal (mainly because disputes on law are not settled by one opinion and one interpretation).

0 Replies

So you are saying the actions are neither legal nor illegal?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Side note: it should come as no surprise why the US steadfastly opposes things like the ICC.

I agree it should come as no surprise. After all the US now trusts the UN as far as it trusts Osama. Do you have a good argument why the US should trust the UN now more than it trusts Osama?

Yes, Osama has a stated goal of killing Americans while the UN is an organization we founded and in which we weild unparalleled power. In other words, we are a part of the UN. Osama is an individual who wants to kill us.

Now some hyperbolic minds might like to translate their personal distaste for the UN into the absurd position wherin they attempt to equate the UN with Osama but we don't pay much attention to them, they're just spouting ridiculous rhetoric.

Incidentally, you can't in any way come remotely close to substantiating your claim that we trust the UN as far as we trust Osama.

It's an absurd falsehood.

0 Replies

Occam, I think he's saying he thinks the actions were illegal, or at the very least morally and ethically suspect, but that there is no mechanism by which a finding of illegality might be enforced against The US, therefore, in practical terms, while not demonstrably legal, the US actions were not enforceably illegal ... a moot-point-in-the-real-world sorta thing, more or less.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

So you are saying the actions are neither legal nor illegal?

Bill,

When someone is arrested, at what point is the determination made that they have committed an illegal act?

Upon conviction.

There is no meachanism that can possibly determine that the war was illegal because we can't be convicted.

I am of the opinion that it was illegal because I do not think Iraq posed a threat that justified our agression.

But that is subjective and others can disagree. And because no mechanism exists to determine whether it was or was not illegal my opinion has as much weight as my opinion on whether or not OJ was guilty.

Our opinions mean nothing, law needs mechanisms to reconcile these differences of opinion.

If you think Iraq posed a legitimate threat to our security then you hold an opinion that, if true, would make the war legal.

If you do not think Iraq posed a legitimate threat then you hold an opinion that, if true, would make it illegal.

There is no equivalent of a court where the determination can be made and legality declared.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

I see your point now, CdK ... I was a bit obtuse ... and stubborn to keep pounding on the issue. When you stated " ... the Bush administration is not nearly silly enough to try to make that case", when in fact that precisely is their case, it just sorta got me goin'. And I agree that US opposition to things like the ICC, and the Kyoto Protocols, etc, is perfectly understandable in light of The US Self Image. Of course, in light of that same self image, the suspicion and distrust directed toward the US by much of the rest of the world is perfectly understandable too, more's the pity. The most aggravating arrogance is arrogance based on real power and capability. Even when doing the right things, The US has an uncanny ability to foster an impression of doing them for the wrong reasons.

You remind me here of three quotes from Eric Hoffer's book, "The Ordeal of Change", Harper & Row, 1963.

Eric Hoffer, page 12 wrote:

The resentment of the weak does not spring from any injustice done to them but from the sense of their own inadequacy and impotence. We cannot win the weak by sharing our wealth with them. They feel our generosity as oppression.

Eric Hoffer, page 13 wrote:

My hunch is that in mastering the art or the technique of helping the weak to help themselves we shall solve some of the critical problems which confront us, not only in our foreign relations, but also in our domestic affairs.

Eric Hoffer, page 15 wrote:

The baffling response we hear does not originate in the people we try to help but in a group of self-appointed spokesmen and mediators who stand between us and the mass of the people. This group is made up of university teachers and students, writers, artists, and intellectuals in general. It is these articulate people who are the source of the rabid anti-Americanism which has been manifesting itself in many countries since the end of the Second World War. One cannot escape the impression that there is a natural antagonism between these "men of words" and twentieth-century America. It is not the quality of our policies that offends them but our very existence. The intellectuals everywhere see America as a threat. Their petulant faultfinding is the expression of an almost instinctive fear, and it is of vital importance that we understand the nature of this fear.

0 Replies

I follow you. I've understood this is your opinion since we discussed it on another thread some time ago. You've been maintaining for a while now, that without organizations like ICC, accepted and recognized by all including us, there can be no real global authority. I understood you then and I understand you now. You lose me when you suggest we need to make a legal case and in the next breath state there is no legal authority where we'd have to present it anyway. Color me strange, but I consider that which isn't illegal to be legal. It sounds to me like instead of saying "Playing up the WMDs and a threat were a legal necessity." you should have said "Playing up the WMDs and a threat made a good excuse, though they were NOT a legal necessity.

0 Replies

By the way, Eric Hoffer was a longshoreman living in San Francisco since 1943 when he copywrited his book, "The Ordeal of Change", in 1963. He has been a migratory field laborer and a gold miner. He was self-educated.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You lose me when you suggest we need to make a legal case and in the next breath state there is no legal authority where we'd have to present it anyway.

I never said we need to make a legal case.

I said: We need X to make a legal case.

Not: We need to make a legal case.

In fact before making the case there was a debate as to whether we should even try with some administration members calling it a "dangerous distraction".

We decided to try (to "go the UN route").

In the UN, we can try to argue that Iraq's level of cooperation is such that it merits war. But if we do not secure enough votes that's that. We don't get a sanction and the subsequent legality.

So if we choose to circumvent the UN and contradict its charter by initiating agression the only legal case that remains is the clause of the charter that no clause of the charter will render self-defense illegal.

So when we chose to make a case to the UN we had only a handful of legally sound cases to even attempt.

There is no legal authority that can stop us from doing what we want because there is no power that supercedes our military power.

But we wanted the legal sanction and attempted it.

Quote:

Color me strange, but I consider that which isn't illegal to be legal.

Not strange, but perhaps simplistic as there is a middle ground that is undetermined.

Watch:

"That which is not established fact is not true."

False. It merely might not be established as fact, but does not mean it is untrue.

Quote:

It sounds to me like instead of saying "Playing up the WMDs and a threat were a legal necessity." you should have said "Playing up the WMDs and a threat made a good excuse, though they were NOT a legal necessity.

Semantics Bill. It was a legal necessity. It was not a necessity because our power puts us beyond any authority.

If we wanted the UN's sanction it was a necessity, ultimately we did not need the UN's sanction to act.

0 Replies

Always liked Hoffer. Sorta met him once, at a booksigning at City Lights Bookstore in San Francisco. Pretty much came off in person the same way he comes off in print. A real look-you-square-in-the-eye-and-powerful-handshake sort. I admire folks like that.

0 Replies

I can build strawmen too. Watch:

"That which can't be proven impossible is possible."

But we are going nowhere. Sorry I brought it up.

0 Replies

That was not a straw man bill. You did, in fact, try to make a binary assertion that eliminated alternatives.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

This is from a plan for "Pax Americana" that predates A3.

This plan was drawn up by Dick Cheney (vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff).

The title of this plan is called: "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century" and was released by the PNAC (Project for the new American Century).

This plan was written in September of 2000.

September 2000 Shocked

I guess that means it was written before Bush was elected in November 2000; correction, after some delay, in December 2000 (and yes before Bush was inaugurated).

"transcends the issue" Question

www.m-w.com

Quote:

Main Entry: tran·scend
Pronunciation: tran(t)-'send
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin transcendere to climb across, transcend, from trans- + scandere to climb -- more at SCAN
transitive senses
1 a : to rise above or go beyond the limits of b : to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : OVERCOME c : to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)
2 : to outstrip or outdo in some attribute, quality, or power
intransitive senses : to rise above or extend notably beyond ordinary limits
synonym see EXCEED

How does that little phrase, "transcends the issue", written in September 2000, imply that George was, if elected, going to invade Iraq regardless of what Saddam did or did not do? At that time we already had "substantial American force presence in the Gulf" in Saudi Arabia, then subsequently in George's term we obtained "substantial American force presence in the Gulf" in Quwait.

I think your statement a non sequitur. Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

The Case Against the UN re Iraq

I don't think any of us can continue to act as though the UN was an honest player in the decision to back away from the Iraq War.

When those making the decisions have been paid off, it has to color their veracity.

The link takes you to a four page review of recent findings of the investigation into the OFF program. I will bring excerpts.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

September 2000 I guess that means it was written before Bush was elected in November 2000; correction, after some delay, in December 2000 (and yes before Bush was inaugurated).

Yes, before Bush was inagurated. But more importantly before the event that you claim is the motivation.

So what is your point? That the desire of members of this administration to invade Iraq predates the event that you claim motivates it by an even greater amount?

Sheesh Ican, who is going to argue on your side if you are going to argue mine? ;-)

Quote:

How does that little phrase, "transcends the issue", written in September 2000, imply that George was, if elected, going to invade Iraq regardless of what Saddam did or did not do?

It's not merely that phrase Ican. You can read pages and pages of the case to attack Iraq being made by members of the administration.

And no, it does not mean that they would. It means that they wanted to.

And because you claim that A3 (9/11) is what motivated the desire to attack Iraq this is relevant, because it shows that the desire and motivation predated 9/11.

The majority of the main players of this administration were arguing for an attack on Iraq long before 9/11.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know