farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Tue 26 Mar, 2013 11:13 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:

I can't help it that you bought on to the invasion for superfical reasons


SO you didnt buy anything about the WMDs from the getgo? yet you still were in favor of a war?? WC FIELDS had a name for your ilk.


0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Mar, 2013 03:17 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Naw, no bile or fury, you're not that important. How would you ever deal with criticism if you didn't have your own bile and fury, though. This, specifically, is what you wrote:

Quote:
1) The moral imperative of rescuing the Iraqi people from the monster that was Saddam
2) The strategic promise of establishing a non-sectarian Arab democracy in the heart of the Middle East


It's kind of hard to strike a moral pose when the cure is as bad as the disease. As i've already pointed out, it's premature to allege that we've established a non-sectarian democracy in the heart of the middle east. In fact, the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party was already non-sectarian in philosophy, if not in actual practice. The majority of Iraqis are Shi'ite, and they saw their oppression by the Ba'athists in sectarian terms. For all that one may want to tout lofty "moral" principles, for many of the Iraqi Shi'ites, the current situation will be seen as pay-back time. How this will play out in the long term i don't believe anyone is now capable of saying, which is why i say it is premature.

The Persians call themselves Persians, bright boy.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  5  
Reply Wed 27 Mar, 2013 04:19 am
By the way, the moral argument is bankrupted by the indifference we displayed toward other situations. More than 800,000 people were killed in Rwanda, and we did nothing. We ignored the brutal dictatorship in Burma (and still do). We not only ignored the brutal dictatorships in Argentina and Chile, we helped to set up the one in Chile. The difference was that those countries weren't sitting on top of the world's second largest proven reserves of light, sweet crude oil.

Amnesty International estimates that more than 300,000 Iraqis died in the 25 years that Hussein was in power. We managed to kill off a third that many Iraqis in under a year. A lot of that misery is a result of Rummy attempting to do the invasion on a shoestring, because we were already engaged in what was arguably a legitimate war in Afghanistan. To free ourselves for the Iraq invasion, we put many of the bad, old war lords back in power, those whose removal were the one thing the Taliban had done which the Afghans approved of. Kind of like when Patton wanted to put the Nazis back in government in Austria because they could make the trains run on time. Despite public calls by experienced military men for occupation specialists to be sent to Iraq, Rummy and company did nothing to provide an effective transition from the Ba'athist regime to a home-grown democracy, which lead to more killing and misery. It's disgusting when reactionaries trot out a moral justification for what we did in Iraq.

I expect that now Finn will call me Pooch again, and heap insults on me rather than address the criticisms. That's his style.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 27 Mar, 2013 12:12 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
because we were already engaged in what was arguably a legitimate war in Afghanistan.


False, Set, there's no argument at all. Afghanistan was as illegal an invasion as Iraq.

You know that you miss a lot by being the coward that you are.

Quote:

Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan?

Using the McChrystal Moment to Raise a Forbidden Question

...

This question has two parts: First, did these attacks provide a legal justification for the invasion of Afghanistan? Second, if not, did they at least provide a moral justification?

I. Did 9/11 Provide Legal Justification for the War in Afghanistan?

Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, international law with regard to war has been defined by the UN Charter. Measured by this standard, the US-led war in Afghanistan has been illegal from the outset.

Marjorie Cohn, a well-known professor of international law, wrote in November 2001:

“[T]he bombings of Afghanistan by the United States and the United Kingdom are illegal.”2

In 2008, Cohn repeated this argument in an article entitled “Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War.” The point of the title was that, although it was by then widely accepted that the war in Iraq was illegal, the war in Afghanistan, in spite of the fact that many Americans did not realize it, was equally illegal.3 Her argument was based on the following facts:

First, according to international law as codified in the UN Charter, disputes are to be brought to the UN Security Council, which alone may authorize the use of force. Without this authorization, any military activity against another country is illegal.

Second, there are two exceptions: One is that, if your nation has been subjected to an armed attack by another nation, you may respond militarily in self-defense. This condition was not fulfilled by the 9/11 attacks, however, because they were not carried out by another nation: Afghanistan did not attack the United States. Indeed, the 19 men charged with the crime were not Afghans.

The other exception occurs when one nation has certain knowledge that an armed attack by another nation is imminent – too imminent to bring the matter to the Security Council. The need for self-defense must be, in the generally accepted phrase, “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” Although the US government claimed that its military operations in Afghanistan were justified by the need to prevent a second attack, this need, even if real, was clearly not urgent, as shown by the fact that the Pentagon did not launch its invasion until almost a month later.

US political leaders have claimed, to be sure, that the UN did authorize the US attack on Afghanistan. This claim, originally made by the Bush-Cheney administration, was repeated by President Obama in his West Point speech of December 1, 2009, in which he said: “The United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks,” so US troops went to Afghanistan “nder the banner of . . . international legitimacy.”4

However, the language of “all necessary steps” is from UN Security Council Resolution 1368, in which the Council, taking note of its own “responsibilities under the Charter,” expressed its own readiness “to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.”5

Of course, the UN Security Council might have determined that one of these necessary steps was to authorize an attack on Afghanistan by the United States. But it did not. Resolution 1373, the only other Security Council resolution about this issue, laid out various responses, but these included matters such as freezing assets, criminalizing the support of terrorists, exchanging police information 
about terrorists, and prosecuting terrorists. The use of military force was not mentioned.6

The US war in Afghanistan was not authorized by the UN Security Council in 2001 or at anytime since, so this war began as an illegal war and remains an illegal war today. Our government’s claim to the contrary is false.

This war has been illegal, moreover, not only under international law, but also under US law. The UN Charter is a treaty, which was ratified by the United States, and, according to Article VI of the US Constitution, any treaty ratified by the United States is part of the “supreme law of the land.”7 The war in Afghanistan, therefore, has from the beginning been in violation of US as well as international law. It could not be more illegal.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-9-11-justify-the-war-in-afghanistan/19891

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Wed 27 Mar, 2013 12:29 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
It's disgusting when reactionaries trot out a moral justification for what we did in Iraq.


It's disgusting when reactionaries trot out a moral justification for what we did in Vietnam.

Quote:
I expect that now Finn will call me Pooch again, and heap insults on me rather than address the criticisms. That's his style.


Gee, come to think of it, that's your style too, Set.

0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  4  
Reply Thu 28 Mar, 2013 10:30 am
I'm retired DoD, and had only been retired a short time when the World Trade Center buildings were hit. I understood why Afghanistan needed to be pounded into dust, dreaded the loss of life but we had to respond to an act of war. I watched carefully as the drum beat for Iraq started. We clicked off the reasons it was a stupid move: there was a no fly zone that kept Iraq contained, those satellites flying high in space are not simply there to transmit television and telephone calls, hint, the military was not properly equipped with what they needed, contractors would have to hired to feed the boots on the ground, but of crucial importance was there was no hard evidence of nuc weapons development, no chemical weapons. The reluctance of Bush cabinet members to inspect for evidence was mind boggling and that wretched Wolfawitz bullied the experts to confirm what was only a paranoia of his fevered imagination. I watched with disbelief as Bush calmly attempted to persuade the American people that we couldn't wait for mushroom clouds. So few people volunteer for military service that it no longer interests folks what dangers might exist in places they can't find on the map. As a country we have ignored military developments both here and abroad, and that makes it so easy to scare the living crap out of people who are uninformed.

I spent my entire career, trying to protect American security and during armed conflicts providing as much information as we could to keep our forces safe. Intelligence agencies do not have crystal balls or ESP, but you can smell the adrenaline during a crisis. The entire country was done a horrible disservice by deciding to invade Iraq. There were no best case good case arguments offered, because they couldn't imagine a worst case scenario happening since the advisors gut feelings were what they trusted.

Bottom line is our people are still being killed, coming home with minor, major or horrific injuries. But the day I saw Bush speaking as if he was warning us of the possibility of annihilation, I actually sobbed. Not because I was afraid of a contained Iraq, but I knew he was determined to invade. We have been at war since 2002, with no real end in sight. I didn't think it would go on this long, but I underestimated Congress. I also didn't think that war profiteering would become the norm, and neither popliteal party seems to care about that, and the previous and current White House haven't made a peep.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 28 Mar, 2013 10:55 am
@glitterbag,
Quote:
I understood why Afghanistan needed to be pounded into dust, dreaded the loss of life but we had to respond to an act of war.


Aren't you the naive one, GB.

Both invasions were war crimes, acts of terrorism - par for the course events for the USA.
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Iraq Reconsidered
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 11:14:32