The US, UN & Iraq III

No, Craven, you asked me to explain the relevance. Though I believe the answer was obvious, I gave it to you.


There are many things in the United Strates , and in our current government, that could bear improvement. I don't happen to think our policy with respect to outlaw governments is one of them,

In a similar way I believe there many things in Europe that merit improvement too. One of them is the current tendency in some quarters to find fault with the United States for its conduct of serious matters during its historical moment of leadership, after they have so badly screwed up theirs.

Further I don't think the U.S. is guilty of any transgressions of international law (if that was your meaning). We have flouted some conventions that some European states wish were accepted international law (Kyoto, the ICC,etc.) but which are not.

George,

It really shouldn't surprise me that you wish for more sycophants.

Oh well, I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think you are untoward to suggest that our invasions of sovereign nations be unquestioned by Europe (you tend to forget that it's the whole world, not just Europe) because it's a "historic moment".

Historic indeed, flout law, flout the international institutions we helped create, lie about intel available to us (or at least employ liberal hyperbole), all for a "pre-emptive" invasion of another nation under the guise of "security".

It is my sincere desire that Europe does not become the sycophant to our expantionim that you have become.

BTW, you have yet to substantiate WHY you think Eourope should not find fault with our disrespect for their desires and international law.

You simply say you believe they are wrong and that they should not find fault.

That is the epitome of a mindless sycophant and despite all the evedence to the contrary I still believe you can do better. I won't hold my breath.

<if your impulse is to come back with "I believe" and "they should not find fault" please don't bother. It's insulting to anyone with intellectual curisosity. Even I could defend the war better than that>

I just saw your edit.

I am NOT speaking of Kyoto (which I do not believe we should have signed) nor the ICC (which i believe we should have signed).

I'm talking about a level of intellectual curiosity that demands more than the childish:

"you guys are not law abiding either"

And

"no it's you"

and

"they should not find fault"

I find that line of argument deserving only of a simpleton's lips and know/hope you can do better.

Edit: I'm not looking for you to agree with me. I'm looking for you to present arguments beyond that of a child's capability.

That you are dogmatically supportive of american expantionist policies is evident.

That you wish the world would be a yes0man and play along is also evident.

that you have thus far refused to do anything other than stomp your feet and say "no, it's you" is dissappointing.

Interesting to me that you would say this. I wanted us to sign on to this, but of course my country (this is MY country?) would not. We are dominating and legalistsic, and we will use these bents to remain indomitable.

" ... mindless sycophant, ...childish... etc."

Do you really mean that? Are you trying to bait me?

You have asked a host of new questions, none of which were in the original, and you provided no clue of your self-proclaimed intellectual curiosity.

The United States' invasion of Iraq was not a violation of the UN charter, which gives every nation the right to act to protect its security when other methods fail. Further I believe our government rightly claims it's action was taken to enforce the 1992 peace agreement after the Gulf War, and was in keeping with numerous Security Council resolution issued since then. There is no violation of international law.

You should note that France had no Security Council authorization for its recent military intervention in the Ivory Coast - an action that was clearly intended only to protect French commercial interests there. Was this a violation of international law?

I have no problem with criticism either for myself, our government, or our country for that matter. I do however know enough to distinguish between real criticism on the part of some European nations and their mere frustration at being unable to enmesh the United States in their own constructs of what should be done and what constitutes law - motivated by a desire to regain the rights of lost leadership, but without earning them. The failure of these same nations to act to meet their own responsibilities, just a few years ago in the former Yugoslavia, tells the tale quite well.

Sorry, george, but UN Resolution 1441 was not approval for war.
Here's the latest on the subject: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4619027,00.html
c.i.

Cicerone,

A March 5 piece from the Manchester Guardian is hardly the "latest" and far from authoritive.

Did you read it? I point out to you that the issue discussed there was reso;ved by the UK government, that they did join in the war, and that Lord Goldsmith did not resign.

I'm not going to go get them, but the relevant SC resolutions, 679, 680, 681, 690 and 1441--none of them explicitly authorize a resumption of hositilities, nor do any of them implicitly authorize action without further reference to the Council. To attempt to use 1441 for authority is damned flimsy. Those who wish to dispute this, i would ask that you go to the UN site and read those resolutions--i have, and base my statement upon having read them.

george,

as to the sycophant comment of course I mean it. Your dismissal of European concerns about the war are nothing more than a desire to have them capitulate to our demands.

Germany was the first to say that the US does not need a sycophant but a friend who is willing to say when they think we are wrong.

You decry this dissent and for this I say you wish for a sycophant.

As to the war not being against the UN charter I point out that the overwhelming majority of those governed by the UN charter disagree with you. Kofi Annan said that the US invasion, without a second resolution, would be a breach of the charter.

You say the war was to protect our security yet many who dissent take issue with that precise notion. I am among many who think that security was never a threat and that expansionist policy (as delineated in the New American Century that many in the admin have supported) is what was the motivating factor

Persons such as yourself try to tie expansionism into security and legally justify it.

You say there is no violation of international law while the majority of the world disagrees with your liberal interpretation of the laws in question.

In the face oh this abundant dissent from your pinion you wish that they would "not find fault".

That is why I call you a sycophant wishing that the world would also be a sycophant and play along.

I called mindless your insistence on nonsensical oneliners such as "no, it's you" as an argument. I maintain that it was both devoid of content and did not require much use of the mind, therefore mindless.

But as to baiting, I'd love to bait you into supporting your opinions. They are stated in absolute terms and any dissent is told to stop "finding fault" or is called illegitimate.

It's oh so convenient for you to label any dissent to be motivated by "the desire to regain the rights of lost leadership" and that it's not "real criticism".

I find that disingenuous and a brainfart of epic magnitude.

It seems to elude you that many simply do not want the US to engage in the decimation of international stability under the guise of protecting it.

It's simplistic to simply label the world's opinions as not valid and tell them to stop finding fault.

It is precisely that kind of hubris that makes people less receptive of our strategic goals and who would fault them. When confronted by the arrogant dismissal of their opinions and the notion that they should shut up and "not find fault" I can't imagine anyone wishing to cooperate.

That is why i call you a sycophant and I stand by that assertion. When you stop dismissing everyone's opinions and stop telling them to find fault where they think there is plenty I will certainly reconsider.

It is insipid to say that you accept valid criticism yet reserver the right to determine that it's not valid and is to be quashed.

Especially in the face of such an overwhelming amount of said fault finding is the arbitrary dismissal of dissent so specious.

As to "childish" I maintain that "it's you" "no, it's you" smacks of a childish tone and has no value in a debate. But I guess I shouldn't be finding fault.

I sure look forward to the day when our Iraq-Texas Oil pipeline is completed. Once we make Iraq the 51st state under the "expanisionist regime" that currently exists, Oil will be so plentiful that I will be able to drive my SUV all winter with the AC on. Then, maybe our evil administration will enslave all the Iraqi's under the pretense of liberation and make them all run the oil wells while us Americans continue on with our empirialism.

McGentrix,

I am not one who believes this war was about oil.

BTW, Welcome, bring the rest of your RWC pals.

Gosh, Craven, was it something I said ?

On this thread, given the majority views of ATK posters, it is hardly sycophancy to defend U.S. foreign policy. Indeed it could better be described as masochistic.

You wandered a bit in your last post so I'll just make a few specific points and let you fit them in.

The U.S. government claims that the Security Council in Resolution 1441 and others gave it the authority to act in Iraq. We certainly made it clear to all at the time it passed that we interpreted 1441 in that manner. No nation, to my knowledge has specifically challenged us on this point.

I doubt very much that a seasoned diplomat such as Kofi Anan would ever say that the United States has violated the UN Charter.

On what basis do you claim to speak for the majority of nations in the world? Where is your evidence? We had quite a few nations in the so-called coalition and I believe that a clear majority of the nations in NATO supported us - only Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, and France expressed any opposition. The others were strongly supportive.

You evidently believe the U.S. is somehow "expansionistic" and is upsetting international stability. I believe that the intent of our government is clearly to enhance that stability and that we have no territorial ambitions involved. Only the unfolding events of history will prove the point either way, but I believe we are indeed on a course to deal well with several interlocking and serious threats to the international order. What is my basis for that belief? My experience in relevant matters and in life in general (both are substantial) and my interpretation of the events we both have read about. What is yours?

I don't believe we should (or could ever) be immune from any criticism. In the case at hand I believe the criticism we got, particularly from France, Germany, and Russia was cynically based on other factors - somewhat different for each country. Indeed both France and Russia have recently violated the very principles they cited in attacking us. So the difference between my views and what appear to be yours is how we interpret that criticism.

I can't prove the rightness of my conclusions in the manner you suggest, any more than you can prove yours. Moreover over time I believe you will come to understand that real historical truth requires much more than the superficial legalisms that appear to attract you so much.

You are absolutely right, Vietnamnurse, what you wrote is a lie. (Did you learn to use ellipses from Maureen Dowd?)

Here's what Bush actually said (taken from your citation):

Nowhere, NOWHERE in the article you cite does Bush make the statement you pretend to quote him as saying. That makes your statement a lie. Period.

(This is beginning to be a trend here in A2K.)

It was actually the lack of what you said. Despite my snide comments I AM interested in hearing more from you. I'm glad you decided to play ball.

I never said your defense of US policy was sycophancy, I said that the desire for Europe not to find fault is. If they are not to find fault when their population is overwhelmingly entrenched in the side that finds fault then what would you have them do? Be silent about it? That is, to my definition, sycophancy.

I have seen you do much better defenses of the war and simply prefer those. I am EAGER to hear defense of the war. Like Timberlandko said: "I personally think that discussion without dissent is meaningless".

I simply wished for something more substantial that the one-liners (that I'll not repeat as I got far more play out of them than I deserved to have gotten).



Yes, the US made that clear. And the rest of the world (in their majority) made it clear that they did not see it this way. Hence the difficulty in wrangling the resolution in the first place. Your memory seems to either be selective or you interpret the events far differently (or a mix) but I plainly recall both Russia and France insisting that as they passed that resolution they did not expect it to be a "trigger" for war.

There was specific wording in that resolution that was agonized over to seek to deny that interpretation. Kofi Annan went on the record to say that US action without the second resolution would be a breach of the UN charter. The US seemed to take what it could get and had planned to go to the UN for round two if we could win but spurn the UN if we couldn't. We wrangled all the support we could but it was evident that the second resolution was not likely to pass (and no, not just because of France's veto).

That you interpret the resolution differently is understandable. To say that no nation spoke out with a sharply different interpretation of that resolution is less so (I'm trying to understate it here).



He did not say it after the war. He said it before the war and it is indicative of the severity of the situation in the eyes of the UN that he would put that kind of pressure on the US when he knows full well that the US's intent was to play the irrelevant card if things didn't go our way. I believe his wording was something along the lines of "against the principles of the charter" but am notoriously too lazy to look up articles I remember. I understand that this is unhelpful. Were I to have the patience to dig it up this would be a non-issue.

If you really believe that no nation spoke out against our interpretation of the resolution and that Kofi did not say that I'd think about digging them up but it would not change your opinion so right now it's not worth it. Or to state it a better way, Kofi is the final word for neither of us.



I never claimed to speak for the majority of the world.

A) the majority of the people of the world did not support the US. Even those who were pressured into the coalition were not supported by their populations.

Even Britain, and Australia who came along willingly faced enormous public opposition until the bombs started falling.

B) I still contend that the majority of nations opposed it. If you REALLY contend that the majority supported it (not just the important ones and not after the fact) I will research further.

I did not expect this, which I considered obvious, to be a point of contention.

My caveat: I say that many nations supported the war once it was inevitable simply to avoid diplomatic and possibly economic retaliation, I assume you think many had supported the war since the beginning but were hedging their bets and publicly being less supportive.

This could be a complicating factor and make my research useless. Hence I play the lazy card again. You can always bring me out from my slothfulness by calling me on it and pressing those points.



That the US is expansionist is obvious. We project our power and seek to do so in economic, military and cultural ways.

I do not consider expansionism to be inherently evil so this is not a big deal for me.



Expansionism is clearly not always territorial. Thing is, I know that many supporters of the war seek to achieve stability by their reasoning. I simply think that their reasoning leads them to conclude that expansionist policy (not in terms of territory but in terms of geopolitical influence and power projection) is to the benefit of stability.



I disagree. I think in the long run people will still disagree on this. Interpretation of History is subjective and full of "what ifs" that can't be answered. The "what if" of whether Saddam posed a threat to the Us will not be answered for example. Neither will the "what if" about whether he could successfully have been contained or replaced.

My biggest "what if" is that I do not think the urgency was there. Waiting a few months or a year in my opinion would not have spelled disaster. Again, time, IMO, will not tell.



The same (my experience in relevant matters and life in general which is substantial :-) ). I'm not going to play a silly credential contest. The key word in your above post is your "interpretation". My interpretation is different from yours and my opinions on this matter are derived from the same as everyone else's. The information made available to us and our interpretation of them.

If you seek to question my understanding please select the issues I exhibit factual flaw in and do not seek a blanket "my opinion is more valid than yours", as you tried on setanta. I did not ever do that to you and the same respect for my cognitive ability is only helpful. It will allow us to focus on the issue.

In any case a man like Bush has far more experience in the world of geopolitics than I. Am I to not question his conclusions? Men who have far more experience than either you or I have come out against the war. Are we to take their experiences and accept their conclusions unconditionally?

Obviously not. So let's avoid credential wars.



Indeed, the thing about the dissent being motivated of financial interest I reject because the populations of said countries were not all individually involved in financial dealings.

I posit that the populations of the world simply did not want the US to be have their way, as they view such a condition as a threat to their security.

Everyone interprets world events differently. I happen to agree that there are many good things that can result of the invasion of Iraq. But I think it is not unfair to allow other nations to be deeply suspicious of "pre-emption". A "pre-emptive" case can be used to justify many things and I think it's imperative to international stability that pre-emption be held to a high standard.



I agree that we can not beat our opinions over each others heads. I do take issue with your comment that time will teach me differently. I do not believe that any more so than I believe time will teach you differently. Again, interpretation is subjective.

I do not place undue interest in legality. An earlier example of yours that I missed (I believe you edited it in while I was posting) was about France and their military intervention without UN approval. I do not equate the same because there simply was not an overwhelming amount of dissent to that action. You will note I do not complain of our actions there either.

In Iraq I believe the case to be different. It was a cause sold under several descriptions and poorly managed. Due to the nature of pre-emption I sought as much justification for us as possible. See, Saddam is worse than just about anything that will arise from our actions in my estimation. But I like as much legitimacy in unprovoked military action if possible. After all, is not stability on the international level the absence of unprovoked military action?

We could go on about what provocation means and what the result of inaction would have been, and that leads me to my next point. People differ in these interpretations of statistical probability. Therefore I find the ideal in war to be one that is justified as broadly as possible. Individuals defining morality and what should be done is termed lawlessness. When someone believes that their goals are worth the costs they can be wrong, and dramatically so. It's also not uncommon for them to not see this and still act against the will of the majority.

Hence my liking for multilateral decisions of this nature. If I believed that this was necessary I'd not be as concerned about satisfying these criteria. If our nation's existence was threatened there would not be a need in our mind for us to justify this action.

But most can agree that the threat to our nation was not an obvious one. Therefore I think it was simple consideration for legitimacy of a breach of sovereignty to try the UN route. A collectively sanctioned act is always more desirable in these cases. My criteria for the war has always been simple. Convince the world that this is needed and go for it. I don't think it was needed. The neighbors to Saddam (who was reportedly a "regional threat") did not think it was needed (in most cases).

So my criteria was simply this: convince the world that this is more than expansionism and if they buy it you have legitimized an unprovoked "pre-emptive" violation of another nation's sovereignty.

If that were achieved my qualms would be on a personal level and I would accept the action as legitimate. I also believe that it was not a hard thing to sell, and that selling it to the world was more of a state department thing with certain persons undermining it at every opportunity (calling the inspections a waste of time etc). I believe that certain persons seek to de-legitimize the UN so as to make it easier to render them irrelevant to a domestic audience.

Simply put, if you are gonna do something drastic make it look as legal as possible. If I kill someone I know is a villain I am a murderer, if I convince the court that he needs killin' then I am not.

It's a simple principle and not inordinately tied to legality. It's tied to my interpretation of events and the practicality of the solutions as I see them.

scrat

Quiz soon. Bring a pencil and paper.

From the article cited by VNN in the Washington Post. Note the part of the quote that says that Bush says US forces in Iraq have found the weapons of mass destruction. Sometimes quotes taken out of context for convenience's sake are innacurate.




Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons
President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 31, 2003; Page A01


KRAKOW, Poland, May 30 -- President Bush, citing two trailers that U.S. intelligence agencies have said were probably used as mobile biological weapons labs, said U.S. forces in Iraq have "found the weapons of mass destruction" that were the United States' primary justification for going to war.

In remarks to Polish television at a time of mounting criticism at home and abroad that the more than two-month-old weapons hunt is turning up nothing, Bush said that claims of failure were "wrong." The remarks were released today.

"You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons," Bush said in an interview before leaving today on a seven-day trip to Europe and the Middle East. "They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.

"And we'll find more weapons as time goes on," Bush said. "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."

Bush administration officials have recently been stressing a hunt for "weapons programs" instead of weapons themselves. Among the officials who have hedged their claims in recent public statements is Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who said this week that deposed president Saddam Hussein may have destroyed all the weapons before the war.

U.S. authorities have to date made no claim of a confirmed finding of an actual nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. In the interview, Bush said weapons had been found, but in elaborating, he mentioned only the trailers, which the CIA has concluded were likely used for production of biological weapons.

McGentrix cliche-watch day five

It's been several days now and you still haven't mentioned how the place reeks of patchouli oil.

No, you don't see at all. My point isn't whether they lied; as you point out, we may well never know. My point is that when Gelis wrote that the Wolfowitz interview proved they lied, Gelis was lying.

Of course, most of you don't care about that, because you believe they did lie--and maybe they did--but it was complete BS for Gelis to point to that interview and claim that it "proved" they had lied. And everyone in this discussion KNOWS that or you all would have fallen all over yourself long ago pointing to the phrase or phrases that justified that claim by Gelis.

But of course all I get in response is whining about how terrible it is that I'm such a stickler for this little thing called THE TRUTH. Remember the TRUTH folks?

(This would be a good time for a couple of you to launch some of your personal pot-shots in a feeble effort to distract everyone from the fact that I'm right about this.) Go ahead... it'll quiet that uneasy feeling you get when someone challenges your deepest beliefs. Really! Change the subject to what's wrong with that rascal Scrat and don't fuss about the facts or right or wrong, it'll make you feel sooooo much better.

re the trailers....

Anyone who reads at all broadly has already become aware that there is no unanimity among qualified weapons inspectors on the function of these vehicles. The only unanimity is that they contain traces of nothing.

But watch now as this line of Bush's gets repeated and repeated and repeated. This is, of course, exactly the technique (it's a simple marketing technique) which they used to produce the widespread acceptance of 'Iraq equals Osama'.

These guys are soooo disgusting.

scrat

You are - a bunch of us know this from experience - simply not willing to take the cognitive step that would allow admission (to us, and possibly to yourself) that they guys would lie. You'll argue about what 'lie' means, or you'll discredit sources, or you'll justify with 'everyone does it'. This is not a fruitful conversation.