THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

I knew that over half of the reconstruction money had been blown to security measures that were unanticipated. In my stupid assumptions, I assumed that subsequent appropriations had made up for the shortfall.

No wonder there is no good news to report out of Iraq. For one thing, and only just one thing, reconstruction has been ignored, or allowed to lapse.

I'm not surprised that Sistani has not bothered to open Bush's letter. He has lots of other things on his mind.

ican711nm wrote:

Our real Bush administration problem is, the Bush administration failed to do what is necessary to exterminate the terrorist malignancy in Iraq.

...
There's nothing imaginary about bu$h, his ... illegal war. ...

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations ...

... until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Iraq =/ Al Qaeda.

The fact that there were some AQ members in Iraq is not justification for the war.

Iraq did not attack us.

Ergo, we are not attacking as an act of 'self-defense.' You have to twist the law enormously in order to reach this conclusion.

Cycloptichorn

A proven enemy = an enemy who has attacked you.
A proven enemy of USA = an enemy who has attacked USA.
Attacking a proven enemy before a proven enemy attacks you again = self-defense.
USA attacking a proven enemy before a proven enemy attacks USA again = USA self-defense.
Al-Qaeda = "proven enemy".
Al-Qaeda based in Afghanistan = proven enemy of USA.
Al-Qaeda based in Iraq = proven enemy of USA.
Al-Qaeda based in Iraq = Al-Qaeda based in Afghanistan = proven enemy of USA.
ERGO:
USA attack against Afghanistan = USA self-defense;
USA attack against Iraq = USA self-defense.
USA attack against Afghanistan = USA attack against Iraq = USA self-defense.

We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Tonight we are a country awakened to danger. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

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; The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.

U.S. intelligence estimates put the total number of fighters who underwent instruction in Bin Ladin-supported camps in Afghanistan from 1996 through 9/11 at 10,000 to 20,000.78

Leader's first interview since Rice and Straw's move to break deadlock

Iraq's embattled prime minister has defiantly refused to give up his claim to head the country's next government in spite of strong American and British pleas for an end to a deadlock which has paralysed the country for almost four months.

Ergo, we are not attacking as an act of 'self-defense.' You have to twist the law enormously in order to reach this conclusion.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ergo, we are not attacking as an act of 'self-defense.' You have to twist the law enormously in order to reach this conclusion.

Cycloptichorn

Which law is that?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ergo, we are not attacking as an act of 'self-defense.' You have to twist the law enormously in order to reach this conclusion.

Cycloptichorn

Which law is that?

That would be, the law which says you can repel an armed attack.

This was not an armed attack, and the people who did it did not belong to, and were not sent by, the country which got attacked.

It seems to me to be reasonable grounds for complaint.

Ican, other countries had AQ members in them in larger numbers than Iraq did at the time of invasion. That dog just don't hunt, you really should give it up.

Ergo, we are not attacking as an act of 'self-defense.' You have to twist the law enormously in order to reach this conclusion. ...

Which law is that?

That would be, the law which says you can repel an armed attack.

This was not an armed attack, and the people who did it did not belong to, and were not sent by, the country which got attacked.

It seems to me to be reasonable grounds for complaint.

So, O'Bill, do you want me to post the United Nations charter again?

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations ...

... until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

I told you before, it wasn't an armed attack.

And it wasn't an attack sanctioned by the sovereign nation of Iraq (as was)

So what you have written Ican, is worthless.

As far a smashing your way into a country to get at terrorist cells which you believe might be there, it's illegal. Isn't it?

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

I told you before, it wasn't an armed attack.
That is silly.

Merriam-Webster wrote:

Main Entry: 1armed
Pronunciation: 'ärmd
Function: adjective
1 a : furnished with weapons b : furnished with something that provides security, strength, or efficacy
2 : marked by the maintenance of armed forces in readiness

Members of al-Qaeda armed with boxcutters boarded four American airliners on 9/11. They then used these weapons to highjack these airliners. They then armed with these four airliners, used these four airliners as weapons to murder almost 3,000 civilians and destroy buildings.

And it wasn't an attack sanctioned by the sovereign nation of Iraq (as was)
This is silly, too.

Merriam-Webster wrote:

Main Entry: 2harbor
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): har·bored; har·bor·ing /-b(&-)ri[ng]/
transitive senses
1 a : to give shelter or refuge to b : to be the home or habitat of <the ledges still harbor rattlesnakes>; broadly : CONTAIN 2
2 : to hold especially persistently in the mind : CHERISH <harbored a grudge>
intransitive senses
1 : to take shelter in or as if in a harbor
2 : LIVE
- har·bor·er /-b&r-&r/ noun

There is nothing in Article 51 of the UN charter that requires that a sovereign nation state give sanction to its own invasion when it is harboring a private group (e.g., terrorist cells) that is waging war against another sovereign nation state, in order to make it legal for it to be invaded by that other sovereign nation state.

So what you have written Ican, is worthless.
So, what you have written is silly.

As far a smashing your way into a country to get at terrorist cells which you believe might be there, it's illegal. Isn't it?
No, it is not illegal for a sovereign nation state acting in its own self-defense to invade another sovereign nation state, in order to exterminate a private group (e.g., terrorist cells) waging war against the invading sovereign nation state, when that private group is being harbored by the invaded sovereign nation state. Article 51 of the UN charter does not prohibit that.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
WSJ
Condi's Iraq Stumble
April 5, 2006

Iraq can use all the gestures of solidarity it can get. And President Bush could boost both American and Iraqi morale by putting his own two boots on the ground there sometime soon. But try as we might, we can't see what good purpose was served by Condoleezza Rice and Jack Straw's lobbying in Baghdad earlier this week. If the American Secretary of State and British Foreign Secretary were aiming to be diplomatic, they failed.

That's because with both words and gestures the two publicly took sides in a contentious dispute over forming Iraq's government -- and in favor of a man, former Finance Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi, who is not even a declared candidate for Prime Minister. Meanwhile, they snubbed Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who beat out Mr. Mahdi to become the Shiite coalition's candidate for the post, and who is also the current holder of the office.

The effect was to suggest to many Shiites -- even those who don't love Mr. Jaafari -- that the U.S. and Britain are not respecting their victory in December's election. As senior Kurdish politician Mahmoud Othman, a usual ally of the U.S., put it, "I think that their interference is bad, and it further complicates issues because this is an Iraqi matter."

It's hard to see any reason for a strong U.S. preference here. Granted that Mr. Jaafari has not proven to be a strong and decisive leader. But he is by everyone's account a good and honest person, and he has more genuine support on the Iraqi street than most other leaders -- though admittedly that's not saying much given the general unpopularity of Iraqi pols. He's also less beholden to Iran than many possible alternatives.

As for Mr. Mahdi, he's clearly the smoother politician of the two. He speaks better English and he seems to have a more modern (free-market) economic philosophy, among other assets. But he also represents a party called the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. SCIRI has very strong ties to Iran, and it has been in charge during the interim government of the problematic Interior Ministry, whose police forces are not well trusted and have been credibly accused of abuses against Sunnis.

Mr. Mahdi's name has remained in play in part because President Jalal Talabani and the Kurds appear to have struck a deal with SCIRI to acquiesce in a Kurdish takeover of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk in exchange for the Kurds allowing the emergence of a more religious Shiite southern Iraq. Some kind of federalist power sharing is necessary, but too much will also risk a too-weak national government in Baghdad.

Our point isn't to pick one man, or faction, over the other. It is that we can't see a strong rationale for the U.S. taking sides -- certainly not enough to justify Ms. Rice's suggestion that the expenditure of U.S. "treasure" in Iraq justified her barely coded calls for Mr. Jaafari to step aside. A particular danger is that Ms. Rice may be playing into the hands of troublesome cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who dislikes Mr. Mahdi, and who may well be looking for any excuse to foment anti-American sentiment.

Mr. Jaafari may yet fail to form a new government. But it's much better to let him be seen to fail on his own if that's what happens, rather than be pushed aside by the Americans. Iraq has a parliamentary system that allows for no-confidence votes and changes of office if the government isn't working out.

More broadly, the Bush Administration can't afford to forget the most fundamental strategic fact about Iraq: To wit, our project there is entirely dependent on continued Shiite support. The U.S. and its Shiite allies can fight a low-intensity conflict with Sunni Saddamist remnants for a decade or more if need be. What would make the U.S. mission in Iraq untenable would be for Shiites to turn against us in significant numbers.

And Shiite mistrust of the U.S. has been growing. One festering issue remains former U.S. regent Paul Bremer's decision to reverse himself on the de-Baathification policy he declared shortly after the U.S. invasion. De-Baathification gave Shiites the expectation of a process to punish those associated with the former regime and undoubtedly saved a lot of Sunni lives early on. But our about-face emboldened the Baathist insurgents, and Shiite-on-Sunni revenge killings are on the rise now because Shiites believe we can't -- or worse, won't -- protect them.

One especially worrying signal about the Shiite mood has been the reaction to a U.S.-Iraqi raid on elements of Mr. Sadr's Mahdi Army about 10 days ago. Many Shiites believe instead that U.S. forces massacred worshippers in cold blood inside a mosque. Ms. Rice's visit is now being cited as evidence of a U.S. "conspiracy" to deprive Shiites of their election victory.

The Secretary of State is surely right that the U.S. sacrifice for Iraqi freedom has earned us the right to speak up. But except where U.S. interests are clearly threatened, pressure is best applied behind closed doors by the seasoned U.S. Ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, not the unsubtle endorsement of candidates by overnighting officials.