9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 05:18 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, Don't get more stupid on us than you already are. The US would have no qualms about following al Qaida into Pakistan whether it's against Pakistan's or international laws.

Quote:
George W. Bush, in his unprovoked attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, openly violated the UN Charter, to which the US is a signatory. The Charter's core principles contained in Article 2(4) and Article 51 prohibit one nation from attacking another except in self-defense or with the authority of the U.N. In effect, George Bush launched an unlawful use of force against persons and property.


From GWU.edu:
Quote:
Update - September 27, 2006

"A Comprehensive Strategy to Fight Al-Qaeda"?
Rice versus Clinton on January 2001 Clarke Memo

Washington, D.C., September 27, 2006 - In a series of recent public statements, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has again denied that the Clinton administration presented the incoming administration of President George W. Bush with a "comprehensive strategy" against al-Qaeda. Rice's denials were prompted by a September 22 Fox News interview with Bill Clinton in which the former president asserted that he had "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" with the incoming Bush administration in January 2001. In a September 25 interview, Rice told the New York Post, "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida," adding that, "Nobody organized this country or the international community to fight the terrorist threat that was upon us until 9/11."

The crux of the issue is a January 25, 2001, memo on al-Qaeda from counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, the first terrorism strategy paper of the Bush administration. The document was central to the debate over pre-9/11 Bush administration policy on terrorism and figured prominently in the 9/11 hearings held in 2004. A declassified copy of the Clarke memo was first posted on the Web by the National Security Archive in February 2005.

Clarke's memo, described below, "urgently" requested a high-level National Security Council review on al-Qaeda and included two attachments: a declassified December 2000 "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects" and the September 1998 "Pol-Mil Plan for al-Qida," the so-called Delenda Plan, which remains classified.


If memory serves, GWBush dropped the search for al Qaida to plan his unlawful attack against Iraq based on lies about Saddam's WMDs that was never found after extensive search by our military after the invasion.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 08:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
...
The US would have no qualms about following al Qaida into Pakistan whether it's against Pakistan's or international laws.
...
GWBush dropped the search for al Qaida to plan his unlawful attack against Iraq based on lies about Saddam's WMDs that was never found after extensive search by our military after the invasion.

I have repeatedly provided you evidence that these and other theories of yours are false. You have yet to provide any evidence, other than the opinions of your fellow politicos, that your theories are true.

Your usual response is that you are not obligated to provide evidence your theories are true. You claim has been its up to me to provide evidence your theories are fallse.

I also disagree with that theory of yours as well.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 09:17 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, Why did you leave out this quote:
Quote:
Quote:

George W. Bush, in his unprovoked attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, openly violated the UN Charter, to which the US is a signatory. The Charter's core principles contained in Article 2(4) and Article 51 prohibit one nation from attacking another except in self-defense or with the authority of the U.N. In effect, George Bush launched an unlawful use of force against persons and property.


GW Bush's war against terrorism should have been his primary goal, and al Qaid his target whether they were in Iraq or Pakistan. He already "openly violated UN Charter" by his invasion of Iraq. What's was to stop him from going into Pakistan? The UN Charter? I have a bridge to sell in Montana, and you seem like the right kind of "customer."
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2009 07:59 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
George W. Bush, in his unprovoked attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, openly violated the UN Charter, to which the US is a signatory. The Charter's core principles contained in Article 2(4) and Article 51 prohibit one nation from attacking another except in self-defense or with the authority of the U.N. In effect, George Bush launched an unlawful use of force against persons and property.


Except that is one persons opinion.
Since Iraq did not follow thru with ALL of the terms of the cease fire in Desert Storm (a war the UN authorized BTW) and since the terms did say that a resumption of hostilities was a possibility, then our attack on Iraq can be considered a resumption of Desert Storm.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2009 08:01 pm
@mysteryman,
The UN is not "one" person.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2009 08:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
So then please show a link to the quote you used, including how the UN said it.
Last time I looked, the UN couldnt speak, but its members could.

So, which member of the UN made the statement you quoted?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 08:06 am
@mysteryman,
That one person's decision was the Secretary General of UN.

Quote:
U.S. and British officials say they had adequate UN authorization for military action against Iraq under Security Council Resolution 1441, which was passed late in 2002. That and previous resolutions called on Saddam Hussein to give up weapons of mass destruction. Security Council Resolution 1441 warned Iraq that there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with UN demands to disarm, but did not specify what those consequences should be.

Annan said in the interview that he believes the U.S.-led coalition preempted UN procedures by going to war without obtaining a second resolution specifically authorizing the forceful disarmament of Iraq.

Britain sought such a resolution early last year but was not able to convince fellow permanent members of the Security Council, France, Russia, and China, that force was needed in place of ongoing UN arms inspections.


http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1054882.html

The previous resolution said a possibility if Saddam was found to have violated the resolution, not a certainty. The inspections were on going, at the time there were no significant amounts of WMD, there were a few questions remaining. A decision could have been reached at the end of the weapons search that did not necessarily mean an invasion or resumption of hostilities. Moreover, one (or two) committee member of Security counsel cannot judge whether the resolutions have been and what actions are necessary to take, there has to be a vote with the voting members of the security counsel, of which Bush knew we didn't have, so he cut he short and decided to invade.








mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 08:12 am
@revel,
Quote:
Annan said in the interview that he believes


So it was his opinion.
I BELIEVE that the sky is orange with green polka dots, does that make it so?

Has there been any legal authority, anywhere in the world, with the power to adjudicate this, that has said what the US did was wrong?

Quote:
Security Council Resolution 1441 warned Iraq that there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with UN demands to disarm, but did not specify what those consequences should be.


Nor did it say what those consequences would not be.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 08:14 am
@ican711nm,
Quote:
When AQ went into Pakistan from Afghanistan, if we followed them into Pakistan without Pakistan's agreement, that would have been an invasion of Pakistan.


If that is what it would have taken to continue the hunt for AQ and Bin Laden who attacked our country, we were well within our rights to do so.

Clinton during the n0-fly zone years bombed Iraq because he thought weapons were being made there and other places he thought Bin Laden was located several times yet it was not considered a declaration of war as far I can remember. It was part of the "here a little there a little" strategy the Bush administration decried. And before you go off saying that did no good, neither did invading Iraq, Bin Laden remains still at large plus AQ has grown up all around the region.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 08:19 am
@mysteryman,
We did not know fully if Saddam did not live up to the resolution because the inspections were still going on when Bush decided to skip the final vote of the security counsel and invade Iraq. Sure Annan is just one person with one opinion, but that is whole point, that is why you have more than one member state in the UN, so that countries can come together and discuss potential problems and what actions to take. Not one country (or two) deciding for everyone else.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 10:48 am
@revel,
Not only were the inspections going on, but Saddam didn't impose any restrictions on where they could inspect - even the many palaces that Saddam built.

Our soldiers put extra effort into finding those WMDs after our invasion, and they found absolutely nothing!

I remember seeing pictures of some trailers that Bush claimed were WMD factories in the newspaper, but it turned out they were not.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 11:18 am
We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq because neither of their governments agreed to try with our help to remove AQ from their countries.

However, we did not invade Pakistan and Saudi Arabia because the governments of both countries did agree to try to remove AQ from their countries with our help.

But we chose not to invade Syria even though their government did not agree to try and remove AQ from their country with our help. I think that choice was a big mistake.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 11:40 am
@revel,
But there was more to the terms of the cease-fire then just allowing the search for WMD's.
And all of you seem to be forgetting that.

So lets look at the cease fire agreement...

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

Now, Iraq did not meet all of the terms.
There are still Kuwaiti POW's that Iraq never accounted for, and they still havent.

If you read the entire link, you will see that Iraq did not abide by all of the terms, so they violated the cease fire.

revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 07:26 pm
@mysteryman,
Bush had no right to use the UN resolution as an excuse to invade Iraq when he didn't go through the process to get the votes from the committee members. A resumption of hostilities is not a certainty of resumption of hostilities but rather a possibility of resumption of hostilities and it should have went through the security counsel members to discuss and a judgement made and a vote should have been taken by all the security council members before any action should have been taken whether we are talking of any WMD or missing POWs or anything else.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 07:57 pm
@ican711nm,
Again; aq was restricted in the north which was a no-fly zone for Iraq. The Kurds pretty much controlled that part of the country, because Saddam's military could not go north. Saddam had no real control of the north beyond the 36th parallel.

ican, The US, UK and France created the NFZ that was against the UN. Do you remember Operation Provide Comfort (to the Kurds)?

What makes you think the US will not go into Pakistan to chase aq and kill them?
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Aug, 2009 08:07 pm
@ican711nm,
Ican, Bin Laden and AQ has been in the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan since the Tora Bora thing, we should kept up the hunt and if the Pakistan leaders proved difficult we should proceeded without them regardless of any meaningless words of agreements from the leaders of Pakistan.

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Aug, 2009 11:22 am
@cicerone imposter,
A no-fly zone is not a n0-crawl, no-walk, no-march, no-run, or no-drive zone.

Saddam was requested by the USA to eliminate AQ from Iraq. Saddam chose not to respond to that request. If he had responded and had said he would satisfy that request if he were permitted to fly into the northeastern Iraq part of the no-fly zone to remove those AQ, he would have been granted that permission by the USA, UK and France.

The US has frequently gone into Pakistan per requests by the Pakistan government (e.g., USA drones).
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Aug, 2009 11:56 am
@ican711nm,
Actually Saddam tried to have those arrested in northern Iraq but he was unsuccessful. We could have taken care of that small problem without invading the whole of Iraq if we thought it important enough.

As ususal this conversation has grown beyond stale, I reminded of a song


'always the same, it's just a shame, that's all
I could say day, and you'd say night
tell me it's black when I know that it's white
always the same, it's just a shame, that's all'



Genesis (the group obviously)

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Aug, 2009 12:04 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, Do you really believe the US would have listened to any Pakistan government's restrictions if we had the opportunity to find and kill bin Ladin after 9-11?

It was Bush who took his eye off the ball to invade Iraq. The US didn't have UN approval to invade Iraq with a war. Do you think we were restricted into going into Pakistan for any reason to kill bin Ladin?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Aug, 2009 01:54 pm
@revel,
Saddam did not try to have those AQ arrested in northern Iraq. He tried to arrest only one AQ in Iraq, "but he was unsuccessful."

Yes, MAYBE we could have taken care of that AQ in northeast Iraq problem without invading the whole of Iraq, if we thought it important enough. It really depended on whether we could have succeeded in removing AQ from northeast Iraq without some of them escaping, and they and others building up in other parts of Iraq. If that build up were to occur in that case, we still would have had to invade all of Iraq.
 

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 0.06 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 03:37:06