A strike on Iraq

[Klaus]

In response to Klaus:

It is true that "Duel Use Technology" went to Iraq in the 1980s but also to dozens of other countries around the world. Unless there were already sanctions on a particular country at the time, "duel use technology" would be approved. In addition, Iraq recieved most of its duel use technology from other countries besides the USA.

Right! I didn't want to say that only the US - it was just one example of many
The interesting fact of the US export of duel use technology was that they sold it when they allready knew that Sadam uses Chemical weapons against people of his own country

Germany in fact not only sold "duel use techonology" but military weapons to include The Milan Anti-Tank Missile, The Roland Anti-Tank Missile, and various armored vehicles which I don't recall

Right - but America dosn't want to invade in Iraq because of Anti Tank Missiles - do they?
I don't want to say that Germany didn't sell chemical technology to the iraq too - BUT
The interesting point (for me) of this fact was:
- the US sold the stuff and now they want to start war against this country because they own it!

The USA never sold Iraq Military combat equipment. Its true that we contributed to Iraq's Bio/Chem

Afik the United States did but i have no proof at the moment i can't remember on which magazine they mentioned it.

program because of lax import/export controls and the "duel use" factor. But the US aid given to Iraq had no relevant effect on the Iran/Iraq war or the conflict with the Kurds. Even if the

You mean the US tried to support Iraq against Iran (after an anti-american regime change there) but all the support did not have relevant effects?
I really can't believe that.

USA had not given the permission for the shipment of "duel Use Technology", the Iraqi's would have recieved what they needed from Europe which was already directly selling them Military Combat Equipment.

When the US wanted a boycott against iraq i'm sure most of the western countries would have folowed it.
But i'm also sure that there was heavy lobbying inside the US pro export.
The United states sell more weapons worldwide than any other country (followed by russia, china and france imho)
*polemic on*I hope they won't "ringback" all weapon exports with wars *polemic on*

Again i don't want to say that it was America alone who sold wepons (maybe not even alone in selling abc knowhow) - the point is - you can't take your own exports as a reason for war.

As far as Iraq, we have done nearly everything we can short of war to get them to comply with the resolutions and ceacefire they signed.

If America is interested in the "law of nations" (they should - it's the only protection against terror acts from countries) you have to accept that "Praeventive Wars" are illegal it's a trivial point if you read and interpret the "law of nations" (Article 2. Abs. 4 and Article 51 of the UN Charta) noone can deny this

The only exception of this is the natural law of self defence.
That dosn't mean you have to wait for the MIGs in the Washington sky but the Attack of the other State (US) has to be the curent situation. (for example the threat (strike of Iraq against the US) must be imminent. Every delay would bear the risk that the defender would loose.
Not even washington says that Iraq will atack the US they just say that he could do it - that's not enough!
Just an Opponent who gets a technology boost in warfare is not enough when no matter how you interprete that law.

Every attacker i can remember just defended himself.
(You coult take a look at the Nuernberger Tribunal for example - no i don't want to put any coherence between the way the US acts today and the way the third Reich acted - it's just an example that even the extremest ones "just defend" if you ask them).
the International Court of Haag formed the "Caroline criterias" - up to today the accepted rule of the international law.

If we change international law the way the Bush administration likes it it would just turn the international law to the law of the stronger.
That would stop the civilized relationship between countries and go back to barbarism.
If the US go that way they can be sure that the attacks of the opponent barbars will not care about international laws either.
And i do not talk about single Terrorists who attack the US - i'm talking about attacks against of the US of countries who don't like the US - as soon as they see their chance (maybee in an anti american aliance)
Of course this is the worst case scenario.
But it's really hard for me to understand why anyone should care about laws when the most powerful country stops doing so.

From a purely legal standpoint, the UN should be and is legally at war with Iraq already.

If you take a closer look on Res. 686 and 687 (91') you realize that there only was a UN mandate for freeing Kuwait - that's done.
After Iraq left Kuwait every authorisation of military force against Iraq expired.
All other military actions after that point against iraq were illegal.

If Iraq would be willing to agree to coercive inspections, which involves the deployment of US military forces with the weapon's inspectors in Iraq, then I think we could for the time

I can't see any active roll for Military in that.
The Inspectors should be able to access military data about the Iraq from all UN members. There's no need for a bidirecitonal connetcion between the Inspectors and the military. That would only result in disstrust.

being hold off on regime change and see if it works. Anything short of that won't work as the past 11 years has proved. If they don't agree to it, then regime change is the only option left.

No matter how much you dislike other governments in the world you have no right to change them - the belief that you have the right to do so would be Colonialism

War can be very effective in preventing terrorist attacks. One only wonders if an invasion of Afghanistan in 1998 would have prevented 9/11. It is not the only tool in general, but it may be the only tool especially when terrorist are in route to their objectives. It also may be the only tool that will successfully prevent Saddam from transfering large quantities of WMD to terror organizations in the future.

War against Afghanistan would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks.
How could they? The Terrorists were living in US and Europe the organisators were globally connected.

• A well organized secret service. (They don't need more rights for that. They had the chance to prevent the attacks but screwed it up)
• and in a long term way - and much more important We have to take a look at the reasons not only at the symptoms
  [/list=a]
  
  International laws yes - but just for the others - that won't work as a future politics it would destabilize the world.
  
  It's a shame that the curent US Government weakens the UN - and on a long term view it's verry contraproductive for US interests.
  
  Klaus

 

[Dreadsox]

It's a shame that the curent US Government weakens the UN - and on a long term view it's verry contraproductive for US interests.

Klaus

No way! The UN weakens itself by not enforcing its own resolutions.

 

[STING2]

In response to Klaus:

How is interesting that the USA allowed for the export of duel use techonology to Iraq when every other country in the world exported the same technology to Iraq. It makes no sense to single out the USA on this point. The USA UNLIKE some European countries NEVER sold Military Combat Equipment to Iraq. I have the weapons tables for Iraq for 1989-1990 from the "International Institute for Strategic Studies" which confirms this. Its true that the USA exported "duel use technology" which actually has Important medical use! BUT we never sold Military combat equipment which only has ONE use, unlike other countries! Without Iraq's invasion of Kuwait it would have been impossible to organize international sanctions against Iraq at the time.

The USA did not sale duel/use techonology to Iraq so it could make chem/bio weapons. It was exported to Iraq for legitmate medical and scientific research NOT involving military applications. Iraq was recieving this from dozens of other countries around the world as well. Its IMPORTANT to realize dozens of other countries recieved this duel use technology at the same time.

Nearly all of Iraq's support came from the SOVIET UNION and CHINA! I have the facts and figures to prove it. Iraq did not need support from any western nation! Their of course not going to turn it down, and German and French companies made some good money from selling Iraq some Military Combat Equipment. But the only relevant support for Iraq came from the Soviet Union and to a lesser extent China. That is an undisputable fact. The USA gave no military combat equipment to Iraq, and the Chem/Bio duel use techonology exported to Iraq was never used in the Iran/Iraq war or in fighting against the Kurds. Mustard Gas was used against Iran and to a lesser extent Sarin Gas against the Kurds, weapons Iraq had without the export of "Duel use techonology" from the USA.

Before the break up of the SOVIET UNION, the Soviets were the biggest arms exporters in the world. The most common assault rifle found on the planet is the AK-47, the most numerous tank is the Soviet T-55. Most US exports went to European countries, Israel and Egypt back then. Since the end of the Cold War arms exports worldwide have fallen by more than 50% worldwide. The US of course does continue to export weapons to its longterm allies as does western europe, for legitmate security reasons.

The export of "duel use techonology" for medical reasons is not the reason for war. The development of weapons of mass destruction coupled with Iraq's refusal to comply with the UN CEACEFIRE agreement is why military action has to be taken against Iraq.

The USA has the right to defend itself and to define what it considers to be a threat or not. Europe has a poor record in determining what threats are and other countries would be foolish to follow their idea's and foolish interpertation of law. The threat from Iraq is #1 based on the behavior of the Regime PLUS the weapons of mass destruction they have. It may be impossible to know when an attack is in fact imminent or about to happen.

The UNITED STATES is currently the only country that seems to care about international laws. In case you forgot, IRAQ signed a CEACEFIRE agreement in 1991! Open Violation of the ceacefire agreement means that the UN is obligated to resume offensive military operations against Iraq. NO, the freeing of Kuwait is NOT complete. It will never be complete until Iraq has accounted for ALL Kuwaities that were taken to Iraq and as of today are still missing. In addition the CEACEFIRE agreement laid down a number of other conditions to be met by Iraq for the Conflict in Kuwait to be considered to be complete, including Iraq's complete elimination of weapons of mass destruction! Iraq has FAILED to comply with any of these conditions and until they do, the War with Kuwait is NOT over! Iraq has not complied with 16 UN resolutions related to the Gulf War and until they do, military action against Iraq is mandated to bring them into compliance. From a legal standpoint, the conditions regarding Kuwait have never been fullfilled. Military action to force Iraq's compliance is not only justified, it is mandated. The USA seems to be one of the few countries the recognize these facts of international law and are willing to fullfill their obligation to them, unlike Europe!

The Military is needed to disarm Iraq, because without them, the UN inspectors will be treated like stooges. The old inspection regime was a joke, with Iraq blocking access to sites when they wanted to so they could remove Bio/Chem weapons. Then they would let the UN inspectors in to search the area after they had removed everything. IT would be plain DUMB to repeat this foolish game again, and the only way to prevent it from happening again in the future is the deployment of military troops to force open and prevent any Iraqi attempts to stop the process. Its not about inspections and inspections procedures, its about disarming Iraq period! The UN inspectors have a far better chance of achieving this goal if they are backed up by US military force which can force its way into any area of Iraq to ensure the destruction of these weapons. Iraq won't agree to this because they know it will insure that they are disarmed of CHem/Bio weapons.

Its not colonialism to change outlaw regimes around the world. Its important to do it for international security and law and order. We do it domestically with individuals and organizations, and sometimes it has to be done internationally.

In 1998, the funds and many of the people who would take part in the 9/11 were actually located in Afghanistan. In addition, much info has been found about Al-Quada since the US invasion in Afghanistan preventing multiple terrorist attacks around the world. Many that would perform such acts have been siezed because of the operation. This type of prevention is an important component in stopping terrorism. The USA is already strengthing its intelligence services and NO were not going to sell out Israel just because it would supposedly decrease the number of terrorist recruited. It has always been USA policy to spread US capitalism and democracy around the world and we will continue those efforts in the middle east to include supporting the only democracy there at the moment, Israel and building a new one in Afghanistan. A regime change in Iraq followed by the development of democracy there would have a major positive impact on the whole region.

Its a shame that the Europeans are unwilling to enforce the UN ceacefire agreement and other UN resolutions. The Europeans and other countries are simply making themselves less relevant when it comes to international relations. The United States is going to act to protect the interernational community with or without its help. We never have nor do we ever need to, ask another country if we are allowed to protect the lives of our citizens or are legitimate material interest and US lives overseas. The USA is going to act to disarm Iraq either by getting a new UN resolutions for a new inspections regime that would involve inspections backed with military force to disarm Iraq, or a regime change of the government of Iraq as the last resort in accomplishing the the conditions of the ceacefire agreement of 1991 which call for Iraq to be disarmed. 11 years is to long, Iraq must be disarmed, and if that requires regime change, so be it. Europe and other nations can either abide by the UN ceacefire agreement of 1991 and help the USA, or become irrelevant to the process and what goes on in Iraq in the future!

 

[Klaus]

In response to Klaus:

How is interesting that the USA allowed for the export of duel use techonology to Iraq when every other country in the world exported the same technology to Iraq.

As i said before - the bitter irony is that Iraq gets attacked because of technology it got (not only!) from the USA

I took USA as an exemple because they are the ones who are pro war against Iraq - if it was another country i would take a look at its past in Iraq

It makes no sense to single out the USA on this point. The USA UNLIKE some European countries NEVER sold Military Combat Equipment to Iraq. I have the weapons tables for

Anthrax spors don't qualify in your description above - knowhow either.

Also the US dosn't want to invade iraq because of the "Military Combat Equipment"

That is the sad part - most of what GB and USA can prove that the iraq has came from their country!

Yes it was legal to export it in these days - it's no illegal doing i'm showing here but you must admit that it is strange if a president warns the world of Sadam - the bad boy who has even BC weapons - when you (or your predecessor) sold them and helped to get knowhow.
This is not only against Bush but all presidents of our world who participated.

The USA did not sale duel/use techonology to Iraq so it could make chem/bio weapons. It was exported to Iraq for legitmate medical and scientific research NOT involving military applications. Iraq was recieving this from dozens of other countries around the world as well. Its IMPORTANT to realize dozens of other countries recieved this duel use technology at the same time.

If you give them technology you have to accept that they can use it the way they like. There is a good reason why it's called duel/use techonology!
Sadams character didn't change over the years - as i pointed out the US continued duel use exports after sadam used these wapons against civilists.

Before the break up of the SOVIET UNION, the Soviets were the biggest arms exporters in the world. The most common assault rifle found on the planet is the AK-47, the most numerous tank is the Soviet T-55.

It always depends if you count the # or the $! But anyway let's say Russia China and US are the world leaders in export of military goods.

Every country likes the money they make of it - noone likes to be responsible for the results.

In the cold war nearly every war in the world was US- vs. Russian military goods. Both sides didn't care too much whom they support as long as it hurt the ally of the oponent.

As a matter of fact we have tons of weapons out in the world - the famous "Kalashnikov" (the derivative of the german Sturmgewehr) or the Uzi are quite harmles in our view because they are not threatening us (yet). Our politicians couldn't believe (or just closed their eyes because of the money) that anyone would use them against us.

For >10 Years it's possible to buy nearly every weapon in the world on the black market if you have the money - noone cares until s.o. attacks us with a Apache Helicopter or a MIG Fighter.

But that horror scenario is something for a different threat as we know Terrorists can make lots of damage with a plastic knife. They don't need hightech equipment.

The export of "duel use techonology" for medical reasons is not the reason for war. The development of weapons of mass destruction coupled with Iraq's refusal to comply with the UN CEACEFIRE agreement is why military action has to be taken against Iraq.

The US also gave Anthrax and other bacteriums to Iraq and transfered knowhow in the time of war against iran (who was also "fed" with western technology before the fall of the shah) And their Biological and Chemical knowhow which he got from "us" (particially direct particially the money for it particially we just tolerated it)
And the reason for war (it shifts quite often) is at least also their ABC weapon program).
And for these activities there are only proofs for the stuff he had 10 years ago - so no "new threat" there.

I didn't hear sadam threaten the US - now read the UN resolutions and you find out that it will be illegal without a new resolution. (btw. that's the reason why the US want's a resolution who includes all that which is missing in his opinion now: no more UN decisions neccessar for war in the mid east)

For me such a concentration of power on a single man is dangerous. He could use it wiseley but he also could abuse it. (like all the other changes of paragraphs we saw after 9/11)

If the reason for attacking t

To point this out:
I'm sure the president wants the power to use it - not to abuse it! Aniway.. it's dangerous

The USA has the right to defend itself

Sure

and to define what it considers to be a threat or not.

No the United States have to care about international regulations as all the other countries. If the United States put themself over the international laws they dispose them -> the international work of generations of (not only) us presidents is destroyed.

Don't expect anyone government to care about the contracts they signed with the US when they don't do it themself.
President Bush was pretty good in braking international laws up to today and i'm affraid he will continue.

And i'm not talking about trade contracts (it's pretty comon to break them i guess) i'm talking aobut the fundamentals of international legislation.

If the US starts a war (no matter how they will call it) against iraq without legitimation of the UN you can be sure that this bad reputation the US earned from that will be remembered for centuries.

Even with legitimation of the UN it won't be perfect for the US reputation because citics of the US wont forget the blackmail (we all remember his comment of the "irrelevance of a future UN) of GWB to the UN
If the UN makes a new resolution according to Article 7 of the Charta imho
there would be no legitime originator of the resolution - so just a worhless paper which would please the people in US that it is no bilateral war their president has started.
Because there is no higher instance there will be no consequences for the US (and even if there was one - who could force the US to care about the law?)
But of course it will be a damage of credibillity and trustworthieness of the US

I'm sure the US will win the war against Iraq but if we take a look at the possible long term result of it (not only for the mid-east region but for the whole world) - we have to ask: is it worth it?

Europe has a poor record in determining what threats are and other countries would be foolish to follow their idea's and foolish interpertation of law.

What do you wan to tell me with this statement?

Please don't start offending and generalizing.

At the present there is no "European interpreation".
There are at least three different mayor streams - and all have good points (as the US has) for their reacton and if you think about them seriousely you will realize that the way G.W.Bushs plans are suboptimal. Caring about the wories from all Presidents could result in a better result for the problem.

The UNITED STATES is currently the only country that seems to care about international laws.

come on - that's why they blackmail the UN and violate all the international laws i mentioned in the posting before?
I know that they want to act because of some good reasons - but the way the current covernment of the US does it ... that's dishonorable for such a great nation with such a history!

In case you forgot, IRAQ signed a CEACEFIRE agreement in 1991! Open Violation of the ceacefire agreement means that the UN is obligated to resume offensive military operations against Iraq.

please read what i wrote in my mail before!
The resolution was about freing Kuwait. That was the legitimation for war. Since Iraq is out of Kuwait this resolution is no legitimation for war anymore.

NO, the freeing of Kuwait is NOT complete. It will never be complete until Iraq has accounted for ALL Kuwaities that were taken to Iraq and as of today are still missing. In addition the

If you would take it that way you have other dates of the end of WWI and II than all historicans i know!

CEACEFIRE compliance. From a legal standpoint, the conditions regarding Kuwait have never been ...Europe!

There were new resolutions for the inspections but they are not connected with military force - if the US wants that (it's a thing we could think about) they have to convince the other UN members for that.

(p.s. we discussed more than once why the inspecors were thrown out of the country i don't want to repeat it again)

The Military is needed to disarm Iraq, because without them, the UN inspectors will be treated like stooges.

I agree that it is important that the UN takes action when the inspectors will be hindered doing their work - but thats something you have to do when it happens and not before - if they would list all eventuallties in the UN what might hapen and decide what they should do then..
..you see that's not usefull
Also giving the power of decision to a single country is fatal because that demolsihs the support of the other nations. (remember what the U in UN stands for?)

The old inspection regime was a joke, with Iraq blocking access to sites when they wanted to so they could remove Bio/Chem weapons. Then they

They were quite efficient for a joke - come on i don't want to read polemic i want great arguments as you had before :-(

Its not colonialism to change outlaw regimes around the world. Its important to do it for international security and law and order. We do it domestically with individuals and organizations, and sometimes it has to be done internationally.

If a single country decides which government is good or bad for another country - it is colonialism

We have to respect that not everyone has our opinoin in the world and we are not allowed to force other governments in any way unless.. read my posting above

In 1998, the funds and many of the people who would take part in the 9/11 were actually located in Afghanistan. In addition, much info has been found about Al-Quada since the US invasion in Afghanistan preventing multiple terrorist attacks around the world. Many that would perform such

I just count some of the cities - i don't want to bug you with the names of the terrorists or what hapened where

5. January 2000 first plot in Kuala Lumpur (no that's not in Afghanistan) -

15. January 2000 LA

September 2000 San Diego

January 2001 Washington DC - the CIA found out that one of the ppl of teh USS Cole attack (Jemen) is in the US and might plan a terror act

15. August Minenapolis

23. August Langely
...

Hamburg, Madrid, London

They didn't need too much contact to Afghanistan
And even without the stike in Afghanistan the Secret Services of the US and it's allies knew enough to stop them.
It was not the fault of a non cooperating regime or of too liberal laws. Humans don't act allways perfect - and sometimes they even make terrible mistakes.

We could open a new thread about "what went wrong on 9/11 if you like.

always been USA policy to spread US capitalism and democracy around the world and we will continue those efforts in the middle east to include

Because of the spread of capitalism many people in the world hate the US some even think that capitalism is the religion of the USA and it's their kind of "holy crusade".
Of course this is nonsense - but if you seed feelings like that you might raise terrorism

So one way in war against terrorism might be not to offend sensibilities of others in cultures we don't understand!

supporting the only democracy there at the moment, Israel and building a new one in Afghanistan.

Iran is on a good way and when this region won't be destabilized the Iran president has good chances to turn his country from the former theocracy to a democracy.

• The Taliban are gone (good job)
• In Kabul a fragile regime has only power because of thousands of western soldiers
• In the rest of afghanistan local Warlords have the power (not the regime in Kabul)
• Some Al Quaida leaders are caught lots are still free
• We have no clue where Osama bin Laden could be
  [/list=a]
  
  let's hope it developes better than in Somalia, Bosnia or in the Kosovo
  
  It's easy for us to win with our military - the step to peace is a verry big one.
  
  

  Its a shame that the Europeans are unwilling to enforce the UN ceacefire agreement and other UN resolutions. The Europeans and other countries are simply making themselves less relevant when it comes to international relations.

  
  You should be happy about the critics from europe - it shows that the main lesson of the re-education program after WWII was succesfull "praeventive war is evil"
  
  The Europeans are standing for classical American values.
  
  The Europeans are just sceptical about the way - not about the goal.
  We learned from history that exporting our values in the world - no matter of the political costs" is not the right way.
  
  I translate you a rhyme from the german past i mentioned before from to english:
  "the world should be cured by the german values/nature/character"
  it's hard to translate - and impossible for me to keep the rhyme
  
  And with all erspect there is more than one way to achieve this goal
  
  

  The United States is going to act to protect the interernational community with or without its help. We never have nor do we ever need to, ask another country if we are allowed to protect the lives of our citizens or are legitimate material interest and US lives overseas. The USA is going to act to disarm Iraq either by getting a new UN resolutions for a new inspections regime that would involve inspections backed with military force to disarm Iraq, or a regime change of the government of Iraq as the last resort in accomplishing the the conditions of the ceacefire agreement of 1991 which call for Iraq to be disarmed.

  
  If you really belief what you are writing here you didn't understand a single word of what i was trying to tell you.
  
  Both parties have to suppose that the other one could be right - otherwise any discussion is useless
  
  this and the last post took me several hours to write (incl. reading yours and validating of the facts) i'd appreciate if you would take also some time to read everything and think about it.
  
  Noone can force the US to respect other countries (even if they could i wouldn't like it because you can't force anyone tho think different).
  What you are describing here is "others are just relevant for us if they have the same opinion than we do"
  and "we are the world police - if you are on your side - fine, if not we are it anyway" and "we know what's best for you".
  This attitude won't bring peace but it will be perfect seed for extremism.
  
  Their military agony combined with some moral failings will lead to legends and their triumph (and noone will care about the moral faults of theirself)
  
  

  Originally posted by Dreadsox
  In response to Klaus:
  
  No way! The UN weakens itself by not enforcing its own resolutions.

  
  Right someone who has no army like the UN seems to be to weak from the 1st point of view. So they can't enforce their ideas through brute force. But that's one of the streghths of the UN also.
  They have to convince their members (which have the military strength). And only with a wide acceptance the resolutions will be enforced
  
  Of course there's allways a problem if a single country shifts is focus (for example a new government which has other opinions how to create their international politics).
  
  But i like the idea of the UN as a demorcratical organisaiton which convinces their members and dosn't force them like a dictator would do.
  
  (btw which resolution were you thinking of?)
  
  Klaus

 

[STING2]

In response to Klaus:

It is not exactly known which technology and from which country Iraq recieved it, was the most vital in the development of its WMD. Much of this was actually developed by Iraq itself. Clearly the USA and other countries made mistakes in exporting some duel use technology to Iraq. The problem is that much of this duel use technology has life saving medical benefits and I could see it now how the USA would be accused of hurting a thirdworld country by denying them access to such duel use technology. In addition I detect a generalization from you that the only reason that Iraq has WMD is because of the USA. The Fact is that Iraq would of had WMD with or without the export of duel use technology from the USA. Even if the USA had taken action to isolate Iraq before their invasion of Kuwait, it would have failed. Only Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and attack on Saudi Arabia and Israel created the support that would be needed to have an effective sanctions regime to prevent Iraq from getting any more weapons or technology. Rather than being ironic, its a fact that this technology is rather widespread because of its duel use and international trade in which creating an effective sanctions regime to block a single state is difficult and requires that state to commit gross violations. There was dispute at the time over who started the Iran/Iraq war plus some states thought that it was Iran that had used chemical weapons and not Iraq. It was only until 1990 and the invasion of Kuwait that there was sufficiant support to create an effective sanctions regime against Iraq.

Believe it or not, Anthrax spores also have important medical uses. Armored Vehicles and anti-tank missiles do not! I never said the USA is going after Iraq because of Armored Vehicles and anti-tank missiles. I was pointing out an important difference between exporting "duel use technology" for medical purposes and exporting Military Combat Equipment which has only ONE purpose! The USA never exported Military Combat Equipment to Iraq, the Soviet Union, China and to a lesser extent France and Germany did! While it was a mistake for the USA to export duel use techonology for legitimate medical purposes because of Iraq's actions and the possiblity they could use this for things other than medical uses, it was a far worse mistake for other countries to sell massive amounts of military combat equipment that has only ONE use!

You can certainly buy a large number of weapons on the blackmarket but definitely NOT everything. There are many weapons systems that the USA does not sell to any country and others that are sold are the EXPORT VERSION that have downgraded capabilities so as not to risk sensitive US technology falling into the hands of people that would duplicate it. Of course with the passage of time, restrictions on the sale of much older weapon systems are relaxed.

The Anthrax and the Bacteria all have very legitimate and usefull medical purposes. Again even if the USA had prevented the export of this technology to Iraq, they were already getting this technology from the Soviets and other European countries. Iraq was a Soviet Client state and the Soviet Union would have blocked any resolutions against Iraq at the UN. Other countries would have blocked or ignored back then as well. This was before the invasion of Kuwait. We know a lot more about Saddam Husseins behavior and actions in 2002 than we did in 1988 at the end of the Iran/Iraq war.

Saddam threatens the USA on nearly a daily basis in his crazy speaches. In addition Iraqi airdefense weapons fire on UN coalition aircraft patrolling the UN approved No Fly Zones nearly a thousand times a year. Iraq has tried to murder US citizens(former President Bush), taken US citizens hostage and strapped them to possible military targets in Iraq in the months right after their invasion of Kuwait. I can on and on, but what is really relevant is Iraq's behavior in regards to its neighbors(which does effect the USA), attacking four countries in the past 20 years, development of weapons of mass destruction and the failure to comply with the UN ceacefire agreement of 1991.

The USA is going to the UN for a new resolution because we want the explicit support of the international community for an inspections regime that has a military force that is apart of it to aid the inspections. Breaking the UN ceacefire agreement does allow the USA and other countries to resume offensive operations against Iraq without further approval. BUT we want to work with the international community on a resolution short of full scale war, which there is legal approval for already by the UN ceacefire agreement, to see if we can effectively disarm Iraq this way. The old inspections regime did not have a military contingent with it, but this new one should. If Saddam refuses this or the UN does not agree on the new UN inspections regime, then the US and allies will have to resume offensive military operations against Iraq that were put on hold(but not stopped completely) by the UN ceacefire agreement.

President Bush is not breaking international laws, Saddam Hussein is. We do have a right to determine what threats there are to our security and deal with them. A US president would be impeached and thrown out by the American people if he subordidnated the USA's right to act to defend itself and determine threats to its security to an international body like the UN!. The USA is doing its best to respect its allies and others in the international community, but will not be restrained by them in taking action important to defending itself.

Why does much of the international community not care about enforcing the UN ceacefire agreement which it agreed to do? Why does the international community fail to enforce these laws? The USA is not the violator of international law here, Iraq is. The USA's actions are legal because of the UN ceacefire agreement. Oh, and please don't bring up international trade, there is NOT another country that is more open to internatinal trade than the USA. Thats why the USA has had a trade deficit for the past 30 years. We let the world dump their products in the USA and in return we have more difficulty exporting to them. I'm not talking about any specific trade area, I'm just speaking overall, considering all trade relations, the USA is more open to trade than any country on the planet which is a huge benefit for the world community to have so much access to the largest market on the planet. Of course no one thanks us for this fact.

The USA already has a legitimate right to act because of the UN ceacefire agreement of 1991. Acting outside the UN though is not necessarily wrong and certainly won't lead to it being condemed for centuries. By that logic I guess we will be condemed for hundreds of years for our actions in KOSOVO which was NOT UN approved. I'm happy the USA acted along with NATO without the support of the UN in saving thousands of muslims from murder by Serbs in Kosovo. The UN most of the time lacks the consenses to do ANYTHING. It might be an effective organization in the future once there is greater economic, cultural, and political intergration throughout the world. Right now its good place to discuss and comunicate views, but has a mixed record when it comes to resolving key international security issues.

So even if the US does get the backing of the UN will still supposedly be consider to be evil. Sort like were damned if we do get UN support, damned if we don't get UN support. All this time you have been talking about the importance of the UN and now your basically saying it doesn't matter what the USA does. If that the case, the USA does not need to pause and worry about other countries concerns of unilateralism because will be accused of it even when we act multilaterally. What this really means is that there are certain people who want the USA to do nothing and are simply against any enforcement of the resolutions, regardless of the massive cost to the world that would entail.

We are looking at the cost of disarming Iraq, if need be with military force and we strongly feel that is worth it. We understand the views of the international community all though we don't share them all. We seek their support in this action but will not be restrained if we do not get it, because this action is a matter of international security and saving lives.

I don't see how any of my comments would have offended you personally because I'm not talking about you. I could also accuse you easily of offending and generalizing as by your logic you have done already several times. I've read many European views on the entire situation and have attempted to understand. I don't share their views on many things and yes, I do think several of their idea's policies in the past have been foolish. My opinion. Europe's foreign policy has been a major disappointment in the past in regards to many situations. I am generalizing a little I admit, but Europes record on many international issues is poor, and their record with this one is poor as well. Certain countries in Europe do standout against this but they are in the minority.

The US is enforcing international law which the UN obviously does not want to do, or at least is unwilling to act to do so. Come on, Blackmail?!?! I don't call enforcing international law blackmail. I don't call defending the citizens of the world to be a violation of international law or blackmail. Jeez, talk about generalizing! Disarming Iraq is certainly not dishonerable, its legally mandated and morally the correct thing to do!

The UN ceacefire agreement explicity states that Iraq has to comply with certain conditions in order to avoid the resumption of hostilities. Thats what a ceacefire agreement is. Its not a peace treaty. The UN resolutions calling for throwing Iraq out of Kuwait are trumped by the UN ceacefire agreement which sets up the conditions that Iraq must comply with for there to be a final end to hostilities. Failure to comply means legally that UN members of the right to resume hostilities to force the compliance of Iraq with the conditions. I don't know what your refering to with World War I and II but this is not a peace treaty but a ceacefire agreement which Iraq signed and are in violation of! The new resolution is an attempt to get support for a new inspection regime instead of changing the regime with military force. Its a last attempt to avoid a war. To have an inspections regime that has a military comenant to act on site if Iraq tries to block anything. But legally, the UN ceacefire agreement is all we need to resume offensive military operations against Iraq.

UN inspectors were thrown out because through spies they were catching how the Iraqi's were fooling the UN weapons inspectors. It would be stupid to have an Inspections team that did not have spies on it. Thats sometimes the only way to detect that Iraq is cheating. In order to properly perform inspections and disarm Iraq, you have to have spies! Otherwise, Iraq will get away with hiding a substantial portion of their weapons program.

You have to have the threat of military action to force open suspected sites to prevent the blocking of those sites to begin with. We can't sit down at every moment when Iraq blocks the UN and debate it for weeks about what to do while Iraq hides the equipment were after. This is the old inspection regime and it failed. Iraq has to be disarmed, and in inspection regime that has inspectors inspecting with military force is the only way short of war to disarm Iraq. The Old inspections regime will never fully disarm Iraq.

The old inspection regime was a joke, because when ever Iraq wanted to hide sensitive equipment they were able to. Part of their strategy was to "appear" to be giving up its weapons of mass destruction, while hiding the key things to restart their production once inspectors left. If UN inspectors are un able to go into a suspected site and are blocked by Iraqi military, while trucks go to the back of the building and remove the equipment and info, inspectors will never be able to complete their job! They become a joke, how can you inspect and verify someone does not have certain weapons if they have the power to prevent you from fully completing your mission. Its crazy. A new inspection regime of inspectors with military force is needed to make sure Iraq is 100% completely disarmed. Its the only way short of regime change.

If defending yourself requires changing the regime of another country, it is not colonialism. We do respect other countries opinions but not to the point that we will not defend ourselves or others.

A lot of the funding came and training for terrorist operations came from funding and training that was occuring in Afghanistan in 1998 before the dates you mentioned in your post. A military operation in Afghanistan in 1998 could definitely of disrupted future operations in the next couple of years just as the current operation in Afghanistan has done. Not all operations but MANY. An operation in 1998 could have yielded key info that would have stopped many operations and provided evidence on the locations of certain individuals just as the current operation in Afghanistan had done there by helping to catch terrorist and prevent other terrorist attacks. We have not stopped using the CIA, FBI and other intelligence services to defend the USA and find out things, but that is only one of several abilities the USA has to defend itself. It would not be intelligent to rely on only the CIA or FBI to defend the country. The invasion of Afghanistan in 1998 could have prevented 9/11 in 2001 because the dates that you site happened several years later. Many of the individuals that committed terror actions in 2001 and 2000 were in Afghanistan at some point in 1998! In addition, information on those that were not was available there. A US operation in Afghanistan in 1998 definitely could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. Waiting for the FBI to pick up on the imminint attack at the last minute is waiting to long. The risk of such a strategy is what if the FBI fails, which in this case it did. Its not smart to rely on only one type of security to defend yourself. Far better to act much ealier than that to prevent even the planning of some attacks by striking in 1998 or earlier, 3 years before the attack happened.

The USA is not trying to offend anyone sensibilities or cultures. When was the last time any of them were sensitive to are sensibilities or showed respect for our culture!

When it comes to Afghanistan, I have a friend who has been there for over 6 months now and should be returning home in a few weeks. He has not been able to talk much while he has been over there, but his view and experiences over there about what the real situation is like will be interesting. Nation building is a long process, and the USA so far has done a good job. No other country has had as much success as the USA has in bringing stability to Afghanistan. Bin Ladin is most likely dead, and if he is alive, he has not been effective.

If Saddam Hussein continues to defy the UN ceacefire agreement, then there is only one way to achieve the goal of disarmament in Iraq. 22 years of dealing with Saddam has tought us this.

Preventive war to protect legitamite international security is not evil. If the Europeans feel that it is, they have failed to learn from their own history. Most Americans would laugh at your assertion that the Europeans are standing for classical American values. Their reluctance to support legitamite military action in other area's in the past and now is in conflict with your statement. The Europeans have failed to realize that you have to act if need be militarily to prevent and destroy some threats. Their failure to do so in their own history has led to millions of deaths.

"If you really belief what you are writing here you didn't understand a single word of what i was trying to tell you."(your words) So I guess by this statement your implying that in understanding what you had to say, I would have to change what I said or believe.


"The United States is going to act to protect the interernational community with or without its help. We never have nor do we ever need to, ask another country if we are allowed to protect the lives of our citizens or are legitimate material interest and US lives overseas. The USA is going to act to disarm Iraq either by getting a new UN resolutions for a new inspections regime that would involve inspections backed with military force to disarm Iraq, or a regime change of the government of Iraq as the last resort in accomplishing the the conditions of the ceacefire agreement of 1991 which call for Iraq to be disarmed."(My Words)
I certainly do believe what I said above nor do I understand why you think I have failed to understand you. I believe I understood what you said, but I simply disagree with it and have great reason too. I would appreciate it if you could be more specific and tell me what you mean.

You are making claims that I am not thinking your thoughts and ideas through or giving your opinions time and thought. In fact I have, but just because I have does not mean I'm going to agree with everything or anything you have to say. I usually only read or respond to idea's that are different from mine to try and educate myself and learn more about the strength or weakness of my own ideas. I've never assumed before hand that you were wrong, but I am not going to agree with anything after anylyzing it and finding it to be wrong, in my opinion.

The USA respects other countries, but not to the point that it is willing to sacrifice the lives of its own citizens or the citizens of other countries. Europe unfortunately has irrational fears about USA unilateralism and unfortanate passivness which prevents it from taking tough military action when its in their own interest to for legitamite security reasons, and to prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians. The USA often has to lead and provide the bulk of military force for anything to get done for security reasons or to prevent the slaughter of innocent people in places like the Balkans. Europes attitudes of inaction and isolation don't bring peace and allow extremism to breed and threaten its security.

 

[Klaus]

Hello Sting,

I proved that Bush violates international laws when he invades the iraq without UN permission.
And you replied again and again that he's the only one who cares about international laws. I could cite numerous other things where he broke international laws if you like.
If you take a look at the laws i mentioned it's not even a thing of interpration - it's a fact that he'll violate it when he goes there alone.
The only thing you could say is "so what - we don't care about international laws we have enough power to live without these rules" - but ignoring the facts lead me to the idea that you might not read everything i write.

it's absurd to thing that you would have to change to what I said or believe (especcially if you take a look on my green statement.
But ignoring the facts i've pointed out witout any comentar like "no way because of article blabla" made me think maybe you did not read it.

We could discuss for months about >90% of all things which were exported to Iraq - Sadam is no fool. He didn't order a completely armed car.
He bought, for example, a Mercedes Unimog (can be used to transport medical goods into mountain villages) and ordered the rest from the black market or as spare parts.
I'm pretty sure that the german distributors had an idea what he could/would do with - and their american counterparts were as clever as the germans.

It's useless do rate the "evilness" of several decision for me now.
As i said before - most industrialized governments who were able to sell stuff to Sadam did it. (Like they sell to millions of other dictators to).
Lots of western countries supportetd Sadam with tons of money while he was fighting against the Iran like they do it with "strange" regimes in these days.

The reason why i mentioned especcially the US is because of the reasons i was talking about in my last postings.

We all dislike the Iraq regime and we would welcome a change there.
But unlike you i think that war is not the best option.

But you really shocked me with your statement because i missunderstood it - i thought you were talking about europes interpretation of law in general - (not in this special case). That's why i was talking about generalizing.
Generalizing European politics is problematic because most of the time there is a bigger difference between the opinions of Germany, Great Britain and France (to mention the most important ones) than between one of them and the US.

European foreigin politics is a big dissapointment for me to - mainly because there is no single European foreigin politics therefore no powerfull European foreigin politics at all.

So back to the subject:

As far as i see it now there are 2 condtions which must be fulfilled to legitimate war:

• Morale Reasons
• Must not violate laws (in the own country or international laws)

We had an interesting debate about the Moral background. I'm sure that it is not a reason for war (i don't think that we would have lots of wars in the world if it was only for the morale). But - not only in our democratic countries - it's neccessary to "motivate" the nation for a war. (if you don't do it you won't winn the next eleciton or will be even killed).
Also i enjoyed the pro and contras of morale in this verry much

Part 2 - the laws
- US laws: they're working on a legitimation and i don't see anything which could be illegal
- the international laws: also i try to see it with your eyes i can't find legitimation afik there were 2 points:

• Self defence
• War with Iraq (based on that UN res.)

1. When you take a look how self defence is described in these articles - i don't find any points that would fit to the current situation.
(mainly bacause the threat of Iraq is not immediate present)

2. the Iraq army is out of Kuwait because of this this UN res. dosn't allow more military action. And because it was no war between Iraq and the US (it was a UN mission no bilateral thing) the US also can't continue this war.

Just because i criticise the US dosn't mean that i would not criticise the others also (maybee even more at some points)

Klaus

 

[STING2]

In response to Klaus:

NO you did not prove that Bush violates international laws if there is an invasion of Iraq. You seem to want to ignore the most important international law document in regards to this situation. The 1991 Ceacefire Agreement! Thats all the authorization the USA from a strictly legal perspective needs! You read far to much into seperate resolutions that were passed before the Ceacefire agreement. Those resolutions authorized the USA and allies to use all means to eject the Iraqi military from Kuwait and restore it to its previous condition. The Ceacefire agreement laid down the conditions under which the USA would stop its advance into Iraq to neutralize the threat of attack to Kuwait. Iraq has failed to meet those conditions which means that the war is on again from a legal standpoint. Iraq has also failed to meet certain conditions in regards to their attack on Kuwait and therefor from a legal standpoint, Iraq is in violation of even the resolution you claimed they have complied with.

I never said "so what or that we don't care about international laws". I said the USA cares about enforcing the 16 UN resolutions that Iraq signed onto and agreed to comply with and is failing to. It doesn't take 11 years for these resolutions to be complied with. The only way to disarm Iraq is through a new military supported inspections regime, or military invasion to change the governmental regime in Iraq so that disarmament can be achieved. The old inspections regime failed to disarm Iraq and never had the ability to really completely do so. Only a military supported inspections regime, with the military being part of the inspection team has the ability to disarm Iraq. If Iraq does not agree to this, then again the only way to disarm Iraq is through regime change of the government through military invasion. Whether Iraq agrees with the UN ceacefire agreement that signed onto or not, the conditions of the 1991 ceacefire agreement must be met, even if it requires changing the governmental regime in Iraq.

I don't know why your bringing up Mercedes armed cars or whatever. If you want to know what Military Combat Equipment Germans sold to Iraq I'll list that for you in another post. There is NOT a comparison to be made between deliberately selling military equipment that has only one use(Soviet Union, China, lesser extent France and Germany) and exporting medical equipment that has duel uses(USA and dozens of other countries).

80% of Saddams military support came from the Soviet Union and China, then to a much less extent France and Germany with the rest. Only in an indirect way could the USA and other countries be seen as supporting Iraq with certain products and that support is a tiny fraction of what the Soviet Union gave Iraq.

1. Iraq is a threat to the USA currently and its past behavior is part of the reason we have to act now. Iraq's failure to comply with the UN ceacefire agreement is a threat to the lives US and other nationals citizens. This threat has to be neutralized and the conditions of ceacefire agreement it signed met!

2. The mere fact that the Iraqi army is out of Kuwait does not mean they have complied with any of the UN resolutions. Realize that the ceacefire agreement occured and was signed after Iraqi military units had been forced out of Kuwait. US military operations went far into Iraq itself during the Gulf War. The 1991 Gulf War will never be over until Iraq complies with the terms of the ceacefire agreement! That is a legal FACT!

 

[Not George Lucas]

Um, first of all, you don't need to end every sentence with an exclamation point. It gets annoying and makes your arguments look emotionally-driven.

If, as you say, the United States needs to invade Iraq because it violated the UN ceasefire agreement, why doesn't the US also go to war with Israel? They violated a lot of UN agreements.

Also, they are, as you put it, UN resolutions. The UN does not want action taken based on their resolutions. Why does the US?

And another thing, Iraq agreed to allow inspectors back in (even though, technically, the inspectors left of their own accord). Why is this unacceptable?

 

[Not George Lucas]

And yet another thing...

International law is a joke. There is no all-encompassing organization to legislate, pass, or enforce any of these so-called laws. All it is is an unspoken universal understanding that people can accept if they want to.

In other words, citing international law as a legal basis is laughable.

 

[U2Bama]

Um, first of all, you don't need to end every sentence with an exclamation point. It gets annoying and makes your arguments look emotionally-driven.

Then perhaps in all fairness you should also suggest to Klaus that he not put things in bold although I think Sting2's posts are usually too well-documented to be dismissed as simply "emotionally-driven."

Just a thought.

Thanks.

~U2Alabama

 

[STING2]

Um first of all, it is not for you to say when I should or should not use any type of punctuation. But thanks anyways.

Israel has not violated a ceacefire agreement that has put a war on pause. They need to comply with UN resolutions, but not if it compromises their security. I believe an arrangement can be worked out to guarantee Israel's security so it can comply with UN resolutions. There is a difference between the resolutions that Israel is in violation of and the one's that Iraq is in violation of. Iraq's failure to comply with the resolutions relating to its annexation of Kuwait, threaten the entire world. Israels non-compliance does not. No, terrorist would be trying to attack the USA and Israel with or without Israels compliance of the UN resolutions.

The UN ceacefire agreement calls for military action to resume if the conditions of the agreement are violated. Thats another big difference with the UN resolutions regarding Israel.

Iraq allowed inspectors back into Iraq under an inspection regime that can never accomplish the goal of fully disarming Iraq because it does not have military personal on the ground to support it and massive "presidential sites" cannot be searched.

 

[STING2]

Klaus:

I made a mistake about the Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle I claimed was German. It is actually built by Switzerland, it is the Mowag Roland.

Here is the other Military Combat Equipment that Germany did sell to Iraq though:

1. The MILAN Anti-Tank Missile-this is built and produced with the cooperation of France.
2. 60 Roland Surface To Air Missle Launchers-again this is now a joint venture with France.
3. 100 105 mm Anti-Tank Guns
4. 56 Bo-105 Attack Helicopters armed with the AS-11 Anti-Tank Missile.

Not very much at all, but its there. Some of this equipment was destroyed or captured in the 1991 Gulf War, but I don't have an exact figure on how much. One of the recent air camera tapes of Iraqi air defense systems firing on Coalition aircraft patrolling the No Fly Zone's over Iraq, was a Roland Surface To Air Missile.

 

[Klaus]

Klaus:
..Ceacefire Agreement..

Okay - now i know why we're circling around with our arguments - i thought i falsified that allready..

As far as i can see it you're pointing to that fact:

The UN gave a mandate so that US troups could free Kuwait after that there was in April91 the "armisticeresolution".

Your argument:
this res. just suspended the war legitimation, because Sadam dosn't fullfill all points of Res. 687 we can continue the war.

My argument:

If you take a look at res. 686 ff. the authorisation for War ended when sadams retreated from Kuwait. The reason for Res 687 did not exist any longer.

(if there is a logic error or i did not get your argument - please tell me)

Klaus:

I made a mistake about the Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle I claimed was German. It is actually built by Switzerland, it is the Mowag Roland.

no problem - With my Mercedes reference i was talking about a duel-use kind of "pick up" from Mercedes Benz which is used in many regions of the world for military reasons.
I thought you were referencing to this one.

But no mater wether the weapons and the ABC technology came from Germany, USA, Russia or Swizerland.
Iraq was international not on the black list so It was legal to sell this stuff.
Our western free markets don't care about moral -> they didn't stop to make money just because the price could be blood.

Imho we should take a closer look on our allys - so we wouldn't be surprised.
From a long term of view it would save us a lot.
(From my point of view it's also verry critical to give turkey military equipment.
They are using nato armor to attack the kurds for example)

The technology you listed are both more European projects than Gernan ones (the French/German project was listed as "French export" on the papers i saw and i'm not sure wether MBB was already bought from Mercedes Benz (so it became german) in this year or not.

Anyway that dosn't make these exports any better :-(


To the "duel-use" only statement from you i'd like to quote Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York (found in todays New York Times)
"Sure he has biological weapons, We gave them to him."
(with he she was referencing to Sadam)

Anyway i never wanted to say that it was the USA only who made Sadam to a dangerous person. Europe and the USA screwed up the whole middel east after WWII we ignored the needs of the people living there and supported the wrong people (extremists) because they hated the same persons like we did.

Originally posted by Not George Lucas

International law is a joke. There is no all-encompassing organization to legislate, pass, or enforce any of these so-called laws.

You're not right at this point.
It's true there is no Democracy as we know it from our countries with a election for the "World Senate" or something like that but there are democratic rules how something can become a international law.
If enough countries ratify - it becomes a international law.
Also the United Nations are a portal where governments can discuss their differences and find solutions without war - the UN have a kind of "war monopole". Obviousely lot of countries don't care about it, that's a point were sanctions can begin. (this is a verry verry simplistic version i know - it's just ment as a startingpoint for further investigations).

Klaus

p.s. let's try "positive thinking and read NGL's post as "all of you - try less emotions in your mails"
(of course this includes me)

 

[Not George Lucas]

Klaus, I can see where you're coming from with the UN, but the UN is not all-inclusive, and there's no universal requirement for all nations to obey there laws. As such, Iraq, which, as far as I know, is not part of the UN (please correct me if I'm wrong) and, therefore, is not required to obey their laws. That does not mean they can ignore their treaties, of course. It just means Iraq can't be accused of breaking the law, if they weren't required to obey it in the first place.

In any event, my entire point here is moot, and I don't know why I keep going on about it.

There are two sides to this argument, and both sides make very good points. I get the feeling (and I'd attribute it to human nature, if there was such a thing) that Klaus and Sting are deeply committed to their positions and will probably never budge. If that is the case, which it usually is in this kind of discussion, there can be no ultimate resolution. Furthermore, a comprimise here is highly unlikely. Ultimately, you will have to settle with the fact that you're both too deeply rooted in your views.

Now, I'm not saying all this is a bad thing. Conflict keeps the universe in motion. This is merely an observation I've been making recently. Both sides make very good arguments, and, to be honest, I haven't committed to either side, yet. I still have many questions that have remained unanswered and many answers that don't satisfy me. To be honest, I believe there is a strong case to go to war, but not strong enough, at this point. That's not to say I'm completely opposed to military action. I just don't know.

 

[STING2]

In response to Klaus:

The 1991 Ceacefire agreement set out a number of conditions that Iraq had to comply with. If Iraq failed to sign this agreement, US and Allied military forces would have brought compliance by using force. Breaking the ceacefire agreement by not complying with those conditions legally allows US and Allied forces to resume operations that were put on hold in 1991 to bring Iraq into compliance with those stated conditions.

This document independent of any of the single UN Resolutions is enough to legally allow the resumption of military operations against Iraq considering it is in open violation of the document. A ceacefire is NOT a peace treaty and if broken is legally a resumption of war.

But I can find legal authorization for the resumption of military operations against Iraq without using the 1991 Ceacefire Agreement simply by using some of the UN resolutions you talked about. Here are the key points:

Resolution 678
of 29 November 1990
paragraph 2

Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Resolution 686
of 2 March 1991

Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq and Kuwait, and noting the intention expressed by the Member States cooperating with Kuwait under paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with achieving the objectives of that resolution,

Notice Res. (686) says consistent with achieving the objectives of that resolution(678). Resolution 678 includes all resolution passed before it plus all SUBSEQUENT resolutions. Iraq is still in violation of many of the resolutions that 678, called to be upheld with ALL necessary means, plus resolutions passed after that time. Iraq is currently in violation of 16 UN resolutions. Resolution 678 clearly stated in paragraph 2, authorizes members to use ALL means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all SUBSEQUENT relevant resolutions.....

So independent of the 1991 UN ceacefire agreement that I have often cited and is clearly a legal basis for the resumption of military action against Iraq, the legal authorization for military operations against Iraq is provided for in UN resolution 678. It does not pertain to just the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but to all UN resolutions passed before it in regards to Iraq plus all subsequent resolutions in regards to Iraq. It authorizes all means necessary to uphold and implement these resolutions, 16 of which Iraq is currently in violation of.

In regards to the building the Iraqi war machine it is important to make a clear distinction between countries that were overwhelmingly directly responsible for this, SOVIET UNION and CHINA, and to a lesser extent Western European countries like France, Germany, Switzerland; and to countries like the USA and others that had an indirect and mistaken role in possibly aiding Iraq through the export of duel use technology for medical purposes. It would be absurd to mention in the same breath the USA and others that contributed little compared to a countries like the SOVIET UNION that supplied Iraq with Thousands and Thousands of Tanks, Armored Personal vehicles, Artillery, Combat Aircraft, extensive training for the entire Iraqi military force structure, and made available 2,000 Soviet troops based in Iraq for years up into the 1991 Gulf war to support and train Iraq's entire military. Again the US military never sold Iraq military combat equipment. That is a significant difference compared with what Western Europe did and an overwhelming difference with what the SOVIET UNION did.

For the USA and others to have indirectly supplied the Iraqi Chem/Bio program with duel use technology meant for medical purposes was a mistake. But even if the USA had prohibited the export of such technology, Iraq was still recieving these things from the Soviet Union and others. Even if the USA and others had organized international sanctions against Iraq at the time to prevent the export of duel use technology, they would have been useless because of the SOVIET UNION's support and presense in Iraq.

 

[Klaus]

Okay i'll respond more detailed later - i'm not at home and i don't have the "UN Resolutions" on my Thinkpad.
Can anyone help me with a link?

I enjoy it verry much that Sting quotes the laws and resolutions to strengthen his arguments and i want to keep up this great quality of discussion.

So i reply to the Juristical part in a later message.

For the USA and others to have indirectly supplied the Iraqi Chem/Bio program with duel use technology meant for medical purposes was a mistake. But even if the USA had prohibited the export of such technology, Iraq was still recieving these things from the Soviet Union and others.

Maybe you're right at that point it would not have prevent it but the morale legitimation would be another today for war. It's hard to believe that a country who sold (or give away for free) this technology now wants to destroy this with a war.

Also "if not me - another one would have sold it" Is also a popular argument of drugdealers too.
It might be true - but that dosn't reduce the guilt. (but here also the US is not alone and not the worst one with this.. there were many "drug dealers", including europeans)

Klaus

 

[Klaus]

laws. As such, Iraq, which, as far as I know, is not part of the UN (please correct me if I'm wrong) and, therefore, is not required to obey their laws. That does not mean they can ignore their treaties, of course. It just means Iraq can't be accused of breaking the law, if they weren't required to obey it in the first place.

I thought Iraq also Kuwait was member of the UN. But i'm not 100% sure.

But the point with international laws is:
as soon as enough states ratified a law it's a law for everyone - not just for the Nations who signed the paper or have a (permanent) seat in the UN.

I'm also sure i can't convince Sting that the US invasion would be illegal - but the debate helps me to understand his views. And in the real world there is not just "right and wrong" .. most of the time the truth is somewhere inbetween ,-)

What impressed me most is that some arguments (from both sides) were mentioned in this thread before i could read them in any newspapers - but now some officials use "our" arguments *grin*

Also i'm not the opposite of sting (i'd love to see a pacifist or a "war against iraq? - never" minded join this discussion.

As i said at the begining - war can be a legitime thing (also against iraq).
It's just the reasons, the time and the legitimation which give me a bad feeling.
Stings and my possition are not that different as it looks like.
The main difference is the way, not the goal ,-)

Klaus

 

[mad1]

men!

 

[mad1]

oh here, if my memory serves me correct, 2 days ago on the news they had info that Hospital/NHS staff, would be the first to get vaccinations against any severe threat of germ warfare.......if it really is to happen in Uk

 

[ultraviolet7]

I've been off Interference for a few days but on return I've noticed that this thread continues to be as hot as ever! Even if more than a week has passed I'd still like to reply to Sting2's response to me. Here it goes.

There's not much I can reply to your post regarding the aid to fundamentalist guerrillas in Afghanistan during the 80s since your response simply refuted my points without providing any argument which I could eventually contend or agree with. However, there are a couple of items I'd like to comment upon.

The US did not empower Al Quada because a decade before we provided 1/3 and I underline 1/3 of the material support for a different group called the Mujahadeen. This support was cut off in 1989, and the money and small amount of weapons were already used up by the time the Taliban took power. Bin Ladin already had his own money and supporters without any aid from any country. After 1991 Afghanistan fell into a period of ethnic conflict which was a natural part of its history for thousands of years until the Taliban siezed power and pushed the Northern Alliance into the mountains. Democracy is NOT in jeopardy in the USA because of support for the Mujahadeen in the 1980s nor is any democracy in jeapardy because of that support. Nor was Fundamentalism really used in a significant way as a bulwark against Soviet Communism. Yes there was some material support (1/3 of which came from the USA) for the Mujahadeen in the 1980s, but much of that was already used by the time Al-Quada became active on the international scene in a major way. Most Al-Quada members today never fought in the 80s against the Soviets and Bin Ladin's true role in that war was mainly support for the Mujahadeen with money. Its true that US withdrawel from the region allowed Al-qauda to later set up an impressive base there, but that could have been done in several other countries so it can be seen as empowering them.

The actual quantity of material the US provided guerrillas in Afghanistan (in their majority of fundamentalist extraction) is of no relevance here since what we are discussing is the consequences of the decision of aiding such a group to counter Soviet penetration. BTW it would be interesting to know where that "1/3" figure comes from. The fact that much of the material support was already used by the time Al-Qaeda became operative on a major scale or that many of its members never actually fought in the 80s against the Soviets does not mean that the Al-Qaeda phenomenom can be detached from the Afghan anti-Soviet guerrilla of the 80s. While it's true that other areas could have been likely bases for such an organisation it is obvious that they chose Afghanistan and surroundings since bin Laden was well known over there due to his activities during the 80s. While he might have contributed in funding the mujahedeen, it is widespread knowledge that he participated actively in the resistance. To that end he was trained in the US by the CIA. It makes no sense to deny this fact since it was all over the media in the aftermath of 9/11 and never once did the CIA issue a formal denial.

I find the statement of my argument regarding the empowering of fundamentalist elements as a result of US aid to fend off Soviets as "empowering of Al-Qaeda" rather maliciously quoted. It's more than obvious that the US would not contribute in funding such an organisation but it can be hardly denied that its creation is rooted in the actual empowering of fundamentalist elements, naturally the more radical among them. If a proper scenario (backing of oppressive and unpopular governments, open disrespect for Muslim holy places and relentlessly insisting in cultural penetration) is additionally provided to give them a perfect motivation to get widespread support in order to be able to forward their own covert agenda the result is not too difficult to imagine. I'm aware that part of the fundamentalists aided back in the 80s have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda - how each faction handled the power gained from their participation in the conflict is entirely something else. That some might have been moderate as opposed to others who supported a more extremist ideology is something that back in the 80s, when aid was actually provided, nobody including the US, bothered to make a distinction of. BTW I thought we had agreed a few posts ago that revolving around "the US using fundamentalism as a bulwark against communism" issue was beating a dead horse. What's the need for bringing it up again?

To state that "democracy is not in jeopardy in the USA because of support for the Mujahadeen in the 1980s nor is any democracy in jeopardy because of that support" is again questionably quoting my point, since in the terms you use without taking into account, either to support or to contend, the argumentation I provided to back it, it obviously makes no sense.

The Northern Alliance were not supported because the USA did not feel the region of a great enough importance to warrent major support, especially with the newly independent countries of Eastern Europe needing aid quickly. Money is limited and nation building was seen as being more important elsewhere than in Afghanistan.

Maybe priorities were set elsewhere, nevertheless it's somewhat hard to believe that the US should have gone to so much trouble during the 80s to fend off the Soviets from Afghanistan to let the place find a way for itself once the conflict was over especially when the victors were Islamic fundamentalists, "moderate" if you like but fundamentalist in the end and more so when there was a steep rise in extreme fundamentalist adhesion in the nearby Pakistan in the guise of the increasing support of the Pakistani madrassas-trained Taleban.

There are all kinds of places around the world in which democracy has developed without there being a long history of democracy prior to it. Anyways back to the original point, I see US aid to the Mujahadeen as being clearly justified from the point of 1. Self defense against an invader 2. Helping to contain an enemy that threatens the vary existence of democracy worldwide.

I did not say the contrary. My point is that the conditions with a Northern Alliance rule back in the early 90s were not particularly given to guarantee a capitalist/democratic outcome because of the nationalistic political inclination of many of the members and because of the lack of democratic tradition in their organisation. They might have developed a democracy but, as I said, it was probably not the natural outcome such a situation was likely to bring about.

Many people in the Mujahadeen back then did not even know who Bin Ladin was. Bin Laden and Al-Quada operated largely outside of Afghanistan before the Taliban came to power there. The only thing comparable to a hero was the leader of the Northern Alliance who was murdered by Bin Ladin on Sept 10, 2001.

Many others did know who he was and widely supported him. I'm aware that Al-Qaeda operated outside Afghanistan before the Taleban time - this is obvious since they claim to be an Islamic organisation, not in particular an Afghan one. In addition by that time there were already evident differences with part of the mujahedeen. Undoubtedly in your or my view "the only thing comparable to a hero" was Ahmad Shah Masood, however this does not necessarily mean that locals felt the same way. While in their great majority they did consider him a hero, this didn't prevent them from acknowledging others, including bin Laden in his resistance years, as such.

There is a common view among many people that in 1947, Israel was created when a large number of Jews from Europe moved in and kicked Palestinians off their land. That is not what happened. First, there had been a Jewish community(however small) living in the area on a constant basis for thousands of years. Jewish emigration to Israel started to grow in the late 1800s with the approval of the Ottoman Empire which owned the area. There was no Palestinian State and the area only had 400,000 a tiny number of which were Jews that had lived there for thousands of years. Most area's were basically unoccupied. The Jews from Europe settled in unoccupied area's. As Jewish emmigration increased some people became concerned by the Ottoman Empire continued to allow it.

At the end of World War I the Ottoman Empire was defeated and dismantled and the British and the French began to build independent states in area's where no states had existed for hundreds if not thousands of years. Of course the Jews wanted a state as well as the Palestinians wanted a state. The Palestinians would not except any Jewish State. The UN plan in 1947 allowed for a Jewish State that was divided into 3 parts while the much larger Palestinian state was fully connnected. The UN plan did not require the removal of anyone.

What you've reported is the official Zionist version of events which is clearly an unobjective view. There's tons of documentation based on historical fact, easily accessible from many sources including technically "unbiased" ones such as UN papers, which is absolutely contrary to this argument. Such documentation includes official statements made by His Majesty's Government of Great Britain, the League of Nations' Covenant, British and American appointed commissions at the onset of the conflict and throughout the Mandate period, UN reports and resolutions, Zionist leaders' public statements, newspaper reports of the time, etc as well as the writings of authoritative historians such as Arnold J. Toynbee and others from all parts of the world including Israeli authors. It would be too long to explain on this board why most of the above information is fallacious. That's why I'm providing a link to a page within the UN site which briefly describes the evolution of the "Question of Palestine". Within that page there are links to more comprehensive documents always within the UN site called "The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem" Parts I, II, II and IV which are very informative and well documented as well as full of lots of references to consult on for further detail.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

In light of the fact that the Palestinians could of had everything they wanted and more in 1947, I do not know how you could say the violence has helped the Palestinians cause. It certainly did not improve their situation in 1948 or in any of the Arab/Israely wars that followed. Palestinian violence has only produced negative effects for them. The USA would be far more likely to put pressure on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza if the Palestinians were engaged in passive resistance. Israel is a democracy and a nation of a laws. In such a situation, passive resistance like that of MARTIN LUTHER KING can produce a positive result. Israel never annexed the West Bank and Gaza and was always willing to talk about resolving its disputes. Israel is not a dictatorship and there for a passive form of resistance can effect it just as the US civil rights movements of the 50s and 60s brought about better equality for African Americans in the USA. Violence has only made things worse for the Palestinians and brought Israely soldiers in large numbers back to the West Bank. It has only increased support among American voters for strong military response to terrorist actions. The US does have strings it can pull with Israel, but its never going to pull them as long as Palestinians try to use terror to achieve their goals. Violance has been an utter and complete failure for Palestinians over the last 55 years. Its time they adopt a new strategy that does not involved terrorism and actually has a chance of achieving their goals of statehood.

It is more than clear in the light of historical facts that the Palestinians could NEVER have contented themselves with what the 1947 resolution gave them, in part because the partition plan did them out of land legitimately theirs and in part because the Jewish, despite accepting the partition had other plans i. e. of further expansion, as both their aggressive policy and statements from their leaders like Ben-Gurion and Begin demonstrate.

The Palestinian situation obviously did not improve after the 1948 and 1967 conflicts as Israeli expansionist policy progressively pushed them out of their own soil and forced them to live in exile for many years. However it is important to put those conflicts within their right context: the 1948 episode was the result of a 30-year policy in the area which systematically made a point of ignoring Palestinian claims to a land legitimately theirs and which instead of being amended in an international forum like the UN ended up by being endorsed even if it was clear that it created an unfair situation for the Palestinian Arabs. In addition, it must be noted that the Zionist forces did call for the conflict when during the period which spanned from the passing of the partition plan in November 1947 until the termination of the British Mandate in May 1948, attacked and occupied areas the UN had allotted to the Arabs. The intervention in Palestine of five Arab nations (much less equipped and trained than Jewish forces) later on to defend Palestinian Arab rights ended up in Israeli unlawful occupation of territories never assigned to them. In all fairness it has to be said that if the Arab coalition had been the winner in this conflict it would have more than probably retaliated on the Jews by expelling them from Palestine, confiscating their property, etc as the antagonism between both people (which stemmed exclusively from this conflict and was not ancestral at all, as both British and American official reports of the 20s and 30s state) was already well installed. In fact after their defeat they proceeded to expel a total of 200,000 Jews from the five individual states combined. Something similar regarding Israeli expansionism and a hypothetical Egyptian victory can be said of the 1967 episode.

To judge these episodes simply as unprovoked "Palestinian violence" is to refuse to acknowledge what triggered them in the first place and to ignore that there also was Israeli violence which was most of the time more akin to offensive than to defensive tactics. In this scenario it is more than obvious that a "passive resistance" in the Luther King pattern would have never worked even if Israel is a democracy. Why? Because in the US neither the Republicans or the Democrats were inherently by ideology contrary to granting equal rights to the Afro-Americans. In Israel conversely one of the two main parties, the Likud, has always been, in the spirit of early Zionism, clearly unsupportive of the existence of a Palestinian Arab State, and it is notorious that its leaders have always entertained the goal of holding the whole of Palestine as Israel's national soil.

The Palestinian resort to violence I refer to is constituted namely by their resistance fight i.e. the attacks on Jews and the rebellions against the British authority during the Mandate years, the terrorist operations the PLO indulged in the 70s and the first and second intifadas. These manifestations though resorting to questionable methods, have undeniably succeeded in drawing international attention to their cause.

BTW If putting the West Bank and Gaza under the jurisdiction of Israeli law is not annexing those territories I don't know what is.

In conclusion, while the methods used by Palestinian terrorists cannot be condoned under any circumstance, it is only fair that the whole of the situation including its origins is analysed, to be able to make an objective judgement. From this analisys it will be clear that even if Palestinians showed hostility towards Jewish immigration from day one, it is understandable that they did so, as they immediately saw that the manoeuver to force upon them a stronger Jewish settlement would hinder their aspiration for an independent Palestinian state. Nobody with a minimum analytical capacity can fail to understand that people being done out of what's legitimately theirs are going to react violently sooner or later if the situation is not reversed. It musn't be ignored either that Zionist policy regarding and in the area itself has always been of aggressive nature towards the goal of securing the whole of Palestine for themselves and to that end they have always had the support of powerful nations such as Great Britain at the onset of the situation and the US later on. It is not too difficult to reach the conclusion that this huge imbalance of forces in the framework of an abusive situation is the perfect scenario for terrorism. While it is obvious that now the situation cannot be reversed to that of over 80 years ago when there was no Jewish state, it would be useful that international organisations such as the UN accepted responsibility for past mistakes and immediately devised the way of securing a Palestinian independent state which met the needs of the Palestinians presently living in Palestine as well as of the refugees living in exile, while allowing Israel to exist within borders reasonable both from a historical and practical point of view. The UN should also show firmness in purpose to the end that the terms of whatever agreement is reached are respected in time and form to avoid further violence. It is obvious that the rancour breeded over 80 years will not subside in one day, but if fair provisions for Palestinians are to be secured there's a greater possibility that peace in the area becomes a reality than not.

 

[STING2]

Ultraviolet7:

I don't have time to respond right now and in addition I want to take the time to read the website you gave the link to. I have read about the history of the area and what I said did not come from a zionist source's nor is it unobjective. In fact, just a brief reading in virtually any Encyclopedia would confirm what I said above. Support for Israel is not zionism. There are many well educated people, who are not Jewish, are unbiased, and have study the situation in detail, and would agree with what I had stated above.

I remind you that it is a fact that there were thousands of Jews living in Israel/Palestine at the time of World War I. It is also a fact that much of Israel/Palestine was unoccupied by people at the time. These Jews had just as much right to an independent Jewish State as Palestinian Muslims had a right to an independent Islamic State. No Arab or Jewish State existed at the time of the end of World War I, so people in the area only had a right to the land they were living on. The unoccupied area's would simply have to be settled on to be claimed, or negotiated upon once nation building began. Of course what actually happened in the years following World War I certainly was not a peaceful nation building process. But it is incorrect to state that Jews who were living in the area for decades before World War I or even further back in history had no right to an independent state. I can't see how you could claim that.

I'm certainly not an expert on this area but have little reason to doubt the research I have already done on Israel/Palestine question. But again, I am ready to be proven wrong if the information is there and is unbiased and accurate and placed in a proper context. In just briefly reading the website info you gave, I can tell that it really skips the history of the area before 1915 and really starts with the end of World War I and the British mandate. Nothing I read in the introductions contradicted what I had stated in my post and is basic known general info. As I read the entire text, I'll be carefully looking for information to prove my points wrong. I've always tried to see the Palestinian point of view on many issues in regards to the history of the area and the current situation. I have not found them convincing so far.(I've always believed though that they have a right to an independent state along with Israel). It will be interesting though to see if there is anything here that will contradict what I have read from several other unbiased sources on the whole issue.

 

[Klaus]

Hello Sting, i finally managed to download and read all Resolutions of 1990/1991 which are adressing Iraq Kuwait:

Resolution 678
of 29 November 1990
paragraph 2

Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Okay we should mention that at the beginning of Res. 678 the Res. 660, 661, 662664, 665, 666, 667, 669,670,674 and 677 are recalled and reaffirmed. (i mention them later, it's important to see 678 in context).

Intention of Res. 678 is to implement res. 660 (ff) to restore international peace and security in the area.

Resolution 660
of 2 August 1990
1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
2. Demands that Iraq withdraws ..
3. Calls uppon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations..

So for me it's obvious that the Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669,670,674 and 677 point out that Military force is only allowed to Kuwait and it's allies until Iraq withdraws from Kuwait.

They call both governments to cooperate with the UN and mention more than once that both parties should try to talk and that some of the Resolutions try to reduce the chance that civilians will be killed.

So at this point there is imho no chance to interpret 678 for anything the US tries to do now!

Resolution 686
of 2 March 1991

Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq and Kuwait, and noting the intention expressed by the Member States cooperating with Kuwait under paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with achieving the objectives of that resolution,

So after the war they decided to go back to the UN and talk to find sollutions for the rest of the problems between Iraq and and Kuwait.
The main reson for war has become obsolet that dosn't mean that all problems with Iraq are gone from now on. it's step 1 of deescalation.

Notice Res. (686) says consistent with achieving

I would like to know who wrote this notice, it's not one of the Official Notices to this Resolution and it's imho the opposite to the "spirit" of the Resolutions.

Klaus

 

[STING2]

Klaus:

Resolution 678 explicitly says "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) AND ALL SUBSEQUENT relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;"

The key here is SUBSEQUENT resolutions. That means resolutions passed after 678 can be implemented by all necessary means in addition to the ones prior to 678 which refer to more than just the simple withdrawal of Iraqi military forces from Kuwait. Iraq is in violation of 16 UN resolutions and resolution 678 clearly authorizes the use of force to uphold and implement all resolutions in regards to Iraq whether they were passed before 678 or after. The word "subsequent" refers to any resolutions passed after 678.

"Notice Res. (686) says consistent with achieving" This is directly from Res. 686. I got it from the UN Documents Website. I'll have to go find the address again.



Independent of all these resolutions is the 1991 Ceacefire agreement. Breaking that agreement is legally restarting the war.
So whether it be the UN resolutions or the 1991 Ceacefire agreement, both give the USA and other UN nations authority to use military force to force Iraq to comply with its all its violations of the 16 UN resolutions and the 1991 ceacefire agreement.

 

[STING2]

Klaus:

For that phrase from Res. 686, go to the website http://www.un.org/documents/ . The Paragraph that starts with the word AFFIRMING is where it is found.

 

[Klaus]

Hello Sting,

I think the focus is clearly on 660 in that resolution, but anyway they mentioned ALL SUBSEQUENT res. - which of them do you think would be worth continuing the war?

Klaus:

For that phrase from Res. 686, go to the website http://www.un.org/documents/ . The Paragraph that starts with the word AFFIRMING is where it is found.

I found the resolutions there - thanks but not the notices.
Because of that i think the Notices are not officially from the UN.
Maybe they are from you, maybe from s.o. else - i just wanted to know who wrote the notices.
Making them look like official can be verry missleading

Klaus

p.s. are you for a pro- or contra a Korea war?
what about a war vs. Pakistan? They sell / give away ABC technology to countries which are part of the Axis of Evil (TM)