Attack or Self-Defense? - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-22-2003, 12:50 PM   #91
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Dreadsox,

Why do you keep posting this statement by Pollack?:

"Again to Quote Pollack, a man who puts forward arguably the best case for removing Saddam:

Many on the far right of the American political spectrum argue that the United States can and should overthrow Iraq entirely on its own. They are wrong. We can't and we shouldn't....Moreover, the United States is not some rogue superpower determined to do what it wants regardless of who it threatens or angers. If we behave in this manner we will alienate our allies and convince much of the rest of the world to band together against us to try to keep us under control. Rather than increasing our security and posterity, such a development would drastically undermine it."


I have not once suggested that the USA should overthrow Saddam entirely on its own. No one in the current administration has publically suggested the USA should overthrow Saddam ENTIRELY on its own.

Lets not forget who got inspectors back into Iraq after four years and he didn't do it by sending Saddam flowers.(disclaimer: not suggesting in any way that you think we should send Saddam flowers to resolve the crises, but simply a defense of W against the criticism from the "left" that he has not had a well thought out and contructive policy towards Iraq)


"This is the RESOLUTION interpreted by lawyers. If the United States acts without the Security Council, we lose the upper hand. We violate international law."

"Furthermore, we increase the chances of losing allies down the road. We increase our risk of further terrorism, not because we have removed Saddam, but because we are acting on our own in violation of the UN Charter, and Resolutions."

So what did we lose by acting without the United Nations in Kosovo? Do you consider US military action in Kosovo and Serbia to be a violation of International Law?
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-22-2003, 12:58 PM   #92
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I'm not an international lawyer or a student of international law. I still think I have a valid argument but I'm certainly not about to rebutt every Law firm from New York or else where that has a different interpretation of international law from the US State Department and 4 different Presidential Administrations. These 4 different Presidential Administration have justified past military actions against Iraq since March 1991 often on the bases of Resolution 678 alone. Many of these limited military actions were a key part of the Containment Strategy that Kenneth Pollack talks about in his book. But of course your interpretation of the law as well as the law firms you choose to site find them illegal.
I am not denying that this is the United States position. However, how many of these actions were in response to violations of the no fly zones.

Now let's muddle the debate with the enforcement of the no-fly zones ect. There are also plenty of example ie 1993 where we went back to the security council for permission as I have pointed out above.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
If you can find someone in the current administration that indisputedly agrees with your legal interpretation of the law, you might be able to convince me that is the best interpretation. The Administration is asking for a second resolution for political reasons rather than legal ones.
I am still waiting for you to quote a single source other than the State Department Opinion.

I guess then, the only interpretation of international law that is correct is the ADMINISTRATIONS....The rest of the world be damned. That, Sting, is exactly why we are losing allies and the moral ground we had after 9/11. You are with us or you are against us. This is the kind of Diplomacy that Pollack specifically warns against. Pollack begins his chapter where he makes his case for invasion by saying he IS NOT an expert in international law. He also makes it clear as I have quoted, it is not definite in the world's eyes that 678 is still in effect and points out the need for another resolution. Political or Legal it matters not, the fact is, without it we are setting ourtselves BACK in the eyes of the world.


Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
For the past 12 years, thousands of military combat missions have been flown against Iraq as well as an unknowable number of covert and intelligence operations. Many of these military operations but perhaps not all have certainly been in violation of the lawyers and Dreadsox interpretations of the Security Council Resolutions. But clearly 4 different Presidential administrations(Democrat and Republican) have justified several of these actions on the grounds of 678.
Wow, you love to make it personal. Dreadsox interpretations of the resolutions. Wuite amuzing since I have provided example after example of legal representations of my positions. That's cool though, because obviously I am supporting the postion of the Russians and you are supporting the President and the USA. LOL but that was not personal either.

This is not a debate of past actions.


Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I'm not an international lawyer or a student of international law. I still find my interpretation of the Security Council Resolutions and the interpretation by 4 different Presidential Administration to be the correct one. I believe that every action taken by the US military in regards to Iraq over the past 12 years has been legal.
Good...lets' hope the security council can get on the right page so we can both be on the same side again.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-22-2003, 01:12 PM   #93
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Dreadsox,

Why do you keep posting this statement by Pollack?:

"Again to Quote Pollack, a man who puts forward arguably the best case for removing Saddam:

Many on the far right of the American political spectrum argue that the United States can and should overthrow Iraq entirely on its own. They are wrong. We can't and we shouldn't....Moreover, the United States is not some rogue superpower determined to do what it wants regardless of who it threatens or angers. If we behave in this manner we will alienate our allies and convince much of the rest of the world to band together against us to try to keep us under control. Rather than increasing our security and posterity, such a development would drastically undermine it."


I have not once suggested that the USA should overthrow Saddam entirely on its own. No one in the current administration has publically suggested the USA should overthrow Saddam ENTIRELY on its own.

Lets not forget who got inspectors back into Iraq after four years and he didn't do it by sending Saddam flowers.(disclaimer: not suggesting in any way that you think we should send Saddam flowers to resolve the crises, but simply a defense of W against the criticism from the "left" that he has not had a well thought out and contructive policy towards Iraq)
Again, I think my statements are pretty clear. I think Pollack is very clear as well in his book. I support his contention that we need to Invade. I am 100% for it if it is legal and with the Support of the UN. I feel that anything less than that is wrong. I feel that the course we appear to be taking is outside of the case laid out by Pollack. I feel that Pollack clearly points to the footing that the US is clinging to on 678 is a weak one.

I feel that based on everything I have read and supported with legal interpretations 1441 does not give up the Security Councils Authority to end the cease fire. I feel that the coalition we have developed in not a sturdy one, nor does it contain enough of the people that Pollack outlines in his book. I feel the statement I have quoted from the book sums up crystal clear why we are losing the high ground in this issue.

I think the fact that the administration is introducing another resolution, is chrystal clear that the repercussions of not getting Security Council authorization for the use of force, is important. You say it is political, and the admistration may say it is political. The fact remains, it is only political because the international community does not support the stance the US has taken.

I think I have made it clear in other threads that people are naive if they think Saddam is even compying as little as he has just because the security council asked him to. I also think it would be naive to not build up forces. As I look at the news this morning, it is looking more and more like the inspectors are losing patience with Iraq and their lack of compliance. If the report comes in on March 1 that the Iraq is failing to comply, then 1441 demands action of some sort.


Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
"This is the RESOLUTION interpreted by lawyers. If the United States acts without the Security Council, we lose the upper hand. We violate international law."

"Furthermore, we increase the chances of losing allies down the road. We increase our risk of further terrorism, not because we have removed Saddam, but because we are acting on our own in violation of the UN Charter, and Resolutions."

So what did we lose by acting without the United Nations in Kosovo? Do you consider US military action in Kosovo and Serbia to be a violation of International Law?
I am sorry, did we have a cease-fire agreement with them at any point in time that I am aware of. Very different parallels. We can start another thread to debate that if you like. I fail to see how this is relevant.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-22-2003, 01:15 PM   #94
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:00 AM
I never posted this again...Sorry!
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-22-2003, 02:18 PM   #95
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Dreadsox,

"I am not denying that this is the United States position. However, how many of these actions were in response to violations of the no fly zones."

"Now let's muddle the debate with the enforcement of the no-fly zones ect. There are also plenty of example ie 1993 where we went back to the security council for permission as I have pointed out above."

Probably the majority of them. The only reason I'd the USA has returned to the Security Council for military action since 1991 has been for political reasons rather than legal ones. I'm all for going to the Security Council for political reasons though.

"I am still waiting for you to quote a single source other than the State Department Opinion."

The October resolution passed by Congress certainly supports the use of force without a second resolution indicating that the legal bases is there. That was an incredibly overwhelming vote of support for the administrations policy. Much stronger than the vote was back in 1991 for the first Persian Gulf War. A majority of Democratic Senators, despite criticisms, voted for the Presidents policy.

I'm sure the Heritage Foundation believes that the President has the legal bases as well as several other think tanks and institutions that tend to lean towards the right a little more than the left. Sorry I have not researched them yet, but I don't think there is anything wrong with independent analyses and the views of the most of the Government and State Department.

I believe international support and opinion is very important. At the same time, I place a higher priority on the thoughts of the current US administration, The US Congress and the US State Department.


"Wow, you love to make it personal. Dreadsox interpretations of the resolutions. Wuite amuzing since I have provided example after example of legal representations of my positions. That's cool though, because obviously I am supporting the postion of the Russians and you are supporting the President and the USA. LOL but that was not personal either."

I'm obviously unintentially offending you and I would appreciate it if would suggest to me what to say that would not be offensive to you. I am honestly sorry for anything I have said that has upset you or has mis characterized you or your opinion in any way. That was not my intent.

"Good...lets' hope the security council can get on the right page so we can both be on the same side again."

I agree.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-22-2003, 02:41 PM   #96
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Dreadsox

"I am sorry, did we have a cease-fire agreement with them at any point in time that I am aware of. Very different parallels. We can start another thread to debate that if you like. I fail to see how this is relevant."

Well it was a military action without the approval of the of the UN Security Council in violation of the UN charter. Considering the fact that the title of this thread is "Attack or Self Defense" and the fact that you have brought up the Security Council and the UN Charter as the legal bases for all military action and that not acting within it hurts the USA, I thought it would be very relevant to the discussion.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-22-2003, 04:46 PM   #97
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I'm obviously unintentially offending you and I would appreciate it if would suggest to me what to say that would not be offensive to you. I am honestly sorry for anything I have said that has upset you or has mis characterized you or your opinion in any way. That was not my intent. .
It's cool. I am good. I just find the way all of us Dreadsox is now associated with the Russians and French and you are AMERICAN and with the President kind of amusing. I find it amusing that the "AMERICAN" lawyers have written papers that specifically counter the Administrations positons.

One thing is clear in their interpretation about 1441 no matter what side the administration or the world takes:

In any event, the terms of Resolution 1441, paragraph 4 (above), make it clear that a failure of Iraq to cooperate, if reported to the Security Council, would not justify either the United Statesí or any other stateís unilateral suspension of the cease-fire provision without giving the Security Council an opportunity to consider the situation and to act under paragraph 12.



And that is the important thing to note. There is no debating what 1441 means. This part of the paper I linked to is not a discussion of one side or the other. This is fact.


Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-22-2003, 07:22 PM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Dreadsox,

I just read paragraph 4, 11, and 12, and there is nothing that indisputably states that that member states do not have the right to use force. The Bush Administration wrote most of this resolution and wrote in a way that it could be interpreted that the USA would certainly have the right to use force and that a second resolution for the use of force was not required. It is definitely open to interpretation. There is nothing in 1441 that states there must be a second resolution passed for the use of military force. But disregarding that, I do support the administrations attempt to seek a second resolution to attempt to win more global support for its position, but its not legally necessary.

Considering the history of law in the USA and the number of lawyers the USA has, I would find it amusing if some American lawyers had not written papers that specifically counter the administrations positions. There are American Lawyers that have volunteered to defend Bin Ladin as an innocent man.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-22-2003, 07:53 PM   #99
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Considering the history of law in the USA and the number of lawyers the USA has, I would find it amusing if some American lawyers had not written papers that specifically counter the administrations positions. There are American Lawyers that have volunteered to defend Bin Ladin as an innocent man.

The inference being that any lawyer who disagrees with the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq situation is Un-American? Interesting point of view.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 02-22-2003, 07:53 PM   #100
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Sting,

I am seriously out of commission tonight. I just got bad news about two people I knew in relation to the trajedy in RI. I am just mentally not up to it.

What I posted above comes from the AMERICAN SOCIETY of INTERNATIONAL LAW. I believe if you look at the intent of paragraph 12, it is that the Security Council will convene when I violation is reported because it will further put Iraq in material breech. paragraph 13 warns of the consequences, however does not speicify military action.

I will probably be back to continue with this debate in a day or two. Untill then, lets hope that Blix comes around in his report so we can get on with defending our postition for the removal of Saddam. Thanks for the good debate until then.

Matt
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-22-2003, 08:09 PM   #101
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Dreadsox,

I am very sorry to hear that two people you know have been lossed in this terrible tragedy. God Bless Them and their family and friends!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 08:59 PM   #102
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Dreadsox,

I just read paragraph 4, 11, and 12, and there is nothing that indisputably states that that member states do not have the right to use force. The Bush Administration wrote most of this resolution and wrote in a way that it could be interpreted that the USA would certainly have the right to use force and that a second resolution for the use of force was not required. It is definitely open to interpretation. There is nothing in 1441 that states there must be a second resolution passed for the use of military force. But disregarding that, I do support the administrations attempt to seek a second resolution to attempt to win more global support for its position, but its not legally necessary.
Sting,

I am back. Thanks for your nice words. The wake is tomorrow, and the Funeral is Thursday.

I too have reread.

*Nowhere in this resolution does it say use of force is allowed.
*Paragraph 12, specifically says that the council is to convene if UMOVIL or IAEA notifies them that Iraq is not cooperating with them. This portion fully demonstrates that the council has not given up its authority to other nations to determine what course of action to take.

You say the US drew this resolution up. I have found numerous articles, where the US ORIGINALLY had a clause that authorized the use of force in it. It was REMOVED. I can look them up and link them to this thread. If the intent of 1441 was to give force, why was this portion REMOVED?

As to your argument that the prior administrations have used force without permission. I would like you to provide some evidence. I do not doubt you because I can think of at least once where force was used without approval. THis does not count the NO FLY zone, which clearly we have the right to enforce.

One point I would like to make though. There is a MAJOR difference between using missles and planes to make a strike, and the outright invasion and occupation of Iraq. I think your argument is slightly flawed in this light.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:14 PM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Dreadsox,

It all comes down to interpretation. The fact that other drafts were removed that contain more specific language authorizing the use of force does not mean that 1441 in its current form does not authorize the use of force. The tough language was removed for political reasons. The less specific language that is open to interpretation was used so it could be passed by the council, but the USA could continue to make the claim that they had the legal right to use military action. There is nothing in 1441 that specifically does not authorize the use of force. "Serious Consequences" is open to interpretation.

I can try and dig up some more info on military action against Iraq. I can off hand remember two actions in 1993, one I think in 1996, and of course one in 1998.

The point here is not the technical differences between military strikes and invasion, but whether member states have the right to "use all means necessary" if Iraq is in material breach. Kenneth Pollack clearly states that past administrations have sited 678 to justify military action.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:36 PM   #104
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:00 AM
1993 Permission was REquested and Given by the Security Council.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-25-2003, 10:51 PM   #105
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Well again, the USA went to the security council for political reasons rather than the feeling it lacked the strictly legal bases for military action. I've not yet researched all the military action, but do you know if there was specific security council authorization for the strikes in southern Iraq in 1996 and Desert Fox in 1998? I've not researched other possible military strikes yet.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com