Cheney's Misleading, Deceiving Case for War - Page 2 - 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 10-08-2004, 04:15 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Sting2
you can't claim to enforce UN laws and throw out the UN inspectors yourself and ignore the will of the UN president.
That dosn't seem authentic to me
The United States did not throw out the UN inspectors. Saddam prevented the UN inspectors from doing their job. Under such conditions, member states of the UN were authorized through resolution 678 to take military action. The UN president does not make the decisions about military actions or the resolutions, the Security Council does. The UN president does not have a vote on the security council.

Any meaning that the United Nations was crumbling, until the member states in the coalition finally took decisive action to finally enforce 17 UN resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations. The fact that it took 12 years for this to finally happen is the only bad thing.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-09-2004, 01:07 PM   #17
Acrobat
 
Hawk269's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 322
Local Time: 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The United States did not throw out the UN inspectors. Saddam prevented the UN inspectors from doing their job. Under such conditions, member states of the UN were authorized through resolution 678 to take military action. The UN president does not make the decisions about military actions or the resolutions, the Security Council does. The UN president does not have a vote on the security council.
The USA prevented the UN inspectors from doing their job more than Saddam did by starting a war where we effectively told the inspectors, get out of there because your lives are at risk!

Quote:

Any meaning that the United Nations was crumbling, until the member states in the coalition finally took decisive action to finally enforce 17 UN resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations. The fact that it took 12 years for this to finally happen is the only bad thing.
Sting - you quote all of these UN resolutions, often by number, which provides interesting legal jargon. However, the point of the UN is to have consensus prior to taking action. You are justifying the war by basically saying that we were the world police who finally enforced the UN laws that had been broken and you are probably correct in asserting that .

But let's go over the purpose of the UN in general: To maintain peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect; to cooperate in solving international problems; to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations.

You can argue the legalese until your face turns blue. But when you are talking about starting a war where thousands of human lives are at stake, shouldn't morality play a role?

IN ADDITION, as Klaus said, you can't have it both ways! One minute you are talking about how weak the U.N. was to have not taken action in 12 years and the next you are quoting UN Resolution 678, as if it were the law of the land. Either you are for the U.N. or you are against it. But playing on both sides of the fence is usually maligned as flip-flopping around these parts.

AJ
__________________

__________________
Hawk269 is offline  
Old 10-09-2004, 04:37 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hawk269


The USA prevented the UN inspectors from doing their job more than Saddam did by starting a war where we effectively told the inspectors, get out of there because your lives are at risk!



Sting - you quote all of these UN resolutions, often by number, which provides interesting legal jargon. However, the point of the UN is to have consensus prior to taking action. You are justifying the war by basically saying that we were the world police who finally enforced the UN laws that had been broken and you are probably correct in asserting that .

But let's go over the purpose of the UN in general: To maintain peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect; to cooperate in solving international problems; to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations.

You can argue the legalese until your face turns blue. But when you are talking about starting a war where thousands of human lives are at stake, shouldn't morality play a role?

IN ADDITION, as Klaus said, you can't have it both ways! One minute you are talking about how weak the U.N. was to have not taken action in 12 years and the next you are quoting UN Resolution 678, as if it were the law of the land. Either you are for the U.N. or you are against it. But playing on both sides of the fence is usually maligned as flip-flopping around these parts.

AJ
#1 Guess how UN inspectors got back into Iraq in November of 2002?

#2 After being in the country for four months, nothing was accomplished on the chief goal of getting Saddam to account for several thousands of stocks of WMD that the UN reported were unaccounted for when they were kicked out four years earlier. The UN inspectors mission is to inspect and verify, not play Saddam's old game of "cheat and retreat". The inspectors are not armed and to few, to ever have a chance of winning at one of Saddam's games as the process from 1991 to 1998 often showed.

#3 Resolution 1441 signed in November of 2002 gave Saddam one last chance to openly come out and comply with the resolutions. Its not the inspectors job to try and do that for Saddam. They are there to inspect and verify that Saddam is complying. No progress was made on the unaccounted for weapons the whole time the inspectors were in the country from November of 2002 to March of 2003. Nothing had been accomplished in the year prior to the UN inspectors being kicked out in November of 1998.

#4 When the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire was signed, it was not designed to be some open ended process where Saddam would essentially get forever to comply with the resolutions. The conditions were serious and were backed up with the use of military force if Saddam failed to comply.

#5 It was the UN that passed the resolutions authorizing the use of military force, not the United States. Member states of the UN to include the United States, United Kingdom and Australia then enforced the resolutions as authorized by the UN.


#6 "But let's go over the purpose of the UN in general: To maintain peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect; to cooperate in solving international problems; to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations."

This is precisely what the UN has finally done in regards to Iraq. Saddam was a threat to peace and security in the region as well as the world and he was removed. 30 nations are currently involved in the operation in Iraq which will finally help to develop friendly relations and respect among countries that have only known war and hostility because of Saddam. Can you name another operation around the world that involves the same number or a greater number of nations on this level?

#7 When were talking about Saddam's regime, a regime that has invaded and attacked four different countries over the past 20 years, used WMD more times than any leader in history, threatened the PLANETS energy supply with sabotage and seizure, and murdered over 1.7 million people, I would say that MORALITY did indeed play a role in going to war! Indeed what would be the cost of leaving Saddam in power? How many Iraqi's would die? How many people would die from a new war launched by Saddam, potentially with WMD? What would the effect on the planet be if it were suddenly cut off from the majority of its energy supply? When you think about morality and costs, you need to consider these questions!

#8 The UN passed excellant resolutions designed to force Saddam to comply and verifiably disarm, or face the renewed military action. Unfortunately, while the UN has been strong in theory, law and idea's, it has been weak in the enforcement or practice of these things. Recognizing the strengths of the UN as well as its weakness's is vital to making it stronger in the future.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-11-2004, 05:35 AM   #19
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


#1 Guess how UN inspectors got back into Iraq in November of 2002?


The US by sending their military to the Iraqi border.
It was a good thing to raise presure on Mr. Hussein. Mr. Hussein started to cooperate with Unmovic for the first time in years. But it was stupid to throw unmovic out of Iraq when they weren't finished with their job. And it was bad for the US credibility to not allow UNMOVIC to enter Iraq after the fall of mr. hussein.

Quote:
#2 After being in the country for four months, nothing was accomplished on the chief goal of getting Saddam to account for several thousands of stocks of WMD that the UN reported were unaccounted for when they were kicked out four years earlier. The UN inspectors mission is to inspect and verify, not play Saddam's old game of "cheat and retreat". The inspectors are not armed and to few, to ever have a chance of winning at one of Saddam's games as the process from 1991 to 1998 often showed.


Nothing was accomplished? They destroyed some rockets and they verified that some of the mentioned factories don't produce WMDs like some countries blamed.
You're right, Saddam did play games - but this time the US played games and this isn't good for their reputation.

Quote:
#3 Resolution 1441 signed in November of 2002 gave Saddam one last chance to openly come out and comply with the resolutions. Its not the inspectors job to try and do that for Saddam. They are there to inspect and verify that Saddam is complying. No progress was made on the unaccounted for weapons the whole time the inspectors were in the country from November of 2002 to March of 2003. Nothing had been accomplished in the year prior to the UN inspectors being kicked out in November of 1998.


I have commented this approx. 10.000 times, i don't think that these resolutions were enough to justify the war, Mr. Annan dosn't think so, many other countries don't think so. You, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair do think it justified the war.

Same for #4, #5


Quote:
#6 "But let's go over the purpose of the UN in general: To maintain peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect; to cooperate in solving international problems; to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations."


You think that talking like a cowboy and declaring the UN as irrelevant, and "either you are with us or against us" is based on respect and is solving more international problems than it creates?
Do you think that the US were "harmonizing nations" in the last 4 years?

Quote:
This is precisely what the UN has finally done in regards to Iraq. Saddam was a threat to peace and security in the region as well as the world and he was removed.


A basically non-existing threat for global peace and security was removed while ignoring that other countries really have A- B- And C-WMDs and are willing to sell them.
But well they helped against iraq and so it's not our problem that they sell nuclear technology?

Quote:
30 nations are currently involved in the operation in Iraq which will finally help to develop friendly relations and respect among countries that have only known war and hostility because of Saddam. Can you name another operation around the world that involves the same number or a greater number of nations on this level?



To be honest i have no clue how many nations operate in iraq, in afghanistan and i have no clue how many nations try to solve the palestine/israel conflict.
But if you take the No. of troops in iraq and the percentage of non US troops it dosn't look like the broad support you're trying to make out of this.


Quote:
#7 When were talking about Saddam's regime, a regime that has invaded and attacked four different countries over the past 20 years, used WMD more times than any leader in history, threatened the PLANETS energy supply with sabotage and seizure, and murdered over 1.7 million people, I would say that MORALITY did indeed play a role in going to war! Indeed what would be the cost of leaving Saddam in power? How many Iraqi's would die? How many people would die from a new war launched by Saddam, potentially with WMD? What would the effect on the planet be if it were suddenly cut off from the majority of its energy supply? When you think about morality and costs, you need to consider these questions!


You forget that (besides Kuwait) the western world supported the wars of Mr. Hussein. And in Kuwait we liberated a country from one Dictator and gave it to another dictator (the "royal family")
It was good to free kuwait and it was stupid not to turn that country into a democracy.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-13-2004, 09:40 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Quote:
Security Scholars Say Iraq War Most Misguided Policy Since Vietnam
by Jim Lobe


WASHINGTON – The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has been the “most misguided” policy since the Vietnam War, according to an open letter signed by some 500 U.S. national-security specialists.


We’re advising the administration, which is already in a deep hole, to stop digging.

Barry Posen, the Ford International Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
The letter, released Tuesday by a Security Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy (S3FP), said that the current situation in Iraq could have been much better had the Bush administration heeded the advice of some of its most experienced career military and foreign service officers.

But the administration’s failure to do so has actually fueled “the violent opposition to the U.S. military presence,” as well as the intervention of terrorists from outside Iraq.

“The results of this policy have been overwhelmingly negative for U.S. interests,” according to the group which called for a “fundamental reassessment” in both the U.S. strategy in Iraq and its implementation.

“We’re advising the administration, which is already in a deep hole, to stop digging,” said Prof. Barry Posen, the Ford International Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), one of the organizers of S3FP which includes some of the most eminent U.S. experts on both national-security policy and on the Middle East and the Arab world.

Among the signers are six of the last seven presidents of the American Political Science Association (APSA) and professors teach in more than 150 colleges and universities in 40 states.

Besides Posen, the main organizers included Stanley Kaufman of the University of Delaware; Michael Brown, director of Security Studies at Georgetown University; Michael Desch, who holds the Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security Decision-Making at the Bush School of government at Texas A & M University; and Jessica Stern, at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, who also served in a senior counter-terrorism post in the National Security Council during the Clinton administration.

“I think it is telling that so many specialists on international relations, who rarely agree on anything, are unified in their position on the high costs that the U.S. is incurring from this war,” said Prof. Robert Keohane of Duke University in North Carolina.

Their critique mirrors an unprecedented statement released by 27 retired top-ranking foreign service and military officials last June, any of whom said they had voted for Bush in the 2000 election.

The 27, called Diplomats for Change, accused the administration of the country “into an ill-planned and costly war from which exist is uncertain and charged that the March 2003 invasion.” As their name suggested, they called for Bush to be defeated in 2004.

The new statement’s signatories also includes a number of retired government officials – some career military and foreign-service officers, other political appointees in Democratic and Republican administrations – who are currently working at colleges and universities.

Much of their critique echoes arguments voiced by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry who, in recent weeks, has pounded way at alleged failures in the way Bush has prosecuted the “war on terrorism,” particularly with respect to Iraq.

“We judge that the current American policy centered around the war in Iraq is the most misguided one since the Vietnam period, one which harms the cause of the struggle against extreme Islamist terrorists,” S3FP writes.

“One result has been a great distortion instead of facts, on mythology instead of calculation, and on misplaced moralizing over considerations of national interest,” they wrote.

The scholars applauded the Bush administration for its initial focus on destroying al-Qaida’s bases in Afghanistan, they charged that its subsequent “failure to engage sufficient U.S. troops to capture or kill the mass of al-Qaida fighters in the alter stages of that war was a great blunder.”

“It is a fact that the early shift of U.S. focus to Iraq diverted U.S. resources, including special operations forces and intelligence capabilities, away from direct pursuit of the fight against the terrorists.”

The letter noted that “many of the justifications” provided by the administration for the Iraq war, including an operational relationship between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein and Iraq’s programs for weapons of mass destruction (WMD), have proven “untrue” and that North Korea and Pakistan pose much greater risks of nuclear proliferation to terrorists.

“Even on moral grounds, the case for war was dubious: the war itself has killed over a thousand Americans and unknown thousands of Iraqis, and if the threat of civil war becomes reality, ordinary Iraqis could be even worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein.”

Since the invasion, “policy errors …have created a situation in Iraq worse than it needed to be,” according to the letter which noted that the administration ignored advice from the Army Chief of Staff on the need for many more U.S. troops to provide security and from the State Department and other U.S. agencies on how reconstruction could be carried out.

“As a result, Iraqi popular dismay at the lack of security, jobs or reliable electric power fuels much of the violent opposition to the U.S. military presence, while the war itself has drawn in terrorists from outside Iraq.”

While Saddam’s removal was “desirable,” according to the scholars, the actual benefit to the United States was “small,” particular in light of the fact that Iraq posed far less of a threat to the U.S. or its allies than the administration had asserted.

“On the negative side, the excessive U.S. focus on Iraq led to weak and inadequate responses to the greater challenges posed by North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear programs, and diverted resources from the economic and diplomatic efforts needed to fight terrorism in its breeding grounds in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the Middle East.”

Worse, the occupation’s failures, such as the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere, have acted as a recruitment tool for al-Qaida and similar groups throughout the region, according to the letter.

“Recognizing these negative consequences of the Iraq war, in addition to the cost in lives and money, we believe that a fundamental reassessment is in order,” the letter said.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-14-2004, 02:17 AM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:00 AM
So basically; Screw the Kurds - NO WAR!

*I am aware that the Kurds were running a proper independent government during the late 1990's and doing quite well for themselves but the statement was on a PW poster and it worked really well.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-22-2004, 12:45 AM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Quote:
Pentagon Reportedly Skewed C.I.A.'s View of Qaeda Tie

By DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 - As recently as January 2004, a top Defense Department official misrepresented to Congress the view of American intelligence agencies about the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, according to a new report by a Senate Democrat.

The report said a classified document prepared by Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, not only asserted that there were ties between the Baghdad government and the terrorist network, but also did not reflect accurately the intelligence agencies' assessment - even while claiming that it did.

In issuing the report, the senator, Carl M. Levin, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he would ask the panel to take "appropriate action'' against Mr. Feith. Senator Levin said Mr. Feith had repeatedly described the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda as far more significant and extensive than the intelligence agencies had.

The broad outlines of Mr. Feith's efforts to promote the idea of such close links have been previously disclosed.

The view, a staple of the Bush administration's public statements before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, has since been discredited by the Sept. 11 commission, which concluded that Iraq and Al Qaeda had "no close collaborative relationship.''

The 46-page report by Senator Levin and the Democratic staff of the Armed Services Committee is the first to focus narrowly on the role played by Mr. Feith's office. Democrats had sought to include that line of inquiry in a report completed in June by the Senate Intelligence Committee, but Republicans on the panel postponed that phase of the study until after the presidential election.

In an interview, Mr. Levin said he had concluded that Mr. Feith had practiced "continuing deception of Congress.'' But he said he had no evidence that Mr. Feith's conduct had been illegal.

Mr. Levin began the inquiry in June 2003, after Republicans on the panel, led by Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, declined to take part. He said his findings were endorsed by other Democrats on the committee, but complained that the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency had declined to provide crucial documents.

In a statement, the Pentagon said the Levin report "appears to depart from the bipartisan, consultative relationship" between the Defense Department and the Armed Services Committee, adding, "The unanimous, bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report of July 2004 found no evidence that administration officials tried to coerce, influence or pressure intelligence analysts to change their judgments."

Senator Warner said, "I take strong exception to the conclusions Senator Levin reaches." He said his view was based on the Intelligence Committee's "analysis thus far of the public and classified records."

Among the findings in the report were that the C.I.A. had become skeptical by June 2002, earlier than previously known, about a supposed meeting in April 2001 in Prague between Mohamed Atta, a leader of the Sept. 11 attacks, and an Iraqi intelligence official. Nevertheless, Mr. Feith and other senior Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, continued at least through the end of 2002 to describe the reported meeting as evidence of a possible link between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Levin's report drew particular attention to statements by Mr. Feith in communications with Congress beginning in July 2003 about such a link.

A classified annex sent by Mr. Feith to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 27, 2003, which was disclosed two weeks later by The Weekly Standard, asserted that "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990's to 2003,'' and concluded, "There can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda to plot against Americans.''

In a Nov. 15 news release, the Defense Department said the "provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies, and done with the permission of the intelligence community.'' But Mr. Levin's report said that statement was incorrect, because the Central Intelligence Agency had not cleared release of Mr. Feith's annex.

The Levin report also disclosed for the first time that the C.I.A., in December 2003, sent Mr. Feith a letter pointing out corrections he should make to the document before providing it to Senator Levin, who had requested the document as part of his investigation.

Perhaps most critically, the report says, Mr. Feith repeated a questionable assertion concerning a Jordanian, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally whose presence in Iraq was cited by the Bush administration before the war as crucial evidence of Mr. Hussein's support for terrorism.

In his Oct. 27 letter, Mr. Feith told Congress that the Iraqi intelligence service knew of Mr. Zarqawi's entry into Iraq. In recommending a correction, the C.I.A. said that claim had not been supported by the intelligence report that Mr. Feith had cited, the Levin report says. Nevertheless, the report says, Mr. Feith reiterated the assertion in his addendum, attributing it to a different intelligence report - one that likewise did not state that Iraq knew Mr. Zarqawi was in the country.

A reassessment completed by American intelligence agencies in September concluded that it is not clear whether Mr. Hussein's government harbored Mr. Zarqawi during his time in Iraq before the war, intelligence officials have said.
__________________

__________________
deep 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 10:00 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