the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine - Page 3 - 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 07-11-2006, 10:06 AM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
To hell with rational and objective analysis.


this is so funny!

"objective"!



i don't have the time or the energy to listen to you rehash the same talking points you've been recycling for years.

i'm out.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-11-2006, 10:18 AM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
YBORCITY's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: FLA
Posts: 5,139
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Sting2 are you really Rush Limbaugh?
__________________

__________________
YBORCITY is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 02:32 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




this is so funny!

"objective"!



i don't have the time or the energy to listen to you rehash the same talking points you've been recycling for years.

i'm out.
But we all need to listen to the rehash of the liberal talking points that have been recycled since the administration came into office.

In my opinion, the TIME magazine article is far from objective. I think most people who carefully look at US Foreign Policy through the decades, as opposed to simply the past few years, would agree that the Bush doctrine is not the revolutionary doctrine many claim that it is. I think they would agree with Colin Powell on the matter.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-11-2006, 07:22 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2



UN Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized the use of military force to bring Saddam into compliance with all UN Security Council resolutions Saddam was in violation of. It was passed in November 2002. The invasion started in March 2003. In June 2003, the UN Security Council passed UN Security Council Resolution 1483 authorizing the occupation.

If the operation was not supported by the UN, where is the UN resolution or attempt at one to condemn the invasion and call for the withdrawal of UN forces? Why would the UN Security Council Resolution approve the occupation as they did with UN Security Council Resolution 1483 if they thought the invasion was illegal?

Remember how the UN responded to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? They passed a resolution condemning the invasion and called for the immediate withdrawal of all Iraqi forces.


As for WMD, it was never incumbent upon any member state of the UN to prove that Saddam had WMD. It was incumbent upon Saddam to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD per the ceacefire agreement he signed onto in March 1991 at the end of the Gulf War. The primary responsiblity of the UN Security Council in regards to Saddam's WMD was to INSURE they Saddam's regime was verifiably disarmed and that has been accomplished. There was no requirement for anyone to find exibit A under Building B, or this piece of equipment or that.

I did not say that the new democratic government was secure and stable. I did say it exist. I then said that the internal security situation in the country needs to be improved. Rebuilding the Iraqi army is going to take some more time, but some of the biggest hurdles are already out of the way.




Ah, but the Clinton administration did use military force to bring about a change in the political situation in Bosnia and Kosovo. Bosnia is still developing toward a democracy and Kosovo will likely become and independent democracy in the near future. It would not have happened though without the use of US military force in the begining though.


The primary reason for the US invasion of Iraq was to remove Saddam's regime because it had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD, it was not to build a democracy although the removal of the regime made it a necessity.

The criteria for whether or not there would be further military action against Saddam after the 1991 Gulf War was whether Saddam would verifiably disarm of all WMD. Saddam's failure to comply with the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement, made the invasion a necessity in order to insure the security of the region and the world. Look at it from the perspective of a country like Kuwait. Look at what happened in the 1980s and early 1990s. There could be no margin of error given what Saddam had done in the past. With a 400,000 man military and crumbling sanctions and embargo, the international community needed to act fast in order to prevent a worse situation than the crises of 1990/1991.

The invasion followed the policy that was outlined by the 1991 Ceacefire agreement under which Saddam was required to verfiably disarm of all WMD or face renewed military action to accomplish that objective.


Colin Powell was at the head of US foreign Policy for four years and has more experience in US foreign policy than most people in the country. He stated that there were no drastic or revolutionary changes to US foreign policy. It was merely a restatement of the policy with most of the elements that had been followed since World War II. The United States has always sought to hit terrorist before they could hit the United States in a multitude of ways. The policy on Iraq followed the strategy that was developed back in 1991. The United States was not going to let Iraq invade another country in the region before it would respond. The criteria for whether or not there would be further military action was Saddam's compliance or lack of compliance with the UN resolutions.
Okay, fair enough, Sting, you've got my attention. That first paragraph is the most compelling to me because I didn't know that. Your knowledge of the facts appears to be deeper than mine, so let me ask a few questions.

Is there a UN occupying force in Iraq? I know there is a coalition of several countries of which the U.S. the primary member. But are the "blue helmets" there? If they are, why don't we see them. Is it possible that the UN is officially "not condemning" what is going on in Iraq but not actively supporting it either?

It's true that Clinton used military force in Bosnia and Kosovo, but wasn't that as part of UN force of which the U.S. (being the world's only military superpower) was a primary member? Furthermore, the military force applied in Bosnia and Kosovo was not part of a pre-emptive strike against a country as part of a "war on terror" policy (which was the other major justification for going to war in Iraq, the suggestion of a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq). What is your understanding of the reasons our troops were part of the action in the Balkans.

Finally, one little dig here. Statements like this:

"I then said that the internal security situation in the country needs to be improved. Rebuilding the Iraqi army is going to take some more time, but some of the biggest hurdles are already out of the way."

seem to be a huge understatement. Your whole picture of what is happening in Iraq seems a little more rosy than the reality shows. It seems to me that overthrowing Hussein and "verifiably disarming" him was the easy part. We still have to deal with the sectarian violence that is on the brink of civil war. We still have to deal with the fact Iraq has now become the destination of choice for aspiring jihadists the world over. We still have the insurgency to quell. Seems to me the biggest hurdles are yet to come.

And if you've read some of my other posts, you'll know that I support "the war in Iraq" now that we're in it. Sadly, we don't have any other choice now. Trying to make it sound like "it's no big deal" doesn't make it any easier to get this difficult business done.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 12:02 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the comeuppance of Dubya -- the end of the Bush Doctrine

Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


Okay, fair enough, Sting, you've got my attention. That first paragraph is the most compelling to me because I didn't know that. Your knowledge of the facts appears to be deeper than mine, so let me ask a few questions.

Is there a UN occupying force in Iraq? I know there is a coalition of several countries of which the U.S. the primary member. But are the "blue helmets" there? If they are, why don't we see them. Is it possible that the UN is officially "not condemning" what is going on in Iraq but not actively supporting it either?

It's true that Clinton used military force in Bosnia and Kosovo, but wasn't that as part of UN force of which the U.S. (being the world's only military superpower) was a primary member? Furthermore, the military force applied in Bosnia and Kosovo was not part of a pre-emptive strike against a country as part of a "war on terror" policy (which was the other major justification for going to war in Iraq, the suggestion of a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq). What is your understanding of the reasons our troops were part of the action in the Balkans.

Finally, one little dig here. Statements like this:

"I then said that the internal security situation in the country needs to be improved. Rebuilding the Iraqi army is going to take some more time, but some of the biggest hurdles are already out of the way."

seem to be a huge understatement. Your whole picture of what is happening in Iraq seems a little more rosy than the reality shows. It seems to me that overthrowing Hussein and "verifiably disarming" him was the easy part. We still have to deal with the sectarian violence that is on the brink of civil war. We still have to deal with the fact Iraq has now become the destination of choice for aspiring jihadists the world over. We still have the insurgency to quell. Seems to me the biggest hurdles are yet to come.

And if you've read some of my other posts, you'll know that I support "the war in Iraq" now that we're in it. Sadly, we don't have any other choice now. Trying to make it sound like "it's no big deal" doesn't make it any easier to get this difficult business done.
UN approved operations don't require the troops to have blue helmets. Its only during peacekeeping operations where the UN Blue Helmets usually come out. Blue helmets were not used by the coalition in the 1991 Gulf War either. Its not a good idea to be have the color blue on in a combat situation. When it comes to warfighting, that is definitely not used. If there is a peace agreement on the ground and the forces are not considered to be potential combatents and are more just there to monitor the situation, that is when the the blue helmets come out.

The UN definitely supports the mission in Iraq and was heavily involved in helping set up the elections. UN Resolution 1483 from June 2003 approved the occupation.

The operations in Bosnia were not under the UN and were not authorized by the UN unlike operation Iraqi Freedom was. NATO intervened in both Bosnia and Kosovo without any sort of UN authorization.

The operations in Iraq were done to enforce UN Security Council resolutions whose enforcement was required to insure the security of the region and the world by insuring that Saddam was verifiably disarmed of all WMD. An arguement could be made that it was done as a preventitive measure, but that was what the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire called for. The 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire was designed to insure that the 1990 Gulf Crises would never happen again. That is why the criteria for military action was Saddam's compliance or non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions requiring verifiable disarmament of all WMD in addition to rebuilding Kuwait and locating missing Kuwaiti citizens.

NATO went into the Balkens to end the slaughter of civilians that was occuring in the Civil War as well as help bring stability to the region so that part of Eastern Europe could begin the long road to becoming fully integrated into the European Community.


Much of what I think about Iraq is based upon close friends who have done multiple tours in Iraq as well as information on casualties, rebuilding, polticial and economic development, and the strength of the new Iraqi military. By the end of 2006, the Iraqi military will be in doing the patrolling and missions throughout 75% of Iraq. This number will grow throughout 2007. US casualties are slowly but steadly dropping despite the fact that the US tempo of operations has not changed. Iraqi insurgent groups are attempting to negotiate and end to their involvement in the war. The Iraqi insurgency has not grown at all since April 2004. The Iraqi military on the other hand gets stronger every day and now has a fully elected and complete government supporting and directing it. The insurgents have failed to prevent the elections and the establishment of Iraq's first real democratic government. They have also failed to stop the ever increasing strength of the Iraqi military.

Certainly, the insurgents will always have the ability to walk into and open market where there are unarmed civilians and set off a bomb, just like the IRA could set a bomb off in Belfast at any time. No one claimed the Irish Peace Process was a failure just because the IRA set of a bomb in Omagh. The key though is getting the Iraqi military and government the ability to handle these problems on their own without coalition forces on the ground supporting them. Once that happens, the job is essentially done from the perspective of foreign forces. After foreign forces leave, aid will continue to come in until the Iraqi oil industry reaches its full potential which will take several years.

Remember, the Sunni insurgency is mainly in just 3 out of the 18 provinces in Iraq. Foreign fighters constitute less than 5% of the total insurgents/terrorist in Iraq. The coalition is not going to remain there until the insurgency is completely ended. The coalition will leave once the Iraqi government and military can handle the insurgency on its own. There will certainly be some Saddam loyalist and Bathist who will continue to hold out for years and will conduct attacks, but nothing that would upset the balance of power in the country once the Iraqi military is completely built.

Bosnia was a real civil war between three ethnic groups. It lasted for 3 and half years, during which nearly 10% of the population was wiped out. If Iraq was in the same situation, 2.5 million Iraqi's would have been killed over the past three years. At worst, only 40,000 Iraqi civilians have died over the past 3 years according to the anti-war group Iraqbodycount, and many would say this figure is inflated. In addition, more Iraqi's died on average every three years while Saddam was in power. Most Iraqi citizens site lack of services as their biggest problem as opposed to security, the exception being Iraqi's living in the three Sunni dominated provinces.

There is a lot of work to be done over the next 3 to 5 years. Completing the development of the Iraqi military to the point where it can handle all of Iraq's security needs independent of the coalition is an enormous task, but one that is well under way and moving ahead. Getting an Iraqi government in place though was indeed the biggest and most important hurdle. Without that, the rest of what is to follow would not be possible.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 12:24 AM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:17 AM
The end of Cowboy Diplomacy?

Happy trails.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 12:26 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:17 AM
^Very interesting. I've never heard the war in Iraq described quite this way. Some might suggest that is because the media is purposefully making the progress of the war worse than it really is. What it sounds like you're saying is that actually things are going great, there is no quagmire, we are accomplishing our objectives, the enemey is on the run, Iraq is coming together, and based on your timetable we should be able to see some serious troop reductions by the end of the year as trained Iraqi troops take over.

I hope you're right! That would be wonderful.

To be honest, I'm a still very skeptical of your interpretation of events. It just sounds so good, you know--too good to be true. No offense intended, but I found myself wondering, is sting actually some Pentagon employee assigned to monitor our conversations?

Seriously though, let me see if I understand you correctly.

1. In fact this is a UN coalition on the ground in Iraq, not just the U.S. and a few allies.

2. Our only reason for entering Iraq was to enforce UN resolutions (not also because of a supposed link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and certainly not to establish a democratic government there--that was just a nice by product).

3. U.S. casualties in Iraq are dropping and the insurgency has not grown in force or influence, and in fact, are negotiating to end hostilities.

4. We can realistically expect to have most if not all troops out of Iraq within the next 3 to 5 years (why hasn't Bush thrown those numbers out for us. I think if we had a realistic time frame for exit we'd all breathe a little easier.

Very different scenario then what we're hearing in the media. I'm curious as to what other posters will have to say.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 01:16 AM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 02:47 AM
Why isn't the US invading North Korea since they are an obviously greater threat to the so-called national security of the United States than Iraq was?
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 11:06 AM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
^Very interesting. I've never heard the war in Iraq described quite this way. Some might suggest that is because the media is purposefully making the progress of the war worse than it really is. What it sounds like you're saying is that actually things are going great, there is no quagmire, we are accomplishing our objectives, the enemey is on the run, Iraq is coming together, and based on your timetable we should be able to see some serious troop reductions by the end of the year as trained Iraqi troops take over.

I hope you're right! That would be wonderful.

To be honest, I'm a still very skeptical of your interpretation of events. It just sounds so good, you know--too good to be true. No offense intended, but I found myself wondering, is sting actually some Pentagon employee assigned to monitor our conversations?

Seriously though, let me see if I understand you correctly.

1. In fact this is a UN coalition on the ground in Iraq, not just the U.S. and a few allies.

2. Our only reason for entering Iraq was to enforce UN resolutions (not also because of a supposed link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and certainly not to establish a democratic government there--that was just a nice by product).

3. U.S. casualties in Iraq are dropping and the insurgency has not grown in force or influence, and in fact, are negotiating to end hostilities.

4. We can realistically expect to have most if not all troops out of Iraq within the next 3 to 5 years (why hasn't Bush thrown those numbers out for us. I think if we had a realistic time frame for exit we'd all breathe a little easier.

Very different scenario then what we're hearing in the media. I'm curious as to what other posters will have to say.

Let me restate a few things. I would say things are going well in Iraq, saying they are going great probably would be an overstatement. There have been mistakes and setbacks and there will probably be more, but overall things are on the right track and will continue to be. But this is a process that takes a lot of time, more time than some people often have the patience for. The process will work provided the coalition does not withdraw prematurely. The insurgency has not grown since April of 2004, but it may be premature to say that it is now definitely on the run now although US casualties are dropping and recent communication with insurgence all suggest this is the case. Coalition troops will still be needed in large numbers by the end of the year to continue the training of the Iraqi military. While Iraq forces will be in control of about 75% of the country by the end of the year, these will be area's where the insurgency is not most active and they will still need logistical and air support from the coalition. Realistically, I see some reductions in 2007 and some more in 2008, but at a much more gradual and slower pace than what has been discussed. July 2011 in my opinion would be the target date to have completed rebuilding the Iraqi military as well as pulling out all coalition forces.


1. It is as much a UN coalition as the coalition that removed Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991 and then attempted to maintained the embargo, sanctions, and no fly zones from 1991 to 2003.

2. Our main and primary reason for entering Iraq was to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions necessary for the security of the region and the world. Iraq's alleged link with Al Quada can be added a supporting reason, but by itself would not have been enough to make invasion a necessity. The establishment of a democratic government is a necessary by product because of the removal of Saddam regime.

3. US casualties are dropping and there are insurgent groups negotiating to end their resistence to the new Iraqi government.

4. We can expect to see some US troops come home over the next 3 years, and can expect to see all or the vast majority come home 5 years from now. One can't be sure of the exact date, and the administration would never chain itself to a date because it is then used by political opponents of the administration in the US and the insurgency in Iraq to develop their own strategy regarding a set withdrawal plan. As the Iraqi military grows in size and capabability, you can begin to see the start of the withdrawal of coalition troops.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 11:17 AM   #40
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
[BTo be honest, I'm a still very skeptical of your interpretation of events. It just sounds so good, you know--too good to be true. No offense intended, but I found myself wondering, is sting actually some Pentagon employee assigned to monitor our conversations? [/B]


i don't have the time or the engery for it, but if you search around the various threads, you'll find many, many discussions and disagreements about virtually everything STING has posted since this it's essentially the same post as all the others, and most of the information is cherry-picked and presented with a pretty red bow, just one example of which is his understanding of Resolution 1441 which actually did NOT give the US permission to invade because it is up to the Security Council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced, and "serious consequences" does not an invasion justify.

and that's just one example.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-12-2006, 11:36 AM   #41
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 12:17 AM
What flavor Koolaid do they give you?

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2



Let me restate a few things. I would say things are going well in Iraq, saying they are going great probably would be an overstatement.
Wow. I am shocked and awed that someone can objectively look at the war in Iraq and say things are going well. Have certain objectives been met? Sure. Certain hurdles passed? Yes. But to say that things are going well? Wow...
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 11:41 AM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
Why isn't the US invading North Korea since they are an obviously greater threat to the so-called national security of the United States than Iraq was?

North Korea is a very different situation from Saddam's Iraq and a far less threatening one for many reasons.

1. US policy against Saddam's Iraq, from the 1991 Ceacefire agreement to UN Security Council Resolutions, the embargo, sanctions, no fly zones, and the general criteria for further military action are heavily based on Saddam's prior actions which stand in stark contrast to North Korea's.

From 1980 through March 1991, Saddam launched four different unprovoked invasions and attacks on other countries in the region. Saddam's actions in 1990 threatened the majority of the planets energy supply with siezure or sabotage which, if it had been don, could have potentially thrown the planet into the worst economic depression in its history with unpredictable consequences. In addition, Saddam had used WMD more times than any leader in history on the battlefield. This behavior combined with his failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD as well as the crumbling of the containment regime, made regime change a necessity.

In contrast North Korea has not invaded or attacked another country in over half a century! They have no record of major use of WMD on the battlefield or against other countries. On an international level, North Korea has been as cooperative as any other country in the nuclear club with regard to unprovoked invasions of other countries for the past half century. North Korea is also not in close proximity to a majority of the planets energy supply and has no ability to really influence the energy market, at least no in the disasterous way Saddam could have.

North Korea does have Nuclear Weapons and missiles to deliver them, as well as other WMD capabilities, but what makes this issue so much less threatening is their behavior in contrast to Saddams. While not a perfect comparison, remember that no one loses sleep over the fact that the French Nuclear Submarine force could wipe out North America in about 30 minutes. Indeed a very threatening capability, but the behavior of the France is not threatening which is why this is not an issue. Its not enough to have the capability, ones actions and behavior are the key issue in regards to the level of threat and the need to take action.

This is definitely not to say that North Korea should be looked at the same way a country like France is, but simply to emphasize the major differences in the threat level and the potential need for military action.




So, the threat posed by North Korea does not come close to justifying a military response like the threat that the Saddam posed. Plus, any military response to North Korea would have to contend with issues not found anywhere else in the world.

For the past 5 decades, North Korea has built the large collection of conventional artillery into the mountains above Seoul South Korea. In the event of any sort of military action, the North Koreans have the capability to shell Seoul South Korea with thousands of artillery pieces since Seoul South Korea is close enough to the border to be in range of this artillery. Over a period of several hours, North Korea could hit Seoul with hundreds of thousands of conventional artillery shells killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people in Seoul South Korea which is densly populated with over 10 million people in the metropolitan area.

This situation has existed for several decades now and was the chief reason the Clinton administration would not really consider military action in 1994 when North Korea got its first nuclear weapons. Imagine the above senerio with the Artillery if the shells were filled with sarin gas. Plus, now that North Korea has several Nuclear weapons with ballistic missiles that can hit places hundreds or thousands of miles away, the North Koreans now have the ability to inflict mass casualties on cities further south than Seoul, plus any of the cities in Japan. Imagine the detination of a nuclear weapon over Tokyo with its population of 30 million people.

North Korea does have powerful and unique capabilities to inflict damage in the event of any military conflict. Attempting to strike or either invade the country could result in the immediate use of such capabilities that would cause massive loss of life, hundreds of thousands if not millions with in the first week of war. But they have never used any WMD before and have not invaded another country since 1950. Because of their past behavior, they were a far less threatening problem than Saddam despite their capabilities. In raw terms, as France and the United Kingdom demonstrate, capabilities are far from being enough to consider a country a hostile threat. Most significant is the behavior of the country, and North Korea's behavior since 1953 when compared to Saddam's behavior is like comparing a mouse to a lion, especially in terms of invading and attacking other countries and the use of WMD against other countries.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 12:03 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




i don't have the time or the engery for it, but if you search around the various threads, you'll find many, many discussions and disagreements about virtually everything STING has posted since this it's essentially the same post as all the others, and most of the information is cherry-picked and presented with a pretty red bow, just one example of which is his understanding of Resolution 1441 which actually did NOT give the US permission to invade because it is up to the Security Council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced, and "serious consequences" does not an invasion justify.

and that's just one example.
There was just as much authorization for military action in Resolution 1441 as there was in resolution 678 in regards to the coalitions removal of Saddam's forces from Kuwait in 1991. The United States actually had the words military force in the resolution, but the SOVIETS demanded that the words military force be removed from resolution 678. Does that mean that the invasion of Kuwait to remove Iraqi forces from the country was illegal and without UN authorization? Of course not. But the Soviets wanted the words "military force" removed so they would have the option of making the same claims that several individuals and countries are making about the legality of the current invasion of Iraq.

Where is the UN resolution calling for the withdrawal of coalition troops if the invasion was in fact illegal? Where is the UN resolution condemning the 2003 invasion? Why would the UN pass a resolution approving the ocupation if it felt the invasion was clearly unauthorized or illegal? Why is the UN response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait so different from its response to operation Iraqi Freedom?

Some rather simple questions that many on the left who opposed the invasion can't seem to answer.


If the Soviets had chosen in 1991, they could have made the same claim that military action was not authorized and that it was not up to independent members of the UN to determine how Iraqi forces were to be removed from Kuwait. Thats why the Soviet Union demanded the words "military force" be removed from the resolution so that would have the option to take that angle on the issue in the future.


This is not cherry picking as the Soviets did in 1991 in regard to the text of the resolution. Just the basic facts. Colin Powell developed UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and got it passed with a 15-0 vote in the UN Security Council. If someone wants to claim a different interpretation, so be it. The Soviets and anyone else for that matter could do the same with resolution 678 from 1990.

At the end of the day, the resolution authorized the invasion, there is no UN resolution or attempt at one condemning the invasion, there is no UN resolution or attempt at one calling for the immediate withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq, there is nothing that resembles what the UN would normally do in regards to illegal and unauthorized military action.


Whats more, the UN Security Council resolutions 678 and 687 already have built in authorization in them for subsequent military action in regards to non-compliance of any UN Security Council Resolutions. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 was simply a restatement of past resolutions and opportunity for Saddam to come clean for the last time. Legal authorization for military action was actually already built in to previous resolutions and were sited many times when Bill Clinton took military action against Saddam in the 1990s.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 12:07 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Re: What flavor Koolaid do they give you?

Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


Wow. I am shocked and awed that someone can objectively look at the war in Iraq and say things are going well. Have certain objectives been met? Sure. Certain hurdles passed? Yes. But to say that things are going well? Wow...
Removing a regime the size of Saddam's and replacing it with a new democratic government is an enormous and time consuming task. The operation is on track and going well relative to the scale of what is being done.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 12:33 PM   #45
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


There was just as much authorization for military action in Resolution 1441 as there was in resolution 678 in regards to the coalitions removal of Saddam's forces from Kuwait in 1991. The United States actually had the words military force in the resolution, but the SOVIETS demanded that the words military force be removed from resolution 678. Does that mean that the invasion of Kuwait to remove Iraqi forces from the country was illegal and without UN authorization? Of course not. But the Soviets wanted the words "military force" removed so they would have the option of making the same claims that several individuals and countries are making about the legality of the current invasion of Iraq.

Where is the UN resolution calling for the withdrawal of coalition troops if the invasion was in fact illegal? Where is the UN resolution condemning the 2003 invasion? Why would the UN pass a resolution approving the ocupation if it felt the invasion was clearly unauthorized or illegal? Why is the UN response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait so different from its response to operation Iraqi Freedom?

Some rather simple questions that many on the left who opposed the invasion can't seem to answer.


If the Soviets had chosen in 1991, they could have made the same claim that military action was not authorized and that it was not up to independent members of the UN to determine how Iraqi forces were to be removed from Kuwait. Thats why the Soviet Union demanded the words "military force" be removed from the resolution so that would have the option to take that angle on the issue in the future.


This is not cherry picking as the Soviets did in 1991 in regard to the text of the resolution. Just the basic facts. Colin Powell developed UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and got it passed with a 15-0 vote in the UN Security Council. If someone wants to claim a different interpretation, so be it. The Soviets and anyone else for that matter could do the same with resolution 678 from 1990.

At the end of the day, the resolution authorized the invasion, there is no UN resolution or attempt at one condemning the invasion, there is no UN resolution or attempt at one calling for the immediate withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq, there is nothing that resembles what the UN would normally do in regards to illegal and unauthorized military action.


Whats more, the UN Security Council resolutions 678 and 687 already have built in authorization in them for subsequent military action in regards to non-compliance of any UN Security Council Resolutions. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 was simply a restatement of past resolutions and opportunity for Saddam to come clean for the last time. Legal authorization for military action was actually already built in to previous resolutions and were sited many times when Bill Clinton took military action against Saddam in the 1990s.

force was *not* authorized by resolution 1441 itself, as the language of the resolution mentioned "serious consequences," which is generally *not* understood by Security Council members to include the use of force to overthrow the government. both Negroponte and Greenstock, in promoting Resolution 1441 in November 2002, gave assurances that it was *not* a step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council. such consultation was forestalled by the US and UK's abandonment of the Security Council procedure and the invasion of Iraq. even Richard Perle has said that the invasion violated international law. why did Tony Blair work furiously for another resolution to authorize force (one that France said it would veto) if 1441 was as clear an authorization for war as you make it out to be? finally, and this is an important point: it is up to the Security Council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced. what 1441 says and doesn’t say isn’t for the United States to decide.

another point: resolution 678 contains the phrase “all necessary means." 1441 does not.

Resolution 1441 offered Iraq a final opportunity to disarmam and to provide a complete disclosure of weapons as required by Resolution 687, and “serious consequences” were threatened. It reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance. let’s note that Iraq agreed to 1441 on November 13 and Blix and ElBaradei returned to Iraq later that month, and in December Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. each successive Blix report – in january, february, and march – noted a greater level of Iraqi compliance that was enough to convince many nations that the disarmament of Iraq was achieveable without a direct, unilateral invasion by the United States.

all 1483 did was make the invasion legal retroactively, because what else was to be done other than deal with reality?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

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 01:17 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