Attack or Self-Defense?

[gvox]

Your rhetorical questions did not address the fact that you are not quoting accepted facts but stating your own opinion on the matter.

That is what I asked for, facts, not your opinion.

I did not infer that Saddam's 'blood toll' was 0, and the inference is insulting and disrespectful.

In my opinion Saddam Hussein can not be blamed for every last death in the Iraq/Iran war, of which the greater proportion of deaths are factored into your 'calculation'.

As for the other wars, its been awhile since I have researched these wars. I don't spend endless amounts of time investigating military strategies nor do I care to.

I'm not particularly obsessed with war nor do I believe it to be a viable means to acheive lasting peace.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

So Iraq indeed is in Material Breech meaning 678( reaffirmed in 687) does apply, but, were giving them one last chance, despite having the obvious legal authorization to use all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance.

"The absence of necessary measures by the UN Security Council to maintain peace. Once the Security Council has taken these measures, the right to armed self-defense ceases. A state that takes measures of legitimate self-defense is obligated to inform the Security Council"

What measure have the UN taken to addequately defend the Iraqi people from Saddam's executions, torture chambers, and other human rights abuses?

How many people here feel that US actions in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo, unapproved by the United Nations Security Council, were illegal? How about Bosnia?

Is it illegal for another country to aid a people to overthrow a tyranical government? Was it illegal for the French to aid and militarly support George Washington in the Revolutionary War?

History I think has shown that it is not necessarily illegal and can be justified.

 

[STING2]

Gabrielvox,

Having looked at causalities figures for various events and actions from the past 24 years in and around Iraq, I have added up the most conservative estimates I could find to produce this figure. Its not an indisputable fact, but a widely accepted estimate. Whether you attribute these actions to Saddam or not is another factor independent of the figures.

 

[Dreadsox]

My problem is 1441 does not specifically define what actions are to be taken. It specifically says in part 2 one more chance. This is just plain ugly. I do not see how we can go forward without a clear definition of two things:

1. What will constitute compliance?
2. What are the really bad things are we going to do?

 

[gvox]

Thats all fine and dandy, but it will be George Bush's blood if he invades Iraq right now, not SH.

Bush told Iraq to disarm or be invaded.

Iraq said 'chill dude, we already have'.

Bush said prove it.

Iraq grudgingly said, 'fine' and let inspectors back in.

Inspectors find NO WMD or evidence that they are close to having them, but report that Iraq is not giving them what they meant by full cooperation.

Iraq vows to up the ante with respects to cooperation.

Inspections continue.

Nothing continues to be found.

And yet Bush is set and determined to invade Iraq and probably will no matter what the UN, the inspectors, or his fundamentalist religious advisors tell him to do.

THEREFORE, at this point in time, if Bush does invade Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of lives that will be lost will be on HIS head, not Saddam Hussein's.

Take those figures and the million or two that will die because he failed to make good on his promises for AIDS between now and the time Bush IS VOTED OUT OF OFFICE, and he will go down as having been responsible for more deaths than Hussein ever was.

Add that to the tally.

My final word.

 

[Dreadsox]

Thats all fine and dandy, but it will be George Bush's blood if he invades Iraq right now, not SH.

Bush told Iraq to disarm or be invaded.

Iraq said 'chill dude, we already have'.

Bush said prove it.

Iraq grudgingly said, 'fine' and let inspectors back in.

Inspectors find NO WMD or evidence that they are close to having them, but report that Iraq is not giving them what they meant by full cooperation.

Iraq vows to up the ante with respects to cooperation.

Inspections continue.

Nothing continues to be found.

Gabriel......Iraq has already been found in Material Breech with a vote of 15-0. That is a fact. They have been given another chance. That is a fact. The Security Council has yet to determine if they are in compliance.

I could link you to many articles saying that Iraq has NOT been cooperative. I do believ Blix's own spokesperson alluded to this over the past 24 hours. It still remains to be scene what the next report will say, but it does not look like there has been any more cooperation.

That said, other nations have disarmed before. The UN Inspectors know what it is supposed to look like and there has been no ringing endorsement to indicate that what is going on with Iraq looks at all like they are complying.

Let's just all agree, that Iraq is doing enough to make us have hope that he is complying, and has not yet done so little as to make us think he is not.

We will know if inspections are working soon.

As for GW Bush, they are introducing another Resolution at the UN. They are still moving towards a multinational operation.

Peace

 

[STING2]

Gabrielvox,

If Iraq fails to prove they no longer have WMD, they are in violation of Resolution 687 which affirms and invokes 678 which authorizes the use of all means necessary to achieve compliance. Bush has authorization to take military action. Saddam does not have authorization to do anything. He is obligated to comply with 17 different United Nations Security Council Resolutions. If he fails to do so, any serious consequenses that result from his non-compliance are on him, not anyone else.

At the end of the day, inspections only work if Saddam lets them too. Inspectors are not armed and do not have the strength to take on T-72 tanks that Saddam can put in their way, if by chance they do find something, or are getting close.

30,000 Bio/Chem capable munitions, thousands of tons of Anthrax, thousands of tons of VX Nerve Gas. Where is it? Failure to prove where or what has happened to the above items is a material breech of 687.

 

[Dreadsox]

Gabrielvox,

If Iraq fails to prove they no longer have WMD, they are in violation of Resolution 687 which affirms and invokes 678 which authorizes the use of all means necessary to achieve compliance.

Only if the Security Council determines this. Not the independant states who agreed to 678.

Peace

 

[STING2]

The Security Council has already determined that Iraq is in material breech.

 

[STING2]

I've already stated before that the Security Council in 678 gave Authorization for military action(which is affirmed again in 687) IF the Security Council finds Iraq in material breech of its obligations under any of the UN resolutions passed against it. The legal bases for military action is there. That does not mean though that the USA will not try to get a new resolution or give Iraq another chance for the goal of building political legitamacy for any military operation.

 

[Dreadsox]

Here we go again. The 1441 says:

1) Iraq is in material breach.
2) Iraq has another chance
3) It does not define what actions will be taken. Specifically it does not authorize the use of force.
4) It consistently throughout reinforces the Cease Fire resolution which is mentioned numerous times throught 1441. 678 is mentioned once.

Yesterday, you AGREED that the Cease-Fire was still in effect and only the security council can declare it ended. THEY HAVE NOT 1441 GIVES IRAQ A CHANCE TO COMPLY.

 

[Dreadsox]

I sincerely give up. I am in full support of removing this SOB from Iraq with the UN. The Security Council is the governing body. They have NOT declared Iraq in violation of 1441. They specifically give IRAQ a second chance at compliance in 1441. The other resolutions have not a thing to do with diddly until Iraq is found in violation of 1441.

I am pretty much through debating this with you. When you have something new to say, with something other than your opinion I will gladly debate this with you. I have provided ample sources throughout the this debate to make my case. You may not agree with it, and that is fine. I am just plain tired of this debate.

PEACE

 

[gvox]

Instructions on a common bottle of shampoo:

Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

"Yesterday, you AGREED that the Cease-Fire was still in effect and only the security council can declare it ended. THEY HAVE NOT 1441 GIVES IRAQ A CHANCE TO COMPLY."

That is not what I said. I said that as long as Iraq is not found in material breech of the resolutions, that blocks legal basis to act on 678. By the way 678 IS AFFIRMED IN 687. There fore ever mention of 687 is a mention of 678. I agreed only the security council can declare Iraq in material breech of their obligations. They have done so. That means member states are legally authorized to take military action per resolution 687 that affirms 678 in which the Security Council gave such authorization.

As to 1441:

"Specifically it does not authorize the use of force."

Specifically it does not prevent the use of force either if Iraq fails to take its "one last chance". IT in fact threatens serious consequences. What do you think Serious consequences are? It is stated that the USA must consult the Security Council again, but there is nothing that says the USA must have a second resolution to authorize the use of force.

Again, the USA will continue to do things for political support, not because it lacks a legal bases to move ahead.

 

[gvox]

BREECH:

The lower rear portion of the human trunk; the buttocks.

A breech presentation or delivery.
A fetus in breech presentation.
breeches
Knee breeches.
Informal. Trousers.
The part of a firearm behind the barrel.
The lower part of a pulley block

Given that definition, Iraq is guilty guilty guilty. Especially the first one.

BREACH:

An opening, a tear, or a rupture.
A gap or rift, especially in or as if in a solid structure such as a dike or fortification.
A violation or infraction, as of a law, a legal obligation, or a promise.
A breaking up or disruption of friendly relations; an estrangement.
A leap of a whale from the water.
The breaking of waves or surf.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

"I am pretty much through debating this with you. When you have something new to say, with something other than your opinion I will gladly debate this with you. I have provided ample sources throughout the this debate to make my case. You may not agree with it, and that is fine. I am just plain tired of this debate."

I have provided sources as well and brought up things in several of the resolutions that you failed to recognize or aknowledge. The Case you make is your opinion backed up by others. Your opinion that 678 is not relevant beyond 687 is certainly not new. But its certainly contridicted by the fact that is affirmed in both 687 and 1441. That fact, that it is affirmed in both is just that, a fact, not an opinion.

The administration is going back to the security council for a second resolution for political reasons, not legal ones. The Administration already clearly states that it had the legal bases for action from 1441.

The fact that the French and Russians believe that 1441 does not provide the legal bases for action is their opinion. If you feel your opinion is more in line with the French, so be it. Our President will continue to bend over backwards to build political support which is the only reason there is going to be a second resolution.

 

[hiphop]

Back to a part of one of the original articles I posted:

Armed intervention is justified under the following conditions:
1. The existence of armed aggression (the definition adopted by the UN General Assembly, Resolution 3314 of 1974): Aggression is defined as the use of armed force by one state, against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state.
2. The absence of necessary measures by the UN Security Council to maintain peace. Once the Security Council has taken these measures, the right to armed self-defense ceases. A state that takes measures of legitimate self-defense is obligated to inform the Security Council.
3. Legitimate defense only justifies "those measures proportional to the armed aggression that has occurred, and that are necessary for ending that aggression." (International Court of Justice, June 27, 1986 in re Nicaragua).

Self-defense only warrants "measures which are proportional to the armed attack and necessary to respond to it". It implies that the victim of aggression must not occupy the aggressor state's territory, unless strictly necessary.

The use of armed force may on occasion be justified as part of humanitarian assistance, but only in order to prevent human suffering and "to protect life and health and to ensure the respect of persons" (International Court of Justice, June 27, 1986 in re Nicaragua). Such intervention must not be discriminatory.

In each of these cases, it is clear that the United States does not have the right to intervene without the approval of the Security Council. Nevertheless, on several occasions the US has used the argument of Article 51 of the UN charter to justify attacks that do not fall within the domain of legitimate defense:
- In 1986 against Libya (to justify an attack that caused the death of 37 people, mostly civilians) in reprisal for the bombing of a Berlin disco that caused the death of an American soldier.
- In 1993 against Iraq (purportedly to prevent an assassination attempt against the US president orchestrated by Iraq).

The rationale of anticipatory self-defense has been invoked by Israel to justify attacks against Palestinian camps in Lebanon in 1975. Subsequently, UN Security Council resolutions have condemned this attack while contesting the idea of self-defense where there has been no armed intervention by the "aggressor".

The thesis of anticipatory self-defense is thus not an acceptable principle of international law today, because it is prone to arbitrary interpretation. A preemptive attack on another sovereign nation is counter to established and universally accepted standards of international law. This may help to explain the vehemence of opposition to a preemptive attack, among even our staunchest European allies.

 

[Dreadsox]

That is not what I said. I said that as long as Iraq is not found in material breech of the resolutions, that blocks legal basis to act on 678. By the way 678 IS AFFIRMED IN 687. There fore ever mention of 687 is a mention of 678. I agreed only the security council can declare Iraq in material breech of their obligations. They have done so. That means member states are legally authorized to take military action per resolution 687 that affirms 678 in which the Security Council gave such authorization.

Sting, I sincerely give up. The whole point to 1441 is to give Iraq a chance to comply. It does not in any way shape or form:

1) End the Cease Fire of 687
2) Authorize independant states to decide if Iraq is complying.

End of discusssion. If you agree with the administration's interpretation that a 12 year old Resolution that Authorized the Removal of Iraq from Kuwait is still in effect that is fine. Most other nations in the UN besides Great Britain and the US do not believe this. Pollack makes this clear as well as I have 100% accurately sited above. I have sited examples proving past history that is up to the Security Council to officially declare a cease fire over unless the other nation phsically attacks.

I personally do not think it is wise, nor is it prudent, to move ahead based on this. This is based on reading Pollack, Reading the letter from the NYC BAR, ect....ect....

In the future, though, should there be a reference to the Resolution 678 in another thread, I think it would be fair to link anyone who cares to this thread. Let them read and decide for themselves because it is not as cut and dry as it would seem. T

 

[Dreadsox]

The fact that the French and Russians believe that 1441 does not provide the legal bases for action is their opinion. If you feel your opinion is more in line with the French, so be it. Our President will continue to bend over backwards to build political support which is the only reason there is going to be a second resolution.

What a round about way of saying I am anti-American!!!!!!! No No, I am not putting words in your mouth. You walked right up to the fence though. It is a good thing I am secure with where my heart is, having served my country, worn the Uniform with Pride and all.

In fact, my position, is more on line with Pollack's building of INternational support and fro a Coalition. But that is ok. In fact, my position is more in line with protecting the United States standing in the future.

Our President, seeking another resolution, 100% proves my point. We need another resolution or we will be in violation of the UN Charter and the Cease-Fire without it.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

Pollack while saying it is not politically wise to use 678 as the bases for military action agree's that a legal bases can certainly be formed. From a strictly legal point of view, despite not being an international lawyer, Pollack supports the position that 678 does provide the LEGAL bases for action. He does not suggest we should act solely on that but does agree with the legal principle of it.

Any action by Iraq that would put it in material breach of 687 would end the ceacefire. Bill Clinton justified Desert Fox in 1998 along similar lines. The fact that the resolution is 12 years old is irrelevant.

"I have sited examples proving past history that is up to the Security Council to officially declare a cease fire over unless the other nation phsically attacks."

Material Breach is what determines if the Ceacefire is over and when material breach happens, the legal basis for military action is found within 687 which reaffirms 678. The only history that is relevant is the history of the resolutions passed in regards to Iraq on this issue since 1990. It has specific language and instruction not used in the Korean example.

The French, Russians, and others have their own views and interpretation of the law which is different from the USA. I've seen both and support the USA position. You have seen both and support the French and Russian interpretation.

 

[hiphop]

STING2: No way out. Iraq is NOT officially at war with the international community at the moment. You should simply admit that the US wants to attack Iraq. Its not self defense.

Its not the most difficult thing in the world to admit that. You really sound more like a politician than like a proud member of the US Army.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

I don't think its anti-American to believe the French or the Russians have a more logical position on a particular issue. My statement was in support of you expressing your opinion. I have often argued that the Europeans have a far superior position on gun control than the United States does. I don't think that makes me Anti-American.

"In fact, my position, is more on line with Pollack's building of INternational support and fro a Coalition. But that is ok. In fact, my position is more in line with protecting the United States standing in the future."

"Our President, seeking another resolution, 100% proves my point. We need another resolution or we will be in violation of the UN Charter and the Cease-Fire without it."

Again, thats your opinion and I support you in expressing it. If you think I'm wrong, thats ok. I'd please ask you not to infer so many personal things from statements I have made. I'm not saying I'm perfect or that I have not made mistakes, but in such a borderline case, I'd ask that you at least give me the benefit of the doubt and ask me to clarify what I meant, before jumping to the conclusion that I'm making a personal comment about you.

Thank You.

 

[The Wanderer]

well attack iraq makes more sense than iran or north korea, it's the catchier slogan of the 3

i dunno, what do you guys think of "slam iran"

or "go forth in north korea, because it's the Right idea"

"wee, over paris"

no, not as catchy

 

[hiphop]

Ok, Wanderer, all I?m asking is to give up the false rhetorics and telling the truth. If Iraq is attacked by the US, it is attacked. Thats not self-defense.

 

[The Wanderer]

war is war

 

[Dreadsox]

The French, Russians, and others have their own views and interpretation of the law which is different from the USA. I've seen both and support the USA position. You have seen both and support the French and Russian interpretation.

Don't forget the NYC Lawyers support the French and Russian position as well.

Don't forget all of the references I quoted from Pollack that clearly demonstate that the US position is not necessarily the right one.

They must be wrong too!

 

[hiphop]

war is war

agreed. and attack is attack.

 

[Dreadsox]

Further Evidence that resolution 678 does not YET give the United States the right to attack the country of Iraq. Again, this is from the "American Society of International LAW". It is an arrticle written specifically about Resolution 1441.

AS I have been saying and saying, and the Lawyer's opinion below clearly demonstrates:

#1 1441 Declares Iraq In Material Breech
#2 1441 Provides Iraq another Chance
#3 1441 Warns of Severe Consequence
#4 1441 Does not in any way shape or form "SUSPEND THE CEASE FIRE" resolution of 687.

They author states:

Security Council Resolution 687, adopted at the end of the Gulf War, includes a provision declaring a formal cease-fire between Iraq, Kuwait and the member states (such as the United States) cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with Resolution 678 (1990). Resolution 678 authorized member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area, and thus provided the basis under international law for the allies? military action in the Gulf War. The determination in Resolution 1441 that Iraq is already in material breach of its obligations under Resolution 687 provides a basis for the decision in paragraph 4 (above) of Resolution 1441 that any further lack of cooperation by Iraq will be a further material breach. If Iraq, having confirmed its intention to comply with Resolution 1441, then fails to cooperate fully with the inspectors, it would open the way to an argument by any specially affected state that it could suspend the operation of the cease-fire provision in Resolution 687 and rely again on Resolution 678. It might also invite an argument that any party to the U.N. Charter could suspend the operation of the cease-fire provision because the material breach would pose a threat to international peace and security and would therefore radically change the position of all U.N. member states under Resolution 687. The argument would point out that the breach would relate to weapons or materials capable of mass destruction that, if put to use, could have an impact not just on regional security, but on worldwide security.

The Author continues to point out:

Other states could argue that since the Security Council has decided in Resolution 1441 that certain conduct by Iraq amounts to a material breach, but the Council did not at the same time suspend its own cease-fire and instead decided to give Iraq another chance to comply with its obligations under Resolution 687, only the Council can decide later that Iraq has not cooperated fully in the implementation of Resolution 1441 and that the cease-fire consequently is no longer in force. For example, the representative of Mexico (a current member of the Security Council) said after the vote on Resolution 1441 that the use of force is only valid as a last resort and with prior, explicit authorization from the Council. Mexico does not stand alone in taking that position. It is based on the Charter-based principle that disputes should be settled peacefully, and that only the Security Council can determine when there is a need for coercion. It would be argued that, in light of the emphasis in the Charter on peaceful dispute settlement, Resolution 678 could not be used as an authorization for the use of force after twelve years of cease fire, unless the Security Council says so.


The last line above is very telling. LETS ALL REPEAT IT SHALL WE:

Resolution 678 could not be used as an authorization for the use of force after twelve years of cease fire, unless the Security Council says so.


and again:

Resolution 678 could not be used as an authorization for the use of force after twelve years of cease fire, unless the Security Council says so.


and again:

Resolution 678 could not be used as an authorization for the use of force after twelve years of cease fire, unless the Security Council says so.

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh92.htm


Happy Reading everyone. The sad part is the more I read, the more I am concerned with us continuing to look like a bully on this issue.

PEACE

 

[Dreadsox]

Even better than what I posted above:

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 States? or any other state?s unilateral suspension of the cease-fire provision without giving the Security Council an opportunity to consider the situation and to act under paragraph 12.


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.

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.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

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.

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.

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.

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.