[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I'm just wanting to hear aberdeen justify the use of terrorism as a means to ending WWII

Be prepared to wait a long time.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The US did not act irresponsibly in any way. In fact, it's probably the only thing that stopped Western Europe from being invaded.

I guess I just consider targetting 250,000+ civilians with nuclear weapons to be irrersponsible and you don't. Fair enough.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Just reread my post. I agree that he probably would have disarmed if given the chance to, but the UN sanctions and the UN inspections were keeping him from doing that.

I dare you to refute this
(If you are not certain, just `read' the report by Dulfer )

Is there just ONE damned liberal who can read thoroughly, completely absorb and digest what they've read, make a clean honest assertion, and understand their opponent's argument without it passing through their "FUZZY FILTER" and having it come out skewed????

[Troll]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Is there just ONE damned liberal who can read thoroughly,

When you were a liberal (which was just after you were a conservative and just before you became a conservative again), could you read?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I guess I just consider targetting 250,000+ civilians with nuclear weapons to be irrersponsible and you don't. Fair enough.

Wiskedjak...

I know you are wise and I agree with many of your opinions, but on this one I have to disagree.

Bombing Japan was not taken lightly. Japan's Hirohito and military leaders were ready to fight an invasion to the last Japanese if possible.

This was proven in the Japanese islands that the U.S. landed on...they fought to the last man and very few surrendered. The civilians on these islands believed the Americans were actually the devil and would torture and kill them. They committed mass suicides rather than fall into American hands.

A land invasion was the first choice by the allies. But estimates of allied casualties were up in the hundreds of thousands and fighting could go on for years in bogged down urban fighting.

Us or them...we chose us.

The irony is that it probably also saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives or millions...who knows.

Also hundreds of thousands of lives were lost in Tokyo in conventional bombing and that did not work. The atom bomb was the ultimate shock and awe.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Reread my post. I said at the time the crisis escalated, and I would roughly date that back to 2002-2003.

Now that is interesting, don't you think? France, Russia, and China were pushing to lift the Iraqi sanctions in 1999 and 2000, but they weren't pushing for them to be lifted in 2002. What happened in between 2000 and 2002 that might have changed their view of Iraq?



Surely it couldn't be an event in September of 2001? No! It couldn't be! Iraq had nothing to do with that.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
No, I find his posts to be not only literate but thoughtful and he REGULARLY HAS to shift the emphasis in order to get his often irrational and/or deluded opposition to argue THE POINT and SOMEWHAT intelligently!

He obviously puts great care into researching his points and consistently displays a masterful command of the issue being discussed.

Anyone who has a problem with that MAY simply be tired of his being right, more often than not.

Worst. Response. Ever.

I've been involved in debates with Simey, and asked for responses to specific points, which were clear, and have often received answers which did not have any relevance to my original points. As is quite obvious, it has been noticed by others. Simey is obviously a very intelligent person, but I know exactly when an issue is being obfuscated and when my points aren't answered. He's not the only one who puts thoughts into his posts.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Worst. Response. Ever.

I've been involved in debates with Simey, and asked for responses to specific points, which were clear, and have often received answers which did not have any relevance to my original points. As is quite obvious, it has been noticed by others. Simey is obviously a very intelligent person, but I know exactly when an issue is being obfuscated and when my points aren't answered. He's not the only one who puts thoughts into his posts.

Being unable to speak to your first point, I yield to your observation without judgement. To your second point, I hope you did not infer that my praise of Simey was to the exclusion of other earnest and thoughtful posts by any number of posters.

I'd like to take this opportunity to commend you for the care you take in crafting your posts, KarlG.

OK. That's it. I'm not sending out any more public 'props!' Just icons!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Troll:
Yes, Bush was mistaken in believing Iraq had WMD. Your question skips over the central question though which is was it a mistake to invade Iraq the way Bush did. The question isn't was it a mistake to invade Iraq ever but whether it was a mistake on March 19, 2003 before the inspectors had given their report, before the US's allies had been persuaded, before the US had convinced them to invade under a different pretence.

One we have answered that question, then we should look at what we can learn. Kerry mentions "judgement" in his speeches. That's what that second question tests and what it reveals is that Bush lacks judgement. He failed to properly weigh up the threats and the risks of different courses of action and balance them properly. He took huge risks that have endangered America, left thousands of people dead and the threat didn't require it.

The thing is we knew at the time that there was a reasonable chance that he didn't have weapons. Again, it's a judgement question. Other world leaders had it, Bush didn't. They all worked off the same facts ... Well actually they didn't because Bush was being fed intelligence that no one else believed like the tubes story (Australia had told the US it was BS), like the Yellowcake story (everyone including UNSCOM and the IAEA had told the US it was BS), like the mobile labs and drones (UNSCOM told the US they were BS). But for argument's sake, let's say they all had the same information. The others exercised better judgement on that information. That's key. I agree information is often incomplete. Being a good leader means taking calculated risks and getting it right. Bush failed.

Now personally I believe he failed because there was either a concerted effort on his part to find information to back up his plan or his Administration had their own agenda and was feeding him that information. Because it is just too hard for me to believe that some of the screwups were honest mistakes - the student's thesis, the yellowcake thing, WMD under palm trees in Western Iraq?

Since we're being nuanced about it ( ), I would add two points:

1. The WMD judgment doesn't exist in isolation; another part of the judgment equation is "Can we pull this off, and if so, how?" So even if we assume that Bush's judgment about WMDs was sound, we have to consider whether good judgment was used in the execution.

2. The WMD debate is something of a distraction. There were, in fact, other reasons for invading, the general idea being that an overthrow would serve the long-term political and economic interests of both Iraqis and Americans. Win-win, as it were. Thus, Bush intended to invade no matter what. But a political/economic rationale wouldn't sell - as Wolfowitz all but admitted, hyping the threat of WMDs was the only way to do it. Indeed, the last thing Bush wanted was for the inspectors to succeed - it would have obviated the alleged need to invade, ruining the whole scheme. Anyway, if things had gone as planned, few would be concerned about the WMD question - all but the most hardened would be saying "Well done." But things haven't gone as planned (or, we might say, unplanned), which returns us to the question: "Can we pull this off, and if so, how?" And again, in this respect the administration's judgment looks poor.

Edit: Some will regard the second point as overly conspiracy-minded, but I'm not really a conspiracy-minded type - I think Oswald was the lone gunman. To me, these are just calculations that all politicians make. Indeed, I think Bush had some legitimate long-term considerations in mind, entirely apart from WMDs. I mostly just think he made some very poor judgments with respect to achieving his goals.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Now that is interesting, don't you think? France, Russia, and China were pushing to lift the Iraqi sanctions in 1999 and 2000, but they weren't pushing for them to be lifted in 2002. What happened in between 2000 and 2002 that might have changed their view of Iraq?



Surely it couldn't be an event in September of 2001? No! It couldn't be! Iraq had nothing to do with that.

You're correct, 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Or are you implying otherwise (that there is a connection between Hussein's regime and Al Quaeda's attack on the WTC)?

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Is there just ONE damned liberal who can read thoroughly, completely absorb and digest what they've read, make a clean honest assertion, and understand their opponent's argument without it passing through their "FUZZY FILTER" and having it come out skewed????

You weren't really making an argument.
You were just saying that Hussein badly wanted WMDs back and would probably opt to revive his WMD programs when given the chance to, agreeing with my post. But yet, you said `I dare you to refute this.' You were evading my point (that inspections did work).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
You're correct, 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Or are you implying otherwise (that there is a connection between Hussein's regime and Al Quaeda's attack on the WTC)?

You missed the point. Please explain why France and Russia stopped pushing for sanctions against iraq to be lifted after 9/11. Why did that event cause them to change their position if the issues are unconnected?

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You missed the point. Please explain why France and Russia stopped pushing for sanctions against iraq to be lifted after 9/11. Why did that event cause them to change their position if the issues are unconnected?

Perhaps because of how things changed they wanted to go through one last round of inspections to verify that Iraq didn't pose a threat to anyone. And wasn't going to be a threat to anyone in the future.

[ebuddy]

Yes Logic, unfortunately, this would not show well to the Iranian. They would've loved to have known for certain that Iraq had no WMD's. Sanctions would've been lifted, and Iraq would've aggressively restarted a WMD program. Iran and Iraq in a nuclear arms race knowing what we know of both parties is simply unacceptable. Either way Saddam had to go. We're pursuing diplomatic ends to Iranian nukes and an integral part of this diplomacy is to squeeze Iran between democracies so the people of Iran (already many wanting freedom) can witness freedom.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You missed the point. Please explain why France and Russia stopped pushing for sanctions against iraq to be lifted after 9/11. Why did that event cause them to change their position if the issues are unconnected?

It was the support for the US's `war against terror' and the shift in policy to proactively fight `terrorists' (in quotation marks, because Iraq is IMHO not part of the war against terror, but a different animal). With the US being so vocal to stop proliferation of WMD, pushing for a partial lift of sanctions wouldn't be successful (by virtue of the US' veto).

Read your own government's reports on the connection between 9/11 and Iraq (or rather the lack thereof). I think you are missing (or evading) the points I have made and I think are the most important ones: the UN inspections were indeed efficient enough to contain Hussein's desire to acquire non-conventional weapons and that the assessment of most countries in the UN (the majority of the Security Council, among them the more important countries which could give substantial support (money, troops, etc.), was indeed correct. The danger posed by the former Iraqi regime could have been contained with the instruments available to the UN.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Yes Logic, unfortunately, this would not show well to the Iranian. They would've loved to have known for certain that Iraq had no WMD's. Sanctions would've been lifted, and Iraq would've aggressively restarted a WMD program. Iran and Iraq in a nuclear arms race knowing what we know of both parties is simply unacceptable. Either way Saddam had to go. We're pursuing diplomatic ends to Iranian nukes and an integral part of this diplomacy is to squeeze Iran between democracies so the people of Iran (already many wanting freedom) can witness freedom.

Do you think, Iraq wouldn't be monitored anymore by most Western countries? If they feel, there might be something going on, all instruments, including those that have proven efficient (inspections, etc.) could be used again.

It is somewhat naive to imply that as soon as the sanctions would have been (partially or not) lifted, nobody would keep an eye on them.

[Logic]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Yes Logic, unfortunately, this would not show well to the Iranian. They would've loved to have known for certain that Iraq had no WMD's. Sanctions would've been lifted, and Iraq would've aggressively restarted a WMD program. Iran and Iraq in a nuclear arms race knowing what we know of both parties is simply unacceptable. Either way Saddam had to go. We're pursuing diplomatic ends to Iranian nukes and an integral part of this diplomacy is to squeeze Iran between democracies so the people of Iran (already many wanting freedom) can witness freedom.

I'm sorry but this is just complete and utter BS.

If there is anything the Iranians have learned from this debacle it is that they better get some nukes as soon as possible because the US will invade even if they prove that they have none. That is the lesson most nations on the US hit-list have learned.

And where is the proof that Iran is developing nukes? I've seen none but some comments from the US(and we know how credible their intelligence is) and that the European nations are 'concerned' about it. Iran has opened it's nation to inspections and have proven many times that they have only peaceful goals for their nuclear programs.

The unbelievable gullibility in the US regarding anything about Iran is incredible. Iran is one of few nations in the ME that have some sort of democracy. It's not a perfect democracy but it is on par with the Israeli one and is a hell of a lot better than the US appointed Shah that they had before the revolution and is a hell of a lot better than most of the US supported puppet regimes in the ME.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
It was the support for the US's `war against terror' and the shift in policy to proactively fight `terrorists' (in quotation marks, because Iraq is IMHO not part of the war against terror, but a different animal).

Ah, good. So I have got you very reluctantly and begrudginghly to agree to two things.

1. 9/11 made it appropriate to reevaluate how we dealt with Iraq. Or as Bush puts it "9/11 changed everything."

2. France and Russia and not just the US treated Iraq differently after 9/11 because their calculation of the risks of Iraq being invoilved in supporting terrorism changed.

1 & 2 imply that France and Russia considered Iraq to be part of the War on Terror. If not, they should not have changed their approach on lifting sanctions.

Thank you.

[y0y0]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Since we're being nuanced about it ( ), I would add two points:

1. The WMD judgment doesn't exist in isolation; another part of the judgment equation is "Can we pull this off, and if so, how?" So even if we assume that Bush's judgment about WMDs was sound, we have to consider whether good judgment was used in the execution.

2. The WMD debate is something of a distraction. There were, in fact, other reasons for invading, the general idea being that an overthrow would serve the long-term political and economic interests of both Iraqis and Americans. Win-win, as it were. Thus, Bush intended to invade no matter what. But a political/economic rationale wouldn't sell - as Wolfowitz all but admitted, hyping the threat of WMDs was the only way to do it. Indeed, the last thing Bush wanted was for the inspectors to succeed - it would have obviated the alleged need to invade, ruining the whole scheme. Anyway, if things had gone as planned, few would be concerned about the WMD question - all but the most hardened would be saying "Well done." But things haven't gone as planned (or, we might say, unplanned), which returns us to the question: "Can we pull this off, and if so, how?" And again, in this respect the administration's judgment looks poor.

Edit: Some will regard the second point as overly conspiracy-minded, but I'm not really a conspiracy-minded type - I think Oswald was the lone gunman. To me, these are just calculations that all politicians make. Indeed, I think Bush had some legitimate long-term considerations in mind, entirely apart from WMDs. I mostly just think he made some very poor judgments with respect to achieving his goals.

This is one of the best posts I've read here on this subject. It echos my own beliefs that the WMD argument was a sideshow to the real reasons for invading Iraq. What is interesting is that still very few people give credence or much notice to the possibility that pushing the human rights argument for invading Iraq would have worked. Still, it's too late for that now.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Ah, good. So I have got you very reluctantly and begrudginghly to agree to two things.

1. 9/11 made it appropriate to reevaluate how we dealt with Iraq. Or as Bush puts it "9/11 changed everything."

2. France and Russia and not just the US treated Iraq differently after 9/11 because their calculation of the risks of Iraq being invoilved in supporting terrorism changed.

1 & 2 imply that France and Russia considered Iraq to be part of the War on Terror. If not, they should not have changed their approach on lifting sanctions.

Thank you.

Actually, I think he was saying that the US reaction to 9/11, and not 9/11 itself, caused a reevaluation on how to deal with Iraq. Perhaps France reevaluated it's approach to Iraq out of fear of the US rather than out of fear of Iraq.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by y0y0:
What is interesting is that still very few people give credence or much notice to the possibility that pushing the human rights argument for invading Iraq would have worked.

Lots have people have talked about that. The problem is that the Bush Administration tried to get support through the Security Council, which operates under the UN Charter. The UN Charter simply doesn't recognize human rights as a justification for overcoming state sovereignty. The idea didn't exist in the 1940s when the Charter was written.

All the Charter recognizes are "threats to international peace and security, not national peace and security or human rights. That's why the argument in the Security Council centered on the narrow issue of WMD. The other arguments were also raised in other venues, but they couldn't be raised in the UN. From this people wrongly assumed that it was either/or when (as I think zigzag is saying) the other arguments existed in parallel.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Perhaps France reevaluated it's approach to Iraq out of fear of the US rather than out of fear of Iraq.

I don't think France fears the US. They certainly don't behave as if they do.

[y0y0]

My take on MAD, the cold war and WMD as it is in Iran and North Korea.

Firstly, Simey is very probably right in saying that Stalin, i.e. the USSR might have invaded Western Europe if the US had not had nuclear weapons. Stalin was responsible over his long reign from 1924 to 1953 for a lot more deaths than even Hitler was. He was an expansionist tyrant who would probably have gobbled up much of the world given the chance.

Secondly, the Cold War perhaps kept us away from fighting a nuclear war with the USSR, but there were a number of occasions where it came damn close to that, such as the 1962 Cuban crisis, A fullscale nuclear war, even then, would have made much of the northern hemisphere uninhabitable and would have killed billions of people. If that had happened, the USA, Europe, China and Russia would probably not be around as nation states today and countries such as Argentina, Brazil or Australia would possibly be world powers.

I'm glad it never happened, but as I said it did come close.

Thirdly, MAD. MAD only really works when there is a real threat that your enemy can strike you badly, and it also requires a high level of responsibility in the poliiticians running the show. Not mayn people remmeber the 80's when Reagan and Thatcher came up with the plan to put Perhsing missiles and Tommahawk cruise missiles in Western Europe in order to counter the threat of Soviet SS-23 missiles stationed in East Germany. The plan was basically a sound one, although it did raise a high degree of fear of nuclear war amongst the local populations. Some thought that Reagan was war war mongering, but what he war really doing was playing the chess game of MAD. I don't think he, nor the Soviet rulers of the time were actually anywhere near to thinking that the weapons would actually get used. They were pieces in the game of power politics.

However, the world has changed since then. Israel (through its own efforts after having aquired a French nuclear reactor), South Africa (also through an aquired French reactor), Pakistan (through stolen plans and Chinese help), India (an indigenous effort) and North Korea (with Pakistani help) have all aquired nuclear weapons. Of all those nations, South Africa freely gave up the weapons when their government became democratic, since they saw no point whatsoever in being a nuclear nation. Also the Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nuclear weapons they inhertited after the USSR collapsed. All those who gave them up simply didn't see the point, economically and politically of maintaining a nuclear force.

India and Pakistan came dangerously close to fighting a nuclear war in 2001. I am surpised at how many people have forgotten or simply don't know this. Pakistani supported militants attacked the Indian parliment and India almost went to war with Pakistan over this attack. The general issue of Kashmir, a muslim enclave that is part of India but which Pakistan has claimed for ever since the creation of the two nations, has lead to three wars between the two nations. The general level of polemics between the two could well have started a conflict between the two in 2001. Howver, international diplomacy prevailed and the two sides saw themselves in a stalemate and state of MAD. Since then, they have actually started taking one another seriously and talking about their problems.

Israel has never admitted to owning weapons nor are they signatories to nuclear weapons proliferation treaties, although it is common agreement that they have about 200 warheads. It is fairly obvious that Israeli nuclear weapons are there to insure that a repeat of the 1973 war doesn't happen. Israel came dangerously close to losing that war and it might very well have happened if the US under Nixon hadn't airlifted military supplies to Israel. However, ever since then Israels more extreme enemies, such as Iraq and Iran, have been looking at ways to aquire nuclear weapons in order to bring about a state of MAD.

The question should perhaps be: Would a state of MAD finally force Israel and its enemies to start talking to one another and behaving responsibly? While some people say that Israel has only been defending itself against Arab aggression, and this is also true to a certain extent, given the fact that Arabs have seen Israel as a thorn in its side for over 50 years, it is also true that Israel has not been very responsible with its respect of foreign territory in invading Lebanon, bombing Iraq, Tunis and Syria over the years. One could say that the Israelis have simply become hardened due to the incessant hostility of its Arab neighbours who use the Israeli-Palestinian problem as a distraction from their own bad internal situation. Whatever the case, a situation where an enemy of Israel would posess nuclear weapons would certainly restrict Israel's current nuclear superirity in the region.

Given the extreme hatred of the two sides, and the extreme political policies and actions, and the general lack of restraint, it is very possible that either Israel or Iran would try to start a preemptive attack on the other side. The results would certainly be catastrophic for all involved. I am fairly sure Israel would not use nuclear weapons while it has military superiority in the region, but the question is fully open as to what the case would be if Iran were armed with nuclear weapons.

The danger of Iran becoming a nuclear nation are real, and I believe a large part of the PNAC ideology, amongst whom are a large proprtion of Jewish ideologues, is responsible for the current attention on Iraq and Iran. They see it, I believe, as the only way of removing threats to Israels existence by preemptive military action by the US. (This is speculation, but Wolfowitz and Perle were both members of the PNAC group). Amongst other things the Iranians are not known for their political stability and an attack on Iran after Iran had become nuclear could very well mean that Iran, in what they would see a desperate situation, would use nuclear weapons on both Israel and attacking US forces, which would bring about a US nuclear response and the end of Iran, but also cause hundreds of thousands if not millions of dead US and Israeli citizens.

It is very possible that the whole PNAC ideology, perhaps originally founded on the basis of threats to Israel, and using the idea of implanting democracy into the region, actually took less the well being of the regions inhabitants into account than the well being of the citizens of Israel as well as thinking that the plan would end support for terrorism.

In the end though, I think the only way that the conflicts of the middle east can be ended is if both sides take one another seriously and with respect and sit down and talk and be prepared to compromise on situations. sadly, at the moment, I don't see this as happening. The Islamic fanatics and the Israeli hawks do not respect one another at all nor acknowledge the right of the other to exist, and what is more, they have the upper hand in politics on their repsective sides at the moment.

I think the very best possible long term US policy with regard to both terrorism and the middle east in general would be for the US to use all its influence to make the parties sit down and talk until they started respecting one another and compromising on issues of the Palestinians, the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, Israeli territory and Jeruslam, the terrorist threat of suicide bombing and the mutual respect of one another's existence.

Sadly, I don't think the current US administration, being hawkish itself and too open to religious and national ideology, is willing to bring about this situation. say what you like about Clinton and Carter, but they both attempted at least, to bring about a situation of mutual respect. If Clinton had been more successful, or if he had had more time, and brought about a lasting agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, I think a huge amount of Al Qaida's and OBL's support would have been undermined, as most average Moslems would have seen that the US is a force for peace and respect.

I don't think it would have stopped the 9/11 attacks as OBL is/was far too much a fanatic, but it would have seriously undercut his support, and perhaps even shortened the war on terror.

North Korea has only the role of WMD supplier in the Middle East, but its situation and the attitude of the US government towards it, is similar. North Korea would only seriously start a war if they saw no other way out. But simply acceding to North Korea's demands (food and energy) would be a fatal mistake as it would bring about no incentive for the North to cease its belligerent attitude. Concessions towards the North Koreans should be done, that is vital, as they are desperate as is obvious and no one wants a war there because everybody will be the losers in that case, but all consessions should be linked to North Korean concessions on economic freedom, as is the case in China and Vietnam and disarmament on BOTH SIDES. Both sides will have to agree step by step to reduce both nuclear and conventional arms. Only when this process is well advanced can attempts be made to slowly bring about political freedoms for the North Koreans. Economic improvement in North Korea would be an incentive for them to step away from their current desperate stance where the only functioning industry they have is the arms indutry and the only effective foreign policy they have is the threat of nuclear weapons.

However, as in the middle east, a policy of engagment and respect and mutual trust building is a long drawn out process that requires above all commitment and hard work. I fear that the current administration does not have these qualities and is attempting to "go the easy way" by threatening force all the time instead of only using as a very utterly final reminder of what happens if talks fail in the last instance.


Sorry for the long winded Kerry-esque essay.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Lots have people have talked about that. The problem is that the Bush Administration tried to get support through the Security Council, which operates under the UN Charter. The UN Charter simply doesn't recognize human rights as a justification for overcoming state sovereignty. The idea didn't exist in the 1940s when the Charter was written.

All the Charter recognizes are "threats to international peace and security, not national peace and security or human rights. That's why the argument in the Security Council centered on the narrow issue of WMD. The other arguments were also raised in other venues, but they couldn't be raised in the UN. From this people wrongly assumed that it was either/or when (as I think zigzag is saying) the other arguments existed in parallel.

Well again, the argument presented in the Security Council was based on WMD, so all the other reasons for invading Iraq weren't used when it came to convincing other countries to join. So this argument leads to nothing, it hasn't been used at the time it should have been used.

These points could have been presented outside of the Security Council, e. g. in the yearly security summit in Munich or in one-to-one visits. So it doesn't depend on the UN Charter to bring up those points.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Ah, good. So I have got you very reluctantly and begrudginghly to agree to two things.

1. 9/11 made it appropriate to reevaluate how we dealt with Iraq. Or as Bush puts it "9/11 changed everything."

2. France and Russia and not just the US treated Iraq differently after 9/11 because their calculation of the risks of Iraq being invoilved in supporting terrorism changed.

1 & 2 imply that France and Russia considered Iraq to be part of the War on Terror. If not, they should not have changed their approach on lifting sanctions.

Thank you.

So what does this have to do with my argument? I think Wiskedjak has commented on that already.

[y0y0]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Lots have people have talked about that. The problem is that the Bush Administration tried to get support through the Security Council, which operates under the UN Charter. The UN Charter simply doesn't recognize human rights as a justification for overcoming state sovereignty. The idea didn't exist in the 1940s when the Charter was written.

All the Charter recognizes are "threats to international peace and security, not national peace and security or human rights. That's why the argument in the Security Council centered on the narrow issue of WMD. The other arguments were also raised in other venues, but they couldn't be raised in the UN. From this people wrongly assumed that it was either/or when (as I think zigzag is saying) the other arguments existed in parallel.

I'm sorry, this is not true, strictly speaking. Notable examples include:

Somalia, a failed state where the UN intervened. Highly unpopular in the US and the deaths of 18 US soldiers caused the US and the UN to pullout. Times have changed, as you might notice, since it might have been a good place for both the US and the UN to persevere, as they have done in...

Afghanistan, another failed state, where the UN and the US do persevere depsite severe problems, or..

Bosnia, where the Europeans were too frightened to act initially and UN resolutions brought nothing but where there were resolutions and international support, but where the US finally brought about NATO into action and where the UN went along because there was support for the measure, and...

Kosovo, which was very similar to Bosnia.

The last two were also unpopular with Republicans, if you remember, as they asked why the US should get involved in others' wars.

All that changed after 9/11 where the US swung over to the other extreme.

Iraq could very well have been found to be a failed state if the will had been there, and not only that, but your argument that the US attempted to get the UNSC to get involved in Iraq on humanitarian grounds is simply not true. The Bush administration attempted to get UNSC support on the grounds of WMD.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by y0y0:
I'm sorry, this is not true, strictly speaking. Notable examples include:

Somalia, a failed state where the UN intervened. Highly unpopular in the US and the deaths of 18 US soldiers caused the US and the UN to pullout. Times have changed, as you might notice, since it might have been a good place for both the US and the UN to persevere, as they have done in...

Afghanistan, another failed state, where the UN and the US do persevere depsite severe problems, or..

Bosnia, where the Europeans were too frightened to act initially and UN resolutions brought nothing but where there were resolutions and international support, but where the US finally brought about NATO into action and where the UN went along because there was support for the measure, and...

Kosovo, which was very similar to Bosnia.

The last two were also unpopular with Republicans, if you remember, as they asked why the US should get involved in others' wars.

All that changed after 9/11 where the US swung over to the other extreme.

Iraq could very well have been found to be a failed state if the will had been there, and not only that, but your argument that the US attempted to get the UNSC to get involved in Iraq on humanitarian grounds is simply not true. The Bush administration attempted to get UNSC support on the grounds of WMD.

Each of those examples (except for Kosoivo) were justified under Chapter VII as threats to international peace and security. None of them justified the exception to 2(7) as purely humanitarian interventions. Somalia came closest factually, but the Security Council still said it was a threat to international peace and security. The Security Council also made the rather unique step of noting that there was no domestic government at the time that could grant the right to intervene under Chapter VI.

Sorry, but my statement above was entirely accurate. The UN Charter does not recognize purely humanitarian non-permissive intervention. The Charter is here if you would like to read it. Focus on Chapter I, Article 2, and on Chapters VI and VII. Especially VII.

I mentioned above that Kosovo wasn't justified as a Chapter VII intervention. That's because the UN Security Council never authorized the Kosovo mission.

[Spliffdaddy]

[y0y0]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Each of those examples (except for Kosoivo) were justified under Chapter VII as threats to international peace and security. None of them justified the exception to 2(7) as purely humanitarian interventions. Somalia came closest factually, but the Security Council still said it was a threat to international peace and security. The Security Council also made the rather unique step of noting that there was no domestic government at the time that could grant the right to intervene under Chapter VI.

Sorry, but my statement above was entirely accurate. The UN Charter does not recognize purely humanitarian non-permissive intervention. The Charter is here if you would like to read it. Focus on Chapter I, Article 2, and on Chapters VI and VII. Especially VII.

I mentioned above that Kosovo wasn't justified as a Chapter VII intervention. That's because the UN Security Council never authorized the Kosovo mission.

I agree with you, factually. But, I'm not trying to prove you wrong on the UN charter. I disagree with your argument ath Bush tried the UN route on humantitarian grounds. The actual UN resolutions on the examples I mentioned often came after the fact. The UN resolution on Somalia could hardly be justified on claims of Somalia threatening war against its neighbours. IIRC, the UN justification came about because of Somalia's internal coflict threatening to spill over into Ethiopia and Kenya.

The point I am trying to make is that Bush could easily have claimed Iraq was a threat to it's neighbours (Iraq started two wars in one decade, remember) and he could have used the doumented facts of Iraq's genocidal policies towards Shias and Kurds to pursue an argument based on humanitarian reasons.

It would certainly not have met with as much skeptism and hostility as the WMD claims did. It would also have had far fewer repercussions such as the bogus WMD claims have had.

I'm sorry, but I have to stand by my claim that the Iraq invasion was incredibly badly planned and executed. The result is the sorry mess that Iraq is in today.

That said, I really hope that, in the long term, regardless of who is president, that Iraq successfully becomes a functioning secure democratic state, if only for its people's sake. I can't imagine having to live in a country where one's daily life is so insecure and where one must constantly fear for one's own life or that of one's family.

I wish that for everyone in the middle east, be they jews, moslems or chrstians, man or woman.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by y0y0:
I agree with you, factually. But, I'm not trying to prove you wrong on the UN charter. I disagree with your argument ath Bush tried the UN route on humantitarian grounds. The actual UN resolutions on the examples I mentioned often came after the fact. The UN resolution on Somalia could hardly be justified on claims of Somalia threatening war against its neighbours. IIRC, the UN justification came about because of Somalia's internal coflict threatening to spill over into Ethiopia and Kenya.

Slow down. My argument isn't that "Bush tried the UN route on humantitarian grounds." That is the exact opposite of what I said. I said that Bush tried the UN route. Because he tried the UN route, he framed the argument in the UN on the narrow argument that the UN Charter recognizes -- threats to international peace and security. That's why the argument in the UN focussed on WMD, and not humanitarian grounds.

If the Charter were written otherwise I am sure that the Bush Administration and the Blair Government would have made the broader humanitarian argument that they made elsewhere.

To turn to Somalia, the Chapter VII hook was indeed spillover across borders. The actual fear was refugee flows. Threats to international peace and security doesn't necessarily mean overt threats by a government (as in I will do X to you), but is a broader concept including the destabilizing threat posed by the border-crossing effects of a situation developing inside the borders of a country. Refugee flows is a classic example. But that situation didn't exist with respect to Iraq. Iraq's government was quite capable of halting refugees. Iraq and Somalia were quite different in that respect.

Whether the US could have raised threats to Iraq's neighbors or not is moot. There were already Chapter VII resolutions in effect on those grounds. That was the whole basis of the resolutions that forbade him to have WMD. The problem was a couple of governments were quite artficially demanding additional resolutions. The problem wasn't legal it was political.

However, this doesn't alter the basic point I raised. The reason the argument in the UN excluded purely humanitarian grounds was because of the limitations of the UN Charter and what it will, and will not recognize as a threat to international peace and security.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Because he tried the UN route, he framed the argument in the UN on the narrow argument that the UN Charter recognizes -- threats to international peace and security. That's why the argument in the UN focussed on WMD, and not humanitarian grounds.

Well, hallelujah. That's what we've been saying all along - that Bush massaged the facts to make a bogus case for war. That he "framed the argument" in a way he thought they would palate. That he intended to use the UN only as a justification for war, that his mind was made up irrespective of what the UN said. That he wouldn't have called off the war irrespective of what the UN said or what Saddam did. It was a big charade and now you wonder why the rest of the world isn't interested in helping you? This President has no credibility in the world because of precisely what you've admitted. He thinks we're a rubber stamp.

Given your disdain for the the rest of the world and the organisation of the UN, that's probably not an issue for you, but bear in mind that he didn't make a separate argument to the American people. That would have looked funny wouldn't it. Imagine Dubya appearing on CNN whispering, "We're going to the UN to ask them to invade Iraq to get rid of his WMD but we want all you Americans out there to know that we're actually invading for other reasons. The things Powell is going to say are just part of the UN show."

He told you Iraq was about WMD too. He told Congress it was about WMD. They never authorised a humanitarian intervention did they? So, he didn't only mislead the other countries of the world (some of which sent their young men and women to die in Iraq on the basis of the argument he made to the UN), but he milead his own countrymen.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Well, hallelujah. That's what we've been saying all along - that Bush massaged the facts to make a bogus case for war. That he "framed the argument" in a way he thought they would palate. That he intended to use the UN only as a justification for war, that his mind was made up irrespective of what the UN said. That he wouldn't have called off the war irrespective of what the UN said or what Saddam did. It was a big charade and now you wonder why the rest of the world isn't interested in helping you? This President has no credibility in the world because of precisely what you've admitted. He thinks we're a rubber stamp.

Given your disdain for the the rest of the world and the organisation of the UN, that's probably not an issue for you, but bear in mind that he didn't make a separate argument to the American people. That would have looked funny wouldn't it. Imagine Dubya appearing on CNN whispering, "We're going to the UN to ask them to invade Iraq to get rid of his WMD but we want all you Americans out there to know that we're actually invading for other reasons. The things Powell is going to say are just part of the UN show."

He told you Iraq was about WMD too. He told Congress it was about WMD. They never authorised a humanitarian intervention did they? So, he didn't only mislead the other countries of the world (some of which sent their young men and women to die in Iraq on the basis of the argument he made to the UN), but he milead his own countrymen.

To reiterate what has been said over and over: it was never either/or. Just because the full range of issues couldn't be argued in the imited venue of the UN doesn't alter the fact that the full range of issues were alwas there. It just underscores the limitations of the UN.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Slow down. My argument isn't that "Bush tried the UN route on humantitarian grounds." That is the exact opposite of what I said. I said that Bush tried the UN route. Because he tried the UN route, he framed the argument in the UN on the narrow argument that the UN Charter recognizes -- threats to international peace and security. That's why the argument in the UN focussed on WMD, and not humanitarian grounds.

If the Charter were written otherwise I am sure that the Bush Administration and the Blair Government would have made the broader humanitarian argument that they made elsewhere.

To turn to Somalia, the Chapter VII hook was indeed spillover across borders. The actual fear was refugee flows. Threats to international peace and security doesn't necessarily mean overt threats by a government (as in I will do X to you), but is a broader concept including the destabilizing threat posed by the border-crossing effects of a situation developing inside the borders of a country. Refugee flows is a classic example. But that situation didn't exist with respect to Iraq. Iraq's government was quite capable of halting refugees. Iraq and Somalia were quite different in that respect.

Whether the US could have raised threats to Iraq's neighbors or not is moot. There were already Chapter VII resolutions in effect on those grounds. That was the whole basis of the resolutions that forbade him to have WMD. The problem was a couple of governments were quite artficially demanding additional resolutions. The problem wasn't legal it was political.

However, this doesn't alter the basic point I raised. The reason the argument in the UN excluded purely humanitarian grounds was because of the limitations of the UN Charter and what it will, and will not recognize as a threat to international peace and security.

Humanitarian reasons were not raised as primary reasons to invade Iraq outside of UN bodies either, so the point is valid: humanitarian reasons were not used to `sell it'. I think you are arguing like a lawyer (my dad is a lawyer, no offense, really)

Mainly WMDs were used to convince other countries (but it failed to work on many, many countries which could have contributed to the cause), this is a fact. It is also well-proven that at the time of the invasion, there were no WMD in Iraq and there was no strong evidence suggesting otherwise (another fact is: the evidence presented by the US and UK failed to convince major European countries).

If you are in favor of international institutions that check and enforce human rights, then they need to be institutions among peers, such as the ICC. But those are ideas, the US administration (and you, as far as I remember) reject, because it interferes with countries' own affairs.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by y0y0:
My take on MAD, the cold war and WMD as it is in Iran and North Korea.
<SNIP>
Sorry for the long winded Kerry-esque essay.

I liked it.