I don't believe this one: Perle Says Iraq Invasion Was Illegal

[LunarRay]

Quote, In part

I'm merely talking about the concept of a council to debate an "imminent threat." That's like calling the police saying there's a guy with a gun pointed at me and they say "we'll look into it" or "we need to investigate before acting."

Well.. that makes sense to me. We must act to stop the exigent circumstance from unfolding itself to our peril. But, after having done so we must be prepared to demonstrate to the World that our invoking of Article 51 of the UN Charter was based on credible evidence if the usual obvious evidence of such a situation is absent.

What Anan was saying was, I think; it is for the UN to decide the merit of the evidence and the weight to give it in the evaluation of so harsh a reality as invading the sovereignty of another nation and the killing of its people and destruction of its property. And, having done so in the face of the UN Security Counsel's denial of our quest for a more traditional approach.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Quote, In part

I'm merely talking about the concept of a council to debate an "imminent threat." That's like calling the police saying there's a guy with a gun pointed at me and they say "we'll look into it" or "we need to investigate before acting."

Well.. that makes sense to me. We must act to stop the exigent circumstance from unfolding itself to our peril. But, after having done so we must be prepared to demonstrate to the World that our invoking of Article 51 of the UN Charter was based on credible evidence if the usual obvious evidence of such a situation is absent.

What Anan was saying was, I think; it is for the UN to decide the merit of the evidence and the weight to give it in the evaluation of so harsh a reality as invading the sovereignty of another nation and the killing of its people and destruction of its property. And, having done so in the face of the UN Security Counsel's denial of our quest for a more traditional approach.

Absolutely. It should be investigated and evidence should be pursued. The UN should have backed the US immediately, however, especially after Sept. 11. I can't help but wonder if on Sept. 9th, 2001, the US said that we were under an imminent threat and the airports should be locked down and immigration halted, etc. I can't help but wonder what the reactions to that claim would have been...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Quote, In part

I'm merely talking about the concept of a council to debate an "imminent threat." That's like calling the police saying there's a guy with a gun pointed at me and they say "we'll look into it" or "we need to investigate before acting."

Well.. that makes sense to me. We must act to stop the exigent circumstance from unfolding itself to our peril. But, after having done so we must be prepared to demonstrate to the World that our invoking of Article 51 of the UN Charter was based on credible evidence if the usual obvious evidence of such a situation is absent.

What Anan was saying was, I think; it is for the UN to decide the merit of the evidence and the weight to give it in the evaluation of so harsh a reality as invading the sovereignty of another nation and the killing of its people and destruction of its property. And, having done so in the face of the UN Security Counsel's denial of our quest for a more traditional approach.

Absolutely. It should be investigated and evidence should be pursued. The UN should have backed the US immediately, however, especially after Sept. 11. I can't help but wonder if on Sept. 9th, 2001, the US said that we were under an imminent threat and the airports should be locked down and immigration halted, etc. I can't help but wonder what the reactions to that claim would have been...

The UN was helping, shortly after being formally asked Inspectors were on the ground in Iraq. It should be noted though that the comparison is a weak one. Who was Iraq holding a gun too?

 

[Gaard]

If someone's claim of an 'imminent threat' is always to be taken without question and always with faith that the claim is true, anyone at anytime can make that claim with the understanding that they would receive unconditional support.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Gaard
If someone's claim of an 'imminent threat' is always to be taken without question and always with faith that the claim is true, anyone at anytime can make that claim with the understanding that they would receive unconditional support.

That is a true statement. But if you consider the circumstances with Iraq, there was no reason to doubt other than "we hate Bush" or "they want the oil" or "they hate arabs." True, if the US now said "we are under imminent danger from Columbia" there should be doubts. But not back then. Not after Sept 11.

Funny how noone responded to my statement:

I can't help but wonder if on Sept. 9th, 2001, the US said that we were under an imminent threat and the airports should be locked down and immigration halted, etc. I can't help but wonder what the reactions to that claim would have been...

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Gaard
If someone's claim of an 'imminent threat' is always to be taken without question and always with faith that the claim is true, anyone at anytime can make that claim with the understanding that they would receive unconditional support.

That is a true statement. But if you consider the circumstances with Iraq, there was no reason to doubt other than "we hate Bush" or "they want the oil" or "they hate arabs." True, if the US now said "we are under imminent danger from Columbia" there should be doubts. But not back then. Not after Sept 11.

Funny how noone responded to my statement:

I can't help but wonder if on Sept. 9th, 2001, the US said that we were under an imminent threat and the airports should be locked down and immigration halted, etc. I can't help but wonder what the reactions to that claim would have been...

Why does 9/11 mean that the claim of an 'imminent threat' from Iraq should be accepted unquestioningly? (is unquestioningly a word?)

Regarding your statement, I'm assuming the largest reaction would be "What's the imminent threat?"

 

[miguel]

Err, that there are terrorists who struck before who are planning to crash airplanes into buildings. The response would likely be: "aw, c'mon, it's just an excuse to persecute immigrants!"

 

[rjain]

So we can just use terrorism as an excuse to get global backing for invading any country we choose and it's irresponsible for the other countries to not support us?

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: rjain
So we can just use terrorism as an excuse to get global backing for invading any country we choose and it's irresponsible for the other countries to not support us?

Well, obviously, I'm not making myself clear, or you choose not to see my point. If we somehow got an advance warning of the 9/11 attack and did not act because of lack of global consensus, that would have been irresponsible.

 

[rjain]

Hmm, yes. That is a different point than the one I thought you were making. Now that I look back, you were merely bringing up the possibility of domestic security action. I think that we need to be able to trust that the government really is "for the people" since it is "of the people" and "by the people". If that's not the case, then maybe Dave's warmongering is warranted.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: rjain
So we can just use terrorism as an excuse to get global backing for invading any country we choose and it's irresponsible for the other countries to not support us?

Well, obviously, I'm not making myself clear, or you choose not to see my point. If we somehow got an advance warning of the 9/11 attack and did not act because of lack of global consensus, that would have been irresponsible.

I thought your point was that because we were attacked on 9/11 we shouldn't have been questioned when we said Iraq was an 'imminent threat'. 😉

But concerning your revised point, when you say "...and did not act..." exactly what action do you think we would have taken had we received advance warning that people living in our country were going to hijack some jets? I don't think I'm following you, why would we seek out global approval on that?

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Gaard

I thought your point was that because we were attacked on 9/11 we shouldn't have been questioned when we said Iraq was an 'imminent threat'. 😉

Yes, that was my original point. The opposition for us going into Iraq had more to do with not liking or trusting the US, when it should not have been.

But concerning your revised point, when you say "...and did not act..." exactly what action do you think we would have taken had we received advance warning that people living in our country were going to hijack some jets? I don't think I'm following you, why would we seek out global approval on that?

Of course, it's all hypothetical. Let's say, for discussion's sake, we detained all recent immigrants and grounded all planes and then went after Al Quaida IN AFGHANISTAN.

 

[Gaard]

<<The opposition for us going into Iraq had more to do with not liking or trusting the US, when it should not have been.>>

I may be wrong here but I thought the opposition consisted mainly of the mindset that war wasn't necessary.



<<Let's say, for discussion's sake, we detained all recent immigrants and grounded all planes and then went after Al Quaida IN AFGHANISTAN.>>

I'm not sure. Are you asking what popular opinion would have been? Is your scenerio realistic had we had advance warning of an attack?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: miguel

Funny how noone responded to my statement:

I can't help but wonder if on Sept. 9th, 2001, the US said that we were under an imminent threat and the airports should be locked down and immigration halted, etc. I can't help but wonder what the reactions to that claim would have been...

Nothing wrong with making imminent threat claim, acting on it and and saving the country in the process. As long as you can show that the immenent threat was real and you show everyone the facts that lead you to that conclusion. In fact, the person who made the claim and acted on it would've been a big hero.

The problem is, shouldn't the person made the claim also take the responsibility for the damage if the claim turn out to be false? Has the imminent threat claim about Iraq been proven month and month after the war was over? Has that someone take up any responsibility for all the death caused by his unsubstantiated claims?

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<The opposition for us going into Iraq had more to do with not liking or trusting the US, when it should not have been.>>

I may be wrong here but I thought the opposition consisted mainly of the mindset that war wasn't necessary.

<<Let's say, for discussion's sake, we detained all recent immigrants and grounded all planes and then went after Al Quaida IN AFGHANISTAN.>>

I'm not sure. Are you asking what popular opinion would have been? Is your scenerio realistic had we had advance warning of an attack?

You may be right about the opposition. But you see, the reason (and I could be wrong here too) that war was not necessary is a misleading one. For some people (and countries) was is NEVER necessary.

On the second point, yes, if we thwarted 9/11 and went after afghanistan anyway, the world would have opposed us. Only when thousands lie dead in a rubble do they want to act. To me, that's not a world I want to live in.

Just like in my neighborhood. I don't want to wait until someone dies before the police show up. Take that drug house down now, BEFORE anyone gets hurt.

I hope you understand I'm not trying to argue. The point I'm trying to make seems to be missing, and that is probably my fault for not being too clear.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: miguel

Funny how noone responded to my statement:

I can't help but wonder if on Sept. 9th, 2001, the US said that we were under an imminent threat and the airports should be locked down and immigration halted, etc. I can't help but wonder what the reactions to that claim would have been...

Nothing wrong with making imminent threat claim, acting on it and and saving the country in the process. As long as you can show that the immenent threat was real and you show everyone the facts that lead you to that conclusion. In fact, the person who made the claim and acted on it would've been a big hero.

The problem is, shouldn't the person made the claim also take the responsibility for the damage if the claim turn out to be false? Has the imminent threat claim about Iraq been proven month and month after the war was over? Has that someone take up any responsibility for all the death caused by his unsubstantiated claims?

THANK YOU!! Yes, absolutely!! If the Iraq thing was a lie, then Bush and the CIA should accept responsibility. If it was a mistake, they should do the same. Problem is, it's not even a year since then and the fighting is still simmering, so why the rush to judgement?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Hmm, the "rush to judgment" argument being used by Bushies . . .

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Hmm, the "rush to judgment" argument being used by Bushies . . .

huh? Are you calling me a "Bushies"? If it makes you feel good, do it.

EDIT: Man, why not just stick to the argument without calling people names or pigeon-holing them? As far as I'm concerned, you've lost all credibility

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Trust me . . . when I accumulate credibility with the "imminent threat" crowd . . . I've lost all credibility.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Trust me . . . when I accumulate credibility with the "imminent threat" crowd . . . I've lost all credibility.

You do your quote an injustice, Bali. You don't seem like you want "the truth shall be told all the time." You just want to creates holes and put people in them so it's all a neat little arrangement in your head.

Why be so closed minded? Lighten up, open your eyes and try and see the world from another point of view besides your own. Walk around the park a bit. There's much more to see than the corner you made for yourself.

Hey, if I'm way off mark here, tell me, just don't "label and forget." It's not a very wise thing to do.

 

[Moonbeam]

Of what relevance could international law have to somebody who talks to God. Law is man made. Only God knows what's right. The power of God even corrected the Florida election.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

As a supporter of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Medicins Sans Frontieres . . . not to mention a passport that STILL exceeds our President's tally . . . I've already . . . Lighten up, open your eyes and try and see the world from another point of view besides your own. Walk around the park a bit. There's much more to see than the corner you made for yourself.

I've exceeded my noob (despite the NOV 2001) threshold for the day. Sorry about the label . . . 😉

 

[LunarRay]

Miguel,

Absolutely. It should be investigated and evidence should be pursued. The UN should have backed the US immediately, however, especially after Sept. 11. I can't help but wonder if on Sept. 9th, 2001, the US said that we were under an imminent threat and the airports should be locked down and immigration halted, etc. I can't help but wonder what the reactions to that claim would have been...

Well, it was an internal issue. The bad guys were Saudi for the most part. I don't think we'd have gotten the support to invade Afghanistan until 9/12.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Gaard
If someone's claim of an 'imminent threat' is always to be taken without question and always with faith that the claim is true, anyone at anytime can make that claim with the understanding that they would receive unconditional support.

When a nation reacts to an exigent circumstance they do so with out asking. They usually operate under a 'time is of the essence' condition. That is why the evidence of using Article 51 requires the underlying proof to be submitted to the UN if the evidence is not obvious... like an invading army poised at the doorstep.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Trust me . . . when I accumulate credibility with the "imminent threat" crowd . . . I've lost all credibility.

You do your quote an injustice, Bali. You don't seem like you want "the truth shall be told all the time." You just want to creates holes and put people in them so it's all a neat little arrangement in your head.

Why be so closed minded? Lighten up, open your eyes and try and see the world from another point of view besides your own. Walk around the park a bit. There's much more to see than the corner you made for yourself.

Hey, if I'm way off mark here, tell me, just don't "label and forget." It's not a very wise thing to do.

I'd say you're not understanding Bali's posts. He 'cuts to the chase' (goes to the meat of the truth) on every issue I've seen him post in. He dissolves the spin and takes what has distilled down and argues the merits of that. IMO