Why are People Against a war with Iraq?

[0dd]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Stefan

Why are People Against a war with Iraq?

People are just sick of the US trying to be the world police. If anyone finds a REAL reason to go to war then people wont be against it.

they weren't so against it when we had to go and bomb serbia for them.

I believe that we did have a real reason to go and bomb Serbia. The entire Balkan region was in a state of civil war that threatened to spill over into the rest of Europe. We put troops in Albania to keep them out of it and troops in Macedonia to keep Greece out of it. Instabilities in that region have led to both World Wars.

Was there a UN resolution for that action?

Good question. It seems that the answer is yes and no. There were resolutions by the UN Security Council calling for Serbia to take certain actions that it failed to do leading NATO to bomb them without a specific resolution calling for force. Could be useful in the current situation to see what kinds of inaction prompts a response. However the situation in the Balkans is different from Iraq in that NATO responded to a crises that directly threatened some of its members which is exactly what it was created to do.

How did the mess in Kosovo directly threaten some of it's members? I'm really curious. I really didn't support using Nato for that mission. I thought that Europe should have dealt with it as it was in their backyard. But if that logic was used to authorize force then the same logic applies to Iraq.

At the time only the former states of Yugoslavia were fighting each other, but the different ethnic groups that were fighting each other held majorities in neighboring contries. Albania and Greece were two of them and if NATO had not interfered, Albania and Greece would have became involved to protect them changing the war from a civil one to one between nations including NATO members.

Actually Europe did deal with it through NATO. NATO was set up for the mutal defense of its members which besides the United States, Canada, and Turkey includes only European nations. At the time this was the best way that European nations could get involved militarily in handling their own affairs. The United States is the real power behind NATO thus garunting our involvement. The European Union is currently in the process of setting up a European rapid reaction force so that it can handle its own affairs including taking over peace keeping duties in the Balkins.

Yes the same logic, that they were not obeying UN resolutions, could be used in the case of Iraq, but in the Balkans there was a civil war in progress threatening to involve NATO members.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Dari
The UN is already irrelevant.

Wow...you really believe all that crap coming out of the white house eh?

Yeah...a coalition of all the peaceful nations of the world...what the hell good is that? We are the US..we can do whatever we want!

:disgust:

When I said irrelevant, I meant we can use it to fulfill our goals, but it will NEVER stop us from reaching our objective. The UN is one of many tools at our disposal. Other tools would be the IMF, World Bank, Nato, and so on.

Wow... just when I thought you couldn't sink any lower... you let a little more air out of the ballast tanks. The UN is not a tool for us to use to reach our objectives. It is a forum for sharing ideas, and preventing conflicts. Unfortunately, people like you see it as a one way street, where the UN has power when we want it to, and it doesn't have power when we don't want it to. It's a two way street.

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: 0dd


At the time only the former states of Yugoslavia were fighting each other, but the different ethnic groups that were fighting each other held majorities in neighboring contries. Albania and Greece were two of them and if NATO had not interfered, Albania and Greece would have became involved to protect them changing the war from a civil one to one between nations including NATO members.

Actually Europe did deal with it through NATO. NATO was set up for the mutal defense of its members which besides the United States, Canada, and Turkey includes only European nations. At the time this was the best way that European nations could get involved militarily in handling their own affairs. The United States is the real power behind NATO thus garunting our involvement. The European Union is currently in the process of setting up a European rapid reaction force so that it can handle its own affairs including taking over peace keeping duties in the Balkins.

Yes the same logic, that they were not obeying UN resolutions, could be used in the case of Iraq, but in the Balkans there was a civil war in progress threatening to involve NATO members.

wrong war, etech was talking kosovo.

you know, a bunch of drug and weapons traffickers (AKA the KLA) start causin sh1t, and the serbian army starts to clean up the crap.
wild bill calls the bunch of crooks 'freedom fighters', and bombs Serbia. We shot down a F-117 though

Samo sloga srbina spasava

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Dari
The UN is already irrelevant.

Wow...you really believe all that crap coming out of the white house eh?

Yeah...a coalition of all the peaceful nations of the world...what the hell good is that? We are the US..we can do whatever we want!

:disgust:

When I said irrelevant, I meant we can use it to fulfill our goals, but it will NEVER stop us from reaching our objective. The UN is one of many tools at our disposal. Other tools would be the IMF, World Bank, Nato, and so on.

Wow... just when I thought you couldn't sink any lower... you let a little more air out of the ballast tanks. The UN is not a tool for us to use to reach our objectives. It is a forum for sharing ideas, and preventing conflicts. Unfortunately, people like you see it as a one way street, where the UN has power when we want it to, and it doesn't have power when we don't want it to. It's a two way street.

The UN has never really worked the way it was originally meant. In the end, all nations don't decide what happens. Only a select few do. Only a select few can declare war. It is an absolute joke for the other 186 nations that have absolutely no say in the important matters. We, the United States dominate the UN's Security Council. Britain is our loyal ally. France makes a fuss but never steps out of line. Russia just want's to be bribed. And China doesn't make any noise. I'm just stating the obvious. That is fact, my friend.

 

[0dd]

Originally posted by: Dari
If it means cheaper oil for me, then let's do it.

Originally posted by: 0dd
So you are willing to let hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die so that you have to pay 10 cents less for gas. The real effect from the US siezing Iraqi oil fields would more likely be the stablizing of oil prices rather than a large decline in oil prices. Do you really think that the American oil companies that take over Iraqi oil production would actually want to see oil prices fall to a level that would cut into their profits?

Originally posted by: Dari
alright, so I said cheap oil. But anyone in their right mind knows that oil price won't go down. The reason is because it would hurt the big oil giants. However, a more stable system system is what I meant. Stability equals predictability, which equals adjustments, and so on.alright, so I said cheap oil. But anyone in their right mind knows that oil price won't go down. The reason is because it would hurt the big oil giants. However, a more stable system system is what I meant. Stability equals predictability, which equals adjustments, and so on.

Looks like I'm making a little progress here. Maybe I'll stick around.

 

[etech]

0dd

In Kosovo the reason I rember hearing was genocide.

Sort of like the genocide occuring in Iraq --The Marsh Arabs of Iraq:

"Despite the massive, and possibly irreversible, environmental destruction in the marshes, it is the plight of the Ma'dan, not visible in these photographs, that is the most catastrophic result of Saddam's campaign.

What is happening in the Iraqi marshes is genocide-- the destruction of a people. Several thousand people have been killed since 1991 and tens of thousands made homeless. The United Nations has investigated reports of the use of chemical weapons. These ancient people, who have lived in the marshes since the dawn of history, are being subjected to a genocidal attack, chillingly reminiscent of the Anfal campaign that killed 200,000 Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s.

"

I guess Europe doesn't care if it is Arabs that are being killed.

 

[rufruf44]

Originally posted by: etech
0dd

In Kosovo the reason I rember hearing was genocide.

Sort of like the genocide occuring in Iraq --The Marsh Arabs of Iraq:

"Despite the massive, and possibly irreversible, environmental destruction in the marshes, it is the plight of the Ma'dan, not visible in these photographs, that is the most catastrophic result of Saddam's campaign.

What is happening in the Iraqi marshes is genocide-- the destruction of a people. Several thousand people have been killed since 1991 and tens of thousands made homeless. The United Nations has investigated reports of the use of chemical weapons. These ancient people, who have lived in the marshes since the dawn of history, are being subjected to a genocidal attack, chillingly reminiscent of the Anfal campaign that killed 200,000 Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s.

"

I guess Europe doesn't care if it is Arabs that are being killed.

And the rest of the Arabs & moslem world won't care either as long as its moslem massacring killing moslem. God forbids if the infidels trying to do anything like that, there'll be a blood bath and jihad all over the moslem world... bunch of lunatics and hypocrites indeed.
:disgust:

 

[0dd]

Originally posted by: Colt45

Originally posted by: 0dd At the time only the former states of Yugoslavia were fighting each other, but the different ethnic groups that were fighting each other held majorities in neighboring contries. Albania and Greece were two of them and if NATO had not interfered, Albania and Greece would have became involved to protect them changing the war from a civil one to one between nations including NATO members. Actually Europe did deal with it through NATO. NATO was set up for the mutal defense of its members which besides the United States, Canada, and Turkey includes only European nations. At the time this was the best way that European nations could get involved militarily in handling their own affairs. The United States is the real power behind NATO thus garunting our involvement. The European Union is currently in the process of setting up a European rapid reaction force so that it can handle its own affairs including taking over peace keeping duties in the Balkins. Yes the same logic, that they were not obeying UN resolutions, could be used in the case of Iraq, but in the Balkans there was a civil war in progress threatening to involve NATO members.

wrong war, etech was talking kosovo. you know, a bunch of drug and weapons traffickers (AKA the KLA) start causin sh1t, and the serbian army starts to clean up the crap. wild bill calls the bunch of crooks 'freedom fighters', and bombs Serbia. We shot down a F-117 though Samo sloga srbina spasava

I believe I have the right war. Kosovo was part of a larger conflict that included all of the former Yugoslavia. The war in Kosovo was between different ethnic groups not nations and their boundaries. I'm not even going to get into labeling the good guys from the bad guys and who was responsible for what, because that was not the point of the example in the first place.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: rufruf44

Originally posted by: etech
0dd

In Kosovo the reason I rember hearing was genocide.

Sort of like the genocide occuring in Iraq --The Marsh Arabs of Iraq:

"Despite the massive, and possibly irreversible, environmental destruction in the marshes, it is the plight of the Ma'dan, not visible in these photographs, that is the most catastrophic result of Saddam's campaign.

What is happening in the Iraqi marshes is genocide-- the destruction of a people. Several thousand people have been killed since 1991 and tens of thousands made homeless. The United Nations has investigated reports of the use of chemical weapons. These ancient people, who have lived in the marshes since the dawn of history, are being subjected to a genocidal attack, chillingly reminiscent of the Anfal campaign that killed 200,000 Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s.

"

I guess Europe doesn't care if it is Arabs that are being killed.

And the rest of the Arabs & moslem world won't care either as long as its moslem massacring killing moslem. God forbids if the infidels trying to do anything like that, there'll be a blood bath and jihad all over the moslem world... bunch of lunatics and hypocrites indeed.

:disgust:

Hell, they don't even care if the chinese are slaughtering muslims (augurs in far-western china) or if it's hindus slaughtering muslims. But let a jew or christian kill a single muslim, the whole arab world goes up in flame.

 

[DoNotDisturb]

Originally posted by: aswedc
If it means dozens of US soldiers dead...lets do it?
If it means we're holding a double standard for other countries (ahem North Korea)...lets do it?

if people didn't want to die, why would they join the military?? I MEAN, CMON. the people in the US army KNOW that they're going to fight one way or the other. They have to realize they CAN die. geez, if everyone wanted to live, then i don't think we'd have a military... people want to 'die' for their country.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: DoNotDisturb

Originally posted by: aswedc
If it means dozens of US soldiers dead...lets do it?
If it means we're holding a double standard for other countries (ahem North Korea)...lets do it?

if people didn't want to die, why would they join the military?? I MEAN, CMON. the people in the US army KNOW that they're going to fight one way or the other. They have to realize they CAN die. geez, if everyone wanted to live, then i don't think we'd have a military... people want to 'die' for their country.

Police officers die... why would anybody be a police officer?
Fire fighters die... why would anybody be a firefighter?

People don't join the military wanting to die. Is that what you think? Most people join because they want to service their country. That doesn't necessarily mean going to war. The problem is that people don't want the soldiers dying to advance our country's agenda. The purpose of the military is supposed to be to protect us, NOT to extend our power to other countries.

I guess all the imbeciles are coming out of the woodwork tonight.

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: 0dd

I believe I have the right war. Kosovo was part of a larger conflict that included all of the former Yugoslavia. The war in Kosovo was between different ethnic groups not nations and their boundaries. I'm not even going to get into labeling the good guys from the bad guys and who was responsible for what, because that was not the point of the example in the first place.

they're not entirely related. when slovenija, croatia, bosnia, et al broke off that was the early 90's. the kosovo thing was '99.

 

[DoNotDisturb]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: DoNotDisturb

Originally posted by: aswedc
If it means dozens of US soldiers dead...lets do it?
If it means we're holding a double standard for other countries (ahem North Korea)...lets do it?

if people didn't want to die, why would they join the military?? I MEAN, CMON. the people in the US army KNOW that they're going to fight one way or the other. They have to realize they CAN die. geez, if everyone wanted to live, then i don't think we'd have a military... people want to 'die' for their country.

Police officers die... why would anybody be a police officer?
Fire fighters die... why would anybody be a firefighter?

People don't join the military wanting to die. Is that what you think? Most people join because they want to service their country. That doesn't necessarily mean going to war. The problem is that people don't want the soldiers dying to advance our country's agenda. The purpose of the military is supposed to be to protect us, NOT to extend our power to other countries.

I guess all the imbeciles are coming out of the woodwork tonight.

yes but they have to understand that its probable that they can end up in that event. If they just want to serve, why wont they just join the police force. You won't die as 'easily' as going into a war like you all think.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

You people really are off base. Genocide is not new. People are still dying in Sudan and Chad. We came to Rwanda very late. We supplied weapons to Indonesia for East Timor. Our interests in Kosovo was just as much strategic as it was humanitarian. The Clinton administration's primary fear was the increasing influence of militant Muslims in the region. Iran and many other states were making it clear they would not stand idly-by while Muslims were slaughtered. I'm not denying the humanitarian element to our involvement but it was not the death toll that prompted our call to action.

 

[JShaker]

Originally posted by: Dari
That question has been bothering me for a while.

If it means cheaper oil for me, then let's do it.
If it means one less fanatical dictator to worry about down the road, then let's do it.
If it means less weapons of mass destruction, then let's do it.
If it means a more accountable and democratic Iraq (and eventually Middle East), then let's do it.
If it means a more pro-american government in the region with a bright future, then let's do it.

For all these reasons, I see nothing wrong with invading iraq for the good of this country and for the good of the iraqi people. Why listen to wannabees (Germany and France), dictatorship/fascist states (China), theocracies (The Vatican and Iran) and other states of concern when it comes to the good of THIS country?

In the case of Iraq, the end justifies the means.

 

[jteef]

The purpose of the military is supposed to be to protect us, NOT to extend our power to other countries.

can you back this up with any paperwork? Last I heard, we were not japan or germany...

jt

 

[0dd]

Originally posted by: etech
0dd In Kosovo the reason I rember hearing was genocide. Sort of like the genocide occuring in Iraq --The Marsh Arabs of Iraq: "Despite the massive, and possibly irreversible, environmental destruction in the marshes, it is the plight of the Ma'dan, not visible in these photographs, that is the most catastrophic result of Saddam's campaign. What is happening in the Iraqi marshes is genocide-- the destruction of a people. Several thousand people have been killed since 1991 and tens of thousands made homeless. The United Nations has investigated reports of the use of chemical weapons. These ancient people, who have lived in the marshes since the dawn of history, are being subjected to a genocidal attack, chillingly reminiscent of the Anfal campaign that killed 200,000 Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s. " I guess Europe doesn't care if it is Arabs that are being killed.

My orignal post was in response to a specific point in Dari's original post. That going to war so that he could fill up his gas tank was wrong. I haven't yet said whether or not there were any valid reasons for going to war with Iraq and I haven't yet said anything else about his other comments, so maybe I should.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: etech
0dd In Kosovo the reason I rember hearing was genocide. Sort of like the genocide occuring in Iraq --The Marsh Arabs of Iraq: "Despite the massive, and possibly irreversible, environmental destruction in the marshes, it is the plight of the Ma'dan, not visible in these photographs, that is the most catastrophic result of Saddam's campaign. What is happening in the Iraqi marshes is genocide-- the destruction of a people. Several thousand people have been killed since 1991 and tens of thousands made homeless. The United Nations has investigated reports of the use of chemical weapons. These ancient people, who have lived in the marshes since the dawn of history, are being subjected to a genocidal attack, chillingly reminiscent of the Anfal campaign that killed 200,000 Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s. " I guess Europe doesn't care if it is Arabs that are being killed.

My orignal post was in response to a specific point in Dari's original post. That going to war so that he could fill up his gas tank was wrong. I haven't yet said whether or not there were any valid reasons for going to war with Iraq and I haven't yet said anything else about his other comments, so maybe I should.

My contention has always been that Saddam has broken the cease-fire agreement that ended the Gulf War. Since he has repeatly broken it and defied it's terms than it is null and void. The Gulf War is still on. This is not a new war.

There are other good reasons to remove Saddam, the killing and torturing of his people, the genocide of the Marsh Arabs, the ecological disaster all add up to good reasons but they are not enough. The fact that he is still acquiring the NBC weapons and has been in defiance of that resolution for twelve years, that is enough under the UN resolution.

 

[0dd]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: etech 0dd In Kosovo the reason I rember hearing was genocide. Sort of like the genocide occuring in Iraq --The Marsh Arabs of Iraq: "Despite the massive, and possibly irreversible, environmental destruction in the marshes, it is the plight of the Ma'dan, not visible in these photographs, that is the most catastrophic result of Saddam's campaign. What is happening in the Iraqi marshes is genocide-- the destruction of a people. Several thousand people have been killed since 1991 and tens of thousands made homeless. The United Nations has investigated reports of the use of chemical weapons. These ancient people, who have lived in the marshes since the dawn of history, are being subjected to a genocidal attack, chillingly reminiscent of the Anfal campaign that killed 200,000 Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s. " I guess Europe doesn't care if it is Arabs that are being killed.

My orignal post was in response to a specific point in Dari's original post. That going to war so that he could fill up his gas tank was wrong. I haven't yet said whether or not there were any valid reasons for going to war with Iraq and I haven't yet said anything else about his other comments, so maybe I should.

My contention has always been that Saddam has broken the cease-fire agreement that ended the Gulf War. Since he has repeatly broken it and defied it's terms than it is null and void. The Gulf War is still on. This is not a new war. There are other good reasons to remove Saddam, the killing and torturing of his people, the genocide of the Marsh Arabs, the ecological disaster all add up to good reasons but they are not enough. The fact that he is still acquiring the NBC weapons and has been in defiance of that resolution for twelve years, that is enough under the UN resolution.

I don't think that anybody can say that say that Saddam hasn't defied every UN resolution since the Gulf War. My problem with Bush's war on Iraq is that this is an issue for the United Nations and not just the United States. There are several nations in violation of UN resolutions, but Bush is focused on only one. If we do take care of Iraq on the pretext that Saddam is in material breach of UN resolutions will the United Nations then force the other nations into compliance as well? I would be all for this senario taking place, but it will not happen. The United States is looking out for its interests only and is only interested in working with the international community when it suits its interests.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: etech 0dd In Kosovo the reason I rember hearing was genocide. Sort of like the genocide occuring in Iraq --The Marsh Arabs of Iraq: "Despite the massive, and possibly irreversible, environmental destruction in the marshes, it is the plight of the Ma'dan, not visible in these photographs, that is the most catastrophic result of Saddam's campaign. What is happening in the Iraqi marshes is genocide-- the destruction of a people. Several thousand people have been killed since 1991 and tens of thousands made homeless. The United Nations has investigated reports of the use of chemical weapons. These ancient people, who have lived in the marshes since the dawn of history, are being subjected to a genocidal attack, chillingly reminiscent of the Anfal campaign that killed 200,000 Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s. " I guess Europe doesn't care if it is Arabs that are being killed.

My orignal post was in response to a specific point in Dari's original post. That going to war so that he could fill up his gas tank was wrong. I haven't yet said whether or not there were any valid reasons for going to war with Iraq and I haven't yet said anything else about his other comments, so maybe I should.

My contention has always been that Saddam has broken the cease-fire agreement that ended the Gulf War. Since he has repeatly broken it and defied it's terms than it is null and void. The Gulf War is still on. This is not a new war. There are other good reasons to remove Saddam, the killing and torturing of his people, the genocide of the Marsh Arabs, the ecological disaster all add up to good reasons but they are not enough. The fact that he is still acquiring the NBC weapons and has been in defiance of that resolution for twelve years, that is enough under the UN resolution.

I don't think that anybody can say that say that Saddam hasn't defied every UN resolution since the Gulf War. My problem with Bush's war on Iraq is that this is an issue for the United Nations and not just the United States. There are several nations in violation of UN resolutions, but Bush is focused on only one. If we do take care of Iraq on the pretext that Saddam is in material breach of UN resolutions will the United Nations then force the other nations into compliance as well? I would be all for this senario taking place, but it will not happen. The United States is looking out for its interests only and is only interested in working with the international community when it suits its interests.

Are the other resolutions that other countries in breach of dealing with the cease-fire of a war that they started. Do they have to do with the unconditional demand that the nation give up nuclear, biological and chemical weapons?

To say that all situations must be treated in exactly the same way is foolish.

Say that the UN manages to keep Saddam in power. He follows what I expect would be normal for him and builds up his army and acquires new weapons. To what country will the UN come scurrying to to deal with the newly rearmed Saddam?
One guess.

 

[0dd]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: 0dd

Originally posted by: etech 0dd In Kosovo the reason I rember hearing was genocide. Sort of like the genocide occuring in Iraq --The Marsh Arabs of Iraq: "Despite the massive, and possibly irreversible, environmental destruction in the marshes, it is the plight of the Ma'dan, not visible in these photographs, that is the most catastrophic result of Saddam's campaign. What is happening in the Iraqi marshes is genocide-- the destruction of a people. Several thousand people have been killed since 1991 and tens of thousands made homeless. The United Nations has investigated reports of the use of chemical weapons. These ancient people, who have lived in the marshes since the dawn of history, are being subjected to a genocidal attack, chillingly reminiscent of the Anfal campaign that killed 200,000 Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s. " I guess Europe doesn't care if it is Arabs that are being killed.

My orignal post was in response to a specific point in Dari's original post. That going to war so that he could fill up his gas tank was wrong. I haven't yet said whether or not there were any valid reasons for going to war with Iraq and I haven't yet said anything else about his other comments, so maybe I should.

My contention has always been that Saddam has broken the cease-fire agreement that ended the Gulf War. Since he has repeatly broken it and defied it's terms than it is null and void. The Gulf War is still on. This is not a new war. There are other good reasons to remove Saddam, the killing and torturing of his people, the genocide of the Marsh Arabs, the ecological disaster all add up to good reasons but they are not enough. The fact that he is still acquiring the NBC weapons and has been in defiance of that resolution for twelve years, that is enough under the UN resolution.

I don't think that anybody can say that say that Saddam hasn't defied every UN resolution since the Gulf War. My problem with Bush's war on Iraq is that this is an issue for the United Nations and not just the United States. There are several nations in violation of UN resolutions, but Bush is focused on only one. If we do take care of Iraq on the pretext that Saddam is in material breach of UN resolutions will the United Nations then force the other nations into compliance as well? I would be all for this senario taking place, but it will not happen. The United States is looking out for its interests only and is only interested in working with the international community when it suits its interests.

Are the other resolutions that other countries in breach of dealing with the cease-fire of a war that they started. Do they have to do with the unconditional demand that the nation give up nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? To say that all situations must be treated in exactly the same way is foolish. Say that the UN manages to keep Saddam in power. He follows what I expect would be normal for him and builds up his army and acquires new weapons. To what country will the UN come scurrying to to deal with the newly rearmed Saddam? One guess.

I didn't say that all nations should be dealt with in the same manner, just that if some of the UN resolutions are going to be enforced that all of them should be. That is I didn't say how they should be enforced just that they should. It may be that the only way to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq is with war, but other diplomatic pressure may be used to enforce others. In the case of Isreal the United States makes no effort what so ever.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: jteef

The purpose of the military is supposed to be to protect us, NOT to extend our power to other countries.

can you back this up with any paperwork? Last I heard, we were not japan or germany...

jt

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Etech, your post was long and wordy, but worthless, as ususal.

There is NO legal justification for a war with Iraq at this stage.

Iraq is currently in violation of part of one section of UN Security Council Resolution 687 (and a series of subsequent resolutions reiterating that segment) requiring full cooperation with United Nations inspectors ensuring that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, delivery systems, and facilities for manufacturing such weapons are destroyed. The conflict regarding access for UN inspectors and possible Iraqi procurement of weapons of mass destruction has always been an issue involving the Iraqi government and the United Nations, not an impasse between Iraq and the United States. Although UN Security Council Resolution 687 was the most detailed in the world body's history, no military enforcement mechanisms were specified. Nor did the Security Council specify any military enforcement mechanisms in subsequent resolutions. As is normally the case when it is determined that governments violate all or part of UN resolutions, any decision about the enforcement of its resolutions is a matter for the UN Security Council as a whole ? not for any one member of the council.


The most explicit warning to Iraq regarding its noncompliance came in UN Security Council Resolution 1154. Although this resolution warned Iraq of the "severest consequences" if it continued its refusal to comply, the Security Council declared that it alone had the authority to "ensure implementation of this resolution and peace and security in the area."


According to articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force. This is what the Security Council did in November 1990 with Resolution 678 in response to Iraq's ongoing occupation of Kuwait in violation of a series of resolutions passed that August. The UN has not done so for any subsequent violations involving Iraq or any other government.


If the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq due to that country's violation of UN Security Council resolutions, other Security Council members could logically also claim the right to invade other member states that are in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. For example, Russia could claim the right to invade Israel, France could claim the right to invade Turkey, and Great Britain could claim the right to invade Morocco, simply because those targeted governments are also violating UN Security Council resolutions. The U.S. insistence on the right to attack unilaterally could seriously undermine the principle of collective security and the authority of the United Nations and in doing so would open the door to international anarchy.


International law is quite clear about when military force is allowed. In addition to the aforementioned case of UN Security Council authorization, the only other time that any member state is allowed to use armed force is described in Article 51, which states that it is permissible for "individual or collective self-defense" against "armed attack ... until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." If Iraq's neighbors were attacked or feared an imminent attack from Iraq, any of these countries could call on the United States to help, pending a Security Council decision authorizing the use of force. But they have not appealed to the Security Council, because they have not felt threatened by Iraq.


Based on evidence that the Bush administration has made public, there does not appear to be anything close to sufficient legal grounds for the United States to convince the Security Council to approve the use of military force against Iraq in U.S. self-defense. This may explain why the Bush administration has thus far refused to go before the United Nations on this matter. Unless the United States gets such authorization, any such attack on Iraq would be illegal and would be viewed by most members of the international community as an act of aggression. In contrast to the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91, it is likely that the world community would view the United States ? not Iraq ? as the international outlaw.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Etech, your post was long and wordy, but worthless, as ususal.

There is NO legal justification for a war with Iraq at this stage.

Iraq is currently in violation of part of one section of UN Security Council Resolution 687 (and a series of subsequent resolutions reiterating that segment) requiring full cooperation with United Nations inspectors ensuring that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, delivery systems, and facilities for manufacturing such weapons are destroyed. The conflict regarding access for UN inspectors and possible Iraqi procurement of weapons of mass destruction has always been an issue involving the Iraqi government and the United Nations, not an impasse between Iraq and the United States. Although UN Security Council Resolution 687 was the most detailed in the world body's history, no military enforcement mechanisms were specified. Nor did the Security Council specify any military enforcement mechanisms in subsequent resolutions. As is normally the case when it is determined that governments violate all or part of UN resolutions, any decision about the enforcement of its resolutions is a matter for the UN Security Council as a whole ? not for any one member of the council.


The most explicit warning to Iraq regarding its noncompliance came in UN Security Council Resolution 1154. Although this resolution warned Iraq of the "severest consequences" if it continued its refusal to comply, the Security Council declared that it alone had the authority to "ensure implementation of this resolution and peace and security in the area."


According to articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force. This is what the Security Council did in November 1990 with Resolution 678 in response to Iraq's ongoing occupation of Kuwait in violation of a series of resolutions passed that August. The UN has not done so for any subsequent violations involving Iraq or any other government.


If the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq due to that country's violation of UN Security Council resolutions, other Security Council members could logically also claim the right to invade other member states that are in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. For example, Russia could claim the right to invade Israel, France could claim the right to invade Turkey, and Great Britain could claim the right to invade Morocco, simply because those targeted governments are also violating UN Security Council resolutions. The U.S. insistence on the right to attack unilaterally could seriously undermine the principle of collective security and the authority of the United Nations and in doing so would open the door to international anarchy.


International law is quite clear about when military force is allowed. In addition to the aforementioned case of UN Security Council authorization, the only other time that any member state is allowed to use armed force is described in Article 51, which states that it is permissible for "individual or collective self-defense" against "armed attack ... until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." If Iraq's neighbors were attacked or feared an imminent attack from Iraq, any of these countries could call on the United States to help, pending a Security Council decision authorizing the use of force. But they have not appealed to the Security Council, because they have not felt threatened by Iraq.


Based on evidence that the Bush administration has made public, there does not appear to be anything close to sufficient legal grounds for the United States to convince the Security Council to approve the use of military force against Iraq in U.S. self-defense. This may explain why the Bush administration has thus far refused to go before the United Nations on this matter. Unless the United States gets such authorization, any such attack on Iraq would be illegal and would be viewed by most members of the international community as an act of aggression. In contrast to the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91, it is likely that the world community would view the United States ? not Iraq ? as the international outlaw.

Very good post.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Etech, your post was long and wordy, but worthless, as ususal.

There is NO legal justification for a war with Iraq at this stage.

Iraq is currently in violation of part of one section of UN Security Council Resolution 687 (and a series of subsequent resolutions reiterating that segment) requiring full cooperation with United Nations inspectors ensuring that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, delivery systems, and facilities for manufacturing such weapons are destroyed. The conflict regarding access for UN inspectors and possible Iraqi procurement of weapons of mass destruction has always been an issue involving the Iraqi government and the United Nations, not an impasse between Iraq and the United States. Although UN Security Council Resolution 687 was the most detailed in the world body's history, no military enforcement mechanisms were specified. Nor did the Security Council specify any military enforcement mechanisms in subsequent resolutions. As is normally the case when it is determined that governments violate all or part of UN resolutions, any decision about the enforcement of its resolutions is a matter for the UN Security Council as a whole ? not for any one member of the council.


The most explicit warning to Iraq regarding its noncompliance came in UN Security Council Resolution 1154. Although this resolution warned Iraq of the "severest consequences" if it continued its refusal to comply, the Security Council declared that it alone had the authority to "ensure implementation of this resolution and peace and security in the area."


According to articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force. This is what the Security Council did in November 1990 with Resolution 678 in response to Iraq's ongoing occupation of Kuwait in violation of a series of resolutions passed that August. The UN has not done so for any subsequent violations involving Iraq or any other government.


If the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq due to that country's violation of UN Security Council resolutions, other Security Council members could logically also claim the right to invade other member states that are in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. For example, Russia could claim the right to invade Israel, France could claim the right to invade Turkey, and Great Britain could claim the right to invade Morocco, simply because those targeted governments are also violating UN Security Council resolutions. The U.S. insistence on the right to attack unilaterally could seriously undermine the principle of collective security and the authority of the United Nations and in doing so would open the door to international anarchy.


International law is quite clear about when military force is allowed. In addition to the aforementioned case of UN Security Council authorization, the only other time that any member state is allowed to use armed force is described in Article 51, which states that it is permissible for "individual or collective self-defense" against "armed attack ... until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." If Iraq's neighbors were attacked or feared an imminent attack from Iraq, any of these countries could call on the United States to help, pending a Security Council decision authorizing the use of force. But they have not appealed to the Security Council, because they have not felt threatened by Iraq.


Based on evidence that the Bush administration has made public, there does not appear to be anything close to sufficient legal grounds for the United States to convince the Security Council to approve the use of military force against Iraq in U.S. self-defense. This may explain why the Bush administration has thus far refused to go before the United Nations on this matter. Unless the United States gets such authorization, any such attack on Iraq would be illegal and would be viewed by most members of the international community as an act of aggression. In contrast to the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91, it is likely that the world community would view the United States ? not Iraq ? as the international outlaw.

Very good post.

Agreed...excellent post. Finally some rational thought and not just some cut and pastes from articles that support "X" or "Y" positions...