HistoryNet.com RSS
ArmchairGeneral.com RSS

HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
British Heritage
Civil War Times
MHQ
Military History
Vietnam
Wild West
World War II

ACG Online
ACG Magazine
Stuff We Like
War College
History News
Tactics 101
Carlo D'Este
Books

ACG Gaming
Boardgames
PC Game Reviews

ACG Network
Contact Us
Our Newsletter
Meet Our Staff
Advertise With Us

Sites We Support
HistoryNet.com
Once A Marine
The Art of Battle
Game Squad
Mil. History Podcast
Russian Army - WW2
Achtung Panzer!
Mil History Online

Go Back   Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History > Current Events > The Middle East > War in Iraq

Notices and Announcements

War in Iraq Operations Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom and ongoing operations in the region.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #136  
Old 18 Sep 07, 11:11
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is online now
General of the Forums
United_States
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon Summer Campaign 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign 
 
Real Name: Dave
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 38,192
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash View Post
Doc, Read the bottom of Resolution 687:
Try reading the paragraphs leading up to number 34...

"Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq, and noting the intention expressed by the Member States cooperating with Kuwait under paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with paragraph 8 of resolution 686 (1991),

Reaffirming the need to be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions in the light of its unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait...

Bearing in mind its objective of restoring international peace and security in the area as set out in recent resolutions of the Security Council,

Conscious of the need to take the following measures acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire...

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:

(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below...

10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above and requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Special Commission, to develop a plan for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with this paragraph, to be submitted to the Security Council for approval within one hundred and twenty days of the passage of this resolution...

12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above...

32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;

33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);


Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.
As of March 2003...the Security Council had not "taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security" regarding Iraq; and "nothing in the present Charter" impaired us from taking the action that we deemed necessary as we war authorized to do under UNSCRs 660, 661, 678, 686, 687...The fact that twelve years after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait the UNSC was still issuing Chapter VII resolutions is prima facie evidence that sufficient measures had been taken to "maintain international peace and security."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash
Who is seized on the matter? Who is going to take further steps as may be required? Who is going to secure peace and security in the area? The UNSC!
And Article 51 of Chapter VII says that, "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

Iraq had fired on or otherwise engaged US an UK aircraft, legally enforcing the cease-fire, more than 500 times from 1991 to 2003. Right up to the eve of OIF, Iraq was attempting to engage coalition aircraft - Iraqi jets attempted to intercept two U-2 aircraft which were monitoring the inspections on March 11, 2003; forcing the coalition aircraft to abort their mission.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash
To say this ceasefire resolution provides a Member State with authority to wage pre-emptive war is false...borderline ridiculus actually...as the resolution clearly states the ceasefire and ANY FURTHER STEPS are the responsibility of the UNSC. Pure spinmiester.
And Paragraph 52 of Chapter VII says that "nothing in the present Charter" impaired us from taking the action that we deemed necessary as we war authorized to do under UNSCRs 660, 661, 678, 686, 687 and 1441 until "taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security" regarding Iraq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash
Further, the UN Charter does not allow for pre-emptive unilateral war.
The Charter makes no mention of preemptive use of force. The FACT that the Security Council did not condemn Israel in 1967 is prima facie evidence that anticipatory self-defense does not violate the Charter. And unilateral self-defense is clearly allowed under the Charter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash
To wage war a member state must be under attack, and two, the UNSC can not be seized on the matter. That is clearly written in the Charter.
Wrong and absolutely false. The language of Chapter VII's paragraph 51 does not require a nation to be physically under attack before it can wage a just war. It says that, "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." It is a limitation on the UN Charter; not a limitation of the circumstances in which "individual or collective self-defence" can be employed.

Furthermore, the United States, as a Member State cooperating with Kuwait was authorized to use force against Iraq to enforce every resolution regarding the situation between Iraq and Kuwait from 660 to 1441 inclusive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash
The UK Resolution authorizing force would have failed 4-15 with 2 veto's against. Clearly, your illegal invasion was against the wishes of the UNSC. You have already accepted that this meeting was a requirement of 1441.
It wasn't illegal and it was already authorized by a multitude of other resolutions. The draft resolution, if approved, would have obviated this debate and enabled more nations to participate in the coalition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash
I think we should work this argument the opposite way...I'd like you to present a world leading expert on International Law that doesn't think this war is illegal. I can provide an immediate list of 500+ that say it was. Jeepers, your own hero thinks it was.
Perle never said it was illegal and I couldn't care less about the opinions of a bunch of Marxist law professors.

But here's a few International Law experts who do think it was legal...

Legal Authority Exists For A Strike on Iraq
--Ruth Wedgwood, professor of international law at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies

U.N. Authorization for War with Iraq Is Unnecessary
--Brett D. Schaefer, Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation

"On the basis of the intelligence we had at the time and the publicly available knowledge, there was a credible and reasonable argument in favour of the legality of the war. The authorisation to use force in [UN resolution] 678 included the restoration of international peace and security as well as the liberation of Kuwait. Resolution 687, after the 1991 ceasefire, included getting rid of... weapons of mass destruction."
--Malcolm Shaw QC, Professor of international law, Leicester University

"There is a good legal argument that it was lawful on the basis of earlier UN resolutions, such as 678 passed in 1990 and 687 in 1991, and subsequent action by the security council during the next decade. Resolution 678 was still in force. To say it was no longer effective because it was 13 years old is spurious. If you follow that argument most of our domestic laws would be no longer in force."
--Anthony Aust, Former Foreign Office deputy legal adviser and visiting professor of international law at the London School of Economics

"We Have the Right To Oust Saddam: The U.N. has already authorized it."
--Lee Casey and David Rivkin, Justice Department attorneys during the Reagan and first Bush administrations.

"The right of a nation to use force in its self-defense is one of the most long-standing and basic principles of international law. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which declares that "nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations," recognizes, but does not limit, this inherent right. Nor must a nation wait until an attack has actually occurred before using force; force can be used in self-defense in anticipation of an armed attack. As Elihu Root (who had served as President Theodore Roosevelt's secretary of state) stated in 1914, and as the Justice Department quoted in a memo during the Cuban Missile Crisis, every state has "the right . . . to protect itself by preventing a condition of affairs in which it will be too late to protect itself."

To use force in anticipatory self-defense, a state must have available information that reasonably indicates that it will suffer an attack from the enemy. What is important is not what is discovered after the fall of the Hussein regime--we cannot justify self-defense upon facts we only found out afterwards--but what we thought were the facts at the time we used force. Under criminal law, for example, we do not punish a policeman who shoots an attacker when, based on the facts as they reasonably appeared at that time, his life was threatened...

The United States was in the same position as the police officer who shoots an attacker who threatens him with what appears to be an automatic weapon. And the Bush administration was not alone in believing that Iraq had WMD. In 1991, the cease-fire that suspended the first Persian Gulf hostilities required Iraq to destroy its WMD stockpile and production facilities.

Of course, everyone, including the Iraqis and even the U.N. Security Council, recognized that Hussein possessed extensive WMD. At least four times in the decade that followed, Iraqi obfuscation and intransigence forced the Security Council to condemn Iraq for breaching its disarmament obligations. In November 2002, the Security Council decided that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations" to eliminate its WMD program, and reaffirmed its original 1991 authorization to use force against Iraq...

Before the invasion, both the United Nations and Congress agreed with the administration on WMD. Based on the information as it appeared at the beginning of hostilities, the Bush administration reasonably concluded that Iraq's WMD remained intact, and that force was the only way to remove this direct threat to U.S. national security and international peace. If it turns out that no WMD are found, then not only the Bush administration, but also Congress and the U.N. Security Council may have been wrong. But that would not render the war illegitimate..."

--John Yoo, professor of International Law, UC Berkeley

You can also add the civilized world's two highest ranking legal authorities, the Attorneys General of the United States and United Kingdom, to the list.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash
You are the solution to your issue.

Article 6 of the US Constitution says that the President will uphold the "supreme law of the land"....which includes treaties....and your President swears to uphold that Constitution. Is it a big surprise that a Republican would swear an oath and then not live up to it??
The Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq was the Supreme Law of the Land regarding this issue. The President, as required by the law, made every effort to get the UN to enforce the cease-fire with Iraq - When that failed, he was expressly authorized under US law and every facet of the UN Charter and relevant Security Council resolutions to use force against Iraq.

Last edited by The Doctor; 18 Sep 07 at 11:14..
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 18 Sep 07, 12:59
armor11's Avatar
armor11 armor11 is offline
Brigadier General
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
 
Real Name: Tim McCormley
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,097
armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor
The President, as required by the law, made every effort to get the UN to enforce the cease-fire with Iraq - When that failed, he was expressly authorized under US law and every facet of the UN Charter and relevant Security Council resolutions to use force against Iraq.
But he wasn't obligated to. He wanted to. There's a HUGE difference.

Doc, you know very well that this war was sold to the American people on the basis of Iraq having WMD. That Saddam was an imminent threat to the U.S. We didn't go to war in Iraq because of violations to the cease-fire agreement.

Tim
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 18 Sep 07, 13:44
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is online now
General of the Forums
United_States
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon Summer Campaign 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign 
 
Real Name: Dave
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 38,192
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by armor11 View Post
But he wasn't obligated to. He wanted to. There's a HUGE difference.

Doc, you know very well that this war was sold to the American people on the basis of Iraq having WMD. That Saddam was an imminent threat to the U.S. We didn't go to war in Iraq because of violations to the cease-fire agreement.

Tim
The war had been sold to the American people over the previous twelve years. The reasons for the war are spelled out in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, which was passed by Congress in October 2002. They revolved around four issues: 1) Saddam's lack of compliance with the 1991 cease-fire requirements to destroy all of his WMD and the means to develop, build and deliver them; 2) Saddam's support for international terrorism, including al-Qaeda; 3) The liberation of the Iraqi people and 4) Saddam's continuous and flagrant aggression against his neighbors and his own people rendered him an unacceptable threat to regional peace and security.

In 1995 the UN weapons inspectors had been in Iraq for over three years and didn't have a clue that Saddam had continued his biological weapons programs right under their noses. Had it not been for the defection Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, the inspectors would not have uncovered these banned weapons programs. The inspectors weren't there to find the WMD; they were there to confirm Saddam's compliance with the terms of the cease-fire.

The strategy of "regime change" began with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 signed by Bill Clinton...
"Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."
When the weapons inspectors returned to Iraq, they immediately ordered the destruction the al-Samoud II missiles...which Iraq had manufactured since the inspectors were kicked out in December 1998...missiles Iraq had been specifically told not to build.

The following items were proscribed by the ceasefire agreement codified in UNSCR 687 and found after the invasion...
“Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent…While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially useful.” John Negroponte
"For example, the Tuwaitha Agricultural and Biological Research Center has equipment suitable for the production of biological agents. While it conducts civilian research, ISG has also determined that it was conducting research that would be important for a biological weapons program. For example, we are continuing to examine research on Bacillus thuringiensis that was conducted until March 2003. This material is a commercial biopesticide, but it also can be used as a surrogate for the anthrax bacterium for production and weapons development purposes. Work continued on single cell proteins at Tuwaitha as well. Single cell protein research previously had been used as the cover activity for BW production at al-Hakam. We are now focusing on what such activities meant.
With respect to chemical production, Iraq was working up to March 2003 to construct new facilities for the production of chemicals. There were plans under the direction of a leading nuclear scientist/WMD program manager to construct plants capable of making a variety of chemicals and producing a year’s supply of any chemical in a month. This was a crash program. Most of the chemicals specified in this program were conventional commercial chemicals, but a few are considered “dual use.” One we are examining, commonly called DCC (N,N-Dicyclohexyl carbodiimide), was used by Iraq before 1991 as a stabilizing agent for the nerve agent VX. Iraq had plans before OIF for large-scale production of this chemical. Again, what do these activities mean?...
In addition to WMD technologies, the ISG has continued to uncover a very robust program for delivery systems that were not reported to the UN. New information has been discovered relating to long-range ballistic missile development and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Missiles and UAVs were flight tested that easily exceeded the UN limit of 150 kilometers. More than that, the Iraqi regime was developing technology to extend one of their ballistic missile’s range beyond 150 kilometers with changes to airframes and fuels. Discussions were underway with North Korea regarding technology associated with a 1,300 km system—presumably the No Dong. Other foreign support was being used or solicited.
Iraq was developing a variety of UAVs using inertial navigation systems and navigation using GPS. New information on the L-29 based UAV has also been developed.
Foreign technology and technical assistance were critical to the progress made by Iraqi engineers and designers. Foreign missile experts worked in Iraq in violation of UN sanctions from 1998 until just before the start of OIF. They undertook a complete review of the al-Samoud surface-to-surface missile system, which exceeded UN range limits. Based on this technical assistance, Iraq determined the original al-Samoud concept was not optimal and changed the production process to incorporate the new design information. Contracts were concluded calling for foreign firms to produce several major al-Samoud subsystems.
A variety of foreign companies with high-level political connections acted as middlemen to import technology into Iraq for missile and UAV development. These actions clearly violated UN sanctions." Charles Duelfer
Duelfer said "With respect to chemical production, Iraq was working up to March 2003 to construct new facilities for the production of chemicals…a year’s supply of any chemical in a month…Most of the chemicals specified in this program were conventional commercial chemicals, but a few are considered 'dual use.' One we are examining, commonly called DCC (N,N-Dicyclohexyl carbodiimide), was used by Iraq before 1991 as a stabilizing agent for the nerve agent VX." And what do we find? Bunkers full of pesticide, that occasionally test positive for sarin and induce sarin-like symptoms...Ammo bunkers filled with barrels of organophosphate pesticides...Why? Did Saddam want to corner the pesticide market after the sanctions ran out. Maybe he wanted to trade Raid to Niger for cow peas and onions.

The al-Muthanna Chemical Weapons plant had been routinely switched back and forth from organophosphate pesticide to nerve agent and mustard gas production since the 1980s and it clearly retained items that either not been declared to the UN or had not been destroyed as ordered by the UN. It also still contained stockpiles of chemical weapons which had been declared but not destroyed.

In the words of Charles Duelfer’s predecessor, David Kay…
"Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion — although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."David Kay
Saddam Hussein had succeeded in evading the inspections and maintaining the viability of much of his WMD programs for almost six years when the inspectors were kicked out in late 1998. He only let them back in late 2002 because we were set to invade if he didn't. Even then he equivocated about destroying the al-Samoud II missiles, interfered with surveillance flights, refused to allow out-of-country interviews with his scientists and otherwise impeded the inspections process.

Saddam Hussein was required to unconditionally and unequivocally cooperate in this process. From 1991 to 1998 - he did not. From 1998 to 2002 - there were no inspections. When the inspectors returned in late 2002, Saddam equivocated and dithered about each and every step of the process.

The President was obligated by his Oath of Office to protect the United States of America. In the aftermath of 9/11 and the anthrax attacks and the feckless efforts of the UN Security Council to fully, totally and permanently enforce the terms of the 1991 cease-fire…President Bush was absolutely obligated and legally authorized (in any meaningful sense of the word) to remove Saddam & Sons and to permanently end the “situation regarding Iraq and Kuwait.”

--Portions of the above text were copied from previous posts with the full permission of the author.

Last edited by The Doctor; 18 Sep 07 at 13:47..
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 18 Sep 07, 13:46
OmegaStrike's Avatar
OmegaStrike OmegaStrike is offline
Banned
United_States
March Offensive 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,754
OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100] OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100] OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100] OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100] OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100] OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100] OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100] OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100] OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100] OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100]
Quote:
Originally Posted by armor11 View Post
But he wasn't obligated to. He wanted to. There's a HUGE difference.
Not really. He was authorized to use force. (It's good to see that one of you will even admit that, finally.) You're just unhinged because he decided he would use that authorization to protect America. What really burns your butt is that he made a choice that's different from you and the pu$$ified leftists who demand power based on their "intellectual superiority." As one of your favorite despicable organizations says: "moveon." Instead we get the umpteenth re-hash of Doc kicking ignorant leftist a$$ with the facts and documentation. We are going over this yet again, because you and your ilk refuse to stop denying and evading reality, and refuse to remove your ideological blinders and get treatment for your BDS. (But it is, oh, so fun to watch! )

Game, set and match to The Doctor!
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 18 Sep 07, 15:02
armor11's Avatar
armor11 armor11 is offline
Brigadier General
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
 
Real Name: Tim McCormley
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,097
armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
The President was obligated by his Oath of Office to protect the United States of America. In the aftermath of 9/11 and the anthrax attacks and the feckless efforts of the UN Security Council to fully, totally and permanently enforce the terms of the 1991 cease-fire…President Bush was absolutely obligated and legally authorized (in any meaningful sense of the word) to remove Saddam & Sons and to permanently end the “situation regarding Iraq and Kuwait.”
Nope.

War powers are reserved for Congress.

Congress "authorized" the use of force. They didn't declare war. The President was in no way obligated to go to war with Iraq.

This is a pure judgment call on the part of the President.

Again: No one was selling violations of the cease-fire to the American people. It was all about the threat of Iraq to America. It turns out Iraq was *not* a threat to America.

Oops.

Here's a point of reference that captures perfectly the use of the cease-fire agreement as justification for the war
Quote:
www.dictionary.com:

ra·tion·al·ize /ˈræʃənlˌaɪz, ˈræʃnlˌaɪz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rash-uh-nl-ahyz, rash-nl-ahyz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -ized, -iz·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.
Tim
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #141  
Old 18 Sep 07, 16:03
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is online now
General of the Forums
United_States
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon Summer Campaign 
Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign 
 
Real Name: Dave
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 38,192
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+] The Doctor has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by armor11 View Post
Nope.

War powers are reserved for Congress.

Congress "authorized" the use of force. They didn't declare war. The President was in no way obligated to go to war with Iraq.
An Authorization for the Use of Military Force is a declaration of war, albeit limited war. That has been Supreme Court precedent since about 1800 and our undeclared naval war with France.

The President's Oath of Office obligates him to defend the nation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by armor11
This is a pure judgment call on the part of the President.
And both of the Authorizations for Use of Military Force for the GWoT and Iraq expressly say that it is up to the President to determine who attacked us on 9/11, who supported them, to prevent further such attacks and to determine when he had exhausted all reasonable efforts in the UN regarding Saddam Hussein.

Quote:
Originally Posted by armor11
Again: No one was selling violations of the cease-fire to the American people. It was all about the threat of Iraq to America. It turns out Iraq was *not* a threat to America.
Iraq clearly did pose a threat and the issues of weapons and terrorism are inseparable from the UN resolutions and the cease-fire agreement.

"The case of Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of our country, requires a candid appraisal of the facts. After his defeat in the Gulf War in 1991, Saddam agreed under to U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 to cease all development of weapons of mass destruction. He agreed to end his nuclear weapons program. He agreed to destroy his chemical and his biological weapons. He further agreed to admit U.N. inspection teams into his country to ensure that he was in fact complying with these terms.

In the past decade, Saddam has systematically broken each of these agreements..."

--President Bush, August 26, 2002


"The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations."
--President Bush, October 7, 2002

Our goal is not merely to limit Iraq's violations of Security Council resolutions, or to slow down its weapons program. Our goal is to fully and finally remove a real threat to world peace and to America. Hopefully this can be done peacefully. Hopefully we can do this without any military action. Yet, if Iraq is to avoid military action by the international community, it has the obligation to prove compliance with all the world's demands. It's the obligation of Iraq."
--President Bush, October 16, 2002

"With the resolution just passed, the United Nations Security Council has met important responsibilities, upheld its principles and given clear and fair notice that Saddam Hussein must fully disclose and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. He must submit to any and all methods to verify his compliance. His cooperation must be prompt and unconditional, or he will face the severest consequences."
--President Bush, November 8, 2002


Quote:
Originally Posted by armor11
Oops.
That is correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by armor11
Here's a point of reference that captures perfectly the use of the cease-fire agreement as justification for the war

Tim
Here's a better frame of reference...

Quote:
Main Entry: cease-fire
Pronunciation: 'sEs-'fi(-&)r
Function: noun
1 : a military order to cease firing
2 : a suspension of active hostilities
Quote:
Main Entry: sus•pen•sion
Pronunciation: s&-'spen(t)-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English suspensyon, from Anglo-French suspension, from Late Latin suspension-, suspensio, from Latin suspendere
1 : the act of suspending : the state or period of being suspended : as a : temporary removal (as from office or privileges) b : temporary withholding (as of belief or decision) c : temporary abrogation of a law or rule d (1) : the holding over of one or more musical tones of a chord into the following chord producing a momentary discord and suspending the concord which the ear expects; specifically : such a dissonance which resolves downward -- compare ANTICIPATION, RETARDATION (2) : the tone thus held over e : stoppage of payment of business obligations : FAILURE -- used especially of a business or a bank f : a rhetorical device whereby the principal idea is deferred to the end of a sentence or longer unit...
By definition a cease-fire cannot be used as a pretext to start a war. A cease-fire does not end a war; it interrupts it. A cease-fire is a negotiated temporary withholding of hostilities. It is a negotiated pause in a war that allows both sides the time to seek a permanent peace agreement. All of the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire agreement were placed on Iraq. Iraq failed to abide by most of those conditions right from the start. The cease-fire never existed. Operation Desert Storm was followed by seven years of intermittent air-war...A couple of week of intense air-war at the end of 1998...Then another four years of intermittent air-war.

Operation Iraqi Freedom ended a war that Saddam Hussein started in 1990.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 18 Sep 07, 16:13
OmegaStrike's Avatar
OmegaStrike OmegaStrike is offline
Banned
United_States
March Offensive 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,754
OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100] OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100] OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100] OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100] OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100] OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100] OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100] OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100] OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100] OmegaStrike has demonstrated strength of character [100]


He shoots, he scores. The lefties are really taking it on the chin today. Haven't they had enough of a beating yet?

Yes, but it is so much fun!

/makes more popcorn
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 18 Sep 07, 18:15
Crash's Avatar
Crash Crash is offline
General of the Forums
Canada
ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 13,778
Crash has earned the respect of all [900] Crash has earned the respect of all [900]
Crash has earned the respect of all [900] Crash has earned the respect of all [900] Crash has earned the respect of all [900] Crash has earned the respect of all [900] Crash has earned the respect of all [900] Crash has earned the respect of all [900]
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmegaStrike View Post


He shoots, he scores. The lefties are really taking it on the chin today. Haven't they had enough of a beating yet?

Yes, but it is so much fun!

/makes more popcorn
\

I'm working Doc into a corner... patience, fella!

The nut of it is Doc believes that a country never loses their sovereign right to protect itself...UN Charter or not....(unfortunately he still is unable to understand the resolutions or the UN Charter and hasn't yet resorted to this line of thinking like millions of his fellow Americans )...and if he continues down the illegal no-fly zones route then he's going to be the one to take it on the chin.

Maybe you can show the forum where Resolution 688 legalizes No-fly zones.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1175950.stm
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 18 Sep 07, 18:22
armor11's Avatar
armor11 armor11 is offline
Brigadier General
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
 
Real Name: Tim McCormley
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,097
armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200] armor11 is walking in the light [200]
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor View Post
The President's Oath of Office obligates him to defend the nation.
But not to start wars.

Quote:
Iraq clearly did pose a threat and the issues of weapons and terrorism are inseparable from the UN resolutions and the cease-fire agreement.
You most certainly can separate them. That's the whole point.

From CRS Issue Brief for Congress, Iraq: Compliance, Sanctions, and U.S. Policy Updated Jan 2, 2002 (http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7975.pdf)

Quote:
The Clinton Administration’s position was that major military action against Iraq could be taken if Iraq is known to have rebuilt WMD, threatens its neighbors, or attacks the Kurdish enclave. Indications are that Bush administration criteria for major military action differ
little, if at all.
The resolutions were designed to ensure Iraq was not a threat. By Jan 2003 Iraq was not a threat to the basic security of the United States: they had no WMD and their military was in a shambles. They weren't in any position to threaten their neighbors (much less the United States) about anything.

As events have shown, there was no real need for a ground invasion in 2003.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Doctor
The cease-fire never existed
Then why the need for a Joint Resolution from Congress?

Tim
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 18 Sep 07, 18:27
Trailboss49's Avatar
Trailboss49 Trailboss49 is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Pat
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 17,876
Trailboss49 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Trailboss49 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Trailboss49 has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Trailboss49 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Trailboss49 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Trailboss49 has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash View Post
The nut of it is Doc believes that a country never loses their sovereign right to protect itself...UN Charter or not
Gee, guess what, the Doc is right. Your sparring with Doc is like Cassius Clay playing with a 5th grade child (Oh, & you ain't Muhammed Ali either).
__________________
"If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 18 Sep 07, 18:31
Crash's Avatar
Crash Crash is offline
General of the Forums
Canada
ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 13,778
Crash has earned the respect of all [900] Crash has earned the respect of all [900]
Crash has earned the respect of all [900] Crash has earned the respect of all [900] Crash has earned the respect of all [900] Crash has earned the respect of all [900] Crash has earned the respect of all [900] Crash has earned the respect of all [900]
Quote:
Originally Posted by trailboss49 View Post
Gee, guess what, the Doc is right.
hey, smart guy...if a country can never lose the right to defend itself then how can Iraqi's firing at planes over their soveriegn airspace be a justification for war?

Further, you'll notice that Doc isn't right...those were just words I placed in his mouth to bait the likes of Omegastrike and you

Last edited by Crash; 18 Sep 07 at 19:30..
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 18 Sep 07, 21:41
Trailboss49's Avatar
Trailboss49 Trailboss49 is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Pat
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 17,876
Trailboss49 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Trailboss49 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Trailboss49 has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Trailboss49 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Trailboss49 has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Trailboss49 has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash View Post
hey, smart guy...if a country can never lose the right to defend itself then how can Iraqi's firing at planes over their soveriegn airspace be a justification for war?

Further, you'll notice that Doc isn't right...those were just words I placed in his mouth to bait the likes of Omegastrike and you
Glad you asked. I am always ready to conduct a teaching course in remedial history.

Let's try this one on for size. A big coalition of countries fight this one country because it illegally invaded another, and they won. To stop the fighting the defeated country solemnly promises not to fly over certain geographic regions or to fire at any of the winning coalition aircraft that flies anywhere they want. In addition it agrees that inspectors can come in and make sure it is not building any Weapons Of Mass Destruction. But, the defeated country decides to go back on its' word and begins firing at the coalition aircraft and will not allow any inspectors to look at its manufacturing facilities. Finally the leader of the coalition decides enough is enough and tells the guy if he doesn't knock it off they're going to come in like a bunch of drunk cowboys in Abilene on a Saturday night. He ignores them so they ride in, capture him and let those he mistreated give him his just deserts.

Well, also figures you placed words in Doc's mouth, that is the only way you can ever pretend to win an argument with him. Watching you and Doc go at it is like watching an expert rider like myself laugh at a city boy trying to put a saddle on a horse.
__________________
"If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 18 Sep 07, 22:30
Crash's Avatar
Crash Crash is offline
General of the Forums
Canada
ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 13,778
Crash has earned the respect of all [900] Crash has earned the respect of all [900]
Crash has earned the respect of all [900] Crash has earned the respect of all [900] Crash has earned the respect of all [900] Crash has earned the respect of all [900] Crash has earned the respect of all [900] Crash has earned the respect of all [900]
Quote:
Originally Posted by trailboss49 View Post
Glad you asked. I am always ready to conduct a teaching course in remedial history....To stop the fighting the defeated country solemnly promises not to fly over certain geographic regions...
AWESOME! If Professors make a statement during their classes they can back it up...so we await the document that proves the above statement.

[quote]
Well, also figures you placed words in Doc's mouth, that is the only way you can ever pretend to win an argument with him. [quote]

When you prove said evidence please provide something other then the usual cheapshot from the cheapseats.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 18 Sep 07, 22:30
Reiryc's Avatar
Reiryc Reiryc is offline
General
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Greg
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: .
Posts: 5,380
Reiryc has a spectacular aura about [400]
Reiryc has a spectacular aura about [400] Reiryc has a spectacular aura about [400] Reiryc has a spectacular aura about [400] Reiryc has a spectacular aura about [400]
I honestly feel sorry for crash and armor and that's saying something... doc, you might want to give these guys a break and make a mistake here and there to at least allow them some sense of dignity.
__________________
Islam... it's a blast - literally.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 18 Sep 07, 22:42
Reiryc's Avatar
Reiryc Reiryc is offline
General
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Greg
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: .
Posts: 5,380
Reiryc has a spectacular aura about [400]
Reiryc has a spectacular aura about [400] Reiryc has a spectacular aura about [400] Reiryc has a spectacular aura about [400] Reiryc has a spectacular aura about [400]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash View Post
Maybe you can show the forum where Resolution 688 legalizes No-fly zones.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1175950.stm
Here's a nice break down and legal justification from a report for the house of commons... Some buy it, some don't. Never the less, I await for anyone to try to actually bring this up and charge the US/UK with an illegal action in the UN.




THE NO-FLY ZONES

Humanitarian basis for the no-fly zones

27. The no-fly zones were established by the US, the UK and France after the Gulf War for humanitarian reasons in an attempt to stop Saddam's repression of Kurdish people in the north of Iraq, and the Shia population in the south. The aim is to prevent Iraq being able to attack these people from the air. The Secretary of State commented—

Previously Saddam has used helicopter gun ships to repress the Kurdish population in the north and both fixed wing aircraft and helicopter gun ships to repress Shia muslims in the south. Coalition patrols prevent him using his air force in this way but there is no reason to suppose he would not resume the tactics if the patrols ceased.[63]

The northern no-fly zone operates north of the 36th parallel and was established in April 1991 as part of Operation 'Provide Comfort' to give humanitarian assistance to the Kurds. It is now known as Operation Northern Watch. The southern no-fly zone was established in August 1992 to protect the Shia population. It originally covered the area south of the 32nd parallel but, following new incursions by Iraqi forces, in September1996 the zone was extended northwards to the 33rd parallel and now covers about a third of the territory of Iraq (see maps at the front of this Report).[64]

28. Mr Simon Webb, the MoD's Director General of Operational Policy, provided us with some details of the sort of attacks on minority peoples which had occurred before the no-fly zones were established, including the use of chemical weapons against Kurdish people at Halabjah in March 1988, which caused thousands of casualties.[65] Similarly, in southern Iraq—

The operation which stimulated the no fly zone in the south was against the Shi'a Arabs in the Delta there, which led to the displacement ... of 100,000 to 150,000 people, who were displaced by those operations, which included aircraft and helicopter gun ships.[66]

There is evidence that Saddam's intentions towards the minority peoples has not changed and, although he has less ability to attack them from the air, repression on a lesser scale has continued through ground attacks. The Secretary of State told us there was photographic evidence that—

... from time to time there have been houses that have been bulldozed and villages that have been flattened... We can see from the air ... that he continues—particularly in the south—to use his ability to dominate the ground to perpetrate these kinds of attacks on civilian populations.[67]

29. In his reports to the UN Human Rights Commission, the Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iraq, Max van der Stoel, reported 'grave violations of human rights committed by the Government of Iraq' against the people living in the southern marshes area. These included 'repeated, intense artillery and mortar attacks followed by ground-force attacks on villages and towns in several areas'.[68] Houses were reported to have been burned or bulldozed, entire villages and communal lands confiscated by government forces, and entire families 'forcibly relocated' particularly in the area bordering Iran.[69] In northern Iraq, the Special Rapporteur reported continued repression of the Kurdish population with the internal deportation of non-Arab people as part of the Iraqi regime's policy of 'Arabization'.[70] A further report in October 1999 said that—

At the beginning of 1992, the Special Rapporteur concluded that the gravity of the human rights situation in Iraq had few comparisons in the world since the end of the Second World War. The Special Rapporteur regrets that since then he has had no cause to change his view.[71]

Legal basis for the no-fly zones

30. The precise legal basis for the no-fly zones is controversial. The MoD's view is that—

... the justification for the No Fly Zones remains that of overwhelming humanitarian necessity in that, without our deployment, a severe humanitarian crisis would in all probability recur.[72]

The UK and the US governments have frequently said that the basis lies in UN Security Council Resolution 688 of April 1991 which—

... condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq ... demands that Iraq ... immediately end this repression ... requests the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq ... appeals to all Member States ... to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts.[73]

The Secretary of State told us—

... the justification is essentially based on the overwhelming humanitarian necessity of protecting people on the ground, combined with the need to monitor the effect of 688; so it is the two taken in combination that provides the legal justification.[74]

and he expanded on this—

There is a clear justification in international law for the international community to respond to protect people where they are threatened by an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. That is precisely the same legal justification which was used in relation to Kosovo. It is that, in combination with the indication in 688, that we should take steps to prevent the attacks on people, on minority peoples in Iraq.[75]

31. Our colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee recently examined the 'doctrine' of humanitarian necessity in their Report on Kosovo. They concluded—

... at the very least, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention has a tenuous basis in current international customary law...

Specifically in relation to NATO's intervention in Kosovo, that Committee decided that the action was 'of dubious legality in the current state of international law' but 'justified on moral grounds'.[76] The Foreign Affairs Committee supports the 'aim of establishing in the United Nations new principles governing humanitarian intervention'.[77] We too would support that aim but in the meantime, in the absence of internationally agreed procedures, we have no doubt that UK participation in the no-fly zone operations over Iraq is justified on moral and humanitarian grounds.

32. Iraq rejects the zones and claims they have no basis in UN Security Council Resolutions. An Iraqi government official said, after Operation Desert Fox—

Imposing the so-called no-fly zones is illegal and is outside the framework of the resolutions of the Security Council and international legitimacy. It is an act of aggression and is rejected and resisted by Iraq ... it is a flagrant violation of international laws, norms and charters, particularly the UN Charter. Moreover, it is a flagrant violation of the Security Council resolutions themselves ... It is the US and British aircraft which are violating the sovereignty and sanctity of northern and southern Iraqi airspace.[78]

Other UN Security Council members have expressed reservations about the no-fly zones. An official spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation said in January 1999 that the no-fly zones had been 'imposed outside the framework of UN Security Council resolutions' and that Russia's 'negative attitude to these unlawful actions is well known'.[79]

The mission

33. The main purpose of the no-fly zone operations, in addition to preventing Iraqi aircraft flying north of the 36th parallel and south of the 33rd, is tactical reconnaissance.[80] The offensive part of operational activity is undertaken only as a response to Iraqi attacks on coalition aircraft engaged on missions to monitor the no-fly zones[81] and targets in Iraq are attacked only when they threaten coalition aircraft. The Secretary of State told us—

... our mission is to supervise the no fly zones. Our mission is not—and I must emphasise this—to bomb assets on the ground ... if our aircraft did not come under fire we would not need to conduct any kind of bombing of targets on the ground.[82]

Targets include anti-aircraft artillery (AAA), surface to air missiles (SAMs) and the radars which direct such missiles.[83] These weapons are highly mobile and keeping track of the threat is a constant problem. Coalition aircraft are also attacked by Iraqi fighter aircraft. In the southern no-fly zone, between December 1998 and May 2000 coalition aircraft were directly threatened by Iraqi air defence forces on over 320 occasions and aircraft responded in self defence on 74 occasions.[84]

34. The major partners in the coalition are the United States and the UK, and the host countries in the area who provide bases and other support to the operation. France withdrew from operations in the northern no-fly zone in December 1996 and from the southern no-fly zone after Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 and has not yet resumed participation, although French aircraft and personnel are still stationed in the region.[85] The UK contribute to tactical reconnaissance, strike and air defence operations. In the period from April 1999 to March 2000, the RAF flew a total of 2,683 sorties in the no-fly zones, of which 2,233 were in the southern zone.[86]

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/07/45306.htm#note72
__________________
Islam... it's a blast - literally.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Reply

Please bookmark this thread if you enjoyed it!


Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:24.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.