Bush and Blair agree to attack Iraq without UN, even if no WMD found

[portisizzle]

Portisizzle, this shows how much you know. First, I have argued in the past that we should remove ourselves from the U.N. In fact, many did not agree with my sentiment. So good try in trying to paint me as a large supporter of the U.N and, of course, as a "liberal," in your thinking that anyone that disgrees with you is one, in fact. I guess you don't "know" that much, eh? (And go ahead, do a search for my opinon on the U.N.)

Second, when you mentioned, "Remarkably, you consider this delineation relevant. (Assuming it is correct)," I originally didn't post the material that prompted my response. So, yes, it is relevant considering the context of the material that was posted - this should be obvious.

And, by the way, war is not a preferable thing. It is funny that you discuss the dead caused by Saddam Hussein, but when it is suggested that war should be avoided, you mock that sentiment. You, my friend, are a hypocrite. Even the most battle hardered soldier would agree that he would rather be home then on the frontline. After all, that is why we go through all the trouble of war - NOT for war's sake, but to bring peace.

Are you in the military Portisizzle? If not, how come - are you another chickenhawk? "I WANT WAR, BUT NOT WITH ME IN IT."

1) I am glad you think we should remove ourselves from the UN.

2) Had the UN done its job in the 1990's we would not have been in the position we are now. Agreed? This is my primary point when you and Predicto bring up other areas of interest regarding human rights.

[portisizzle]

I have no idea what that means. But you sure added to this discussion, Portisizzle!

That means the Navy person does not need a mini me.

[portisizzle]

We are not on a tangent. You are the one who posted photographs claiming that they demonstrated the basis and justification for the invasion of Iraq. We responded appropriately.

For the record Predicto, the pictures came as a response to this from Baculus......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baculus

Well, if you are going to bring in the subject of the U.N., then it would be irony to mention that fact that the U.S. defied the U.N., but only to support it? That just seems odd and a bit unbelievable. And that is why the Downing Street Memo (and the article which started this thread) is brought up as a point of contention, because it asserts that the Bush administration knew that the facts had to be "fixed" to convince the U.N., the American and British public, that the war was justified on legal grounds. And that is why Colin Powell thought the presentation that he had to give to the U.N. was "bull****" (which were reportedly his words), and the reason why he left the administration.

{Portisizzle}

There is nothing odd about mentioning UN 44 C, the fact that Iraq was in clear and consistent violation, and that the UN failed to act according to its own resolution.

What the US did, and what the US needed to do, was see to it the the resolution be enforced. Else, why have a resolution? Again I say kiss ass diplomacy does not work. Johnnie posted a very relevant article about the violations and the hardship it put on the people of his country.

So, if resolutions did not work and in fact hurt the population what are we left with?

The removal of Hussein. Here are a couple of pictures to remind you WHY we went to Iraq.....

The fact that liberals ignor reality is to say that the opposition to our efforts have been PURELY POLITICAL. No reasonable American would dare oppose the effort America is going through to rid the world of terrorists and leaders who support terrorists from the face of the earth.

[Thiebear]

http://radongas.blogspot.com/2006/02/un-colors.html

Being somewhat of an aviation buff, I have to question the accuracy of these supposed memos (not to mention the intelligence of said "professor") on the basis of the stupidity of the claim of Bush wanting to paint a U2 in "UN Colors" just to goad the world to attack Iraq. Several things to consider:

1) Though the U-2 has become less useful in this age of satellites and cell phones, to suggest that a US president would sacrifice one (not to mention its pilot) is simply stupid. As of 2005 there were only 29 active Air Force aircraft and 5 two-seaters. The two civilian ER-2's are based at the Dryden Flight Research Center. (See photo.)

2) Any "UN" patrol aircraft over the Iraq no-fly zone carry the markings of the nation from which they come (US or UK). Thus American planes enforcing the no-fly zone had... American markings not some "neutral" UN markings, yet they were still designated UN flights.

3) The U-2 is an American-made plane and there are no U2 aircraft in operation for other nations. Every media outlet and reader of Tom Clancy knows this, no "UN colors" would fool anyone.

2) Iraq was already locking-onto and shooting surface to air missles at UN patrols (US and British aircraft.) Iraq was in constant violation of UN resolutions since the end of the first Gulf War. Far from a "rush to war", Iraq's non-compliance and constant defiance of UN resolutions and international law was renowned. There was no need to create a situation.

4) The U-2's operational flight level is 70k ft. Nothing in the Iraqi arsenal, except for other aircraft, can hit something at this flight level. Note also the claim made by the Guardian paper is that the U2 would have fighter escort... at 70,00 ft no fighter could obtain operational flight level to maintain escort.

5) Finally... what are "UN colors"? Since aircraft flying for the UN still maintain their country of origin's markings as well as a UN monogram on the tail. One wonders then how a U-2 spy plane carring US as well as UN markings spur a war with Iraq any more than the constant attacks already occuring?

[portisizzle]

Oh, the irony - the irony!

??? Feel better??? :laugh:

Now try to answer some of my questions.

[portisizzle]

We are not on a tangent. You are the one who posted photographs claiming that they demonstrated the basis and justification for the invasion of Iraq. We responded appropriately.

By the way, how do YOU define terrorists if indeed Saddam was not to his own people?

[vinva]

So, you're not really looking for any information relevant to the discussion, you're just trying to get me to say something to make you...I guess feel better?

I guess you are running out of ideas, eh? Since you "know the answer"? (Who knows what answer that may be, in this context. Anyone have an idea?)

You will have a hard time finding many people to agree with you that the US broke international law by invading Iraq without Security Council approval. Security Council 1483 (2003) ( http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/767512.7.html ) legitimized the action. Now if you want to talk about Geneva Convention violations with the prison abuse scandals, that's a different story.

[Baculus]

2) Had the UN done its job in the 1990's we would not have been in the position we are now. Agreed? This is my primary point when you and Predicto bring up other areas of interest regarding human rights.

I think if 1) We had not provided support for Saddam in the previous decades, and 2) if the UN had done their job, then perhaps this shouldn't be an issue. Also, if we have not support Bin Laden during the same time period as Saddam, perhaps this woudn't have happened as well.

There are several factors, including more U.N. action, that could have changed events.

That means the Navy person does not need a mini me.

No, you are just side-stepping the question - after all, if you are going to beat your chest in such support, I figured you'd step up and join. After all, you seem to love war so much, and since you think peace sucks, then why aren't you in Iraq?

Oh, you can mock "make love but now war," but when push comes to shove, you don't back it up. Very brave of you. Hey, I am just asking you in the context of your own statements.

[portisizzle]

Oh, you can mock "make love but now war," but when push comes to shove, you don't back it up. Very brave of you. Hey, I am just asking you in the context of your own statements.

I mock people like you who think love makes the world go round. The dope must have helped in the 70's as well.

Most military people I know do not wear their service as a model of superiority over the people they protect. Most serve humbly. Your mini me attitude does not remotely resemble the values of the men and women who serve.

Frankly, your display is an embarrassment to yourself.

[Baculus]

The fact that liberals ignor reality is to say that the opposition to our efforts have been PURELY POLITICAL. No reasonable American would dare oppose the effort America is going through to rid the world of terrorists and leaders who support terrorists from the face of the earth.

No, it is political if you justify these actions for once case - Iraq - and then do not or cannot justify the same actions to be used against other dictators or strongmen of the world. It's cherry picking and the exact reason for my post. If you still never answered me if we are going to invade other nations using the same justification for our invasion of Iraq.

Oh, and about the Iraqi invasion and its legal basis since this is being discussed and we are in the context of internatiol law under the U.N., to quote the following article, "The invasion of a single nation by another nation or group of nations is only legal under the UN Charter if such an invasion has been sanctioned by the vote of the UN Security Council. This did not happen in the case of the recent Iraq invasion, since the United States and Great Britain, led by the U.S. Secretary of State Powell, withdrew on March 17, 2003 their resolution to stage such an invasion from consideration by the UN Security Council when they realized that the majority of its members would vote against it."

And...

"Again, let it be stated for emphasis: Articles 41 and 42 impose a simple and unavoidable sequence: (1) effective preventative measures short of military conflict should first be explored before (2) the Security Council can decide that every alternative short of military conflict has been exhausted without success, whereupon (3) military conflict can finally be undertaken. Unavoidably, the second step necessitates a majority vote to mandate warfare by the Security Council. Secretary Powell skipped this step by jumping from the use of preventative measures to an invasion not sanctioned by the UN Security Council. As a result the invasion was in violation of the UN Charter and therefore illegal."

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Jayne-Kramer0920.htm

[vinva]

The Navy man/woman can speak for themselves. They do not need you kawling.

The funny part is is that we are actually on generally the same side here...we both support the reasons behind the war, though I guess we disagree on what those are.

[vinva]

No, it is political if you justify these actions for once case - Iraq - and then do not or cannot justify the same actions to be used against other dictators or strongmen of the world. It's cherry picking and the exact reason for my post. If you still never answered me if we are going to invade other nations using the same justification for our invasion of Iraq.

Oh, and about the Iraqi invasion and its legal basis since this is being discussed and we are in the context of internatiol law under the U.N., to quote the following article, "The invasion of a single nation by another nation or group of nations is only legal under the UN Charter if such an invasion has been sanctioned by the vote of the UN Security Council. This did not happen in the case of the recent Iraq invasion, since the United States and Great Britain, led by the U.S. Secretary of State Powell, withdrew on March 17, 2003 their resolution to stage such an invasion from consideration by the UN Security Council when they realized that the majority of its members would vote against it."

And...

"Again, let it be stated for emphasis: Articles 41 and 42 impose a simple and unavoidable sequence: (1) effective preventative measures short of military conflict should first be explored before (2) the Security Council can decide that every alternative short of military conflict has been exhausted without success, whereupon (3) military conflict can finally be undertaken. Unavoidably, the second step necessitates a majority vote to mandate warfare by the Security Council. Secretary Powell skipped this step by jumping from the use of preventative measures to an invasion not sanctioned by the UN Security Council. As a result the invasion was in violation of the UN Charter and therefore illegal."

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Jayne-Kramer0920.htm

Read security council resolution 1483...by recognizing "the authority" they absolve any illegalities that might have existed. You are arguing an argument that was resolved 3 years ago.

[Baculus]

I mock people like you who think love makes the world go round. The dope must have helped in the 70's as well.

Most military people I know do not wear their service as a model of superiority over the people they protect. Most serve humbly. Your mini me attitude does not remotely resemble the values of the men and women who serve.

Frankly, your display is an embarrassment to yourself.

How can I be embarrased when you first displayed such an attitude? Where is your own "humbleness" that you describe? Where is your own humility that seems to be absent in your posts? And where have I said *anything* about "love" making the world go around, other than disputing your statements?" Do you normally attempt to win debates by inventing words for others? Where did I say it, or are you just being intellectually dishonest such as when you tried to imply my strong support for the U.N.?

You seem to have a poor record for trying to attribute words to me.

And, by the way, I don't think your attitude necessarily reflect men and women in our military. Some of them will agree with your viewpoint that the invasion was needed, but they wouldn't mock the virtues of peace and of love as well. Especially if they are love-sick for their loved ones and would rather be in peace, but have the courage to be in war as well. I respec that - I don't have the same courage. But I am not going to pretend to know everything, though, about our servicemen or women - apparently, you do, right?

What's more embarrassing? And I noticed that you side-stepped the question, eh?

Once again, the irony escapes you - you seem to have a pretty good record for that.

[portisizzle]

No, it is political if you justify these actions for once case - Iraq - and then do not or cannot justify the same actions to be used against other dictators or strongmen of the world. It's cherry picking and the exact reason for my post. If you still never answered me if we are going to invade other nations using the same justification for our invasion of Iraq.

Oh, and about the Iraqi invasion and its legal basis since this is being discussed and we are in the context of internatiol law under the U.N., to quote the following article, "The invasion of a single nation by another nation or group of nations is only legal under the UN Charter if such an invasion has been sanctioned by the vote of the UN Security Council. This did not happen in the case of the recent Iraq invasion, since the United States and Great Britain, led by the U.S. Secretary of State Powell, withdrew on March 17, 2003 their resolution to stage such an invasion from consideration by the UN Security Council when they realized that the majority of its members would vote against it."

And...

"Again, let it be stated for emphasis: Articles 41 and 42 impose a simple and unavoidable sequence: (1) effective preventative measures short of military conflict should first be explored before (2) the Security Council can decide that every alternative short of military conflict has been exhausted without success, whereupon (3) military conflict can finally be undertaken. Unavoidably, the second step necessitates a majority vote to mandate warfare by the Security Council. Secretary Powell skipped this step by jumping from the use of preventative measures to an invasion not sanctioned by the UN Security Council. As a result the invasion was in violation of the UN Charter and therefore illegal."

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Jayne-Kramer0920.htm

Was Sudan seeking nuclear and or biological weapons? No?

If you are critical of the UN why in blue blazes are you trumpeting some "law" about us doing something wrong. If you are set against the UN why are you challenging the US to clean up the mess in countries like Sudan?

The common culprit? The United Nations.

The fix? Long and arduous. But that does not mean I have to resond to why we have not acted immediately in Sudan. I will leave that to the government that you disstrust.

Care to tell our vinva what you think of his Commander In Chief? Point to some posts that will help illustrate your views more clearly?

[vinva]

Care to tell our vinva what you think of his Commander In Chief? Point to some posts that will help illustrate your views more clearly?

I am well aware of his views and actually cringed when I wrote that post siding with him...don't forget I was one of the guys arguing with him in the 9/11 thread.

Let's discuss our differing viewpoints without bringing "the whole world is a conspiracy" Baculus into the discussion.

Do you really believe that Saddam's human rights violations had anything to do with us invading?

[portisizzle]

How can I be embarrased when you first displayed such an attitude? Where is your own "humbleness" that you describe? Where is your own humility that seems to be absent in your posts?

Wow. You need to back this up. Otherwise I will consider this baiting and treat is as such.

[Baculus]

Vinva, I didn't read that entire resolution, but my impression is that it pertains to the post-Invasion situation:

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N03/368/53/PDF/N0336853.pdf?OpenElement

Am I correct in my understanding? Also, as a note, my viewpoint of the Iraqi situation is not reliant upon legal or illegal actions by the U.S. (I usually don't post in threads concerning that statement, considering my viewpoint of the U.N. at times.) That is why this is not the first issue that I discussed. More so, my viewpoint is one of the rational discussion of whether or not, legal assurances aside, if we *should* have invaded Iraq. Which, to me, would be a "no."

[Baculus]

"the whole world is a conspiracy"

I don't think the whole world is a conspiracy, just the Stonecutters.

Actually, I don't think you can discuss Saddam and Al Qaeda without mentioning "conspiracy," since it is thought that he was conspiring with Bin Laden, correct? There are all sorts of conspiracies.

[Baculus]

Wow. You need to back this up. Otherwise I will consider this baiting and treat is as such.

And your posts aren't baiting? LOL.

[vinva]

Vinva, I didn't read that entire resolution, but my impression is that it pertains to the post-Invasion situation:

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N03/368/53/PDF/N0336853.pdf?OpenElement

Am I correct in my understanding? Also, as a note, my viewpoint of the Iraqi situation is not reliant upon legal or illegal actions by the U.S. (I usually don't post in threads concerning that statement, considering my viewpoint of the U.N. at times.) That is why this is not the first issue that I discussed. More so, my viewpoint is one of the rational discussion of whether or not, legal assurances aside, if we *should* have invaded Iraq. Which, to me, would be a "no."

It does, but by acknowledging "the authority" as they call it, they are acknowledging it as a legal occupation.

And I understand what you are saying about the overall invasion...my opinion is that the decision to invade was the correct one (based on thoughts I've already laid out here today) but was definitely on blurry lines legally. We are lucky that the UN so heavily depends on us that they wouldn't risk accusing us of any war crimes.

[Baculus]

If you are critical of the UN why in blue blazes are you trumpeting some "law" about us doing something wrong. If you are set against the UN why are you challenging the US to clean up the mess in countries like Sudan?

The common culprit? The United Nations.

The fix? Long and arduous. But that does not mean I have to resond to why we have not acted immediately in Sudan. I will leave that to the government that you disstrust.

Easy. Because the position to "invade Iraq because of UN law" is hypocritical if it indeeds breaks the same law that is supposedly being supported. Also, you have stated your support of invading Iraq based on humanitarian missions. Thus, my question to you to see if you support such actions elsewhere, which you never indicated or answered.

[portisizzle]

I am well aware of his views and actually cringed when I wrote that post siding with him...don't forget I was one of the guys arguing with him in the 9/11 thread.

Let's discuss our differing viewpoints without bringing "the whole world is a conspiracy" Baculus into the discussion.

Do you really believe that Saddam's human rights violations had anything to do with us invading?

I found Johnny's link a few pages back revealing to this point. Sanctions and Resolution failed this country. The UN has a humanitarian objective in Iraq that failed. What else could they do in the country?

If we agree that the UN completely failed in Iraq then yes humanitarian aid was an issue. Resolutions required Saddam to trade food for oil. Did this happen as it should have? Not at all.

You ask me if the humanitarian crisis was the prime reason? Only if you consider the Saddam regime was in violation the sanctions and resolutions that included proper trade of food for oil. In that case this was as much about the people as it was about a preemptive strike to stop Saddam from continued violations in weapon programs.

I do not think that Colin Powell spent time illustrating obvious human rights violations to the Security Council as this was a given. The prime mover was in fact the weapons and violations of resolutions that ended the first Gulf War.

My point in including the pictures was to remind some here that this is not about political opportunity. Some seem so happy to see something reported that casts Bush in a negative light. To me this is SICK.

[Baculus]

It does, but by acknowledging "the authority" as they call it, they are acknowledging it as a legal occupation.

OK, that makes sense.

And I understand what you are saying about the overall invasion...my opinion is that the decision to invade was the correct one (based on thoughts I've already laid out here today) but was definitely on blurry lines legally. We are lucky that the UN so heavily depends on us that they wouldn't risk accusing us of any war crimes.

I understand what you are saying here. And I can somewhat agree with that last sentence.

[portisizzle]

And your posts aren't baiting? LOL.

Then point it out.

[portisizzle]

We are lucky that the UN so heavily depends on us that they wouldn't risk accusing us of any war crimes.

We would be accusing ourselves. If the US leaves the UN the UN ceases to exist. IMO.