WMD's found in Iraq

[Martlet]

Originally posted by GScholz


Now, I am growing a bit tired of your annoying lack of common sense, clarity and ability to follow obvious logic, so this will be my final post on this subject.

Actually, it looks like he pretty much exposed your hypocrisy.

Anything the USA does is EVIL!

DEATH TO AMEREEEKA!

[Nilsen]

[lazs2]

The bad man is gone....  His sons aren't raping and torturing with government help... unleaded premium is $ 1.70 a gallon... We don't have to worry about him buying a suitcase nuke or training terrorists...life is good.

The alternatives are not so good... if Bush woulda said we don't care about iraq...  millons of hippies and the liberals on this board woulda posted atrocities commited by the sadman and company every day... Bush would be called heartless.

Most everyone will agree (when election time comes) that things worked out for the best.

lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by GScholz
The NATO campaign against Yugoslavia in the Kosovo campaign was not UN sanctioned, but the air strikes were UN "endorsed".  

Say what?  

Apparently Kofi and both the Russian and Chinese members of the SC didn't "endorse" it one bit!

Remember how were were talking parallels? There's PLENTY of parallels.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by GScholz


Yes Angus I am glad Hussein is gone, but I'm not happy about the way it was done.

So, just exactly when and how did you plan to get rid of him? I'll be out for a while so I'll just go ahead and guffaw your response now if you don't mind.

[Kieran]

Gscholz-

All that is missing is the "Or else" clause. As we learned very well from the Iraq conflict, resolutions that don't specifically cite force as the alternative aren't considered by the international body to be tacit approval of force.

Agreed?

I mean, the final UN resolution concerning Iraq did say "or else", it just didn't say "or else" what to the satisfaction of all dissenting countries. The amazing thing is every signing country knew exactly what Bush meant to do in the absence of full compliance. That seems complicity of sorts to me. But that's just me.

[Toad]

Maybe after you learn to quit sticking your foot in your mouth?

I guess the "NATO Air Verification Mission over Kosovo" was what started at 2:00 PM EST, 24 March 1999? Is that what you're saying?

No, of course not. The NATO Air Verification Mission would not have included dropping bombs and rockets on Belgrade would it? Or are you saying Belgrade is the capital of Kosovo?

 
RESOLUTION 1203 (1998)

Find me a reference to the use of force in that. The word "force" is used ONE time; see if it relates to the NATO contingent of SFOR. Let me know.

Note well that the date of this resolution is 24 October 1998; NATO authorized airstrikes the first time on 12 October 1998. You'd think the UN SC would have reminded Milosevich of that in the resolution, eh? But, of course, there's nothing in this UN SC resolution passed just 12 days later about "force" against Yugoslavia.

On October 4, 1998 Russia (Yeltsin) warned that the NATO attack could return East-West relations to state of crisis. Does that sound like a permanent member of the SC with veto power would approve the first NATO airstrikes?

On March 18, 1999, the Kosovo Albanian delegation signed the peace deal in France calling for interim autonomy and 28,000 NATO troops. The Serbian delegation refused, and talks were suspended.

On March 19, 1999, the whole deal fell apart and peace talks adjourned.

Show me something from the UN SC during or after those peace talks that said "Yugoslavia, we are authorizing a NATO air war against you unless you get back to the peace table" or anything like that. You think Russia changed it's mind between October 4 and March 19? No, they didn't and there's historicial documentation to show they didn't.

Russia, that permanent member of the UN SC that has veto power... and said they'd use it on an Iraq resolution.

Parallels.

[Toad]

OMG!

You STILL don't see it? There's not a word in 1203 about NATO using force. Allow me to show you a parallel:

Scholz[/b]

"United Nations -- The UN Security Council October 24 voted 13-0 for a new resolution on Kosovo (UNSC Res 1203) that Acting US Ambassador to the UN Peter Burleigh said retained NATO's authority to use force if necessary to enforce compliance with UNSC Resolutions 1160 and 1199 by "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" President Slobodan Milosevic.

"The NATO allies," Burleigh said, "in agreeing on October 13 to the use of force, made clear that they had the authority and the means to resolve this issue. We retain that authority," Burleigh said following the UNSC's 13-0 vote in favor of UNSC Resolution 1203."

Statement by Ambassador John D. Negroponte, United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on Iraq, Before the Security Council, March 27, 2003

Ambassador John D. Negroponte, United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations

It was regrettable that the Government of Iraq decided not to take the “final opportunity” for compliance provided in Resolution 1441.  The Coalition response is legitimate and not “unilateral.”  Resolution 687 imposed a series of obligations on Iraq that were the conditions of the cease-fire.  

It has long been recognized and understood that a material breach of those obligations removes the basis of the cease-fire and revives the authority to use force Resolution 678.  Resolution 1441 explicitly found Iraq in continuing material breach.  In view of Iraq’s additional materials breaches, the basis for the existing cease-fire has been removed and the use of force is authorized under Resolution 678.

[/color]

Two US Ambassadors saying almost exactly the same thing in two different cases, NATO/Yugoslavia and "Coalition of the Willing"/Iraq.

Parallels? Maybe not... maybe "Identicals" instead?

Like it or not Scholz, the NATO/Yugoslavia and the COTW/Iraq are amazingly similar, if not identical. Neither actions were sanctioned by the UN SC. Fer pete's sake, Kofi Annan came right out and said that NATO should have consulted the UN SC first! The Russians said they'd veto any "use of force" resolutions in the SC in debates prior to the actions being taken.

Give it up man. You can't defend one and condemn the other. By your standards, they're BOTH violations of Charters. If you're going to be consistent, you have to view them both the same, one way or the other.

Do you really even want to start in on the parallels in the "non-compliance situation? I'll be happy to oblige, but it seems a waste, given the above. It'll have the same result for you.

Oh and don't confuse agreeing to a "verification mission" with the bombing of Belgrade, OK? I don't think anyone would believe the Serbs agreed to have Belgrade bombed, do you?

[lord dolf vader]

why are you quibbling toad he was there force was approved. he has shown it again and again.


why you are doing this is the question.  our constitution said all men are created equal, how long did slavery last after that.


by your logic there could be no slavery in america.

this hanging on to a sophist argument even when proven wrong is gettting to be like that soudi iraqi kill you got all wrong untill called by a guy that was there? why you do this crap?

[Godzilla]

Originally posted by Toad
OMG!

You STILL don't see it? There's not a word in 1203 about NATO using force. Allow me to show you a parallel:

 

Great post Toad. You have pointed out that the Iraq war was just a contiuation of the 1st gulf war due to Iraq's non compliace with the original cease-fire agreement.

That, along with the fact that it was the UN who reaffirmed that Iraq was still not complying with resolution 1441.

Ambassador John D. Negroponte, United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations

It was regrettable that the Government of Iraq decided not to take the “final opportunity” for compliance provided in Resolution 1441. The Coalition response is legitimate and not “unilateral.” Resolution 687 imposed a series of obligations on Iraq that were the conditions of the cease-fire.

It has long been recognized and understood that a material breach of those obligations removes the basis of the cease-fire and revives the authority to use force Resolution 678. Resolution 1441 explicitly found Iraq in continuing material breach. In view of Iraq’s additional materials breaches, the basis for the existing cease-fire has been removed and the use of force is authorized under Resolution 678.

That quote says it all. The people here that are trying to divert away from the legality of the coalitions war in Iraq by saying "Bush lied" and the ever present "Where are the WMD??" are completely missing the point. They seem unable to understand the dynamics even slightly.

If you ask most people who hold the view that "Bush Lied" if they are happy Iraq is liberated and the UN sanctions are now being complied with, they usually say yes, it's good....but "Bush Lied"

It's comical to me, it really is.

[Kieran]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
why are you quibbling toad he was there force was approved. he has shown it again and again.


why you are doing this is the question.  our constitution said all men are created equal, how long did slavery last after that.


by your logic there could be no slavery in america.

this hanging on to a sophist argument even when proven wrong is gettting to be like that soudi iraqi kill you got all wrong untill called by a guy that was there? why you do this crap?

Dude, you make NO sense at all. "Being there" doesn't mean force is approved... ask Gscholtz about our troops sitting in Iraq now. "Being there" also doesn't provide any special insight about UNSC resolutions or the NATO charter. That isn't to say he is ignorant of these things generally, but his access to the knowledge is no greater than anyone else's.

Why do this? Because it is tiresome to hear the "The US is an outlaw nation" crap all the time. As Toad has proven, that line of reasoning can be thrown right back at many of these guys... then what?

[Godzilla]

"The US cannot be trusted. It's that simple. I would never do bussiness with a US company if substancial money was involved."

Gscholtz



Just wondering, is 14.95 substancial money?

[Toad]

LDV, I'm not quibbling.

The exact same arguments GS has used against the Iraq invasion can be used against the NATO air war against Yugoslavia. Yet he can't bring himself to admit that. "Fishy" is his nocomittal comment.

That has to be clear to even the most casual observer by now. The exact same types of resolutions, the exact same comments from American ambassadors, etc., etc., etc.

That's that point and you continually miss it.

AS Kieran points out, you use of his "being there", either as PROFOR (all-Euro), IFOR, SFOR und KFOR is merely a red herring. It has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion about the violation of Charters, either UN or NATO.

Your slavery analogy just shows how much you fail to understand what's being discussed here. TJ wrote equality into the Constitution but it took an AMENDMENT to the Constitution to really end slavery, didn't it? Well, and a Civil War, of course.

The UN and NATO wrote "no agressive use of force" into THEIR charters. The UN caveat is "without UN SC direction". NATO has NO AMENDMENT or caveat... it was designed as a purely defensive alliance of member states.

So, your attempt to bring slavery into this discussion just shows you haven't figured out what we're talking about yet. Slavery took and amendment. Unprovoked use of force against a non-member nation by NATO would require an amendment to that Charter.

***************


And you still don't know what you're talking about with respect to the Saudi kill of the Iraq mig in GW1. The US forces were called off for political purposes on that one.

Those two Iraqis flew under USAF CAPs until the Saudis could get at them.


Someday, somebody will write a book about it and you'll find out how far out of the loop you actually were/still are.

[212]

Well my current position is that unless they find a real substancial amount of WMD or nuclear program, my vote will go to Howard Dean for 2004. Even if they do find WMD, Im still likely to stay in the Howard Dean camp.

[Angus]

Oh, please stop that Balcan discussion, it's been too complicatd since 1940 or so!
Anyway, what ever is said about the Balcan stuff, I have two things on my mind (which is a foggy unit ):
1. The world moved too slow, allowing nasty WW2-like stuff to start happening,,,,and
2. The world however did finally put an end to it.

So, too fast or too slow, always a problem.

But the reward of tonight goes to this here:

Just wondering, is 14.95 substancial money?

Well, just talking for myself, but I'll bloody well do business with HTC as long as they are around