Re: Bush 2 Trillion Dollar Screwup

In article <BFECF2B9.41547%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> "Michelle Ronn" <micron@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
> 2006011221291143658-micron@invalidnet on 1/12/06 10:29 PM:
>
> >>> I do agree that there is a lot of ambiguity on the part of the UN, the
> >>> ambiguity of if the first gulf war actually ended, what the hell the UN
> >>> means by a cease fire. However, I do not see where the war is illegal.
> >>>
> >>> If UN resolutions are what lay down the law, then I would make the
> >>> following points:
> >>> - Iraq was in clear violation of UN resolutions. (clearly stated in 1441)
> >>> - the first gulf war was in a state of "ceasefire" (stated in 687)
> >>> - The UN is stil patroling Iraq ( stated in 687 ) (the UN never
> >>> officially left)
> >>> - the UN passed a resolution that declared the original Iraq invasion
> >>> of Kuwait as illegal (stated in 660, establishes precedent)
> >>>
> >>> - there is no resolution repremanding the US for going in to Iraq (and
> >>> because the security council has a screwed up unanimous vote
> >>> requirement, there never will be so long as the US keeps showing up.)
> >>> The security council never declared that the US was in violation of
> >>> Article 39, which is the charter of the Security Council.
> >>>
> >>> The UN established that the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was illegal with
> >>> 660. There was no such resolution passed against the US.
> >>>
> >>> It is not about what is moral, it is about what is legal.
> >>>
> >> I think at this point we are best to just leave it as we disagree. I do
> >> appreciate your views and accept that you have been more rational and
> >> knowledgeable than *anyone else* in the years of having this discussion.
> >> In
> >> the end, though, I still believe you are creatively interpreting 1441 in a
> >> way that was not intended by those that signed it. You believe, I
> >> suppose,
> >> that their intent is not as important as the wording and that the wording
> >> allows for the war.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the interesting discussion.
> >
> > I agree that we are just going to disagree.
> >
> > You are correct in that I do not try to read in the intentions. I don't
> > know any of the players, so I go with what is written. Blame the
> > scientist in me.
>
> Some things we have not considered in this:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/issues/4492443.stm
> -----
> We now know that in his advice of 7 March 2003 (on whether the war was legal
> without a further UN resolution) the attorney general said "the language of
> resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear."

Picking and choosing text again, Snit?

Further into the article:

"However, if the government chose to rely on 1441 alone, a "reasonable
case can be made" that it is capable "in principle of reviving the
authorisation in 678 without a further resolution" but this "argument is
controversial. It is not widely accepted among academic commentators"
but "I disagree with those commentators and lawyers".

However, he added that if relying on this argument, "we would need to
demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation"."

Legal jabbering. Notice how there is nothing *solid* in either
direction? Gee, you don't suppose it's the 'murk' factor, do you? Did
you happen to Read Hans Blix last reports regarding Iraq's continued
"non-compliance" ? You were pointed you to them long ago... you might
want to go read them now. Did you happen to read John Negreponte's
statement on 1441? President Bush's?

> ...
> He also warned that any military action "must have as its objective the
> enforcement of the terms of the cease-fire"


Correct.... the objective was to go into Iraq and make them do what they
were supposed to do and agreed to do on numerous occasions regarding
compliance in the event that they kept up with their non-compliance.
Fact: It didn't even matter if Iraq HAD no WMD... *that* point was
irrelevant as 1441 was about continued non-compliance. This is old news
that has been explained to you over and over.

> and "must be a proportionate
> response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament
> obligations".
>
> He added that "regime change cannot be the objective of military action"
> although removing Saddam Hussein would be legal "if it can be demonstrated
> that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the
> disarmament of Iraq".

Uh... he didn't comply for 17 broken resolutions and snubbed his nose at
the "final" opportunity afforded him. Gee, that'll be a tough case to
make <rolls eyes>.

> -----
>
> Do you believe that it was demonstrated that regime change was required? If
> so, how?

Wake up, Snit, everyone knew SH wasn't going to play; and he DIDN'T
play... all the way up to troops sitting on his border.

> Also keep in mind that many of the nations, including Russia, China, and
> France made it clear that they did *not* authorize the use of force.

1441 didn't constrain anyone... that's the point here... and the ONLY
argument you have is *this* direction is that it did. Hint: Legally,
that's a non-starter. Your far better argument for "illegal" activity is
to challenge the War Powers Resolution.

> From
> <http://www.un.int/usa/02_187.htm>, even the US did not agree that 1441
> allowed for the use of force:
>
> As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members,
> this Resolution contains no ³hidden triggers² and no ³automaticity²
> with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi
> breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member
> state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as
> required in paragraph 12.

Legally speaking, 1441 didn't put us at the mercy of the U.N. no matter
how much whining anyone does. We provided Iraq the promised enhanced
inspection process and they blew that off, as well... nothing automatic
about this. Bush even gave SH a *final* final opportunity to comply
right up until we went in... when the troops were sitting on his border.
To say this was automatic is absurd. You were the one talking to
Michelle about intent recently... as opposed to strict 'letter of the
law' UNSC resolution wording... perhaps you should go over the statement
you were given that Colin Powell made on the floor of the U.N. - a
statement that went totally unchallenged and talked about the Council's
intent in creating 1441. This shit is on the record and is a large
reason why no legal action will be taken.

> And while you are right that no resolution reprimanded the US, and none
> will, the not-particularly-noble Kofi Annan did publicly state that "I have
> indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of
> view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Considering what the countries that were promising to veto *were* doing,
good luck prosecuting from that angle. Taking bribes is generally
frowned upon in court cases.

> And, of course, we have left out such info as was found in the "Downing
> Street memo", information that Bush will not discuss despite an 89 members
> of congress asking him to in a formal letter. What is he hiding?

Irrelevant.

> At the very least the legality of the war is murky. You have presented a
> case for the legality of the war in a very clear and reasoned way, and for
> that I thank you. Again, in years of having this debate on and off in CSMA
> those that have debated me have not had as powerful of arguments as you, or,
> at the very least, have not presented them in as reasoned of a way.

Like most of what you write Google proves this is bullshit. That you
were previously too doped up to comprehend what you were being told
doesn't change the fact that you were repeatedly told all this and much
more in every bit as "reasoned" a "way" as was done here. From what I've
seen, I seriously doubt Michelle would have put up with your block
headed bullshit to the same degree that most of the patient posters who
were trying to teach you did.

> For the
> first time in quite a while I had to go back to some of the research I had
> done quite some time ago. Looking at the position even of the US, and
> seeing how the clear goal of the war was not just the fulfillment of earlier
> resolutions but a regime change I still do not accept that the war was
> legal.

So start an action against the Bush administration. Good luck.

--
"The question is not about my behavior: the question is about your
admission about not being able to carry on a reasoned conversation."
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Two challenges for Steve Carroll
    ... at least you agree that the conditions for armed forces to be used were ... The resolution you reference was Congress delegating the ... power to the president to declare war. ... authority to use armed force against Iraq. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: Two challenges for Steve Carroll
    ... at least you agree that the conditions for armed forces to be used were ... The resolution you reference was Congress delegating the ... power to the president to declare war. ... authority to use armed force against Iraq. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT: Two challenges for Steve Carroll
    ... at least you agree that the conditions for armed forces to be used were ... The resolution you reference was Congress delegating the ... power to the president to declare war. ... authority to use armed force against Iraq. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Hillary to be Our Next President
    ... There was nothing wrong with voting for the war powers resolution. ... That is why I have a hard time trusting the Dems on national security ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)