War with Iraq: 2003 – Round II.

“Why wouldn’t India attack Pakistan tomorrow with a massive preemptive nuclear strike? “

Indeed Pakistan can make similar claims… India supports terrorism (the wonderful thing about this claim is you don’t have to prove it), and that although they have an elected government there have been acts of ethnic cleansing that have not been properly investigated by an independant outside body… therefore India is aiding and abbedding the purpetrators.

And the list goes on… any country could use preemtive self defence to launch an attack on anyone… currently the two most justified examples would be an Iraqi attack on the UK or US or a North Korean attack on the US.

“But if you think we’re doing such a bad job, why wouldn’t you want us to pull out and go home?”

I wouldn’t care if you did.

SOC,

“This is why the anti-war countries want a new resolution; they know damn good and well that we could start right now on the basis of 1441 if we felt the need.”

Actually, only the Security Council is allowed to authorise the initiation of a conflict and only with a specific resolution, clearly stating that the use of force is permitted.

“Besides, UN backing doesn’t justify or define the legality of a war.”

Actually, it does and it’s the only body in the world with that authority.

“All of 2 wars have been officially backed by the UN in the last 50 years or so: Korea, and Dsert Storm. Does that mean we should all be smited for participating in Bosnia?”

Peacekeeping involvement in Bosnia was governed by specific SC resolutions.

“Or for bombing Libya in 1986?”

An illegal act of war, however you look at it.

“Or for trying to fix what the obviously imperialistically-challenged French messed up in Southeast Asia?”

Yes, thats it, use a conflict where your military killed millions of people as justification for another one.

What worries me most about this war is not that people will die or that one nation will illegally attacking another and illegally changing its government – its the precedent. Any government could use US and UK arguments to attack its enemies without cause, without a declaration of war, maybe even without warning. Why wouldn’t India attack Pakistan tomorrow with a massive preemptive nuclear strike? It can argue that Pakistan is run by an unelected government, which sponsors terrorist groups, which restrics the rights of its own people etc. Don’t even get me started on WMDs. ‘Pakistan is a threat not just to India’s democracy but to the freedom and libery of the international community and of civilized nations around the world’ They would say and they wouldn’t bother with international law or the security council or anything, they’d just launch lots of nukes.

My post was referring to our involvement with Iraq, not all peacekeeping operations worldwide. But if you think we’re doing such a bad job, why wouldn’t you want us to pull out and go home?

“Damn, I guess you’re right. Tell you what, if Europe and the rest of the world will agree to take on the peacekeeping and monitoring duties, since we have basically done so alone for the last 12 years, we’ll just leave Saddam alone. “

Well, SOC, I never thought I’d be calling you an arrogant American.
I guess a lot of New Zealand families will be overjoyed at you saying this, because their loved ones can’t possibly have been killed on peacekeeping duties if the US does it all.

1/3 rd of New Zealands Army can come home now I guess… we thought they were away on peacekeeping missions overseas but it seems they were lying to us… American troops were actually doing their work, clearing mines in Cambodia and Mozambique, and protecting people in East Timor, Bouganville, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Sinai, and that is just at the moment.
Of course an enormous, rich and powerful country like New Zealand can’t compare to the US… Canada, Pakistan, and plenty of other countries take their responsibilites in the UN seriously and don’t hold back their payments or make demands.

The only foreign work the US puts any energy into is peacemaking and only then when they have an interest. Displaying their ignorance of the various regions and regional disputes by picking all the wrong people to put in charge and then leaving.

Originally posted by ELP
SOC plan

<<< reviewed and approved >>>

😀

Hey, Saddam’s Scorched Earth concept ain’t got nothing on mine!

Originally posted by GarryB
I am prety sure there are no clauses in UN 1441 that say any material breach of the requirements will lead to Saddam and his regime being murdered and the country of Iraq being invaded… or is Saddam and his cronies going to be sent to Guantanamo?

Damn, I guess you’re right. Tell you what, if Europe and the rest of the world will agree to take on the peacekeeping and monitoring duties, since we have basically done so alone for the last 12 years, we’ll just leave Saddam alone. With the caveat that any Iraqi WMDs finding their way to targets on American soil will be redirected to a European capital. The UK can stay home as well, they’ve been a major supporter over there, especially for OSW. And don’t even mention the French. They may have a few Mirage 2000’s and F-1C’s at PSAB for OSW, but having been there, I can tell you that they literally hardly ever fly. I have honestly seen them sunning themselves and waxing their aircraft. WAXING. No joke.

SOC plan

<<< reviewed and approved >>>

SOC
I am prety sure there are no clauses in UN 1441 that say any material breach of the requirements will lead to Saddam and his regime being murdered and the country of Iraq being invaded… or is Saddam and his cronies going to be sent to Guantanamo?

We could invade now and have the backing of the UN. 1441 states that Saddam/Iraq must present the inspectors with a list of WMD/WMD sites or the weapons themselves. Then the inspectors oversee the destruction process. The first time they walk into a building and find something that wasn’t declared from the start, material breach. Nobody seems to be paying attention to this. This is why the anti-war countries want a new resolution; they know damn good and well that we could start right now on the basis of 1441 if we felt the need. Besides, UN backing doesn’t justify or define the legality of a war. All of 2 wars have been officially backed by the UN in the last 50 years or so: Korea, and Dsert Storm. Does that mean we should all be smited for participating in Bosnia? Or for bombing Libya in 1986? Or for trying to fix what the obviously imperialistically-challenged French messed up in Southeast Asia?

The thing I find most amusing is that it seems that the US is going to be allowed to invade a country based on the rules of an organisation that it is ignoring the rules of.

What I mean is that it has stated that as long as it get a certain number of votes it will go ahead (in other words it thinks it can bribe or threaten to get x number of votes so if it can get those votes it will do what it wants to do… )otherwise it will just declare the UN meaningless and do it anyway.

It is going to ignore any vetos.

So even assuming France and Russia use their veto as is their right, the US will either invade Iraq with the majority of UNSC votes (or the number it says are required), or if it doesn’t get the number of votes it has said it needs it will renounce the UN as being without credibility, and then presumably throw off the sheep suit of enforcing UN resolutions and presumably invade Iraq because it can.

Its current reason for invading has been to enforce UN resolutions, but if it declares the UN has no credibility then how can it use enforcing UN resolutions as being the reson for the attack/invasion?

I am sure it will become a case of the United states defending itself from the most dangerous threat since the Japanese during WWII.

Don`t know JJ if it`s a joke. We`ll wait untill the 17th of March to find out.

Vichy-France better than the current US administration? You’re joking, right Geforce?

And therefore the war should be coming, regardless of what some truffle eaters think about it. Two words-Vichy France.

Com`on can`t you find any better? I just hope world war III will be fought on american soil. Maybe we can have a laugh within 50 years then.

I still think the Vichy-gov`t is a better alternative than the current Texas-gov`t who is now in DC.

Re: War with Iraq: 2003 – Round II.

*Iraqi disarmament is happening, but even to chief UN weapons inspector Blix, they are not fully disclosing the whereabouts of ALL weapons. And therefore NOT fully complying with the Resolution 1441.

And therefore the war should be coming, regardless of what some truffle eaters think about it. Two words-Vichy France.

*Even as Iraq destroys it’s banned missiles, the US continues to discredit Iraqi moves and claims with new intel that they are still prodcuing them at the same time. The US seems hellbent on making Iraq look like the bad guy no matter what. They IMO, have their own agenda here, and that is action.

Because they are building more missiles. They aren’t stupid. Just as our intelligence agencies aren’t either. Action is the agenda because inaction over the past 12 years has obviously gotten us nowhere.

You know, I hope all of the Saddamites fall over with apology and prostrate themselves if the man uses chemical weapons in the war. What then? Did he magically make them over the next week? Because as we all know, there are no WMDs in Baghdad…

*US forces have reached a critical number for operations in the Gulf, and the American commander has touted readiness for war for sometime now. At the same time, ONLY NOW does the US cough up a deadline ultimatum. They, along with the UK and possibly Australia, are ready to act.

The reason for waiting is simple-the government is (or was, as the case may be) still trying to act within the framework of the UN by giving the other nations time to make up their mind. Now there is a deadline because we have waited long enough. There were MORE than enough people over there 3 months ago, I assure you. The other reason is every time we decide to start talking about starting the war Blix or El Baradei come up with another new report…

*Bush and others close to him in Office have publicy stated that they don’t need UN approval for action. They are prepared to go it alone.

And rightfully so. Just as we wouldn’t have needed UN support or approval to attack Afghanistan after 9-11. A soverign nation needs no one else’s approval to deal with threats to its own security. This is why I am personally 100% supportive of the Russian activity in Chechnya.

*A second tougher resolution which will be voted on soon by the UNSC is likely to be turned down, and if so, do we really expect the US to stand still and look like fools as their own rhetoric goes unfulfiled?

Blame the French and Germans for causing it to be vetoed. Germany’s position I could understand a little more. Schroeder wanted to get re-elected. You cannot blame a politician for acting like a politician sometimes. Now what is he supposed to do? Tank his career by committing a 180-degree policy shift? But France, what is their real reasoning for not wanting war? What do they not want us to find in Baghdad? Mirage jet parts and sales receipts? Wait, those made the news last week. Saddam’s checkbook with Chirac’s name in it? That issue was raised this morning. Only time will tell.

*March 17 has been tabled now by the US as a deadline for Iraq to disarm or face war. This might be a STERN threat, but Hussein knows all to well what has happened in the past when he ignored deadlines. Unless something DRASTIC happens in the next week, I think the deadline is pretty much D-Day.

At 0001 Local Time on the 17th I wouldn’t be suprised if a few targetsin Baghdad mysteriously exploded…

*It doesn’t look at all good for peace now I think. 🙁

Really, why are any of you suprised at this? Personally I’m suprised it took this long. Blame the rest of the UN for being a bunch of panty-waists and not wanting to address the problem of Saddam’s defiance over the past 12 years. Iraq and Israel are both guilty of prolonged violation of UN resolutions, and should be militarily punished accordingly. That should appease the other Muslim nations and get their support. And it should be done anyway. Can’t have it both ways.