Proof that Iraq is in "material breach" of UNSC resolution 687 since inception.

[Jim Lennox]

Just one more thing isn't all this their idea?

 

[crackmonkey]

I'd say that the main reason Saddam's not using WMD is because the ◊◊◊◊◊◊'s pushing up daisies.

 

[Baker]

No one is even sure if he is still alive.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

No one is even sure if he is still alive.

What d'ya mean? I had a conference call with him and Usama this morning!

(Point is, I heard enough speculation about bin Laden's death to not think Hussein is dead till they produce a body.)

 

[Baker]

Saddam Dead or Alive?

(Point is, I heard enough speculation about bin Laden's death to not think Hussein is dead till they produce a body.)

Did I say he was Dead?
How ever latest reports suggest he is badly injured.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81847,00.html

 

[Baker]

After posting the link to this thread twice there is still no reply from shanek.

 

[rikzilla]

After posting the link to this thread twice there is still no reply from shanek.

That's because he has no answer to these facts. He knows they are facts. This is why I have charged him and AUP time and again as intellectually dishonest. Neither of these guys has ever, to my knowledge, admitted they were wrong even when demonstrated wrong. Hell, Shanek even defended the obvious error of one of his pet web sites...then when Randfan or someone...(not sure) contacted the webmaster of the site in question and advised them of the error (in definition of WMDs)...the webmaster thanked him and corrected the error. Shanek has still not admitted his error!!

This all just goes to show that arguing with the intellectually dishonest has no upside. They will never admit error...they will not hold themselves to the same standards the rest of us are expected to adhere to. Basically...they just aren't worth talking to.

-z

 

[DrChinese]

US national security is. 9/11 is. This is the reason pre-emptive strikes and "regime change" have become US policy. Before 9/11 these measures would only have been taken in Rush Limbaugh's wet dreams. Now they've become mainstream Bush admin policy. Only the sea-change of 9/11 can account for it. It's overdue IMHO. The books I've read sho clearly that we had enough evidence to take action back in 1995.

-zilla

You were trying to answer the question "Why the rush? Why right now?" in a prior thread. But you answer says the opposite.

1. 9/11 created the rush. Yet Saddam did exactly NOTHING new after 9/11.
2. You say that the "imminent" threat has existed since 1995. How can it be an imminent threat after 8 years requiring "immediate" action that cannot wait even a month?

The reasons for the war have nothing to do with an imminent threat, or violating a UN resolution. These are simply "reasons du jour" and are already outdated. Don't you know that the latest is that we are there to "liberate" the people?

Remember the phrase from the cold war era, "Better Dead Than Red"? We are applying this principle during our destruction of Baghdad and the rest of Iraq. Oh, how about "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette." Sure, there will be some Iraqis who benefit from regime change and some who won't. So our new "friends" over there will be the winners in the wealth re-distribution game which is coming after Saddam is gone.

Give them liberty, or give them death! I didn't misquote, did I?

 

[DrChinese]

I dont buy the "free the Iraqi people" arguments. More like propaganda if you ask me.

We never cared about the Taliban. If they wouldve turned over Bin Ladin and his crew right after 911, the Taliban would be in power today.

That quote was from January 24. I would call it prescient in light of our new policy to "liberate Iraq".

 

[DrChinese]

Thanks man!

This thread is my baby. 4 books on Iraq and UNSCOM. It was fascinating reading,...but I've got a belly-full of Saddam....I've gotten to the point that I know more than I wanted to about this creep. He's a sickening monster...much worse than even CNN or Fox has portrayed him.

A strange case of TMI on my part! However, the deafening silence of the left in rebuttal to this thread helped me a great deal to form my pro-war opinion.

I voted against Bush in 2000, and was among those who thought the Supreme Court was wrong to stop the FL recounts. But since then Bush has done nothing but impress me. The man gets results!

-zilla

You should have packed up your arguments and gone home by now. Is it not obvious at this point that UNSC 687 has absolutely nothing to do with this war? It was never about UN resolutions, Bush threw the UNSC out the window when he realized that they wouldn't go along with his "cure" for 687.

Bush can't really say, I'll enforce 687 on my own against the wishes of the group that created 687! That would be intellectually dishonest.

(And before you make a comment about France and its threatened UNSC veto... why hasn't UNSC censured the US for starting the war? Hmmm, that wouldn't be because US and UK would veto, would it?)

Folks, get with it. Cowboy George and his posse are off in la-la land, and that is why we are in this war. It is not Saddam's threats, it is not his violations, and is not about Iraqi liberation. Just as Vietnam was not about helping Vietnamese.

 

[rikzilla]

You should have packed up your arguments and gone home by now. Is it not obvious at this point that UNSC 687 has absolutely nothing to do with this war? It was never about UN resolutions, Bush threw the UNSC out the window when he realized that they wouldn't go along with his "cure" for 687.

Bush can't really say, I'll enforce 687 on my own against the wishes of the group that created 687! That would be intellectually dishonest.

(And before you make a comment about France and its threatened UNSC veto... why hasn't UNSC censured the US for starting the war? Hmmm, that wouldn't be because US and UK would veto, would it?)

Folks, get with it. Cowboy George and his posse are off in la-la land, and that is why we are in this war. It is not Saddam's threats, it is not his violations, and is not about Iraqi liberation. Just as Vietnam was not about helping Vietnamese.

I see no points addressed here...just another loud mouth babbling.

BTW genius,...687 was the instrument of cease fire for Gulf War I. If the terms of the cease fire are ignored (which they have been since inception) the hot war can, and should, be cranked back up. There was no legal need for 17 more resolutions...that's the stupidity of this whole situation! From the first moment of Iraqi non compliance we should have gone back in.

-z

 

[DrChinese]

I see no points addressed here...just another loud mouth babbling.

BTW genius,...687 was the instrument of cease fire for Gulf War I. If the terms of the cease fire are ignored (which they have been since inception) the hot war can, and should, be cranked back up. There was no legal need for 17 more resolutions...that's the stupidity of this whole situation! From the first moment of Iraqi non compliance we should have gone back in.

-z

I said that 687 is not the reason we are in Iraq. So your assertions in this thread are pointless and are merely an apology for Bush's actions. That SHOULD be obvious to you at this point.

And I notice you were silent on my refuting your insistence that the need for this war was "overdue". I assume from your silence that you have now come to your senses on this point.

 

[rikzilla]

I see no points addressed here...just another loud mouth babbling.

BTW genius,...687 was the instrument of cease fire for Gulf War I. If the terms of the cease fire are ignored (which they have been since inception) the hot war can, and should, be cranked back up. There was no legal need for 17 more resolutions...that's the stupidity of this whole situation! From the first moment of Iraqi non compliance we should have gone back in.

-z

Reposted my comments because Mister Chicom apparently can't read english.

 

[rikzilla]

Reposted my comments because Mister Chicom apparently can't read english.

(crickets chirp) I see ya Mr. Chicom.....cat got yer tongue?

That's okay...take your time. Do your homework for once....address the points presented in this thread and make your rebuttal as rationally as you are capable.

I can wait while you get your $hit together..... I don't need you for entertainment....there's plenty of that on Fox News these days!

-z

BTW,...haven't heard much from Wayne either lately! I don't envy you guys.....going up against the evidence I started this thread with is like pointing at the sky and insisting; "It's Green!!!!"

 

[Jim Lennox]

Did The Authority Under Paragraph 2 Of The November Resolution (678) Terminate With The Cease-Fire?

The answer to the question posed in the heading of this section must therefore be: most, but not necessarily all, the authority under the November Resolution (678) terminated with the cease-fire; the Security Council left it uncertain as to whether or not military operations involving no military presence on Iraqi territory are permitted, but if they are, they must be for purposes delineated in paragraph 2 of the November Resolution (678).

From here.

Perhaps Rik would enjoy debunking the entire paper?

 

[rikzilla]

From here.

Perhaps Rik would enjoy debunking the entire paper?

Interesting tack Jim. Instead of attempting to debunk points which are indeed fact, you have found a site which attempts to do a legalese end-around. Their assertion seems to be that the way the resolution was written, all authority for legal military action against Iraq ceased the moment troops were withdrawn from Iraq.

This is an interesting argument for legal academics to ponder. You guess...(correctly BTW)...that I am no legal scholar and thus cannot debunk the learned lawyers of this website. You are right. I can't. I will not pretend to be someone I am not. However I will give you my take on this information...and I thank you for bringing this to my attention.

It seems to me, as an ex-military guy, to be counter-intuitive to sign a cease fire instrument when it is written in such a way as to say "As soon as we leave, you don't have to comply with these terms." That makes no sense. It seems more likely to me that this is a group of lawyers attempting to find loopholes in the resolution for whatever reason they may have. Lawyers do this in court all the time. They often find proceedural errors by the authorities which result in charges being dropped, and guilty parties going free.

This is because it is of paramount importance for our society that police act under the law....and one released murderer is individually less dangerous than an entire force of police acting outside the rules governing their interactions with the public.

The cease fire agreement and it's attendant demands that Iraq disarm and cease support for terrorism is not IMHO in the same class as a common criminal case put before a US court. The issues are far larger. It is not in the world society's best interests to allow the Iraqi regime off the hook on some kind of legal technicality. It is also interesting to note that there have been sixteen subsequent resolutions which seek to get Iraq to comply with the original demands of the cease fire.

It bears repeating that UNSC res 687 was that cease fire agreement...one that Iraq obviously has not honored and likely never intended to honor. I have listed just a sampling of the more obvious violations of 687. These violations are fact, and as such have not been realistically challenged here.

An argument over the legality of military action based on some kind of unintentional loop hole in the original resolution is IMHO not a good enough argument in this issue. I am more interested in the original intent of the cease fire agreement, than I am the ponderings of a thinktank full of lawyers that are obviously looking for a proceedural loophole in the resolution.

Perhaps these guys are better lawyers than the ones who wrote up 687....that would be good enough to secure an aquittal in a civil or criminal case in the US,...but in this case it does not serve the public interest to play the "my lawyer can beat up your lawyer" game. The quality of lawyering does nothing to change the facts of this issue...which were listed by me at the head of this thread.

-zilla

 

[DrChinese]

Reposted my comments because Mister Chicom apparently can't read english.

Who is the Mr. Chicom you keep referring to?

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Who is the Mr. Chicom you keep referring to?

Rik, don't mess with Texas!

 

[rikzilla]

Chicom,....if the shoe fits.....


....there are chemical weapons unaccounted for in Iraq. The regime says "we have no chemical weapons"....who are we to believe??

....elements of 3rd ID are within 4 miles of Baghdad. The regime information minister says this is "silly"...who are we to believe??

If the Iraqi government were to explain the the sky is blue, it would be prudent to go outside and check. We all knew Iraq's track record of lies, some merely chose to ignore that fact. It just goes to prove that when the subject is politics, some ordinarily solid skeptics suddenly become very gullible. As the arguments of the anti-war left in support of Saddam's regime come apart it will be interesting to see how the leftists on this board will regroup. Will they admit they were wrong as evidence becomes available? Some will....but I can think of at least two who likely will not. I can count on Wayne at least to tell it like it is....once the undeniable smoking gun of WMD, and Al Qaida links are found. But that is just my point. In this new and dangerous post 9/11 world we are not going to have smoking gun type evidence. We are going to have to act on intelligence and rational estimations. I guess this means we are likely to be wrong from time to time...but for the WOT to be a success we will have to attack the terrorists, and terror sponsors wherever they are. So the left will cry out that our pre-emptive policy in the WOT will result in mistakes made, and innocent people killed. This is dangerous stuff to be sure...but right now all the right has to do is point to the successes of Afghanistan, and now Iraq....and to the absence of successful terror attacks on American soil. You can't argue with success guys..... I'm looking forward to seeing 3rd ID's armor cruising past the crossed swords of Saddam's great "Arc de Triumphe".....we ought to get that picture eartly next week.

-z

 

[Wayne Grabert]

If the Iraqi government were to explain the the sky is blue, it would be prudent to go outside and check. We all knew Iraq's track record of lies, some merely chose to ignore that fact. It just goes to prove that when the subject is politics, some ordinarily solid skeptics suddenly become very gullible.

Rik, if you substituted "Iraqi" and "Iraq" with "Bush" in the above statement, you's have an equally strong argument.

Whom are we to believe? I'd rely on evidence. Unfortunately, the inspections were cut short. But they were always "irrelevant," right? Yes, they were because this war was never about WMD or any of the other pretexts floated by the Bushies as marketing campaigns. It was always about power. This war is nothing less than an act of aggression and conquest.

In another thread days ago I posted an extract from an article that appeared in the English edition of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. It was mainly an article about the involvement of Hezbollah in the bombing of an Israeli embassy in South America some years back. The final paragraph, which I extracted, stated that the Israeli government would try to persuade Washington to next turn its war on terror on Iran, Syria and Lebanon. It further stated that the government had been told by its supporters within the Bush administration that it had a good chance of success.

The next day, or maybe it was the day after that, Rumsfeld started his threats against Syria and Iran.

This war is mainly about two things: the extension of American power and re-ordering the Middle East to enhance Israel's security. It will achieve the opposite of both. The winner will be radical Islam.

And it's "Dr. Chinese," you Anglo-imperial pig! (Be nice to the Doctor.)