Jediflyer posted:Kimball, if that was true, why did the Bush administration push for another security council resolution in 2002 and then giving up with the security council in 2003 when they wouldn't pass a new resolution?
Jediflyer posted:And 2/3rds of the security council along with the Secretary General agreed that 678 and follow-on resoultions did not authorize an invasion of Iraq.
Jediflyer posted:Which made the occupation legal, but not the initial invasion.
Jediflyer posted:UNSCR 660 did not authorize invasion of Iraq. It only called for the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait, which is what Gulf War I did when acting on UNSCR 687. Unless you can show me any security council resolutions authorizing the overthrow of the Iraqi government or a full scale invasion, 687 was not a legit basis for the Iraq War.
UNSCR 678 posted: Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, 1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so; 2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; 3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution; 4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution; 5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Recalling, and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August (1990), 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of of 29 October 1990 and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990. Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council,
UNSCR 687 posted:1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire;
Kimball_Kinnison posted:I'm sorry, both of you, but if you want to play at being armchair generals, you can't just pull out the amateur card to get out of it. Both of you criticized the administration for not following the "Powell Doctrine" of overwhelming force. It's time for you to either back up your claims or retract them. How do you know that it wasn't overwhelming force? How are you defining that term? How does that compare to how it was defined within the context of the Powell Doctrine (as Mr44 pointed out before)? Where the two disagree, why is your criteria better? If you are simply going to parrot what other people say, then you need to give the basis for why their arguments are valid. What criteria are they using? Why is that criteria appropriate? If you don't give that information, there's really no basis to your argument that can be either supported or refuted. All you are doing is the equivalent of a "drive by" declaration of "I think it's a mess". You aren't really adding anything to the discussion. Just because someone says something doesn't make it right. That's simply an appeal to authority fallacy. You need to be able to support why they are right. Neither of you are doing that. You are simply taking their statements on faith because you agree with the results. Kimball Kinnison
Wilkerson posted:Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, from the business world – how much influence on their decisions? I think a lot – in how much the decisions reflect their connections with the cartels and the corporations and so forth, I think a lot. I think the president, too. You bring this sort of idea that the bottom line is everything. I will tell you, as a military man, the bottom line is not everything. It’s far from everything. One of the reasons Colin Powell answered the question when he was asked, after the first Gulf War, why he sent five carriers – one of the reasons he said because he didn’t have six – (scattered laughter) – was because he understood that the bottom line is not everything. When you start taking a paring knife to the military to cut it -- like a businessman would cut his business -- you are damaging and perhaps destroying the potential of that military to win future conflicts. You never know what you are going to need on the battlefield, so you’d better have six of them. Five of them won’t show up, four of them won’t be able to communicate, and I could go on. But you need overlap, you need redundancy. You need, as Powell used to say “decisive force.” People say he said “overwhelming force;” most often he said “decisive force.” And when you are dealing with government in many ways, whether it’s Katrina, Rita, responding to a nuclear attack or whatever, you’d better have 10 cases of water where you think you need one. You’d better have 15 million MREs where you think you need only a million because you never know in a crisis, and the best way to be prepared is to have lots more than you think you’re going to need or want. And that’s just the reality of the way you do business in government and in the military as opposed to the way you do it at GE – oh, I shouldn’t use GE – (scattered laughter) – you know, wherever you do business. It’s very – it’s a very different environment. So when you have businessmen making the decisions within government, it’s not necessarily bad, but you’ve got to be willing to listen to other people who might have different opinions to those you have.
yankee8255 posted:Took me a while to find this -- it's from a speech given by Powell's former chief of staff and a retired military officer, Lawrence Wilkerson, on the topic of decisive /overwhelming force. I think it backs up my point pretty darned well. The speech is mainly about the intelligence failure regarding WMD (it's the speech where he refers to the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal). The implication is clearly -- Cheney and Rumsfeld thought they could take care of Iraq on the cheap: Wilkerson posted:Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, from the business world – how much influence on their decisions? I think a lot – in how much the decisions reflect their connections with the cartels and the corporations and so forth, I think a lot. I think the president, too. You bring this sort of idea that the bottom line is everything. I will tell you, as a military man, the bottom line is not everything. It’s far from everything. One of the reasons Colin Powell answered the question when he was asked, after the first Gulf War, why he sent five carriers – one of the reasons he said because he didn’t have six – (scattered laughter) – was because he understood that the bottom line is not everything. When you start taking a paring knife to the military to cut it -- like a businessman would cut his business -- you are damaging and perhaps destroying the potential of that military to win future conflicts. You never know what you are going to need on the battlefield, so you’d better have six of them. Five of them won’t show up, four of them won’t be able to communicate, and I could go on. But you need overlap, you need redundancy. You need, as Powell used to say “decisive force.” People say he said “overwhelming force;” most often he said “decisive force.” And when you are dealing with government in many ways, whether it’s Katrina, Rita, responding to a nuclear attack or whatever, you’d better have 10 cases of water where you think you need one. You’d better have 15 million MREs where you think you need only a million because you never know in a crisis, and the best way to be prepared is to have lots more than you think you’re going to need or want. And that’s just the reality of the way you do business in government and in the military as opposed to the way you do it at GE – oh, I shouldn’t use GE – (scattered laughter) – you know, wherever you do business. It’s very – it’s a very different environment. So when you have businessmen making the decisions within government, it’s not necessarily bad, but you’ve got to be willing to listen to other people who might have different opinions to those you have.
