War in Iraq?, version 4.0 (Official Iraq thread)

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Ender Sai, Mar 12, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Or something like that... ;)

    KnightWriter said that we should think about creating a new, official Iraq thread as we'd reached 70+ pages, and with this story breaking, I thought it was time.

    White House all but concedes U.N. defeat.

    So, with the vote "all but lost" in the Security Council, what will the coming weeks bring in the US/UN/Iraq situation?

    E_S

    Time for a new thread :).
  2. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    We have wasted too much time with the UN already.
  3. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    We're talking about the bigger picture here. I mean, for one, the ramifications to customary international law are so widespread, I submit nobody here (myself included) has even grasped what this will mean. I mean, sure the neocons will say international law doesn't matter, as they're neo-realists and think only the states matter, but I maintain that the realist/neo-realist paradigm is critically short sighted, only sees in blacks and whites, trees not forests, etc.

    For in this instance, I've noticed everyone is really focused exclusively on the war with Iraq. The focus is only on the US and Iraq - 2 nations out of 191. This event will have massive, widespread "ripples", and I think that before the shots are fired, we need to reevaluate this position. Can we guarantee that deposing Saddam Husayn's regime will in fact bring stability to the Middle East? Are we prepared to sacrifice the mechanisms of customary international law to get one man? Are we going to follow this illegal method of "regime change", denying the principles of self-determination, if the Iraq war succeeds? It's about time we answered these serious questions and stopped (falsely) asserting that might = right.

    E_S
  4. tenorjedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2000
    star 5
    It still baffles me why everybody cares about UN support with Bush, yet never cared with Clinton. Okay it doesn't baffle me cause I know the reason, but it's still stupid and hypocritical.
  5. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    That's true tenorjedi.

    I didn't hear this same sentiment expressed during Kosovo, which happened without UN approval.
  6. Kyp_side_of_TheForce Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 27, 2002
    star 4
    okay, I have a question that might seem ignorant (because, it pretty much is) but why is the US trying to keep the Kurds from taking Saddam out?
  7. SnorreSturluson Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 14, 2003
    star 4
    I didn't hear this same sentiment expressed during Kosovo, which happened without UN approval.

    I can guarantee you that I was against war in ´99 too.
    The difference is that the EU and the complete NATO was behind that action. Russia and China didn´t really care about it.
    And there have been obvious reasons for a war. People understood that something had to be done.
  8. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    And there have been obvious reasons for a war.


    The case is the same here.

    It's obvious Saddam isn't complying. It's obvious he's not going to comply, and it's obvious that 12 years of inspections, bombing, threats, etc. have not worked to disarm him.

    Saddam is also a genocidal mass murderer, liar, and dictator just like Slobodan Milosevic.
  9. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    "Russia and China didn´t really care about it."



    Argh! Then why was the Security Council bypassed? To avoid vetos from those members!
  10. SnorreSturluson Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 14, 2003
    star 4
    The case is the same here.

    No - answer me a simple question. Has the Iraq done any harm to the USA since 2000?
    Pro-war guys always say that "12 years is enough" but honestly - the USA kept him alive for 12 years. US presidents needed a villain (but a weak one) for the next crisis. It was the same with Clinton.

    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse.

    history repeats.
  11. MRHA Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 2000
    star 2
    It was more the same in 91...

    and hum, when we see the ex-yugoslavia now, I am not sure it's a good argument DM ;)

    But I can assure you that in france at least a lot of people were against this war too.
  12. SnorreSturluson Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 14, 2003
    star 4
    Argh! Then why was the Security Council bypassed? To avoid vetos from those members!

    But they didn´t do anything to protect Milosevic.
  13. SnorreSturluson Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 14, 2003
    star 4
    and hum, when we see the ex-yugoslavia now, I am not sure it's a good argument DM

    Especially if you look at Serbia today. Prime minister Zoran Djinjic has been shot twice (he´s still alive).
  14. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    I say we bypass the security council and do it on our own reasons for national security.

    The Security Council has proven to be a place of cheap talk and no substance.

    We should not wait one day past March 17th to get it started, as these French and Germans would love to see it get too hot for us to do anything - hence is why they are prolonging this whole debacle.
  15. SnorreSturluson Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 14, 2003
    star 4
    I say we bypass the security council and do it on our own reasons for national security.

    Iraq is some thousand miles away from the USA how can they penetrate the national security.
    (Especially as Iraq knows that they´ll be nuked away if they do so).
    If the USA does so (bypassing the UN security council) it can be seen as "rogue nation".
  16. p_atch Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 21, 2002
    star 2
    there isnt a reasonable case that invading Iraq is integral to the US's national security otherwise they could have already gone in and it would have been legal

    what your suggesting isnt even pre-emptive war, its preventive and is an incredibly bad precedent to set for the rest of the world and is completely illegal

    what stopping India or Pakistan from using the same argument?

    what stopping NK from using the same argument against the US and launching some nukes?
  17. SnorreSturluson Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 14, 2003
    star 4
    Breaking news: Zoran Djinjic died a few minutes ago.
  18. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    what stopping NK from using the same argument against the US and launching some nukes?

    They don't need an argument. They're going to do what they want and launch them anyway if they so choose.

    Peace,

    V-03
  19. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    It is in the UN charter for nations to defend themselves in their own national interests.

    The US is merely giving the UN common courtesy in this matter, as we can go anytime we wish. GWB is giving them the benefit of the doubt - now he knows how the UN really works.

    We are backing up words with substance, something the UN doesn't seem to know how to do.

    (Chirac stating that he'll veto the resolution 'no matter what happens' is basically letting Saddam off the hook, which is a stupid statement - not altogether unfamiliar to Chirac who likes to tell other nations to 'shut up' if they don't agree with him. Way to go Old Europe! [face_plain])
  20. Kyp_side_of_TheForce Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 27, 2002
    star 4
    ... no matter where I go, my questions are ignored... *sigh*
  21. SnorreSturluson Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 14, 2003
    star 4
    It is in the UN charter for nations to defend themselves in their own national interests.

    If you defend yourself you have to be attacked first. Did Iraq attack the USA?

    Chirac stating that he'll veto the resolution 'no matter what happens'

    The French position is that the resolution 1441 is enough for the moment and the UN security council shouldn´t pass a resolution allowing a war. They think (or at least they pretend to) that a peaceful solution is possible.
    If Saddam Hussein keeps playing games there will be "serious consequences". But as for now the results of weapons inspections are enough to give up hope.
  22. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    that a peaceful solution is possible...


    Did I mention that the French water "Evian" is naive spelled backwards?

    If Saddam Hussein keeps playing games...


    What do you think he's been doing for 12 years!?! Even after the last-ditch effort to stop him from doing so with 1441?

  23. SnorreSturluson Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 14, 2003
    star 4
    If the Kurds get their own state there will be either a civil war in Kurdistan or a war against Turkey or/and Iran cause there´s a Kurd minority too.
  24. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    On the Kurds (hadn't heard the US is restraining them...link?):

    The issue here is that the Kurds are semi-autonomous, and would like to establish their own state, carving a huge chunk out of Iraq. However, Iran and Turkey have huge Kurdish minorities in parts of their countries (so that the Kurds are a majority locally), and the establishment of a Kurdish state is unacceptable for them. Therefore, the US is trying to recruit Kurdish help, and ensure their safety in a post-Ba'ath regime...however, they can't give them too much autonomy, or the hope for a state, withoout weighing the consequences of that in their relations with Turkey and Iran, and the implications locally.


    As far as Iraq physically threatening the US, that is a very poor yardstick to use. Containment has nothing to do with preserving physical safety, it has to to with not allowing overt influence outside a rogue state's borders. Iraq armed with NBC weapons, which they pledged to voluntarily remove 12 years ago, will certainly NOT be contained. From there, the threat to the US is farther over the horizon, or via weapons proliferation and third-party/asymetric attack. These last risks are *real*, especially in a post 9/11 world (note: I am not alleging involvement of al qaeda, just the changied threat tolerance of the US), and people who still maintain Iraq is not a threat are still looking at the world like it was 10, or even 20 years ago.


    Yes, DM, you've made the joke before.

    Snorre, 1441 promised serious consequences if Iraq is in material breach. Material breach involves a falst declaration (Blix has asserted this) and non-cooperation with the inspection regime (Blix has said that Iraq has still not made the strategic decision to disarm). Hans Blix is not the person who takes his information and decides, though. That is the job of the nations who voted for 1441 unanamously. The French position on inspections, that 'more time' or 'more inspectors' can hope to work, when it is clear that Iraq has withheld information from their declaration, and has not decided to disarm, is completely unteneble.
  25. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    The US is merely giving the UN common courtesy in this matter, as we can go anytime we wish. GWB is giving them the benefit of the doubt - now he knows how the UN really works.

    Funny how the two George Bush's are totally different entities in their perception of international relations. Granted, one had a little bit more practise at it... And George HW Bush knew how to make the UN work for what he wanted.

    And that's the thing; with his father's understanding of the system, Dubya could have had this. IMO, he just didn't go about it right.
    E_S
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.