What makes a justified/morally correct war? Now discussing the 2003 US invasion of Iraq

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by saturn5, Feb 12, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    I'd disagree somewhat. I remember being very annoyed at the time because I didn't think there would be WMDs found like were being discussed, but I remember both sides acting as though the general idea of there being WMDs being at least somewhat supported, the question being if they'd be locatable. It was one of my points of resentment at the time that I felt everyone was treating something as a given that simply wasn't the case.

    Example, Al Gore from September 23, 2002: ""We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
  2. GrandAdmiralPelleaon Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 6
    I'm not sure how far the internal US debate worked, although even so, I remember on this board that quite a few people expressed serious doubts about it. Here, however, and on the wider world scale. It wasn't bought. The Iraq war was by far the most protested war in history before it started. 36 million people world wide came out on one day. Our government publically took the stance that it was the wrong approach and did not support the claims that WMD's would be found.
  3. JediMaster1511 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2010
    star 9
    From what I can recall, didn't the UN say there were no WMD's found during their inspections? As well as U.S. intelligence.
  4. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    From what I can recall, didn't the UN say there were no WMD's found during their inspections? As well as U.S. intelligence.

    That was after we invaded. But my point is that even if we genuinely thought Saddam had WMD's before the war, why was Bush suddenly painting him as the greatest villain in all of history? Saddam literally went from being a pathetic impotent dictator to being the next Hannibal. All this coming right after 9/11 is all very suspect.
  5. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    The invasion started before the inspections were finished. So you could argue that to the U.S. government, the invasion was more important than the inspections.
  6. JediMaster1511 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2010
    star 9
    That's part of the reason I suspect conspiracy theory for 9/11. The U.S. government should have waited for the UN to finish inspection. It seems almost as if Bush knew their were no WMD's, and was afraid his only justification for the war was dissapearing. Yes, I agree the way Hussein was being potrayed, the whole war in general, seemed like he was justifying it before a majority questioned it. I personally feel this was a war for the sake of war. Now I see that Barack is starting to commence troop withdrawl from Iraq. I can only see problems for Iraq after this happens. With many groups opposing the Iraqi government, I can see a civil war happening. Which will either lead to U.S. troops being re-deployed, or even more criticism for starting the war, or both. This war was poorly planned and poorly managed.
  7. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    The invasion started before the inspections were finished. So you could argue that to the U.S. government, the invasion was more important than the inspections.

    Of course it was. There WAS a conspiracy, but it was a completely open one that anyone could have seen through by just paying attention to the news.

    The main reason the inspections were of consequence is that Bush, foolishly, MADE them of consequence himself. In his speech to the UN in August/September of 2002, he admonished Hussein for not allowing UN inspectors to finish thier work. This was not technically true, and Bush immediately paid the price for it when Hussein immediately let the inspectors back in.vThe Bush administration then had to do an immediate 100% backpedal to explain why this didn't mean anything and why the invasion had to continue.

    It should have been apparent to EVERYONE at that point that the people heading up this invasion were not up to the task. Hussein had just scored a significant diplomatic victory becuase of a simplistic argument on behalf of the US -- how would you expect such an administration to actually manage the invasion and occupation of the country itself? And as it turns out they WEREN'T up to the job, and it was Republicans in Conress... mostly John McCain... who essentially had to come in and occupy the decision-making vaccuum.

    The reasons for the Iraq War were largely a convergence of smaller issues: the presence in Saudi Arabia, the cost of that military presence, Saddam's overall threat to the region, oil prices... there was no one issue that this was about, it was about the US finding itself with a lot of international diplomatic capital after 9/11, and they decided to spend that capital resolving the issues surrounding Iraq. It was thought that with the invasion of Iraq they could solve a lot of long-term problems in one stroke.

    That is still a possibility. It might turn out, now that the war is much more manageable, that the situation now is, overall, better than that which stood beforehand -- althugh over a million people died in order to bring that about, and the administration executing the entire plan was perhaps the least equipped to do so in the modern era since they failed on most levels, from setup for the war to managment to presentation. But it does mean that US troops may no longer have to occupy the arabian peninsula in significant numbers, and Iraq's resources will no longer be used by an irresponsible and murderous military dictatorship. Of course, what's going to replace that dictatorship still has to prove itself out.
  8. JediMaster1511 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2010
    star 9
    I suspect that there is something more to U.S. occupation in the Middle East than what we are being told. Given the fact that Osama Bin Laden, who was said to be responsible for 9/11, does not have the crime on his wanted profile. Everything else is on there but that. Last I knew anyway. The fact that Bush rushed us to Iraq before any credible evidence either to support or deny WMD's was out, and I beleive he knew the answer before hand. The whole thing just doesn't seem to add up. Like there is something more.
  9. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    All there's to it is right there in Gonk's post.
  10. saturn5 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 28, 2009
    star 4
    1. Sure plenty of other places that could stand some US intervention but few that could pose such a direct threat than Iraq. It was hoped that by removing Saddam and creating a democratic Iraq it would undermine AQ (their frenzied attempts to disrupt Iraqi democracy have proven how much they do fear that). If the occupation had worked out as well as the liberation I'm sure we would have seen a liberated N Korea too.

    2. Bush convinced himself and ignored facts he didn't like? Yeah well wouldn't be the first president who did that! Again you could say Eisenhower/JFK/LBJ didn't understand the conflict in Vietnam or Bush Snr/Clinton didn't understand Somalia etc

    3. My source? Listed them before, check back there. But primarily I've seen no reports on the news today of genocide against the Kurds/Marsh Arabs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack And they certainly took place in Saddam's Iraq throughout the 70/80s, not just after the liberation of Kuwait. Read plenty, don't make this personal, let's keep this a resasoned if lively debate, not a slanging match.

    4. AQ and Saddam have made common cause with their enemies before, notably with Iran. I would say to those Iraqi refugees that at least in free Iraq they can leave whenever they want to rather than be kept as slaves for Saddam

    5. As president George W could hand out whatever pork he wanted to and didn't need a war for that (he could have done it with the spave programme). Or did FDR enter the US into WW2 to benefit his campaign contributors at Grumman? Just watching a doc on the Hitlery...sorry, History Channel where it's clear that allied losses soared after the US entry to the war, what the U-boats called The Happy Time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_shipping_losses_during_the_Second_Battle_of_the_Atlantic

    6. Yeah we might have intervened directly in Iran if the Iraqi occupation had gone better. Aside from that any overt/covert help for the Iranian opposition would have been used to smear and discredit them ('it's all a CIA plot!'), think of the Prague Spring and Hungarian uprising during the cold war.

    7. One of the justifications for war is that Saddam obstructed the UN inspectors so they couldn't definitively say whether he had WMDs or not. This lead most pople to believe he had them prior to the liberation, the argument was only as to whether this justified invasion.
  11. Darth_Yuthura Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 2007
    star 4
    So if a few other nations posed a greater threat than Iraq, why were they not addressed first? If N Korea and Iran posed a greater threat, then naturally you would engage a lower priority threat first?

    Why exactly?

    So the president is above the law? The greatest part is that it's now official! Given as it's not unusual, considering Nixon and Bush's records, then Obama has free reign to do whatever we wants.

    You mean in the 1990's and 2000 years? Not crimes of which he had committed from before Operation Desert Storm, right? The 2003 invasion was based on WMD that were built AFTER Desert Storm.

    [face_shame_on_you]

    You're comparing WWII to an unprovoked and pointless invasion brought upon by misrepresentation by the Bush administration? I don't believe you have the vaguest idea what you're talking about. Read Broken Government by John Dean and then come back when you're better versed in some of the more important details.

    If the occupation had gone better? That's why you have contingency plans, as war is not something you can easily predict, nor anticipate. That is not an excuse.

    If the Iraqi occupation had not happened at all, there would have been a 100% chance that the resources could have been used to address N Korea and Iran.
  12. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    1. Sure plenty of other places that could stand some US intervention but few that could pose such a direct threat than Iraq. It was hoped that by removing Saddam and creating a democratic Iraq it would undermine AQ (their frenzied attempts to disrupt Iraqi democracy have proven how much they do fear that). If the occupation had worked out as well as the liberation I'm sure we would have seen a liberated N Korea too.

    Eeeeh, not really. I suppose a democratic Iraq would have undermined AQ in the greater sense, but AQ didn't, comparatively, get much of its resources in Iraq -- the names of major Iraqi Al Qaida operatives are known to us mostly becuase they happened to be native to Iraq. At the time of 9/11 the two nations that AQ most drew power from were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

    A liberated N Q was always extremely unlikely. There was never going to be a conflict there without the North Koreans convincingly starting one. You have noticed that China sits right next door? And you do know how China suddenly intervened in the Korean War? Nobody wants to see a repeat of that since it could conscievably spiral out of control into nuclear engagement.


    2. Bush convinced himself and ignored facts he didn't like? Yeah well wouldn't be the first president who did that! Again you could say Eisenhower/JFK/LBJ didn't understand the conflict in Vietnam or Bush Snr/Clinton didn't understand Somalia etc

    First of all I'm unaware of Bush Snr forgetting any facts he didn't like. Secondly the wars you quote were already ongoing when those facts came out. Bush's looking the other way in face of the facts came at the moment of the declaration of war -- and in fact you sort of change the phrasing here for "ignored facts" to "didn't understand the conflict". I don't think any of those presidents, save LBJ, ignored facts at one point or another... and LBJ did acknowledge them prior to the end of his first term, which was his implicit in his decision not to run for re-election.



    3. My source? Listed them before, check back there. But primarily I've seen no reports on the news today of genocide against the Kurds/Marsh Arabs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack And they certainly took place in Saddam's Iraq throughout the 70/80s, not just after the liberation of Kuwait. Read plenty, don't make this personal, let's keep this a resasoned if lively debate, not a slanging match.

    To my understanding you would have to go back to circa 1991-94 to find those sorts of reports. So they weren't in the news at the time of invasion either, and there wasn't any sign of any being in the news. Unfortunately the 2003 invasion, despite our best efforts, failed to bring any of those genocide victims from the 70s/80s back to life.


    4. AQ and Saddam have made common cause with their enemies before, notably with Iran. I would say to those Iraqi refugees that at least in free Iraq they can leave whenever they want to rather than be kept as slaves for Saddam

    Same with Iraq and America. And the extent of Iraq and AQ collaborating with thier "common enemies" is unclear -- as far as I've been able to discern, Iraq collaborated with AQ about as much as ANY middle Eastern state did on average. Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan (although that state is not Middle Eastern), Algeria... all these states are more likely to have collaborated more with AQ than Iraq.


    5. As president George W could hand out whatever pork he wanted to and didn't need a war for that (he could have done it with the spave programme). Or did FDR enter the US into WW2 to benefit his campaign contributors at Grumman? Just watching a doc on the Hitlery...sorry, History Channel where it's clear that allied losses soared after the US entry to the war, what the U-boats called The Happy Time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_shipping_losses_during_the_Second_Battle_of_the_Atlantic

    I... don't know what it is you're trying to say here.

    6. Yeah we might have intervened directly in Iran if the Iraqi occupation had gone
  13. LtNOWIS Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 4
    So... no more wars? Spanish-American, Mexican-American, Korean...
  14. saturn5 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 28, 2009
    star 4
    We did Korea, decided it was justified as was Vietnam. But I think Iraq has a long way to go. But if you'd like to start another thread, be my guest

    1. NK has no oil and only borders one friendly country, also by taking out Iraq it was hoped to help establish democracy in the middle east which NK wouldn't have achieved. Plus we have the problem of China

    2. As I understand it the President interprets the law but isn't above it, how Obama get's away with his drone strikes when Ford banned assassination, how Lincoln could ban Habeus Corpus, close down newspapers that opposed him and shoot anti-conscription rioters.

    3. The WMDs still existed after Desert Storm, that's why we had the inspectors. With them gone we had no real idea of what was going on inside Iraq. He'd managed to hide a lot from us prior to Desert Storm and his people could always rebuild his WMD programme, they didn't need foreign help for that

    4. I'm comparing the Iraq conflict to WW2 because it's a case of pre-emptive war rather than waiting to be attacked and reacting to it. As for the U-boat tangent it started because someone said Hitler declaring war on the US was his fatal mistake whilst I consider war between the 2 nations pretty inevitable for the reasons given.

    5. Couldn't concentrate on Iran with Iraq on our flank.

    6. True many AQ come from Pakistan, Yemen and Saudi etc but those countries act against them. We knew Iraq had developed and used WMDs and we knew Saddam hated us

    7. It was Eisenhower who got the US involved in Vietnam and JFK who continued and boosted his efforts, just like Carter started the CIA's efforts in Afghanistan but Regan expanded it. LBJ came in halfway through the game. No president ever starts with a blank slate unfortunately

    8. Well no, the liberation didn't bring Saddam's victims back but it saved the lives of others (defeating Germany didn't bring back the Holocuast victims either)

  15. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    I'm comparing the Iraq conflict to WW2 because it's a case of pre-emptive war rather than waiting to be attacked and reacting to it.

    Nazi Germany posed an immediate and dire threat to the world, that's why FDR kept supporting Britain and the Soviet Union and secretly led a rearmament effort. Can we say the same for Saddam Hussein? I don't think so. You also say that Saddam hates us, but where was the hate? He never broadcasted the sort of propaganda that we hear from North Korea or Iran now, and both of those countries are actually much more dangerous now.

    Well no, the liberation didn't bring Saddam's victims back but it saved the lives of others (defeating Germany didn't bring back the Holocuast victims either)

    Nazi Germany was actively murdering people in 1945 (although we didn't believe they were at the time). Saddam in 2003 was not. If he had started up another campaign of mass murder, then yes we should have taken him out. But if you're talking about the murders that he "might" commit 10 years down the road, well that doesn't fly.
  16. Darth_Yuthura Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 2007
    star 4
    I do not sympathize with traitors, nor those who defend such people. I frankly don't give a damn what all others presidents have done in the past. This is not a matter of what THEY did. It doesn't excuse the deliberate acts of a few greedy individuals to start a war without cause. Bush should be crucified for his part in the whole thing. But not before he is brought on trial for the murders of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians who died as a direct result of the US invasion.

    Bush was a traitor. And I hope you're not so dense as to have bought all the crap he sold.

    If you are completely inept on such matters, then post nothing at all. No such WMD were located. No evidence exists to verify they ever did. Unless you can prove otherwise, then why should anyone believe your lies? Yes, you are lying. Making claims in spite of evidence is lying.

    And the whole WMD thing was a lie on the part of Bush to deceive the US into thinking a threat demanded military action where none existed. The US invasion dissected Iraq and found NOTHING. NO WMD. NO INDICATION THAT BUSH EVER HAD VALID REASON TO SAY 'HE'S GOT THEM'.

    No, it wasn't. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Germany likely would have had to confront the US at some point, but it WOULD NOT have been over the loss of a few U-boats. Declaring war over a few subs wouldn't address the problem... declaring war on the US at that time only compounded their problems a hundred fold.

    You have it backwards. Iraq wasn't a problem until the US entrenched itself in that country. And in so doing that, the US had since been unable to address the Iran or the North Korea problems.

    Now here we are with two very dangerous states holding nuclear weapons, or close to obtaining them... and having invested everything in the one that was least capable of procuring them. In engaging in a pointless war in Iraq, both North Korea and Iran were allowed to pursue nuclear weapons almost without limit.

    Still want to thank the Bush administration for that?

    And? A lot of people hated the US. And many more had greater means to obtain WMD than Saddam.

    God, you're arrogant. I have no issues with people who are ignorant of such subjects, but I do have issues with people like you. Bush and his administration were ****. And you are **** for defending them.
  17. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    I'm sorry, but that word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

    A traitor is someone who has committed the crime of treason. Treason is the only crime explicitly defined in the Constitution, which defines it as:
    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
    Now, that definition provides two different ways that someone can be convicted of treason.

    1) "levying war against [the United States]", or
    2) "adhering to [the United States'] enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"

    1) requires actively taking up arms against the United States. If you have evidence that Bush did this, then please present it. If not, then that leaves your accusation as based under definition 2).

    Note that 2) isn't a either/or statement. In order to have committed treason under that definition, you need to adhere (i.e. swear allegiance) to the enemies of the United States and give them "Aid and Comfort". Merely performing actions that provide aid or comfort to an enemy do not legally constitute treason.

    Therefore, what evidence do you have that Bush has sworn allegiance to the enemies of the United States and given them "Aid and Comfort"? If you lack such evidence, then your accusation is eerily similar to the claim by Joseph McCarthy that the FDR and Truman administrations were "twenty years of treason".

    Kimball Kinnison
  18. Darth_Yuthura Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 2007
    star 4
    Gotcha.

    Check. Knowingly lying about WMD to get the US into a war would fall in this category. It wasn't Bush declaring war, but misdirecting the state into war that wasn't in the interests of the nation would qualify as such.

    Which he's done. It was in the interests of Al Qeada that the US get involved in pointless wars to exhaust its resources. There was no connection between AQ and Iraq, yet Bush lied and said there was.

    I would say that he fits both quite nicely.

    Such a narrow view. You don't have to swear allegiance to another power in order to betray your state. You can do so for selfish ends, or even if your motives are completely insane.

    If someone within the US military stole state secrets on the design of nuclear weapons and sold them to citizens of the US, would he not be convicted of treason? He clearly doesn't betray the US because he doesn't give enemies any aid.

    If you misdirect people into believing that an accident that destroyed a warship was actually an attack made by another nation, would you not be responsible for the ensuing war? You're the one who deliberately deceived the populace into casting blame on the wrong people. 'You provide the pictures, and I'll provide the war.' William Randolph Hearst

    According the Bruce Riedel in his book, The Search for Al Qaeda, he describes in great detail how one of Bin Laden's primary goals is to engage the US in 'bleeding wars' which would defeat them in the same way the mujahedin defeated the Soviet Union. Bush had since progressed the AQ goals in bringing the US into such a war in Iraq.

    Knowing that there were no WMD in Iraq, nor serious evidence supporting them, George W Bush had since demonstrated an interest in progressing the AQ in its goal to engage the US into wars which would force them to overextend itself an exhaust its resources. If that's not enough, you don't vaguely have to prove that he's turned to another foreign power to charge someone of committing acts of treason. The deaths of over 5000 American servicemen. The murder of potentially a million Iraqi civilians. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars squandered. And all this was based on his misrepresentation of a threat he knew didn't exist.

    If this isn't treason, then what is it? War crimes?
  19. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    No, it does not fall into that category. Levying war against the United States requires that he personally take up arms against the US. "Misdirecting the state into war" does not meet the legal definition of levying war against the United States. (By your argument, any member of Congress who votes for a declaration of war would be "levying war against the United States".)

    No, he has not done this. Adhering to the enemies of the United States means to swear allegiance to them, not simply to perform actions that might give them aid or comfort.

    If we were to apply your definition of treason, then every lawyer who defends a captured enemy soldier is a traitor, because their actions give aid and comfort to the enemy. Without an oath of allegiance to that enemy, it does not constitute treason.

    It is highly instructive to look at Blackstone's 1769 description of High Treason:
    "If a man be adherent to the king's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere," he is also declared guilty of high treason. This must likewise be proved by some overt act, as by giving them intelligence, by sending them provisions, by selling them arms, by treacherously surrendering a fortress, or the like. By enemies are here understood the subjects of foreign powers with whom we are at open war.
    It is also important to note that under the Constitution, treason consists only of levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies, giving aid and comfort. That word only means that those are the only criteria under which someone can commit treason.

    Again, look at my comment about the effect of your expansive view of treason. By your definition, the ACLU is composed of traitors for giving aid and comfort to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (unless you are going to claim that not one of those prisoners is an enemy of the United States).

    Such a person would be guilty of espionage, but not of treason. Treason is a specific charge with very specific requirements. That's why there have been fewer than 50 prosecutions for treason in the history of the US.

    You might be responsible for that war, but you would not be guilty of treason because you would not have levied war against the United States.

    And yet, that does not meet the legal definition of levying war, nor of adhering to the enemies of the United S
  20. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    1. NK has no oil and only borders one friendly country, also by taking out Iraq it was hoped to help establish democracy in the middle east which NK wouldn't have achieved. Plus we have the problem of China

    Are you saying this is why there has been no invasion of NK? I don't see any justification of "human rights" in there or anything. As for establishing a Democracy in the Middle East, since when is that up to the United States or any nation that's not part of the Middle East?

    2. As I understand it the President interprets the law but isn't above it, how Obama get's away with his drone strikes when Ford banned assassination, how Lincoln could ban Habeus Corpus, close down newspapers that opposed him and shoot anti-conscription rioters.

    What is this in reference to?

    3. The WMDs still existed after Desert Storm, that's why we had the inspectors. With them gone we had no real idea of what was going on inside Iraq. He'd managed to hide a lot from us prior to Desert Storm and his people could always rebuild his WMD programme, they didn't need foreign help for that

    The inspectors had first of all left on thier own accord. Secondly, since when is INVASION an acceptable means to figure out what is going on inside a country. What, a million dead is an acceptable number of casualties for a FACT-FINDING MISSION? You seem to be under a misconception of how many people were killed as a result of this decision, who would not have died otherwise.

    And what exactly HAD Saddam hidden prior to Desert Storm anyway? That he could launch SCUD missiles into Israel? It seemed quite clear everyone knew he was capable of that already. But even if he had hidden things beforehand... wow, that would make Iraq just like every other nation on earth! Every nation hides secrets from other nations: not only is this not a crime, it is simply expected behavior. Otherwise there would not be the concept of state secrets. Just because the US and Iraq came upon bad terms at some point (because prior to 1991 they were not on bad terms) doesn't mean the fact they had secrets hidden from the world like everyone else becomes a retroactive justification for conflict.

    As for rebuilding the program, like many earlier statements you made: supposition, supposition, supposition. And supposition for which a million people died. Supposition for which there is absolutely NO proof the opposite action of NOT invading would have been responsible for a single death.

    If this is argument on behalf of a 'just' war then I submit that we remove the 'just' and just state that it's an argument for war, period. Becuase this is an awfully low bar being set to meet.


    4. I'm comparing the Iraq conflict to WW2 because it's a case of pre-emptive war rather than waiting to be attacked and reacting to it. As for the U-boat tangent it started because someone said Hitler declaring war on the US was his fatal mistake whilst I consider war between the 2 nations pretty inevitable for the reasons given.

    I don't see what WW2 has to do with a pre-emptive war or how it could justify it. Many argue that WW2 justifies pre-emptive war: it does not. There were numerous chances to take Hitler before he was ready in an erlier REACTIVE war. Had the French and British merely stood firm on Austria, on Czechoslovakia, crises that Hitler initiated, Hitler would have been undone well before his forces were ready -- and that would not have been pre-emptive war. It wasn't that the world was 'waiting to be attacked' so much as that they let Hitler run ramshod over everything in order to avoid war. That was NOT the case, ever, with Saddam -- either before or after Desert Storm. If you want the closest modern analogy to that behavior, I refer you to NK.

    It's easy to take a cakewalk and turn it into this justified crusade that saved many lives in the long run when it costs the nation that initiates conflict so little, but the real analogy to WWII requires the spectre of an actual threat and an actual and considerable cost to taking action.


    5.
  21. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    It isn't war crimes. War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war". Even if your charge that Bush lied to get the US into a conflict were verified (something you haven't actually proven), war crimes cannot be committed until hostilities begin.

    If this part of your statement is true, Kimball, then how does that square with the charge of "conspiracy to wage war" that many Nazis were tried of and convicted of at Nuremberg?

    True, this was not necessarily the charge that necessarily sent them to the hangman's noose, but it was a war crime of which they were convicted. Is it that it only becomes a conspiracy to wage war if the war ends up actually taking place? If that were the case, the Iraq invasion fits that criteria.
  22. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    5. Couldn't concentrate on Iran with Iraq on our flank.

    To me this was the biggest miscalculation of the war. No matter what anyone believes, Saddam Hussein's biggest concern wasn't blowing up buildings in Manhattan, it was contending with Iran. And Iran's biggest geopolitical concern was dealing with Iraq. Each was a fundamental limit on the other's power, and by invading Iraq and removing Hussein we gave Iran the biggest geopolitical gift we could possibly have conferred on them. We created a power vacuum for them to fill, and fill it they have.
  23. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Strictly speaking, "Conspiracy to Wage War" is not a war crime. Under the Nuremberg Charter, it was classified in Article 6(a) as a "Crime against Peace". (War Crimes are defined in 6(b), and Crimes against Humanity in 6(c).)

    However, even that would technically fail, as there was already an existing authorized state of conflict with Iraq. The US had legal authority under UNSCR 678 to use "all necessary means" to enforce UNSCR 660 (liberation of Kuwait) and all subsequent relevant resolutions (including the cease-fire in UNSCR 687). This was the legal authority for every bit of US-Iraq armed conflict after 1991, including enforcement of the no-fly zones, Clinton's 1998 cruise missile attacks, and so forth. That same grant of authority made the 2003 invasion just as legally authorized as those previous military actions under UNSCR 678.

    Kimball Kinnison
  24. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Strictly speaking, "Conspiracy to Wage War" is not a war crime. Under the Nuremberg Charter, it was classified in Article 6(a) as a "Crime against Peace". (War Crimes are defined in 6(b), and Crimes against Humanity in 6(c).)

    I am perfectly willing to change the phrasing from "War Crime" to "Crime against Peace" is that is the legal definition.

    However, even that would technically fail, as there was already an existing authorized state of conflict with Iraq. The US had legal authority under UNSCR 678 to use "all necessary means" to enforce UNSCR 660 (liberation of Kuwait) and all subsequent relevant resolutions (including the cease-fire in UNSCR 687). This was the legal authority for every bit of US-Iraq armed conflict after 1991, including enforcement of the no-fly zones, Clinton's 1998 cruise missile attacks, and so forth. That same grant of authority made the 2003 invasion just as legally authorized as those previous military actions under UNSCR 678.

    All necessary means as judged by whom in regards to UNSCR 687? We speak of now 12 years after UNSCR 660 had been accomplished.

    Were it a third party, that third party might very well take a different light to enforcing no-fly zones and cruise missile attacks 7-8 years after UNSCR 660 and a full invasion of the country (deemed unnecessary in 1991) 12 years after UNSCR 660.
  25. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Remember, 678 granted the authority to use "all necessary means" to enforce 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions. Those subsequent relevant resolutions included 687 (as well as the later ones up to and including 1441, which stated that Iraq was in material breach of 687).

    As far as who gets to decide what constitutes "all necessary means", that determination has historically been left to those who are actually executing the military operations. Under established international law, authorizing "all necessary means" covers the use of force up to and including nuclear weapons. Essentially, it was a blank check of authority to coalition forces cooperating with Kuwait to do whatever they felt they had to do to enforce 660, 687, and later resolutions.

    Kimball Kinnison
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.