US soldier refuses to serve in â€˜illegal Iraq warâ€™

TakuanSoho · #**231** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noneof yourbusiness

That resultion wasnt about a war. Cease fires dont justify another war.

Sure it was, it granted any and all means to remove Saddam from power.

This is why I wouldn't vote for Kerry. He tried to pretend it didn't mean that when EVERYONE knows that it did (and this is why there was debate about it at the time).

areyoushittin'me? · #**232** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Congress voted to authorize the use of force consistent with upholding all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions pertaining to Iraq. Once Iraq was declared to be in material breach of the Gulf War ceasefire, as it was by Resolution 1441, then the original UN Authorization for use of force in the Gulf War (Resolution 678) once again became operative (as it was never revoked). In a nutshell, Bush was operating under the same UN authority as his father was in 1990-91.

That is not quite correct...Resolution 678 provided for war to remove Saddam from Kuwait...the UN never sanctioned removing Saddam from power.

In fact, check this out...

Quote:

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Actually, what they are referring to regarding, "not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," is that the only way we got support of the UN and other countries of the region, including the availability of basing in Saudi Arabia was because we agreed to not personally get rid of Saddam...in fact, the other countries in the region didn't want him gone because the asshole provided some stability in such a volatile region...they all realized we would have the mess that we do today.

A. Crowley · #**233** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 05:38 PM

Flight of the Chickenhawks

areyoushittin'me? · #**234** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

The UN doesn't have ultimate power, Tileman... but it does have the weight of legitimacy in international conflicts. If the US invaded Iraq with Congressional approval but without UN authorization, then an argument could have been made that it was illegal because it violated US treaty commitments to adhere to the UN Charter.

Quite true...we don't need the permission of the UN but without them it does give new meaning of, "you're either with us of with the enemy".

noneof yourbusiness · #**235** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 05:40 PM

Article 1:
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
Article 2, paragraph 4
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Article 33
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

noneof yourbusiness · #**236** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 05:41 PM

wars of agression are forabde. All these articles were signed by the US. They are not going to ever be taken seriously when they are the leader n two faced lies and hypocarcy.

areyoushittin'me? · #**237** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Sure it was, it granted any and all means to remove Saddam from power.

This is why I wouldn't vote for Kerry. He tried to pretend it didn't mean that when EVERYONE knows that it did (and this is why there was debate about it at the time).

NOYB was referring to the UN resolution...I'm guessing you are referring to our own congressional resolution...if not, would you be so kind as to provide the passage that "granted any and all means to remove Saddam from power"...you will have as much trouble supporting that statement as Tileman has with his bogus claim.

marmalade6 · #**238** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LCOF

He's more likely going to plug your six, than cover it. It sounds like your life is as pathetic as his. Besides he's a fool, no one will give a rats ass about his stand. Especially libs like you. You know this, so admit you are a fake, phony , and a fraud. And a really dumb lib also.

I give a rats ass about his stand! You blind fool. How can you tolerate this ruination of your country by bush and cheney. Prosecusion for war crimes are in the future. Hopefully, cheney will still be alive.

Tileman · #**239** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 05:56 PM

Quote:

The UN doesn't have ultimate power, Tileman... but it does have the weight of legitimacy in international conflicts. If the US invaded Iraq with Congressional approval but without UN authorization, then an argument could have been made that it was illegal because it violated US treaty commitments to adhere to the UN Charter.

---That opens a very WIDE door to these issues:
*US Constitution supercedes anything and everything be it UN or not unless the constitution is amended to give such powers away.
*US constitution allows for the president and congress to perform military action without consulting any other entity or legislative body.
*US does have a right to protect itself and wage war if needed.

--- In essence any and every treaty that violates the Constitution is null and void unless ratified and amended. This would be a great case for that!

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

Quite true...we don't need the permission of the UN but without them it does give new meaning of, "you're either with us of with the enemy".

--- I agree with this statement whole heartidly. The UN is little more than an international political scene by which nations use POSTURING with their vanity and SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS! Furthermore, your quote adds to the fact our congress can only determine if a war is illegal since the UN has absolutely zero power over our constitution.

Amazed · #**240** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

I've not once said anything about the war being "illegal"...I've said it is sad that the military feels the need to maintain a force as they do and that I feel it is counterproductive (to paraphrase)...I have also addressed Tileman's bullshit statement...I've not called either of you any names that I recall, whereas I also recall both of you slinging insults and falsehoods toward me.

Our congress provided Bush the backing he needed to go to war...sadly, most thought they were providing him with a big stick that would be used as a threat and not in lieu of further diplomacy which he chose to circumvent...unfortunately.

You do understand that that is what teh the Thread is about??

Your first comment in the Thread....

US soldier refuses to serve in ‘illegal Iraq war’

Why is that such a big deal?

How many of you have had a co-worker complain about the company that you work for and suggested, "Well, you can always quit."?

Why can't he?

It's a big deal because as you just said, the War isn't illegal. You are supporting what he says as being ok....

This guy in question has fought for his country...why should he not be allowed to make a determination that can only be negated by, "my country right or wrong"?

He doesn't get to make that determination, you are sayibg he should, making the dtermination a Moral Equivalence issue...one that you are continuing to support.

I would be quite willing to give my life if you could get me into a situation where I could blow bin-Laden to hell but I sure as shit wouldn't lift a finger to fight the Bushshit war in Iraq.

You again agree with his premise. You don't get to occupy both sides of the fence.