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

Amazed · #**321** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

I didn't expect you would address the issue...have a good day.

The issue has been repeatedly addressed. You just don't like the outcome.

areyoushittin'me? · #**322** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetblast

Nice to see "shittinme" reduce Amazed to the gelatinous mound of truth distortion that he is. Well done.

Bush sr plainly established the grounds and definition of the UN resolutions and their meaning. Nice to see Amazed so visibly unable to refute this or admit his whole false argument deflated with such an obvious hissssss. So there they are with their argument in a rubbery mess at their feet with little else to say.

Perfect representation of Bush Amazed. Well done.

Thanks Jet...I knew it would be a waste of time to take him off ignore but then again, not really...it gave me an opportunity to make my points repeatedly and even address his strawman points...sad he refuses to man up and admit his foible.

He can now run around the forums and claim that I don't cite anything and just make stupid claims...I'll leave that bit of entertainment to others...

areyoushittin'me? · #**323** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 12:09 PM

This message is hidden because Amazed is on your ignore list.

Sorry but I'm done with your obtuse bs.

Cordelier · #**324** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

Also in the bit about changing objective in midstream that came from the Bush Sr./Scowcroft excerpt if you go bact to the original quote you can find..."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."

What part of this is so fucking hard for people to understand?

There isn't nor was there ever any UN mandate to remove Saddam from power...if you are going to somehow try and conflate "securing peace in the region" to mean such then I submit to you the absurd next argument that could be made is that the resolutions in question could be used to justify an invasion of Iran and Pakistan...perhaps we should invade India and Israel as well...good luck with that.

I don't disagree with the Bush Sr./Scowcroft argument... but the point you're missing is - as Amazed (I think) pointed out - is that there was a sequence of relevant resolutions passed as time went on, all of which counted as subsequent resolutions where Resolution 678 was concerned. During the Gulf War, why hostilities were still ongoing, the mission was to expel Saddam from Kuwait, pure and simple. That was why it would gone beyond the UN mandate to have rolled into Baghdad in 1991.

However, once there was a ceasefire agreement in place and active hostilities ended and the agreement was encapsulated in Resolution 687, then the bar was raised as far as Iraq was concerned - now it wasn't enough that Saddam stay out of Kuwait... he now had additional conditions imposed on him, especially where it came to his WMD programmes. By not living up to the additional conditions imposed by Resolution 687, Saddam faced the possibility of having Resolution 678's "all necessary means" imposed against him every bit as much as he did for not living up to the conditions imposed on him by Resolution 660 (namely, withdrawing from Kuwait).

Cordelier · #**325** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

Yes it did but that in and of itself did not justify junior going into Iraq as previously mentioned.

There are other stipulations which might be used to argue the validity of the "authority" and in reality a number of lawyers can and hopefully will look into the issue further.

In 107-243 a part also relevant regarding the UN resolutions is this...

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by
the President to—
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

...which makes the authority granted to Bush questionable, however, I've never argued that the UN was the basis to claim the legality of the Iraq war and the reason I say it is debatable is in that they also provided for....

How does it make it questionable? By the wording of that section, it appears to me that the Congress supported the efforts of the President - whatever efforts the President deemed applicable to the situation. It's not up to the Congress to determine the foreign policy of the United States, is it? All they can do is to support or oppose the policies of the President.

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

The legal question would be, does the "and" negate the legality?

How would the "and" possibly negate the legality? If you read carefully, you'll see that it doesn't say "if Iraq presents a continuing threat to the national security of the United States", it categorically states that Iraq does present a continuing threat. The Congress has unequivocally made that determination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

If we look a bit further though, quite possibly they have made that a moot point...

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.

I'm not a lawyer and not able to make the argument one way or another regarding the "legality" as regards our congress...but I can read and I'm standing by my position that THE UN DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE REMOVAL OF SADDAM FROM POWER AND THE INVASION OF IRAQ.

I'm not quite sure what your point is here... you emphasized the part about War Powers Resolution - are you saying that Bush somehow violated the requirements of that?

areyoushittin'me? · #**326** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

I don't disagree with the Bush Sr./Scowcroft argument... but the point you're missing is - as Amazed (I think) pointed out - is that there was a sequence of relevant resolutions passed as time went on, all of which counted as subsequent resolutions where Resolution 678 was concerned. During the Gulf War, why hostilities were still ongoing, the mission was to expel Saddam from Kuwait, pure and simple. That was why it would gone beyond the UN mandate to have rolled into Baghdad in 1991.

However, once there was a ceasefire agreement in place and active hostilities ended and the agreement was encapsulated in Resolution 687, then the bar was raised as far as Iraq was concerned - now it wasn't enough that Saddam stay out of Kuwait... he now had additional conditions imposed on him, especially where it came to his WMD programmes. By not living up to the additional conditions imposed by Resolution 687, Saddam faced the possibility of having Resolution 678's "all necessary means" imposed against him every bit as much as he did for not living up to the conditions imposed on him by Resolution 660 (namely, withdrawing from Kuwait).

I provided the challange to Amazed and of course he failed to engage in ti...I extend it to you as well...feel free to consider subsequent to mean all resolutions...even those a decade subsequent and show me where any of them provided for the attack of Iraq and removal of Saddam...they didn't.

They provided for a cease fire, yes.

They provided for inspections, yes.

They provided for humanitarian assistance (Oil For Food Programme), yes.

They provided for following Chapter VII, yes.

They provided for removal of Saddam, no.

Let me requote Chapter VII and see if I get get you to follow the point...

Quote:

CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Now, looking at it closely...article 39 calls for recommendations pursuant to articles 41 and 42.

Article 40 calls for, "call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable" and that is what the subsequent resolutions did.

Article 41 called for ACTION not involving the use of armed force.

And then Article 42 called for the military action which, yes, was introduced by resolution 678 pertaining to actions as called for by the other resolutions so yes...we had the authority granted by the UN to remove Saddams forces from Kuwait, to enforce a cease fire (gotta love the irony in that), to provide for inspections, to support the Oil For Food Programme but in no resolution was there ever any claim to the right to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam.

Plain and simple...if you think I am wrong please provide the resolution number and quote the wording.

Any "legal" right to do such came from our own Congress and that, even though it cited the UN was actually granted in spite of the fact that the UN didn't directly authorize such...to get that would have meant going back to the UN which Bush was intending to do so and get a further resolution allowing for the attack and removal of Saddam but as you may recall he decided not to do so because it became obvious that France and Germany would veto the idea.

If Bush had done that and succeeded I would not be making this argument.

Cordelier · #**327** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 01:18 PM

Areyoushittin'me - Why do you feel that Resolution 678's "all necessary means" (itself a reflection of Article 42's wording) somehow precluded the removal of Saddam from power? If removing Saddam from power was necessary to ensure Iraqi compliance with the relevant Security Council Resolutions, then why would it have been off the table? As far as I read it, "all necessary means" covers an awful lot of territory.

areyoushittin'me? · #**328** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

How does it make it questionable? By the wording of that section, it appears to me that the Congress supported the efforts of the President - whatever efforts the President deemed applicable to the situation. It's not up to the Congress to determine the foreign policy of the United States, is it? All they can do is to support or oppose the policies of the President.

I say questionable because the Congress called on Bush to "strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council"...as I stated in the last post...the UNSC resolutions did not call for the removal of Saddam and attack on Iraq and furthermore he did not obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council, that would have required that next resolution that he chose not to pursue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

How would the "and" possibly negate the legality? If you read carefully, you'll see that it doesn't say "if Iraq presents a continuing threat to the national security of the United States", it categorically states that Iraq does present a continuing threat. The Congress has unequivocally made that determination.

The "and" would make the UNSC as relevant as our national security...at best a rather poor notion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

I'm not quite sure what your point is here... you emphasized the part about War Powers Resolution - are you saying that Bush somehow violated the requirements of that?

No, not at all...what I'm saying is that may well support the argument that the war was authorized by Congress through 107-243 IN SPITE of the UN.

areyoushittin'me? · #**329** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Areyoushittin'me - Why do you feel that Resolution 678's "all necessary means" (itself a reflection of Article 42's wording) somehow precluded the removal of Saddam from power? If removing Saddam from power was necessary to ensure Iraqi compliance with the relevant Security Council Resolutions, then why would it have been off the table? As far as I read it, "all necessary means" covers an awful lot of territory.

Sure, as far as I'm concerned, we could have nuked Kuwait to get rid of Saddams troops except for the fact that that probably would not have provided for "peace in the region" which is what the UN is supposed to be all about.

No...as I've said repeatedly...we were authorized to use "all means necessary" to enforce the resolutions...all you have to do is show me where in any of the resolutions it called for the removal Saddam from power and I shall concede the argument...until then my point remains valid.

There is a reason that that was never made a part of the deal...the other countries of the region didn't want him removed for the very reasons that, as you acknowledged previously, Bush and Scowcroft mentioned...things would be a disaster...as it is now.

Let me share with you a sig I used to use that I said...

"The irony of this whole mess in Iraq is that we can't train and equip our future enemies fast enough."

countryslim · #**330** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 01:35 PM

This Soldier is a pawn apparently..

Quote:

“I stand before you today with the strength and clarity and resolve to declare to the military, my government and the world that this soldier will not be deploying to Iraq,” Chiroux said in the sun-filled rotunda of a congressional building in Washington.

"In the sun-filled rotunda of a congressional building in Washington"

Somebody is using this Countryboy..

Its kinda silly to argue about the legality of the war.. Its still going on without a serious challange in the courts, so it ia essentually Still a Legal war..