 |
|
06-04-2008, 12:05 PM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,725
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowonapost
Yaaaa... But Cordi that would support my point.....
They were in the context of the previous mandate that you set up by comparing the post WWI treaty that was not considered relevant by all the world parties, at that time & in that background. Put simply if a contract is not agreed to it's not a contract. You were trying to compare an unresolved contract to the current post WWII contract...um...definitely history is relevant.
As to this current contract dispute, which was considered ratified after Gulf War 1 it could have been resolved in a lot of different courts...ways. The salient fact is that the party involved (the U.S.) in that court proceeding chose to disregard the court process (go it alone with the thinnest of justification without regard to precess & precedent) & well...go..it...alone.
By the way did you see my last...hi...response on the hi thread...hehe.
|
Are you saying that the USA and the UN should have taken Saddam to court??? What court??? And who would enforce the court order??? This is not a LEGAL battle.
Good grief, please tell me I misunderstood what you wrote. I beg you. The reason is because NOBODY can be that naive. Not even Jimmy Carter. |
06-04-2008, 01:17 PM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,884
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?
That is exactly what I am suggesting...I can't offer any evidence of anything directly but I have serious doubts that everything is as it appears because of the many ties that Bush has in the region...many of them financial.
|
Don't you think Bush, Sr. would have had to have been a pretty evil bastard to even think of trying to pull something like that? I'm talking Bond-villain, push a button and open the trapdoor to the shark tank type evil.
Do you really think George H. W. Bush is evil?
Quote:
Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?
The intention was to determine the next course of action...and yes, that may have included "doing nothing" depending on the determination of the seriousness of the lack of compliance...nowhere in any of the resolutions was the removal of Saddam called for...the underlying theme was to "restore peace to the region"...we neither did that or "nothing".
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
~ Albert Einstein
|
You had one camp that wanted to ignore the further material breach committed by the Iraqi declaration and let the inspections to continue, and another side that didn't believe in final, final opportunities. Neither side was interested in doing nothing, and only one side could make a legal case that force could be used legitimately.
I still haven't seen you make the case that use of force required any additional Resolutions than what was contained in Resolution 678. Why would it have been "legal" for the Security Council to ignore Iraq's violation of Resolution 1441 in the way that France and Russia wanted it to do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?
11 and 12
|
And 11 and 12 only required that the Security Council meet to consider the issue... not that it had to pass another Resolution before force could be used. Resolution 1441 made it clear that this was Iraq's final opportunity... what other alternative is there once the final opportunity is squandered?
|
06-04-2008, 01:25 PM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,884
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormanNorman
I understand the basic point, Cord...and all of your questions above are pertinent to this discussion. And, of course, the correct answers to your questions are very situationally dependent. The optimal solution comes down to what keeps a nation and its allies and interests the safest and most prosperous. Of course, determining the "optimal solution" usually involves some future foresight....and we all know how easy that is.
Anways, I always felt that an American-led invasion/occupation of Iraq was going to be no where near that "optimal solution"....and I still very much feel that way. What would have been the "optimal solution" regarding Iraq back in 2003??? That's a tough question, Cord. It's usually easier to prove that something is NOT the solution than finding and proving something is the solution....Mathematics 101.  |
When you get right down to it, though, wasn't the choice between going in there and taking Saddam down before he rebuilt his power or just holding off and letting Iraq re-arm and serve as a regional counterweight to Iran? Essentially, taken to it's logical conclusion, the decision was as stark as that, was it not?
|
06-04-2008, 01:32 PM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,884
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?
Exactly...which called for pushing Saddam from Kuwait...is that what we did by going into Iraq this time?
|
It called for pushing Saddam from Kuwait and the enforcement of all subsequent relevant Security Council Resolutions - including Resolutions 687and 1441.
Quote:
Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?
Once again...I ask you for the umteenth time...show me where any UN resolution called for more than the recourse Bush/Scowcroft say was authorized by the UN..."Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate".
Until you do that...declaring victory on your part is as absurd.
|
It didn't - at the time... but Resolutions 687 and 1441 hadn't been passed at the time Bush and Scowcroft had the option of going into Baghdad. |
06-04-2008, 01:52 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,218
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
When you get right down to it, though, wasn't the choice between going in there and taking Saddam down before he rebuilt his power or just holding off and letting Iraq re-arm and serve as a regional counterweight to Iran? Essentially, taken to it's logical conclusion, the decision was as stark as that, was it not?
|
No, I don't think so, Cord. Other options included
- Maintaining the sanctions or partial sanctions (geared toward military related cargo). Like I said, the coalition could've continued doing the MIO indefinitely, IMO.
- No-Fly Zones: I agree that the Southern No-Fly Zone had become precarious as it was...operating from Saudi Arabia. I think the Northern No-Fly zone was pretty solid, however. We could've pushed for maintaining a partial southern no-fly zone via Naval air and/or rebasing to Kuwait.
- Use of force: There was other use of force options besides an all out invasion/occupation/regime change.
> Desert Fox type strikes or even lesser strikes. We could pretty well hold his centers of gravity at risk.
> Invasion/occupation of the no-fly zones (leaving Saddam in power)
- Diplomacy (behind closed doors...out of public view): Help Saddam with his budding Al Qaeda & Iranian problems in the Kurdish area and maybe he helps us with our UN enforcement problems.
__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man??? 
And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...
|
06-04-2008, 01:52 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Huh?
Posts: 6,180
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
Don't you think Bush, Sr. would have had to have been a pretty evil bastard to even think of trying to pull something like that? I'm talking Bond-villain, push a button and open the trapdoor to the shark tank type evil.
Do you really think George H. W. Bush is evil?
|
I think he does have an ability to look out for his own greed and although I wouldn't equate it with the image of the Bond-villain as you wish to project, yes, I believe evil has some relevance in his life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
You had one camp that wanted to ignore the further material breach committed by the Iraqi declaration and let the inspections to continue, and another side that didn't believe in final, final opportunities. Neither side was interested in doing nothing, and only one side could make a legal case that force could be used legitimately.
|
I'm not following why you suggest "only one side could make a legal case that force could be used legitimately"...if it was legitimate why wouldn't other sides concur?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
I still haven't seen you make the case that use of force required any additional Resolutions than what was contained in Resolution 678. Why would it have been "legal" for the Security Council to ignore Iraq's violation of Resolution 1441 in the way that France and Russia wanted it to do?
|
Who said they wanted to ignore the violation? They were allowing for further inspections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
And 11 and 12 only required that the Security Council meet to consider the issue... not that it had to pass another Resolution before force could be used. Resolution 1441 made it clear that this was Iraq's final opportunity... what other alternative is there once the final opportunity is squandered?
|
I never suggested that they had to pass another resolution...that would only be required if they were to sanction going in and occupying Iraq...and the removal of Saddam.
__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."
Which side will you be on?
OBAMA/PEROT
|
06-04-2008, 01:57 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Huh?
Posts: 6,180
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
It called for pushing Saddam from Kuwait and the enforcement of all subsequent relevant Security Council Resolutions - including Resolutions 687and 1441.
It didn't - at the time... but Resolutions 687 and 1441 hadn't been passed at the time Bush and Scowcroft had the option of going into Baghdad.
|
You can claim "victory" real easy in this debate...simply provide the passage or passages in 687 and/or 1441 that called for going in and occupying Iraq/removal of Saddam.
__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."
Which side will you be on?
OBAMA/PEROT
|
06-04-2008, 02:13 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,868
|
|
This soldier is a true patriot and should be given a fucking medal for his courageousness to say ENOUGH!
__________________
The dark underbelly of America contains numerous warts, boils, and cancerous tumors, inflicted by that loathsome grimoire of madness that our world has become.
Well, I'm FedUp and I'm not taking it any more!
|
06-04-2008, 02:46 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,388
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FedUpAmerican
This soldier is a true patriot and should be given a fucking medal for his courageousness to say ENOUGH!
|
Yeah right he should be dishonorably discharged and sent to federal pound him in the ass prison, you know that place you go on vacation?
__________________
You can never dent spiderwebs
|
06-04-2008, 02:49 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Omaha, which is why Dave won't come here
Posts: 3,906
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FedUpAmerican
This soldier is a true patriot and should be given a fucking medal for his courageousness to say ENOUGH!
|
OOOHHH look who is back, the Original AWE Coward.
__________________
There are those, I know, who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream.
~Archibald MacLeish
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
