The fact is, to continue the analogy… Saddam had already been found guilty and was sentenced. He was given parol… he violated the same. The cost of and responsibility for and risks involved with supervising and containing Saddam fell primarily to the US, with some allied assistance, most notably from the British.
Part of the cost of supervising and containing Saddam was the US troop deployment in Saudi Arabia. The 911 attackers cited the US troop deployment in SA as one of the major reasons for their attacks against the US.
If the UN/world is going to try Saddam and find him guilty and sentence him… and then ask the US to supervise and contain Saddam, as well as bear virtually all of the risks and costs associated with such supervision and containment, and then all the while the world/UN is going to undermine the sentence meted out to Saddam and support Saddam illegally… then, IMO, the US acts legitimately when it takes on the responsibility of the judge, jury and executioner.
In legalese, doing thus is referred to as “self-help”.
And how could Saddam ever proof that he disposed/destructed all the WMD - you wouldn’t just have believed him based on the report submitted, would you?
Thus inspections were necessary and they were making progress, in particular showing that there were no WMD where the US claimed (after visiting those sites based on the ‘best intelligence’).
One might argue that not finding anything anywhere is rather proof that Saddam was in compliance, with the inspections providing an objective and believable confirmation.
So, the US believed there were WMD but they didn’t have any goal in actually finding them? Not interested in neutralizing/securing the oh-so-important (grave and growing, immediate etc.) threat? Seems rather strange to me.
The US made serious accusations and therefore should be able to prove those, which is by finding and producing the WMD.
Please remember, the US did ask the inspectors to visit certain sites, with the intent of finding WMD for them. But when they inspectors came back empty handed a couple of times based on the US’ ‘best intelligence’ one cannot help to think that it was not a big embarrassement to the US, and (that’s an opinion) to save themselves from further embarrassement they pressed for the invasion, desperately hoping to find something so that they could prove they were right (about WMD, the threat etc.).
Unfortunately for them it didn’t work as planned, and there came/come all the excuses (the US goal was not to “find WMD”), explanations (they were shipped to Syria), denials etc.
As above - based on the US’ claims then arguing that the US did not have to find or proof the existance of WMD is an excuse and perhaps an attempt to wash over the embarrassement (that the US experienced).
The world? I thought only France was in the position and most likely to veto?
The UN(SC) has such authority by the help of it’s member states. If a member state puts itself above such authority (the UNSC) then this is wrong, like it’s wrong for a policemen putting himself above a judge and shooting criminals when he deems fit.
The judge himself does not have the force but instead relies on an enforcement by the police, in the same way the UN(SC) relies on it’s members.
Ups, I read this in relation to the inspections - forget my response then.
Come on, there was no self-defense - we went through that before. No WMD, no threat, in particular no threat to the US = no justification for self-defense. That’s just another excuse to justify the war and wash over the fact that the actual threat did not exist / could not be produced.
Because it’s not the US alone that was waiting, but the US alone wanted and eventually led into this war. So why should the US’ view prevail over everybody’s else? Not a good reason to explain why you couldn’t wait. And months were mentioned as a time frame, that wasn’t too much to ask.
How can there be an urgency if you didn’t have the goal of finding WMD, thus eleminating any further threat from those? Seems contradictory.
As to Saddam brutalizing the Iraqi people - oh well, wasn’t itself good enough as an argument to invade before (anywhere), so why should it be now?
(Answer: “Because we couldn’t find the WMD that we claimed he had, so we use this now to divert the attention and make us look good.”)
But it was the US pretty much alone that would have to bear the ultimate cost of dealing with Saddam. When most nations were not able or willing to commit troops or funding to deal with this, why then should they be afforded the luxury of waiting so that their overwrought sensibilities could be accommodated? What exactly would have been the sacrifice of Germany? France? And given that France announced that it would veto ANY such effort to deal with Saddam, what was the US left to conclude but that many of the UN actors were not going to act in any sort of credible manner?
Also as to these “detainees,” read on… and tell me why this does not apply to the “international law” in question?
[quote]The American military was deployed against al Qaeda, and its Taliban allies, in accordance with a specific congressional authorization (dated September 18, 2001) for the use of force. As the Supreme Court recognized as early as the 1798-1801
I’ve tried to make this point before … France stated that NO MATTER WHAT it would veto any resolution that authorized the use of force against Saddam’s regime, but no one seems to get that. What is another country supposed to do in that kind of situation? I wonder what all of the ultra-liberal fundamentalists would say if we went into Darfur to stop the Janjaweed and forcibly bring aid to the starving people without a UN resolution (because France and Russian have also both said that they will veto any sanctions against the Sudanese government, let alone authorize the use of force). France is a country that used to be a major player on the world stage … a hundred years ago or so. And now that it’s totally insignificant, they’re pissed, bitter, and are going to do anything to get themselves noticed … which it appears they’ve done now by vetoing the EU constitution. Hopefully this act will cause other European countries to realize how self-centered, arrogant, and unreasonable the French can be.
Personally, Fred, I think you come down too hard on Germany. I think the problem lies solely with Schroeder, Fischer, and their group of loyal fundamentalist followers … but I think France is a lot more dangerous because of the power that it wields with it’s veto on the UNSC, and that the problem seems to be more widespread than just Chirac and Villepin.
I’ve tried to make this point before … France stated that NO MATTER WHAT it would veto any resolution that authorized the use of force against Saddam’s regime, but no one seems to get that. . but I think France is a lot more dangerous because of the power that it wields with it’s veto on the UNSC, and that the problem seems to be more widespread than just Chirac and Villepin.[/quote]
Maybe a bit overstated in light of the fact that France contributed 18,000 troops, 60 combat aircraft, 120 helicopters, 40 tanks, 1 missile cruiser, 3 destroyers, and 4 frigates in order to drive Saddam out of Kuwait.
Maybe France, like a lot of American citizens, believed that “Operation Iraqi Freedom” was a phony war based on lies and wasn’t going to be bullied into participating. If that’s dangerous then paint me dangerous too.
You are dangerous only in that you have delusions about being dangerous. Paint you anything indeed.
Perhaps.
I unite in your disgust and dislike of them but I think that there are more mindless envirofascists and pacifascists in Germany than you might realize. Never underestimate the German ability to be swept along to violence for the cause no matter whether for a clean environment, “peace” or world domination.
[quote] but I think France is a lot more dangerous because of the power that it wields with it’s veto on the UNSC[/quote],
France is no danger. It is an annoyance. Like your kid sister who cannot stop stealing your stuff, following you everywhere, forcing you to watch whatever she wants on TV and then occasionally yelling Mom, my brother is bothering me even when you are no where near, Paris is noisy, bratty, immature, but ultimately irrelevant since you know full well that you could kick her ass whenever you wanted but what kind of credit is that? I mean who wants to beat up their little sister and does that count as an accomplishment of any kind or just add to the humiliation. Best to ignore and tolerate.
Chirac is a joke and de Villepin is ludicrous.
France, however, does not matter either on the world stage and increasingly not in Europe. Germany, however, is key in Europe and we need to have it as an ally again with or without the consent of its dogmatic, obsessive, sanctimonious, self-righteous compulsions.
Well, I am very satisfied with the number and quality of al Qaeda agents captured or “disposed” of and the reduction in funding and support that they have been given.
Like Zarkawi, Osama and Zawahiri will meet their Waterloos. Be of confidence and good cheer. The glass is 80 percent full.
[quote]The no-fly zones were established by the US, the UK and France after the Gulf War for humanitarian reasons in an attempt to stop Saddam’s repression of Kurdish people in the north of Iraq, and the Shia population in the south. The aim is to prevent Iraq being able to attack these people from the air. The Secretary of State commented
I believe you are stressing the definition of legitimate, but thanks for providing no proof that the no-fly zones are considered legal (the article calls the legality ‘controversial’ and ‘dubious’). ‘Morally justified’ they may be, but that doesn’t make them legal.
Watch it, fred - putting words into my mouth to mischaracterize me is short of a personal attack: I stated, and subsequently argued, that the no-fly zones were illegal from a legal point of view, without qualifying what’s more important / bringing in my personal view on them.
I stated “seem to think.” Well if you don’t want there to be any confusion, why don’t you come out and say directly whether you agree that upholding the law is more important than ensuring legitimacy, justice or morality. Is the law the ultimate test for you? Are there no such things as bad laws?
I have a feeling though based on past experience that Rascal will refuse to answer this since it is not a subject that he will want to “discuss.” Right Rascal?
My, my - why is my opinion suddenly so important? Does it change anything related to the question if the no-fly zones were illegal?
I mean that’s the statement you questioned and which we have been discussing so far, isn’t it? - Why shy away from it so abruptly?
And said statement is a question of fact, not of (my) opinion, so let’s stay focused and leave the latter out of it, shall we?
My experience tells me that you always change to questioning other poster’s opinion when you realize about to loose the inital argument. So you are right, I do not want to discuss the argument you want to have.
Why don’t you just admit that you can’t prove that the no-fly zones were not illegal, because that’s the one and only question in question here.
Not to me, but I do not like it when you rule off wide swaths of territory as not of interest to you or off topic. You do it to evade having to answer difficult questions. It is readily apparent. I think that it is a very weak defense. “I’m just not going to talk about that.” What exactly does that mean?
Not in the strict interpretation of legal or illegal but like the UN, you might want to look at the issue of how and why even your pet organization determined that these actions were legitimate and justified.
No. That is the focus that you have specifically chosen because you do not want to delve into why the UN and similar organizations have found despite the “illegality” that these actions were “legitimate and justified.” We know why you don’t because it goes directly to challenging the weak case you have morally. That is why you choose to stick with a strict interpretation of the law. As I have mentioned, Hitler and Stalin had lots of laws. Apparently those laws would not be of concern to you since you would only be “following orders?”
Who my dear Rascal is doing the shying? You can say “we will only look at the legality” if you want but that is not even what the organizations you claim to be defending have done. If they are willing to recognize the actions as illegal based on a strict interpretation of international law but Legitimate and Justified, what exactly is your problem with at least voicing an opinion one way or another about whether you think that Yes, only a strict interpretation of the law is acceptable or No, we also need to see if illegal actions can sometimes be legitimate and justified as these organizations have and then maybe explain why or why not.
Yes, let’s stay focused as you wish so that no dissent can be raised to your point. BUT whether a law is in fact appropriate is often called into question. That is why laws are revised, revoked or changed. For you to pretend that all this is written in stone is wrong and is not born out by the facts. I know and I think all the other posters on this forum know exactly why you want to “stay focused.” What you really want is to end the debate since you know that you do not have the sure position that you think you do or claim to have. Sorry but running away again is not going to change that. Saying you want to stay focused is not going to change that. It just shows that in debate you, like your nation, are shall we put it politely, “risk averse?”
How so? I have said that given a strict interpretation of the law, both actions were viewed as illegal, but that is not where the story ends. You want to end it there but that is not what the UN did. If the UN was happy to view the US actions as “illegal” but “legitimate and justified” and since all this was put into one sentence not chopped off, who are you to chop it off to “keep the debate focused?”
Because you know that you would lose it. So own up to that. You don’t want to discuss this because your argument would suffer. Fine. Follow orders but don’t pretend that you are having a truly “moral” discussion based on “justice.” You are having a strict interpretation of the law. AND if you are interested in having such a strict interpretation of the law, then why won’t you submit other nations to the same criteria that you hold the US to? Why won’t you demand of Germany that it, too, follow the law to the letter. But then we would be discussing Germany and its flouting of EU treaty obligations but right. You don’t want to discuss that either. Got you. And so does everyone else. Rascal is afraid to debate subjects in which he knows he cannot win. Okay. I get that. I don’t respect it, but I get it.
Why would I want to prove that? I admit full well that they were viewed as “illegal,” but as the sentence does not end with “illegal only” but is stated as “illegal, but legitimate and justified” who are you to decide to go back and only take out the illegal part and say end of discussion? That is misquoting and you know that full well. You cannot ethically take a piece of a sentence or argument and not include what follows ESPECIALLY when it is all in the same sentence. Shame on you. That is a cheap way to make a case and it falls apart under the slightest challenge. That is why you don’t want to discuss it.
One question: Yes strict interpretation of law or NO. Moral factors matter? Which is it? Yes or NO?
Dear fred, I have pointed out several times that the discussion was about the legal aspects of the no-fly zones, nothing else - see first post on page one (illegal = not legal =! morally just).
That you consider them morally just matters not in answering that question, and thus there is no misquoting if I ignore that part of the argument to address the initial issue.
Sorry fred, but I didn’t (mis)quote you on that - there is no quote of said statement using quote tags of quotation marks.
As explained above I ignored the part of the argument in my response because I did consider it irrelevant (towards the legal aspect), though I do acknowledge that you consider it morally just and legitimate.
There is no such thing as international law, at least in respect to no-fly zones. This much should be obvious. As such, there really is no issue as to whether the no-fly zones were legal or illegal.
Your trying to prove that the no-fly zones (or even the invasion of Iraq) were illegal is like a blind man trying to prove the walls of a room are red when the lights are turned off.
Man, takes a licking and keeps on ticking. Problem is, the clock’s now running about 4 hours slow. This is getting painful to watch – almost ghoulish in a way, like rubbernecking at a car accident – but fascinating nevertheless, as Rascal shows us again and again how to shoot yourself in the foot.
What’s that Monty Python sketch? The Black Knight one, you know:
“You have to give up now. I’ve chopped off both your legs and both your arms.”
“Nonsense! It’s only a flesh wound. Come here and I’ll bite your leg off!”
Speaking of being able to take a licking and keep on ticking, these Darfurians are something else:
"(Magboula) lived with her husband and five children in the countryside, but then as the Arab janjaweed began to slaughter black African tribes like her own, she and her family fled to the safety of a larger town. In December, the Sudanese Army attacked that town, and they ran off to the bush. Two months ago, the janjaweed militia caught up with them.
First the raiders shot her husband dead, she said, her voice choking, and then they whipped her, taunted her with racial insults against black people and mocked her by asking why her husband was not there to help her. Then eight of them gang-raped her. . .
After the attack, Magboula was determined to save her children. So they traipsed together on a journey across the desert to the Kalma Camp, where a small number of foreign aid workers are struggling heroically to assist 110,000 victims of the upheaval. Magboula carried her 6-month-old baby, Abdul Hani, in her arms, and the others, ranging from 2 to 9, stumbled beside her.
Magboula finally arrived at Kalma a few weeks ago. But the Sudanese government is blocking new arrivals like her from getting registered, which means they can’t get food and tents. So Magboula is getting no rations and is living with her children under a straw mat on a few sticks.
Then a few days ago, Abdul Hani, Magboula’s baby, died.
She and her children are surviving on handouts from other homeless people who arrived earlier and are getting U.N. food. They have almost nothing themselves, but they at least have the compassion to help those who are even needier.
[color=blue]Can anyone *remember the last time George Bush said the word “Darfur”?[/color]
[quote]Iraqi no-fly zones
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
l
The United States, United Kingdom and France proclaimed the no-fly zones (NFZs) in Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War to protect Kurds in the north and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by US, UK and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1996.
The United States and Britain argued that the patrols were authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 688, adopted April 5, 1991. The text “condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq”, but does not specifically mention no-fly zones. Regardless of the legal status, the northern no-fly zone was often credited for giving the parts of the Kurdish region of Iraq de-facto independence after the First Gulf War.
The NFZs effectively ceased to exist with the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones[/quote]
For another, more involved discussion of Jus ad Bellum and Aerospace Intervention: Justifying 21st Century Air Force Operations please click here.
Quite frankly it is quite hard to find reasoned objective information regarding how the various involved actors look at the 'legality/non-legality" of the sanction imposed non-fly zones in Iraq. What is clear is that they were a response to the actions and positions of the Daddam regieme in regards to the Kurdish groups in the north and the Shi’a Muslims in the south.
They were imposed by the US, Britain and France. The Western powers - led by President George Bush senior - argued that their action was consistent with Security Council Resolution 688 adopted on 5 April 1991. It is hotly debated whether this reflects a recognized legality. One thing that is clear - There is no “International Law” justification for this issue.
To take the position of requiring an opponent to prove a negative merely to justify engageing in debate of an issue plainly displays the inability of that person to offer a defense of their claims.
l