Are You A Republican? (Volume 2)

[w8tlftr]

That is amusing.  I've heard good things about Chapelle.  I don't have cable tv so I haven't seen his work. 

But the UN is the best geopolitical organization we have for keeping international peace in all its aspects.

My allegations against the president are substantial. 

I have yet to see anyone counter the argument that the invasion is illegal.

I respectfully disagree, Decker.

The UN does NOT have the best interests of the United States in mind and in my opinion is a useless organization with socialist ideals. Nothing would make me happier than to see it disbanded.

In regards to the invasion of Iraq, the UN Security Counsel and Congress authorized military force. Additionally, we are talking about a country that had over 17 UN sanction violations. This is what  I mean about the UN being a useless organization. It can't do a damn thing without the military might of the United States military to back it up.

Now while we can agree to disagree we are there and we need to finish the job. The worst thing that can happen to that region of the world is a premature withdrawl of US forces. That is just going to invite the worst of the worst to move in and kill anyone and everything that gets in their way.

Do you really want to see American forces go back because our government doesn't have the resolve to finish what they started?

[gcb]

yes socialist ideals like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[gtbro1]

       









 

[Hedgehog]

I respectfully disagree, Decker.

The UN does NOT have the best interests of the United States in mind and in my opinion is a useless organization with socialist ideals. Nothing would make me happier than to see it disbanded.

In regards to the invasion of Iraq, the UN Security Counsel and Congress authorized military force. Additionally, we are talking about a country that had over 17 UN sanction violations. This is what  I mean about the UN being a useless organization. It can't do a damn thing without the military might of the United States military to back it up.

Now while we can agree to disagree we are there and we need to finish the job. The worst thing that can happen to that region of the world is a premature withdrawl of US forces. That is just going to invite the worst of the worst to move in and kill anyone and everything that gets in their way.

Do you really want to see American forces go back because our government doesn't have the resolve to finish what they started?

What ideals of UN do you consider to be "socialist"?

-Hedge

[Decker]

I respectfully disagree, Decker.

The UN does NOT have the best interests of the United States in mind and in my opinion is a useless organization with socialist ideals. Nothing would make me happier than to see it disbanded.

In regards to the invasion of Iraq, the UN Security Counsel and Congress authorized military force. Additionally, we are talking about a country that had over 17 UN sanction violations. This is what  I mean about the UN being a useless organization. It can't do a damn thing without the military might of the United States military to back it up.

Now while we can agree to disagree we are there and we need to finish the job. The worst thing that can happen to that region of the world is a premature withdrawl of US forces. That is just going to invite the worst of the worst to move in and kill anyone and everything that gets in their way.

Do you really want to see American forces go back because our government doesn't have the resolve to finish what they started?

I did not say that the UN has the interests of the US in mind.  Unless of course the interests of the US intersect with the charter purpose of the UN:
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
 to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
* to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

* to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

* to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,... http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
______________________

As for the war:

Congress authorized the commander and chief of the military to use force if necessary to disarm an allegedly unlawfully armed Iraq.

The president could not openly attack Iraq b/c that would be a blatant war crime:  Iraq did not attack the US or an ally of ours, Iraq was not engaging in an ongoing genocide, so that left the only unknown--was Iraq reconstituting its banned arsenal?

The UN had been working on keeping Iraq free of illegal armament since the end of the Gulf War.

Iraq was like a recalcitrant child as far as compliance with UN resolutions go.

The president's promise to use force to enforce UN resolutions was enough to make Iraq comply with inspections.

The WMD inspectors were reporting no findings of WMDs or WMD programs.

Res. 1441 required a reconvening of the Security Council to give the 'OK' for the US to use force to ensure Iraq's compliance w/ inspectors.

Bush ordered the invasion without consulting the Security council and in the face of Iraq's cooperation with inspections.

How is that legal?
_____________

The UN is an organizational entity--it's role is build consensus amongst its member nations.  Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.  It's not a military org. that gallops around the world kicking ass.  It is a consensus builder.  The wheels of negotiation turn slowly but they do move.

Life is not perfect.  Why scrap something that does work?  

I would rather have such an organization in place than regress to every country for itself.  A deliberating body like the UN makes sense.

[egj13]

The UN would be nothing without the US.

[Decker]

The UN would be nothing without the US.

The US is a founding member.  So I guess you are correct.

[egj13]

The US is a founding member.  So I guess you are correct.

It has nothing to do with founding. When the UN goes in somewhere either for military action or humanitarian action the US handles 90% of it.

[Hedgehog]

It has nothing to do with founding. When the UN goes in somewhere either for military action or humanitarian action the US handles 90% of it.

This is not really directed at you, but it just strikes me as kind of odd how many people seem sceptical of UN, when UN helps countries meet and discuss, and to find united solutions to shared problems.

Usually, dictators, like Kim Jong-Il and Mohammad Ghaddafi, and totalitarian regimes, like Pervez Musharraf, aren't too gung ho about UN.

China isn't a big fan of UN either.

Mainly because UN reminds these nations of stuff like: "Human Rights", and "Democracy". Issues that aren't too comfortable for them.

But why would USA be sceptical about UN?

It blows my mind.

Instead of distancing countries from each other, UN is actually bringing every country, if not together, but at least to the table for diplomatic talks.

It says a lot about Bush's skills, when he places a guy like Bolton as UN embassador. A guy who has no way around the UN, and is directly opposed to the idea of UN in its current form.

Result: USA loses pulling power in the UN, which is bad for USA, and also for the rest of the world.

-Hedge

[egj13]

This is not really directed at you, but it just strikes me as kind of odd how many people seem sceptical of UN, when UN helps countries meet and discuss, and to find united solutions to shared problems.

Usually, dictators, like Kim Jong-Il and Mohammad Ghaddafi, and totalitarian regimes, like Pervez Musharraf, aren't too gung ho about UN.

China isn't a big fan of UN either.

Mainly because UN reminds these nations of stuff like: "Human Rights", and "Democracy". Issues that aren't too comfortable for them.

But why would USA be sceptical about UN?

It blows my mind.

Instead of distancing countries from each other, UN is actually bringing every country, if not together, but at least to the table for diplomatic talks.

It says a lot about Bush's skills, when he places a guy like Bolton as UN embassador. A guy who has no way around the UN, and is directly opposed to the idea of UN in its current form.

Result: USA loses pulling power in the UN, which is bad for USA, and also for the rest of the world.

-Hedge

Yeah I wasn't trying to imply that I have a problem with the UN. I don't pay much attention to them. My biggest gripe is when they pas resolution after resolution on one country. I am a 4 strikes kind of guy, that is how I am with my kids, my troops my little leaguers. So I hate seeing people get chance after chance after chance.

[Decker]

Yeah I wasn't trying to imply that I have a problem with the UN. I don't pay much attention to them. My biggest gripe is when they pas resolution after resolution on one country. I am a 4 strikes kind of guy, that is how I am with my kids, my troops my little leaguers. So I hate seeing people get chance after chance after chance.

I understand your impatience.

But consider the alternative--military force means death, destruction and misery. 

We want to avoid that if possible.

[egj13]

I understand your impatience.

But consider the alternative--military force means death, destruction and misery. 

We want to avoid that if possible.

Why? War is a part of nature and has shaped the world we know. War doesn't always = bad

[Decker]

Why? War is a part of nature and has shaped the world we know. War doesn't always = bad

You're a fan of Homer's, Iliad?

There is a beauty to classical battle.

But in a nuclear age and an age of daisycutters & ICBMs, that beauty is lost.

We are left with wholesale slaughter.

Is war part of the human condition?  Homer would agree.

Does that mean we use violence at the drop of a hat to get our way?

No.  That indicates a temperment that is not apt to conflict resolution.

That's like having Sonny Corleone running our foreign affairs.

[egj13]

You're a fan of Homer's, Iliad?

There is a beauty to classical battle.

But in a nuclear age and an age of daisycutters & ICBMs, that beauty is lost.

We are left with wholesale slaughter.

Is war part of the human condition?  Homer would agree.

Does that mean we use violence at the drop of a hat to get our way?

No.  That indicates a temperment that is not apt to conflict resolution.

That's like having Sonny Corleone running our foreign affairs.

I didn't say drop of a hat, 3 strikes and you are out

[Decker]

I didn't say drop of a hat, 3 strikes and you are out

For example, say Hussein is on his 4th strike.

You are willing to rain down hell on the people of Iraq b/c their leader is slow to comply with demands?

Innocents must die and face hell on earth b/c of a privileged leader?

No. 

"Last resort" is much better than "3 strikes".

Try to picture yourself as an Iraqi citizen in that situation.

[egj13]

For example, say Hussein is on his 4th strike.

You are willing to rain down hell on the people of Iraq b/c their leader is slow to comply with demands?

Innocents must die and face hell on earth b/c of a privileged leader?

No. 

"Last resort" is much better than "3 strikes".

Try to picture yourself as an Iraqi citizen in that situation.

How many civilians died during our removal of saddam, not since but leading up to his removal

[Decker]

How many civilians died during our removal of saddam, not since but leading up to his removal

About 7500 Iraqi civilians died during the invasion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Casualties

That's a small town.

This entire Iraqi venture smacks of mafia tactics and is below the dignity of American Ideals.

7500 murdered is a damn disgrace.

[egj13]

About 7500 Iraqi civilians died during the invasion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Casualties

That's a small town.

This entire Iraqi venture smacks of mafia tactics and is below the dignity of American Ideals.

7500 murdered is a damn disgrace.

Sorry but I just don't agree with your pacifist views. I think war is necessary and casualities are part of it. The future generations of Iraq will prosper.

[Decker]

Sorry but I just don't agree with your pacifist views. I think war is necessary and casualities are part of it. The future generations of Iraq will prosper.

So now you can foretell the future.

You have no idea what Iraq will look like in future generations.

"Pacifists" abhor violence of any kind.  I am not at that level (think Gandhi) yet.

I see that violence will happen in the form of war.

The best that I can do is make sure that the war is somewhat just.....justified too.

The iraqi invasion is a criminal endeavor that flies in the face of our rules for war.

If you defend the Iraqi invasion, then you can defend any act of war, justified or not. 

That's not good enough.

[egj13]

So now you can foretell the future.

You have no idea what Iraq will look like in future generations.

"Pacifists" abhor violence of any kind.  I am not at that level (think Gandhi) yet.

I see that violence will happen in the form of war.

The best that I can do is make sure that the war is somewhat just.....justified too.

The iraqi invasion is a criminal endeavor that flies in the face of our rules for war.

If you defend the Iraqi invasion, then you can defend any act of war, justified or not. 

That's not good enough.

The iraqi invasion is a criminal endeavor that flies in the face of our rules for war

that is where we disagree, and yes I have seen all of your other posts so don't bother trying to prove otherwise to me. When the invasion kicked off the world thought it was just. It is to late to look back and say there were no WMDs so it is now illegal. If there had been proof of no WMDs prior to the kickoff I would be on your side.

[Decker]

The iraqi invasion is a criminal endeavor that flies in the face of our rules for war

that is where we disagree, and yes I have seen all of your other posts so don't bother trying to prove otherwise to me. When the invasion kicked off the world thought it was just. It is to late to look back and say there were no WMDs so it is now illegal. If there had been proof of no WMDs prior to the kickoff I would be on your side.

Not to be childish but

WELCOME TO MY SIDE!


Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts sayhttp://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

I listed a link of the UN press releases covering the wmd reports here so you can look over what was and was not being found on the ground prior to the invasion:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6

[egj13]

Not to be childish but

WELCOME TO MY SIDE!


Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts sayhttp://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

I listed a link of the UN press releases covering the wmd reports here so you can look over what was and was not being found on the ground prior to the invasion:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6

Not so fast:

"The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period.  Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs.  The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for".


I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.


There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date.  It might still exist.  Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



Looks like they were unsure about it he goes on to say:

Our Iraqi counterparts are fond of saying that there are no proscribed items and if no evidence is presented to the contrary they should have the benefit of the doubt, be presumed innocent.  UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq, but nor is it – or I think anyone else after the inspections between 1991 and 1998 – presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq.  Presumptions do not solve the problem

[Decker]

Not so fast:

"The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period.  Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs.  The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for".


I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.


There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date.  It might still exist.  Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



Looks like they were unsure about it he goes on to say:

Our Iraqi counterparts are fond of saying that there are no proscribed items and if no evidence is presented to the contrary they should have the benefit of the doubt, be presumed innocent.  UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq, but nor is it – or I think anyone else after the inspections between 1991 and 1998 – presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq.  Presumptions do not solve the problem

First of all, Bush cut short the inspections by ordering the attack.

The inspectors could not complete their inspecting jobs b/c of the invasion.

Second, the chemical weapons from the first Gulf War degraded...they were inert.

 “The Iraqis . . . produce[d] a . . . mixture which was inherently unstable,” says the report. “When the Iraqis produced chemical munitions they appeared to adhere to a ‘make and use’ regimen. Judging by the information Iraq gave the United Nations, later verified by on-site inspections, Iraq had poor product quality for their nerve agents. This low quality was likely due to a lack of purification. They had to get the agent to the front promptly or have it degrade in the munition.”  U.S. Defense Department’s “Militarily Critical Technologies List” 2002

Sounds like Blix knew what he was doing.  No WMDs were found and ultimately your protestations raised in the quotes are proved moot.

Would that conclusion have been reached if Blix was allowed to complete his inspections of Iraq?

We'll never know b/c Bush ordered the attack.

[egj13]

That doesn't change the fact that when we invaded, Saddam was believed to have weapons. Everyone in the US government read those reports you posted and were able to ask questions and still voted to authorize the use of force. At invasion time it wasn't illegal.

[Decker]

That doesn't change the fact that when we invaded, Saddam was believed to have weapons. Everyone in the US government read those reports you posted and were able to ask questions and still voted to authorize the use of force. At invasion time it wasn't illegal.

The inspectors' inspections were cut short by Bush's ordered invasion.

Bush was using force to make sure Hussein complied w/ UN resolutions for disarmament.

How does Bush's attacking Iraq for non-compliance (not letting in inspectors) relate to Iraq's compliance by letting inspectors search Iraq for WMDs?

Does that make sense to you now?

Anyways, Res. 1441 DID NOT authorize Pres. Bush to use force to enforce Res. 1441.  Only the UN Security Council can make that judgment.

If you can explain either of those two points, then I'm with you.

Otherwise, this invasion is criminal.