Interesting Government study...........

[Brixtonbulldog]

You are doing your damndest.  But as noted, there was no ongoing genocide in Iraq at the time of invasion.  Iraq tortured dissident citizens?  So do the Russians, the Chinese, Koreans...are you for invading those countries as well.

Not at nearly the rate of Saddam.. nice try tho.

What was the legal justification for Bush's invasion of Iraq and subsequent overthrow of the Iraq government, the murder of Iraq's people, and the co-opting of its resources?  I can't find it.  The ABA (American Bar Association) can't find it.  

I can agree that it warrants debate but I think the answer is clear.

An excerpt: The U.S. administration argued that it had enough legal support for its subsequent military action, based on resolution 1441 as well as two previous Security Council resolutions: 678, which in 1990 authorized the U.N. to take military action against Iraq, and 687, which set the terms of the cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Administration lawyers said that because Iraq never lived up to the terms of the cease-fire, the use force was now valid.

In answer to a question in parliament, Great Britain’s Attorney General Lord Goldsmith issued a March 17th statement supporting the use of force against Iraq. The Australian Attorney General’s Department issued a memorandum on March 18th, also supporting the use of force against Iraq.

http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/Iraq.html

[Decker]

Not at nearly the rate of Saddam..

How do you know what the rates of torture/human rights violations were for the various countries mentioned?

I can agree that it warrants debate but I think the answer is clear.

An excerpt: The U.S. administration argued that it had enough legal support for its subsequent military action, based on resolution 1441 as well as two previous Security Council resolutions: 678, which in 1990 authorized the U.N. to take military action against Iraq, and 687, which set the terms of the cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Administration lawyers said that because Iraq never lived up to the terms of the cease-fire, the use force was now valid.

In answer to a question in parliament, Great Britain’s Attorney General Lord Goldsmith issued a March 17th statement supporting the use of force against Iraq. The Australian Attorney General’s Department issued a memorandum on March 18th, also supporting the use of force against Iraq.

http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/Iraq.html

That's a good resource you posted.

UN Resolution 1441 comprehended all the former resolutions since the conclusion of Desert Storm.  1441 was explicit that no individual member nation could initiate a use of force against Iraq without the approval of the Security Council.

The US did not have that approval.  From that, it follows that the US's use of force was not legal.

As for attacking a country that is complying with requested/ordered inspections, i.e., complying with international law, well, that's horrible policy as well as illegal.

If we ask Iran to acquiesce to inspections, they agree, and we attack anyways, there is just no reason for Iran to comply in the first place nor is that a peaceful or sensible measure for securing some semblance of security in a dangerous world.

[Brixtonbulldog]

How do you know what the rates of torture/human rights violations were for the various countries mentioned?
That's a good resource you posted.

I'm not looking up the numbers but if you have evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.

UN Resolution 1441 comprehended all the former resolutions since the conclusion of Desert Storm.  1441 was explicit that no individual member nation could initiate a use of force against Iraq without the approval of the Security Council.

The US did not have that approval.  From that, it follows that the US's use of force was not legal.

As for attacking a country that is complying with requested/ordered inspections, i.e., complying with international law, well, that's horrible policy as well as illegal.

If we ask Iran to acquiesce to inspections, they agree, and we attack anyways, there is just no reason for Iran to comply in the first place nor is that a peaceful or sensible measure for securing some semblance of security in a dangerous world.

Having the support of certain other nations is the condition on which we invaded.  Not to mention the numerous violations and flip flopping of compliance Saddam was guilty of.

[War-Horse]

Having the support of certain other nations is the condition on which we invaded.  Not to mention the numerous violations and flip flopping of compliance Saddam was guilty of.

Thats the point. We didnt have permission according to 1441.  We acted with 'shock and awe" to flex our muscles.    (which of course didnt work as of 7-8 yrs later)

The other countries acted as hyenia's and thought itd be an easy victory to follow.

An international law was broken on 1441.

[Brixtonbulldog]

Thats the point. We didnt have permission according to 1441.  We acted with 'shock and awe" to flex our muscles.    (which of course didnt work as of 7-8 yrs later)

The other countries acted as hyenia's and thought itd be an easy victory to follow.

An international law was broken on 1441.

No it wasn't but on a similar note.. how do you feel about everything that Saddam had done?  How many crimes did he commit?  Did you care?  What would you have done if you were president?  I can't wait to hear this.

[Decker]

I'm not looking up the numbers but if you have evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.
Having the support of certain other nations is the condition on which we invaded.  Not to mention the numerous violations and flip flopping of compliance Saddam was guilty of.

If you make the assertion, the burden is on you to back up your conclusion(s).  Iraq was bad.  I cannot deny that and I wouldn't.  Hussein was a monster.  But Nicaragua, El Salvador, Peru, Argentina, Yugoslavia, Honduras and more all qualify as countries that have horrendous human rights records.

The support of various countries is not legal justification.  They are criminal accomplices.

Hussein's cooperation was not good with inspections.  He was a recalcitrant child.  But that changed.  Iraq was very cooperative in the final months before the attack.

Iraq actively cooperated, says Blix    
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/123.html

UNITED NATIONS, March 5: The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said on Wednesday that Iraq had actively cooperated with the UN inspectors in the past months and expressed hope that Baghdad would continue to cooperate.

[kh300]

what year?

was iraq under saddam or US rule at the time?

He formed al-Tawhid, which later became the group called Al-Qaeda in Iraq, in the 1990s

[War-Horse]

No it wasn't but on a similar note.. how do you feel about everything that Saddam had done?  How many crimes did he commit?  Did you care?  What would you have done if you were president?  I can't wait to hear this.

I would have sent in a mercernary to take care of it.   Nice and simple, and go on with business.    I would do the same thing with Osama bin laden...but i guess everything is too hard for a bushy!!

[kh300]

oh yea KH... go read, slowly my job thread again and tell me where you think you might have ASSumed way to much with your stupid fucking comments.

go ahead and read my comments again. i asked questions which you didnt answer. its hard to ASSume when your asking questions and not making statements

[Brixtonbulldog]

If you make the assertion, the burden is on you to back up your conclusion(s).  Iraq was bad.  I cannot deny that and I wouldn't.  Hussein was a monster.  But Nicaragua, El Salvador, Peru, Argentina, Yugoslavia, Honduras and more all qualify as countries that have horrendous human rights records.

The support of various countries is not legal justification.  They are criminal accomplices.

Hussein's cooperation was not good with inspections.  He was a recalcitrant child.  But that changed.  Iraq was very cooperative in the final months before the attack.

Iraq actively cooperated, says Blix    
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/123.html

UNITED NATIONS, March 5: The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said on Wednesday that Iraq had actively cooperated with the UN inspectors in the past months and expressed hope that Baghdad would continue to cooperate.

You honestly don't see through that?  He would pretend to cooperate, move everything he didn't want us to see, and hide as much as he could every time the US started bearing down on him and then he would go back to noncompliance.  He did this many times over.  The UN was a joke to Saddam.  Not laughing now is he?

[War-Horse]

You honestly don't see through that?  He would pretend to cooperate, move everything he didn't want us to see, and hide as much as he could every time the US started bearing down on him and then he would go back to noncompliance.  He did this many times over.  The UN was a joke to Saddam.  Not laughing now is he?

Take into account he couldnt act to passive as Iran and other countries wanted his head on a platter.     It was alot of posing to look tough while he was still in compliance for the most part and was completely innocent of WMDs.

If your driving with your family in the middle of the night, take a wrong turn and break down in the middle of a gang slum somewhere and you see guys start coming out of the shadows toward you, what are you going to do???     Youre kids are sleeping in the back seat, theres no street lites around....If its obvious they want trouble you may concede on your wallet, but what if they decide your wife looks good too and your kids are crying???

Tell em you got a gun in your pocket, get fucking mad and do what you can...thats what.   These guys are like hyenia's waiting for a weakness.....  Thats the things saddam was faced with.  No excuses but he did what he had to do for compliance and lost his life anyway.....

[Decker]

You honestly don't see through that?  He would pretend to cooperate, move everything he didn't want us to see, and hide as much as he could every time the US started bearing down on him and then he would go back to noncompliance.  He did this many times over.  The UN was a joke to Saddam.  Not laughing now is he?

The WMD inspectors had the capability to verify whether weapons were moved from the spots they investigated under suprise inspections.

The inspectors were world class scientists.

The Duelfer Report concluded that Iraq did not move any WMDs out of the country.  In fact, here're the main findings of the report:

"Saddam ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."

"Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of [Biological Warfare] weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction."

[Decker]

He formed al-Tawhid, which later became the group called Al-Qaeda in Iraq, in the 1990s

There was no proven functional relationship btn Al-Qaeda and Hussein's government.  By your criterion, the US also had a relationship with Al Qaeda b/c the pilots that flew the 9/11 planes lived and trained in the US.

[kh300]

There was no proven functional relationship btn Al-Qaeda and Hussein's government.  By your criterion, the US also had a relationship with Al Qaeda b/c the pilots that flew the 9/11 planes lived and trained in the US.

ok fine. and what havnt we done to fix that

[Brixtonbulldog]

Take into account he couldnt act to passive as Iran and other countries wanted his head on a platter.     It was alot of posing to look tough while he was still in compliance for the most part and was completely innocent of WMDs.

If your driving with your family in the middle of the night, take a wrong turn and break down in the middle of a gang slum somewhere and you see guys start coming out of the shadows toward you, what are you going to do???     Youre kids are sleeping in the back seat, theres no street lites around....If its obvious they want trouble you may concede on your wallet, but what if they decide your wife looks good too and your kids are crying???

Tell em you got a gun in your pocket, get fucking mad and do what you can...thats what.   These guys are like hyenia's waiting for a weakness.....  Thats the things saddam was faced with.  No excuses but he did what he had to do for compliance and lost his life anyway.....

Aw.. poor Saddam.

This is a complete cop out.  The man was guilty beyond belief and you actually sit here and flat out ignore all of it.  You must be the opitome of spineless.

And he was no where near innocent of WMDs but thats something the american public wont hear about for years.

[Brixtonbulldog]

The WMD inspectors had the capability to verify whether weapons were moved from the spots they investigated under suprise inspections.

The inspectors were world class scientists.

The Duelfer Report concluded that Iraq did not move any WMDs out of the country.  In fact, here're the main findings of the report:

"Saddam ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."

"Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of [Biological Warfare] weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction."

The report was wrong.  Not only that but he made every effort to undermine the inspectors.  When everything was moved or hidden they would be allowed back in.  Then it would start all over again. 

[War-Horse]

Aw.. poor Saddam.

This is a complete cop out.  The man was guilty beyond belief and you actually sit here and flat out ignore all of it.  You must be the opitome of spineless.

And he was no where near innocent of WMDs but thats something the american public wont hear about for years.

Oh really......Well if we can invade and occupy random countries who have civil right violations then why arent we in Africa protecting 100s of thousands of genocides right now???     Why not pick any country and lets kill em all cuz we can...

[Decker]

The report was wrong.  Not only that but he made every effort to undermine the inspectors.  When everything was moved or hidden they would be allowed back in.  Then it would start all over again. 

How do you know these things?

Why are world class scientists and investigators wrong and you are right?

[Brixtonbulldog]

Oh really......Well if we can invade and occupy random countries who have civil right violations then why arent we in Africa protecting 100s of thousands of genocides right now???     Why not pick any country and lets kill em all cuz we can...

I'm saying it justifies it if we are inclined to go.. which we are not when it comes to lost causes like most of Africa.  We had a lot of reason to go to Iraq.

[Brixtonbulldog]

How do you know these things?

Why are world class scientists and investigators wrong and you are right?

It's called a clearance.  The US military was privy to things those scientists, no matter how "world class" they are, are not.

[Decker]

It's called a clearance.  The US military was privy to things those scientists, no matter how "world class" they are, are not.

I will trust the inspectors's scientific methodology over your clearance any day of the week.  You present me with nothing but speculation and innuendo.  That's an awful sort of proof for your arguments.

If what you say is true and you have such evidence, I'm certain the president would have that evidence too and he'd broadcast it on the front page of the liberal media.  (mixing like a like a blender)

[Brixtonbulldog]

I will trust the inspectors's scientific methodology over your clearance any day of the week.  You present me with nothing but speculation and innuendo.  That's an awful sort of proof for your arguments.

If what you say is true and you have such evidence, I'm certain the president would have that evidence too and he'd broadcast it on the front page of the liberal media.  (mixing like a like a blender)

That's fine.. it's certainly understandable since I have no way of showing you anything to the contrary.

One day, hopefully in the next 5- 10 years, it will be made public.  It will probably come when we are forced to go after one or both of the other countries involved.

[War-Horse]

That's fine.. it's certainly understandable since I have no way of showing you anything to the contrary.

One day, hopefully in the next 5- 10 years, it will be made public.  It will probably come when we are forced to go after one or both of the other countries involved.

Have fun, when the draft comes then.   24yrs old is a perfect fighting age ...as the mind has not caught up with the body.

[Decker]

That's fine.. it's certainly understandable since I have no way of showing you anything to the contrary.

One day, hopefully in the next 5- 10 years, it will be made public.  It will probably come when we are forced to go after one or both of the other countries involved.

OK.  That still does not absolve the Bush Administration from ordering the invasion of Iraq--1441 clearly requires permission from the Security Council and Bush never got that.

Assume you are right and that Saddam was fooling the world with his WMD stockpiles.

Was the war worth it?  Was Iraq a threat to the US & in cahoots with Al Qaeda?

Al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq were enemies.  

Even if the WMDs existed, Hussein had no way to deliver them to US territories.  

In short, Iraq was no threat to the US.  The pre-war CIA reports showed that until the speculative statements in those reports became certainties and Saddam became a world beater.

[Brixtonbulldog]

Have fun, when the draft comes then.   24yrs old is a perfect fighting age ...as the mind has not caught up with the body.

Oh gimmie a break.. there's not going to be a draft, moron.

I've already served, how bout you?