Saddam, resolution 1441, and weapons inspections

[jbg]

I agree. As the civilized world though I argue we ought to set the example. Just because others dont follow it is not a good enough reason for us to not follow it. As I explained our following international law does not have a negative effect on our security so its not like we are put at a disadvantage. Most people in the civlized world dont want to see their countries involved in wars of conquest because we have seen the pain and suffering that they involve and are tired of going down that road. Wars of conquest are the only wars international law stops us from doing.

To the contrary, it has a very negative effect on national security. International law, strictly speaking, forbids the targeted killing of "insurgents" in their "native" lands, i.e. people about to rain death and terror elsewhere. I'm thinking of Israel's killing of Yassin. Is there any doubt that failing to kill him would have elevated international law over the safety of innocent Israelis?

Also, pre-emptive wars are a gray area under "international law" but in this day and age of proxy battles (the direct result of the UN Charter's ban on state-to-state war) they are utterly necessary.

[myata]

Let's settle this right now please. Show us where I misreported your contentions please. While you are at ishow me where I did Bradcos too. As for addressing the rest of the post, I certainly will once we rectify this problem. To tell the truth, I quickly glossed over the whole thing but stopped when I saw the accusation. I take that personal so forgive me if I can't continue with you until we settle this. Thanks.

Uhm, no. If you just go back on this thread there'll be no problem finding those (hint: usually begins with words like "please show me where I ..."). I can count at least two such instances but I'm not sure now it's all as it's been quite long thread.

Re the rest of the post - sorry, but won't work either. It simply reiterates statements made over several days (first one dated Oct 11), none with any reasonable response from your side. For all I know about rules of fair discussion, failure to challenge an argument raised by opponent in a reasonable time equals acknowledgement thereof. I think I just leave it at that. I do not enjoy, nor see any value in cyclical polemics one sees so often on some boards.

I'm no expert in the international law and cannot contribute to the legal argument around the resolution, however I can state that 1) there are seroius doubts that the actions of the coalition were legitimate with respect to the international law; and 2) there's currently no legitimate body to resolve these doubts in the common civilized sense of justice. I believe that both points were clearly demonstrated or proven, so there isn't much else I can or am willing to contribute here.

[bradco]

I agree. As the civilized world though I argue we ought to set the example. Just because others dont follow it is not a good enough reason for us to not follow it. As I explained our following international law does not have a negative effect on our security so its not like we are put at a disadvantage. Most people in the civlized world dont want to see their countries involved in wars of conquest because we have seen the pain and suffering that they involve and are tired of going down that road. Wars of conquest are the only wars international law stops us from doing.

To the contrary, it has a very negative effect on national security. International law, strictly speaking, forbids the targeted killing of "insurgents" in their "native" lands, i.e. people about to rain death and terror elsewhere. I'm thinking of Israel's killing of Yassin. Is there any doubt that failing to kill him would have elevated international law over the safety of innocent Israelis?

Also, pre-emptive wars are a gray area under "international law" but in this day and age of proxy battles (the direct result of the UN Charter's ban on state-to-state war) they are utterly necessary.

Pre-emptive wars should be avoided because of the many problems with them. Some questions regarding pre-emptive attacks:

Who decides that a potential threat justifies pre-empitve action?

How does one protect against opportunistic military interventions justifed under the guise of pre-empitve self-defense?

Do we wish to accord the same extended right to India, Pakistan or Israel (nuclear powers with histories of engaging in cross-border interventions)?

Could a pre-emptive right prompt potential targets intro striking first, using rather than losing their WMD?

Im not sure killing Yassin made Israel any safer. Theres always going to be some nut to take his place and violence to avenge his death. Not allowing for pre-emptive target killings may make them less safe but the consequences of allowing preemptive war may be even worse.

Pre-emptive war increases the desire of nations who could be targets to acquire WMD. Most staes in general dont benefit from pre-emptive war because it gives all states the same right to attack them. In the case of Israel it would then be attacked and the whole world would have to say thats okay under international law. The whole middle east could gang bang Israel, arguing pre-emptive self defense, and it would be legal? I dont like the prospects of that

[jbg]

Pre-emptive wars should be avoided because of the many problems with them. Some questions regarding pre-emptive attacks:

Who decides that a potential threat justifies pre-empitve action?

How does one protect against opportunistic military interventions justifed under the guise of pre-empitve self-defense?

Do we wish to accord the same extended right to India, Pakistan or Israel (nuclear powers with histories of engaging in cross-border interventions)?

Could a pre-emptive right prompt potential targets intro striking first, using rather than losing their WMD?

Im not sure killing Yassin made Israel any safer. Theres always going to be some nut to take his place and violence to avenge his death. Not allowing for pre-emptive target killings may make them less safe but the consequences of allowing preemptive war may be even worse.

Pre-emptive war increases the desire of nations who could be targets to acquire WMD. Most staes in general dont benefit from pre-emptive war because it gives all states the same right to attack them. In the case of Israel it would then be attacked and the whole world would have to say thats okay under international law. The whole middle east could gang bang Israel, arguing pre-emptive self defense, and it would be legal? I dont like the prospects of that

If Britain hadn't pre-emptively sunk the Spanish Armada, you'd be speaking Spanish. If Hitler had been pre-emptively attacked, as Churchill urged, millions of lives would have been saved.

[KrustyKidd]

Myata, I'm sorry for missing this one, I was engaged with Bradco at the time and didn't notice it. I will address this as it is prior to your problem with me personally which you STILL have not provided proof of.

No it's your line of bowing out of the argument by not answering direct and clear questions that starts to look farcial and comical.

Provide proof of this please. Saying there are two instances but you can't or won’t find them is bullshit.

No matter the problems with the resolution 1441; or all the previous resolutions, condeming the US; or any other pseudo legalistic considerations you want to pull in; the simple fact remains that the SC is obviously not qualified to be a judicial body (which I take it you silently acknowledged it as you never challenged any points I brought up about its mode of operation). Therefore itself it cannot establish the legality or otherwise of its own resolution or any subsequent act.

For all intents and purposes, it is a court which decides international matters of the highest level. In this case, it made a ruling that it has never formally acknowledged as not being what it intended. I’m not to say the UNSC can make it illegal as we all know the US will certainly veto any resolution proposing that however, that is all it has to do is to introduce a resolution and have a vote. If nine of the fifteen members all say yes, they condemn the US for the action, then the US vetos it, we would all know that the UNSC certainly did not approve of the action. Then, that vote can be used in either a civil court as evidence in a class action suit on behalf of whomever that the US acted illegally and can award punitive damages. Or, have it brought up to The International Court of Justice using that fact. Until then, we don't know if that is what they intended or not. So, until then, nobody can even begin to argue that it was illegal.

The International Court of Justice

Its main functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorised international organs and agencies. The number of decisions made by the ICJ has been relatively small, but there has clearly been an increased willingness to use the Court since the 1980s, especially among developing countries, although the USA withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, meaning it accepts the court's jurisdiction on only a case-to-case basis.

Mock condemnation does not amount to illegality, just as "legal" by default does not mean it was actually legal. Only a court of law, with a reasonable standard of justice can do that. One can hope there will be one on the international level, even if not anytime soon.

Ok, so we don't really know if the UNSC is ok with this or not yet, you are saying that they never intended the resolution to be read the way the US did? How do you know that for sure? Because people infomally came out and said they didn't like it yet they voted for it? At the end of the resolution they add a phrase saying what they think it all means yet they vote for it?

Surprisingly, there's no contradiction in arguing that someone may have overstepped the authority given by an executive order, or used disportionate force, or any other problems with the act under the order, and the fact that the body issuing the order did not have the judicial power to judge itself. This is what normally happens in our life. Your lawyer can challenge the order, and the actions of any official under it, in the court. Just as it should be - unless you belive in " what I did is legal because I did not say it was illegal" line of argument, which was quite common, respectable and understandable - in the middle ages.

You keep putting the cart before the horse. We don't even know whether the member nations would find that they didn't approve of the action much less rule they were against it until something is brought forward. And, you won't until a resolution saying that is put forth and voted on in the form of condemnation.

Actually I'm getting tired of having to restate the same arguments over and again without much logical response from your side. So, unless you come up with something meaningful, I'll bow out for now.

What body that has authority over the UNSC has decided it is illegal and not what the UNSC intended or allowed for in resolution 1441? That is the logic you have to beat in order for this to be illegal. So, as you say, unless you come up with something meaningful that can address that fact, I'll bow out on this one for now with you.

Now, please provide the proof of the personal matter. I will address that.

[myata]

For all intents and purposes, it is a court which decides international matters of the highest level. In this case, it made a ruling that it has never formally acknowledged as not being what it intended. I’m not to say the UNSC can make it illegal as we all know the US will certainly veto any resolution proposing that however, that is all it has to do is to introduce a resolution and have a vote.

I listed a number of arguments why UNSC is not a court and you didn't challenge one of them. All we have is your word what it is - second time (counting the post to which I'm replying, to be precise). Looks like you believe that if you say it enough times, it'll miraculously become true. But for me, enough is enough. You've had ample opportunity to respond in a logical manner and chose not to. The matter is closed, unless you want to start a new thread in which you'll follow common rules of discussion.

Or, have it brought up to The International Court of Justice using that fact. Until then, we don't know if that is what they intended or not. So, until then, nobody can even begin to argue that it was illegal.

For a change, a fresh idea. The way I understand it, only a state which has been a victim of aggression can bring action to the court against the agressor, and that state ceased to exist (or will never do it as a puppet government of the US). But I'm no expert and cannot contend that it's necessarily so. Would be interesting to hear from others here, would it be possible, even if theoretically, for another state to bring charges against the coalition to the ICJ?

You keep putting the cart before the horse. We don't even know whether the member nations would find that they didn't approve of the action much less rule they were against it until something is brought forward. And, you won't until a resolution saying that is put forth and voted on in the form of condemnation.

What I mean is that (for the x... and last time) that only a court of justice would have legitimate authority to hear and and judge these matters. UNSC is not a court (see above), ergo it cannot make this judgement.

For the personal matter, check post #77 (as the more recent example I didn't go much further and I have no desire to reread the entire thread).

[KrustyKidd]

Myata

I listed a number of arguments why UNSC is not a court and you didn't challenge one of them. All we have is your word what it is - second time (counting the post to which I'm replying, to be precise). Looks like you believe that if you say it enough times, it'll miraculously become true. But for me, enough is enough. You've had ample opportunity to respond in a logical manner and chose not to. The matter is closed, unless you want to start a new thread in which you'll follow common rules of discussion.

Your Reasons

1. SC cannot be considered impartial because certain governments, if accused of wrongdoing, can still participate in its deliberations and influence its decisions.

2. SC cannot be considered completely independent because governments can influence its composition and procedures, and its members can be influenced by external political considerations.

3. SC cannot be considered open and accessible because the offended party cannot bring a direct claim against the offender.

4. SC cannot be considered equal because some of the governments have special privileges (right of veto).

Open and accesible? Not impartial? Externalpolitical considerations? Like since when did I say it was pefect? It is, as per the definition below, a court. Not that any of this matters anyhow as nobody has even botheed to officially show displeasue with the US action in this body as they nomally do so, your mock indignation is meaningless.

Definition of Court

court  /kɔrt, koʊrt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kawrt, kohrt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

1. Law.

a. a place where justice is administered.

b. a judicial tribunal duly constituted for the hearing and determination of cases.

c. a session of a judicial assembly.

Myata

For a change, a fresh idea. The way I understand it, only a state which has been a victim of aggression can bring action to the court against the agressor, and that state ceased to exist (or will never do it as a puppet government of the US). But I'm no expert and cannot contend that it's necessarily so. Would be interesting to hear from others here, would it be possible, even if theoretically, for another state to bring charges against the coalition to the ICJ?

Whatever, you still need the UNSC to show that the action the US took was not what they intended.

Myata

What I mean is that (for the x... and last time) that only a court of justice would have legitimate authority to hear and and judge these matters. UNSC is not a court (see above), ergo it cannot make this judgement.

And, fo the x....... and not last time, that court would still need to have somebody declare that the action was not what the UNSC intended or allowed. Hence, you need that condemnation that I keep speaking about. In this case, even if the US vetoed it, the nine to six vote against the US would be necessary for that to occur.

Myata

For the personal matter, check post #77 (as the more recent example I didn't go much further and I have no desire to reread the entire thread).

Not sure, is this what you are talking about?

Your quote fom post #77

Myata

Please check what I said above, it's not the first time you misquote opponents in this discussion. When I said "controlled body" I meant that it's easily influenced by outside considerations. Independence would be a better term to use, I conceed on that.

(responding to me saying)

Now, as for highly controlled, please explain how they are controlled by the US.

...

So, you have proof to support your claim the US controls the UNSC?

Myata

You can spend many words but still won't be any closer to persuading anyone that a body in which the alledged perpetrator sits in the jury, is a part time judge and has the right of veto for the decision can be, in any rational way, qualified as a court of justice.

You were obviously speaking about the USA as I said they had been condemned eight times in the past fifteen yeas to which you replied;

Myata

What is even more comical is that apparently you cannot grasp the meaning of what was said here multiple times: mock condemnation in a CONTROLLED highly influenced political body cannot amount to fair and impartial justice from any rational point of view.

So, unless you meant 'contolled' to mean the alternative to chaos, I took that to mean the US contolled the UNSC. To which you confirmed this with;

Myata

The above clearly distinguishes the SC, which is no more that an extraordinary executive council, from what is normally associated with adequate justice system in the civlilized societies. The fact that only a few resolutions of the kind were ever attempted (and successfully vetoed down) only underlines its complete inadequacy to serve as a meaningful justice framework on the international scene.

Just so we all know how you term things, your following is a demonstration from earlier on

certain leaders of certatin countries decided to blast their way in, destroy the civilan infrastructure, greatly undermine stability of the society and directly or indirectly cause deaths of tens of thousands of people.

This cannot be what you were talking about is it? I mean, the following quotes from you are pretty sure about what was done wrong to you by myself;

Myata

1.Please check what I said above, it's not the first time you misquote opponents in this discussion. When I said "controlled body" I meant that it's easily influenced by outside considerations. Independence would be a better term to use, I conceed on that.

2. One thing missing though was logic and honest discussion. You misquoted your opponents and did not answer direct questions. No quotes and links can make out for that. You're right there isn't much sense in continuing in this line of polemics.

3. Uhm, no. If you just go back on this thread there'll be no problem finding those (hint: usually begins with words like "please show me where I ..."). I can count at least two such instances but I'm not sure now it's all as it's been quite long thread.

I took many of the questions to be irelevent to the discussion and simply ommited them as I believed I covered them in other areas of the posts which I responded to. for example, it matters not that the UNSC is a court in any sense of the word or not. I do believe that you hit it on the head by calling it an 'executive body' however, what it is or is not is unimportent to the argument. They made a resolution and we all have to know if the US acted within or without of that esolution. Nobody but they can answer that question be they a court or an executive body. Now, if there are other questions that you would like answered, I am more than willing to do so here. However, I need you to retract or to prove I misquoted, represented or whatever you and Bradco first. As you find it such a chore to look up old posts I doubt that will happen.

[myata]

1. Obviously, in your definition any kind of kangaroo gathering (Saddam's own included) would qualify as full and fair court of justice. There's a common understanding however what a reasonable system of justice is and it would include all of the elements I listed and probably more. Now you're admitting that UNSC does not satisfy any of these. Just as was pointed out. And anyways, one shouldn't wait a week to respond to a belated and still non existent argument.

2. I posted example way above (post #78) which explains how someone would challenge an offending action in a proper court of justice. It wouldn't involve UNSC other than as a witness. The judge(s) would consider the resolution in question, along with other actions and arguments to determine its intent and decide whether the action of the coalition were in full compliance with the resolution and international law.

3. Nowhere in my post did I say "controlled by US". What you assumed is entirely your problem. BTW mixing up quotes from different posts is also highly misleading. Anyways I'm not going to spend any more of my time on analysis of "who said what".

Finally, I believe that it was already said before and I'll say it again: there're serious questions and doubts about what coalition did in Iraq; if there's no legitimate legal process that can lead to a resolution of this matter, it will be left for interpretation by everyone according to their understanding. You can't say that it was legal by default just as I can't prove it was illegal. Justice cannot be achieved in this case.

[KrustyKidd]

1. Obviously, in your definition any kind of kangaroo gathering (Saddam's own included) would qualify as full and fair court of justice. There's a common understanding however what a reasonable system of justice is and it would include all of the elements I listed and probably more. Now you're admitting that UNSC does not satisfy any of these. Just as was pointed out. And anyways, one shouldn't wait a week to respond to a belated and still non existent argument.

Whoever said they were a fair court? That wasn't the argument. I said they were the highest court in the world and you said they were not a court because they were biased and such. In reality, it is the UN and all countries are out for themselves.

2. I posted example way above (post #78) which explains how someone would challenge an offending action in a proper court of justice. It wouldn't involve UNSC other than as a witness. The judge(s) would consider the resolution in question, along with other actions and arguments to determine its intent and decide whether the action of the coalition were in full compliance with the resolution and international law.

Uh, any idea of which post? Maybe a link or a quote from it? I mean, if you don't have time to go back to your own posts as you said before, even though you know exactly what you are looking for so why would you expect people who don't have a shmick of what you are trying to say to wade through post after post of yours to try and figure out if they found it or not?

3. Nowhere in my post did I say "controlled by US". What you assumed is entirely your problem. BTW mixing up quotes from different posts is also highly misleading. Anyways I'm not going to spend any more of my time on analysis of "who said what".

You said that the UNSC was a 'controlled highly influenced body' Possibly now you might set this straight by telling the forum who you feel they are controlled by. Would it possibly be (as you refered to the US in another post describing why the UNSC is not a court) the 'alledged perpetrators'?

A point, is this the only evidence of misrepresenting, misquoting and twisting what you say that you can provide? If so, then I would have to say you are simply being frivolous instead of presenting an actual refutation to my points. If you have something, bring it forth, if you do not then I don't expect an appology, just a retaction of the accusation itself in which you said

Myata's accusation of not aguing in good faith on this thread

One thing missing though was logic and honest discussion. You misquoted your opponents and did not answer direct questions.

Myata's proof to date

Finally, I believe that it was already said before and I'll say it again: there're serious questions and doubts about what coalition did in Iraq; if there's no legitimate legal process that can lead to a resolution of this matter, it will be left for interpretation by everyone according to their understanding. You can't say that it was legal by default just as I can't prove it was illegal. Justice cannot be achieved in this case.

I can say that it's legal by default as the body that authorized it has not condemned or ruled against the action which so many people say was not authorized by that body. You do not know for sure that the UNSC did not intend for action to be allowed to be taken yet, it was with no condmnation. That actually is a minor point as the major one you have conceeded in saying that it was not illegal as yet. Thank you for conceeding the argument. My intent was to prove that it was not illegal and you have agreed.

Now that personal matter. Please settle it.

[myata]

3. Nowhere in my post did I say "controlled by US". What you assumed is entirely your problem. BTW mixing up quotes from different posts is also highly misleading. Anyways I'm not going to spend any more of my time on analysis of "who said what".

You said that the UNSC was a 'controlled highly influenced body' Possibly now you might set this straight by telling the forum who you feel they are controlled by. Would it possibly be (as you refered to the US in another post describing why the UNSC is not a court) the 'alledged perpetrators'?

The only thing I need to prove is that I never said "controlled by US" and you quoted or presented me as if I did. If you didn't understand the point (which I later clarified) you were free to ask for clarifications. As I said earlier much of your analysis is lacking in logic, so I'm not interested in your far fetching interpretations. If you have a direct unmodified quote of me as saying the above please post it here now. Otherwise, adieu.

[M.Dancer]

I would say that ant organization that has France, the UK, the USA Russia and an unnamed 2 round draught pick cannot be called a controlled thingie.......

[KrustyKidd]

The only thing I need to prove is that I never said "controlled by US" and you quoted or presented me as if I did. If you didn't understand the point (which I later clarified) you were free to ask for clarifications. As I said earlier much of your analysis is lacking in logic, so I'm not interested in your far fetching interpretations. If you have a direct unmodified quote of me as saying the above please post it here now. Otherwise, adieu.

Yes. Guess I was right. You cannot tell who the UNSC is controlled by as you know it will vindicate me and make you, in the process admit you are a frivolous moron. As per adieu, now that you admitted that the action cannot be ruled or called illegal for now, you must feel like an illogical, emotional clown for being beaten in an argument by a person lacking in logic. ta ta.

[myata]

Yes. Guess I was right. You cannot tell who the UNSC is controlled by as you know it will vindicate me and make you, in the process admit you are a frivolous moron. As per adieu, now that you admitted that the action cannot be ruled or called illegal for now, you must feel like an illogical, emotional clown for being beaten in an argument by a person lacking in logic. ta ta.

Whatever (just don't try to tell me what I know or think, you don't seem to be good at it). There's no point in discussing anything with a drone who only repeats the same line over and again, ignoring (or shall I say having nothing to refute?) legitimate arguments and diverting discussion by putting their own interpretations as words of opponents. I guess you can go on like that forever (here's one example how:

while (forever) repeat every day: "I'm right because I did not say I'm wrong" )

and in that sense you do win, adieu.

(I could have come up with an equally informative answer:

while (forever) repeat every day: "No you wrong because I'm saying so"

) but I conceed the priviledge all to yourself.

[M.Dancer]

Who can say this is 100% true.......if it is only 75% true, the ramifictions indeed.....And it begs the question, what were the Bush Admin thinking....?

TORONTO, Oct. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- A former political adviser to Saddam Hussein's son said today that Saddam was willing to yield to all American demands before the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- but that the Bush administration refused his offers.

ADVERTISEMENT

The disclosure was made by Hossam Shaltout, a Canadian aerospace engineer, former American pilot, and founder of the peace organization Rights and Freedom International (http://www.rightsandfreedom.com), who said that war could have been averted, but Bush aides blocked his efforts to announce Saddam's decision.

"Saddam was willing to yield to all American demands, announced and unannounced, to reach peaceful resolution," said Shaltout, "but the Bush administration, including Elizabeth Cheney, undersecretary of State, David Welch, the U.S. ambassador in Egypt, and Gene Cretz, his political attache, did not respond to his offers."

Shaltout said he was planning to fly from Amman to Baghdad to announce Saddam's decision, but the Royal Jordanian Airlines officials claimed that the US ordered the flight to leave five hours earlier causing him to miss the flight, preventing him from announcing on CNN that Saddam would bow to the Bush ultimatum. Shaltout said he traveled by road to Baghdad, delaying him almost one day, but raced to get the communique approved from Saddam to broadcast over international TV stations broadcasting from Baghdad.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061030/nym224.html?.v=44

[myata]

From what I can recall of the times before the invasion, the Bushes corp was hard set on invasion several months before it began and I doubt that anything short of Saddam's offering immediate and unconditional resignation would have stopped them.

[Topaz]

I've read alot on this and one article I read said that Bush was going to go in without the UN BUT Blair told him he couldn't do that, it would be illegal and so it was Britains' idea to come up with the 1441 and make it so Hussein would break it and so that would let Bush to invade the country legally. Bush had plans on invading Iraq one way or another but Blair wanted done legally. I just wonder how much Cheney had in this, behind the scenes with Rummy.

[Higgly]

I've read alot on this and one article I read said that Bush was going to go in without the UN BUT Blair told him he couldn't do that, it would be illegal and so it was Britains' idea to come up with the 1441 and make it so Hussein would break it and so that would let Bush to invade the country legally. Bush had plans on invading Iraq one way or another but Blair wanted done legally. I just wonder how much Cheney had in this, behind the scenes with Rummy.

Cheney had a lot to do with it, but even more was the guy who brought the idea into the US government in the first place - Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense under Rumsfeld. Wolfowitz first came up with this while working for Benjamin Netenyahu during his campaign to become Israeli Prime Minister after Rabin was assassinated. The idea had been a Likud dream for some time but Israel didn't have the juice to pull it off. Wolfowitz then went to Defense and started pushing the idea to George Bush Senior during the gulf war. Senior had too much smarts (or rather Colin Powell did) to go along with the dumb ass idea and he pulled US troops out of Iraq after Sadddam had been kicked out of Kuwait. Wolfowitz had convinced Cheney and Rumsfeld though, and together they then went to work on junior who hasn't got the brains God gave a turnip. There is an interesting photo of Bush, Wolfowitz and Condoleeza Rice leaning on a split rail fence out at the Bush ranch sometime shortly before the first election that brought Bush into office. Here we have a guy who has been consulting to the Prime Minister of Israel, and who is in a senior position in Defense (but not a cabinet minster) getting an invite out to the ranch. Touching isn't it?

You are right that Bush had wanted to do it for some time. He was actively discussing it in cabinet with Rumsfeld before 9/11. It has been argued that Bush junior missed the clues to 9/11 because he was so totally focussed on invading Iraq. Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush were all obsessed with it from day 1.

[KrustyKidd]

From what I can recall of the times before the invasion, the Bushes corp was hard set on invasion several months before it began and I doubt that anything short of Saddam's offering immediate and unconditional resignation would have stopped them.

According to Clark in 'Plan of Attack' it was march of 2002 when Bush first approached Rumsfeld to bring the battle plan for Iraq up to speed which was something like ten years outdated. We, the public were first allowed to see the actual plan when the focus changed from WMDs to 'Regime Change' in late 2002.

[myata]

According to Clark in 'Plan of Attack' it was march of 2002 when Bush first approached Rumsfeld to bring the battle plan for Iraq up to speed which was something like ten years outdated. We, the public were first allowed to see the actual plan when the focus changed from WMDs to 'Regime Change' in late 2002.

That was, of course, in the alternative Universe and history. Here, in this one, they kept on pressing bs like "45 minute threat" and those ever elusive WMD. They wouldn't approach within a ballistic missile shot of UNSC with anything even remotely resembling "regime change".

[KrustyKidd]

That was, of course, in the alternative Universe and history.

You don't hold stock in what Bob Woodward says? Most of the left does so you intruque me for not following them but yet, wonder what you base your ideas on if you discount award winning historical writers who do mega research for their books.

[bradco]

"They wouldn't approach within a ballistic missile shot of UNSC with anything even remotely resembling "regime change"."

Correct, because pro-democratic intervention has absolutly no chance as an internaional legal argument. But that doesnt discredit it as their actual motivation.

[myata]

Well, yes, there were any number of "analysts" floating around this democratization strategy so one wonders what their sources of inspiration were, so the motivation part sounds quite plausible. It's an absolute non-starter as a legal argument though.

[bradco]

Im curious whether or not the Bush adminstration subscribes to the Democratic Peace Theory and whether or not this plays a role in their foreign policy. While I generally agree the theory is correct, you cant breed democracy with bombs. Thoughts?

[myata]

I'm not familiar with the theory - is there a good reference? Breeding democracy with bombs is no more feasible that a total brain transplant.

[KrustyKidd]

Im curious whether or not the Bush adminstration subscribes to the Democratic Peace Theory and whether or not this plays a role in their foreign policy. While I generally agree the theory is correct, you cant breed democracy with bombs. Thoughts?

Of course he does.

"And the reason why I'm so strong on democracy is democracies don't go to war with each other. And the reason why is the people of most societies don't like war, and they understand what war means.... I've got great faith in democracies to promote peace. And that's why I'm such a strong believer that the way forward in the Middle East, the broader Middle East, is to promote democracy."

So did Clinton

"Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don't attack each other."

And the US Congress in passing the Advance Democracy Act:

"Wars between or among democratic countries are exceedingly rare, while wars between and among nondemocratic countries are commonplace, with nearly 170,000,000 people having lost their lives because of the policies of totalitarian governments."