Republicans and Democrats - on Iraq

[gc1765]

To win the Republican primary, one must cater to the hard-right & religious-right faction of the Republican party. The Republican party hard-core partisans still think GW Bush walks on water and the invasion of Iraq was a mission from God. Thus, all Republican candidates for President must pander to this crowd.

I always thought Guiliani was supposed to be on the "left" side of the Republican party? After seeing him in the debate, I'm not so sure. I can only hope that he is only trying to win the primary and doesn't actually believe what he says.

[gc1765]

Which is worse: admitting that you voted on something you didn't fully understand - which ended up costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives - or saying that you still support a failed mission with which most Americans disagree?

I respect people who can admit they made a mistake. I respect Edwards for admitting he made a mistake (It's a lot better than making excuses like Hilary). I'd like to see Harper admit that supporting the war in Iraq was a mistake...and I just might vote for him.

[BC_chick]

I respect people who can admit they made a mistake. I respect Edwards for admitting he made a mistake (It's a lot better than making excuses like Hilary). I'd like to see Harper admit that supporting the war in Iraq was a mistake...and I just might vote for him.

Did you watch the debates? I was falling asleep so admittedly it's a little blurry, but I remember Wolf Blitzer asking the candidates if they'd read an xyz report before their vote (assuming this was an important document) and a number of them admitted that they hadn't.

I'm all for admitting your mistakes (not sure if I'd take it as far as voting for Harper....) but this was a case of voting for something they hadn't fully understood.

When I vote on sending people out to die, you bet I'd be doing my homework first. What they did was pretty damning.

That said, I still don't know if it's any better than defending the Iraq war in hindsight.

(no offense Liam - always appreciate your opinions, just this one, I'd have to agree to disagree).

[gc1765]

Did you watch the debates? I was falling asleep so admittedly it's a little blurry, but I remember Wolf Blitzer asking the candidates if they'd read an xyz report before their vote (assuming this was an important document) and a number of them admitted that they hadn't.

Yes, I do remember that. If I remember correctly a lot of the Republicans, including McCain, didn't read it either (but I can't remember so don't quote me on that ). But it seems most of the candidates didn't read the report, so I would rather see a candidate admit that he didn't read the report and admit that it was a mistake rather than hear a candidate say that she didn't read the report and then make up some phoney baloney reason for supporting the war. I guess I'm just assuming that Edwards, even if he didn't read xyz report, would have had other information...who knows how many reports he had, and how many he read. Considering that no one seemed to read the report, I'm guessing they must have read other reports of some sort??? Otherwise, what the heck were they basing their decision on??

[BC_chick]

Republicans, including McCain, didn't read it either (but I can't remember so don't quote me on that ). But it seems most of the candidates didn't read the report, so I would rather see a candidate admit that he didn't read the report and admit that it was a mistake rather than hear a candidate say that she didn't read the report and then make up some phoney baloney reason for supporting the war. I guess I'm just assuming that Edwards, even if he didn't read xyz report, would have had other information...who knows how many reports he had, and how many he read. Considering that no one seemed to read the report, I'm guessing they must have read other reports of some sort??? Otherwise, what the heck were they basing their decision on??

Fair points all.

[Hollus]

Lots of people had the answers back in 2002. They just were not being disseminated over the mass media. All of the evidence the US presented as justification for the war had been discredited.

All one had to do is take was look at the most comprehensive presentation the Bush admin made for their cause (Colin Powell Feb 5, 2003 address to UN security council) and see that the presentation was full wild speculation based on discredited information.

The UN knew it was BS. The Canadian Prime Minister knew it was BS. A 125 Democrat Senators knew it was BS. They were all right. Any Senator that voted for the war was either conciously voting to decieve the American public and luanch an imperialistic conquest of Iraq, or they were far to inept to be serving as Senators.

[bush_cheney2004]

The UN knew it was BS. The Canadian Prime Minister knew it was BS. A 125 Democrat Senators knew it was BS. They were all right. Any Senator that voted for the war was either conciously voting to decieve the American public and luanch an imperialistic conquest of Iraq, or they were far to inept to be serving as Senators.

Then why waste time with IAEA and UNSCOM inspections at all, going back to the previous US administration? Inspections that were only renewed when 240,000 Brits, Aussies, and Americans went camping in Kuwait. This even after Canada helped to strangle Iraq with sanctions and enforcement.

What's wrong with voting for an "imperialistic" conquest of Iraq? To paraphrase Madeline Albright, what the point of having a $500 billion military if you can't use it?"

[Hollus]

Then why waste time with IAEA and UNSCOM inspections at all, going back to the previous US administration? Inspections that were only renewed when 240,000 Brits, Aussies, and Americans went camping in Kuwait. This even after Canada helped to strangle Iraq with sanctions and enforcement.

What are you trying to say with this? I believe your order of events are mixed up. I know only of the sanctions and dissarmement obligations imposed on Iraq in response to the invasion of Kuwait. What are these renewed inspections you speak of?

Anyway, the question is not about IAEA and UNSCOM inpsectors ensuring Iraq had complied to dissarmement. The question is why should anyone have believed the Bush admins claims that Iraq had reinstated nuclear/biological/chemical weapons when they could not present any factual evidence to support it?

What's wrong with voting for an "imperialistic" conquest of Iraq? To paraphrase Madeline Albright, what the point of having a $500 billion military if you can't use it?"

Its illegal and tyrannical.

[Figleaf]

Anyway, the question is not about IAEA and UNSCOM inpsectors ensuring Iraq had complied to dissarmement. The question is why should anyone have believed the Bush admins claims that Iraq had reinstated nuclear/biological/chemical weapons when they could not present any factual evidence to support it?

Exactly. The evidence was ephemeral at best, and war proponents compensated by using malicious rhetoric against all who tried to speak about it.

The Bushist regime led the band, but there are a whole whack of individual people who should look at themselves with shame for the way they jumped on a bandwagon that has lost so many lives and squandered so much wealth and goodwill.

[bush_cheney2004]

What are you trying to say with this? I believe your order of events are mixed up. I know only of the sanctions and dissarmement obligations imposed on Iraq in response to the invasion of Kuwait. What are these renewed inspections you speak of?

You are mistaken...the world clamoured for more inspection time....Canada even proposed a ridiculous compromise that would have guaranteed war (March 28 deadline for Iraq to comply with its obligations to disarm). Inspectors that were booted out of Iraq in 1998 were only admitted back in after coalition forces staged for invasion. Saddam was a lousy poker player.

Its illegal and tyrannical.

"Illegal War" is an oxymoron. President Bush had more approval than Chretien did when he "illegally" bombed Serbia...not even a debate in Parliament. I guess that means Canadians live under tyranny.

[jazzer]

President Bush had more approval than Chretien did when he "illegally" bombed Serbia

Not. Can you say NATO?

[bush_cheney2004]

Not. Can you say NATO?

Can you say NATO or UN Charter? President Bush will go to jail right after Chretien, Clinton, Schroeder, Chirac, and Blair.

[jdobbin]

Republicans abandoning Bush.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19209733/

As President Bush attempts to revive the controversial immigration reform bill he supports, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that Republicans are abandoning the president, which has dropped his job-approval rating below 30 percent -- his lowest mark ever in the survey.

But he isn’t the only one whose support is on the decline in the poll. Congress’ approval rating has plummeted eight points, bringing it below even Bush’s. And just one in five believe the country is on the right track, which is the lowest number on this question in nearly 15 years.

Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducted the survey with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, argues that these numbers have crossed below the political “Mendoza line,” referring to the feeble .200 batting-average mark in baseball. “With the mood of the country dropping below 20, and the president’s approval below 30, both are candidates for a sort of political Mendoza line,” he says.

In the poll, Bush’s approval rating is at just 29 percent. It’s a drop of six points since April, and it represents his lowest mark ever on this question in the NBC/Journal poll.

Congress ain't doing too hot either.

[GostHacked]

Bush Cheney

What's wrong with voting for an "imperialistic" conquest of Iraq? To paraphrase Madeline Albright, what the point of having a $500 billion military if you can't use it?"

Depends on what purpose that huge overinflated Military is to be used for. If it is used for peace... um wait.... I got nothing here at all.

What can 500 billion dollars buy?

Universal health care for the planet and all it's residents?

Top notch education for everyone?

Better urban developement?

I can find much more important things to spend that money on.

The US only touts UN resolutions and other things of importance only when they want it to matter to them. Other than that, the US just tells the UN off and people loose their rights.

"Illegal War" is an oxymoron. President Bush had more approval than Chretien did when he "illegally" bombed Serbia...not even a debate in Parliament. I guess that means Canadians live under tyranny.

You are correct here. It is tyrannical. A government that goes to war without the backing of the people/parliment/congress/UN ect ect ect defines tyranny.

[bush_cheney2004]

...What can 500 billion dollars buy?

Universal health care for the planet and all it's residents?

Top notch education for everyone?

Better urban developement?

I can find much more important things to spend that money on.

I'm sure you could, but you don't get to spend the money. And with good reason...look what happened with the Gun Registry!

[daniel]

...

I respect people who can admit they made a mistake. I respect Edwards for admitting he made a mistake (It's a lot better than making excuses like Hilary). I'd like to see Harper admit that supporting the war in Iraq was a mistake...and I just might vote for him.

For me, it'll take more than admit that Iraq was a mistake for me to support Harper. He's got to also admit that everything he stood for since 1987 was wrong and we will never represent those positions again in the future.

As for Iraq, the people responsible for initiating the war has not admitted to any mistake. They just admitted they hadn't managed it properly.

So imagine they're trying the same thing on Iran.

[Hollus]

You are mistaken...

I am mistaken about what? I asked you (bushcheney2004) to reclarify your original reply (which still makes absolutly no sense as you wrote it).

the world clamoured for more inspection time....Canada even proposed a ridiculous compromise that would have guaranteed war (March 28 deadline for Iraq to comply with its obligations to disarm). Inspectors that were booted out of Iraq in 1998 were only admitted back in after coalition forces staged for invasion. Saddam was a lousy poker player.

So what? Yes many people wanted more inspection time. At the time inspectors were scurried out Hans Blix was saying that it would only be a matter of months before he would be able to determine wheather or not WMD's existed.

But as I said before, the question of inspections is beside the point. Where is the evidence for the allegations?

"Illegal War" is an oxymoron.

I believe you are mistaken. The International Commission of International Law Jurists drafted a legal document to advice Bush/Blair of the legal grounds for war prior to invasion. The authoritive document stated that (1) it would be blatantly illegal under international law for the US/British to invade Iraq; and (2) that their joint decision as Commanders-in-Chief to commence hostilities would constitute prosecutable war crimes.

President Bush had more approval than Chretien did when he "illegally" bombed Serbia...not even a debate in Parliament. I guess that means Canadians live under tyranny.

Yes the bombing campiagn in Kosovo was illegal. Though nowhere near the scale of Iraq

[bush_cheney2004]

I am mistaken about what? I asked you (bushcheney2004) to reclarify your original reply (which still makes absolutly no sense as you wrote it).

You were mistaken about the nature of inspection compliance, principally the expulsion of inspectors by Iraq for "spying" and the subsequent bombing campaign by the UK/USA (Desert Fox) for "WMD". Said inspectors were readmitted in 2002 by Saddam only after facing invasion.

So what? Yes many people wanted more inspection time. At the time inspectors were scurried out Hans Blix was saying that it would only be a matter of months before he would be able to determine wheather or not WMD's existed.

But as I said before, the question of inspections is beside the point. Where is the evidence for the allegations?

There were several technical violations (e.g. extended missile ranges), and more than enough to serve as a pretext for war and the overthrow of Saddam according to US public law (Iraq Liberation Act - 1998).

I believe you are mistaken. The International Commission of International Law Jurists drafted a legal document to advice Bush/Blair of the legal grounds for war prior to invasion. The authoritive document stated that (1) it would be blatantly illegal under international law for the US/British to invade Iraq; and (2) that their joint decision as Commanders-in-Chief to commence hostilities would constitute prosecutable war crimes.

Point of order please....NATO bombing of the bridge (and train passengers) at Grdelica may constitute a war crime; when the Canadian PM or US president go to war with NATO against Serbia without UNSC aproval it would be a Crime Against the Peace.

Yes the bombing campiagn in Kosovo was illegal. Though nowhere near the scale of Iraq

I applaud your consistency.

[Hollus]

You were mistaken about the nature of inspection compliance, principally the expulsion of inspectors by Iraq for "spying" and the subsequent bombing campaign by the UK/USA (Desert Fox) for "WMD". Said inspectors were readmitted in 2002 by Saddam only after facing invasion.

My apologies.

There were several technical violations (e.g. extended missile ranges), and more than enough to serve as a pretext for war and the overthrow of Saddam according to US public law (Iraq Liberation Act - 1998).

In regards to weapons violations I know of the missiles that had a range of approximatly 100miles over the allowable limit as deemed by UN regulations. Hardly constitutes a threat to the American people. The Iraqi Liberation Act really doesnt matter as the Bush admin will be persecuted under international law (or atleast they should be).

Point of order please....NATO bombing of the bridge (and train passengers) at Grdelica may constitute a war crime; when the Canadian PM or US president go to war with NATO against Serbia without UNSC aproval it would be a Crime Against the Peace.

Yep. So you agree the Iraq war was illegal.

[ScottSA]

Point of order please....NATO bombing of the bridge (and train passengers) at Grdelica may constitute a war crime; when the Canadian PM or US president go to war with NATO against Serbia without UNSC aproval it would be a Crime Against the Peace.

Yep. So you agree the Iraq war was illegal.

That's not what he said at all. There were 16 UNSC resolutions, all reaffirming the original ceasefire resolution and reaffirming the fact that saddam had broken it, not just once, but in an ongoing campaign ranging from firing into the no-fly zone to foiling the weapons inspection regime. 14 of the later resolutions were merely icing on the cake and totally unnecessary in order for Saddam to be attacked. There was absolutely no question that the invasion was perfectly legal under what passes for intl law, which explains why no other country tried to claim it was. The baffled ex-figurehead of the UN once tried to almost claim it was, but that's about as meaningful as a bumper sticker.

There were no UNSC resolutions allowing military action in Kosovo or against Serbia. Russia made sure of that.

[Hollus]

Does the United States have the legal right to unilaterally enforce the violated resolutions? Where is the UN resolution that sanctions military action against Iraq?

[ScottSA]

Does the United States have the legal right to unilaterally enforce the violated resolutions? Where is the UN resolution that sanctions military action against Iraq?

Luxembourg has a unilateral right to enforce the resolutions if the resolutions call for resumed hostilities and if Luxembourg thinks it's up to the task. International law is not the same as domestic law...its enforcement works on the posse system.

The UNSC resolution, as distinct from a UNGA resolution, that calls for a resumption of hostilities, is res 687. It is a ceasefire resolution that has certain guidelines Iraq must follow in order to maintain a ceasefire. It is the violation 687 that Clinton used to justify bombing Iraq during one of the episodes of inspectorphobia that saddam was prone to. Clinton could have just as "legally" invaded Iraq then too. Bush merely went many many steps further in getting even stronger resolutions...15 more of them in fact, each "recalling" the ones before. Each one up to and including the last one, 1441, explicitly recalls and endorses all preceeding resolutions, and sets out for particular note res 687. There is absolutely no question that the invasion of Iraq was legal. Kosovo was not legal.

As to kofi Annan's mumbled backtracking about "illegality," most folks don't understand that he is a figurehead, and he only made that specious claim when he was on the way out the door. If there were any question at all from serious people about the legality of the invasion, France and/or Germany would have flogged it to death long before.

[Figleaf]

Does the United States have the legal right to unilaterally enforce the violated resolutions? Where is the UN resolution that sanctions military action against Iraq?

Luxembourg has a unilateral right to enforce the resolutions if the resolutions call for resumed hostilities and if Luxembourg thinks it's up to the task.

The resolutions certainly do not authorize unilateral invasion, overthrow of government, and occupation. You have been challenged to provide material in support of your claims in this regard, but instead you have simply provided a more longwinded recitation of your assertions. The reason for that is that your claim is specious.

There is absolutely no question that the invasion of Iraq was legal.

Hooey. Bush sought Security Council authorization and did not obtain it.

[ScottSA]

Does the United States have the legal right to unilaterally enforce the violated resolutions? Where is the UN resolution that sanctions military action against Iraq?

Luxembourg has a unilateral right to enforce the resolutions if the resolutions call for resumed hostilities and if Luxembourg thinks it's up to the task.

The resolutions certainly do not authorize unilateral invasion, overthrow of government, and occupation. You have been challenged to provide material in support of your claims in this regard, but instead you have simply provided a more longwinded recitation of your assertions. The reason for that is that your claim is specious.

There is absolutely no question that the invasion of Iraq was legal.

Hooey. Bush sought Security Council authorization and did not obtain it.

Sweal sweal sweal...why do you always wander into firefights unarmed? Please show me some codification that outlines degrees of war and to what extent this or that event can trigger this or that degree of war. You can't. Neither the UN Charter nor the Geneva Convention nor any other widely recognized convention makes distinctions between degrees of war. International law treats war as war; it either is or it ain't. As far as international law is concerned, total war and limited war share exactly the same characteristics. If you don't think that's true, then show me why. The burden of proof lies with the positive claimant, and you're it.

Bush went to war with 16 resolutions in hand refering to and affirming violated ceasefire resolution. Just to help out your understanding, a ceasefire, when broken, is no longer a ceasefire. It means a resumption of hostilities. You're wrong.

[Hollus]

The international law regarding the use of force is stated in the UN charter. In particular,

Article 2(4): All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Article 51" Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.