Forums | MacLife

Defying a UN order is not a justifaction for war. There's only one legal and moral reason to launch a preemptive strike: if the nation in question is an immediate threat to peace. Not someday in the future, not possibly maybe down the line, but here and now.

NATO attacked Yugoslavia without a UN mandate, but it didn't get members of the alliance in trouble because Yugoslavia was judged an obvious threat to peace.

If the US government cannot point to evidence of an imminent Iraqi threat in the form of massed troops or perhaps a specific terrorist plot, then it cannot legally attack Iraq.

International law has established only one justification for war in general, that of self-defense. Preemptive action is technically permitted, but only in the most extreme emergencies. I can't think of a single such war that has been approved, even retroactively, by the UN. The Six-Day War, for example, which Israel launched against its neighbors in 1967, is still considered illegal by the UN.

The onus is not on opponents of the war to prove that Iraq is not a threat. The US government must prove that Iraq is just steps away from a major attack on the USA (or its own neighbors). So far it has not done so.

Stir up a hornets nest and what happens?

We leave, and he is going to be livid...I don't think he is going to just "be nice" and just sit around and do nothing...

We are into this now, and I don't know how if at all we would be able to get out...even if it was a possibility.

And Saddam is a danger, to the countries around him, and to his own people...

Cyberpawz

Stir up a hornets nest and what happens?

We leave, and he is going to be livid...I don't think he is going to just "be nice" and just sit around and do nothing...

We are into this now, and I don't know how if at all we would be able to get out...even if it was a possibility.

And Saddam is a danger, to the countries around him, and to his own people...

Cyberpawz

I'll repeat: the fact that a government isn't liked or trusted is not a legal justification to invade it. Saddam is a danger, but not an immediate threat. Lots of countries are dangers. Hell, the whole damn Mideast is a danger.

You're right, by the way, about the war machine not being able to stop at this point. And I suspect that was the whole reason Bush got this whole thing going, because at this point it really can't be stopped without severe political consequences.

So I guess the next time a president wants a war he can just gear up for one, all the while saing he "hasn't decided yet", and eventually people will realize it's too late and go along with it.

That's a helluva way to run a railroad.

Or an oil company

I agree though...

The minute the inspectors stepped foot in there, it started to stir up that nest...

But if you have noticed, both Bushes have done this, and both have only so far stayed though one term?

So it may be a hell of a way to run a rail road, but in his Father's case, they threw his ass out at the first chance they could.

Cyberpawz

It's not a preemptive strike.

This must be using some new, heretofore unknown definition of "preemptive".

I guess you missed the last chapter where we kicked their sorry asses back to Baghdad and ended the war.

Have they attacked another country since then?

It's not a preemptive strike.

This must be using some new, heretofore unknown definition of "preemptive".

Did you miss that whole episode in 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

Are you under the impression it is still 1991?  Or that Iraq has invaded someone again?

Even the Bush administration is referring to their policy as one of preemptive strike, jackass.

Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and now chairman of the Pentagon's Policy Advisory Board, condemned French and German policy on Iraq in the strongest terms at a public seminar organized by a New York-based PR firm and attended by Iraqi exiles and American Middle East and security officials.

What the hell is he talking about?  We own France.  France owes us for what we did for them in World War II.  And what do they do in return?  They send us Renaults, Peugeots, and Citroens.  Garbage!

France is America's bitch.  We can do whatever we darn well please with France.  Why, we can even make the frogs speak English!

My previous post already covers your rebuttal. The UN charter places emphasis on exhausting all peaceful means of resolving a situaton before using military force. The French, Germans and Russians are trying to remove the 'threat to the peace', and in a manner a lot more like the UN was set up for than the United States.

France, Germany, and Russia have substantial oil interests in Iraq, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with their stance, right?

Their economic interests may well affect their stance, at least in part. But if you support that argument then it only makes sense to support the argument of those that say that, similarly, the US position is affected by their oil interests. I don't think the Bush people are admitting to that are they?

hillbilly wrote:


12 years of violating the terms of the cease fire (concerning WMDs) and his well-documented association with terrorism.

With all due respect hillbilly your above quote and your links to support it are simply not relevant. The following is from one of your links (in bold):

IRAQ
Iraqi Ties to Terrorism

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
Yes. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has provided bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to Palestinian terror groups. The Bush administration calls the threat that Saddam might provide weapons of mass destruction to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network or other terrorists a key reason for possible preemptive military action against Iraq.

Is Iraq the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism?
No, according to the State Department, which gives that title to neighboring Iran. The State Department does list Iraq as one of seven states that sponsor terrorism, but experts say Iran, Syria, and, at least in the past, Pakistan all surpass Iraq in their support for terrorists.

Iraq has provided base etc. to groups, presumably Kurds, fighting to establish a homeland; Palestinian groups who are fighting for the creation of a Palestinian homeland (an aim supported by the governments of the US, tht UK and just about everybody else). Their methods at the moment are pretty horrific but the blame for that cannot be placed only on the Palestinians. Furthermore even now we still hear from the leaders of these groups that they do not seek the destruction of Israel but the establishment of Palestine though I'm sure there are the usual loony exceptions. And they terrorist groups fighting Iran! Iran turns out to be "the world's most active sponsor of state terrorism" according to the US government!

Oh, the word preemptive was also used so I assume they know what it means. Whether George knows what it means.....Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Abu Nidal, who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002

I may mistaken but wasn't Abu Nidal not 'found dead' but killed by the Iraqi secret service. If so I'm sure they had their iffy reasons but saying "found dead" is simply dishonest and an attempt disinform us.

StyerCPD wrote:
Add to that their funding of the families of palistinians that blow themselves up

Again this is misleading, either deliberate or not. It is in the same spirit as the families of our war dead receiving pensions. You may not like it, you may think suicide bombers as grotesque as I do but that is what it amounts to. The view of some people here that Palestinian families think "Oh Saddam is going to give us some cash if we strap explosives to our children and send them off to Tel Aviv. Well let's do it then" is just moronic.

My previous post already covers your rebuttal. The UN charter places emphasis on exhausting all peaceful means of resolving a situaton before using military force. The French, Germans and Russians are trying to remove the 'threat to the peace', and in a manner a lot more like the UN was set up for than the United States.

France, Germany, and Russia have substantial oil interests in Iraq, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with their stance, right?

The US has substantial oil interests in Iraq, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with their stance, right?

So does the rest of the civilized world, but the thing you are forgetting about is this...

France, as well as Germany is making the UN absolutely worthless, they are floundering, hemming and hawing, and stone walling just because they can.

France and Germany is hurting themselves, as well as the rest of Europe, they just don't realize it.

Cyberpawz

Why the hell would we want France?  We already need to give Florida back to Spain, this would lead to even more problems.

Besides, it's already France: The country popularly known as West Germany.

StyerCPD this is for you, In the interests of fairness and balance of course. History may be off but enjoy all the same.

-King Phillips War- Win. This one we don't know anything about so me might have lost but as nobody knows we can say we won. Who is King Phillip anyway?

-French-Indian War- Win, but only becase the British fought it for us but as we were still all British practicing to be Americans we can chalk this one up as another one for America.

-American Revolution- Win. A family squabble between the effete tea drinkers aka the British and the manly coffee drinkers aka the Americans fought by the The Hessians. The Hessians, another name for Germans ie temporary Frenchmen, were defeated by Paul Revere when he dumped himself into Boston harbor disguised as a box of tea. Quite why the Hessians were defeated by this is a question still perplexing modern day historians.

-War of 1812- Win- A succesfull invasion of Canada in which Canada is fooled into thinking the Americans too hopelessly pathetic in a wet puppy kind of way to even bother fighting. This masterstroke of early guerilla warfare is followed by fooling the British into preparing the, already planned, redesign of our nation's capitol. The British being sticklers for fair play go home in a huff. Another victory for America reinforced by having the only hit song of the war.

-Mexican American War- Win. Mexico soundly defeated trying to prevent our natural right to beautiful golf courses where nature never intended golf course to be. Another victory for American ingenuity and forsight and a boon to the kiddies fashion industry which produces 26 billion Davie Crocket hats over the next hundred or so years. Another hit song strikes fear into the hearts of foreign monarchs with funny names.

-Civil War- Win. Our most decisive victory. A war fought for the right to oppress ourselves in modern industrial factories and not medieval agriculture. Hippies never recovered from this crushing defeat even though they still wore the same moustaches a hundred years later. This conflict was only fully ended in the 1990s when hippies became CEOs. 

-The Indian Wars- Win- More correctly termed The Second Civil War. Another victory for progress against members of The New World Order, more correctly termed The Old World Order. The defeated were forced to give up their uninsulated, energy inefficient abodes for the wonders of tract housing and air conditioning.

-Spanish American War- Win- A war unusual in that it was fought neither in America nor Spain but in various beach resorts in the Philippines. The Spanish, after indulging in the charms of dusky, sensuous Philippina for a couple of hundred years were no match for an American military that had suffered the charms of their pasty, overweight wives for the same two hundred years. Or at least it felt like that long. This war ingrained in the American military a desire to fight future wars in exotic and interesting locations.

-WWI-win-More properly called The Second War Fought in Places We'd Like to Visit But Couldn't Afford To Go. This war is most memorable for the first military decoration won by a black American male in the air force. Unfortunately it was the French air force as he refused to serve alongside his fairer brothers. Any assertion that he was not allowed to serve because of his color is malicious slander against the forces of the US and is proved so by many movies showing otherwise.

-WWII-Win- Fought in order to train the French to defend France, to show the Germans that our cars are better than theirs, to make the British feel grateful to us FOR EVER and to ensure American industrial supremacy vis a vis the Japanese. Failed in all of these but still won the war as now American tourists can get decent food throughout the world ie. Big Macs and Kentucky Fried Chicken.

-Korea War- Win- Enabled the US military to experience the charms of Korea and to show the Chinese that we can march up to the Chinese border, and back, any time we damn well please.

Veitnam War- Win- Another war fought in a beautiful country. Well at least it used to be huh huh. Our old friend from the 1920s Uncle Ho became the leader once we decided that the country was in a secure enough that we could leave. Of our own free will mind you and don't let anyone tell you any different. In addition we provided years of future employment for thousands of our friends in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia clearing the countryside of various metal objects we left there for exactly such a purpose.

Grenada- Won- More correctly The Sixth War in Beautiful Places....Fought for the sole altruistic pupose of educating our friends in Grenada of the ups and downs of geopolitics. And fought again on beautiful beaches. Need I say more. A war chiefly remembered for our infallible and ruggedly handsome military top brass giving out more decorations and citations than people actually taking part in the war. And quite right too.

Cold War-Win-Led to the downfall of the evil empire and dozens of mini wars. Mini wars are those fought by other people, not us. A clear victory.

Panama- Win- We invaded another beautiful country. Ist object of war accomplished. On top of this, as if that wasn't enough already, we managed to secure the release of our number one drug dealer in that part of the world and bring him home so that he continue doing best what we trained him to do best from the comfort of a government funded retirement home. A very well deserved reirement even if I say so myself. His partner of the early days went on to even greater things. Can you can imagine anything greater than running your own country? Yes. Running the United States of America. Our own George Bush. Congratulations Mr. President.

Gulf War-Win- A depressing war in that is fought on lots of sand but with no real sea. A major oversight by our military planners. But a win all the same as we used the invasion of a medieval oligarchy by a very modern dictator to study history and practice using our untested weaponry. Not much point having awe inspiring weapons if you don't inspire awe is there? Also shows the rest of the world that journalists do not need to be anywhere near the war they are covering. We are perfectly capable of telling them what is going on. Another clear victory.

Former Yugoslavia- Win- Destroyed Chinese embassy which was sole purpose of war. A timely reminder in case they had forgotten the lessons of the Korean War. Good beaches. Topless European girls sunbathing on said beaches. Case closed.

Afghanistan- Win- Not really over yet and not really up to the quality of previous skirmishes. I mean what does a burkha bikini look like? And how can you tell if she's wearing one? But we'll win it just like all the rest.

Anybody with any questions regarding the veracity of these proven facts please address your inquiries to The Office of Homeland Security and you are assured of a prompt reponse.

Wow, that sure took a lot of work.