Illegal War In Iraq (political)

[R. Richard]

OK, we all know that the US is in Iraq illegally. However, there are a group of people who have deluded themselves into believing that the US is legally in Iraq, that the US has the UN's permission to be in Iraq and the the US forces are welcome in Iraq. The information is published by the well known White House mouthpiece, Reuters.

The group of people who have deluded themselves into believing the the US forces are legally in Iraq and welcome in Iraq call themselves the [get this!] Government of Iraq. They speak through Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari.

Worse yet, the words of the Government of Iraq are being given credence by another White House mouthpiece, The UN [specifically 15-nation Security Council].

Of course, the members of Literotica who know that the US is illegally in Iraq and does not have the permission of the UN need to mobilize, write your Congressperson, write your newspaper and take action! Comment?

Iraq tells UN it wants multinational force to stay
By Irwin Arieff Tue Jun 13, 1:01 PM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060613/wl_nm/iraq_un_forces_dc_2

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iraq has formally notified the U.N. Security Council that it wants the U.S.-led multinational force to remain in place for now as Iraqi troops and police are not yet ready to ensure security on their own.

"While great achievements have been gained by the people of Iraq in the realm of political development, the continuation of the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq remains necessary and essential for our security," Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said in a letter dated June 9 and circulated at the United Nations on Tuesday.

The letter's release coincided with a five-hour visit to Baghdad by President Bush, who told Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that "when America gives its word, it keeps its word."

A resolution adopted by the 15-nation Security Council in November extended the force's mandate through the end of 2006 but called for a review by June 15. The resolution said the council would terminate the mandate at any time if Iraq's government asked it to do so.

Some 130,000 U.S. troops are now in Iraq, making up the vast majority of the multinational force. The U.S. death toll in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion is nearing 2,500, fueling U.S. public unease. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed.

The November 8 resolution also required Iraq to keep depositing the money from its oil sales into an international account monitored by an outside watchdog to demonstrate it was using its oil wealth for the benefit of its people.

Zebari said his government still welcomed that arrangement as it showed Iraq's donors and creditors that it was "managing its resources and debts responsibly to the best benefit of the Iraqi people."

The Security Council initially set up the special account, and created an international monitoring board to watch over it, in May 2003 to ensure the U.S.-led occupation did not misuse Iraqi resources.

The resolution also authorized the multinational force to continue taking and holding its own prisoners in Iraq. There were 15,387 detainees in the force's custody as of the end of April, 7.5 percent more than at the end of February, according to the latest U.N. report on human rights in Iraq.

 

[TheEarl]

There's no doubt that the coalition shouldn't have gone in. However the morality behind them going in and the morality behind them staying there are two very different entities.

Simply speaking, if the coalition withdraws now, we will kill half of the country and offer control up to the most brutal despot to survive. We shouldn't be there, but now that we are, we have to make sure it's in a halfway decent state before we fuck off again.

The Earl

 

[Antfarmer77]

There's no doubt that the coalition shouldn't have gone in. However the morality behind them going in and the morality behind them staying there are two very different entities.

Simply speaking, if the coalition withdraws now, we will kill half of the country and offer control up to the most brutal despot to survive. We shouldn't be there, but now that we are, we have to make sure it's in a halfway decent state before we fuck off again.

The Earl

I guess it's similar to what Thomas Jefferson said about slavery "It's like holding a wolf by the ears. You don't like it, but you don't dare let go". Perhaps it is time to let them fend for themselves.

 

[minsue]

Perhaps it is time to let them fend for themselves.

Otherwise known as destroy their entire infra-structure and then leave them to try to put their country back together with little to no resources?

 

[Antfarmer77]

Otherwise known as destroy their entire infra-structure and then leave them to try to put their country back together with little to no resources?

It's not that I don't have compassion for their situation, but we didn't fix "the problem" with Desert Storm and it dosen't seem any better now and personally, I don't see it ever being any sort of demoracy so why send anymore of our people into harms way for a situation that will go back to what it was after we leave?

 

[Pure]

am i the only one who thinks rr's first posting is sarcasm?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Take a look at the current conditions in Vietnam.

 

[BigAndTall]

Take a look at the current conditions in Vietnam.

I don' t think the two conflicts have that many similarities.


Btw, I have often wondered about this. What would have made the war "legal"?

 

[R. Richard]

It's not that I don't have compassion for their situation, but we didn't fix "the problem" with Desert Storm and it dosen't seem any better now and personally, I don't see it ever being any sort of demoracy so why send anymore of our people into harms way for a situation that will go back to what it was after we leave?

The United States invaded Iraq. By doing so, the US got rid of Saddam Hussein, one of the more brutal dictators in modern history. The US should then have furnished Iraq with a constitution and basically set up the form of an Iraqi government. The US failed to furnish Iraq with a constitution and take several other steps that were suggested, under contract.

Despite a great deal of trouble, the Iraqis currently have an elected government. The Iraqis are rebuilding their army and their police. As of right now, the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police can't stand on their own. The problem is that they are under attack by professional soldiers who are better armed, better trained and better organized politically than the Iraqi government.

The killing of al Zarqawi will do an enormous amount to bring Iraq back under control. First, al Zarqawi had organizational documents for al Qaida in Iraq. The US and Iraq are pursuing the al Qaida guys named in the documents. The power of al Qaida is very badly broken in Iraq. There are, however, numerous other organizations who are still causing trouble.

One problem that the media have not covered is that al Qaida was attacking and robbing the truck caravans that supply Iraq from Jordan. If anyone tried to stop the robbery, al Zarqawi had then killed. If al Qaida now tries to rob the truck caravans, the desert bedouins who live in the Western Iraqi desert will settle scores with the al Qaida guys. This puts a lot of professional jihadis out of work. The professional jihadis will drift into cities and take over other terrorist organizations. The resulting wars will lead to more terroist captures and executions. Things are improving.

The Iraqis are improving their army and even their police. Things are getting better and should continue to get better. I have trouble seeing why you think that things will collapse when the US finally leaves.

 

[R. Richard]

Take a look at the current conditions in Vietnam.

One of my favorite Colleen Thomas lines... From "Twas the Night Before."

"You don't think super Santa crosses all those restricted airspaces for free do you? I mean, he's going ninety to nothing on the magic dust, but he still can't out run a surface-to-air missile. And then there all the special "representatives" you have to placate. I mean, you come bounding down a chimney in Northern Ireland or east L.A. and some one is likely to pop a cap in your ass."

Vintage Colly! However, she is a bit out of kilter. In East LA, they liable to cut yo' ass. In the South Central they gonna' bust off a cap in yo' ass! [I used to live in the South Central. I also been over to Soto Street a few times!]

 

[TheEarl]

It's not that I don't have compassion for their situation, but we didn't fix "the problem" with Desert Storm and it dosen't seem any better now and personally, I don't see it ever being any sort of demoracy so why send anymore of our people into harms way for a situation that will go back to what it was after we leave?

The NIMBY routine draws no support from me. I would've supported not intervening in Iraq in the first place under the 'It's not our problem' flag, but we caused the current situation. That makes it our responsibility and makes it so that we can't toss it off as being something we don't want to send our people into.

The Earl

 

[Antfarmer77]

"but we caused the current situation. "
The Earl

????????????

 

[Boota]

The legality of lying to Congress to get the war is the one I'm more concerned with. And the one that the rumblings of impeachment are concerned with. I would completely disregard the idea of King George ever being impeached, but for the growing number of pissed off Republican Congressman and Senators. If they turn on him it could happen. Of course, I doubt it will. I mean, this is only committing an act of war under false pretenses, killing a couple thousand American soldiers, and uncounted Iraqi civilains. It's not like he lied about a blowjob, or something serious like that.

 

[Huckleman2000]

The legality of lying to Congress to get the war is the one I'm more concerned with. And the one that the rumblings of impeachment are concerned with. I would completely disregard the idea of King George ever being impeached, but for the growing number of pissed off Republican Congressman and Senators. If they turn on him it could happen. Of course, I doubt it will. I mean, this is only committing an act of war under false pretenses, killing a couple thousand American soldiers, and uncounted Iraqi civilains. It's not like he lied about a blowjob, or something serious like that.

Whenever I posted anything like this in the past, Colly would be all over it in about two seconds, pointing out that it wasn't about a blowjob, it was about lying to a grand jury. It was one topic that she had very little sense of humor about, as far as I could ever tell, and it was what I found most grating about her political posts. It was one of her fundamental principles, though, and I have to respect that. Plus, what I've seen pass for reasoned political discourse over the last few weeks in the AH is severely diminished by her absence.

So, as an homage: Boota, lying to a grand jury is a serious transgression, particularly for one in the office of the President. Anyone there should be held to a higher standard, and to choose to lie to a court entity, regardless of the topic, undermines our whole system of government. If it comes to light that Bush has done that, he should be impeached like Clinton. Until that time, there is considerable room for interpretation of his public statements, and others on both sides of the aisle have made similar statements.

That did not do any justice to her posts, I know. It's just something I felt like I had to do.

 

[BigAndTall]

The legality of lying to Congress to get the war is the one I'm more concerned with. And the one that the rumblings of impeachment are concerned with. I would completely disregard the idea of King George ever being impeached, but for the growing number of pissed off Republican Congressman and Senators. If they turn on him it could happen. Of course, I doubt it will. I mean, this is only committing an act of war under false pretenses, killing a couple thousand American soldiers, and uncounted Iraqi civilains. It's not like he lied about a blowjob, or something serious like that.

But what I am wondering is what would have made the war in Iraq legal?

No, not meaning having Congress declare war cause I am sure someone would say that somehow Congress was corrupted and twisted to doing it. So what would have made people say "this was a legal war"?

 

[rgraham666]

I don' t think the two conflicts have that many similarities.


Btw, I have often wondered about this. What would have made the war "legal"?

What would have made the war legal is if Iraq had directly attacked the United States or supported a non-sovereign group that attacked the United States. As Afghanistan did.

That's why the States attacked Afghanistan, and had the support of the whole world doing it.

Iraq had not attacked the States, wasn't even a threat. So the war is illegal.

Which was the whole idea in the minds of the people that wanted the war. The main reason for the war was to give a message to the rest of the world. "We aren't playing by the rules any more. And this is what happens to people that get in our way."

 

[R. Richard]

What would have made the war legal is if Iraq had directly attacked the United States or supported a non-sovereign group that attacked the United States. As Afghanistan did.

That's why the States attacked Afghanistan, and had the support of the whole world doing it.

Iraq had not attacked the States, wasn't even a threat. So the war is illegal.

Which was the whole idea in the minds of the people that wanted the war. The main reason for the war was to give a message to the rest of the world. "We aren't playing by the rules any more. And this is what happens to people that get in our way."

========================================================
Is this what you address in your first paragraph?

Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked

NEW YORK, May 7, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has ruled there is a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaida. (AP)

(CBS) A federal judge Wednesday ordered Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and others to pay early $104 million to the families of two Sept. 11 victims, saying there is evidence – though meager - that Iraq had a hand in the terrorist attacks.

The closely watched case was the first lawsuit against the terrorists believed responsible for the World Trade Center attack to reach the damages phase.

U.S. District Judge Harold Baer ordered that the damages be paid by bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Saddam and the former Iraqi government. The judge ruled against them by default in January after they failed to respond to the lawsuits brought on behalf of two of the trade center dead.

James E. Beasley, a Philadelphia lawyer who brought the case, hopes to collect the money from frozen Iraqi, bin Laden and al-Qaida assets.

However, further court proceedings would be required before any payout could occur. And Beasley said it is unclear how much money would be available to satisfy the judgment. To help pay for Iraq's reconstruction, the Bush administration has started using roughly $1.7 billion Iraqi funds frozen in 1990.

Beasley called Baer's finding "a significant victory" because it represented the first time a judge linked al-Qaida and Iraq in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

In his ruling, Baer concluded that lawyers for the two victims "have shown, albeit barely ... that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida" and collaborated in or supported al-Qaida's Sept. 11 attacks.

Baer said lawyers relied heavily on "classically hearsay" evidence, including reports that a Sept. 11 hijacker met an Iraqi consul to Prague, Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks to the United Nations about connections between Iraq and terrorism, and defectors' descriptions of the use of an Iraq camp to train terrorists.

James Kreindler, a lawyer representing the families of 500 people killed and 1,000 injured in the attacks, said a case his firm was preparing for trial will offer proof of ties between Iraq and al-Qaida.

"We have uncovered the financial connection between Iraq and al-Qaida," he said.

Kreindler's case, which is still pending in federal court in New York, seeks damages from more than 200 defendants, including Iraq, Iran, Sudan, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Saudi Arabia government
officials, charities that fronted al-Qaida and banks that laundered money.

Baer heard evidence for two days in March to help him determine damages.

The cases were brought on behalf of George Eric Smith, 38, an analyst for SunGard Asset Management, and Timothy Soulas, 35, a senior managing director and partner at Cantor Fitzgerald Securities.

The cases relied in part on a 1996 law that permitted lawsuits against countries identified by the State Department as sponsors of terrorism.

Professor of International Law and CBS News Analyst Pamela Falk said, “There may be payments in this because of the Iraqi money, but it really puts the Bush administration in a position where they have to decide where the assets that are already in the United States, if they go to the victims, or go back to the Iraq people.

“This would be a way to make the terrorists pay,” Falk said, “and so (the president) may very well come out and say there’s a lot of money to go back to Iraq, but this should go to the (September 11th) victims first.

“It’s a real dilemma for the Bush administration.”

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

What would have made the war legal is if Iraq had directly attacked the United States or supported a non-sovereign group that attacked the United States. As Afghanistan did.

That's why the States attacked Afghanistan, and had the support of the whole world doing it.

Are you saying, then, that the declaration of war in 1914 by the UK against the German Empire made their entry into the war an illegal one? Germany had not, you know, attacked them. I could ask the same thing about the declaration of war in 1939. Germany had not attacked England then either.

 

[rgraham666]

Are you saying, then, that the declaration of war in 1914 by the UK against the German Empire made their entry into the war an illegal one? Germany had not, you know, attacked them. I could ask the same thing about the declaration of war in 1939. Germany had not attacked England then either.

In the first case you mention there was no international law. There was a complex series of treaties between nations that caused a waterfall of events. Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia. By treaty with Serbia Russia declared was on Austria-Hungary. Germany was tied by treaty to Austria-Hungary so it declared war on Russia. Britain and France had to declare war on Germany and Austria-Hungary because they were allied to Russia. Turkey joined in somewhere along the way because they were allies of Germany and Austria-Hungary.

Four years and something like twenty million deaths later, the German and Austro-Hungarian empires were gone, Russia was in the throes of a nasty revolution, and with the exception of the U.S. the 'victors' were bankrupt.

But that war was not illegal. War was regarded as a perfectly natural way of nations to settle their differences.

The League of Nations was formed to try and bring some form of international law. It didn't work. The U.S. wouldn't sign on and most of the rest of the world resented having to obey the law.

It broke down in the '30s. Nations formed alliances again and when Germany attacked Poland the same waterfall happened. But since the League of Nations was defunct Hitler attacking Poland was not illegal.

WWII killed eighty million people and flattened most of Europe. I was born in Germany ten years after the war and my mom said they were still carting the rubble away.

So the United Nations was formed and pretty much everybody came on board. Because they saw what WWII had done and worried what WWIII, fought with atomic weapons, would do. War, aggressive war was made illegal. A country can't start a war if it wants to. It can't do it because they think they're in danger. It can't do it because 'they're bringing democracy'. They can only do it if it is attacked by another nation. In which case it can appeal to the U.N. for help.

This doesn't always work any more than making murder or rape illegal stopped those. But aggressive war is now recognized as a bad thing to do.

The U.S. going into Iraq was an aggressive war. A distinct 'infringement upon the sovereignty' of another nation. And the people who planned it wanted it that way. They meant to overturn international law and replace it with the law of the jungle. A jungle where they would be 'the meanest son of a bitch in the valley'.

If the U.S. doesn't end the war soon, it will be like when the League of Nations failed. Nations will return to alliances, an incident will occur, and WWIII will take off.

This will not be a good thing.

 

[rgraham666]

========================================================
Is this what you address in your first paragraph?

Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked

NEW YORK, May 7, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has ruled there is a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaida. (AP)

(CBS) A federal judge Wednesday ordered Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and others to pay early $104 million to the families of two Sept. 11 victims, saying there is evidence – though meager - that Iraq had a hand in the terrorist attacks.

The closely watched case was the first lawsuit against the terrorists believed responsible for the World Trade Center attack to reach the damages phase.

U.S. District Judge Harold Baer ordered that the damages be paid by bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Saddam and the former Iraqi government. The judge ruled against them by default in January after they failed to respond to the lawsuits brought on behalf of two of the trade center dead.

James E. Beasley, a Philadelphia lawyer who brought the case, hopes to collect the money from frozen Iraqi, bin Laden and al-Qaida assets.

However, further court proceedings would be required before any payout could occur. And Beasley said it is unclear how much money would be available to satisfy the judgment. To help pay for Iraq's reconstruction, the Bush administration has started using roughly $1.7 billion Iraqi funds frozen in 1990.

Beasley called Baer's finding "a significant victory" because it represented the first time a judge linked al-Qaida and Iraq in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

In his ruling, Baer concluded that lawyers for the two victims "have shown, albeit barely ... that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida" and collaborated in or supported al-Qaida's Sept. 11 attacks.

Baer said lawyers relied heavily on "classically hearsay" evidence, including reports that a Sept. 11 hijacker met an Iraqi consul to Prague, Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks to the United Nations about connections between Iraq and terrorism, and defectors' descriptions of the use of an Iraq camp to train terrorists.

James Kreindler, a lawyer representing the families of 500 people killed and 1,000 injured in the attacks, said a case his firm was preparing for trial will offer proof of ties between Iraq and al-Qaida.

"We have uncovered the financial connection between Iraq and al-Qaida," he said.

Kreindler's case, which is still pending in federal court in New York, seeks damages from more than 200 defendants, including Iraq, Iran, Sudan, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Saudi Arabia government
officials, charities that fronted al-Qaida and banks that laundered money.

Baer heard evidence for two days in March to help him determine damages.

The cases were brought on behalf of George Eric Smith, 38, an analyst for SunGard Asset Management, and Timothy Soulas, 35, a senior managing director and partner at Cantor Fitzgerald Securities.

The cases relied in part on a 1996 law that permitted lawsuits against countries identified by the State Department as sponsors of terrorism.

Professor of International Law and CBS News Analyst Pamela Falk said, “There may be payments in this because of the Iraqi money, but it really puts the Bush administration in a position where they have to decide where the assets that are already in the United States, if they go to the victims, or go back to the Iraq people.

“This would be a way to make the terrorists pay,” Falk said, “and so (the president) may very well come out and say there’s a lot of money to go back to Iraq, but this should go to the (September 11th) victims first.

“It’s a real dilemma for the Bush administration.”

I think war requires rather a bit more than hearsay evidence presented in court, don't you, Richard?

 

[R. Richard]

I think war requires rather a bit more than hearsay evidence presented in court, don't you, Richard?

I don't know how they run courts in Canada. However, in the US they are not allowed to use hearsay evidence, the quote not withstanding.

 

[BigAndTall]

In the first case you mention there was no international law. There was a complex series of treaties between nations that caused a waterfall of events. Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia. By treaty with Serbia Russia declared was on Austria-Hungary. Germany was tied by treaty to Austria-Hungary so it declared war on Russia. Britain and France had to declare war on Germany and Austria-Hungary because they were allied to Russia. Turkey joined in somewhere along the way because they were allies of Germany and Austria-Hungary.

Four years and something like twenty million deaths later, the German and Austro-Hungarian empires were gone, Russia was in the throes of a nasty revolution, and with the exception of the U.S. the 'victors' were bankrupt.

But that war was not illegal. War was regarded as a perfectly natural way of nations to settle their differences.

The League of Nations was formed to try and bring some form of international law. It didn't work. The U.S. wouldn't sign on and most of the rest of the world resented having to obey the law.

It broke down in the '30s. Nations formed alliances again and when Germany attacked Poland the same waterfall happened. But since the League of Nations was defunct Hitler attacking Poland was not illegal.

WWII killed eighty million people and flattened most of Europe. I was born in Germany ten years after the war and my mom said they were still carting the rubble away.

So the United Nations was formed and pretty much everybody came on board. Because they saw what WWII had done and worried what WWIII, fought with atomic weapons, would do. War, aggressive war was made illegal. A country can't start a war if it wants to. It can't do it because they think they're in danger. It can't do it because 'they're bringing democracy'. They can only do it if it is attacked by another nation. In which case it can appeal to the U.N. for help.

This doesn't always work any more than making murder or rape illegal stopped those. But aggressive war is now recognized as a bad thing to do.

The U.S. going into Iraq was an aggressive war. A distinct 'infringement upon the sovereignty' of another nation. And the people who planned it wanted it that way. They meant to overturn international law and replace it with the law of the jungle. A jungle where they would be 'the meanest son of a bitch in the valley'.

If the U.S. doesn't end the war soon, it will be like when the League of Nations failed. Nations will return to alliances, an incident will occur, and WWIII will take off.

This will not be a good thing.

I think I see what you are trying to say but, there are a few things that need to be corrected.

1907:The Anglo-Russian Agreement
This drawing together of mutually suspicious BRITAIN and RUSSIA stemmed from a number of considerations--a change in the Russian foreign ministry in the direction of matching the Triple Alliance with a Triple Entente by including Britain on the side of France and Russia; the Russian desire to resolve outstanding differences with Britain over Afghanistan,Persia and Tibet; the British desire to allay her fears of Russian encroachments on her Indian frontier. This publicly declared Agreement liquidated the long standing grievances existing between the two powersbut there was no accompanying military convention or promise of diplomatic support.

Not there are no guarentess of Britian coming to Russia's aid as the UK had a policy of keeping wiggle room to avoid being draw into a war it would not want.

The UK got into the war because it could not let Germany get dominate in Europe so basically the same thing as what you said but not with the same legal weight.

1904:The Entente Cordiale
This was not a formal alliance exacting fixed obligations from each, but rather a "friendly Agreement" between two former enemies BRITAIN and FRANCE to resolve their outstanding differences in Africa, North America(in Newfoundland) and Asia.

This gives even less legal ground for UK, but really it was all just a pretense anyway as I said above.



As for there was no international law, you don't need the UN or a League of Nations to have international law. It is simply, law that is agreed to be followed internationally. The development of modern public international law is usually traced back to the Westphalian treaties of 1648, which in a way established the principle of state sovereignty as a cornerstone of the international order.

But in reality you can go back to ancient times when treaties were made to end Eygpts and the Hittites war at Kadash or the Roman law concept of ius gentium (which regulated contacts between Roman citizens and non-Roman people).

Anyway, let me ask this simply. In your opinion, the only way to have the invasion of Iraq to be legal was for the UN to have a resolution to do so?

 

[R. Richard]

Let me try to explain the difference between the legal theories of war and how war is really run by an efficient system. [You can Google up the information.]

In the mid-'80's, Hezbollah made the VERY BAD mistake of kidnapping several Soviet diplomats. The Russians didn't sit down and negotiate with Hezbollah, or anyone else. They also didn't propose UN or other resolutions. They didn't dwell upon possible past injustices inflicted upon Muslims in general or Hezbollah in particular.

What the Russians did do was to dispatch a joint KGB/Speznaz team to Beirut. The team kidnapped a male relative of one of Hezbollah's top leaders. The relative was castrated while alive and then shot to death [Not really optimal and frankly rather amateurish. The testicles were kept by the KGB, presumably to show their bosses that they had done the job. Of course, the keeping of the testicles was a key item, but the KGB didn't even know why. However, the response was sufficiently vicious that the small details didn't really matter.] The dead body was then dumped in a vacant lot with a note pinned to its shirt informing the terrorist leader that an identical fate would befall his remaining male relatives [Again, not really optimal and frankly rather stupid to limit their choice of targets.] , one by one, unless the Soviet diplomats were released immediately. [I later talked with one of the Spetznaz guys privately and he was of the type who believed that if a brute force solution is not working, it is because you are not using enough brute force. He was a bit dumb, but an amusing drinking companion.]

However, the Soviet diplomats were released immediately. There were no further incidents of Hezbollah [or any other terrorist organization in Beirut] molesting any Soviet diplomats.

Diplomats are willing to send young men to their deaths in war. When you convince diplomats that they themselves or their families will also go to war, you will not have a war.

 

[rgraham666]

Anyway, let me ask this simply. In your opinion, the only way to have the invasion of Iraq to be legal was for the UN to have a resolution to do so?

Under the current system, yes.

As regards international law, agreements between nations aren't law. Any more than an agreement between you and I is a law. It's simply an agreement with only our own sense of honour upholding it. Either of us can keep it or break it. There is no outside force that can arbitrate or enforce.

This is what the U.N. is now, an arbiter and to a certain extent, an enforcer. As I said, not always successful. But it is now an agreed upon principle that the sovereignty of other nations is sacrosanct. That's a very new concept. The U.N. tries to arbitrate and enforce this new law.

Richard. The judge admitted the evidence was 'classically hearsay'. That seems to contradict your statement.

You're also overlooking something. It was almost impossible for the Islamists and Saddam to work together as they hated each other. An Islamist caught in Saddam's Iraq would be killed immediately. Saddam, in an Islamist's opinion, is no different from a Westerner.

And Saddam is unlikely to give them aid in a case like this, wouldn't you say? Any training, weapons or money he gives them is more likely to be used against him. He's a lot closer and easier to get at.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I want to say something about this whole issue. I don't expect anyone on any side to agree, and so be it.

I don't think "Bush lied" in the sense the Left asserts, of knowing there were no WMDs, knowing that Iraq was not a threat, and ordering the intelligence apparatus to produce evidence to back the preordained conclusion. If he had I believe there would have been some resignations at the time, lots of leaks, and the whole thing would have blown up very quicky.

That said, I think the last president who never "lied" was George Washington. But again, I don't think many do so in the that black-and-white, Manichean sense that their political opponents always charge. Gray areas, half truths, misdirection, rosy scenarios and many other techniques are the norm. It's not always bad - if FDR inferred that the invasion would be at the Pas de Calais when he knew darned well Normandy was the target, no one would complain. Of course that one's a no-brainer, but it illustrates the principle. Most of the time it is pretty seamy, and I think they would be surprised at how effective straight talk would be if they ever tried it.

I think Bush was determined after 9/11 to "change the rules," because the ones in place appeared to him to tilt the playing field against the safety of the U.S., and assuring that is his primary responsibility, after all. Afghanistan was the first move in this game, and at the time it was universally approved. Even now it there is not much criticism.

Iraq was the second move. He took a big gamble there, betting on the "neocon" vision that creating a "beachhead" of democracy in a benighted region would bear fruit by causing some dominos to fall in a direction we like. Libya appears to be an example of this, and perhaps Lebanon.

Will the gamble pay off? I don't think anyone knows. I think those who say "absolutely not" don't know that, and those who say (or said) "of course" don't know that. I think the shrill criticism is not good, and diminishes the chances the gamble will pay off. I think too many of those on both sides are motivated by blind partisanship, and so I tune 99 percent of it out. That's why I don't get involved in these threads. But I just wanted to state what I think at least one time.