If you agree with the pre-emptive doctrine for the war on Iraq...

[littleduck]

WMDs generally only refer to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. That NBC definition is contained within US government documents. There is no uniform agreement on the status of modified SCUDs as WMDs. The only uniform agreement is on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons being WMD.

biological and chemical weapons attached to scud missiles should be considered a WMD.

Try learning the history of UNSCOM. Which is backed up by the fact that, surprise surprise, there were no WMDs found post-war.

Which isnt proof that there weren't any...

... UNSCOM said it was the most successful operation in history prewar, and there were no WMDs found postwar. Ooops, doesn't look too good for you!

Hang on a tic... the UNSC envisaged a 6 month time frame for Saddam to disarm and have that fact verified by a UN delegation... if there issue is ongoing 12 years later with no end in sight, how is that anywhere near as succesful as your spin suggests?

The fact remains, unimpeachably, no WMDs were found. Your case is miserably poor because - there were no WMDs. That's all there is. You are the one with the distorted mindset, to keep claiming there are!

Failure of logic here... because WMDs werent found sitting on the shelf in the corner somwhere is not proof that there 'definitely' (to use your favorite word) were no WMDs!

 

[littleduck]

The issue was Saddam attempting to reconstitute a WMD program and/or possessing stockpiles.

Yes, thats a major issue and its the first time I recall you mentioning it as an issue.

 

[just maybe]

In my experience JM forms his views on the basis of warm and fuzzy sentiments and an overly legalistic analysis,

Since warm and fuzzy sentiments and overly legalistic are mutually exclusive, you're statement is logically wrong, but it also is properly wrong.

which might sound good in theory and might play well in class at uni, but the issue really needs to be considered from the perspective of decision-makers in leadership positions who take account of a broader range of considerations than international law and warm and fuzzy sentiments.

You're full of it. I've convinced you to change several positions, presented you with a mound of evidence discrediting any basis for war and you still talk this crap about 'warm and fuzzy sentiments'.

And if international law isn't worth considering for decision-makers, you have demonstrated the problem in itself. If the most powerful State doesn't obey the law, how is there a hope of it being enforced against them?

In the end, you have given not one, single, justifiable consideration for the war. And you accuse me of talking warm and fuzzy.

 

[littleduck]

War is never a panelty provided for a breach of any provision.

It can be..

It couldn't be united if the US refused to countenance anything but war. So, in fact, it was the US push for war that prevented a united SC - the rest of the SC had been united against the US going to war - as reflected in the Member statements surrounding Resolution 1441.

I would like you to hear more about your assertion that the other 14 SC members were united...

 

[just maybe]

biological and chemical weapons attached to scud missiles should be considered a WMD.

That's not what was fired at Israel. Irrelevant.

Which isnt proof that there weren't any...

So by your logic we can never have proof because if we don't find any there always might be some. Is that how low you've sunk?

Hang on a tic... the UNSC envisaged a 6 month time frame for Saddam to disarm and have that fact verified by a UN delegation... if there issue is ongoing 12 years later with no end in sight, how is that anywhere near as succesful as your spin suggests?

Firstly it's not my spin, it's the words of the UNSCOM delegation. And secondly the success is clear from the fact that Iraq did not have WMDs.

Not everything proceeds in perfect timeframes. And you accuse me of warm and fuzzy.

Failure of logic here... because WMDs werent found sitting on the shelf in the corner somwhere is not proof that there 'definitely' (to use your favorite word) were no WMDs!

Failure of logic?

Firstly, you imply that it was just 'WMDs weren't found sitting on a shelf'. How ********ing stupid, to be perfectly blunt. If you think that's the only searching that was done, you're either stupid or you're very, very desperate to hide from the fact that the search turned up nothing of suvstance.

Secondly, you have resorted to the weakest of arguments to try and grab back some ground. How dare you accuse me of failure of logic when your only argument is 'just because they haven't found any doesn't mean there weren't any'. The argument of someone who cannot present any facts or evidence and has to resort to relying on a statement that is a logical dead-end.

 

[littleduck]

You're full of it. I've convinced you to change several positions, presented you with a mound of evidence discrediting any basis for war and you still talk this crap about 'warm and fuzzy sentiments'.

Do you accept that it is possible on rare ocassions that diplomatic solutions might be exhausted on an issue and thus military force becomes the only option? If you answer 'yes', I'll stop the warm & fuzzy "crap".

And if international law isn't worth considering for decision-makers, you have demonstrated the problem in itself.

Of course its a major consideration, but equally its conceivable that sometimes in limited circumstances the answer to a crisis might lie beyond the application of international law mechanisms.

If the most powerful State doesn't obey the law, how is there a hope of it being enforced against them?

Good question, and one I'm sure you think about constantly in international studies.

In the end, you have given not one, single, justifiable consideration for the war. And you accuse me of talking warm and fuzzy.

The discussion is not just about whether the war was justified; equally it's about whether the status quo of a do-nothing SC since Saddam kicked inspectors out was also justified.

Perhaps neither is truly justified and the large grey area in the middle was in play? ie UN processes becoming unacceptably ineffective, and the US acting unilaterally against the wishes of the UN.

 

[skipper kelly]

WMD's were not found does not mean there wasnt or isnt any.

 

[just maybe]

It can be..

No it can't. It's never inserted as a automatic penalty. War needs explicit authorisation.

I would like you to hear more about your assertion that the other 14 SC members were united...

UK of course was not. Otherwise, go and read Bellamy's article, again. Read the statements of the other members.

 

[just maybe]

The discussion is not just about whether the war was justified; equally it's about whether the status quo of a do-nothing SC since Saddam kicked inspectors out was also justified.

Perhaps neither is truly justified and the large grey area in the middle was in play? ie UN processes becoming unacceptably ineffective, and the US acting unilaterally against the wishes of the UN.

And I said to you I did not support the status quo or a do-nothing. As I continue to tell you, and you continue to ignore. There is nothing warm and fuzzy about that, but for you to call me 'warm and fuzzy' because I'm not a ********ing hardhead supporting a stupid war is frankly, pathetic.

 

[littleduck]

No it can't. It's never inserted as a automatic penalty. War needs explicit authorisation.

which means it is an option...

 

[littleduck]

And I said to you I did not support the status quo or a do-nothing. As I continue to tell you, and you continue to ignore. There is nothing warm and fuzzy about that, but for you to call me 'warm and fuzzy' because I'm not a ********ing hardhead supporting a stupid war is frankly, pathetic.

Why was the status quo unacceptable to you?

 

[just maybe]

which means it is an option...

No, but you said it can be a penalty provided for a breach of a provision. It can't be.

Do you like to run around in circles? Let's get this clear: we have agreed war is always an option. There is no need to repeat it every few posts like you're going to forget it.

 

[just maybe]

Why was the status quo unacceptable to you?

Because, like many countries in the world, I thought the leader was a crackpot and the people were treated badly.

 

[littleduck]

That's not what was fired at Israel. Irrelevant.

Relevant to the question of what was the actual and potential "threat to international peace & security".

So by your logic we can never have proof because if we don't find any there always might be some. Is that how low you've sunk?

You recognise that WMD once existed; then you argue that UN inspectors have been succesful in destroying a proportion of the WMD arsena; then you argue that nothing was found since Saddam was toppled and Iraq was occupied by the CofW and others.... the gap in your argument always relates to the "unaccounted for" WMDs.

Firstly it's not my spin, it's the words of the UNSCOM delegation. And secondly the success is clear from the fact that Iraq did not have WMDs.

You dont know for a fact that Saddam had 100% disarmed itself of WMDs...

Firstly, you imply that it was just 'WMDs weren't found sitting on a shelf'. How ********ing stupid, to be perfectly blunt. If you think that's the only searching that was done, you're either stupid or you're very, very desperate to hide from the fact that the search turned up nothing of suvstance.

why interpret an obvious figure of speech literally?

Secondly, you have resorted to the weakest of arguments to try and grab back some ground. How dare you accuse me of failure of logic when your only argument is 'just because they haven't found any doesn't mean there weren't any'. The argument of someone who cannot present any facts or evidence and has to resort to relying on a statement that is a logical dead-end.

You keep making blanket statements of fact that Saddam was 100% disarmed and did not have WMD.

If the available intelligence pre-war and the submissions of UNSCOM to the SC was to the effect that Saddam did not have WMD then 14 SC members would not have passed UNSCR 1441 and instead they would have drafted a Resolution ending the matter and removing sanctions... why didnt they?

 

[just maybe]

Relevant to the question of what was the actual and potential "threat to international peace & security".

It was whether it was WMD.

You recognise that WMD once existed; then you argue that UN inspectors have been succesful in destroying a proportion of the WMD arsena; then you argue that nothing was found since Saddam was toppled and Iraq was occupied by the CofW and others.... the gap in your argument always relates to the "unaccounted for" WMDs.

Where did I say 'a proportion'? Don't misquote me again. Why were there 'unaccounted for' WMDs?

You dont know for a fact that Saddam had 100% disarmed itself of WMDs...

I don't know for a fact that you're 100% not a paedophile, but I don't run that argument.

why interpret an obvious figure of speech literally?

Because you're trying to use that figure of speech to dismiss the huge extent of the WMD search, because it doesn't suit your argument.

You keep making blanket statements of fact that Saddam was 100% disarmed and did not have WMD.

I don't say he was 100% disarmed. But even if he did have a little WMD, it was not weaponised and not in sufficient quantities to bother anyone. Clearly, from the utter lack of evidence turned up by the country-wide searches, if he did have any, it would have been negligible amounts.

If the available intelligence pre-war and the submissions of UNSCOM to the SC was to the effect that Saddam did not have WMD then 14 SC members would not have passed UNSCR 1441 and instead they would have drafted a Resolution ending the matter and removing sanctions... why didnt they?

Oh great, firstly, now you're ignoring the 'sexed-up' evidence that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD.

Secondly, the US was determined for war. They would never have accepted a Resolution ending the matter - they would have vetoed it. 1441 was a compromise. How often do you want to ignore this?

Can you please get some consistency?

 

[littleduck]

Where did I say 'a proportion'? Don't misquote me again. Why were there 'unaccounted for' WMDs?

you didnt use that word i just couldnt find one to use.. i was considering some/maybe/proportion.. i went with proportion... shoot me!

Because you're trying to use that figure of speech to dismiss the huge extent of the WMD search, because it doesn't suit your argument.

Regardless how succesful you say it was, and you can quote as much as you life, at the end of the day it wasn't succesful enough to end the matter and remove the sanctions. There were too many unanswered questions...

I don't say he was 100% disarmed. But even if he did have a little WMD, it was not weaponised and not in sufficient quantities to bother anyone.

You think... but you dont know!

Clearly, from the utter lack of evidence turned up by the country-wide searches, if he did have any, it would have been negligible amounts.

You think... but you dont know!

Secondly, the US was determined for war. They would never have accepted a Resolution ending the matter - they would have vetoed it. 1441 was a compromise. How often do you want to ignore this?

You keep arguing that there was a clear US/everybody-else divide... is that really what you're suggesting?

Can you please get some consistency?

Can you please share the blame around a bit more where it belongs... at the foot of all parties!

 

[dan warna]

WMD's were not found does not mean there wasnt or isnt any.

no photo's exist of John howard sodomising a goat, doesn't mean that he didn't or that he doesn't still do it.
I don't think we can charge him with anything though.

perhaps if I did a powerpoint presentation with hypothetical moves the RSPCA might charge him?

 

[just maybe]

you didnt use that word i just couldnt find one to use.. i was considering some/maybe/proportion.. i went with proportion... shoot me!

I said none of those.

Regardless how succesful you say it was, and you can quote as much as you life, at the end of the day it wasn't succesful enough to end the matter and remove the sanctions. There were too many unanswered questions...

At the end of the day, extensive, country-wide searches turned up no evidence whatsoever of any consistent program or stockpiles.

You think... but you dont know!

You think... but you dont know!

No, both of those things are clear from the fact that extensive, country-wide searches turned up no evidence whatsoever of a reconstituted program of stockpiles.

You keep arguing that there was a clear US/everybody-else divide... is that really what you're suggesting?

What I''m suggesting is what I wrote, if you have the courage to confront it instead of continually dodging it: the US was determined for war. They would never have accepted a Resolution ending the matter - they would have vetoed it. 1441 was a compromise.

Can you please share the blame around a bit more where it belongs... at the foot of all parties!

I'm sorry, but you have no consistency.

Not only have you just completely avoided the 'sexed-up' evidence again, you've also dodged the fact that the US was determined for war as under the previous quote.

 

[Murray]

no photo's exist of John howard sodomising a goat, doesn't mean that he didn't or that he doesn't still do it.
I don't think we can charge him with anything though.

perhaps if I did a powerpoint presentation with hypothetical moves the RSPCA might charge him?

We could produce a document showing he was trying to precure goats from Nigeria.
We could show that his closet was in reality a goat pen.
We could show that a long winter coat he wears is made from goat skins.

There is ample evidence for him to be attacked.

Oh, he is ferking goats alright - no doubt

 

[littleduck]

At the end of the day, extensive, country-wide searches turned up no evidence whatsoever of any consistent program or stockpiles.

At the end of the day (and presumably the next morning) no UN delegation ever submittion a conclusion that recommended Iraq had discharged its obligation, the matter be ended, and sanctions removed. why? there were too many unanswered questions..!

No, both of those things are clear from the fact that extensive, country-wide searches turned up no evidence whatsoever of a reconstituted program of stockpiles.

How do you factor in and explain the constant obstruction into your nice little argument?

What I''m suggesting is what I wrote, if you have the courage to confront it instead of continually dodging it: the US was determined for war. They would never have accepted a Resolution ending the matter - they would have vetoed it. 1441 was a compromise.

If I dodge that, you're dodging my diplomatic request for you to concentrate on the degree of unity of the other 13/14 members of the SC. Thats the issue I want to read about....

Not only have you just completely avoided the 'sexed-up' evidence again, you've also dodged the fact that the US was determined for war as under the previous quote.

I don't like many of the "sexed up" reasons for war, and never have.

I agree the US was determined.. determined to ramrod some finality to the issue after 12 years of Saddam d1cking the world around.. but the ramrod was diplomacy first and military force as a last resort.. but I agree the nature of the dispute was such that diplomacy never had a change to satisfy the US.

 

[just maybe]

At the end of the day (and presumably the next morning) no UN delegation ever submittion a conclusion that recommended Iraq had discharged its obligation, the matter be ended, and sanctions removed. why? there were too many unanswered questions..!

Do you know that definitively? Or are you making it up as you go along?

Still, I must point out the relevant issue, so you don't avoid it again: at the end of the day, extensive, country-wide searches turned up no evidence whatsoever of any consistent program or stockpiles.

How do you factor in and explain the constant obstruction into your nice little argument?

Has it never crossed your mind how much face Saddam would lose if he bent over and let the US/UN do whatever it wanted?

He has to maintain a semblance of power.

If I dodge that, you're dodging my diplomatic request for you to concentrate on the degree of unity of the other 13/14 members of the SC. Thats the issue I want to read about....

We'll never now, because there was a prior issue, the one that you're dodging: the US was determined for war. They would never have accepted a Resolution ending the matter - they would have vetoed it. 1441 was a compromise.

I don't like many of the "sexed up" reasons for war, and never have.

Yet you relied on that evidence previously, as here:

If the available intelligence pre-war and the submissions of UNSCOM to the SC was to the effect that Saddam did not have WMD then 14 SC members would not have passed UNSCR 1441 and instead they would have drafted a Resolution ending the matter and removing sanctions

I agree the US was determined.. determined to ramrod some finality to the issue after 12 years of Saddam d1cking the world around.. but the ramrod was diplomacy first and military force as a last resort.. but I agree the nature of the dispute was such that diplomacy never had a change to satisfy the US.

No, if the US option was diplomacy first, then they wouldn't have demanded military force from the get-go. Project for a New American Century mate. Don't ignore it now.

I'm still waiting for your confirmation an invasion of Israel would be justified - after all, they've dicked the world around for even longer, refusing to abide by UN Resolutions and stockpiling mammoth amounts of illegal WMD, with a history of aggression and currently illegally occupying illegally-obtained territory. If there is any consistency in your argument you must support invasion of Israel even more than Iraq.

 

[littleduck]

Still, I must point out the relevant issue, so you don't avoid it again: at the end of the day, extensive, country-wide searches turned up no evidence whatsoever of any consistent program or stockpiles.

But one of many relevant issues...

Has it never crossed your mind how much face Saddam would lose if he bent over and let the US/UN do whatever it wanted?

He has to maintain a semblance of power.

Yeah, but that's still unacceptable...

No, if the US option was diplomacy first, then they wouldn't have demanded military force from the get-go.

They didnt. Fellow CofW members convinced them to work with the UNSC one las titme...

I'm still waiting for your confirmation an invasion of Israel would be justified - after all, they've dicked the world around for even longer, refusing to abide by UN Resolutions and stockpiling mammoth amounts of illegal WMD, with a history of aggression and currently illegally occupying illegally-obtained territory. If there is any consistency in your argument you must support invasion of Israel even more than Iraq.

It's a seperate issue that must be considered on its own merits... there isnt a neat general principle to apply as much as you would like there to be!

 

[just maybe]

But one of many relevant issues...

The most relevant.

Yeah, but that's still unacceptable...

Not as unacceptable as an illegal war.

They didnt. Fellow CofW members convinced them to work with the UNSC one las titme...

They reserved the right to use force at any time if they unilaterally decided it was necessary. They had no interest in working with the UNSC if it didn't result in what they wanted - as was proven.

It's a seperate issue that must be considered on its own merits... there isnt a neat general principle to apply as much as you would like there to be!

It is clearly a longer and more defiant history than Saddam's and Israel has retained the land they illegally invaded.

You have shamed yourself. An even more serious case of defiance and you mumble and shuffle your feet.

 

[littleduck]

Not as unacceptable as an illegal war.

Thats fall in the area of a philosophical question...

They reserved the right to use force at any time if they unilaterally decided it was necessary.

True. They don't want US foreign policy forever vetoed by the likes of the eccentric French.

They had no interest in working with the UNSC if it didn't result in what they wanted - as was proven.

False. The preferable solution for the US was for UNSC mechanisms to achieve a diplomatic solution.

It is clearly a longer and more defiant history than Saddam's and Israel has retained the land they illegally invaded.

I'm not getting into the Israel/Palestine crisis here.. except to say each crisis should be considered on its merits.

 

[just maybe]

Thats fall in the area of a philosophical question...

No, it's a legal question as well.

True. They don't want US foreign policy forever vetoed by the likes of the eccentric French.

Eccentric French? Well, gee, sorry if the French position was to offer enforced weapons inspections instead of war. Thank you for showing US foreign policy was supreme over diplomacy and it was only if the diplomacy went how the US wanted it.

False. The preferable solution for the US was for UNSC mechanisms to achieve a diplomatic solution.

No it wasn't. This was not the doctrine of the PNAC, this was not what the US said originally - they were coerced into going to the SC and agreeing to 1441 - and then on the slightest drop of a hat they finally went to war.They had no interest in the UNSC if it went their way.

The US would never agree to a diplomatic solution because it wouldn't remove Saddam.

I'm not getting into the Israel/Palestine crisis here.. except to say each crisis should be considered on its merits.

No, I'm sorry, that's not good enough. You have been bitching about Iraq's defiance for so long, yet Israel's is even longer, they have also shown outward aggression, they retain illegally obtained land, subjugate a people, have committed countless atrocities, have shedloads of WMDs...yet you still shuffle your feet and avoid the issue. Where's your consistency?

You're advocating an arbitrary, subjective policy where if the US decides it doesn't like a country and its being too defiant, it invades. But if they're a buddy, it's OK.