Iraq Debate

[Farnan]

This is the first of a set of 5 debates between the Honorable Lord Rahl and his conservatives against the Honorable Prarara and his liberals.

This debate will be about the situation in Iraq, specifically Operation Iraqi Freedom, which is also known as the Second Gulf War. Was it justified? How is the situation now? Is the new government soveriegn or a puppet state of the US? Will Democracy work? You will find about all this and more from this debate. Both sides will be posting their opinion, hopefully backed up by evidence or with logical reasoning, but in the end it is up to you to decide which side has won the debate.

I ask Lord Rahl and Prarara not to edit this thread or any of our future debates only to prevent people from calling foul.

[Lord Rahl]

In response to Saddam Hussein's violations of UN resolutions 687 and 1441, as well as his violation of the ceasefire established after Iraq's repulsion from Kuwait, the United States of America declared war on Iraq under authority granted by the US Congress. The UN “repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.” (Resolution 1441) When the UN failed to enforce those consequences, the United States gathered a coalition of willing nations for invasion. Saddam Hussein has a history of chemical weapons use, both in warfare against Iran and against Iraqi civilian population centers. Saddam Hussein allowed terrorists to train at the Salman Pak facility, located less than 20 miles south of Baghdad. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein retained the capability to manufacture chemical weapons through “dual use” facilities. These facts, combined with his refusal to fully disclose evidence establishing that his chemical weapons arsenal had been destroyed in compliance with resolution 1441, justified immediate military action against Saddam Hussein. The invasion and resulting war in Iraq was justified, not only by UN resolutions but the United States government as well.

[Pra]

We are resolved that the war in Iraq was morally wrong and illegal.

The West has, since WW2, prided itself on being a beacon of freedom and of law and order. Our actions leading up to the invasion of Iraq has sullied our reputation in the world. It has used a cloak of spurious claims to legitimise an act of aggression against a country which contains the one thing that the West truly wants – oil. We have also opened up a front for terrorists which did not exist before which has resulted in the world being more dangerous rather than safer.

To elaborate, this war is wrong on a number of counts:

Firstly, this action was, above all, quite illegal. It failed to abide by either the UN Charter or the Hague Convention. There was no resolution to attack Iraq and regime change is prohibited by the Charter. The Convention also requires and that a nation is to be given warning before war starts. The simple fact is that 'War' was never declared and yet offensive actions were taken against another sovereign nation.

Additionaly, the reasons given for war were lies; it is important to note, for the umpteenth time, that no serious WMD-type materials have been found in Iraq. Furthermore, there was also no evidence of the capacity to deliver these munitions in an effective way. Moreover, the 'link' between Iraq and terrorist organisations such as Al Qaeda is dubious at best. In stark difference from the comments made to link the two aforementioned groups, Iraq, as a secular state, was under as equal of a threat from these terrorists as was the West.

Equally important, much of the humanitarian crisis occurring in Iraq was due to the sanctions rather than as a direct result of Saddam himself. Nevetheless, in pursuing to destroy this regime, we have imposed a government system on Iraq without any regard to what the people actually want - all this at the cost of 30,000 Iraqi lives. Ironically, it is our allies actually who indeed have some of the most repressive governments in the region.

Economically, we have lost over 200 billion dollars and over 2,000 Coalition lives. Fighting insurgency is quite a consuming process, and when we are loosing more and more of the above commodities, the war seems even greater of a debacle.

The unavoidable truth is that we encouraged Saddam in his warmongering and have profiteered from his acts of aggression. By continually meddling in the affairs of other governments we harmed huge numbers of people. From Chile to Iran - our foreign policy has brought us a lot of shame. Perhaps, we may finally end this dispicable practice-the power rests in you.

[imb39]

Sirs,

I stand before you desperately waiting eagerly for the Other Side to promote their argument. It seems to be in vain.

In an effort to spark some life from the Opposition I wish to answer some of their points.

You base your arguments on two UN Resolutions, 687 and the infamous 1441. Well lets us have a look at them.

687.

Well as we all know this resolution simply ends the First Gulf War. The key paragraph being:

The Security Council....

33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the above provisions, a formal-cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Iraq in accordance with resolution 678 (1990).

This then goes on to say,

34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region."

An interesting paragraph. It clearly says that the UNSC will take further steps. So 687 ends the first conflict. The key part of this resolution is that the United Nations Security Council will take the action. It, in no way, authorises individual members to take actions – that would be a recipe for disaster – as I’m sure you’ll agree. And events have proved so…

Now let us look at 1441.

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1 Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its
obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687

It says that Iraq has been in breach of 687. As it turns out, Iraq was complying more than we knew - we have no evidence otherwise, this despite YEARS of access to the country.

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

Well this quite simply provides for inspectors to go into Iraq. Which, if memory serves me correctly, did happen.

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, subcomponents, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon product ion or material;

This says what Iraq had to do. Iraq was not very forthcoming, it must be said. But the inspectors wanted more time. The consequences?

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

So this part of 1441 says that if Iraq fails to abide by the conditions outlined above, the UNSC shall be invoked. No go ahead for aggression here, then.

But…

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

So Iraq will face ‘serious consequences. Clearly a green light for an assault on another sovereign nation… Or is it?

Let’s look at the wording that allows for the 1st conflict.

Resolution 678 states:

"The Security Council....

2. Authorises Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements...the above mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

The expression "Authorises....to use all necessary means to implement ..." clearly provides for the use of force. This wording is conspicuous by its absence. Indeed there is no wording that even comes close.

Well perhaps we’ll get a better idea from Resolution 83, the one that permitted action in the Korean War,

Recommends that Members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and restore international peace and security in the area.

Well that is also very clear.

From these two examples, it cannot be reasonably asserted that either 687 or 1441 provide for military action. The language is simply not specific enough and it clearly refers to going to the UNSC as the next step.

So the resolutions do not permit these actions. Perhaps pre-emption is allowed? The UN Charter specifically states:

Article 51 states:

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. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Well this does not allow for a pre-emptive strike. It says you can defend yourself, but cannot attack. I am still baffled, though, how was Iraq a threat to any of the countries that took part in this illegal act of aggression. Yes - illegal act of aggression. For that is what we did. I have shown that the attack fell outside of the UN’s resolutions, so each country must make a case for this attack.

Now you say that America declared war. Piffle. Lets look at the pertinent parts of the resolution passed by Congress:

( B ) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or ( B ) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Nowhere does it declare war. So, lets us get this straight. We have attacked another country - invaded it, even - without declaring war. One has to begin asking oneself, 'who are the axis of evil?'

Well perhaps the Coalition can act on these resolutions on their own without UNSC approval. Well no. Article 46 says,

Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

So clearly, the UNSC is the main decision maker here. Not individual countries.

The Hague Convention of 1807 states,

Article 1
The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.
Article 2

The existence of a state of war must be notified to the neutral Powers without delay, and shall not take effect in regard to them until after the receipt of a notification, which may, however, be given by telegraph.
Neutral Powers, nevertheless, cannot rely on the absence of notification if it is clearly established that they were in fact aware of the existence of a state of war.

So an attack was made without a declaration of war. Does this remind anyone of that day of infamy? Does this remind anyone of the wholly evil actions of the Axis in their efforts to spread their power over the world? At least Japan tried to act legally, the Coalition didn’t even bother.

To sum up:

687 ended the first conflict. As it was called for by the UNSC, it was a legal war.
1441 went so far as to say that if Iraq did not comply with the terms of the ceasefire then the UNSC will take matters further.

However this so called war was illegal. It was illegal on the count of:

Not authorised by the UNSC
Not allowed within the UN Charter
Did not formally follow the requirements as laid by the Hague Convention, 1807.

This makes our countries guilty of war crimes. We are all complicit in this. We should all hang our heads in shame.

But I want to close this address with the words of a President of America. One who truly recognises the need for law and order. One who acted with integrity in stopping colonial powers from invading a sovereign state.

On Sunday [October 29] the Israeli Government ordered total mobilization. On Monday, their armed forces penetrated deeply into Egypt and to the vicinity of the Suez Canal, nearly one hundred miles away. And on Tuesday, the British and French Governments delivered a 12-hour ultimatum to Israel and Egypt—now followed up by armed attack against Egypt. The United States was not consulted in any way about any phase of these actions. Nor were we informed of them in advance.

As it is the manifest right of any of these nations to take such decisions and actions, it is likewise our right—if our judgment so dictates—to dissent. We believe these actions to have been taken in error. For we do not accept the use of force as a wise or proper instrument for the settlement of international disputes.

To say this—in this particular instance—is in no way to minimize our friendship with these nations—nor our determination to maintain those friendships. And we are fully aware of the grave anxieties of Israel, of Britain and of France. We know that they have been subjected to grave and repeated provocations.

The present fact, nonetheless, seems clear: the action taken can scarcely be reconciled with the principles and purposes of the United Nations to which we have all subscribed. And, beyond this, we are forced to doubt that resort to force and war will for long serve the permanent interest of the attacking nations.

Now—we must look to the future.

In the circumstances I have described, there will be no United States involvement in these present hostilities. I therefore have no plan to call the Congress in Special Session. Of course, we shall continue to keep in contact with Congressional leaders of both parties.

I assure you, your government will remain alert to every possibility of this situation, and keep in close contact and coordination with the Legislative Branch of this government.

At the same time it is—and it will remain—the dedicated purpose of your government to do all in its power to localize the fighting and to end the conflict.

We took our first measure in this action yesterday. We went to the United Nations with a request that the forces of Israel return to their own land and that hostilities in the area be brought to a close. This proposal was not adopted —because it was vetoed by Great Britain and by France.

The processes of the United Nations, however, are not exhausted. It is our hope and intent that this matter will be brought before the United Nations General Assembly. There—with no veto operating—the opinion of the world can be brought to bear in our quest for a just end to this tormenting problem. In the past the United Nations has proved able to find a way to end bloodshed. We believe it can and that it will do so again.

My fellow citizens, as I review the march of world events in recent years, I am ever more deeply convinced that the processes of the United Nations represents the soundest hope for peace in the world. For this very reason, I believe that the processes of the United Nations need further to be developed and strengthened. I speak particularly of increasing its ability to secure justice under international law,

In all the recent troubles in the Middle East, there have indeed been injustices suffered by all nations involved. But I do not believe that another instrument of injustice—war—is the remedy for these wrongs.

There can be no peace—without law. And there can be no law—if we were to invoke one code of international conduct for those who oppose us—and another for our friends.

The Republican President of America, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Someone who has actually fought for his country and fully understands the consequences of war.

Lib #1

[Rush Limbaugh]

We are resolved that the war in Iraq was morally wrong and illegal

You base your arguments on two UN Resolutions, 687 and the infamous 1441. Well lets us have a look at them.

No you base your arguments on that.

Well as we all know this resolution simply ends the First Gulf War. The key paragraph being:

Again who is we all? Certainly not I.

To call the action illegal is nothing but an emotional appeall. One must first answer this question concerning the United Nations. Does membership to an international organization supercede the national government of a sovereign nation?

Did the United States Congress grant the president the authorization to use force against Iraq? In essence this allows the President to use the armed forces against another nation. Historical presedence has been set with Korea, Vietnam, Grenda, Somilia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afganstan, and Iraq in Desert Storm.


Now to the spefics of the quote.

Lets first address its alledge failure to abide by the Hague Conventions.

During the first gulf war in 1991. A cease fire agreement was signed by the United States and Iraq at Safwon. This cease fire was done in March 1991 at the direction of President Bush'41, acting not as a representive of the United Nations but as the commander in chief of the United States MIlitary. Resolultion 681 (Check the resolution number) was the United Nations Security Council confirming the Cease Fire Agreement. Now one might argue that this supercedes the previous one - it is my position that it does not since the United States has never ceded its sovereignity to the United Nations. A Cease Fire negogated between the two nations of Iraq and the United States has the same legal standing as the United Nations Security Council Resolution.

Now to what the Hague Convention actually states.


Quote
CHAPTER V
Armistices
Art. 36.
An armistice suspends military operations by mutual agreement between the belligerent parties. If its duration is not defined, the belligerent parties may resume operations at any time, provided always that the enemy is warned within the time agreed upon, in accordance with the terms of the armistice.

Art. 37.
An armistice may be general or local. the first suspends the military operations of the belligerent States everywhere; the second only between certain fractions of the belligerent armies and within a fixed radius.

Art. 38.
An armistice must be notified officially and in good time to the competent authorities and to the troops. Hostilities are suspended immediately after the notification, or on the date fixed.

Art. 39.
It rests with the Contracting Parties to settle, in the terms of the armistice, what communications may be held in the theatre of war with the inhabitants and between the inhabitants of one belligerent State and those of the other.

Art. 40.
Any serious violation of the armistice by one of the parties gives the other party the right of denouncing it, and even, in cases of urgency, of recommencing hostilities immediately.

Art. 41.
A violation of the terms of the armistice by private persons acting on their own initiative only entitles the injured party to demand the punishment of the offenders or, if necessary, compensation for the losses sustained.


A nation is only required to give notice if they are the ones that will be violating the ceasefire. Futhermore one could safely argue that President Bush 43 gave warning to Saddam's Regime with several times begining in September of 2002.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Since there are parts of your post I may have missed let me add this. It looks your position is divided into three basic elements. Two are supposed to be substantive and the third is rhetorical. The substantive stances are: violating the UN Resolutions, and waging war without an official declaration from Congress. the rhetorical point is the appeal to Eisenhower. As I previously noted the UN has no independant legal standing (neither do the Hague Conventions). Both are at best treaties and can only be understood legally along those lines. Nothing the UN puts forward can trump the Constitution and/or the nation's necessary freedom of action. A couple simple judicial examples: Reid v. Covert. 1957, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." the Cherokee Tobacco 1871, "an act of Congress may supersede a prior treaty." Chae Chan Ping v. U.S 1889.: "whilst it would always be a matter of the utmost gravity and delicacy to refuse to execute a treaty, the power to do so was prerogative, of which no nation could be deprived without deeply affecting its independence." these are three simple judicial illustrations of the point. An analytical cutting to the quick would be: all treaties are dependent on a ratifying authority to have any force. This necessarily means any treaty is beholden to that ratifying authority. In this case, that would be Congress as charged by the Constitution. Does that make sense? By stressing National sovereignty (which is what the Constitution and Congressional acts are all about) you can undercut any and all extra-national ties.

Waging war: Arguing military action requires a Declaration of War is a Constitutionally naive and historically ignorant viewpoint. the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war in Article I Section 8. It is also given power to fund the military. the President, as determined by Article II section 2, is the Commander in Chief of the Military. Nothing in the text states military action is dependant on formal declarations of war. To argue that point, one must ignore the larger field of U.S. military endeavour. the simplest example would be President Jefferson's War on the Barbary Pirates in 1801 (of course his Adminstration and government were the same fellows who created the Constitution). No declaration of war was given of asked for. Jefferson's action followed in line with Washington's response to Shay's Rebellion in 1786. Shay's Rebellion preceded the drafting of the Constitution and in fact was one of the reasons the Constitutional Congress opted for a stronger Federal body and a standing military. Given that context: if the military was to be frozen until Congressional declarations of war then one would expect some notation in the text. Since none exist the position can be discarded for the tripe it is.

Eisenhower: Aside from going into the nitty-gritty of Eisenhower's Cold War strategy which included fostering nationalist movements (like Nasser's Egypt) to vex communist spread: one has only to point out the core of Eisenhower's Cold War position was to use nukes to lay waste Europe and anywhere else to stop the pinko bastards from winning any WW III scenario. He also maintained this as a first strike prerogative. Such action, of course, was not dependant on UN approval.

[Pra]

from imb39...sorry buddy I posted before I knew you had.
----------------------------------
The Other Side clearly have forgotten their opening statement. It was not us who drew upon the UN Resolutions but you. In order to simplify the argument, we are to focus on aspect of your response. We shall, of course, look at the other elements raised so far, but at a later time.

To call the action illegal is nothing but an emotional appeal.

This is true. It is an emotional appeal because our countries are being dragged into the gutter with such gusto, especially when our countries lecture the rest of the world about the niceties of law.

One must first answer this question concerning the United Nations. Does membership to an international organization supercede the national government of a sovereign nation?

A very good question. It depends upon what you view the UN Charter to be. To us, as an agreement signed by all member states, it is a treaty. As such all countries should work within it, unless they renounce it. To my knowledge neither America or Britain (or indeed any other member of the Coalition forces) has done that. It also undermines the indignation that America rightly feels when other countries ignore treaties. Why should anyone follow the Geneva Convention when America itself does not have to follow it? If at the whim of Congress it can just ignore any agreement.

In terms of domestic law, it is possible for the Prime Minister to exercise the Royal Prerogative. Likewise Federal law permits the President of the United States to be empowered by a war powers resolution of the US Congress. We do, indeed acknowledge that.But it must also be remembered that the US Constitution is supreme within America, not within the rest of the world.

As a result we would argue that the fundamental basis on which the United Nations is organised is that national states are sovereign within their own borders and that Members of the United Nations renounce the use of military force when settling disputes with another member state with the sole exception of the limited right of self-defence provided for in the Charter.

So we have broken an international treaty. This treaty was ratified by the United States by a vote of 89 to 2 on 28th July, 1945. Again, I have to remind you of the words of an illustrious President of the United States.

… the action taken can scarcely be reconciled with the principles and purposes of the United Nations to which we have all subscribed. And, beyond this, we are forced to doubt that resort to force and war will for long serve the permanent interest of the attacking nations.

And then he goes on to say

There can be no peace—without law. And there can be no law—if we were to invoke one code of international conduct for those who oppose us—and another for our friends.

So it seems to me that the precedent has been set. Set, not by some tin pot dictator, but a democratically elected leader of one of the great countries. Given you assertions, why should anyone enter a treaty with America. Why should anyone enter any treaties – they are clearly meaningless pieces of paper. Clearly the view that Hitler shares.

Did the United States Congress grant the president the authorization to use force against Iraq? In essence this allows the President to use the armed forces against another nation. Historical precedence has been set with Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq in Desert Storm.

Well let us look at the examples given:

Korea, as I have already pointed out, was authorized by a UNSC resolution.
The "Vietnam War" was technically military assistance to the friendly foreign government of South Vietnam.
I would argue that Grenada was illegal, it was a surprise attack, ala Peal Harbour. It was deeply controversial in Britain at the time.
Bosnia and Kosovo were humanitarian operations. The level of brutality was far in excess of that happening in Iraq. Indeed genocide was being practiced in certain parts of the region. Somalia was also a humanitarian mission. Military action was not undertaken, except to protect the lives of those who were distributing aid.

Let’s look at Afghanistan:

Legality can be judged on whether or not our response is meeting the standards of domestic and international law. It is certainly questionable. Congress has not declared war against Afghanistan. It has simply given the President a blank check to use force. The United Nations Security Council has called on states "to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks." It has not, however, explicitly given authorization to carry out military action in Afghanistan, and it is questionable whether the present military actions against the Taliban regime can be construed as self-defense. Certainly if US bombing results in massive starvation in Afghanistan, its actions will be illegal under the laws of war.

Source: Here
So this asserts that, according to international law, the action was illegal. The trouble with this, though, is that no one recognised the government of Afghanistan (The Taliban) since its inception (well two countries did) so a declaration of war was inappropriate. I would maintain, though, given the fact that the government of Afghanistan was deemed illegal by virtually every country – no declaration of war was necessary and therefore legal.
Desert Shield was a UN action. Despite your attempts to take away that point it remains true. In as much as the Korean War was fought under the UN auspices. Evidence of this, again from American action, is that America broke off their attack on Baghdad because it beyond the resolutions passed. Even Bush Snr. realised that he and his forces were operating within certain limitations – the UN. So the precedent has been reinforced by another illustrious President.

Eisenhower: Aside from going into the nitty-gritty of Eisenhower's Cold War strategy which included fostering nationalist movements (like Nasser's Egypt) to vex communist spread: one has only to point out the core of Eisenhower's Cold War position was to use nukes to lay waste Europe and anywhere else to stop the pinko bastards from winning any WW III scenario. He also maintained this as a first strike prerogative. Such action, of course, was not dependant on UN approval.

How convenient - his speech is dismissed as Cold War politics. So we have used other examples already to demonstrate this principle in action.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Sorry to take so long but I thought one of my esteemed colleagues would have replied by now. I guess like me their finding it hard to find anything of substance to respond to.

One must first answer this question concerning the United Nations. Does membership to an international organization supercede the national government of a sovereign nation?

Your response

A very good question. It depends upon what you view the UN Charter to be. To us, as an agreement signed by all member states, it is a treaty.

If the UN is a treaty then it is subject to Congressional oversight to do with as they deem fit (as I previously explained). This settles any legal question.

You then go on with some very liberal interpretations of the UNs charter. None of which is backed up by law or facts but merely your opinion. Sort of how the right to abortion was found in the constitution.

[Oldgamer]

Prarara said:

So we have broken an international treaty. This treaty was ratified by the United States by a vote of 89 to 2 on 28th July, 1945. Again, I have to remind you of the words of an illustrious President of the United States.

Membership in the United Nations does not trump a nation's right to self-defense, even if that right is exercised in a pre-emptive manner. There are those who want all sovereignty to be vested in the United Nations (among these are Kofi Annan himself, and Al Gore ... thanks be to God that he never became President). But the United Nations itself is the creation of a treaty, and does not have sovereign power over the nations that are a signatory to said treaty.

It was the judgement of President Bush, his advisors, the global intelligence community, and most importantly of all, the Senate of the United States, that the action in Iraq should be taken. Unlike his predecessor, who was bound by his fears for his "legacy", George W. Bush had the courage to do more than lob a few cruise missiles at empty terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and aspirin factories in the Sudan.

Membership in the United Nations was not a factor in this decision. Remember, the United States went to the UN for a further resolution, and members having lucrative economic ties with Saddam opposed this country in the Security Council. Should President Bush have therefore decided that his hands were tied, because the UN decided against him? Or does he have the sovereign power, given him by the Constitution and the United States Senate, to act in what he believes are the best interests of the United States?

Obviously, he decided that he did. And I agree with his decision, for one.

Concerning the Presidency of Dwight David Eisenhower, I remember it well. A lot of things "slipped" in his years in the White House. Quoting Eisenhower ... a man who like Colin Powell, had to decide which party he should be a part of ... as a means of attacking conservatives in a debate will not earn you points.

We are resolved that the war in Iraq was morally wrong ...

The War in Iraq was immoral? Was it, indeed?

On what rational basis of morality was the war in Iraq immoral? Remember that I am a former professor of philosophy, having taught ethics (among other subjects). I am looking for a specific basis for the statement that the war in Iraq was "immoral". Is the basis Greek philosophy? Are we talking Kant here? Ayn Rand, perhaps? Christian morality? And if so, what branch of Christianity?

If you make the statement that "the war in Iraq is immoral", then you must have some rational basis to justify the statement.

(because of the seemed lack of interest in this, and in attempt to restart it I'm allowing this post through, if any lib want's to object to it PM me -- Farnan)

[Rush Limbaugh]

Well I changed my mind Since no one else has replied and I dont want to take weeks to reply Ill give it a whirl myself again. Seeing as your last post has about as lttle substance as those that proceeded it.


1)
Quote
"‘International law does not apply to us. International treaties can be broken as we deem fit.’

This is contradicted by Article 6 of the US Constitution"

I don't think you understand what Article 6 says. the little rub about "authority of the United States" in Article 6 is important. How does a treaty come about? Answer: Senate ratification. This means the force of the treaty is beholden to the ratifying authority. Second, do treaties exist in perpetuity or does the ratifying authority have oversight? Answer: given the logical and legal priority of Congressional oversight no treaty can trump the institution that gives the treaty force. therefore, treaties have force only insofar and to the extent that same authority gives them recognition. Applying this to Iraq: Congress gave approval for the use of force, such is the only legal authority necessary and trumps any other legal concern.

2)
Quote
They don’t count, though, as they are not American...

There is no point discussing this further. You have stated your position, we have stated ours.




That is correct. American jurisprudence is ultimately determined by American legal institutions.

3)
Quote
"the war is immoral simply because those vehemently for it are imposing a governmental system on a nation. It is immoral because its basis was on fallacy. It is immoral because it has cost us nearly 30,000 Iraqi and 2,000 coalition lives for this fallacy. Though morality is relative, we must try to examine this from a common perspective..."

If morality is relative then any charge of immorality is emotive and can be dismissed as having no truth value.

[imb39]

America's position is inconsistent. On the one hand the Charter has been abrogated and yet America is still part of the UN. This charge is also applied to the other members of the Coalition.

We still say it is illegal. Authorisation by Congress, using the UN's name (oh, do they have no shame) does not alter the facts.

1) The US ratified the Charter, according to Article 6 of the Constitution it is now part of US law.
2) The UN has not authorised further actions against Iraq.
3) America has still signed up to the Charter - it is therefore bound by it.

If America was to have left the UN, the position might be different - but it didn't and so it isn't.

We still find it hard to accept the bleating that the West does over the abrogation of treaties, yet they quite blatantly ignore anything that doesn't suit them. If you expect Iran and other countries to follow international agreements, then surely we have to as well.

Iraq was no threat to any of the coalition countries. Bush has admitted that Iraq had no WMDs. Iraq had no links with international terrorism. The result of our actions are over 30,000 dead and billions of dollars wasted on an exercise of neo-imperialism.

[michaelgd]

The Iraq War Blog

Second Chance Publishing is pleased to announce the upcoming publication of The Iraq War Blog, An Iraqi Family's Inside View of the First Year of the Occupation, by Faiza Al-Araji, Raed Jarrar, and Khalid Jarrar.

The Iraq War Blog explores, through their words, the lives of three members of an Iraqi family who lived in Baghdad as the American military and coalition allies devastated the city. They persevered through night attacks and daytime missile strikes that oftentimes wreaked destruction to their home by blowing doors off hinges and breaking windows.

The Jarrar family, while chronicling their daily lives amid the destruction, also provide descriptive analyses of the political climate that resulted from the American occupation of the country.

The Iraq War Blog has a publication date of June 15, 2008.

The book is now available for pre-order on Amazon and at www.secondchancepublishing.com. Thank you and let's stop this illegal war.

Michael DeFilippo
www.secondchancepublishing.com

[Farnan]

Necroposting is bad ummmkaaay