was I antiwar on Iraq or prowar?

evince said:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ans-blix-saddam-hussein-inspections-more-time




Inspectors say Iraq cooperating


U.S. policy rebuked at UN council


February 15, 2003|By Howard Witt, Tribune senior correspondent.



NEW YORK — Top UN weapons experts reported Friday that Iraq was showing new signs of cooperation with inspection efforts, prompting a majority of Security Council member nations to call for giving the inspections more time to work before resorting to the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime.

The reports by chief inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, followed by strong anti-war speeches by France, Russia, China and Germany, together amounted to a sharp rebuke of the Bush administration's insistence that Hussein has failed to comply with UN disarmament demands and deserves no further chances.
Click to expand...

what reason did your hero Bush use you fucking lying shit
 
evince said:
and asshole?
Click to expand...

And, that wasn't what you were saying. You seemed to indicate that the resolution stated that Bush needed to allow for the completion of inspections before taking action.

You cited something which justified his decision to go to war; not the opposite.
 
You'll never get an argument from me that Bush SHOULD have let inspections continue. I have argued that for well over a decade.

But I don't think the resolution compelled him to, at all. Unless you can find the language that did.
 
Thing1 said:
And, that wasn't what you were saying. You seemed to indicate that the resolution stated that Bush needed to allow for the completion of inspections before taking action.

You cited something which justified his decision to go to war; not the opposite.
Click to expand...

It was part of the conditions of the resolution


It was the one Bush cited asshole.



he just kicked out the Inspectors even though they said it was working
 
evince said:
It was part of the conditions of the resolution


It was the one Bush cited asshole.



he just kicked out the Inspectors even though they said it was working
Click to expand...

Show me the language for the bolded.

What you posted before was a justification for going to war; that language did NOT compel Bush to allow for the completion of inspections.

Show me the language.
 
Thing1 said:
It was a pretty cowardly vote. The Bush admin did an excellent job of shrouding the whole vote in patriotism, and framing it around showing Saddam a "unified front" to force his hand on inspections. Except that everyone knew Bush didn't care about inspections and couldn't wait to get the war going.

Those Dems who voted in favor will never get a pass from me. This is what we'll get w/ Hillary, though - she's really a lot like Bill in that respect. She won't be a bad President necessarily, but she doesn't really have a core, and she'll be politically expedient & go whichever way the wind is blowing for the most part.
Click to expand...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah


post26
 
Here is the clause you highlighted:

"Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors"

Do you think that this states that Bush is mandated to allow for the completion of inspections before taking action?
 
evince said:
U.S. law[edit]

Further information: Doe v. Bush, US Constitution and US law

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit refused to review the legality of the invasion in 2003, citing a lack of ripeness.

In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[30]

Similar efforts to secure judicial review of the invasion's legality have been dismissed on a variety of justiciability grounds.

Legal debates - U.N. security council resolutions[edit]

Debate about the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq under international law, centers around ambiguous language in parts of U.N. Resolution 1441 (2002).[31] The U.N. Charter in Article 39 states: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".

The position of the U.S. and U.K. is that the invasion was authorized by a series of U.N. resolutions dating back to 1990 and that since the U.N. security council has made no Article 39[32] finding of illegality that no illegality exists.

Resolution 1441 declared that Iraq was in "material breach" of the cease-fire under U.N. Resolution 687 (1991), which required cooperation with weapons inspectors. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that under certain conditions, a party may invoke a "material breach" to suspend a multilateral treaty. Thus, the U.S. and U.K. claim that they used their right to suspend the cease-fire in Resolution 687 and to continue hostilities against Iraq under the authority of U.N. Resolution 678 (1990), which originally authorized the use of force after Iraq invaded Kuwait.[33] This is the same argument that was used for Operation Desert Fox in 1998.[34] They also contend that, while Resolution 1441 required the UNSC to assemble and assess reports from the weapons inspectors, it was not necessary for the UNSC to reach an agreement on the course of action. If, at that time, it was determined that Iraq breached Resolution 1441, the resolution did not "constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq".[35]

It remains unclear whether any party other than the Security Council can make the determination that Iraq breached Resolution 1441, as U.N. members commented that it is not up to one member state to interpret and enforce U.N. resolutions for the entire council.[36] In addition, other nations have stated that a second resolution was required to initiate hostilities.[37] Some have asserted that the war was an illegal war of aggression, and Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary-General, expressed the belief that the war in Iraq was an "illegal act that contravened the U.N. charter."[38]
Click to expand...

post63


why did Bush have to have a "coalition of the willing"



because many of our allies said he was fucking lying about the inspections just like the inspectors said sadam was complying
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing


Usage over Iraq[edit]

Further information: Multi-National Force – Iraq





The "Coalition of the willing" named by the US State Department in 2003.
In November 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush, visiting Europe for a NATO summit, declared that "should Iraqi President Saddam Hussein choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him."[2]

The Bush administration briefly used "coalition of the willing" to refer to the countries who supported, militarily or verbally, the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent military presence in post-invasion Iraq. The original list released in March 2003 included 46 members.[3] In April 2003, the list was updated to include 49 countries, though it was reduced to 48 after Costa Rica objected to its inclusion. Of the 48 countries on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland). An additional 37 countries provided some number of troops to support military operations after the invasion was complete.

The list of coalition members provided by the White House included several nations that did not intend to participate in actual military operations. Some of them, such as Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and Solomon Islands, do not have standing armies. However, through the Compact of Free Association, citizens of the Marshall Islands, Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia are guaranteed US national status and therefore are allowed to serve in the US military. The members of these island nations have deployed in a combined Pacific force consisting of Guamanian, Hawaiian and Samoan reserve units. They have been deployed twice to Iraq. The government of one country, the Solomon Islands, listed by the White House as a member of the coalition, was apparently unaware of any such membership and promptly denied it.[4]

In December 2008, University of Illinois Professor Scott Althaus reported that he had learned that the White House was editing and back-dating revisions to the list of countries in the coalition.[5][6] Althaus found that some versions of the list had been entirely removed from the record, and that others contradicted one another, as opposed to the procedure of archiving original documents and supplementing them with later revisions and updates.[3]

By August 2009, all non-U.S. coalition members had withdrawn from Iraq.[7] As a result, the Multinational Force – Iraq was renamed and reorganized to United States Forces – Iraq as of January 1, 2010. Thus the Coalition of the Willing came to an official end.

Criticism of use[edit]

Specific uses of the phrase in the context of disarming Iraq began appearing in mid-2001.[citation needed]

Salon.com columnist Laura McClure, noting the large amounts of foreign aid being offered in exchange for supporting the Iraq War, referred to Bush's coalition as the "Coalition of the billing".[8] British activist Tariq Ali made a similar point, describing it as a "coalition of the shilling".[9]

In the second debate in 2004 U.S. presidential election, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry questioned the size of the coalition participating in the initial invasion, saying, "...when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better". Bush responded by saying, "Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there're 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops". The phrase "You forgot Poland" subsequently became a sarcastic shorthand for the perception that most members of the coalition were not contributing much to the war effort compared to the main three allies. The majority of the population in most countries involved did not, according to surveys, support the endeavour or their nation's participation.[10]

Late U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd, then ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, referred to the coalition by the acronym COW, expressing his concern that the United States was being "milked" as a "cash cow". A Canadian Member of Parliament, Carolyn Parrish, referred to Canadian support for the U.S. national missile defense program as the "Coalition of the Idiots".[11]

In Dude, Where's My Country?, Michael Moore argues that the very idea of a "coalition of the willing" was inaccurate. In making his case, Moore notes that most of the countries contributing troops to the coalition were small countries with practically no economic clout, and that the countries' general populations opposed the invasion
 
evince said:
post63


why did Bush have to have a "coalition of the willing"



because many of our allies said he was fucking lying about the inspections just like the inspectors said sadam was complying
Click to expand...

I have argued literally dozens of times on this site that Bush rushed to war, and that inspections were working, and that if they continued we would have found that there were no WMD's without invading. Worst blunder in modern history.

But, there wasn't anything that I know of in that resolution mandating that he needed to complete inspections first. You're arguing 2 different things.
 
why did so many allies not agree


because they kicked out the inspectors when they said it was working
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top