was I antiwar on Iraq or prowar?

Thing1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

because Bush gamed the wording


just like you are now doing
 
By lying about the positions of others and ignoring the facts, you undermine the anti-war position. You don't support it.

By apologizing for politicians who enabled war, you undermine the anti-war position as well.
 
evince said:
people who voted for it thought that is what the wording meant
Click to expand...

Hillary is a very intelligent person. I guarantee you that she didn't think that clause - which justified war - meant that Bush was compelled to allow for the completion of inspections before acting.

Thank you for finally admitting that you lied about the resolution, you lied about my position & you lied in saying that I supported Bush & Cheney in any way, shape or form.

A lot of lies, desh - on just one thread. Good to see you 'fess up to them.
 
you really hate it that this country tried to come together under their president huh



you wan them condemed for life for it
 
evince said:
so now you claim they are mind readers who could tell the future

your proof?
Click to expand...

It's embarrassing how you apologize for Hillary.

I'm not going to go round & round w/ you again. I just dismantled your argument on the resolution, and you lied about a dozen times in the process. We're done on this one. The resolution never said that Bush was compelled to allow for the completion of inspections. Period.

Hillary & the other Dems who voted to give Bush authority should not be given a pass. War is a serious matter, and they didn't take it seriously.
 
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...

post 40
 
evince said:
The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
Click to expand...


post45
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top