Slashdot Mirror
Sri Lankan Terrorists Hack Satellite
SorryTomato writes "The Tamil Tigers Liberation Front a separatist group in Sri Lanka, which has been classified as a terrorist group in 32 countries has moved up from routine sea piracy to a space-based one. They have been accused of illegally using Intelsat satellites to beam radio and television broadcasts internationally. Intelsat says that they will end the transmissions 'within days.' Intelsat has been accused of having business links with Hezbollah before, but claim that they are blameless this time and LTTE was using an empty transponder."
"I do a grep for shit, bollocks, and tits before checking in code. I'm professional..." -RECURSIVE_META_JOKE, reddit.com
... to add 'Tin Foil Hats' to our anti-terrorist kits. At least the duct tape won't be lonely anymore.
warning: The above content may test positive for sarcasm and/or could be a failed attempt at humor and as such should be taken with a pound of salt.
A hack is a hack, no matter who makes it. They are not committing any terrorist acts over satelite, are they? Terrorists are also freedom fighters, it just depends on who's viewpoint you prefer.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Old and busted.
..12 April 2007.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
No doubt the transmissions are being used to attemp to justify the illegal war being waged. Very Foxey! I wonder where they got that idea from?
OK, because at least someone on Slashdot knows, I have to ask: how would they do this? Is there some form of access key or security needed to uplink to a transponder, or is it simply a matter of finding the right satellite and frequency? I would hope that the latter is not true, but "security by obscurity" is a well-known (amusingly) procedure in many companies..
terrorist != freedom fighter
The intentional killing of civilians in order to promote a political agenda.
Terrorists have never won. They just kill the folks who are easy to kill.
Freedom fights have won. One doesn't win over the population by killing their faimily and friends.
I worry that all this PC bullsh1t is killing us when we can't say what is what clearly.
I work in aviation and a co-worker of mine is Tamil. I started to wonder what we was doing with his spare time when I found out about the Tamil Tiger air force. It wasn't the fact that they had planes which got me, it was the fact that they bought a simulator to go with them. These guys make Al Qaeda look like a bunch of amateurs.
I can't help thinking that more than a few of the Sri Lankan people who have gone into tech jobs in the west are working behind the scenes for these people.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Hacks of satellites have been predicted by experts numerous times before; the older ones were, rather worryingly, designed mostly with security by obscurity. Need uplink codes? Probably not a problem if you can get near to the ground station with appropriate equipment, no radio transmission is 100% directional.
IIRC it was one of the Blackhat conference speakers who outlined the nasty possibility of a satellite somewhere in a geosynchronous constellation being hijacked and deliberately crashed into another one. Given that this area is fairly densely populated, the debris could start a chain reaction and do a lot of damage.
What, right after you pick the kids up from school, have a cup of coffee, do the dishes, visit granny, contemplate what to have for dinner?
We are surrounded by incompetence. Dilbert, save us!
So because the KKK weren't civil rights activists, not a single "terrorist" is a freedom fighter? The "terrorist" label is rather cheap these days.
Of course when the US starts arming satellites with lasers Babylon 5 style as they intend, so hackers can zap anyone (outdoors) on the planet, it might become more dangerous. (Hmmm, love the slashdot keyword: photon!)
After taking a look at your past comments, it seems more likely that you just wanted to rationalize the antics of the violent insurgents that are basically destroying my native country, because you like that they're anti-American rebels. (Although they ARE part of the reason I came to the US, I have to thank them for that.)
Mods- I'm not trolling here-- look at his profile if you don't believe me.
Apparently these Intelsat satellites are already armed.
if the tamils keep bringing me stuff like this... i for one would like to welcome our new striped and fangy overlords.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. People are repeating catch phrases they hear on TV without actually thinking about their meanings. Terrorists have never historically won wars precisely for the reasons you mentioned; they just murder civilians for the sake of getting their 20 seconds on TV and many society simply feeds the beast.
Good news never ends up on TV because it's boring, but that basically implies that we pay news services to give us horrific violent news, which in turn enpowers people using horrific violence to get media attention.
F@-lun gong hacked SinoSat from Taiwan to broadcast their propaganda program to mainland china.
g +sinosat+hack
To read more:
http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&q=falun+gon
This story (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/ 12/1755218) about a DoD router in space says they're contracting with IntelSat.
According to this story, they've a) been hacked and b) have links to Hezbolah.
Why would our government involve a company that's incompetent and has links to terrori...
...never mind.
Terrycloth Lobster
It's extremely unlikely they're armed, and if they were they certainly wouldn't tell you.
...
Attack can take many forms - DoS, modification or monitoring of sensitive data, hijacking the telemetry to deliberately crash it into another one
If the positional thrusters are capable of producing enough delta-v for it to come down exactly at the right moment to ram the ascending space shuttle, then I guess yes, the technical possibility to attack the US does exist. Besides that, I can't imagine an attack vector going beyond simply turning the sat OFF, just to piss some US housewifes waiting for their sitcoms to start.
May I suggest you look a bit into the history of Ireland?
The theory how armed resistance can be used to overthrow government is very old and goes along the lines of: provoke the authorities with violence until they start to react as violent, but against their own innocent civilians. Every state action should generate more supporters for your cause until you have a large enough majority to oust the regime, or they just downright give up. If you follow that theory, al-qaida was very successfull with their wtc attack. The US overreacted so violently that they lost all their goodwill in the rest of the world. Indirectly this may lead to the withdrawal of the US from Saudi soil.
Btw, personally I think all violence is wrong, but neither do I like the Myopic US views on 'terrorism'.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Just like republicans are democrcay fighters
Damn you Intel ! You screw up again!
Terrorists that "win" get to call themselves freedom fighters because they "won". Terrorists who didn't "win" get called terrorists by the "winners".
That could cover just about any form of violence whether perpetrated by governments or terrorists/freedom fighters, east or west.
America, Home of the Brave.
Ok, seriously, what does it matter that terrorists are also freedom fighters? The fact that they are freedom fighters is rather overshadowed by them also being terrorists. They are also human beings. So what.
They're just being called by their most defining description, which is a very common thing to do.
And of course it matters that they are terrorists. It might give insight in why they hacked it, and with what intentions (propaganda maybe?). It also gives a warning about the inventiveness of some terrorists and illustrates why it is important to secure satelites. (communication- and other.)
Yes, exactly like that. In the eyes of the KKK, they are civil rights activitsts. In the eyes of Nazis, they were applied medical researchers. In the eyes of whoever that last one is, they were in their own eyes whatever they wished to be.
In the eyes of the Britich empire, the freedom fighters of America were terrorists.
History is always written by those who 'won' the war. (And now war; no history, generalized.)
All rites reversed 2010
Whatever they say, the large majority of the terrorists cannot be seriously called "freedom fighters".
People who used terrorism agains nazi occupation in several european countries and to a certain extend some of the intifada fighters may claim that title as long as they only attacked military or police targets of a brutal occupation force or dictatorship in their homeland. Tamil tigers might have fallen in that category, but they really have too much innocent blood on their hands.
But on the other hand, although I hate GWB as much as any other non-US citizen, I refuse that title to people who, for example, come from Iran or Syria (or any other place) to Irak and blindly kill civilian because bringing chaos to Irak serves the political agenda of the country that funds them.
And yes, propaganda can be a tool of terrorism.
It would probably be easier to bring it down on a city rather than try to match vectors with a small, rapidly moving object like the Shuttle. Of course I don't know that much would survive reentry, but it would be an easier thing to do.
Heck, even just bringing down/disabling them would be considered an attack.
That hijacking a satellite is a pretty cool thing to do. Go on, imagine the scenario in a 4 Yorkshire Men style...
Terrorist 1: We hijacked an armoured vehicle!
Terrorist 2: That's nothing! We hijacked a boat!
Terrorist 3: Amateurs! We highjacked a plane!
Terrorist 4: We highjacked a satellite
Terrorist 1: And you try to tell the young people about that, they won't believe you!
Terrorist 3: They won't!
Summation 2
The Al Qaeda attack on the WTC was not against the American government, it was just against an easily targetable private building. The only attack Al Qaeda has made on the actual authorities in the U.S. was the Pentagon jet. Al Qaeda is not using the method of targetting government personnel that can get revolutions won. It is going after Joe Average, and that sort of strategy doesn't work well.
That the U.S. had goodwill before 9/11 and then threw it away with the invasion of Iraq is a myth. Negative opinion of Western, especially American, culture and politics in the Arab world has existed in the mainstream of Arab society since Qutb. Anti-Americanism in Europe goes back decades and has stayed at generally the same level.
Arthur C Clarke said to be turning in his grave from all the problems caused by these islamic, alah-muslim terrorists.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
And like the US like to spread democracy ... And respects civil liberties ... And doesn't torture political prisoners ... And will one day say the world
...
Those in glass houses
Very insightful, it is also exactly what is happening in Sri Lanka. I have personally witnessed a civilian being beaten up by the Sri Lankan army: on the main road connecting the capital to the parliament. People who travel to the war torn east of the country have told me such things happen regularly there. I shudder to think what happens out of sight and in more of the way places.
The LTTE are very ruthless and achieved their position partly by killing any dissenters. They are also the world leaders in suicide bombings, both in the number of attacks and the technology used. I suspect if the Sri Lankan forces had been more restrained, the LTTE's own brutality would have undermined them.
They are certainly ingenious and are unique among their peers in operating on land, sea and in the air - they recently used light aircraft to bomb an air force base, and had dropped bombs and got away before the air force get its air craft off the ground.
In the meantime, Sri Lanka faces horrible side effects from war. Corruption, vote-rigging, suppression of free speech, a rise in Buddhist fundamentalism and huge economic damage.
On a more cheerful note, its a great time to go to Sri Lanka on holiday. The hotels are dirt cheap. The conflict is localised, foreigners are not targets, and you would be safe from violence as long as you avoid the north and east of the country. The risks from Sri Lankan driving are another matter....
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons: my profile links to my blog and I do not want to make unnecessarily make enemies in Sri Lanka as I spend a lot of time there. The fact that I feel it necessary to be anonymous should tell you a lot about the state of free speech in Sri Lanka.
That's what I thought of first, but I droped that idea exactly because of the problem you mentioned: it would burn up in the atmosphere, unless it's frigging HUGE!
MIR was frigging HUGE (at least compared to a telecom sat), and yet it burned up completely (?) in the atmosphere.
The "bringing down/disabling" part could be considered an attack by some, that's correct. However, in my book, it would be more of an annoyance...
Although your comment is funny, the poster is RIGHT ON. It just takes an intelligent mind to grock it.
Horns are really just a broken halo.
LTTE might have started as a group of freedom fighters.
But they are no longer one.
Life is a mystery. There is no point having a mystery if you are not curious.
You were able to support your comments by looking at someone's profile. Then gotted modded to +4. Great - so why post as AC?
Controlling the satellite, now that's a different story. That's locked up pretty tightly
No, it hasn't. When I was young (eighties), the US was seen as the great superpower protecting us from those evil Soviets. I vividly remember the horror stories told by my parent of desperate people risking their lives trying to get over the Berlin wall to the West, because it was so bad and repressive in those Eastern European states. Stories about secret police abducting you because you dared to criticise the state. On the other hand, the US were these great guys who protected us from Soviet annexation after WWII. Nowadays, you'll be hard pressed to hear my parents say anything good about the US though.
You're merely deluding yourself into a comfortable "whatever we do, they've never liked us and will never like us anyway, so why would we care what others say/think"-position? I hope you do not confuse that attitude with patriotism.
It might not have been approved by the higher ups either in the family/party. India's Minister for Communication Kalanidhi Maran, is a nephew of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and their family owns the SunTV conglomerate. Tigers are to be feared, their pledge of alligiance to their leader Prabakaran supercedes any other consideration.
Trying hard to present NPoV without my biases. Hope I succeeded.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
a definition of terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. fear is one of many areas of psychological warfare (but not all warfare is political aka not all use of fear = terrorism) a prison inmate who on his first day beats another inmate half to death will not be perceived as weak and may not be targeted for abuse a drill sergeant who demands push-ups for anything less than perfection won't be popular but will produce well trained, disciplined troops dropping atomic bombs (displayed unrivaled power/destruction) can cause the most determined enemy to lose the will to fight (if both sides have atomic weapons, it incites retaliation) How do you judge a person--by the ends or by the means? How many acts of terrorism are enough to define a person as a terrorist? (lies - liar / comments - racist / gifts - philanthropist / ...)
There is a tendency to perceive a person as the embodiment of a quality
-- Abraham Lincoln, Adolf Hitler, Martin Luther King, etc
People can have dominant qualities, but perceiving figures as entirely good or entirely evil is failing to understand that person and how we can become (intentionally or unintentionally) like them
"The Al Qaeda attack on the WTC was not against the American government, it was just against an easily targetable private building."
Terrorists attack government institutions and officials in hopes to provoke a mis-targeted response that will rally public support to their cause.
It follows that Al Qaeda -a terrorist group by any account- believed at the time that at least some of the guys in the towers were working for the government of the US.
Proving if they were right or wrong is left as an exercise to the readers. Hint: begin by parsing a list of the companies which had offices in the buildings. Is the "New York State Department of Taxation and Finance" a part of the US Government? How about "Raytheon Company"?
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
Anti-American riots flared in the 1960s and 1970s in much of Western Europe, especially in the era of the Vietnam War. Throughout the 1990s many popular books appeared in France deploring American culture. No, there was not any absence of anti-Americanism until spring of 2003.
I should have mentioned Japan. The renewal of military cooperation after the end of occupation led to anti-American riots. The generation of 1968 had a significant dislike of the U.S.
Where did I ever say such a thing? Misquoting me in such a fashion is slanderous.
They were fighting to free their country from the occupying forces. Regardless of whether they were on the wrong end of the fight to begin with, once their country was invaded, they became freedom fighters.
Or are you trying to say that those people who, during the American Revolution, attacked British subjects and those who wanted to stay united with Great Britain, were terrorists?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
When people say "freedom", they can mean a lot of different things.
People who used terrorism agains nazi occupation in several european countries and to a certain extend some of the intifada fighters may claim that title as long as they only attacked military or police targets of a brutal occupation force dictatorship in their homeland. ...
War is never that clear-cut.
Norwegian freedom fighters sunk a civilian ferry (the Hydro), knowingly causing a number of civilian casualties, yet this is considered one of the greatest achievements of the Norwegian resistance during WW2 since the same ferry had multiple barrels of heavy water in its holds that were en route for Germany. The D-day landings and the ensuing campaign into France saw thousands upon thousands of French civilians getting blown to bits by allied bombers and yet this has since been considered a great and noble military campaign.
Trying to win a war is rather akin to trying to make a really really big omelet that way
sigs are hazardous to your health
These guys ARE pirates and hackers!!!!! I feel membership applications are gonna flow from the /. community...
Res publica non dominetur
America, FUCK YEAH!
It does not matter who operates the targets, they only need to elicit a response from the government. And it certainly did that. The US even started to oppres their own people in response (al-qaida US liberation front?)
Did you know that al-qaida had nothing to do with Iraq? see the innocent bystander here?
And did you know that people outside the US are capable of changing how they view the US. Its action are really reflected in public opinion. Why did you start calling french fries 'freedom' fries again? Resentment against the US was always there, but limited. US aggression made it much stronger.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Bill Gibson is probably having himself a nice drink right about now.
According to Asian Tribune, the satellite channel was part of the ceasefire agreement between the LTTE and the government of Sri Lanka. Since Ranil Wickremasinghe hasn't been Prime Minister of Sri Lanka since 2004, this agreement that LTTE could broadcast obviously isn't exactly new.
Speculation time:
Some people are claiming that the LTTE is paying for the broadcasts. It sounds like someone at Intelsat may have accepted a contract based on the ceasefire agreement, only to get burned now that a different political party is in charge in Sri Lanka.
And yes, propaganda can be a tool of terrorism.
And given your extensive first-hand experience with these folks, you can clearly delineate the terrorists from the freedom fighters? Most of the world's "knowledge" of these foreign "terrorists" is based upon the US military's reports. Propaganda is a much stronger tool of the government, who has a built-in sense of legitimacy with many people and has more resources to repeat it until it is accepted.Terrorists and Freedom Fighters are the same people - the names are but propaganda used by each side.
Um, could you please spreading FUD about (were)wolves? Real wolves are a threatened species that's already being vilified and demonised more than enough (undeservedly so, too); describe Hitler and his henchmen as the insane, sadistic, sick (mass) murderers they were, but please don't use animals for comparison, especially ones that are as affectionate, intelligent, curious and (for the most part) peaceful as wolves[1]. (Yeah, I know, you were talking about werewolves, but statements like yours still reinforce the notion that wolves are violent blood-thirsty killers, when in reality, nothing could be further from the truth.)
butter the donkey
I looked at his profile, and as far back as I can see he hasn't made a comment similar to the grand parent. Granted, I'm not a subscriber, so I can't see his whole history - but since your post is AC I think it's likely you are not a subscriber either, so you've got no more evidence to go on, and therefore must be trolling.
If you've got a few links I'll gladly believe you. But until I see them you're a liar.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
I totaly agree. One of my grand-grandfather was killed during a post D-Day bombing over normandy and it doesn't prevent me to think it was the right thing to do. What I was trying to point is the essential difference between freedom fighters (who of course always have to face the "necessary evil" situations and the eternal risk of facing monsters from too close and becoming one too (betrayal of initial ideals, lure of power...)) and the terrorists who deliberately attack random civilian to create the most terror with the least risk of someone firing back at them.
One risks everything he has to make things better, the other makes things worse to gain some advantage (I'm not talking about the kamikase, who I see as another victim, but about the ones who are manipulation them), but of course, because of bad faith, everyone of them is usually called by both names depending of the point of view.
So because the KKK weren't civil rights activists, not a single "terrorist" is a freedom fighter?
No.
Terrorists are freedom fighters, if you have certain beliefs about the freedoms in question.
The KKK were civil rights activists... if you consider segregation and lynching of blacks to be among the 'civil rights' possessed by whites.
Some people really and truly believe those things. Their beliefs are wrong, but that doesn't mean they don't have those beliefs.
Wasn't there just an article about how the US government wanted to increase spying by utilizing IntelSat? Yeah, THAT was a good choice...
And intentionally misinterpreting someone else is no good style either. There were quote marks, but no sane person would construct it as a quote of something you said. It correctly said out loud what you only implied though.
Are you starting to see a pattern yet? Do you know that people in the rest of the world usually are allowed their own opinion, so you can find both anti and pro sentiments in the same continent/country?
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Can somebody mod the parent down, what has Hitler to do with this subject?
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
Where do suicide bombers fit in there? Those seem closer to your description of freedom fighters.
"
..Satellites hack _YOU_A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
The freedom to be able to live? Post WW1 Germany was in a horrible state because the allies punished them far more than they should. If it wasn't for Hitler, it would have just been someone else.
Their most defining description depends on what side of the conflict you prefer. Even Gandhi would have been called a terrorist leader by the British, even though he was strictly non-violent. Or what about (the start of) the American revolution?
Would you like to read a paper that constantly refers to the US as neofascist scum?
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Does that also mean that "bringing the democracy" and "invade a country out of a lie and without UN mandate then let the place fall into chaos because unilateral decisions calls for adverse reactions" are the same thing?
Anti-American riots flared in the 1960s and 1970s in much of Western Europe, especially in the era of the Vietnam War. Throughout the 1990s many popular books appeared in France deploring American culture. No, there was not any absence of anti-Americanism until spring of 2003.
You also see anti-globalization riots, and riots against animal cruilty, that does not mean most people support these movements. There is a difference between having a small anti-american minority in 1970-2000 and the dominating anti-american or anti-bush attitude common today.
Trust me Europe was very pro-US in the 1980s
It was one of the reasons companies like McDonalds grew so fast in the 80s. They marketed themselves as American with capital A, and profited from people wanting to more American(tm). It's also why they are so unpopular today.
I would say it all depends on the motive more than the method, are you talking about non-conventional warfare against a stronger ennemy or random killing there?
The Al Qaeda attack on the WTC was not against the American government, it was just against an easily targetable private building.
Perhaps the WTC targetting was meant to be against US Government's real employers? Those guys know just like all of us who's wielding real power in the US - and that's no longer We, The People, but big greedy megacorps who were being traded at WTC. When the modus operandi of megacorps is to drag 10 year old kids to court for something as harmless as copying a few music files (calling this "piracy"! What a joke, compared to high-seas real piracy where real people get killed), is the violent over-reaction of this government which went as far as to circumvent and bypass its own laws (Gitmo, rendition flights, ...) really surprising anymore?
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
I heard a noise, and when I went outside to look, there was a wolf tipping my garbage cans over and strewing trash everywhere! I tried to shoo it away, and it snarled at me, crouching protectively over the Ding Dong wrapper it had been licking clean. I distinctly heard the baying of Cerberus in that snarl, and the laugh of Satan himself in its growl.
My neighbors, they say they saw the whole thing, and that it was just a chihuahua. However, they weren't the ones staring into the red, fiery pits of its eyes, and facing its gaping maw lined with flesh ripping teeth!
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
The GP is just trying to prove Godwin's Law. Leave him alone!
Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips."
I apologise for the poor grammatical nature of the transcript, but it's hard to find good Tamil and Urdu translators at such short notice. However, I think the key points still get through.
---IntelSat Headquarters---
Transponder technician (excitedly): "We get signal!"
Shift Manager: "What!"
Transponder technician: "Main screen turn on."
Vellupillai Prabhakaran: "How are you gentlemen??"
That was exactly my point. Opinions on America have always been complex. There wasn't pure love of America before the beginning of the war in Iraq dragged America's reputation down to pure dislike.
Now that could be a cool movie...
The difference is one of intent. The people in Iraq and many other parts of the world are INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians as a means to an end. They want to get their message out and to terrorize the population. That is NOT the action of freedom fighters, it is the action of brutal thugs. The Mujahidin in Afghanistan were freedom fighters, the American revolutionaries were freedom fighters. When you intentionally target civilians who are not part of the government machine I really don't think you can be considered anything but a coward and a thug.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
But, is it really a hack? After working for more than 3 years with satellite equipment (SCPC and VSAT), I know, it;s not complicated. In fact, it's easy if you have the equipment, and you don't need to be a hacker to have money and buy a modem, antennas, LNAs and a spectrum analyzer.
Any satellite company, will find hard to discover who's using their services, unless they monitor all their frequencies of their transponders all the time.
In fact, not too often, they say certain transponders will go out of service for certain reasons, however, whit enough power, encryption, and good connectors, you can freely transmit with no chances of being tracked.
I don't see how a "satellite" can be hacked it's something that is there, and you could take, but you shouldn't. Is like going to Chicago, and reflect your self in the giant bean, you can do it if you have the means and not everybody has to know about it. You can put cops in front of the bean 24/7, but does it worth it?
Probably more than 90 000 more casualties on the Iraqi side than on the WTC.
Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 37 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Freedom to occupy someone else's land.
Used as a blanket term the way it's been used the recent years, "freedom" becomes meaningless. But grandparent is right: Whether we call some insurgent group terrorists or freedom fighters does depend mostly on if we like them or not. Best example is Afghanistan: While they were fighting the soviets, the Mushahedin (sp?) were freedom fighters. When they turned around and fought the US, they became terrorists.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Also, someone pulled this off a few months back in the current G.I. Joe comic run. A related weapon is the Satellite Rain from Syndicate Wars; this, though, is a purpose-built system. From the Wikipedia entry for orbital weaponry:
- White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
freedom from jews maybe?
The theory how armed resistance can be used to overthrow government is very old and goes along the lines of: provoke the authorities with violence until they start to react as violent, but against their own innocent civilians.
That's a very slanted view. It is commonly put about by those keen to portray resistance movements as cruel and callous, and occupiers as mere 'victims of circumstance'.
In general, the goal of a resistance movement is to weaken and undermine the occupier's rule.
Increased repression and abuse of power is a common outcome, but hardly the primary goal.
Also, if the strategy were as simplistic as you claim, then it could be easily defeated by the occupier refusing to respond violently.
Countering bias with an opposing bias just makes both you and the other party look like biased assholes. And your instantaneous move to claim "ad hominem" while true does not answer to the fact that you may be an apologist. The past history of a speaker is almost as important as what he/she is saying at any given point.
duh the freedom to kill jews and other minorities, as well as the freedom to be crazy!
There is little hacking involved. Most older satellites are simple 'bent pipes' which transponds everything it receives on one frequency onto another frequency. So if you are in the antenna footprint of the ground station, you can use that satellite and there is nothing the owners can do to stop you.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Can you provide some substantiation to the suggestion that the LTTE is an "anti-American rebel"?
Yes, their tactics are undoubtedly unacceptable, but I don't see any proof of your suggestion. Worse, by using that (if it's not true), you're simply trying to capitalize on lumping them with other groups that generate a strong emotional response, to further your POV - instead of using facts and information.
they didnt use the mod system correctly
they modded him up because they agree with the basic idea of what he had to say
A hack is a hack, no matter who makes it. They are not committing any terrorist acts over satelite, are they? Terrorists are also freedom fighters, it just depends on who's viewpoint you prefer.
the greatgrandparent tried to question if it was an act of terrorism or not, a majority of slashdot however disagrees with his notion that freedom fighters and terrorists are simple a matter of view point
i would suspect that they modded the grandparent up more so in protest of the greatgrandparent
also, why start a flame war over something like this by posting as yourself and have your own tactic used against you to show your own bias. I mean think about it, if i accuse you of smelling bad, when i dont shower, your gonna sniff the air....so to speak....(i do shower by the way....dont listen to what you hear....)..the idea is that he would be made to look foolish if his own "strategery" was used against him
to be honest i think they are both trolls, let them both fry for all i care, eh?
"Their most defining description depends on what side of the conflict you prefer."
No, no it really doesn't. YOU like to pretend it does, but that changes nothing.
"Even Gandhi would have been called a terrorist leader by the British"
I don't think moronic speculation about what someone "would have been called" is sufficient support for your position.
"even though he was strictly non-violent."
Think about that part and why it refutes your previous attempt at a point (that failed spectacularly)
"Or what about (the start of) the American revolution?"
Closer. Much closer actually, but still wrong.
"Would you like to read a paper that constantly refers to the US as neofascist scum?"
Um, are you new here? Is this your first day reading slashdot?
You're an idiot, and yes that's an ad-hominem, but you used at least three logical fallacies in your post, so I'm still behind.
The Western powers don't intentionally and specifically target civilians. If they did, there would be no civilians left. These entities are not morally equivalent.
As a satellite network controller, I disagree with your post: 1) They didn't HACK anything. The obtained ephemeris data from some online website, and pointed an antenna at the satellite. 2) Satellites have predicted channel allocations. There's a huge database containing the predicted signal levels, filtering, datarates and modulation techniques. If an unauthorized access occurs, the satellite network controllers see it instantly. 3) The only thing a satellite controller can do to negate an unauthorized user is reallocate the beamweights of the footprint to exclude the transmission area. Sure, this may work in Sri Lanka (where I've worked, by the by), but if someone in the US wanted to do the same thing, do you really think Intelsat would create 0dB directive gain in Virginia? I don't think so. Read up on satellite operations. It'll amaze you how little control controllers actually have.
Vocal minorities are often confused with silent majorities.
not true plenty of anarchists used the phrase terrorist to describe their activities, its just how do you describe people blowing themselves up with the only goal of making you wanna shit your pants? its fucking terrorist, thats why the word terrorist was used. perhaps the anarchists didnt blow themselves up, but they did blow shit up....freedom fights normally however are trying to over throw the government because they are antisocial bastards and dont understand that their political ambitions dont give them free reign to act like the kings they are trying to usurp.
yea i hate freedom fighters, because they dont fight for my freedom, they fight to hurt institution that protect what little freedoms i have left. i would rather have terrorists because at least they will just randomly kill me
live free or die
"That's a very slanted view. It is commonly put about by those keen to portray resistance movements as cruel and callous, and occupiers as mere 'victims of circumstance."
Violence isn't necessarily the only tactic, here. Take a look at the US civil rights movement. When college kids are getting blasted with firehoses simply for going to class, or crowds are throwing bottles at people engaged in a a peaceful march, it demonizes the oppressors, which makes it easier for the resistance to build support from people who otherwise might be indifferent. It's a way to, as you say, weaken and undermine the "occupier."
"Also, if the strategy were as simplistic as you claim, then it could be easily defeated by the occupier refusing to respond violently."
It's not necessarily easy to exercise restraint--the U.S. military certainly didn't want to cause civilian casualties in Iraq, but any time you have significant conflict in a populated area it's going to happen, and it makes the Americans look like devils. And of course, after 9/11, there was a lot of clamoring for some kind of retributive action, which is arguably why attacking Iraq was accepted with so little criticism to begin with. It doesn't take a huge attack to provoke an overreaction--little pricks, over time, can do the trick. The reason these tactics are so commonly employed is that they work, after all.
Why don't the satelite companies have digital signatures, just like PGP?
The uplink (signal from ground to the bird) is encrypted (or signed) with a private key.
The bird attempts to decrypt the signal with it's public key. It then ensures that the signal can be
decrypted. If the incorrect private key is used in the uplink signal, the bird's transponder would not
be able to decrypt it.
If the bird cannot decrypt the signal, it would throw the signal away and perhaps
initiate a direction finding on the signal (using whatever time/phase delay technologies) and send
appropriate warnings over the management link to the satelite company's control center.
At that point, the satelite company, armed with at least rudimentary location of the bad signal, can
then call in the appropriate authorities with the black hawks (or drones) with decent RF triangulation
equipment to pinpoint the source of the signal.
Heck, we have ssh here on the ground right now. If you don't have the right key, you don't get in.
The folks at Openbsd (Theo and company) have done some things right.
Let's put Theo in charge of satelite security!
Hugs & Kisses
Cleara
Why does everyone conveniently forget that the attack on the WTC was an attack on the citizens of 83 countries? While I may very well be wrong, I'm not even sure that Americans even made up a majority of the people working there that day.
It seems to me that the terms "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are orthogonal. A "terrorist" is someone who intentionally and specifically targets civilians for mass murder, kidnapping, etc. A "freedom fighter" is someone who is fighting against an authoritarian regime in order to give his people political self-determination. One can be both a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter", though this is often not the case. For instance, radical Islamists seek to enslave "their people" to a theocratic dictatorship, not free them.
>>A hack is a hack, no matter who makes it. They are not committing any terrorist acts over satelite, are they? Terrorists >>are also freedom fighters, it just depends on who's viewpoint you prefer.
>really? what freedom were Hitler's werewolves fighting for?
Their own.... Just like everyone else....
Terrorist may call themselves Freedom Fighters, but that doesn't make it true.
Someone who fights for freedom, not just the way they want it, can be a Freedom Fighter.
However, anyone who devolves to using terror tactics is no longer a Freedom Fighter but rather a Terrorist.
The difference is how they operate, not what they call themselves.
Remember, anyone who uses Terror Tactics is a Terrorist, no matter what they are called.
(Yes, even if they work for a government organization identified by a 3 letter acronym.)
I am sure that Iraqis families are very happy right now about their situation. That's why Vietnam was lost but history always repeat, isn't it ?
Money and power can overthrow weaker governments, just look at your own continent and who support the various dictators alit bit on the Southern side of your continent.
Look at these happy faces they are staring at your smart bombs.
If the U.S. government breaks U.S. law, which it has done, then it's up to the U.S. court systems to deal with it, not the U.N. It's amazing that they have not done so already.
In any case, calling the U.S. innocent based on the letter of the law is hardly rational. Iraqi deaths since the Americans invaded, numbers in the hundreds of thousands. That's a lot of murdered people who would otherwise be alive today.
-FL
No, but they certainly fund groups that do.
America, Home of the Brave.
Most people don't pay directly for news services; their primary revenue comes from selling advertising. Therefore, they feature horrific violence in their content because that is what the public wants to see.
>Some people really and truly believe those things. Their beliefs are wrong, but that doesn't mean they don't have those beliefs.
How about going one step further. *YOU* think their beliefs are wrong (nothing to do with the KKK, in general) and by you i mean all of the people siding with your point of view, while not the majority in the context of the world population, probably ones with all the ammunition
Indeed, the Islamic militants have been much more successful at killing civilians in Iraq than in the US.
I can tell by your post you're not very bright, but WTF?
You just posted a "please don't hate on wolves" post, when GP was posting about "werewolves". HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU?
I mean, seriously I read your post and all I could think was "what mental illness is this retard suffering from? How did he/she think it was a good idea to bring up something totally unrelated and rant about it"
You sound like a fucking idiot. Stop posting.
Which groups are those? The Afghanistan Mujahadeen targeted the Soviet military.
The "Freedom Fighters" in Cuba for one.
America, Home of the Brave.
Why it's none other than largest and best funded terrorist group of them all: The CIA.
Sri Lanka: The Big Hate Mo'
Of course, there's more on the Exile, which is definitely not work safe, unless you work at the Bada Bing or something. However, this article is a good primer.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Technically, they would be "Freedom Fighters" since they are fighting against a totalitarian dictatorship (unless they intend to install another one themselves). Do you have a reference to a list of atrocities committed by these people?
Or, he spends time in Sri Lanka, has his blog in his profile and will die for his comments. The Tamil Tigers are very effective at brutally killing dissenters. You're an ignorant western fuck who thinks wars are nice and neat like on CNN.
You obviously know what you are talking about, so may I ask:
Why can't Intelsat and others just configure the satellite to only broadcast on channels that are in use? As far as I understood it, certain satellites are configured to broadcast signals they receive on certain channels, right? And some of them are not in use and thus can be found and used for pirate broadcasts. So, why not just switch off the channels when they are not in use? Or are the satellites too dumb for a customization of what channels are to be broadcasted, e.g. because it is hardcoded?
TIA for your enlightening answer!
There is no such thing as a superhacker!
That is patently untrue. The U.S. has aimed, though not yet fired, ICBM at civilians for years. During the Yogoslavia Conflict we attacked radio and TV stations. During Vietnam the armed forces were responsible for attacks on civilians on a regular basis. See also the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo during WWII.
A blog about stuff.
Don't fight it. It is unstoppable.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
I am against war. But the sad fact is that people will find reasons to kill each other and fight wars irrespective of the weapons used, even if they have to resort to sticks and stones. I, for one, am glad we are using smart bombs to achieve our objectives instead of dropping anything and everything that goes boom out of wave after wave of bombers.
t just depends on who's viewpoint you prefer.
OK. I'm pissed at the *.nl government, so I'm going to rape and kill your family as an act of protest and freedom fighting.
But, hey, it's just my viewpoint, right? There is no evil or wrong, merely opinions. Thanks!
Personally I don't think all violence is wrong, e.g. aggressively stopping the Nazis. I hoped the US, being an ally of my country, would have swiftly had all of Al-Qaeda's heads on pikes, metaphorically speaking.
In the eyes of whoever that last one is, they were in their own eyes whatever they wished to be.
Khmer Rouge
Violence isn't necessarily the only tactic, here.
True, but the GP referred specifically to 'armed resistance'. Also, the term 'resistance' traditionally refers to an anti-occupation movement - so the civil rights movement isn't really that relevant.
It's not necessarily easy to exercise restraint--the U.S. military certainly didn't want to cause civilian casualties in Iraq
It's not a question of 'easy' or 'difficult' - it's a question of what they are prepared to do to maintain control.
It doesn't take a huge attack to provoke an overreaction [...] the reason these tactics are so commonly employed is that they work, after all.
I repeat: creating an 'overreaction' not the primary goal of a resistance movement, despite the claims of propagandists to the contrary.
"Civilians" is not the same thing as "places occupied by civilians". And frankly, generalizing the actions of a few (yes a few, you're a fucking liar if you claim otherwise) messed up soldiers as the policy of the US is disingenuous at best, and an intentional fabrication at worst.
Think about that until you realize why you're wrong.
The World Trade Center was not full of simple innocent civilians but civilians who made their living from pillaging the third world so they were not just an indiscriminate target.
About good will. Don't know much about Europe besides the fact that my parents were always amazed how pro American Europeans seemed to them when going there.
Here in Canada Bush wasted a lot of good will that we had.
First by insulting us as one of his first acts (traditionally newly elected presidents start out saying something good about Canada before any other foreign governments due to us being your largest trading partner and best friend. Bush stated how Mexico was Americas largest trading partner and best friend).
But the real damage was done immediately after 9/11. When you guys were to scared too let any planes fly or land over your country we stepped up to the bat and said fly here, land here and we took numerous Americans and others into our own homes until you felt secure enough to let them fly in to your country.
When Bush thanked the world for all the help and condolences that America received on and after 9/11 he couldn't even be bothered to mention Canada which to us seemed to be quite the insult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Terrorists have never won. They just kill the folks who are easy to kill.
Freedom fights have won. One doesn't win over the population by killing their faimily and friends.
1. they don't need to "win over" the population. they use simply intimidation.
2. they don't need to kill the enemy (us) to win. they just need to make the enemy give up.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Cuba elected their leader.
America, Home of the Brave.
For instance, radical Islamists seek to enslave "their people" to a theocratic dictatorship, not free them.
No, they seek to free them from a corrupting western materialist path which will lead only to eternal torment. They are just seeking freedom in the *next* world. Point being that one can say what ever one ants about ones motives.
And you're right about Terrorists and Freedom Fighters not being mutually exclusive. I just wish more people would understand this.
A blog about stuff.
Indeed. A simple way to distill the doublespeke is:
freedom to == evil
freedom from == not evil
In other words... If you are fighting to be left alone, more power to you; but if you are aiming to modify the lives of others, then count me among your opponents.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
If the positional thrusters are capable of producing enough delta-v for it to come down exactly at the right moment to ram the ascending space shuttle, then I guess yes, the technical possibility to attack the US does exist.
If it's in GEO then there's pretty much no chance it'll have enough fuel to descend to LEO...
http://blog.nexusuk.org
If the transponder as a whole is unused, they might be able to do that. If it's just one small portion of the frequency spectrum managed by that transponder, I don't think it's likely they'll be able to block it at the satellite. It's my understanding that transponders simply repeat what they hear across the frequency spectrum they're responsible for. If that transponder is sub-divided into different channels, that's an administrative/policy thing that the satellite doesn't have to care about. It just rebroadcasts, and each individual carrier is sent on its way exactly as the satellite heard it.
I'm not an expert on this, however. I've dealt with amateur radio satellites, but I'm not sure how well that experience maps to what the commercial satellites do.
Right, so what about the free fire zones in Vietnam? They were standing orders that encouraged soldiers to assume that civilians were enemy forces.
As for your distinction between "civilians" and "places occupied by civilians," if you really want to distinguish between the two then fine, I didn't mean to shoot that man, I just meant to shoot the space he was occupying.
Think about that until you realize why you're wrong.
Why don't you stop rationalizing the murder of civilians?
A blog about stuff.
I can see security not being important for non-military satellites back in the 20th century, but this is the 21st century.
Unless the satellite owner is prepared to completely write off the value of your bird when it becomes totally pwned, he should at least do a pre-purchase cost-analysis on
1) securing his bird
2) identifying and removing anyone who does gain access
3) not sending the bird up at all.
We aren't there yet, but the worst-case scenario is he spends $millions sending a bird up only to have it taken over almost immediately, with a return of $0 to show for it. In that case, option 3 at least saves him a few $million.
If this isn't fixed soon, someday someone's going to override the signals of a major western satellite network, but unlike Captain Midnight's simple protest, he'll do it with political propoganda or pr0n.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
650,000. CNN.
I assume that CNN, being a nationalist propaganda machine is likely to round down. But even assuming the real figure is only as high as 200,000, the situation remains unforgivable and the U.S. is by no means "innocent".
Also, 'murdered' is an objective term. If someone is shooting at me and I have a gun, guess what: I don't care if it's a police action, declared war, or what ever, I'm shooting back. Is that murder, I supposed it depends on what side you are on or who shot first.
How nice. But we're not talking about you and your armchair war theory. We're talking about an American invasion army shooting and bombing civilians. It might also be pointed out that the Americans did indeed shoot first. "Pre-emptive", I believe the term was. Based on lies and faulty intelligence.
Further, bombed civilians aren't typically in a position to shoot first. The term 'murder' fits quite well in such cases. As it does when Americans open fire on civilian weddings, school children, fishermen and cars which, "didn't slow down fast enough", among many such countless incidents. --And these are just the ones that the U.S. admits guilt for, (otherwise they wouldn't be handing out cash to stricken family members). When murder is an offense which carries only a small fine, there is something wrong.
The U.S. should not be in Iraq. It wasn't a mistake. It was a willful, criminal act.
-FL
He he...I am reminded of a very old short story by Arthur C Clarke (quick! what's the connection between Clarke and satellites?).
In the story, written in the 40's or so, the evil Chinese put a satellite in orbit above the US whereupon they begin to broadcast pr0n that can be received on anyone's TV set.
Does anyone know the name of the short story?
Um, are you new here? Is this your first day reading slashdot?
have a look at my userID? See, I'm not the one cowardly hiding behind an AC post.
You're an idiot, and yes that's an ad-hominem, but you used at least three logical fallacies in your post, so I'm still behind.
And two wrongs make a right, or did you just run out of arguments? It's not even ad-hominem, since in this post you are not trying to discredit me to distract from my message, it's just simple namecalling.
Even for the points you think I am wrong, all you can say about them is is that you think they are wrong, but you 'forget' to give any reason. Or am I wrong because some AC says so?
The point you still refuse to accept is this: there are two sides to every story. The suicide bomber does not see himself as an evil terrorist, he (and his supporters) see himself as a martyr giving the ultimate sacrifice for a good cause. That he uses terrorism as his instrument is just what he feel he is being forced to use. You and I don't agree with him, but it helps if you can at least acknowledge his points of view. Unless offcourse you are not interested in an open discussion where you could learn something, but just wan to reinforce your own beliefs. Amen to that then?
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
It matters who you target. If you target civilians, you are a terrorist. If you target the military asset next to the civilians, and some civilians get hurt, that is an unavoidable fact of war. Indeed, those who would site assets next to civilians are drawing a big target on the citizens, and are terrorists.
It is amazing, that six years in, such obvious things must be repeated, but so many people are actually in favor of terrorism they try their damnedest to obscure the nature of terror and make it glorious.
To repeat the simple test: if they target civilians, they are a terrorists.
It's a bit risky to turn on and off equipment on a satellite.
If it breaks they lose it.
People using html in email should be shot.
I'm confused as to why the original post uses the name "Tamil Tigers Liberation Front" when the name is officially Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), but also referred to as the Tamil Tigers. But I'd like to address the wider ignorance here. The LTTE is at war with the Sri Lankan government, fighting for the North and East of SL as their homeland, since Tamil speaking people (20%) have historically lived there much as the Sinhalese people (75%) have lived in the rest of the island (central and south and west parts). Since independence, Tamil people have been screwed over by the SL govt, the govt that claims to represent and protect them: 1 million Tamil sharecroppers disenfranchised (1948 Citizenship Act), political solutions to nip the problems in the bud agreed to and then torn up (1950s and 1960s), Tamils effectively discriminated against in education, and the clause protections for minorities removed (1972 consitutional changes), and representation of Tamils further diluted and their freedom to advocate separation denied (1978 constituion).
/. community is willing to accept the definition of terrorist here so quickly. We all understand the hypocrisy of legality not equating with fairness. (EX: RIAA and DRM files, many M$ business practices, etc.) 'Terrorism' is like the political version of legality for groups & countries, except that it's based on the rules of do-we-like-you. We only like democracy, unless we like you, like Saudia Arabia (monarchy) and Pakistan (military dictatorship).
5 512 But perhaps that doesn't preclude them doing this w/o permission, which may be the case. Who knows? As for the LTTE being a 'group' of 'hackers' or 'terrorists'... it depends on how you see it. This documentary seems like it would be interesting in that regard: http://www.snitt.no/mdtt/index.htm
With the political attempts of the 50s and 60s rejected at the behest of extremist pro-Sinhalese Buddhist monks (who still influence the scene greatly today!), the situation turned violent. The conflict turned into a military one, eventually pitting the LTTE against the government as the 2 sides. Same issues, different form. In the space of about 20-30 years, the LTTE has now become most of the separate state it wants to form. In addition to the military, it has a series of banks, hospitals, orphanages, police stations, laws, courts, border patrol, a customs divison, a forestry division, education division, a tech college, a law college, a political college, startup businesses, etc. Militarily, it has moved from primarily guerrilla warfare to include convential fighting batallions (uniforms and all), artillery brigades, commando divisions, naval wing, and now it has been revealed that they have an air wing. (The air wing, naval wing, etc. each have different uniforms, and there are different flags for each regiment, etc.) They still hold on to their suicide bombers, though, but close observers will realize that the targets of their suicide bombings are strictly politico-military people, and sometimes economic targets, but not civilians. The bombing of the airbase in 2001 by ground forces did not kill or maim any civilians, and the recent bombing of the airbase by the air wing (Tamileelam Air Force) on March 25 was a conventional airstrike that conspicuously avoided bombing the airport.
The LTTE is not without serious mistakes. The same can be said about the SL govt. The LTTE's mistakes are well publicized elsewhere. The fact that the govt. discriminates against its own people (and wages war on those who rebel against itself) should be clear from above.
So, yes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I find it funny that the
Anyways, now we know more about the SL conflict, and knowing is half the battle...
As for the satellites, there was this article that mentioned that they would broadcast on EuroStar at a particular frequency. http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=1
Not in a conventional sense.. but they are capable of a static Goatse broadcast on one channel while transmitting an endless loop of mrhands.mpg on another.
And that, gentleman, would piss in my cereal while I'm watching the morning news.
And how is objecting against the term terrorist, or mentioning that there's two sides to every story an opposing bias? I have no interest whatsoever in that conflict, do you understand?
I am truly sorry to be faster of comprehension than you are.
A 'fact' that 'may be'? So it is not a fact at all? And why would my history as a speaker be of any consequence to the meaning of my posts? It looks like you try to apologise for an ad-hominem. Apologies accepted!
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
FUCK AZTLAN AND FUCK YOU TOO!
The theory how armed resistance can be used to overthrow government is very old and goes along the lines of: provoke the authorities with violence until they start to react as violent, but against their own innocent civilians. Every state action should generate more supporters for your cause until you have a large enough majority to oust the regime, or they just downright give up.
I'm sure Simon Bar Kokhba would be interested to hear this theory of yours.
Careful there son, that little piece of free thought you just expressed there might get you labeled a commie
I Like Pie...
Because, on its face, it seems rediculous.
The US military presence in Saudi Arabia is the main reason Bin Laden became a terrorist.
what Bin Laden has always wanted US troops to leave Saudi Arabia.
You really think the USA is going to give into that demand?
The tungsten rod idea isn't actually original. I think the Pentagon has actually talked about this as a future orbit-to-surface weapon.
I couldn't find any such short story, but I did find this proposal for communications satellites, dated 1945. He proposed 3 satellites, 120 degrees apart, to provide TV and microwave coverage for the whole planet.
At least he didn't say "The world will never need more than 3 communications satellites."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"And what exactly is wrong with the BNP?"
t y
Where do we start? how about small minded racists with criminal records for violence for a start, who deny the holocaust and have to keep on sacking their own members for saying such outrageous rubbish that even their leaders are embarrassed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Par
Pal, your mythical "white British people" are one of the most bastard, mongrel ethnic groups on the planet. Don't give me that BS about racial purity. There's probably a dozen Irish, Scots, Welsh and Cornish with ginger hair who can make some sort of tenuous claim to being pure British, the rest of us are the results of waves of immigration for the last 2000 years. It's what humans do, move around. As for "England for the English" - well there were black people in what is now England before the English were here - read up about the soldiers in the Roman Army who served on Hadrians Wall who settled here from North Africa, Spain and the Middle East. The "English" - Angles from Germanic tribes - only invaded about 300 years after that.
"Whether or not the British people support the BNP or not should be looked at in no different a light to whether or not Indians supported Ghandi and the Quit India Movement."
Gandhi spoke of peace and negotiation with the British. BNP supporters post dog faeces and razor blades through the post to people they don't agree with.
Speaking as somebody who likes studying history and can trace my family back to the 1690s in Cornwall and Scotland, trust me, I'd never vote for your little wannabe fourth reich.
"Smart" Filter blocks *.myspace.com. I suspect I'm not alone in that. Of course, this is one of the first times I've ever wanted to click on a myspace link.
You are correct; it seems I was remiss in not including a link to the Wikipedia article containing that particular excerpt.
- White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
Somehow you missed the fact that did not make any value judgements about terrorism. I will make one about you now: you are a coward, unable to grasp anything that does not fit in your propaganda infused excuse for a brain. There, can you see the difference now? (probably not)
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Meh, I'm often too lazy to post links as well. Still, the idea of using existing hardware that is up there already as a weapon has me intrigued...*goes off to edit his master Evil Overlord project plan*
I for one welcome our new plasmatic tungsten overlords.
My point was simply that the tactic of "provoking overreaction" can be used in contexts beyond armed resistance, and therefore doesn't warrant the negative conotation.
And of course provoking overreaction isn't the ultimate goal of any resistance movement, but it is one way to get there. The insurgents in Iraq can't forcibly expel the the U.S. military, so they fight a guerilla war, they keep the conflict going on their own terms, they employ dramatic tactics to get the attention of the media and sour the voting populace on the idea of continuing the fight, with the ultimate goal of getting America out. Provoking an overreaction is just another means of doing this: get the Army to raid a village and piss off the locals, maybe injure some bystanders, and now you've further eroded local support for the Americans and maybe gotten yourself a few new recruits to keep the fight going even longer. It's a tactic, not an objective. What propagandists are insisting otherwise?
[quote]That the U.S. had goodwill before 9/11 and then threw it away with the invasion of Iraq is a myth. [/quote]
You are the one reciting a myth. After 9-11, Le Monde proclaimed, "We are all Americans". The band outside Buckingham palace played the Star-Spangled Banner. All around the world, vigils were held, marches were held, and US embassies were plastered with flowers. Have you forgotten so soon? Well, perhaps polls will help remind you.
In some countries, positive opinions of America have more than halved.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
You're absolutely right! But perhaps the terrorists didn't care that much about reality. In their blind hatred, they picked a prominent target that (in their eyes!) represented America's power. Those people aren't known for thinking rationally after all.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Simply not true. Example: our very own revolution. Pop quiz: what was the US navy during the American Revolution comprised of
Answer: privateers, almost exclusively. These are people who, with the sanction of the rebel army, would avoid *miltiary* ships and seek out British *civilian* ships. They couldn't fight the British Navy; they'd be slaughtered. So, they attempted to hurt the British economy. They'd attack a merchant vessel and either sink it outright (killing everyone onboard) or board it, killing everyone onboard except those that they wanted to force to join their crew (effectively enslaving them). The British responded just the way we responded to al-Qaeda: they created their very own Guantanamo onboard the Jersey.
Back on land, are you unfamiliar with the huge exodus from America after the war? The rebel militias had earned quite a reputation for the lynching of loyalists. After the war, a sizable portion of the American population fled across the Atlantic to avoid their fate at the hands of the various state and local militias. Those who stayed were frequently either tarred and feathered (a brutal practice) or outright killed, and their properties confiscated.
Now, I'm not defending the Tamil Tigers. For those who don't know, they've used more suicide bombings against civilians in Sri Lanka than have been used throughout the entire middle east. I'm just pointing out that asynmmetric warfare rarely is clean. We get so mad about insurgents not "playing fair". There's a bit of a logic gap, though, because to play "fair" as we see it would mean their quick annihilation. That's what asymmetric warfare implies. They have no choice but to resort to uglier means.
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetist! Now I am leaving for no particular raisin!
The real Sri Lankan terror threat involves a secret combination of chili peppers, tamarind seed pod pulp and cabbage. Applying these materials in just the right proportion to human gut flora results is a virtually undetectable autonomous self-propelled chemical weapon of mass disgustipation that can be deployed anywhere on the globe.
i just looked at the link... they have Airwolf! regards.
Even if this is the case, the people flying on the hijacked civilian airliners were NOT. I'd respect Al-Qaeda a lot more if they didn't hijack civilian airliners to wage their war on(admittedly oft-brutal) capital.
I was simply pointing out a major flaw in your classification scheme.
> The difference is one of intent. The people in Iraq and many other parts of the world are INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians as a means to an end. They want to get their message out and to terrorize the population. That is NOT the action of freedom fighters, it is the action of brutal thugs. The Mujahidin in Afghanistan were freedom fighters, the American revolutionaries were freedom fighters. When you intentionally target civilians who are not part of the government machine I really don't think you can be considered anything but a coward and a thug.
What about the carpet bombing of Dresdon, Berlin, Tokyo during WWII? The atom bombs we dropped were small compared to the number of civilians that we massacred. Does that make us cowards and thugs?
jfs
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Of course, it is also undeniably true that:
- Life sucks in Iraq right now
but that is a seperate issue of whether or not Iraq is a democracy.Again, I disagree with your characterization. It was a necessary thing. We have made several big mistakes have helped make it suck there as much as it does right now, but that doesn't mean it can't become a good thing.And judging by recent polling data, I'd also dispute your claim that a majority of Americans currently think this way.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Also, if the strategy were as simplistic as you claim, then it could be easily defeated by the occupier refusing to respond violently.
And which occupier would NOT react with violence when threatened with loss of power? Maybe the Swiss, but really, I think it's highly unlikely they would occupy anyone.
How about the bombing of Cubana Flight 455?
The My Lai massacure. 500 unarmed South Vietmanese civilians shot by American troops. Only one person was convicted in this event, and he spent three years under house arrest (he got out of jail the day after the trial due to intervention by Pres. Nixon). It was intended to scare the South Vietmanese into not sheltering V.C.
But the U.S. has never intentionally killed civilians to promote a political agenda, oh no. I think you're wearing blinders to think that any government has never done this, or would never do it. Now, you can argue as to if this is official policy or a couple "bad apples", but it happens none-the-less.
Dude, 100-400 W of power is not what's commonly used (from my experience). You don't want grilled birds to fall off the sky, 1-2W is more like it. The real problem is keeping your antenna focused at the satellite.
How about fighting someone to leave someone else (not you) alone? This is clearly "modifying the lives of others"...
We need a new mod category: -1, Gratuitous Godwin
The people in Iraq and many other parts of the world are INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians as a means to an end. They want to get their message out and to terrorize the population.
Perhaps, but then again, any war is at best chaotic and difficult to get a grasp of for outsiders. Some Iraqi resistance groups might be total psychopaths along the lines we are being told, but others might be more along the lines of the stereotypical European Resistance movements in WW2. Most are probably somewhere in between. The only thing we can really be sure of is that many Western governments have a vested interest in portraying them all as baby eaters and so that's the sort of stories we are likely to see in our media. It is comparatively difficult for us to learn much beyond these superficial descriptions and so it is also difficult to maintain any kind of informed debate on the matter.
sigs are hazardous to your health
Oh, I think they knew /exactly/ who they were attacking.
So if I shoot you and don't get caught, I'm innocent and no crime has been committed? I'm very glad the legal system completely disagrees with you. The semantic proviso you are clinging to as the basis of your entire argument fortunately does not stop law enforcement officers from arresting people for committing the crime of murder. --Because, you see, you can commit a crime, you can perform an illegal act and you can do all of it before you are convicted and punished for it. In fact, that's the only order in which it can happen. Do you see. . ?
I'll phrase it another way:
"The U.S. has committed War Crimes. They broke both international and U.S. laws when they invaded Iraq. --But they haven't been brought to Nuremberg, (or wherever), to be officially convicted yet, and they probably never will be. And so, according to certain well-programmed right-wing Christians, the U.S. remains as innocent as a babe in a blanket."
If you do not see the inherent idiocy in that statement, then you are beyond hope.
Bzzz... A soldier shooting (whom he perceives to be) an enemy is acting lawfully.
This is not true when the war itself is illegal both by U.S. and U.N. standards. It is also not true when burned out and jittery U.S. troops perceive anybody with brown skin who moves suddenly to be an enemy. There are such things as "warcrimes". "Just Following Orders. . ?" Or how about, "Armed and Brainwashed?"
Rife? Like a few hundred incidents, maybe -- most of them not being murders?
The U.S. Army has paid out 32 Million Dollars already to stricken family members over the killings of innocent people. The average pay out is $2000. My math reduced that to a rough guesstimate of about 16,000 cases. And according to the article, this does not include monies paid out from a different fund which allows a unit commander to make condolence payments. And again, those were the cases where the Army even bothered to admit guilt.
Right, it was safer under Saddam -- and the trains were running on-time too, weren't they?
Yes. It was a lot safer. Because Bush is a psychopathic liar, Iraq is now as a direct result, a chaotic killing zone. The trains run on time in the U.S. as well. Would you be thankful if China or somebody decided without asking first to come in and oust the Bush regime and turn the States into a killing pool? It is the responsibility of a population to fight its own fights. If Iraq truly wanted new leadership, it could have revolted, and I'm betting it would have been prettier than the current mess imposed upon them; a war which they did not ask for. --Many famous invading armies use the bullshit claim of 'liberation' to perform geographic rape. It's an old song.
-FL
...but that doesn't mean it can't become a good thing. Absolutely. But the US had no right to inflict this up the Iraqi people. It will be long time before this gets better. And judging by recent polling data, I'd also dispute your claim that a majority of Americans currently think this way. Sure thing. I don't have any recent data in front of me on this particular topic, but I can point you to a comparable example. As this Harris poll from nearly a year ago shows, the American public wasn't afraid to let facts in the way of their opinions. Seventy-two percent thought the Iraqi people were better off last year than under Saddam, despite hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, daily car bombings and kidnappings, continuing absence of basic public services, etc. Sixty-four percent said it was true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda, despite this being repeatedly proved false (Dick Cheney went on Rush Limbaugh's show just a few days ago to repeat this lie despite a new US government report disproving it). And, my favorite, fifty percent thought that Iraq had WMDs when the U.S. invaded Iraq.Unfortunately, propaganda is rampant on all sides of the debate. Look at the legions of people that call George W Bush a "liar" without bothering to cite what it is exactly that they think he lied about.
Fair point. Kind of irrelevant, but fair.
I think that the Iraqis had a choice in their new government for a few simple reasons: I watched as over 8 million Iraqis elected local representatives to write a constitution, then I watched as Iraqi's held town hall meetings across the country to give input into the new constitution, then I read the Constitution drafted by these Iraqi legislators, then I watched almost 10 million Iraqis turn out in a national referendum to ratify the constitution, and after that I watched 12.4 million Iraqis show up to vote in their new Parliament. How "naive" of me to think that Iraqis had anything to do with this.
Here are the reasons why I think it was necessary.
As I conceded earlier, we have made some serious mistakes there that have contributed to the mess. However, the career criminals, foreign terrorists, and sectarian factions that are trying to capitalize on the chaos and kill as many innocent people as they can to try to achieve their goals also share a lot of the blame.
The US did not want to cause the current suffering in Iraq, but not only did we have the right to use military force under international law, we had the responsibility to do it. UN Resolution 678 clearly authorized the use of force to implement resolution 687 and to restore peace and security to the area. This authorization was never withdrawn- on the contrary, it was confirmed in over a dozen subsequent resolutions condemning Iraq for its non-compliance (including 1441 that gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply). The UN has no executive branch, so it's charter requires member states to enforce it's mandate. This is what the United States set out to do.
Speaking of propaganda, I'm afraid this is another bit of anti-Bush (or Cheney, as it may be) spin. Here is a link to the full transcript of what Dick Cheney said:
Remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, an Al-Qaeda affiliate. He ran a training camp in Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda, then migrated after we went into Afghanistan and shut 'em down there, he went to Baghdad. He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al-Qaeda ope
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Unfortunately, propaganda is rampant on all sides of the debate. Look at the legions of people that call George W Bush a "liar" without bothering to cite what it is exactly that they think he lied about.
That is a valid complaint, but doesn't change the facts. All politicians are liars. Bush just seems to be a particularly bad one. I don't have the post space to scratch the surface but I'll drop a few for you.
This was amazing given the hundreds, if not thousands, of quotes from the administration using exactly those words. A few from GWB himself: "We will stay the course." [8/30/06], "We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq." [8/4/05], "We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We're just going to stay the course." [12/15/03], "And my message today to those in Iraq is: We'll stay the course." [4/13/04], "And that's why we're going to stay the course in Iraq. And that's why when we say something in Iraq, we're going to do it." [4/16/04], and "[S]o we've got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course." [4/5/04].
The first was apparently revealed by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and was treated with skepticism by officials. However, even if KSM's story was correct, the alleged plot was something that had been discussed but never put into action. By the time anybody knew about it, the threat -- if there had been one -- had passed. A senior FBI official was quoting saying, "To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous."
The second was attributed to Lyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver who pleaded guilty in June 2003 to two felony charges of supporting a foreign terrorist organization. His plan to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge was abandoned because he deemed it unlikely to succeed. Officials conceded that there was no threat by the time the plot was uncovered.
Jose Padilla received the most news coverage. For this one, I'll quote Paul Wolfowitz: "[T]here was not an actual plan to set off a radioactive device in America." Padilla had not begun trying to acquire materials. Intelligence officials said his research had not gone beyond surfing the internet.
Of course, we later found that the administration had approved the use of torture, so they switched to defending it as okay.
I could go on about the Niger Yellow Cake lies, the domestic spying program lies, the Iraq-9/11 connection lies, etc, but you get the point.
Fair p
One other item that I wanted to point out is that even if we accept that Resolutions 1441, 687, 678, and 660 actually do combine in such a way to provide a legal loophole for enforcement of 687 without additional Council actions, lawfulness must also consider the question of proportionality. Any force used relative to the authorization in 678:
- must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
- be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective
- must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations
(this is according to Britain's Attorney General back in 2003)He stressed to Blair that regime change cannot be the objective of military action and that "this should be borne in mind...in making public statements about any campaign", advice clearly taken by the US government.
Bush's arguments from his State of the Union boil down to:
- to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
- to diminish the threat of international terrorism
- to promote democracy in Iraq and surrounding areas
The first item on that list is the only one remotely related to the UN resolutions and it turned out it be malarkey. There was plenty of room for arguing that Iraq's failure to allow full and unfettered inspections amounted to a clear breach of the cease-fire agreement. However, this failed to get significant support for war so intelligence data was doctored and manufactured to make it appear that Saddam actually possessed these weapons.On this point, you claimed:
I would love to see real support for this, because I can't find it. I assume your statement is pulled from David Kay's interim report on the ISG. What I did find was the September 30, 2004, U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report that concluded: "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn (sic) possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation--including detainee interviews and document exploitation--leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability." Point after point in the report indicate that while Saddam still had aspirations of weapons programs, the Gulf War and subsequent inspections had destroyed his capacity to produce conventional, chemical, or nuclear weapons of any significant concern outside of the UN sanctions. I can't imagine how a few discoveries like a nuclear scientist with a centrifuge buried in his yard is scarier than what Bush claimed we'd find in Iraq.
As for the rest of Bush's claims, the second was based upon dishonest connections, and the invasion and occupation has had the opposite effect anyway. Which leaves us only with number 3 - regime change. As pointed out by the British Attorney General, this is not a legitimate basis for a declaration of war.
UNSEC 678 authorizes the use of military force to "uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area".
UNSEC 687, sections C through H, spelled out exactly what was required of Iraq to restore international peace and security to the area, including: a complete declaration and destruction in the presence of UN observers of their WMD stockpiles, a complete declaration and destruction of their ballistic missile and UAV programs with a range of at least 150km, a specific prohibition that Iraq was not "to use, develop, construct or acquire" WMD, and that Iraq "will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory", along with condemning any other acts of international terrorism.
Under no stretch of the imagination had these requirements been met. Iraq may well have destroyed their WMD stockpiles, but they did not declare these weapons to the UN, and UNMOVIC had declared them in violation of this up until the March 2003 invasion. Iraq did not dismantle their prohibited ballistic missile programs as was proven by the discovery of the Al-Samoud 2 missiles, and the development of the North Korean No Dong 2000km ballistic missiles. We know for a fact from the Duelfer report, and from the interim ISG report by David Kay, that Iraq did not discontinue the development and acquisition of WMD. Both reports clearly detail WMD development activities that were in violation of UN mandate.
These two resolutions were passed under chapter VII of the UN charter, which mandates all UN member states to participate in their enforcement. All of the subsequent resolutions passed against Iraq, including UNSEC 1441, referenced and reaffirmed these two resolutions, and Iraq was clearly in violation.
As to your WMD point, I would strongly encourage you to at least read the 20+ page summary of the 2004 Duelfer ISG report. No doubt that much of our prewar intelligence was flawed, and that we did not find the remnant munitions from the Iran/Iraq war that we expected to find (because Iraq offered no documentation to prove their destruction, and no UN inspector had observed the destruction of these weapons). But there is also no doubt that Iraq was still in violation of UNSEC 687 paragraph 10, leaving a clear authorization to use military force for compliance.
UNSEC 678 authorizes the use of military force to "uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area".
UNSEC 687, sections C through H, spelled out exactly what was required of Iraq to restore international peace and security to the area, including: a complete declaration and destruction in the presence of UN observers of their WMD stockpiles, a complete declaration and destruction of their ballistic missile and UAV programs with a range of at least 150km, a specific prohibition that Iraq was not "to use, develop, construct or acquire" WMD, and that Iraq "will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory", along with condemning any other acts of international terrorism.
The US did not depend on 678 - they considered 1441 the loophole they needed. Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force. In fact, both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, gave assurances that the resolution provided no "automaticity", no "hidden triggers". The US and UK ambassadors agreed that 1441 included no step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council. The US was keenly aware of this and tried desperately to get UN approval via a new resolution, but they could not. And keep in mind that both Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei had just given the UN reports that further undercut the US push for war - they had found nothing worthy of concern and wanted more time to continue the inspections. The American attack forced the weapons inspectors back out of the country.
Don't get me wrong - Saddam was jerking around the international community and playing games with the system. Some of those on the Security Council refusing to authorize war were profitting from illegal deals with Iraq. However, none of that gives the US the right to launch a war of aggression against another sovereign nation.
Iraq did not dismantle their prohibited ballistic missile programs as was proven by the discovery of the Al-Samoud 2 missiles, and the development of the North Korean No Dong 2000km ballistic missiles.
You mean the Al-Samoud 2 missiles that were declared to the UN in December of 2002 and were considered a violation because they could potentially exceed the 150 km range limit by 30 km? The same Al-Samoud 2 missiles that Iraq was in the process of destroying when the US invasion occurred? I have to admit that I'm at a loss to explain your "North Korean No Dong 2000km ballistic missiles" comment. I'm not aware of any reports about No Dong missiles in Iraq and I can't find anything on Google. No Dong missiles do not even have a 2000 km range.
We know for a fact from the Duelfer report, and from the interim ISG report by David Kay, that Iraq did not discontinue the development and acquisition of WMD. Both reports clearly detail WMD development activities that were in violation of UN mandate.
Again, I'm at a loss. The Duelfer report was considered a scathing rebuke of American rhetoric and propaganda. It indicated that Saddam wanted to restart his weapons programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted, but I don't think that was disallowed. The report demonstrated that his nuclear program was in shambles, and his chemical and biological programs nonexistent. And why do you guys love to reference David Kay's interim report rather than the final ISG report? Even with the few issues pointed out in the report, the conclusion is that they were insignificant.
But there is also no doubt that Iraq was still in violation of UNSEC 687 paragraph 10, leaving a clear authorization to use military force for compliance.
As has been pointed out many times, the US is not the UN. The US did not pass those resolutions alone and the US does not have the authority to interpret and s
I disagree for two reasons. First, the US and their allies certainly did rely on UNSEC #678 and UNSEC #687. Here is an op-ed by a State Department ambassador laying out the exact same case. You can find the same rational from Australia, The UK, and even the National Security Council, among others.
Second, UNSEC #1441 specifically recalled and reaffirmed UNSEC #678 and UNSEC #687 which gave authorization to use force, and deplored the fact that Iraq was in "material breach" of the requirements in UNSEC #687.
Bingo. They declared these weapons to the UN in December of 2002, but had been banned from possessing them or developing them 12 years prior to that. The fact that it took a carrier group parked on their doorstep in the Gulf to make this declaration is hardly comforting.
This information is directly pulled from the 2004 Duelfer report:
Iraq entered into negotiations with North Korean and Russian entities for more capable missile systems. Iraq and North Korea in 2000 discussed a 1,300-km-range missile, probably the No Dong, and in 2002 Iraq approached Russian entities about acquiring the Iskander-E short-range ballistic missile (SRBM).
My apologies about the mis-information on the range, however 1300km is still well above the 150km limit.
I'm going to be honest- I found this list of alleged lies to be rather petty. I don't know- maybe they are lies, but for the most part, they seem more like examples of President Bush's political incompetence than of willful dishonesty. He is a terrible politician. He's never figured out how to play the Washington game. Considering the constant drumbeat of "Bush Lied" I am a little surprised that this was all you came up with.
I don't think you could go on about those. Everything he said about Niger yellowcake is 100% true, I don't know what lies about domestic spying you are referring to (the President never denied the existence of the program), and nobody in the administration has claimed that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 (on the contrary, the President has publicly stated multiple times that Iraq was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Example).
Sure. Iraq was one of the most active sponsors of international terrorism in the world. We have known this ever since Iraq was first placed on the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism way back in 1979. After the first Gulf War, Saddam shifted his primary focus of terrorism to the West (and the United States in particular). During this time, he recruited the work of notorious terrorists like Abu Nidal and Carlos the Jackal to lead attacks against the US, he tried to assassinate President Bush Sr, he tortured and executed any Iraqis that cooperated with the UN weapons inspectors (including his own brother-in-law), and he attempted to bomb the US-run Radio Free Europe facilities in Prague. As if this wasn't enough, our allies started to warn us in 2001-2002 that Saddam was planning more attacks against us (both inside and outside of the United States). It is pretty hard to deny that this constitutes a serious threat against us, and we had just learned a pretty vivid lesson on September 11 about what happens when you ignore these kinds of threats.
Well, when the US joined the United Nations and agreed to it's charter, it (like all members of the UN) agreed in Chapter VII to enforce the mandates of the Security Council.
I disagree- the UN explicitly gave the authorization to use military force to enforce the cease-fire defined in resolution 687, and backed that authorization up over a dozen times in subsequent years. This is the same authorization that was used to justify air strikes against Iraqi anti-aircraft installations in 1993 and for Operation Desert Fox in 1998. It was valid then and it was still valid in 2003.
The UN Security Council has never passed any resolutions against Israel under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. All of the resolutions with regards to Israel were passed either by the General Assembly, or they were passed by the Security Council under Chapter VI. Neither of these are binding or enforceable in any context. It's apples to oranges.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
I'm going to be honest- I found this list of alleged lies to be rather petty...Considering the constant drumbeat of "Bush Lied" I am a little surprised that this was all you came up with.
So you're upset that people call him a liar without support, but then find support lies to seem petty? And, that wasn't all I came up with. That list accounted for a good deal of my post and was but a drop in the bucket. If you aren't aware of the many blatant lies and don't care to go read the wealth of documented lists, then I guess your head can stay in the sand.
I don't think you could go on about those. Everything he said about Niger yellowcake is 100% true, I don't know what lies about domestic spying you are referring to (the President never denied the existence of the program), and nobody in the administration has claimed that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 (on the contrary, the President has publicly stated multiple times that Iraq was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Example).
As I just said, this is a pointless exercise. I could have GWB standing in front of you saying that the moon is made of green cheese and you would deny that he lied. Besides, your ultimate out is always to claim political incompetence and blame his aides.
It is pretty hard to deny that this constitutes a serious threat against us, and we had just learned a pretty vivid lesson on September 11 about what happens when you ignore these kinds of threats.
It is amazing how that worked out. Nevermind that the Deulfer and ISG reports indicate that Saddam had little to no interest in attacking the US - he was preoccupied primarily with Iran. The one big connection found to a terrorist network is a group that opposes Iran (and has been supported by US officials, including John Ashcroft). Saddam also supported the Palestinians in their fight with Israel. Meanwhile we have North Korea and Iran openly threatening the US without any repercussions.
Well, when the US joined the United Nations and agreed to it's charter, it (like all members of the UN) agreed in Chapter VII to enforce the mandates of the Security Council.
And when the Security Council does not agree with the US's interpretation of previous resolutions and refuses to unambiguously authorize the use of force, the US is empowered to act for the full Security Council? No. Article 39 of the UN Charter says that, "[t]he 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." After the Resolution 687 declared a cease-fire, it was up to the Security Council to again decide on breaches of "international peace" and how to best deal with them. This right does not belong to any single member nation.
I disagree- the UN explicitly gave the authorization to use military force to enforce the cease-fire defined in resolution 687, and backed that authorization up over a dozen times in subsequent years. This is the same authorization that was used to justify air strikes against Iraqi anti-aircraft installations in 1993 and for Operation Desert Fox in 1998. It was valid then and it was still valid in 2003.
I understand the legal loopholes argued for by the Bush administration and I know that even the UK was uncomfortable with the US position. Your choice of wording is intentionally misleading (and factually inaccurate). The UN explicitly gave authorization for member nations to work with the government of Kuwait to push Iraq back to their previous borders. Your extrapolation is that Saddam's flaunting of the letter of the law revoked the cease-fire agreement, which then automatically reactivates the authorization for force from years earlier. But not even the US administration relied on 660, 678, and 687 alone. As I pointed out elsewhere in
As for the rest...
Bingo. They declared these weapons to the UN in December of 2002, but had been banned from possessing them or developing them 12 years prior to that. But they did declare them and therefore were not in breach of the cease-fire. This only demonstrates that 1441 was working, much to the chagrin of the US administration. Iraq entered into negotiations with North Korean and Russian entities for more capable missile systems. Iraq and North Korea in 2000 discussed a 1,300-km-range missile, probably the No Dong, and in 2002 Iraq approached Russian entities about acquiring the Iskander-E short-range ballistic missile (SRBM). DEAR GOD! Saddam still wanted missiles?!! Did he get those No Dong missiles? No. Again, I would recommend that you at least read the key findings document from the Duelfer report. Keeping in mind that Iraq was forbidden by UNSEC #687 to "to use, develop, construct or acquire" WMD, you don't have to go past the first page to find that he was in material breach. Actually, I have and I'm still not seeing your smoking gun. Would you care to point out what on the first page is a "material breach"?Ermm, no-one I've seen post here is actually in favour of terrorism, and I am definitely not in favour of terrorism.
However, I am in favour of accepting that "Western" governments are just as capable of attrocities as any other group of people.
America, Home of the Brave.
Well, I, along with a host of other legal scholars, disagree. I suppose that is were we will leave it - agree to disagree. I will only leave one final point: If a party agrees to certain conditions for the terms of a ceasefire, and then is found in material breach of those conditions, is that ceasefire still in effect?
Unfortunately, given the history of the previous 12 years, it only proved that Saddam was still trying to play the game. If you recall, in 1991 Iraq provided a full and complete accounting of their WMD stockpiles and programs. In 1992, UN inspectors discovered an undeclared stockpile, and Iraq was forced to revise their disclosure and admit they had them, and provided another full and complete disclosure. In 1994, they prohibited UN inspectors from visiting specific suspected sites until the UN threatened military action, when they made another full and complete disclosure, admitting to even more WMD violations. In July 1995, another discovery of undeclared and prohibited items by the UN inspectors prompted another full and complete disclosure by Iraq. A month later, Hussein Kamal defected from Iraq and disclosed that Iraq still had a very extensive Biological Weapons program that was hidden from UN inspectors, forcing Iraq to make another full and complete disclosure of their WMD programs to the UN. In November 1995, Jordon intercepted a shipment to Iraq of prohibited material used to make long range missiles, forcing Iraq to revise and issue another full and complete disclosure of their prohibited programs. In September 1997, UN inspectors stumbled across evidence of a significant Vx nerve agent program in Iraq, forcing Iraq to admit that they were still developing Vx contrary to what they had claimed over the past 6 years. They still would not allow UN inspectors to visit certain suspected sites, causing the US and UK to threaten military action. Kofi Annan personally negotiated with Saddam Hussein, who granted "full" access to any site. Four months later, Iraq abruptly suspended cooperation and forced the UN inspectors out of Iraq. The US and UK responded with Operation Desert Fox, bombing suspected WMD facilities. In 1999, the UN assembled a new weapons inspection team, but Iraq refused to allow them into the country. Iraq went four years with no international supervision and oversight on their WMD programs, until late 2002 when UNSEC #1441 was passed. Iraq provided another full and complete disclosure that Hanx Blix described as "most[ly] a reprint of earlier documents, [which] does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate questions". This was once again found to be incomplete because of the discovery of the Al-Samoud 2 missiles, which Iraq immediately admitted to and tried to pacify the inspectors with, just as they had done a half dozen times over the past decade. So, no, I don't think that the disclosure of the Al-Samoud 2 missiles was an indication that UNSEC #1441 was working. Based on the subsequent findings of the ISG regarding unknown and undeclared prohibited programs, dual use materials, and research, I think it is clear that UNSEC #1441 was not working.
You seem to be missing the point. He was not allowed to have these missiles, and he was clearly trying to acquire them against UN mandate. Just as
I will only leave one final point: If a party agrees to certain conditions for the terms of a ceasefire, and then is found in material breach of those conditions, is that ceasefire still in effect?
If the cease-fire was an agreement between two countries, perhaps you can make the argument. However, the agreement was between Iraq and the UN.
You seem to be missing the point. He was not allowed to have these missiles, and he was clearly trying to acquire them against UN mandate.
The resolution doesn't say he can't talk to other countries about missiles. It is patently false to claim that his inquiring about missile technology was in violation of the sanctions.
Just as he was not allowed to have the Uranium Yellowcake that he had clearly tried to aquire from Africa.
I can't believe you tossed up a softball like this. The best information indicates that there might have been some communication between Niger and Iraq about expanding business relations, but that there was zero mention of uranium and that Niger didn't pursue the potential relationship because of concerns about UN sanctions. This became an issue because of the forged documents used by the Bush administration in their push for war. Even today, I bet a full third of the American public don't realize that the whole story was a hoax.
If you want to talk about yellow cake, let's discuss Tuwaitha. This facility already possessed yellow cake uranium in the remains of nuclear reactors (the ones bombed by Israel in 1981 and the United States in 1991). The facility was frequently inspected by the IAEA after the Gulf War, but was left unattended during the US invasion. Almost two metric tons of yellow cake and 500 tons of unrefined uranium went missing during this period, thanks to the US. When U.S. Marines arrived at the Tuwaitha factory, they reported it as an illegal weapons cache and broke the IAEA seals. After a month of indecision, the Pentagon finally dispatched a team to survey the site and found it heavily looted.
He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted."
So what? He is the leader of a nation in the most violation geopolitical region on earth. He has made serious enemies over the years. Of course he wants to end the sanctions and restart his weapons programs. Again, this is in no way a breach of the cease-fire. Dreams aren't illegal, yet.
Arguing that this was not enough to justify military action is, IMO, the same as arguing that we shouldn't do anything about potential killers like Cho Seung-Hui until they strap on a few guns, chain the doors shut, and start shooting people. In my opinion, that is clearly too late.
So we go Minority Report and convict people before they've decided to commit a crime? Perhaps the professor that referred Seung-Hui should have just shot him last year and been declared a hero? I disagree strongly. Was the hell wrought upon Iraq proportional to Saddam's toying with the letter of the sanctions? No.
As for the VT case... This guy had been accused of stalking two women in the past. Because of a friend's concern that he was suicidal, he was taken to a mental health facility only last year. At about the same time, the professor reported her concerns about him. Everyone describes him as completely out of touch with reality, threatening, frightening, and such. After some students stopped coming to class because of his intimidation, a professor finally got him removed from her class by threatening to quit. His tutor was so frightened by him that she created a secret code word with her assistant in case she ever needed the police. Other students joked that he was going to be a school shooter some day.
Yet the university did nothing. Having worked at a university for five years, I can say that this is frustratingly common. I saw several kids get in serious t
Which is the same thing as an agreement between Iraq and UN Member states that were obligated to enforce the UN resolutions.
Sure it does. The resolution specifically required Iraq to "unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire" these items. It would be patently false to claim that these actions did not violate that clause.
I'm confused about where your conflict is here. It is a documented fact agreed upon by all parties that Iraq sent an envoy to Niger to discuss business relationships. It's also a documented fact that Niger understood these overtures as an attempt to buy Yellowcake from them. Considering that Yellowcake was a major export, this isn't a stretch. It is, once again, also a documented fact that Iraq was required to "unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire" these items. This information is completely independent of the documents that were later discovered as forgeries.
Very valid point, and I am in complete agreement. However, this is completely irrelevant to the issue of Iraq trying to acquire banned materials prior to the war.
Unfortunately, his own actions backed him into the corner that it was in fact illegal. When the United Nations prohibits you from using, developing, constructing, or acquiring WMD, you can't hide your Vx nerve gas production, fail to disclose the status of other WMD programs or stockpiles, import or produce dual-use materials, harass, intimidate, or expel UN weapons inspectors, covertly develop weapons grade biological agents, covertly try to acquire proscribed materials or technologies from other countries, or bury prohibited technology in a schoolyard playground with the hopes that you can dig it up someday and use it -- without expecting consequences from those who are in charge of ensuring your compliance. And you certainly cannot offer political asylum to the world's most wanted terrorist, or allow known terror groups that have connections to the larges
Which is the same thing as an agreement between Iraq and UN Member states that were obligated to enforce the UN resolutions.
Wrong. Security Council resolutions are mandates enforced, modified, or terminated by the Security Council, not by states in general. Both the explicit terms of the UN Charter and the practice of the Security Council support this understanding.
Sure it does. The resolution specifically required Iraq to "unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire" these items. It would be patently false to claim that these actions did not violate that clause.
Then please indulge my ignorance and explain whether he used, developed, constructed, or acquired missiles.
I'm confused about where your conflict is here. It is a documented fact agreed upon by all parties that Iraq sent an envoy to Niger to discuss business relationships. It's also a documented fact that Niger understood these overtures as an attempt to buy Yellowcake from them. Considering that Yellowcake was a major export, this isn't a stretch. It is, once again, also a documented fact that Iraq was required to "unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire" these items. This information is completely independent of the documents that were later discovered as forgeries.
Calling some of those items documented facts are a bit of a stretch, but I will agree that they are more than likely all true. However, that only gets us back to our argument of what is actually prohibited. If an envoy from Iraq talked to a businessman in Niger, never mentioned uranium, and nothing further came of the overture, then how exactly did Saddam use, develop, construct, or acquire said items?
Very valid point, and I am in complete agreement. However, this is completely irrelevant to the issue of Iraq trying to acquire banned materials prior to the war.
Actually, it goes back to my overall theme of "good guys" vs. "bad guys" and propaganda. The US is trying to claim the moral and legal high ground, and using claims related to nuclear materials to get points with the general public. However, their actions (intentional or negligence - your call) directly led to the disappearance of huge quantities of the stuff. The US claimed to be worried that Iraq would provide the materials to terrorists, but perhaps that's exactly what the US did here (again, intentionally or not).
Unfortunately, his own actions backed him into the corner that it was in fact illegal. When the United Nations prohibits you from using, developing, constructing, or acquiring WMD, you can't hide your Vx nerve gas production, fail to disclose the status of other WMD programs or stockpiles...without expecting consequences from those who are in charge of ensuring your compliance.
I agree. However, my response was in regard to your quote: He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted as the smoking gun from the Duelfer report. You're now steering us back to the argument that was abandoned earlier regarding the use of pre-1441 resolutions and Iraq's responses.
And you certainly cannot offer political asylum to the world's most wanted terrorist, or allow known terror groups that have connections to the largest terrorist attack on civilians in history to operate within your borders, even if you don't have a collaborative relationship with that group.
Osama bin Laden was in Iraq?! I'm going to guess that your comments are in reference to Zarqawi. As I've said numerous times in this thread, he operated out of the northern part of Iraq which was outside of Saddam's control. Beyond that, a little knowledge of the two reveals the inconsistency with your claim - Zarqawi (and the nebulous Al-Qaeda network, for that matter) advocated the overthrowing of secular governments in favor of Islamic states. Saddam ran a s
Perhaps we are just nitpicking here, but the Security Council is solely comprised of member states, so I don't see much difference. If we are charged with enforcing ceasefire conditions, and we find that Iraq is in material breach of those agreements, it is our responsibility (as members of the UN security council) to enforce those resolutions.
I don't know if it is deliberate or not, but you are excluding the rest of the wording included in the text of the resolution. Iraq had to "unconditionally undertake not to" engage in proscribed activities. They were not allowed to even plan on developing WMD, or talk with other countries about acquiring banned missile technology or prohibited materials.
If a judge issues a restraining order, and then finds out that the individual is still tracking their subject, recording their schedule, writing detailed plans about stalking, or watching from a distance without physically violating the order, is the judge going to let that fly?
I don't see any difference with the pre-1441 compliance issues and what the Duelfer report eventually concluded. From 1991 to 2003, Saddam tried to game the system and get away with as much as he could, while deflecting whatever heat he got from it and garnering as much international sympathy as he could. Both his public actions before 2002, and the subsequent findings of the ISG after the war paint a very clear picture of his intent and methods. UN condemnation, diplomatic pressures, and even economic sanctions were not enough to change his behavior - only brute strength and aggression.
I didn't say that bin Laden was in Iraq -- I said that Saddam Hussein offered him political asylum after he was expelled from Saudi Arabia and was searching for a place to set up shop.
And I disagree with your characterization of Zarqawi. Ansar al-Islam was operating out of northern Iraq, but Zarqawi was operating in and out of Baghdad, and even received medical treatment from Uday Hussein's personal physician in the summer of 2002.
Let me turn it around. Why do you think it was an option? I've already explained why I believe it wasn't an option. As Tommy Franks said: "While we may not have found actual WMD stockpiles, what the Coalition discovered was the equivalent of a disassembled pistol, lying on a table beside neatly arranged trays of bullets". Why is this acceptable to you from a nation that is under UN mandate to disarm?
Perhaps we are just nitpicking here, but the Security Council is solely comprised of member states, so I don't see much difference. If we are charged with enforcing ceasefire conditions, and we find that Iraq is in material breach of those agreements, it is our responsibility (as members of the UN security council) to enforce those resolutions.
No, we aren't nitpicking. This is a core problem for the US government - membership in the UN means accepting certain basic agreements. The UN Charter lays out a core understanding of how things operate, one being this issue. It is not the responsibility of any one member state to make such decisions and act upon them. It is the responsibility of the Security Council. If you don't like that, take the bars and stars off the flag pole in Manhattan and leave it for the other 191 countries. Otherwise, play by the rules.
I don't know if it is deliberate or not, but you are excluding the rest of the wording included in the text of the resolution. Iraq had to "unconditionally undertake not to" engage in proscribed activities. They were not allowed to even plan on developing WMD, or talk with other countries about acquiring banned missile technology or prohibited materials.
Ahh. Now I see the rub. That isn't what that passage means. "Unconditionally undertake not to..." is essentially "solemnly swear not to". It has no additional meaning and has nothing to do with planning to what it is not allowed. This is extremely common wording in legal documents, both international items like this and even local banking agreements.
I didn't say that bin Laden was in Iraq -- I said that Saddam Hussein offered him political asylum after he was expelled from Saudi Arabia and was searching for a place to set up shop.
Actually, you didn't say that. I was unsure exactly what you meant. I am aware of those reports back in 1999. It apparently was nothing but saber rattling from Saddam - bin Laden didn't take him up on and Saddam reportedly decided in 2001 that he didn't want bin Laden there after all.
And I disagree with your characterization of Zarqawi. Ansar al-Islam was operating out of northern Iraq, but Zarqawi was operating in and out of Baghdad, and even received medical treatment from Uday Hussein's personal physician in the summer of 2002.
Zarqawi reported left Iran for Iraq specifically for the medical treatment (supposedly for a wound received while fighting against the US in Afghanistan). After his treatment, he setup in northern Iraq. He was not operating out of Baghdad - the Pentagon tracked him daily for nearly a year in the lead-up to the invasion and he stayed in northern Iraq.
Let me turn it around. Why do you think it was an option? I've already explained why I believe it wasn't an option.
Your explanation for why it isn't an option seems to hinge on your misunderstanding of the phrase "unconditionally undertake". There's a difference between planning and implementing. Saddam had every right to re-arm himself once the sanctions were lifted so it should be obvious that he would be planning for it.
Every report also declared that Iraq was in material breach of their UN obligations. Even Hans Blix agreed that Iraq was not fully complying, and the ISG report backed it all up. This wasn't a case of putting a bullet in their head "just in case" - it was a case of putting a bullet in their head because they already proven that they were a lethal threat that we could no longer ignore, they were secretly rearming and planning to further rearm, and they had only responded to bullets in the past.
Clearly my statements regarding proportionality of response aren't getting through. Under international law, UN mandate, and most common law, a response must be proportional to the event that initiated it. In what turned out to be his final report before the invasion, Blix reported success in the inspections and requested more t
The Security Council did make that decision - 17 times with a unanimous vote. Membership in the UN does mean accepting basic agreements, and Chapter VII clearly lays the responsibility of enforcement squarely on the shoulders of member states. When the US votes in favor of a Chapter VII resolution authorizing military force, we are voting to send our troops to carry out the will of the UN.
I'm sorry, but I just cannot accept that excuse. When the UN security council forces you to "solemnly swear not to" do something (or "unconditionally undertake not to"), you can't secretly draw up plans, preserve capacity and technology, or illicitly try to acquire by other means the same materials that you "unconditionally" agreed to avoid. If that was acceptable, why all the deception and subterfuge? Why didn't Saddam just let the UN inspections to proceed, and every time they found something questionable, all he would have to do is say "Don't worry, those are just plans for the future, but I'm not interested in them now"? The obvious answer is that it wasn't acceptable. The "WMD weapons related programs" that were discovered by the ISG would have constituted a major violation with Iraq's WMD compliance had they been found before the war, just as the discovery of Vx was in 1998, or the admission of their BW program in 1995.
That isn't an accurate characterization of my views, or of the historical events leading up to the war. We were responding to a nation that, in the previous two decades, had launched full scale invasions on two separate countries, had launched military attacks on two more, had used prohibited weapons against both military and civilian targets on numerous occasions, was responsible the deaths and oppression of millions of his own countrymen, was an open supporter of international terrorism and was indicted for supporting several terrorist attacks against western interests, and was openly defying 17 Chapter VII UN resolutions demanding disarmament and compliance to promote peace in the region. You bet I have no problem enforcing those 17 Chapter VII resolutions as requi
Well, first, this doesn't upset me. Why should it?
Maybe it is positional bias, but I just didn't see the examples that you gave as compelling evidence of dishonesty. There are a lot of ways to interpret "Stay the course", for example. You can stay the course by not giving up and withdrawing from Iraq, but at the same time your tactics and strategies on the ground in Iraq can change. In context, I think it is clear that this was what the President was saying. It just seems juvenile to me to try to attribute this to dishonesty. Similarly, it seems juvenile to treat the President's comments at the campaign fundraiser as a direct quote. He was giving his interpretation of what it meant to vote against the bill. You are free to disagree with his interpretation, but that doesn't make it a lie. The President's list of disrupted plots was in fact a list of terrorist plots that had in fact been disrupted (you were a little off on one of the 3 plots, btw). You can disagree on what disrupted the plots, but that doesn't make it a lie.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Can you clarify which part of the report you are referring to? The Duelfer report (which is the same thing as the ISG report, by the way) didn't conclude anything like what you describe, and that wasn't the focus of the report anyway.
What do you mean without repercussions? Both of these nations have face significant international opposition and sanctions for their actions.
The Security Council unambiguously authorized the used of force in 678, and reaffirmed that authorization over a dozen times between 1991 and 2003. Like I said before, there are several precedents from the Security Council on how they terminate an authorization to use force, none of which apply to 678.
The Security Council did determine such a threat in Iraq and it's WMD programs- 17 times. The authorization to use military force was applied multiple times throughout the 1990s based on this threat.
How am I trying to mislead? I quoted directly from Resolution 678. The UN explicitly gave the authorization for two things:
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
In the case of Iraq, the Security council mandated that Iraq disarm, cease all WMD activity, and stop supporting terrorism. The council supported this mandate with the authorization given in 678 to use "all necessary means" to achieve compliance. The council never terminated this authorization. After 12 years, nobody could legitimately claim that Iraq was in complience.
You see the US and UK's (and the "coalition" that you discount's) actions as being harmful to the UN. I think it is the exact opposite- the invasion of Iraq saved the UN from becoming completely worthless. An organization that cannot enforce its own mandates, even in the face of over a decade in open defiance and deceit, is useless. Saddam was writing the playbook for any other rogue world leaders on how to defy the Security Council and get away with it. The US and UK showed that the decisions of the Security Council do have meaning, even if it takes 17 unanimous resolutions and 12 years for the council's will to be enforced.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
I disagree. As previously pointed out, the Security Council authorized war to get Iraq out of Kuwait, and to disarm Iraq and ensure they discontinue supporting terrorists. There is no indefinite or unilateral interpretation of this. In fact, all of the subsequent resolutions passed by the security council, and all of the subsequent military action taken against Iraq in the 1990's was done with this authorization, and the authorization was never revoked. The title of UNSEC #1441 is "The situation between Iraq and Kuwait", clearly showing that the Security Council didn't feel the ceasefire resolution was resolved. In my mind, the only people that didn't have any standing were those who refused to enforce the resolutions that had already been already passed by the Security Council.
Well, Saddam's desire to bring his programs back online is significant, and is without question contrary to UN mandate. Hiding research, development, and acquisition attempts of banned materials and technology from UN inspectors is also significant. Maintaining chemical factories that can be switched to full scale Mustard production in a month is significant. Operating clandestine chemical and biological agent laboratories is significant. Seeking ballistic missiles and UAV's with a range time times greater than the allowed limit is significant. The Duelfer report is over 1400+ pages long, which is why I encourage anybody to at least read the key findings summary so they can know exactly what we did find, and how it was in violation to UNMOVIC requirements. However, in my mind the first page says it all -- Iraq wasn't concerned about compliance, they were concerned about the illusion of compliance.
I am arguing that the UN would have been completely ineffective if the US and UK had not enforced the resolutions. If you want to argue that there was absolutely no legal basis for military action in 2003, then you also have to argue that there was absolutely no legal basis for military action in 1998 for Operation Desert Fox under President Clinton, and that there was absolutely no legal basis for the military action taken against Iraq in 1993 for WMD non-compliance. It is incongruous to think that the UN gave specific authorization to enforce the ceasefire in 1991, used that authorization in 1993 and
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, 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;"
From this, we see that "all necessary means" was authorized to
- uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions
- restore international peace and security in the area
In other words, their ambitions were much broader than just kicking Iraq out of Kuwait."The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
I will pick up a few new items:
How am I trying to mislead? I quoted directly from Resolution 678. The UN explicitly gave the authorization for two things:
On item (2), I guess some other UN country will need to invade again and kick the US out, unless you are willing to claim that international peace and security to the area has improved. Surely that's not a limb you're willing to crawl out on.
And, while I said I wouldn't repeat myself, I feel I must again point out the fallacy in your overall argument here. Resolution 687 declared a cease-fire and reserved the right for the Security Council to take further measures as necessary. Therefore, 660, 678, and 687 are pointless in this argument. Further, Resolution 1441 does not authorize force.
The authorization from 678 and 687 was enough to justify military action multiple times in the 1990s...So, as Secretary General of the United Nations, I can say that this action was taken and conforms to the resolutions of the Security Council and conformed to the Charter of the United Nations
First, I've never seen the quote; I would be interested in knowing where I could find it.
Secondly, those military actions in the '90s were challenged as well, but they fell well short of invasion. And, to be practical, taking out a few missile factories or military airfields in response to large violations of the agreement (massing troops at the border again and going into Kuwait to recover abandoned military hardware) is easier to let pass. The 1993 attacks were supported by at least most of the Security Council (Russia was involved and France did a lot of the bombing).
More recently, the '98 bombings by the US and UK were roundly condemned in the international community. Russia, France, and China opposed the actions in the Security Council. And, it is worth noting that the US didn't use 660, 678, or 687 to justify those attacks. This was about the no-fly zones that were setup from the Safwan Accords and often linked to Resolution 688. However, 688 is not a Chapter VII resolution so it did not permit any military action for enforcement. The no-fly zones themselves never had UN authorization.
Vice President Cheney never claimed that Iraq was responsible for September 11, and I defy you to show otherwise. I remember a talk show that he was on a few years ago where he said that the Middle East is home to the fanatics that carried out the attacks, and some people misinterpreted that to mean Iraq, but he has never blamed Iraq for 9/11.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09 /16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
This is but one example of how the administration used propaganda to those ends. The process was the same: White House sources leaked the information to the press, the administration refuses to confirm or deny it, then they said it seems to be true, and would refuse to deny the validity of the information long after it had been discredited. In the particular article linked above, Cheney doesn't say, "Saddam flew the planes into NY on 9/11". But he provides a very dishonest response, carefully calculated to continue the propaganda.
The facts that Iraq was one of the most active supporters of terrorism, especially against the West, are incontrovertible.
Then why weren't those facts used to support the war? The administration talked plenty about Iraq's connection to Al-Qaeda (intentionally playing on the Al-Qaeda = 9/11 connection) despite weak evidence that eventually crumbled around them. If there are tons of incontroverti
In the case of Iraq, the Security council mandated that Iraq disarm, cease all WMD activity, and stop supporting terrorism. The council supported this mandate with the authorization given in 678 to use "all necessary means" to achieve compliance. The council never terminated this authorization. After 12 years, nobody could legitimately claim that Iraq was in complience.
'Round and around we go. The Security Council declared a cease-fire in 687 and reserved further action for themselves. Ignoring this point doesn't make it go away. You see the US and UK's (and the "coalition" that you discount's) actions as being harmful to the UN. I think it is the exact opposite- the invasion of Iraq saved the UN from becoming completely worthless. An organization that cannot enforce its own mandates, even in the face of over a decade in open defiance and deceit, is useless. Saddam was writing the playbook for any other rogue world leaders on how to defy the Security Council and get away with it. The US and UK showed that the decisions of the Security Council do have meaning, even if it takes 17 unanimous resolutions and 12 years for the council's will to be enforced. The US and UK showed that the UN is pointless because those at the top can do as they wish with no apparent repercussions. The US invaded Afghanistan and continues to occupy it with no end in sight. The biggest change over the Taliban's rule is that poppy production is back up, flooding the world with cheap opium again. The US invaded Iraq and continues to occupy it. Iraq is in shambles and shows no signs of approaching even the level of stability found under Saddam. The US and UK confirmed that international organizations are only as good as the big guys want to play fair. As permanent members with veto power, the US and UK have nothing to fear from the Security Council. Take a look at the relatively-minor resolutions condemning US actions that the US vetoed.I disagree. As previously pointed out, the Security Council authorized war to get Iraq out of Kuwait, and to disarm Iraq and ensure they discontinue supporting terrorists. There is no indefinite or unilateral interpretation of this. In fact, all of the subsequent resolutions passed by the security council, and all of the subsequent military action taken against Iraq in the 1990's was done with this authorization, and the authorization was never revoked. The title of UNSEC #1441 is "The situation between Iraq and Kuwait", clearly showing that the Security Council didn't feel the ceasefire resolution was resolved. In my mind, the only people that didn't have any standing were those who refused to enforce the resolutions that had already been already passed by the Security Council.
You are free to think that, but that doesn't make it correct. Resolution 678 says nothing of disarming Iraq or them supporting terrorists. It is about Kuwait and nothing else (the "restore international peace and security in the area" is standard language and had no special meaning). As I've pointed out several times, 687 implemented a cease-fire and reserved future steps for the Security Council. You can keep ignoring that, but it's there. Read the Resolution. Further, the actions of the 90's also faced opposition. And, the '98 bombing (Operation Desert Fox) wasn't argued under these resolutions at all.
Your opinion of Russia, China, and France aside, the point is that they didn't feel that invasion and open war was the appropriate response at that time. So, the Security Council did not give its support to the invasion. I can respect your disagreement with those members, but not your attempts to distort the documented resolutions.
Well, Saddam's desire to bring his programs back online is significant, and is without question contrary to UN mandate. Hiding research, development, and acquisition attempts of banned materials and technology from UN inspectors is also significant. Maintaining chemical factories that can be switched to full scale Mustard production in a month is significant. Operating clandestine chemical and biological agent laboratories is significant. Seeking ballistic missiles and UAV's with a range time times greater than the allowed limit is significant. The Duelfer report is over 1400+ pages long, which is why I encourage anybody to at least read the key findings summary so they can know exactly what we did find, and how it was in violation to UNMOVIC requirements. However, in my mind the first page says it all -- Iraq wasn't concerned about compliance, they were concerned about the illusion of compliance.
I can see we're not going to make progress on this one. You've been unable to point to anything but Saddam's desire, then you try to equate that to actions. You simply are wrong on this one.
I am arguing that the UN would have been completely ineffective if the US and UK had not enforced the resolutions.
As I've answered elsewhere in this thread, you may be correct but the US/UK action is as bad or worse for the UN.
If you want to argue that there was absolutely no legal basis for military action in 2003, then you also have to argue that there was absolutely no legal basis for military action in 1998 for Operation Desert Fox under President Clinton...
As I've explained elsewhere in this thread, there was not international support for Desert Fox. China, Russia, and France opposed it. And, it was carried out under 688, a resolution absolutely zero authorization of force.
...and that there was absolutely no legal basis for the military action taken against Iraq in 1993 for WMD non-compliance.
At least this one was widely supported (France dropped a lot of the bombs and Russia supported the operation; I'm not sure about China) and was spurred by very overt actions. I'm not willing to say it was appropriate under the UN resolutions, but at least it d
Well, I could go on, but I think we've both made our points. Again, though I disagree with your position, I respect it. Thanks again for the "civilized" debate. Have a good one.
- uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions
- restore international peace and security in the area
In other words, their ambitions were much broader than just kicking Iraq out of Kuwait. Absolutely not. As I've already explained, that second point means nothing significant here. It is commonly used wording which ties the resolution back to the UN's mission.Let's look at Resolution 425:
The Security Council,
Taking note of the letters from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon and from the Permanent Representative of Israel, Having heard the statement of the Permanent Representatives of Lebanon and Israel, Gravely concerned at the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East and its consequences to the maintenance of international peace, Convinced that the present situation impedes the achievement of a just peace in the Middle East,
- Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries;
- Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory;
- Decides, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the Force to be composed of personnel drawn from Member States;
- Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council within twenty-four hours on the implementation of the present resolution."
Israel finally pulled out its troops in 2000, more than 22 years after the UN passed this resolution. During that time, there were many deaths, many cases of terrorism, much open conflict. Considering that the resolution included the magic words "restoring international peace and security", someone should have invaded and occupied Israel years ago. I suppose you would have supported that?I hope you learned something :)
The United States current presence in Iraq is at the request of the Iraqi government and under a clear mandate from the Security Council (first from resolution 1546, and most recently from resolution 1723. See Annex 1 in resolution 1723 for the letter from Prime Minister al-Maliki requesting the multinational force to stay).
That is an accurate summary of how opponents of the invasion interpret the relevant international law. Suffice it to say that not only do I disagree with that interpretation, but so do the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, former Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali, and the governments of countries like the UK, Australia, Japan, and Italy (to name a few). When it comes to matters of international law, there is no final arbiter on how the laws are interpreted (like the Supreme Court does for domestic law). I hope you can appreciate this.
I don't think that is a fair characterization. Some nations, most notably Russia and China as you pointed out, condemned the attacks. Others, like Japan and Sweden, gave strong endorsements of the US and UK position. The rest of the members of the Security Council, including countries like France and Costa Rica, expressed sorrow at the situation without taking a strong position either way about the legality of the actions. See S/PV.3955 for the minutes of the relevant discussion in the Security Council.
This is completely false. Here is a quote from US Ambassador to the UN Peter Burleigh from the minutes I linked to above:
Following Iraq's repeated, flagrant and material breaches of its obligations under resolutions 687 (1991), 707 (1991), 715 (1991), 1154 (1998), 1194 (1998), 1205 (1998) and others, in addition to its failure to fulfil its own commitments, the coalition today exercised the authority given by Security Council resolution 678 (1990) for Member States to employ all necessary means to secure Iraqi compliance with the Council's resolutions and restore international peace and security in the area. Any Iraqi attempt to attack coalition forces or to initiate aggressive action against a neighbouring State will be met with a swift response by the coalition.
The reasoning he gave here should sound a little familiar by now, and it had nothing to do with the no-fly zones.
Of course they were! Allow me to quote from the 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq:
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability,
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
This is another fallacious argument. There was no authorization to use military force in this resolution, nor was it passed under Chapter VII. There is absolutely no comparison. And lets also not forget that the situation in Lebanon that led to this resolution began with terrorists from the PLO massacring 37 innocent Israeli citizens on a bus ride to work one morning in Tel Aviv. You also left out the fact that Israel did withdraw completely from Lebanon later in 1978 on accordance with 425, after they had driven the PLO out of South Lebanon, and all that accomplished was to allow the PLO back in there so they could start attacking Israel again. This finally culminated in the 1982 conflict where Israel retook South Lebanon to protect themselves from these attacks, and honestly, can you blame them?
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
The United States current presence in Iraq is at the request of the Iraqi government and under a clear mandate from the Security Council (first from resolution 1546, and most recently from resolution 1723. See Annex 1 in resolution 1723 for the letter from Prime Minister al-Maliki requesting the multinational force to stay).
Ohhh...sure. I guess that international peace and security to the area stuff isn't so important these days. A lack of UN resolution calling for the ouster of Saddam and US occupation of the country is no barrier to these things happening all because of the all important need for international peace and security to the area, but we can ignore the fact that these actions have resulted in even less peace and security in the area four years later. Has the UN revoked that magical authority the derived from 687? If not, someone needs to step up and enforce it. Perhaps China. I'm sure you would support that.
By the way, you should note that 1723 specifically includes France's concern regarding with the worsening of the security situation and noted that "a clear horizon for withdrawal of foreign troops made it possible to send a clear message that the objective of the international community was to help Iraq." Of course, the US refuses to even consider even a muddled horizon for the withdrawal of foreign troops, thereby failing to send a clear message on the objective of the international community.
I don't think that is a fair characterization. Some nations, most notably Russia and China as you pointed out, condemned the attacks. Others, like Japan and Sweden, gave strong endorsements of the US and UK position. The rest of the members of the Security Council, including countries like France and Costa Rica, expressed sorrow at the situation without taking a strong position either way about the legality of the actions. See S/PV.3955 for the minutes of the relevant discussion in the Security Council.
Fair enough; "roundly" was probably the wrong word. As you note, two of the five permanent members of the Security Council were very much opposed. Russia claimed that the bombings created a threat to "peace and security not only in the region but beyond it" (there's that phrase again). Russia and Chine strongly condemned the attacks and pointed out that the trouble was created as much by the US, UK, and UNSCOM, by intentionally provoking Saddam (something that has been documented throughout the process). And while trying to tip-toe across egg shells, even Kofi Annan expressed his disappointment with the actions and hoped to work toward a peaceful solution.
And back to the 2003 invasion for a moment, doesn't it say something when three of the five permanent Security Council members say the action of two other members is illegal and unjustified? And, when the Secretary-General of the UN agrees and calls the invasion illegal, against the will of the Security Council and the UN Charter?
This is completely false. Here is a quote from US Ambassador to the UN Peter Burleigh from the minutes I linked to above:
I misspoke. The arguments I referenced were made in the media and Congress, not before the Security Council. The US and UK ambassadors clearly did invoke those resolutions. And, the Russians and Chinese disagreed strongly with the US and UK interpretation.
Of course they were! Allow me to quote from the 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq...Iraq's support of terrorism was key to the argument from day one!
Now it's my turn to be right again! In response to my claims that the US government used weak and outright false connections between Iraq and 9/11 to bolster public support for an invasion, you claimed that regardless Iraq was a big supporter or terrorism, especially against the West. I asked why nothing outside of the supposed 9/11 connection was used. You say it was and point to
Every word in the resolutions passed by the Security Council is scrutinized. You cannot just dismiss this phrase as "nothing significant".
Legal documents routinely include common wording. As I said, that wording exists for the explicit tie back to this phrase that existing throughout the UN Charter. If you believe that the inclusion of those words were intentionally designed to allow a wider mandate than just that provided in 660, perhaps you can provide the UN's definition of restore international peace and security in the area and what actions will fulfill that? And, you could review the nearly 2000 resolutions and the full UN Charter to see how many hundreds of times you will encounter that phrase without definition or clarification.
There was no authorization to use military force in this resolution
Paragraph three states:
The UN established a force for the purpose of restoring international peace and security to a particular area. A subsequent relevant resolution (467) explained that self-defense would include resistance to attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council. If Israel's military is preventing UN peacekeeping forces from implementing international peace and security, then it seems we've met the requirements. In fact, only last year, some were arguing that Israel's ongoing violations of the numerous UN-Lebanon resolutions should enable UNIFIL to use force for more than self-defense.
Also of interest, in commenting on Resolution 1701 (also a Chapter 6 resolution), Israel noted that:
The last paragraph of the preamble, paragraph 10, states that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international peace and security. This language was adopted from Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and strengthens the operative parts of the entire resolution.
In other words, the fact that it includes the traditional Chapter 7 stock language gives it more bite than the average Chapter 6 resolution.
And lets also not forget that the situation in Lebanon that led to this resolution began with terrorists from the PLO massacring 37 innocent Israeli citizens on a bus ride to work one morning in Tel Aviv.
I agree that such an event is terrible and should not be accepted in a civilized world. However, let's not forget that Israel's responses generally have been out of proportion and overly devastating to civilians. One of their more recent battles with forces in Lebanon (primarily Hezbollah militants) resulted in around 1,000 casualties in Lebanon (almost all civilian) and approximately 150 casualties for Israel (all military).
You also left out the fact that Israel did withdraw completely from Lebanon later in 1978 on accordance with 425, after they had driven the PLO out of South Lebanon, and all that accomplished was to allow the PLO back in there so they could start attacking Israel again. This finally culminated in the 1982 conflict where Israel retook South Lebanon...
If Israel met the requirements of 425 later in 1978, why did the UN not consider the matter closed until 2000? Why did the Security Council find it necessary to pass resolutions 427, 434, 444, 450, 467, 483, 488, 490, 498, 501, and 508 over the next 3+ years? The Secretary-General reported to the Security Council that from August 1981 to May 1982 there were 2096 violations of Lebanese airspace and 652 violations of Lebanese territorial waters by Israel. And, despite numerous attacks launched after the Jul
*sigh* Of course it is. That is the whole reason for the UN mandate for the multinational force in Iraq. Do you acknowledge that the Iraqi government has asked for the continued presence of the multinational force and the Security Council has unanimously voted multiple times to extend the mandate of the multinational force precisely for the international peace and security of the area? Do you realize how much worse it can get if we did pack up and leave right now?
By the way, I'm not that interested in debating these kinds of sarcastic straw-men. Sorry.
No, what the US refuses to do is agree to an artificial timetable for withdrawal. The US has made it explicitly clear that we have no long term ambitions there, and that the number of foreign troops in Iraq is directly proportional to the ISF's capabilities. Is this not a clear message on our objectives? Further, how would setting an artificial timetable help at all?
To put this another way, our current message* is that we will withdraw as soon as possible, as determined by the Iraqi's abilities to protect themselves. The message that members of President Bush's political opposition (and I am assuming you) are promoting is that we will be leaving on xx-xx-xxxx date, regardless of the situation on the ground. Which of these messages is more "muddled" about our commitment to the well-being of Iraq? Which of these messages encourages other Arab states to throw their support behind the fledgling Iraqi government, and which tells them to wait (and weaken the current Iraqi government in the process)? Which of these messages encourages the insurgency to keep trying because their tactics are working?
* While this is the official message from the Bush administration, it is not the message that our country as a whole is sending out. The world is very aware of the political battles that are raging here over Iraq (the lead story on al Jazeera yesterday was Sen Reid's comments that the war was already "lost", for example). IMO, this the worst possible message we could be sending (the message that although the President has announced his commitment, the legislature and public won't back that up because they can't stomach the violence- talk about motivating the insurgency...), but that is the reality of our political climate.
Okay. So several nations think it was illegal, several nations think it was legal, and there has been no determination by any relevant body either way. Where does that leave us?
I concede the point. The Bush Administration emphasized a lot of the wrong things to the public to support the war. In my opinion, there was plenty of justification for the war (even knowing what we do today), but there is no denying that the things that the Bush Administration singled out turned out to be the weakest.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
*sigh* Of course it is. That is the whole reason for the UN mandate for the multinational force in Iraq...By the way, I'm not that interested in debating these kinds of sarcastic straw-men. Sorry.
The question you quoted was of course asked in a sarcastic manner, but the point itself was quite valid and absolutely not a straw-man. You want the US invasion of Iraq to be justified because of stock language in a resolution passed nearly 17 years ago - a resolution that authorized force to put Saddam back into Iraq and that was no longer applicable thanks to a cease-fire in Resolution 687. I'm pointing out that if you are relying the establishment of international peace and security, then you can't just ignore it now. As you've granted, things are worse on the ground now than they were prior to the invasion. What is the appropriate window of opportunity for the new government to meet this standard before the UN must again take military action?
Do you acknowledge that the Iraqi government has asked for the continued presence of the multinational force...
Yes, the US-backed government has been quite unsurprising in parroting the US administration's line. Yet, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, a recent poll showed that nearly 80% of the Iraqi population wants the US out of the country. Isn't democracy supposed to be something about government of the people for the people? I also note that you love to use "multinational" to describe the US forces. Is there any standard for this term? Does the verbal support of another nation count, or must they at least commit troops? If they commit troops must they be authorized to fight, or can they sit at the base? Over 90% of all troops have been provided by the US. Only five nations had troops involved in the initial invasion and international support has fallen since.
The US condemned Syria's interference in Lebanon for years. Despite repeated public statements from Lebanon's government that they wanted Syria to remain, the US (and the UN) pushed to remove Syria. Other than the difference in UN mandates (which must be ignored thanks the US position on the Security Council) how are these two situations greatly different?
...and the Security Council has unanimously voted multiple times to extend the mandate of the multinational force precisely for the international peace and security of the area?
The UN had no choice - they could either admit defeat, disband, and bow out of the international community or they could ignore defeat and try to save face by at least trying to get a government in Iraq again. I'd love to hear your defense of the CPA and how the US abused its authorization.
Do you realize how much worse it can get if we did pack up and leave right now?
What can happen is much different than what would happen. The civil war likely would grow and eventually someone would emerge victorious (something like the war that allowed the American nation to exist a few hundred years ago). I know that the number of US casualties would drop significantly. I also imagine that the multi-billion dollar budget pipe to military contractors in Iraq would at least shrink a little. There is a chance that the legitimate government would not allow the US to occupy the country as they can do now. It is likely that a new government would undo many of the provisions put in place allowing US and multinational corporations to ensure that no significant local economy can compete with them. And I know that these possibilities scare the US administration and their corporate sponsors.
No, what the US refuses to do is agree to an artificial timetable for withdrawal. The US has made it explicitly clear that we have no long term ambitions there, and that the number of foreign troops in Iraq is directly proportional to the ISF's capabilities. Is this not a clear message on our objectives? Further, how would s
This is not some crackpot theory that I came up with in isolation. This is the official stance of many governments and institutions across the world. Resolution 678 clearly authorizes the use of force to enforce 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security to the area. Then the Security Council came along with Resolution 687, which is subsequent and explicitly relevant to 678 (in paragraph 1), that clearly defines what Iraq must do to restore international peace and security. After 12 years, Iraq was in violation of this mandate, and with that the basis for the cease-fire was destroyed.
I can't believe that you don't see the straw-man here. The UN has already authorized the presence of the multinational force in Iraq because of this standard.
It fascinates me that you seem so intent on these types of semantic games. I refer to it as the "multinational force" because that is what both the Security Council (in 1546) and the Iraqi government call it. I guess I can't stop you if you want to read more into it than that.
The Security Council has made it clear that our presence there is "essential to the well-being of the people of Iraq". This is based on their recognition of what would most likely happen if troops were withdrawn prematurely.
Your language is betraying you. The current government is legitimate in every sense of the word, and was installed by over 12 million Iraqis in a popular vote.
The Bush Administrations refusal to agree to an artificial timetable is based on the hard realities of warfare rather than the political ambitions of President Bush's opponents. How would an artificial timetable bring us any closer to a victory in Iraq? Answer- it wouldn't. In fact, it pretty much guarantees defeat. An artificial timetable makes it a lot less likely that the key parties and neighboring states will try to support or sustain the elected government, which will result in the government collapsing.
We are in Iraq with the most heavily armored, best equipped, and best trained military that has ever existed. We are not going to lose militarily unless we give up. The real battle has always been right here in the United States, and I am sad to say that we are losing on that front. How are the Iraqi people to take any promise of continued support by the Americans seriously when the Senate Majority leader is on TV claiming that war is already "lost" while he sponsors legislation to force us to leave?
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
This is not some crackpot theory that I came up with in isolation.
And I certainly didn't mean to insinuate otherwise. Yet, that doesn't make it one bit more logically, legally, or morally correct.
After 12 years, Iraq was in violation of this mandate, and with that the basis for the cease-fire was destroyed.
Unfortunately for people who use this argument, that was a decision for the Security Council to make.
I can't believe that you don't see the straw-man here. The UN has already authorized the presence of the multinational force in Iraq because of this standard.
No. The Security Council authorized this force because it was already there, lead by and composed almost entirely of US forces. Given that international peace and security are worse and show no immediate prospect of improving, I again ask at what point the Security Council must take action to correct it.
It fascinates me that you seem so intent on these types of semantic games. I refer to it as the "multinational force" because that is what both the Security Council (in 1546) and the Iraqi government call it. I guess I can't stop you if you want to read more into it than that.
I can't speak to you personally, but supporters of your position refer to them as "multinational" forces because of the propaganda effect - it gives the US actions the appearance of world support and international legitimacy. What is the standard for "multinational"? Does one representative from any other government satisfy this word or does it actually require the active involvement and cooperation of multiple nations?
The Security Council has made it clear that our presence there is "essential to the well-being of the people of Iraq". This is based on their recognition of what would most likely happen if troops were withdrawn prematurely.
The relevant text actually says:
Recognizing that international support for security and stability is essential to the well-being of the people of Iraq as well as the ability of all concerned, including the United Nations, to carry out their work on behalf of the people of Iraq...
Where in that statement does it say that US military occupation is necessary? I see nothing about the need for 14 permanent military bases. I noticed nothing calling for the largest US embassy in the world.
Your language is betraying you. The current government is legitimate in every sense of the word, and was installed by over 12 million Iraqis in a popular vote.
And Saddam garnered 100% of the popular vote in 2002, up from 99.96% in 1995.
I also note that you ignored the rest of that paragraph to nitpick my use of one word in one sentence.
The Bush Administrations refusal to agree to an artificial timetable is based on the hard realities of warfare rather than the political ambitions of President Bush's opponents. How would an artificial timetable bring us any closer to a victory in Iraq? Answer- it wouldn't. In fact, it pretty much guarantees defeat
Would you mind sharing your definitions of victory and defeat? What "hard realities of warfare" do you refer to? When are the American soldiers allowed to go home? As I've said, the refusal to set any milestones (not the mm/dd/yyyy straw-man you love to toss out) coupled with the massive construction projects demonstrate no plan to leave.
We are not going to lose militarily unless we give up.
But you already won.
The real battle has always been right here in the United States, and I am sad to say that we are losing on that front. How are the Iraqi people to take any promise of continued support by the Americans seriously when the Senate Majority leader is on TV claiming that war is already "lost" while he sponsors legislation to force us to leave?
When
I love the proof by assertion. So I think you are incorrect, and you think I am incorrect. Thats a big shocker.
To repeat myself, I believe the Security Council did make this decision, over a dozen times, ending with the council affording Iraq one final chance to comply or face "serious consequences". I don't think that "If you don't comply we will keep talking about it" qualifies as a serious consequence.
I find it interesting that you dismissed a direct quote from a relevant Security Council resolution about why they have authorized the multinational force in Iraq, and instead you pull this out of thin air without any evidence to support it. So I guess here we go again, from Resolution 1546 on why they authorized the force:
10. Decides that the multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq...so that, inter alia, the United Nations can fulfil its role in assisting the Iraqi people as outlined in paragraph seven above and the Iraqi people can implement freely and without intimidation the timetable and program for the political process and benefit from reconstruction and rehabilitation activities;
Is the effort to dismiss and denegrate the contributions of other states not also a propaganda effort to make the United States appear more isolated? The force is a "multinational force" because, well, it is made up from multiple nations, and I can't believe we are having this debate.
I tend to agree with people like Amir Taheri and the book by Ali Allawi that I am currently reading, that the war has been won, and now we need to "preserve" the victory.
Disingenuous, huh? I think it is disingenuous to ignore these facts:
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
I love the proof by assertion. So I think you are incorrect, and you think I am incorrect. Thats a big shocker.
No doubt, but that wasn't what I said. I pointed out that a few other people saying what you say doesn't automatically make it right.
To repeat myself, I believe the Security Council did make this decision, over a dozen times, ending with the council affording Iraq one final chance to comply or face "serious consequences". I don't think that "If you don't comply we will keep talking about it" qualifies as a serious consequence.
And I can only repeat that this is incorrect. Only the Security Council can undo the cease-fire and authorize force. I can see your objection to them sitting around with a thumb up their collective butt, hoping Saddam will finally bare his soul and be a good boy. However, short of an explicit action by the Security Council, aggressive actions (by two of the permanent members, no less) are still illegal. How can you accept that three-fifths of the Security Council and the Security-General of the UN disagree with your interpretation yet still claim that the Security Council did authorize it?
I find it interesting that you dismissed a direct quote from a relevant Security Council resolution about why they have authorized the multinational force in Iraq, and instead you pull this out of thin air without any evidence to support it. So I guess here we go again, from Resolution 1546 on why they authorized the force...
I didn't dismiss any direct quote. I used the facts available to draw an obvious conclusion. Two of the five permanent Security Council members had invaded and occupied another member country, against the wishes of the Secretary-General and the wishes of the Security Council. The US had demonstrated the useless of the UN if the big boys decide to ignore it. A fight by the UN would be pointless because the US would veto any resolution condemning them. That left two options, go away and ignore Iraq or attempt to ensure a clean-up and transfer of power to a new Iraqi government. Your quoted paragraph in no way disputes what I just said.
I'll also pose my question yet again. Given that international peace and security are worse and show no immediate prospect of improving, at what point the Security Council must take action to correct it? Perhaps the third time is a charm...
Is the effort to dismiss and denegrate the contributions of other states not also a propaganda effort to make the United States appear more isolated? The force is a "multinational force" because, well, it is made up from multiple nations, and I can't believe we are having this debate.
I have no problem with giving credit (whether positive or negative) to other states for their participation. However, the "multinational force" and "coalition of the willing" folks don't want to be honest about the participation of the other nations. Do you even know how few non-US forces have been involved? The UK is the only other nation with anything more than a blip on the radar. Despite GWB's claims of 49 countries in his coalition, only five nations had troops in the initial invasion; the US and UK accounted for 99% of these troops. Remember Bush making a big deal about Kerry's failure to mention Poland during a televised debated? Poland's 194 troops accounted for 0.06 percent (that's six one-hundredths of one percent) of the total force. I guess you might want to count some of the troops deployed after the initial fighting, like Armenia's 46, Moldova's 12, or Bosnia's 36. Official reports show that the US accounts for 93% of total military causalities thus far. The UK has borne 4% and the rest of the coalition the remaining 3%. The US bears almost 100% of the budgetary costs (excluding, of course, the costs of each nation to provide their military presence), now estimated total over $100 billion within a few more years.
I also restate my questions regarding the portion of the reso
Its obvious that we are getting nowhere with this. I am just going to leave you with some excerpts from Resolution 1441 that I think make the Security Council's intention clear:
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)
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
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;
From these excerpts, we see that the council:
I accept that some people may disagree that this amounts to the Council authorizing the invasion, and I respectfully disagree.
Maybe the third time I answer this question will be enough as well. The Security Council has taken action multiple times to address the current threat to international peace and security in Iraq, including a mandate for a multinational force in the country. There is pretty much nothing more that the Security Council can do.
I think this is a forced perception more than it is reality. Who do you think is being dishonest about this? I think most people are fully aware that the United States, second to the Iraqis themselves, bears most of the burden in Iraq. I also think that it is significant that 48 countries have either directly participated or provided support for our operations there, and I don't think that is dishonest in any way.
Of course there is an end. We withdraw our troops propor
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush