And I can only repeat that this is incorrect. Only the Security Council can undo the cease-fire and authorize force.
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:
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
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:
Directly tied the implementation of 687 to the authorization to use force in 678
Stated that the cease-fire in 687 was based on Iraq's compliance of that resolution
Officially finds that Iraq was in material breach of 687
Gives Iraq one final chance to comply or face "serious consequences"
I accept that some people may disagree that this amounts to the Council authorizing the invasion, and I respectfully disagree.
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...
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 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.
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.
So, like the "war on terror", this is a never-ending eater of American tax money and young soldiers? "Preserving" has no end. You have defined a war that can never be won and will never end, but in defeat. Wow.
Your previous post alluded that creating a process for getting out of Iraq equaled defeat. Yet now you say that the US already won the war. So is this "preservation of victory" a new war? When are the American soldiers allowed to go home?
Of course there is an end. We withdraw our troops propor
Yet, that doesn't make it one bit more logically, legally, or morally correct.
I love the proof by assertion. So I think you are incorrect, and you think I am incorrect. Thats a big shocker.
Unfortunately for people who use this argument, that was a decision for the Security Council to make.
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.
No. The Security Council authorized this force because it was already there, lead by and composed almost entirely of US forces.
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;
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?
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.
But you already won.
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.
I really can't figure out if you guys are being intentionally disingenuous about these claims linked back to the Deulfer report or if you really just don't get it.
Disingenuous, huh? I think it is disingenuous to ignore these facts:
Resolution 687 "decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; "
There were a dozen other security council resolutions between 1992-2002 deploring Iraq's lack of compliance and subterfuge regarding this disarmament
Resolution 1441, which recalled that the cease-fire was "based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions" in 687, declares that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach" of that resolution
Hans Blix come before the Security Council 2 months after 1441 was passed and stated that Iraq "appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it"
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.
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.
What is the appropriate window of opportunity for the new government to meet this standard before the UN must again take military action?
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.
I also note that you love to use "multinational" to describe the US forces.
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.
What can happen is much different than what would happen.
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.
There is a chance that the legitimate government would not allow the US to occupy the country as they can do now.
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.
No, the US has not made it clear that they have no long term ambitions there. In fact, it has done quite the opposite. The US has taken over many of Saddam's former palaces and continue to occupy them. The US refuses to set any time line for withdrawal or even define objective milestones
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?
Any chance that you have links to support this or could refer me to specific sections of the Deulfer report? I've seen zero support for any of your claims (harboring dozens of terrorist organi
A lot of this is directly AMD's fault. Remember the big AMD/UMC deal back in 2002? AMD was so excited because now they wouldn't have to build more expensive Fabs, so as a result, they didn't. Then the deal fell through, and AMD was left scrambling to make up for their years of anemic manufacturing investment as a result of this deal. You cannot blame that kind of mismanagement on the competition.
Ohhh...sure. I guess that international peace and security to the area stuff isn't so important these days.
*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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Now it's my turn to be right again!
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.
You'll note that the primary basis for this action (after the explanation of the history) boiled down to the same three arguments: continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations. We found out later that all three premises were false, and much of the intelligence relied on wa
As I've already explained, that second point means nothing significant here.
Every word in the resolutions passed by the Security Council is scrutinized. You cannot just dismiss this phrase as "nothing significant".
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?
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
More recently, the '98 bombings by the US and UK were roundly condemned in 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.
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.
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.
Then why weren't those facts used to support the war?
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 Council authorized war in order to get Iraq back out of Kuwait.
Here is the paragraph from Resolution 678: 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.
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.
Let me say this once again: the UN has no executive branch. The UN consists of a bunch of soft, aging diplomants on the upper east side of Manhattan. They have absolutely no means to enforce anything. That is why the UN Charter requires member states to enforce the mandates of the Security Council.
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.
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.
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 could have GWB standing in front of you saying that the moon is made of green cheese and you would deny that he lied.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
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.
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.
Meanwhile we have North Korea and Iran openly threatening the US without any repercussions.
What do you mean without repercussions? Both of these nations have face significant international opposition and sanctions for their actions.
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?
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.
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."
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.
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.
How am I trying to mislead? I quoted directly from Resolution 678. The UN explicitly gave the authorization for two things:
I'm going to try to keep this from ballooning into a giant post (as these kinds of debates often do).
All politicians are liars. Bush just seems to be a particularly bad one.
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 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
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).
Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States.
Can you explain please?
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.
When was the US elected world enforcer?
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.
The UN refused to give the US authority for the Iraq invasion but we did it anyway.
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.
Don't forget that Israel has been the target of at least twice as many UN resolutions as Iraq and has defied world opinion for over half a century, yet the US rewards them with billions of dollars each year.
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.
I appreciate your response. I'm always glad to engage in reasoned debate, so I'll respond.
For the record, I was making no claims about the accuracy of those statements - our discussion was about propaganda.
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.
The "coalition" was the United States and a smattering of other nations' troops.
Fair point. Kind of irrelevant, but fair.
And, if you think the Iraqis had any choice in their system of government, you are naive beyond belief. The US shoved a western-style constitutional democracy down their throats and told them to like it.
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.
You're willing to say it was necessary based upon what?
Here are the reasons why I think it was necessary.
Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States.
Iraq was in blatant violation of 17 unanimous Chapter VII UN Security Council Resolutions spanning 12 years.
I believe that freedom and self-determination are essential in combating the hatred and fanaticism that breed terrorism (see my sig)
As you point out, life sucks in Iraq right now. This is the fault of the US government, and by proxy, the US populace.
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.
But the US had no right to inflict this up the Iraqi people.
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.
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).
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
To clear things up- both SATA and PCIe employ 8b/10b encoding. Each byte is trasmitted as a 10 bit symbol. So 3.0Gb/sec = 300MB/sec.
First Gen SATA = 1.5Gb/sec = 150 MB/sec Gen 2 SATA = 3.0Gb/sec = 300 MB/sec
First Gen PCIe = 2.5Gb/sec bidirectional per lane, so x1 = 250 MB/sec full duplex (marketing types sometimes say this is 500MB/sec) Gen 2 PCIe = 5.0Gb/sec bidirectional per lane, x1 = 500 MB/sec full duplex.
I guess the big difference here is that PCIe is full duplex, SATA is not.
they believe that the US military has brought democracy to Iraq
That is not how should be characterized. The coalition removed the impediments to democracy so the Iraqis could bring it to themselves. This is undeniably true, by the way. Before the invasion, Iraq lived under a brutal dictatorship. After the invasion, the Iraqis:
Elected representatives to write a constitution
Wrote their own constitution
Ratified the constitution in a popular election with huge public participation
Elected their own parliament
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.
and that it was a good thing
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.
You are actually claiming that Iraq in 2003 was the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism? Before it was removed from the State Dept's list of states supporting terrorism, Iraq was listed as being a sponsor of the following groups: Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). None of these are exactly the "A-team" of international terror.
While I agree that its hard to back up a claim that Iraq was the largest state sponsor of terrorism (Iran usually gets that privilege), it is impossible to deny that they were one of the biggest. Iraq was first placed on the State Dept list of state sponsors of terrorism almost 30 years ago in 1979. This is a pretty exclusive list containing only between 5 and 7 countries (depending on the year). Here is what some of the annual State Dept Patterns of Global Terrorism have reported about Iraq:
2002: "Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2002. Throughout the year, the Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS) laid the groundwork for possible attacks against civilian and military targets in the United States and other Western countries. The IIS reportedly instructed its agents in early 2001 that their main mission was to obtain information about US and Israeli targets... While some of the designated state sponsors have taken steps to accede to the international norms of combating terrorism, others--notably Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--have done little to comply. Iraq, through its intelligence service, prepared for possible attacks against Western targets and was a safehaven, transit point, and operational base for terrorist organizations" (link)
2001: "The regime continued to provide training and political encouragement to numerous terrorist groups, although its main focus was on dissident Iraqi activity overseas... Czech police continued to provide protection to the Prague office of the US Government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which produces Radio Free Iraq programs and employs expatriate journalists. The police presence was augmented in 1999 and 2000, following reports that the Iraqi Intelligence Service might retaliate against RFE/RL for broadcasts critical of the Iraqi regime. As concerns over the facility's security mounted through 2000, the Czechs expelled an Iraqi intelligence officer in April 2001." (link)
2000: "Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2000." (link)
1999: "Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999." (link)
1998: "Iraq continues to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front (ALF), and the former head of the now-defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of US aircraft. In December press reports indicated that Abu Nidal had relocated to Iraq and may be receiving medical treatment. Abu Nidal's move to Baghdad--if true--would increase the prospect that Saddam may call on the ANO to conduct anti-US attacks." (link)
1997: "During 1997, Baghdad continued to rebuild its intelligence network, which had been heavily damaged during the Gulf war and which it had previously used to support international terrorism." (link)
You are hardly helping out with your credibility when you ignore facts like this.
You are arguing a straw man, and I think you know it. Nowhere have I claimed that a two-party system like what we have in the United States is the only good system out there. The OP claimed that our two-party system is a weakness that makes it harder to establish a middle ground. I strenuously disagree with that for the reasons I have given.
With only two parties, there is no need for them to be in the middle of the road, they just need to be as unattractive as the other one.
I disagree. In fact, I think it's the exact opposite. With only 2 parties, each party must strive for support from at least 50% of the population. This forces them to abandon the more extreme positions that only a small plurality would support, and it forces them to the middle. With 3 major parties, you only need the support of 34%, 4 parties you need 25%, etc.
Nothing is stopping them from drifting to the left or right, as has happened in your country.
Contrary to the rhetoric, all recent US administrations (including the current Bush administration) have been relatively moderate. President Bush has staked out many more socially "liberal" positions than any of his recent Republican predecessors.
If you have more parties it is easier to determine the middle ground, just as a matter of statistics.
I really don't see how you can draw that conclusion. Take the recent presidential elections in France as an effective counter-example. In 2002, the top three candidates in the first round (separated by less than 3%) included a socialist, a far-right nationalist, and a left-leaning Gaullist. That led to a runoff election between two candidates that combined had less than 40% of the vote in the first round. Hardly an ideal way to determine the "middle of the road."
In fact, I would say that the more parties that you have, the greater risk you run of extremist factions that appeal to only a narrow niche of voters winning an election with a small plurality.
This may come as a shock to you, but I voted for President Bush (twice) for completely rational reasons. I am not a moron, I don't vote on party lines, and I am able to look past mudslinging, and I still think the President Bush was (and is) the best choice to lead this country. No candidate is perfect, but I agree with a lot more of what President Bush has done in office than I disagree with. I would be happy to have a rational debate about this if you would like, but judging by the string of childish ad hominems and non-sequiturs in your post, it looks to me like you would rather hurl invective at anybody that dares do disagree with you.
Now, you claim that the main problem in my country is its two-party system. I disagree. I think that our two-party system is one of our greatest strengths and sources of stability. Our two-party system naturally elevates candidates that espouse more mainstream philosophies (along the lines with what Hamilton and Madison argue in Federalist No. 9 and 10), as opposed to minority factions that elevate more extreme candidates. It doesn't take much to find historical examples of the dangers of a splintered electorate (the rise of the Nazi party in 1930 comes to mind).
A lawful combatant is defined as one that basically, represents a state.
Exactly, because that is how the third Geneva Convention defines them.
The reason for the distinction is simple: lawful combatants (also known as Prisoners of War) are entitled to some rights from the 3rd Geneva Convention that are unacceptable in the context of the war against terrorism. Most notably, POWs cannot be prosecuted or held accountable for their actions under the theory that they were only following orders from their state. I hope you can see how this distinction is important.
Note that the unlawful combatants are still protected by the provisions in the 4th Geneva Convention, and despite the rhetoric, there are not any documented violations of these provisions by the US facilities in Guantanamo.
None of this really fits for people *allegedly* kidnapped in Italy by US personell though. The US is neither figthing a war there, nor are any of your personell legitimate police-forces in the area.
There- I fixed that sentence. The human rights that you are advocating to the detainees in Guantanamo (including the presumption of innocence) certainly apply to the CIA operatives in this case as well, no? The trial in Italy hasn't even started yet, but you have already convicted them.
Look- I support the Geneva Conventions. I support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The thought of an innocent person being mistreated or detained without legal recourse is horrifying to me. But I balance these believes against the stark reality that there are people out there who couldn't care less about these international standards and couldn't care less about human rights, and whose sole goal it is to kill innocent people like you and me because we don't subscribe to their radical ideology. There are tradeoffs in everything that we do, and finding the proper balance between protecting innocent lives and preserving some freedoms is no exception. I have read much of the new laws and policies that have come about in our attempts to find this balance since September 11. In my opinion, they are far from perfect, but they are also far from the evil draconian characterizations that drive most of the rhetoric these days. And I think that rational dialog like what you and I are exchanging is necessary and good to further refine these policies to find an even better balance. So, thank you.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person. The people in Gitmo doesn't enjoy much of what the rest of us would call liberty.
According to your argument, it is against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to put anybody in jail for any reason. That is absurd (refer to Article 29 of the Declaration to see why its absurd).
There IS no third category "illegal combatant" is bull. Furthermore -- even if it wasn't -- you'd need an actual court for determining if some random person picked up in some random country actually does fit the definition for "illegal combatant". (which has the problem that the US has refused to even define the term. In effect saying, these people are "X", but we don't say what we mean by X.)
The Third Geneva Convention is very specific about what constitutes a lawful combatant. The term "Unlawful combatant" has been used in international law for over a century. To claim that the classification simply doesn't exist is, again, absurd.
As to the United States' definitions of Unlawful Enemy Combatant and Lawful Enemy Combatant, as well as how their status is legally determined, I suggest you look up 10 USC 948a (Here is a link to get you started).
Your pedantic nit-picking about a copy/paste error in my post ignores the main point- that habeas corpus is not an absolute right in the constitution. It is a privilege that can be suspended.
Not long ago certain former "leader of the free world" took away its citizens' habeas-corpus provision.
A couple of points:
#1- Habeas corpus has not been taken away or suspended in any way from US citizens since the internment camps during WWII. Do you care to elaborate on what you are talking about?
#2- Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution specifically states that Habeous Corpus is a priviledge that can be suspended in cases of rebellion or invasion or if the public safety may require it.
After all - remember that if the president's advisers can be held accountable for the advice they give the president, then when they give the president advice to do illegal or immoral things, they will be held accountable for it.
Except there is no indication that there was anything illegal or immoral about the firing of the US Attorneys...
The concept here is very simple. The memo defines situations where the FBI will ask the phone company for a voluntary disclosure of information. They are not forcing the phone company to comply through some draconian legal provision- the phone company can easily deny the request if they do not agree with the exigency of the circumstances, and there is nothing that the FBI can do about it.
Accountability has not been removed. According to the article, there will still be an audit trail involved, and in case you missed it, these types of audit trails are doing a pretty good job of keeping law enforcement in check (in spite of the rabid anti-Bush hysterics that qualifies as "mainstream" here on/.).
Slashdot Mirror
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
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:
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?
A lot of this is directly AMD's fault. Remember the big AMD/UMC deal back in 2002? AMD was so excited because now they wouldn't have to build more expensive Fabs, so as a result, they didn't. Then the deal fell through, and AMD was left scrambling to make up for their years of anemic manufacturing investment as a result of this deal. You cannot blame that kind of mismanagement on the competition.
*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.
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 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,
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.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.
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:
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.
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
To clear things up- both SATA and PCIe employ 8b/10b encoding. Each byte is trasmitted as a 10 bit symbol. So 3.0Gb/sec = 300MB/sec.
First Gen SATA = 1.5Gb/sec = 150 MB/sec
Gen 2 SATA = 3.0Gb/sec = 300 MB/sec
First Gen PCIe = 2.5Gb/sec bidirectional per lane, so x1 = 250 MB/sec full duplex (marketing types sometimes say this is 500MB/sec)
Gen 2 PCIe = 5.0Gb/sec bidirectional per lane, x1 = 500 MB/sec full duplex.
I guess the big difference here is that PCIe is full duplex, SATA is not.
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.
- 2002: "Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2002. Throughout the year, the Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS) laid the groundwork for possible attacks against civilian and military targets in the United States and other Western countries. The IIS reportedly instructed its agents in early 2001 that their main mission was to obtain information about US and Israeli targets... While some of the designated state sponsors have taken steps to accede to the international norms of combating terrorism, others--notably Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--have done little to comply. Iraq, through its intelligence service, prepared for possible attacks against Western targets and was a safehaven, transit point, and operational base for terrorist organizations" (link)
- 2001: "The regime continued to provide training and political encouragement to numerous terrorist groups, although its main focus was on dissident Iraqi activity overseas... Czech police continued to provide protection to the Prague office of the US Government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which produces Radio Free Iraq programs and employs expatriate journalists. The police presence was augmented in 1999 and 2000, following reports that the Iraqi Intelligence Service might retaliate against RFE/RL for broadcasts critical of the Iraqi regime. As concerns over the facility's security mounted through 2000, the Czechs expelled an Iraqi intelligence officer in April 2001." (link)
- 2000: "Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2000." (link)
- 1999: "Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999." (link)
- 1998: "Iraq continues to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front (ALF), and the former head of the now-defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of US aircraft. In December press reports indicated that Abu Nidal had relocated to Iraq and may be receiving medical treatment. Abu Nidal's move to Baghdad--if true--would increase the prospect that Saddam may call on the ANO to conduct anti-US attacks." (link)
- 1997: "During 1997, Baghdad continued to rebuild its intelligence network, which had been heavily damaged during the Gulf war and which it had previously used to support international terrorism." (link)
You are hardly helping out with your credibility when you ignore facts like this.You are arguing a straw man, and I think you know it. Nowhere have I claimed that a two-party system like what we have in the United States is the only good system out there. The OP claimed that our two-party system is a weakness that makes it harder to establish a middle ground. I strenuously disagree with that for the reasons I have given.
In fact, I would say that the more parties that you have, the greater risk you run of extremist factions that appeal to only a narrow niche of voters winning an election with a small plurality.
This may come as a shock to you, but I voted for President Bush (twice) for completely rational reasons. I am not a moron, I don't vote on party lines, and I am able to look past mudslinging, and I still think the President Bush was (and is) the best choice to lead this country. No candidate is perfect, but I agree with a lot more of what President Bush has done in office than I disagree with. I would be happy to have a rational debate about this if you would like, but judging by the string of childish ad hominems and non-sequiturs in your post, it looks to me like you would rather hurl invective at anybody that dares do disagree with you.
Now, you claim that the main problem in my country is its two-party system. I disagree. I think that our two-party system is one of our greatest strengths and sources of stability. Our two-party system naturally elevates candidates that espouse more mainstream philosophies (along the lines with what Hamilton and Madison argue in Federalist No. 9 and 10), as opposed to minority factions that elevate more extreme candidates. It doesn't take much to find historical examples of the dangers of a splintered electorate (the rise of the Nazi party in 1930 comes to mind).
The reason for the distinction is simple: lawful combatants (also known as Prisoners of War) are entitled to some rights from the 3rd Geneva Convention that are unacceptable in the context of the war against terrorism. Most notably, POWs cannot be prosecuted or held accountable for their actions under the theory that they were only following orders from their state. I hope you can see how this distinction is important.
Note that the unlawful combatants are still protected by the provisions in the 4th Geneva Convention, and despite the rhetoric, there are not any documented violations of these provisions by the US facilities in Guantanamo.There- I fixed that sentence. The human rights that you are advocating to the detainees in Guantanamo (including the presumption of innocence) certainly apply to the CIA operatives in this case as well, no? The trial in Italy hasn't even started yet, but you have already convicted them.
Look- I support the Geneva Conventions. I support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The thought of an innocent person being mistreated or detained without legal recourse is horrifying to me. But I balance these believes against the stark reality that there are people out there who couldn't care less about these international standards and couldn't care less about human rights, and whose sole goal it is to kill innocent people like you and me because we don't subscribe to their radical ideology. There are tradeoffs in everything that we do, and finding the proper balance between protecting innocent lives and preserving some freedoms is no exception. I have read much of the new laws and policies that have come about in our attempts to find this balance since September 11. In my opinion, they are far from perfect, but they are also far from the evil draconian characterizations that drive most of the rhetoric these days. And I think that rational dialog like what you and I are exchanging is necessary and good to further refine these policies to find an even better balance. So, thank you.
As to the United States' definitions of Unlawful Enemy Combatant and Lawful Enemy Combatant, as well as how their status is legally determined, I suggest you look up 10 USC 948a (Here is a link to get you started).
Your pedantic nit-picking about a copy/paste error in my post ignores the main point- that habeas corpus is not an absolute right in the constitution. It is a privilege that can be suspended.
A couple of points:
#1- Habeas corpus has not been taken away or suspended in any way from US citizens since the internment camps during WWII. Do you care to elaborate on what you are talking about?
#2- Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution specifically states that Habeous Corpus is a priviledge that can be suspended in cases of rebellion or invasion or if the public safety may require it.
Jail the agents? On what grounds?
/.).
The concept here is very simple. The memo defines situations where the FBI will ask the phone company for a voluntary disclosure of information. They are not forcing the phone company to comply through some draconian legal provision- the phone company can easily deny the request if they do not agree with the exigency of the circumstances, and there is nothing that the FBI can do about it.
Accountability has not been removed. According to the article, there will still be an audit trail involved, and in case you missed it, these types of audit trails are doing a pretty good job of keeping law enforcement in check (in spite of the rabid anti-Bush hysterics that qualifies as "mainstream" here on