Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

XB234C · Mar 4, 2005, 02:49 pm

WASHINGTON – Something remarkable is happening in the Middle East - a grass-roots movement against autocracy without any significant "Great Satan" anti-American component.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0304/p09s03-cods.html

This is huge in my mind coming from Daniel "I was on Nixon's Enemys List" Schorr. Cautious optimism is called for.

Gorgo · Mar 4, 2005, 02:58 pm

You might remember that Nixon was driven out of office for stepping on the wrong toes.

bishop · Mar 4, 2005, 03:02 pm

there does seem to be some spillover effect because of the war.. there have also been reforms in saudi arabia and soon, in egypt.. (mostly because we've been pressuring them to do so)

it would be nice to see people rise up and LIBERATE THEMSELVES.

i don't see how these events justify going to war illegally and based on lies though. this is a nice positive side-effect though, amongst the many negative side-effects...

plus, i get the feeling that some are making the assumption that afghanistan and iraq are stable, or even remotely stable.. nothing could be further from the truth.

XB234C · Mar 4, 2005, 03:25 pm

Illegal?

Gorgo · Mar 4, 2005, 03:43 pm

Illegal. Criminal.

http://cesr.org/filestore2/download/523

bishop · Mar 4, 2005, 05:12 pm

yup, illegal.. iraq never attacked us, there was no threat of imminent attack, and the security council did not authorize the use of force.. bush acted on his own accord, outside of various laws that determine the legality of war.

rmnunez · Mar 4, 2005, 05:51 pm

Anticipated under the Law of Unintended Consequences, something that cannot be attributed to any gringan foresight -this is dogma.

XB234C · Mar 4, 2005, 08:44 pm

17 UN cease fire treaty violations in 12 years. We had the legal authority to remove him. That was supposed to be the consequence for the first cease fire violation,the UN was in bed with Saddam (see oil for food) so there was good reason for their "no' vote.

RickSp · Mar 4, 2005, 09:17 pm

Quote:

Quote by: XB234C

17 UN cease fire treaty violations in 12 years. We had the legal authority to remove him. That was supposed to be the consequence for the first cease fire violation,the UN was in bed with Saddam (see oil for food) so there was good reason for their "no' vote.

The UN opposed our unwarranted invasion yet the right wing amen squad has the gall to use UN resolutions to justify defying the UN. I suppose the loyally blind also lack any sense of irony.

bishop · Mar 4, 2005, 10:31 pm

1441 was superimposed on those existing resolutions - meaning that 1441 was the PRIMARY resolution governing the situation in iraq.. that's basic case law.. don't know what case law is? well, there will be one law, say it's resolution 687 for example... for a while, that's the primary and most current law governing iraq.. after a bit of time, another law is passed superimposed on 687.. all of a sudden, that law (1441) becomes the primary and most current law governing iraq. and, as 1441 stipulated, the security council was to decide whether/not military action would be taken.

the fact of the matter is that bush's only legal recourse was to suggest that we were under the threat of imminent attack - which is why his "legal" team wrote up arguments revolving entirely about that. why? because the security council wasn't about to authorize an unnecessary war, and iraq never attacked us. only thing left to do was push for the threat of imminent attack..

arguing about 12 years of violations and the oil for food program shows just how little about international law (and law in general) that you actually understand.

XB234C · Mar 5, 2005, 12:19 am

What would you have done o' grand one?

XB234C · Mar 5, 2005, 01:00 am

Bush never said we were under an imminent threat. It was something along the lines of 'we cannot afford to wait until they are an imminent threat'.

bishop · Mar 5, 2005, 01:08 am

what bush said is irrelavent.. bush doesn't handle the nitty gritty details, his administration does.. he simply makes the decisions and relied on his people to provide the "legal" backing.. the phrase "imminent threat" is subjective, but iraq didn't even have any wmd, or active programs, so it could've become imminent many years into the future..

maybe you have a different account of what was going on.. didn't we have the country completely surrounded? didn't we have the no fly zones, and intruded even further with UAV's and spy planes? didn't we have the most intrusive inspection regime ever legislated? heh, what are you going to say, "oh, but saddam didn't comply with the inspectors"... even IF that was the case, it still doesn't make the decision to invade a legal decision. authorizing war was in the security council's power, not bush's.

just admit it and stop wasting time - you don't care whether or not the invasion was illegal, or even based on lies/bullshit.

all that said, you took the bait and ran with it.. that's to be expected.. how about responding to the relavent (to this topic) statements i made?

Quote:

Quote by: bishop

there does seem to be some spillover effect because of the war.. there have also been reforms in saudi arabia and soon, in egypt.. (mostly because we've been pressuring them to do so)

it would be nice to see people rise up and LIBERATE THEMSELVES.

i don't see how these events justify going to war illegally and based on lies though. this is a nice positive side-effect though, amongst the many negative side-effects...

rmnunez · Mar 5, 2005, 01:08 am

No, Xb is right; under international law, by both the Geneva Conventions and all the Rules of War developed over eons of martial conduct. A single ceasefire violation has only 2 possible outcomes -resumption of hostilities or surrender. In this instance there were numerous ceasefire violations during the period since UN Security Council Resolution 687. Ceasefire a temporary suspensions of hostilities for set conditions. In UN parlance the "conditions" are numbered Operative Clauses. In the 687 Resolution these were 6 or 7 of these Clauses. Though not sure of their order I can enumerate them; one is the acknowledgement of Kuwaiti sovereignty over the territory the Council prescribes (the only condition quasi-satisfied) the others are return of Kuwaiti POWS, restoration of specified stolen property, restitution for other property, compensation for damages, reparations and specific weapons preclusions. That Saddam failed to meet any and these conditions fully is clearly documented on the record. Just one of them had to do with WMD preclusions -which is just one of the justifications for intervention to change the regime in Iraq. Get with the program.

I'll grant you things haven't come out exactly as anticipated, but corrections and adjustments have been made, some developments have not resulted or been accelerated, but things are on the right course. Indubitably terrorism must be erradicated, and better now than later.

bishop · Mar 5, 2005, 01:11 am

have you ever studied any law nunez, or are you pulling this out of your.... ?

rmnunez · Mar 5, 2005, 01:21 am

Bishop, don't you remember the gringan demand for or interpretation of a triggering event for 1441? What is that about?

Given the recurring 687 violations, the sanctuaries for Kurds and then Shia, Oil for Food and annually ratcheted restrictions, it appears Saddam could have advanced a credible argument past practice justified the expectation of tolerance with further ceasefire violations now, and to hell with the inspections. Its a radical perspective, but the measure to which it could be advanced suggested a need for some triggering event, and this is what the US asked for and thought UNMOVIC would deliver.

bishop · Mar 5, 2005, 01:42 am

what in the hell is "the gringaqn demand"??? maybe you're trying to say gringo? fyi, you keep referring to americans as gringo - would you like to be called a dirty spic? :)

using 687 was an interpretation - one that the security council has not accepted. interpretation is another word for excuse.. you buy the bullshit, i know better. saddam disarmed - it's hard to prove that nothing exists when nothing exists.. maybe he went and hid the wmd's up some shiite prisoners' asses? here's some information for you - you seem to be making it up as you go, as usual..

http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/...yers_body.html
http://middleeastinfo.org/article2270.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...?oneclick=true
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=4777
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0321-10.htm
http://traprockpeace.org/russowiraq.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20030319.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...605953,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2826331.stm

ANYWAYS, i tried to steer this back to the actual topic.. you as a moderator should also be interested in steering things back to the actual topic, rather than continuing the irrelavent tangent.

rmnunez · Mar 5, 2005, 02:20 am

Sorry, that was a typo, fixed it. Gringan is the national designation for gringoes the plural of gringo. I am a spic, not a "dirty" one though.

The gringan demand in that sentence was their early request to have some triggering event included in UNSC 1441. This was something the French immediately and specifically objected to, seconded by the Germans, there was a somewhat split Council with a Resoltion calling for inspections and their delivering a report the US anticipated would be the triggering event. The report was postponed, then staggered, never conclusive and meanwhile the more recalcitrant Security Council members began to anticipate vetoes. The gringan demand was never met, 1441 lacked a triggering event, but just in case, Blix never delivered a final report. The US, probably relying on the precedent established by SC reluctance to approve and subsequent intervention in Yugoslavia, decided to go ahead anyway, time was of the essence based on their poorly-premised suspicions.

RickSp · Mar 5, 2005, 08:15 am

Quote:

Quote by: rmnunez

Bishop, don't you remember the gringan demand for or interpretation of a triggering event for 1441? What is that about?

In addition to your typically hidebound reactionary posts, I too have grown really tired of your constant ethic slurs. As Bishop notes and as you yourself are doubtlessly aware "gringo" is an offensive term for a foreigner. It is unnecessary and frankly low class. That you are a moderator and continue to use this sort of language does not reflect well on this forum either.

Gorgo · Mar 5, 2005, 08:54 am

Ari Fleischer did:

On May 7, 2003, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked: “Didn't we go to war because we said WMD were a direct and imminent threat to the U.S.?”

He replied: “Absolutely.”

http://www.moveon.org/censure/imminent.html

Quote:

Quote by: XB234C

Bush never said we were under an imminent threat. It was something along the lines of 'we cannot afford to wait until they are an imminent threat'.

Mar 4, 2005, 02:49 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
XB234C Sedimentary Rock Posts: 10	Daniel Schorr says "Bush may be right about Iraq. WASHINGTON – Something remarkable is happening in the Middle East - a grass-roots movement against autocracy without any significant "Great Satan" anti-American component. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0304/p09s03-cods.html This is huge in my mind coming from Daniel "I was on Nixon's Enemys List" Schorr. Cautious optimism is called for. Last edited by XB234C; Mar 4, 2005 at 02:52 pm. Reason: Provided link

Mar 4, 2005, 03:02 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	there does seem to be some spillover effect because of the war.. there have also been reforms in saudi arabia and soon, in egypt.. (mostly because we've been pressuring them to do so) it would be nice to see people rise up and LIBERATE THEMSELVES. i don't see how these events justify going to war illegally and based on lies though. this is a nice positive side-effect though, amongst the many negative side-effects... plus, i get the feeling that some are making the assumption that afghanistan and iraq are stable, or even remotely stable.. nothing could be further from the truth. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Mar 4, 2005, 05:12 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	yup, illegal.. iraq never attacked us, there was no threat of imminent attack, and the security council did not authorize the use of force.. bush acted on his own accord, outside of various laws that determine the legality of war. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Mar 4, 2005, 10:31 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	1441 was superimposed on those existing resolutions - meaning that 1441 was the PRIMARY resolution governing the situation in iraq.. that's basic case law.. don't know what case law is? well, there will be one law, say it's resolution 687 for example... for a while, that's the primary and most current law governing iraq.. after a bit of time, another law is passed superimposed on 687.. all of a sudden, that law (1441) becomes the primary and most current law governing iraq. and, as 1441 stipulated, the security council was to decide whether/not military action would be taken. the fact of the matter is that bush's only legal recourse was to suggest that we were under the threat of imminent attack - which is why his "legal" team wrote up arguments revolving entirely about that. why? because the security council wasn't about to authorize an unnecessary war, and iraq never attacked us. only thing left to do was push for the threat of imminent attack.. arguing about 12 years of violations and the oil for food program shows just how little about international law (and law in general) that you actually understand. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Mar 5, 2005, 01:08 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	No, Xb is right; under international law, by both the Geneva Conventions and all the Rules of War developed over eons of martial conduct. A single ceasefire violation has only 2 possible outcomes -resumption of hostilities or surrender. In this instance there were numerous ceasefire violations during the period since UN Security Council Resolution 687. Ceasefire a temporary suspensions of hostilities for set conditions. In UN parlance the "conditions" are numbered Operative Clauses. In the 687 Resolution these were 6 or 7 of these Clauses. Though not sure of their order I can enumerate them; one is the acknowledgement of Kuwaiti sovereignty over the territory the Council prescribes (the only condition quasi-satisfied) the others are return of Kuwaiti POWS, restoration of specified stolen property, restitution for other property, compensation for damages, reparations and specific weapons preclusions. That Saddam failed to meet any and these conditions fully is clearly documented on the record. Just one of them had to do with WMD preclusions -which is just one of the justifications for intervention to change the regime in Iraq. Get with the program. I'll grant you things haven't come out exactly as anticipated, but corrections and adjustments have been made, some developments have not resulted or been accelerated, but things are on the right course. Indubitably terrorism must be erradicated, and better now than later. Last edited by rmnunez; Mar 5, 2005 at 01:16 am.

Mar 4, 2005, 02:58 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	You might remember that Nixon was driven out of office for stepping on the wrong toes.

Mar 4, 2005, 03:25 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
XB234C Sedimentary Rock Posts: 10	Illegal?

Mar 4, 2005, 03:43 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	Illegal. Criminal. http://cesr.org/filestore2/download/523

Mar 4, 2005, 05:51 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	Anticipated under the Law of Unintended Consequences, something that cannot be attributed to any gringan foresight -this is dogma.

Mar 4, 2005, 08:44 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
XB234C Sedimentary Rock Posts: 10	17 UN cease fire treaty violations in 12 years. We had the legal authority to remove him. That was supposed to be the consequence for the first cease fire violation,the UN was in bed with Saddam (see oil for food) so there was good reason for their "no' vote.

Mar 5, 2005, 12:19 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
XB234C Sedimentary Rock Posts: 10	What would you have done o' grand one?

Mar 5, 2005, 01:00 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
XB234C Sedimentary Rock Posts: 10	Bush never said we were under an imminent threat. It was something along the lines of 'we cannot afford to wait until they are an imminent threat'.

Mar 5, 2005, 01:11 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	have you ever studied any law nunez, or are you pulling this out of your.... ? hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Mar 5, 2005, 01:21 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	Bishop, don't you remember the gringan demand for or interpretation of a triggering event for 1441? What is that about? Given the recurring 687 violations, the sanctuaries for Kurds and then Shia, Oil for Food and annually ratcheted restrictions, it appears Saddam could have advanced a credible argument past practice justified the expectation of tolerance with further ceasefire violations now, and to hell with the inspections. Its a radical perspective, but the measure to which it could be advanced suggested a need for some triggering event, and this is what the US asked for and thought UNMOVIC would deliver. Last edited by rmnunez; Mar 5, 2005 at 02:12 am.

Mar 5, 2005, 01:42 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	what in the hell is "the gringaqn demand"??? maybe you're trying to say gringo? fyi, you keep referring to americans as gringo - would you like to be called a dirty spic? :) using 687 was an interpretation - one that the security council has not accepted. interpretation is another word for excuse.. you buy the bullshit, i know better. saddam disarmed - it's hard to prove that nothing exists when nothing exists.. maybe he went and hid the wmd's up some shiite prisoners' asses? here's some information for you - you seem to be making it up as you go, as usual.. http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/...yers_body.html http://middleeastinfo.org/article2270.html http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...?oneclick=true http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=4777 http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0321-10.htm http://traprockpeace.org/russowiraq.html http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20030319.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...605953,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2826331.stm ANYWAYS, i tried to steer this back to the actual topic.. you as a moderator should also be interested in steering things back to the actual topic, rather than continuing the irrelavent tangent. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Mar 5, 2005, 02:20 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	Sorry, that was a typo, fixed it. Gringan is the national designation for gringoes the plural of gringo. I am a spic, not a "dirty" one though. The gringan demand in that sentence was their early request to have some triggering event included in UNSC 1441. This was something the French immediately and specifically objected to, seconded by the Germans, there was a somewhat split Council with a Resoltion calling for inspections and their delivering a report the US anticipated would be the triggering event. The report was postponed, then staggered, never conclusive and meanwhile the more recalcitrant Security Council members began to anticipate vetoes. The gringan demand was never met, 1441 lacked a triggering event, but just in case, Blix never delivered a final report. The US, probably relying on the precedent established by SC reluctance to approve and subsequent intervention in Yugoslavia, decided to go ahead anyway, time was of the essence based on their poorly-premised suspicions. Last edited by rmnunez; Mar 5, 2005 at 02:23 am.