PDA

View Full Version : Sovereignty and defense poll


memyselfI
06-10-2006, 04:52 PM
Since Donger's poll is so slanted towards his desired outcome...

How about a poll that addresses the issue of a sovereign country's fundamental right to defense and not just Iraq.

Logical
06-10-2006, 06:06 PM
Much better poll and you even gave a few their squiggle room with that third option. I literally laughed when I saw it.

DanT
06-10-2006, 06:12 PM
Where's Iraq's sovereignty right now? Does Iraq have a sovereign government and, if so, does that government want us there or not?

banyon
06-10-2006, 06:14 PM
This isn't any clearer or less contextual than Donger's poll. I'm abstaining from it without clarification also.

Logical
06-10-2006, 06:21 PM
This isn't any clearer or less contextual than Donger's poll. I'm abstaining from it without clarification also.What is not clear about it?

Ugly Duck
06-10-2006, 06:26 PM
I'm abstaining from it without clarification....Heck, these kinda polls can't be clarified to the point where any answer wouldn't get kicked around like a soccer ball for weeks. Howzabout something like this..... nobody answer on-line, but honestly ask these questions of themselves...

Would you defend America if it were invaded and occupied by a foreign country?

Would you resort to non-conventional tactical means against occupying troops?

memyselfI
06-10-2006, 06:37 PM
Where's Iraq's sovereignty right now? Does Iraq have a sovereign government and, if so, does that government want us there or not?

Well that is where it gets kind of tricky, isn't it.

A sovereign country was invaded and the government overthrown. The invading country then appoints an 'interim' government which then oversees the draft of the country's consitution, elections, and new government. That new government then decides it wants the invading country to stay put even though the citizens of the country are evenly divided about the necessity or the desire to have the occupying country remain.

Are you telling me the people who are resisting the occupation have no right to defend themselves (and their country) because the new government, set up by the occupying force, has invited them to stay?

Something ain't right with that scenario...

DanT
06-10-2006, 06:46 PM
Well that is where it gets kind of tricky, isn't it.

A sovereign country was invaded and the government overthrown. The invading country then appoints an 'interim' government which then oversees the draft of the country's consitution, elections, and new government. That new government then decides it wants the invading country to stay put even though the citizens of the country are evenly divided about the necessity or the desire to have the occupying country remain.

Are you telling me the people who are resisting the occupation have no right to defend themselves (and their country) because the new government, set up by the occupying force, has invited them to stay?

Something ain't right with that scenario...

I'm not telling you that; I'm only asking you who do you believe possesses Iraq's sovereignty? I ask that because your poll question concerns the right of a sovereign country to defend itself.

banyon
06-10-2006, 06:46 PM
Usually, I would say yes. But it's certainly not absolute. There are many scenarios I can think of in which It wouldn't be justified.

For example:

1) Country A is emitting toxins (serious stuff, like mercury) into a river. The pollutants go down the river into Country B, Killing many of its Citizens. Country B tries diplomacy to resolve the situation, But Country A doesn't even believe that there is a problem. Country B attacks Country A with the full support of the international community. Country A then defends itself by Dropping an atomic bomb on Country B to halt their invasion which threatened to overwhelm Country A.

2) Country C engages in compulsory weekly government enforced executions of all the recently born children of minorities A coalition of countries decides that this practice is morally reprehensible. The coalition invades, and Country C repels the invasion, using chemical and biological weaponry to do so.

DanT
06-10-2006, 06:56 PM
Well that is where it gets kind of tricky, isn't it.

A sovereign country was invaded and the government overthrown. The invading country then appoints an 'interim' government which then oversees the draft of the country's consitution, elections, and new government. That new government then decides it wants the invading country to stay put even though the citizens of the country are evenly divided about the necessity or the desire to have the occupying country remain.

Are you telling me the people who are resisting the occupation have no right to defend themselves (and their country) because the new government, set up by the occupying force, has invited them to stay?

Something ain't right with that scenario...

By the way, at some point, Iraq's going to have to have a sovereign government or it's going to have to dissolve. That "evenly-divided" horsesh!t isn't tenable. We either are in Iraq today because Iraq's sovereign government has asked us to be there or we aren't.

DanT
06-10-2006, 06:57 PM
Does Iraq have a sovereign government that has asked us to be there or doesn't it?

This ain't tiddly-****in'-winks. We can't be someplace because the sovereign government asked us to be there, while at the same time half of the country has the right to defend their sovereign country by killing us.

memyselfI
06-10-2006, 07:10 PM
I'm not telling you that; I'm only asking you who do you believe possesses Iraq's sovereignty? I ask that because your poll question concerns the right of a sovereign country to defend itself.

I believe the citizens possess that right. The people of Iraq possess the right to defend their country.

DanT
06-10-2006, 07:17 PM
I believe the citizens possess that right. The people of Iraq possess the right to defend their country.

Thanks for the reply, memyselfi.

There are a lot of different conceptions of sovereignty, that's for sure. Here's the wikipedia.org entry on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

DanT
06-10-2006, 07:36 PM
Here's the wikipedia.org entry on Post-invasion-Iraq, 2003-2006: Legal Status of the Coalition Presence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-invasion_Iraq,_2003-2005#Legal_status_of_the_coalition_presence

Legal status of the coalition presence
The multinational forces still exercise considerable power in the country and, with the New Iraqi Army, conduct military operations against the Iraqi insurgency. The role of Iraqi government forces in providing security is increasing.

According to Article 42 of the Hague Convention, "[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." The International Humanitarian Law Research Initiative states: "the wording of Security Council resolution 1546 . . . indicates that, regardless of how the situation is characterized, international humanitarian law will apply to it."

There may be situations... where the former occupier will maintain a military presence in the country, with the agreement of the legitimate government under a security arrangement (e.g., U.S. military presence in Japan and Germany). The legality of such agreement and the legitimacy of the national authorities signing it are subject to international recognition, whereby members of the international community re-establish diplomatic and political relations with the national government. In this context, it is in the interest of all the parties involved to maintain a clear regime of occupation until the conditions for stability and peace are created allowing the re-establishment of a legitimate national government. A post-occupation military presence can only be construed in the context of a viable, stable and peaceful situation.
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 in 2004 recognized the end of the occupation and the assumption of full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign and independent Interim Government of Iraq. Afterwards, the UN and individual nations established diplomatic relations with the Interim Government and began planning for elections and the writing of a new constitution.

Despite the continuing insurgency, conditions were stable enough to conduct elections. John Negroponte, U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, has indicated that the United States government would comply with a United Nations resolution declaring that coalition forces would have to leave if requested by the Iraqi government. "If that's the wish of the government of Iraq, we will comply with those wishes. But no, we haven't been approached on this issue — although obviously we stand prepared to engage the future government on any issue concerning our presence here." [6]

Logical
06-10-2006, 07:58 PM
Heck, these kinda polls can't be clarified to the point where any answer wouldn't get kicked around like a soccer ball for weeks. Howzabout something like this..... nobody answer on-line, but honestly ask these questions of themselves...

Would you defend America if it were invaded and occupied by a foreign country?

Would you resort to non-conventional tactical means against occupying troops?

Heck yea

Shit yes damn straight (I could finally use all this chemical and biological knowledge in my head) and I could finally test some of my non-violent psychological torture theories.:evil:

Logical
06-10-2006, 08:00 PM
I'm not telling you that; I'm only asking you who do you believe possesses Iraq's sovereignty? I ask that because your poll question concerns the right of a sovereign country to defend itself.Theoretically in such a case I believe the people themselves possess sovereignty. Just my view

Logical
06-10-2006, 08:03 PM
I believe the citizens possess that right. The people of Iraq possess the right to defend their country.

OK now this truly is scary, I gave my answer completely independent of having read this, DenIse and I truly do agree.:hmmm:

Ugly Duck
06-10-2006, 08:27 PM
I could finally test some of my non-violent psychological torture theories.:evil:?? Haven't you been testing those on us for years?

Logical
06-10-2006, 08:30 PM
?? Haven't you been testing those on us for years?Some would definitely say yes, but are they working?

irishjayhawk
06-11-2006, 12:48 AM
Much better poll. It seems most people, or a hell of a lot, would choose #3. That's what I gathered from the other 'poll'.

I think, as others have stated, that they possess the right to defend their country, regardless if it's the US.

Does that mean I don't support the troops or I support their deaths? No, absolutely not.

memyselfI
06-11-2006, 06:58 AM
Much better poll. It seems most people, or a hell of a lot, would choose #3. That's what I gathered from the other 'poll'.

I think, as others have stated, that they possess the right to defend their country, regardless if it's the US.

Does that mean I don't support the troops or I support their deaths? No, absolutely not.

:clap: The equation of such is the same bogus strategy the RW used at the beginning of the war. To be against going to war was akin to being against the troops. It's nothing more than creating a false dichotomy in order to support a false pretense.

Perhaps a more moderate poster should have posted this poll. Because do you notice the lack of response to the last two options? All of a sudden those who believe Iraq should not be defending themselves are MIA. :hmmm: When pressed about the underlying FUNDAMENTAL rights at stake suddenly it's much harder to click on those last two options.

To his credit, I've only seen Jamie be honest enough to express his belief of number 3. Iowa has played footsie with the option but I don't recall him stating that view outright the way Jamie has.

patteeu
06-11-2006, 08:33 AM
Yes, that's why our GWoT (including our war in Iraq) is justified.

patteeu
06-11-2006, 08:34 AM
Where's Iraq's sovereignty right now? Does Iraq have a sovereign government and, if so, does that government want us there or not?

Yep. This is why memyselfi's poll isn't going to answer the question she wants it to answer.

stevieray
06-11-2006, 08:44 AM
Much better poll. It seems most people, or a hell of a lot, would choose #3. That's what I gathered from the other 'poll'.

I think, as others have stated, that they possess the right to defend their country, regardless if it's the US.

Does that mean I don't support the troops or I support their deaths? No, absolutely not.

their country? the same country where over 60% put their lives on the line to vote for the new goverment, at the risk of being killed by those you support?

do you ever get tired of piggybacking?

patteeu
06-11-2006, 08:49 AM
:clap: The equation of such is the same bogus strategy the RW used at the beginning of the war. To be against going to war was akin to being against the troops. It's nothing more than creating a false dichotomy in order to support a false pretense.

Perhaps a more moderate poster should have posted this poll. Because do you notice the lack of response to the last two options? All of a sudden those who believe Iraq should not be defending themselves are MIA. :hmmm: When pressed about the underlying FUNDAMENTAL rights at stake suddenly it's much harder to click on those last two options.

To his credit, I've only seen Jamie be honest enough to express his belief of number 3. Iowa has played footsie with the option but I don't recall him stating that view outright the way Jamie has.

As DanT pointed out to you, the problem with your poll and how it applies to the Iraq situation is in identifying where sovereignty lies. The insurgents are criminals not sovereigns. Did Tim McVeigh have a right to defend his sovereign country in the manner that he chose?

stevieray
06-11-2006, 08:55 AM
:clap: The equation of such is the same bogus strategy the RW used at the beginning of the war. To be against going to war was akin to being against the troops. It's nothing more than creating a false dichotomy in order to support a false pretense.

Perhaps a more moderate poster should have posted this poll. Because do you notice the lack of response to the last two options? All of a sudden those who believe Iraq should not be defending themselves are MIA. :hmmm: When pressed about the underlying FUNDAMENTAL rights at stake suddenly it's much harder to click on those last two options.

To his credit, I've only seen Jamie be honest enough to express his belief of number 3. Iowa has played footsie with the option but I don't recall him stating that view outright the way Jamie has.


I love this logic...If I jump around and yell the sky is falling for years, and noone sticks around to listen to it, I'm right!

irishjayhawk
06-11-2006, 11:47 AM
their country? the same country where over 60% put their lives on the line to vote for the new goverment, at the risk of being killed by those you support?

do you ever get tired of piggybacking?

This isn't Iraq specific, first of all.

Second, are you suggesting that no one, but yourself (the US, in the event of an attack), has the right to defend their country from invaders?

Or, in other words:

People have the right, as long as it isn't against the country you are supporting. (ie. Iraq attacking US invaders isn't right, but if Iraq was invading us, it's fully justified)

patteeu
06-11-2006, 12:09 PM
This isn't Iraq specific, first of all.

Second, are you suggesting that no one, but yourself (the US, in the event of an attack), has the right to defend their country from invaders?

Or, in other words:

People have the right, as long as it isn't against the country you are supporting. (ie. Iraq attacking US invaders isn't right, but if Iraq was invading us, it's fully justified)

First of all, while Iraq isn't mentioned in this poll, it's definitely about Iraq. This poll is a revision of another poll which grew out of a thread discussing... Iraq. This is certainly about Iraq.

Why is it so important to some of you to justify the actions of the Iraqi insurgents? Do the Iraqis who support the new government have a right to defend themselves against the insurgency? Do they have the right to enlist the assistance of outsiders in that defense? How do you sort out all these conflicting rights? How do you divorce yourself from your prejudice based on which side you agree with in the first place (or alternatively, how do you convince yourself that you are being unbiased in your analysis)?

banyon
06-11-2006, 12:23 PM
Why is it so important to some of you to justify the actions of the Iraqi insurgents?

Why is it important to you that others abandon rationality in grave times?

irishjayhawk
06-11-2006, 12:29 PM
First of all, while Iraq isn't mentioned in this poll, it's definitely about Iraq. This poll is a revision of another poll which grew out of a thread discussing... Iraq. This is certainly about Iraq.

Why is it so important to some of you to justify the actions of the Iraqi insurgents? Do the Iraqis who support the new government have a right to defend themselves against the insurgency? Do they have the right to enlist the assistance of outsiders in that defense? How do you sort out all these conflicting rights? How do you divorce yourself from your prejudice based on which side you agree with in the first place (or alternatively, how do you convince yourself that you are being unbiased in your analysis)?

While that's true, the actual topic has nothing to do with Iraq and should/could be dealt with as such. It hasn't been.

Those are good questions. However, I don't think we'd be asking them if the US hadn't invaded. So, for this question, we are the invaders.

Do they have the right to defend themselves or do they not?

Personally, I think this poll is to weed out the people in the other thread who were hypocritical and would take the third option. "Oh, it's okay if they defend themselves, as long as it isn't our country men their defending themselves against." is a mentality that's flawed. This just is helping to expose it a bit more.

patteeu
06-11-2006, 03:15 PM
Why is it important to you that others abandon rationality in grave times?

LOL, it's not. There's a difference between "rationalization" which is what those who are trying to find excuses and justifications for the insurgency and "rationality." I think that depending on your underlying assumptions, you can use rationality to come to either conclusion (either the insurgents are justified or they are not). It's the underlying assumptions of those who come out on the side of justifying the insurgency that I'm questioning.

patteeu
06-11-2006, 03:25 PM
While that's true, the actual topic has nothing to do with Iraq and should/could be dealt with as such. It hasn't been.

Those are good questions. However, I don't think we'd be asking them if the US hadn't invaded. So, for this question, we are the invaders.

Do they have the right to defend themselves or do they not?

Personally, I think this poll is to weed out the people in the other thread who were hypocritical and would take the third option. "Oh, it's okay if they defend themselves, as long as it isn't our country men their defending themselves against." is a mentality that's flawed. This just is helping to expose it a bit more.

No it's not. It's a dumb poll that doesn't get to the issue that you and the thread starter think it does. Everything hinges on the definition of "sovereign country."

I answered "yes" in this poll. My take is that the US, a sovereign country, was exercising it's right to defend itself when we invaded Iraq and we are currently participating in the defense of the sovereign state of Iraq. I'm not agreeing that the insurgents have any "right" to be doing what they are doing. How is this poll exposing anything useful wrt the situation in Iraq when I can give the same answer as someone who thinks the insurgents are justified?

Logical
06-11-2006, 03:58 PM
No it's not. It's a dumb poll that doesn't get to the issue that you and the thread starter think it does. Everything hinges on the definition of "sovereign country."

I answered "yes" in this poll. My take is that the US, a sovereign country, was exercising it's right to defend itself when we invaded Iraq and we are currently participating in the defense of the sovereign state of Iraq. I'm not agreeing that the insurgents have any "right" to be doing what they are doing. How is this poll exposing anything useful wrt the situation in Iraq when I can give the same answer as someone who thinks the insurgents are justified?That statement is an extreme stretch, Iraq posed no threat the the US's sovereign status and had nothing to do with 9/11. You want to say we wanted revenge for their shooting at our overflights, fine. You want to say they deserved their fate for flaunting the desires of the international community in regards to weapons inspection, again fine. But no one should reasonably believe they posed a threat to the US as s Sovereign nation.

Cochise
06-11-2006, 04:26 PM
Dense still working to change the hearts and minds of Americans in favor of the insurgency I see.

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2006, 07:48 PM
Circumstances in Iraq, though, dictate otherwise....DUH.

Of course, some are too dense to see that. :rolleyes:

patteeu
06-12-2006, 06:56 AM
You want to say we wanted revenge for their shooting at our overflights, fine.

Yes, I do.

You want to say they deserved their fate for flaunting the desires of the international community in regards to weapons inspection, again fine.

Yes, I do.

But no one should reasonably believe they posed a threat to the US as s Sovereign nation.

They didn't pose an imminent threat and I never believed that they did. Nor, IMO, did the administration try to make that case, despite what some people say about 45 minutes and mushroom clouds.

They did, however, represent a threat to the US that was growing as the sanctions and our containment strategy were failing. As long as they were unwilling to come clean about WMD and as long as they insisted on collaborating with terrorists (e.g. funding a suicide bomber death benefit for Palestinians, harboring terrorist fugitives like Abu Nidal, and providing terrorist training at places like Salman Pak), in a post-9/11 world it would have been unwise to see them as anything other than a "gathering threat" that had to be dealt with one way or another.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-12-2006, 07:30 AM
Usually, I would say yes. But it's certainly not absolute. There are many scenarios I can think of in which It wouldn't be justified.

For example:

1) Country A is emitting toxins (serious stuff, like mercury) into a river. The pollutants go down the river into Country B, Killing many of its Citizens. Country B tries diplomacy to resolve the situation, But Country A doesn't even believe that there is a problem. Country B attacks Country A with the full support of the international community. Country A then defends itself by Dropping an atomic bomb on Country B to halt their invasion which threatened to overwhelm Country A.

2) Country C engages in compulsory weekly government enforced executions of all the recently born children of minorities A coalition of countries decides that this practice is morally reprehensible. The coalition invades, and Country C repels the invasion, using chemical and biological weaponry to do so.


I'm afraid that the premise of your objections is underdeveloped here. The UN Security Council negates most of your objections.

So we are to assume that Country A is going to drop that bomb despite full support of the international community against its actions?? That opens the door for an overwhelming military response from the world, which removes any reasons for it dropping the bomb in the first place. One bomb would only seek to further infuriate country b and the world community, not blunt the invasion unless it was dropped on the invasion force of country B, and if this was done, I think that you'd have one hell of a combined offensive against country A.

The same thing applies for Country C. You could get away with covertly dispensing chemical and biological weapons 25 years ago. Advancements in telecommunications would make this so immediately apparent to the worldwide community that this too would also necessitate an immediate and overwhelming response from the rest of the world, as well as justifying a nuclear counterattack. The leaders of Country C would no doubt realize this.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 07:58 AM
Sovereignty, by definition, means the ability of a nation to defend itself.
Nations that can't aren't exactly sovereign. Just what I was taught.

banyon
06-12-2006, 09:15 AM
I'm afraid that the premise of your objections is underdeveloped here. The UN Security Council negates most of your objections.

So we are to assume that Country A is going to drop that bomb despite full support of the international community against its actions?? That opens the door for an overwhelming military response from the world, which removes any reasons for it dropping the bomb in the first place. One bomb would only seek to further infuriate country b and the world community, not blunt the invasion unless it was dropped on the invasion force of country B, and if this was done, I think that you'd have one hell of a combined offensive against country A.

The same thing applies for Country C. You could get away with covertly dispensing chemical and biological weapons 25 years ago. Advancements in telecommunications would make this so immediately apparent to the worldwide community that this too would also necessitate an immediate and overwhelming response from the rest of the world, as well as justifying a nuclear counterattack. The leaders of Country C would no doubt realize this.

I was approaching this thing from a hypothetical POV. My only point was that you wouldn't say that those countries were "justified" in defending themselves.

If we used the UN as our moral compass, then we'd be in some serious trouble, since we already violated the Charter to enter Iraq in the first place.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 09:35 AM
If we used the UN as our moral compass, then we'd be in some serious trouble, since we already violated the Charter to enter Iraq in the first place.
Yet we went into Iraq because it was allegedly violating UN resolutions?

Which it wasn't afterall.


(rhetorical question only)

irishjayhawk
06-12-2006, 09:45 AM
That statement is an extreme stretch, Iraq posed no threat the the US's sovereign status and had nothing to do with 9/11. You want to say we wanted revenge for their shooting at our overflights, fine. You want to say they deserved their fate for flaunting the desires of the international community in regards to weapons inspection, again fine. But no one should reasonably believe they posed a threat to the US as s Sovereign nation.

So true. I wasn't and still am not losing any sleep over any nation at the moment. Hell, I may be stupid or naive, but I wasn't losing any sleep while that Al-Zuwaribob guy was alive.


I'll probably catch flack for that.

patteeu
06-12-2006, 10:10 AM
Yet we went into Iraq because it was allegedly violating UN resolutions?

Which it wasn't afterall.


(rhetorical question only)

They most certainly were. The UN demanded a full accounting of Saddam's WMD programs/stockpiles including those he may have destroyed and he failed to comply.

patteeu
06-12-2006, 10:12 AM
So true. I wasn't and still am not losing any sleep over any nation at the moment. Hell, I may be stupid or naive, but I wasn't losing any sleep while that Al-Zuwaribob guy was alive.


I'll probably catch flack for that.

I wasn't losing any sleep over the Soviet Union during the height of the cold war. Does that mean I shouldn't have considered them a threat? (Not saying that Iraq was a threat on the scale of the Soviets, but just that the "losing sleep" standard leaves something to be desired).

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 10:19 AM
They most certainly were. The UN demanded a full accounting of Saddam's WMD programs/stockpiles including those he may have destroyed and he failed to comply.
Nope. Disagree. The facts may be in dispute here to some but they did comply per his own head of weapons who was even on FOX, here in the US and who likes the Americans, saying they got rid of them. He said that SH was paranoid hence SH's behavior. I saw him say it.

Iraq was given a clean bill of health by '92. Even weapon's inspector Ritter ( smeared by NeoCon media outlets and persons) says Iraq complied. That's called using false reports to discredit someone. The US was using CIA in those inspections to get into unauthorized areas for a coup. So we were told otherwise. Fact is NO WMD have been found, nor moved and the US govt has officially stopped looking...that is unless you read The Weekly Standard.

But let's say they did not for argument's sake: How many resolutions has Israel violated? Quite a few.

Radar Chief
06-12-2006, 10:37 AM
Nope. Disagree. The facts may be in dispute here to some but they did comply per his own head of weapons who was even on FOX, here in the US and who likes the Americans, saying they got rid of them. He said that SH was paranoid hence SH's behavior. I saw him say it.

You talk’n ‘bout Kamal Hussein? He “defected” from Iraq in, IIRC ’95 claim’n they’d destroyed all WMD and illegal weapons. Problem with that is, while he’s over here give’n a deposition on what they didn’t have anymore, UN weapons detectives were in Iraq find’n al Samude II missiles he’d claimed to’ve destroyed all of.

Iraq was given a clean bill of health by '92.

By who? UN Weapons detectives were in Iraq up ‘till ’98 look’n for weapons, programs, equipment that’s still unaccounted for today.

Even weapon's inspector Ritter ( smeared by NeoCon media outlets and persons) says Iraq complied. That's called using false reports to discredit someone. The US was using CIA in those inspections to get into unauthorized areas for a coup. So we were told otherwise. Fact is NO WMD have been found, nor moved and the US govt has officially stopped looking...that is unless you read The Weekly Standard.

The problem with believe’n much of what Ritter had to say is that he did a complete 180 after get’n paid something like $250K to produce a documentary on Iraqi disarmament that was never made.

Edit: It’s also untrue to claim “no WMD have been found”, cause they have just in small quantities. A shell here and there, certainly not the mass stockpiles we know were once there, but they’ve still been found in Iraq.

But let's say they did not for argument's sake: How many resolutions has Israel violated? Quite a few.

How many of their own citizens have they used chemical weapons on? Neighbors have they invaded? :shrug:

patteeu
06-12-2006, 10:42 AM
Nope. Disagree. The facts may be in dispute here to some but they did comply per his own head of weapons who was even on FOX, here in the US and who likes the Americans, saying they got rid of them. He said that SH was paranoid hence SH's behavior. I saw him say it.

Iraq was given a clean bill of health by '92. Even weapon's inspector Ritter ( smeared by NeoCon media outlets and persons) says Iraq complied. That's called using false reports to discredit someone. The US was using CIA in those inspections to get into unauthorized areas for a coup. So we were told otherwise. Fact is NO WMD have been found, nor moved and the US govt has officially stopped looking...that is unless you read The Weekly Standard.

Whether or not Saddam actually got rid of his weapons is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not he provided a full accounting.

In a plain-speaking and detailed speech, the head of the UN weapons inspection team, Hans Blix, today provided no "smoking gun" that would indicate Iraq has built up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, but said that obstructions, inconsistencies and unanswered questions showed Iraq was not fully cooperating with inspectors.

Mr Blix admitted that despite twelve years of international demands, Iraqi cooperation has been intermittent and incomplete, in stark contrast to the attitude South Africa had taken in destroying its nuclear arsenal.

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it," he told the security council.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0127fail.htm


------------------------------------

But let's say they did not for argument's sake: How many resolutions has Israel violated? Quite a few.

I don't know.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 11:45 AM
Whether or not Saddam actually got rid of his weapons is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not he provided a full accounting.



------------------------------------



I don't know.

They have broken more than a few.

That quote is only partial information. The other info is in Scott Ritter's book.

go bowe
06-12-2006, 11:54 AM
No it's not. It's a dumb poll that doesn't get to the issue that you and the thread starter think it does. Everything hinges on the definition of "sovereign country."

I answered "yes" in this poll. My take is that the US, a sovereign country, was exercising it's right to defend itself when we invaded Iraq and we are currently participating in the defense of the sovereign state of Iraq. I'm not agreeing that the insurgents have any "right" to be doing what they are doing. How is this poll exposing anything useful wrt the situation in Iraq when I can give the same answer as someone who thinks the insurgents are justified?whoa, don't you be thinking that everyone who voted yes in the other poll thinks the insurgents are "justified"...

as you said yesterday, there are many conflicting rights involved...

and the way i analyze it, the rights of the insurgents to resist are outweighed (trumped is what i call it) by the rights of others involved...

there is also that little fact that there is a legitmate, elected governement in place that pretty much shoots the whole right to resist an occupier right in the ass (trumped again)...

go bowe
06-12-2006, 11:58 AM
Circumstances in Iraq, though, dictate otherwise....DUH.

Of course, some are too dense to see that. :rolleyes:i feel dense...

does that mean my vision is going to get worse now?

go bowe
06-12-2006, 12:19 PM
Yes, I do.



Yes, I do.



They didn't pose an imminent threat and I never believed that they did. Nor, IMO, did the administration try to make that case, despite what some people say about 45 minutes and mushroom clouds.

They did, however, represent a threat to the US that was growing as the sanctions and our containment strategy were failing. As long as they were unwilling to come clean about WMD and as long as they insisted on collaborating with terrorists (e.g. funding a suicide bomber death benefit for Palestinians, harboring terrorist fugitives like Abu Nidal, and providing terrorist training at places like Salman Pak), in a post-9/11 world it would have been unwise to see them as anything other than a "gathering threat" that had to be dealt with one way or another.with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the fact is that there were other ways to deal with saddam besides occupying the damned place...

instead of one way (occupation) we should have found another, i totally agree (now)...

go bowe
06-12-2006, 12:24 PM
You talk’n ‘bout Kamal Hussein? He “defected” from Iraq in, IIRC ’95 claim’n they’d destroyed all WMD and illegal weapons. Problem with that is, while he’s over here give’n a deposition on what they didn’t have anymore, UN weapons detectives were in Iraq find’n al Samude II missiles he’d claimed to’ve destroyed all of.



By who? UN Weapons detectives were in Iraq up ‘till ’98 look’n for weapons, programs, equipment that’s still unaccounted for today.



The problem with believe’n much of what Ritter had to say is that he did a complete 180 after get’n paid something like $250K to produce a documentary on Iraqi disarmament that was never made.

Edit: It’s also untrue to claim “no WMD have been found”, cause they have just in small quantities. A shell here and there, certainly not the mass stockpiles we know were once there, but they’ve still been found in Iraq.



How many of their own citizens have they used chemical weapons on? Neighbors have they invaded? :shrug:well, depending on your point of view, you could say that (in response to being attacked) israel has invaded egypt (since withdrawn) and whatever the hell the palestinian areas were before '67, and lebanon and syria (the golan heights)...

so actually, they have invaded neighbors, but it was certainly provoked each time...

btw, they still hold onto all those conquered areas except egypt and lebanon, iirc...

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 12:27 PM
The problem with believe’n much of what Ritter had to say is that he did a complete 180 after get’n paid something like $250K to produce a documentary on Iraqi disarmament that was never made.
See above...I said Ritter was smeared in order to cast doubt on his credibility by NeoCon media. Ritter is on record as having denied those charges which have never been proven too.
Still, the evidence corroborates Ritter and the other witness, SH head of weapons,corroborates him as well. Fact is the US has officially given up looking for them. You must be getting colored info, or half truths from Rush or some other NeoCon source.

How many of their own citizens have they used chemical weapons on? Neighbors have they invaded? :shrug:
Not really the point Patteeu made though. He said that Iraq violated UN Resolutions as a justification for going in. If that's the case then we should do the same regarding Israel was all I was saying. Why would we back up the UN anyhow? That makes no sense to me.

You're giving an entirely different rationale. One I think you and I have already discussed in circles to date. But please don't forget who gave Saddam those chemical weapons along with our blessings in using them.

Now since you brought it up:
How many neighbors did Israel invade?

How 'bout the Sinai, Egypt? I admit I don't know the specifics on this one...but for purposes of an answer I'll use as a question for now. The Golan Heights Syria?

How 'bout Lebanon? Oh yeah...Israel was being attacked. Why should we take sides? What about Israel creating a state on land that was promised to the Arabs when under the yoke of the Ottomans that if they helped Great Britain defeat the Ottomans' in WWI, they'd get all that land back along with self-determination. Great Britain was making the same promise to Baron de Rothschild on behalf of the European Jews that they could also have a portion of it. Nice way to start a conflict. Read Lawrence of Arabia who witnessed this betrayal. Sad thing is Britain could have used it as a bargaining chip up-front and it may have been a mutually satisfactory deal. Jews and Arabs lived side by side peacefully on that land, even after the earlier migrations with no anti-semitism. Typical behavior of nations that seek empires though they stir up both sides.

You could make the point is there is a war going on between Israel and Arabs...but this is the case with Iraq/Iran and Iraq/Kuwait as well. Point is Israel still was cited by the UN for breaking its resolutions. That's not a good justification for going in. I mean really why would be support a UN goal in the first place? I thought we hated it and wanted out.

You could say we strengthened the UN's goals even if we went against the SC vote. Sounds NeoCon'ish to me.

I take the side of American ideals, not the NeoCons.

John Quincy Adams stated the following about America:
"...But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own..."

go bowe
06-12-2006, 12:28 PM
* * *
But let's say they did not for argument's sake: How many resolutions has Israel violated? Quite a few.how many security council resolutions has israel failed to comply with?

last time i checked the u.s., an ally of israel, has a veto in the security council...

when have we ever let a resolution go through the security council that demanded anything from israel?

you're thinking of general assembly resolutions, maybe...

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 12:30 PM
how many security council resolutions has israel failed to comply with?

last time i checked the u.s., an ally of israel, has a veto in the security council...

when have we ever let a resolution go through the security council that demanded anything from israel?

you're thinking of general assembly resolutions, maybe...

I only used the word "resolutions."

go bowe
06-12-2006, 12:40 PM
I only used the word "resolutions."actually, you appear to be correct in that israel has not always abided by security council resolutions calling on all sides to the dispute to stop with the violence, etc.

i haven't seen any that demand that israel should withdraw from the occupied territories per se, but i got tired at looking at them, there is a huge list of s.c. resolutions affecting israel at this link (http://snipurl.com/roka)

Radar Chief
06-12-2006, 01:11 PM
See above...I said Ritter was smeared in order to cast doubt on his credibility by NeoCon media. Ritter is on record as having denied those charges which have never been proven too.

I thought Ritter readily admitted he took money to produce the documentary mentioned, but denied that he didn’t actually make it.

Not really the point Patteeu made though.

Ok, I’ll drop it.

But please don't forget who gave Saddam those chemical weapons along with our blessings in using them.

Soviet Russia? You do realize that’s where he got the majority of his chem. / bio weapons, right?

Now since you brought it up:
How many neighbors did Israel invade?

How 'bout the Sinai, Egypt? I admit I don't know the specifics on this one...but for purposes of an answer I'll use as a question for now. The Golan Heights Syria?

How 'bout Lebanon? Oh yeah...Israel was being attacked.

:LOL: Oh yea, as a side note, it was Israel that was attacked so they took the lank they were attacked from. ;)

go bowe
06-12-2006, 01:34 PM
I thought Ritter readily admitted he took money to produce the documentary mentioned, but denied that he didn’t actually make it.



Ok, I’ll drop it.



Soviet Russia? You do realize that’s where he got the majority of his chem. / bio weapons, right?



:LOL: Oh yea, as a side note, it was Israel that was attacked so they took the lank they were attacked from. ;)not all of it...

at one time or another every country in the region has attacked israel...

and they've only kept gaza and the west bank and the golan heights...

imagine if they hadn't stopped in '67 or whichever arab attack/war it was...

they could have taken out saddam and assad for us...

of course they don't quite enough solidiers to begin to occupy all that territory...

they're having a hard enough time just occupying the palestinian territories...

hmmmm, maybe that should have been more of a consideration for the post-war planners...

that military occupation of religious zealot's lands is likely to be very costly and not particularly successful, judging from israel's experience over the years...

what were they thinking over at the defense department?

did they really expect the occupation to be all hearts and flowers?

did they really not expect the total breakdown of civil authority after we had defeated the iraqi army (and then disbanded it without using it to help maintain/restore order)?

did they really think that the baathists might not resist an occupation?

it all makes my head hurt...

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 02:32 PM
:LOL: Oh yea, as a side note, it was Israel that was attacked so they took the lank they were attacked from. ;)

Ahem...you need to go earlier in time was my point:
Who helped the British storm the beaches of Palestine to help wrest the area from the Turks? The araaaaaaaaaabs! Who then fought to get the British out? Whattamess!

Oh yeah I forgot, God told the Israelis to take the land in the first place....just as Bush claims God told him to attack Iraq. Guess that makes it okay.

Both sides have equal right to that land as I see it.

banyon
06-12-2006, 02:34 PM
They most certainly were. The UN demanded a full accounting of Saddam's WMD programs/stockpiles including those he may have destroyed and he failed to comply.

I don't know if you are trying to say that we have complied with the U.N. process. But if you are, I wasn't referring to Resolution 1441, I was referring to Article 51 of the Charter itself of which we are in violation.

Radar Chief
06-12-2006, 02:47 PM
did they really not expect the total breakdown of civil authority after we had defeated the iraqi army (and then disbanded it without using it to help maintain/restore order)?

That’s a huge one right there.
After the first battalion of Iraqis surrendered, the rest saw that we completely disbanded’em and they decided it was better to resist. :doh!: :shake:

Radar Chief
06-12-2006, 02:50 PM
Ahem...you need to go earlier in time was my point:
Who helped the British storm the beaches of Palestine to help wrest the area from the Turks? The araaaaaaaaaabs! Who then fought to get the British out? Whattamess!

Oh yeah I forgot, God told the Israelis to take the land in the first place....just as Bush claims God told him to attack Iraq. Guess that makes it okay.

I thought he took orders from Beelzebub, i.e. Cheney. :shrug:

Both sides have equal right to that land as I see it.

Agreed, why can’t we all just get along? :deevee:

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 02:56 PM
I thought he took orders from Beelzebub, i.e. Cheney. :shrug:

God works in mysterious ways. I just know that Bush has said that.

patteeu
06-12-2006, 04:15 PM
whoa, don't you be thinking that everyone who voted yes in the other poll thinks the insurgents are "justified"...

as you said yesterday, there are many conflicting rights involved...

and the way i analyze it, the rights of the insurgents to resist are outweighed (trumped is what i call it) by the rights of others involved...

there is also that little fact that there is a legitmate, elected governement in place that pretty much shoots the whole right to resist an occupier right in the ass (trumped again)...

Don't worry. I'm not limited to a black and white analysis that would lump you in with memyselfi just because you answered that poll in the same way. You clarified your position in your posts and made good arguments as far as I'm concerned.

patteeu
06-12-2006, 04:18 PM
with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the fact is that there were other ways to deal with saddam besides occupying the damned place...

instead of one way (occupation) we should have found another, i totally agree (now)...

I think you can make a strong argument for your position which is why I added that "one way or another." :)

patteeu
06-12-2006, 04:27 PM
Not really the point Patteeu made though. He said that Iraq violated UN Resolutions as a justification for going in. If that's the case then we should do the same regarding Israel was all I was saying. Why would we back up the UN anyhow? That makes no sense to me.

Actually, my point was simply that Iraq HAD violated the resolutions which it looked like you were claiming was not the case. Personally, I don't look to the UN for justification of our Iraq invasion.

As for your point about Israel, there is no reason why we should treat Israel and Iraq identically simply because you see one similarity between the two, IMO.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 04:31 PM
Actually, my point was simply that Iraq HAD violated the resolutions which it looked like you were claiming was not the case. Personally, I don't look to the UN for justification of our Iraq invasion.

As for your point about Israel, there is no reason why we should treat Israel and Iraq identically simply because you see one similarity between the two, IMO.

patteeu, I think you and I agree on a lotta issues, but not on Iraq apparently. I just see this as a double standard. Not that Israel's govt is bad to its own people...just a double standard on the resolutions.

patteeu
06-12-2006, 04:31 PM
I don't know if you are trying to say that we have complied with the U.N. process. But if you are, I wasn't referring to Resolution 1441, I was referring to Article 51 of the Charter itself of which we are in violation.

No, I was responding to BucEyedPea's post that seemed to be saying that Saddam HAD complied with all the UN resolutions.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 04:34 PM
No, I was responding to BucEyedPea's post that seemed to be saying that Saddam HAD complied with all the UN resolutions.

No not all, just on the WMD's compliance based on what I saw his head of such weapons claimed on FOX. That's good enough for me and the fact that they have not been found despite some media outlets trying to plant a different imatge in some minds.

patteeu
06-12-2006, 04:35 PM
patteeu, I think you and I agree on a lotta issues, but not on Iraq apparently. I just see this as a double standard. Not that Israel's govt is bad to its own people...just a double standard on the resolutions.

I agree that it is a double standard, but it's not the kind of double standard that you can say "all else is equal" because it's not. There are a ton of differences between Israel and Saddam's Iraq, not the least of which was that Israel has been a close ally and Saddam's Iraq had been beligerent toward us. It's not that I see no value at all in maintaining some consistency in our foreign policy, it's just that I think consistency is overrated.

Nightwish
06-12-2006, 04:40 PM
Usually, I would say yes. But it's certainly not absolute. There are many scenarios I can think of in which It wouldn't be justified.

For example:

1) Country A is emitting toxins (serious stuff, like mercury) into a river. The pollutants go down the river into Country B, Killing many of its Citizens. Country B tries diplomacy to resolve the situation, But Country A doesn't even believe that there is a problem. Country B attacks Country A with the full support of the international community. Country A then defends itself by Dropping an atomic bomb on Country B to halt their invasion which threatened to overwhelm Country A.

2) Country C engages in compulsory weekly government enforced executions of all the recently born children of minorities A coalition of countries decides that this practice is morally reprehensible. The coalition invades, and Country C repels the invasion, using chemical and biological weaponry to do so.
These scenarios argue more for the attacking nations' right to attack another sovereign nation than against the offending nations' right to defend themselves.

Nightwish
06-12-2006, 04:42 PM
I agree that it is a double standard, but it's not the kind of double standard that you can say "all else is equal" because it's not. There are a ton of differences between Israel and Saddam's Iraq, not the least of which was that Israel has been a close ally and Saddam's Iraq had been beligerent toward us. It's not that I see no value at all in maintaining some consistency in our foreign policy, it's just that I think consistency is overrated.
Until the early 90s, Saddam's Iraq was also an ally. And when, except when we were already amassing troops on Saddam's borders and enacting crippling sanctions against them, were they belligerent towards us?

banyon
06-12-2006, 04:53 PM
These scenarios argue more for the attacking nations' right to attack another sovereign nation than against the offending nations' right to defend themselves.

Scenario 2 can be done all within the confines of the same defending country.

Nightwish
06-12-2006, 04:55 PM
Scenario 2 can be done all within the confines of the same defending country.True, but it still doesn't really argue against their right to defend, just to the aggressors' right to aggress. Of course, when we're dealing with sovereign nations, what constitutes their "rights" is a sticky question, because it begs the question from what authority are their rights derived? Their own self-determination? The consent of other nations? God? Some even more amorphous and intangible authority?

banyon
06-12-2006, 04:57 PM
True, but it still doesn't really argue against their right to defend, just to the aggressors' right to aggress.

What? Country C is aggressing against its own population. The point is that they might not have a "right" to defend themselves in such a scenario, from the coalition that opposed them.

Nightwish
06-12-2006, 05:01 PM
What? Country C is aggressing against its own population. The point is that they might not have a "right" to defend themselves in such a scenario, from the coalition that opposed them.
That's part of why I say it's a sticky question as to what "rights" a sovereign nation really has, and what rights it only imagines it has. In the theater of international aggressions, rights are pretty tenuous, and they often dissolve in the face of bigger guns.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 05:02 PM
What? Country C is aggressing against its own population. The point is that they might not have a "right" to defend themselves in such a scenario, from the coalition that opposed them.

Now why is this our business?

This is why I don't see the left that much different than the NeoCons on the fantasy right? The just disagree as to when and how.

patteeu
06-12-2006, 05:13 PM
Until the early 90s, Saddam's Iraq was also an ally. And when, except when we were already amassing troops on Saddam's borders and enacting crippling sanctions against them, were they belligerent towards us?

To the extent that they were an "ally," they weren't anything like the kind of ally that Israel has been. Try a little of that famous nonconservative nuance on for style.

Saddam has been beligerent toward us since the first Gulf War. You can justify it by blaming the US if you want to (I'm sure he would), but it doesn't change the fact that he was. Targeting our aircraft in the no fly zones was only the most obvious example.

Nightwish
06-12-2006, 05:15 PM
Saddam has been beligerent toward us since the first Gulf War. You can justify it by blaming the US if you want to (I'm sure he would), but it doesn't change the fact that he was. Targeting our aircraft in the no fly zones was only the most obvious example.That much is pretty understandable, from his part. The targeting aircraft in the no fly zones was more like shooting back, since many of those aircraft were carrying out unprovoked (by military aggression) attacks into Iraq from the air. It's a bit silly to say that we should be able to attack with impunity, but that they can't fight back, don't you think?

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 05:19 PM
That much is pretty understandable, from his part. The targeting aircraft in the no fly zones was more like shooting back, since many of those aircraft were carrying out unprovoked (by military aggression) attacks into Iraq from the air. It's a bit silly to say that we should be able to attack with impunity, but that they can't fight back, don't you think?

I agree. I also heard these attacks were not legal.
He was a petty thug dictator of a 3rd world country.

banyon
06-12-2006, 05:23 PM
Now why is this our business?

This is why I don't see the left that much different than the NeoCons on the fantasy right? The just disagree as to when and how.


Scenario 2 pretty well describes the Nazis in WWII. That was our business.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 05:25 PM
Scenario 2 pretty well describes the Nazis in WWII. That was our business.

Only because their ally Japan attacked us first. Once we declared war on Japan, I believe Germany then declared war on us next. Not for any other reason would it have been our fight.

banyon
06-12-2006, 05:27 PM
Only because their ally Japan attacked us first. Once we declared war on Japan, I believe Germany then declared war on us next. Not for any other reason would it have been our fight.

There are probably some Holocaust survivors who would disagree with you on this point, and I would agree with them.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 05:30 PM
There are probably some Holocaust survivors who would disagree with you on this point, and I would agree with them.

Hey I don't agree with what FDR did on turning Jewish people away for safety in America before we got into that war. Or for certain US companies being allowed to make the gas that was used on them, then have their factories in Germany get spared bombing. Not to speak of the fact that Hitler was going to allow mass migrations of Jews out of Germany through Spain even. A lot of that was avoidable. In the end we were attacked, so justice entered in ultimately. Karma for the Nazis.

banyon
06-12-2006, 05:43 PM
Hey I don't agree with what FDR did on turning Jewish people away for safety in America before we got into that war. Or for certain US companies being allowed to make the gas that was used on them, then have their factories in Germany get spared bombing. Not to speak of the fact that Hitler was going to allow mass migrations of Jews out of Germany through Spain even. A lot of that was avoidable. In the end we were attacked, so justice entered in ultimately. Karma for the Nazis.

Yeah, but my point was that no matter the actual reasons for the U.S. entering into WWII, the Holocaust would've provided sufficent justification, and the Nazis wouldn't have been justified in defending themselves so that they could continue perpetuating these despicable practices.

Nightwish
06-12-2006, 05:44 PM
There are probably some Holocaust survivors who would disagree with you on this point, and I would agree with them.
Ideally, we would have been morally right, in my opinion, to attack Germany for that reason. However, we didn't. In fact, we ignored what was going on for three full years, and even gave consideration to Germany's attempts to woo us into the war on their side. On the other hand, when you use idealogical arguments to justify going to war, you can start on a dangerous slippery slope.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 05:47 PM
Yeah, but my point was that no matter the actual reasons for the U.S. entering into WWII, the Holocaust would've provided sufficent justification, and the Nazis wouldn't have been justified in defending themselves so that they could continue perpetuating these despicable practices.

I understood what you were sayin'...now the commies killed millions more. In fact no one has matched the communists in all of history and they kill more after they take power. Look at the Ukrainian famine alone...how come not there? That and their gulags would have made it morally justified too.

Nightwish
06-12-2006, 07:55 PM
Yeah, but my point was that no matter the actual reasons for the U.S. entering into WWII, the Holocaust would've provided sufficent justification, and the Nazis wouldn't have been justified in defending themselves so that they could continue perpetuating these despicable practices.
But according to which standard, according to what authority would the Nazis have not been justified in defending themselves? Even in the civil arena, the very worst of mass murderers is entitled to a defense. Why should that not be the case in war?

patteeu
06-12-2006, 08:38 PM
That much is pretty understandable, from his part. The targeting aircraft in the no fly zones was more like shooting back, since many of those aircraft were carrying out unprovoked (by military aggression) attacks into Iraq from the air. It's a bit silly to say that we should be able to attack with impunity, but that they can't fight back, don't you think?

Did you work for Saddam's propaganda service or something? Maybe you should read up on the whole history of the first Gulf War and the subsequent containment regime. Alternatively, maybe you can link me to "many" examples of the US making unprovoked attacks into Iraq from the air.

Nightwish
06-12-2006, 09:01 PM
Did you work for Saddam's propaganda service or something?

Why, is this a contest? Are you writing for Fox News?

Maybe you should read up on the whole history of the first Gulf War and the subsequent containment regime. Alternatively, maybe you can link me to "many" examples of the US making unprovoked attacks into Iraq from the air.I believe you forgot the question I originally asked you (you didn't answer the first time, either) -- when, except for when we were amassing troops on Iraq's borders or enacting crippling sanctions against them, were they belligerent towards us? You provided examples of when he was belligerent towards us during all those things, and for understandable reason, but I'm still waiting for an example outside of that scenario.

As for the air-based attacks into Iraq, I must recant my comment that they were unprovoked by previous military action (though it does appear that some of them may have been, as they were carried out under the argument of retaliation for planes being fired upon by Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries; however, at some of the attack sites, there were no anti-aircraft guns or military machinery present; and at least one source I found, quoting an Iraqi source, claimed that our planes were often over-extending their flight patterns and intruding into Iraqi airspace, in which case they are fair game). It seems that Hussein began ordering anti-aircraft batteries to fire upon aircraft in the no-fly zone in response to reports that they were leaving the zone and violating Iraqi airspace. At any rate, by the time all that happened, the cease-fire between the US and Iraq had long been dissolved.

The question remains, though, who actually broke the cease-fire? American sources claim that Iraq broke the cease-fire, but not by engaging in actual attacks or military action against US forces or machinery. Instead, they reason that the cease-fire was contingent upon Saddam allowing inspectors access to his wmd programs. The problem is, the resolution with which the cease-fire is also associated was so vague in its language, as far as what specifically and exactly was required of the Iraqis, that the UN inspectors basically had a lot of leeway to interpret it how they wished and flesh it out as they went along. Although Saddam was not reported as specifically barring them from program sites or actively hindering them, they did report that he was not cooperating with them fully enough, according to very liberal interpretations of the resolution, and the US used that as an excuse to declare that the cease-fire had been violated. However, the first military violation of the cease-fire, the first staged attack by one party against the other, was ours, so the true cease-fire was broken by the US in 1993, when we sent several dozen cruise missiles into Iraq in response to the assassination plot against former President Bush (though no proof that Saddam or his government played a role in the assassination plot was ever discovered). As far as the Iraqis were concerned, once we did that, all bets were off. No need to creatively interpret a vague resolution to declare the cease-fire broken, they had missile craters to prove it conclusively.

Radar Chief
06-13-2006, 07:00 AM
Only because their ally Japan attacked us first. Once we declared war on Japan, I believe Germany then declared war on us next. Not for any other reason would it have been our fight.

A couple of things here. First, Germany and Japan weren’t allies as much as they had a “non-aggression pact”. It was a mutually beneficial agreement, but they weren’t cooperating or coordinating attacks or anything that I know of.
Second, German u-boats were patrol’n off our east coast and sink’n our supply ships headed for UK. They hadn’t officially declared war on us, but they certainly were attack’n us before we became militarily engaged in WWII.

patteeu
06-13-2006, 07:01 AM
I believe you forgot the question I originally asked you (you didn't answer the first time, either) -- when, except for when we were amassing troops on Iraq's borders or enacting crippling sanctions against them, were they belligerent towards us? You provided examples of when he was belligerent towards us during all those things, and for understandable reason, but I'm still waiting for an example outside of that scenario.

I made the statement that Iraq had been beligerent toward the US in post 69 in my discussion with BucEyedPea about the current Iraq war. That statement is true based on beligerent actions that have occured since the first Gulf War. Your question about beligerence prior to the first Gulf War is irrelevant to my original comment so I ignored it. If you want to make a point about something else that involves whether or not Iraq had a history of beligerence toward us prior to GWI, then go ahead and make it, but be aware that you are changing the subject.

As for the air-based attacks into Iraq, I must recant my comment that they were unprovoked by previous military action (though it does appear that some of them may have been, as they were carried out under the argument of retaliation for planes being fired upon by Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries; however, at some of the attack sites, there were no anti-aircraft guns or military machinery present; and at least one source I found, quoting an Iraqi source, claimed that our planes were often over-extending their flight patterns and intruding into Iraqi airspace, in which case they are fair game). It seems that Hussein began ordering anti-aircraft batteries to fire upon aircraft in the no-fly zone in response to reports that they were leaving the zone and violating Iraqi airspace. At any rate, by the time all that happened, the cease-fire between the US and Iraq had long been dissolved.

The question remains, though, who actually broke the cease-fire? American sources claim that Iraq broke the cease-fire, but not by engaging in actual attacks or military action against US forces or machinery. Instead, they reason that the cease-fire was contingent upon Saddam allowing inspectors access to his wmd programs. The problem is, the resolution with which the cease-fire is also associated was so vague in its language, as far as what specifically and exactly was required of the Iraqis, that the UN inspectors basically had a lot of leeway to interpret it how they wished and flesh it out as they went along. Although Saddam was not reported as specifically barring them from program sites or actively hindering them, they did report that he was not cooperating with them fully enough, according to very liberal interpretations of the resolution, and the US used that as an excuse to declare that the cease-fire had been violated. However, the first military violation of the cease-fire, the first staged attack by one party against the other, was ours, so the true cease-fire was broken by the US in 1993, when we sent several dozen cruise missiles into Iraq in response to the assassination plot against former President Bush (though no proof that Saddam or his government played a role in the assassination plot was ever discovered). As far as the Iraqis were concerned, once we did that, all bets were off. No need to creatively interpret a vague resolution to declare the cease-fire broken, they had missile craters to prove it conclusively.

That was sure a long-winded retraction.

P.S. The connection between the assassination attempt and Iraq is not without evidence even if the evidence is not conclusive proof. There was no reason to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt at that point.

Logical
06-13-2006, 06:25 PM
A couple of things here. First, Germany and Japan weren’t allies as much as they had a “non-aggression pact”. It was a mutually beneficial agreement, but they weren’t cooperating or coordinating attacks or anything that I know of.
Second, German u-boats were patrol’n off our east coast and sink’n our supply ships headed for UK. They hadn’t officially declared war on us, but they certainly were attack’n us before we became militarily engaged in WWII.
This is incorrect. There was definitely an alliance, read on:
The Tripartite Pact of September 27, 1940, allied Germany, Italy, and Japan and became known as the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis, or Axis alliance. These three countries recognized German hegemony over most of continental Europe; Italian hegemony over the Mediterranean; and Japanese hegemony over East Asia and the Pacific.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005177

Adept Havelock
06-13-2006, 06:32 PM
Indeed Vlad, indeed.

Radar Chief-

Germany and Japan did have an alliance, both in words and deeds. They exchanged military technology, and up until the Japanese decided to focus on the Pacific after getting their ass kicked by Zhukov at Khalkin-Gohl in 39-40, there was some debate and a couple of kriegspiels run with the German and Japanese general staffs over using the occupation forces in Manchuko (Manchuria) to fix the Soviet forces in the Far East, while Germany invaded European Russia. The last of these was carried out sometime in the Summer of 1941, during the early phases of Barbarossa.

On another note Hitler and Stalin has a "non-agression pact" too. Germany kept delivering military and industrial hardware right up until a few days before June 22'nd 1941, in exchange for POL products and foodstuffs. The status of "non-aggression" pact most certainly does not preclude support or military coordination. Exhibits A and B, 1939 Poland and the Baltic States of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.

The lack of Anglo-American type integrated military operations between Japan and Germany had considerably more to do with geographical issues than the so-called lack of an "alliance'.

Come on Radar Chief, I know your command of history is better than that absurd claim shows.

Yes, the US did lose a number of ships before December the 7'th. That said, many of the losses (according to the Merchant Marine Organization) seem to have occurred in the area in which Germany had declared unrestricted submarine warfare on ships supplying England or near her colonies. All told, approx. 250 casulties before December the 7'th. While tragic, hardly a repeat of the Lusitania.

Radar Chief
06-14-2006, 07:26 AM
Indeed Vlad, indeed.

Radar Chief-

Germany and Japan did have an alliance, both in words and deeds.

:doh!: Dur, the “Axis” was an “alliance” in every sense of the word. My bad, don’t know what I was think’n there. :redface:

Yes, the US did lose a number of ships before December the 7'th. That said, many of the losses (according to the Merchant Marine Organization) seem to have occurred in the area in which Germany had declared unrestricted submarine warfare on ships supplying England or near her colonies. All told, approx. 250 casulties before December the 7'th. While tragic, hardly a repeat of the Lusitania.

Keep in mind, this is what’s be’n responded too.

Only because their ally Japan attacked us first. Once we declared war on Japan, I believe Germany then declared war on us next. Not for any other reason would it have been our fight.

And point’n out that German U-Boats had already been patrol’n off our east coast and sink’n our ships with supplies headed for UK points out that we certainly had provocation to declare war on Germany beyond the “Oh yea, well you’re one too” reasoning BEP seems to be suggest’n.
That’s all.

BucEyedPea
06-14-2006, 07:37 AM
And point’n out that German U-Boats had already been patrol’n off our east coast and sink’n our ships with supplies headed for UK points out that we certainly had provocation to declare war on Germany beyond the “Oh yea, well you’re one too” reasoning BEP seems to be suggest’n.
That’s all.
Back that up with specifics, please. I never heard that before. I thought that was before WWI.

Radar Chief
06-14-2006, 08:03 AM
Back that up with specifics, please. I never heard that before. I thought that was before WWI.

AH already provided a pretty informative screen capture with many of the specifics.
Right now I have to modify some units for low speed use and am out of interweb play time. ;)
I’ll check in later to see if you still have questions.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 08:40 PM
boo hiss...

i'm gonna tell your boss that you need more internet play time or i'm gonna boycott his store or factory or shop or whatever the hell he has...

so there...

Adept Havelock
06-14-2006, 09:04 PM
:doh!: Dur, the “Axis” was an “alliance” in every sense of the word. My bad, don’t know what I was think’n there. :redface:



Keep in mind, this is what’s be’n responded too.



And point’n out that German U-Boats had already been patrol’n off our east coast and sink’n our ships with supplies headed for UK points out that we certainly had provocation to declare war on Germany beyond the “Oh yea, well you’re one too” reasoning BEP seems to be suggest’n.
That’s all.

True, Germany was indeed our fight, if only because it was the most dangerous member of that alliance. Speaking strictly from national self-interest If we hadn't supported England and Russia, I fully expect we would have had a far nastier and longer struggle with Nazi Germany than we had historically with the USSR. The damn Nazi's and their love of apocalyptic imagery and battle would almost have ensured it. I have little doubt that a "cold war" with the Reich would have ultimately left the world a charred cinder by this point. TheUSSR was a rational actor. The Reich, clearly was not. I have no doubt that in a protracted economic struggle like the cold war, the Nazi ideologues would have had little restraint when it came to playing Samson in the temple when it looked like they might lose a "cold" war.