« | Main | Withholding Penalty »

January 27, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834410fef53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No WMD's: No Just War?:

Comments

Rich Leonardi

No WMD's: No Just War?

No post-bellum "second guess" permitted by the teaching.

Laura

See, the Pope was right. Oh, ye of little faith.

Unapologetic Catholic

MOJ is correct, that's what 2309 means by its requirement that the threat be "certain." It was never certain. WMD possession as a basis for a "just war" is questionable at best, but granting at least that for the moment, their use has to be imminent. When they consist only of an artist's conception depiscted on a powerpoint animation, there is a very big problem.

As a practical matter, we have created the boy who cried wolf syndrome. It will be doubly difficult for a future president to call the nation to a war based on a threat of WMD use unless the evidence is overwhelming and perhaps too late.

Liam

Unapologetic Catholic cuts to the chase here, allowing us to put aside yet another feedback loop on the JWD. If anything, "doubly difficult" probably understates the difficulty.

Rich Leonardi

It was never certain.

It was certain enough for fourteen nations to stipulate to it in the last UN decree before the conflict. I do agree, though, that right now a "boy who cried wolf" syndrome is real.

Richard

I smell a 100 post thread in the making.

Phil

I doubt the Bush administration thought too much about the Just War doctrine. The wanted that war because they thought it would serve the interests of the United States. They decided first and they they sought arguments to justify their decision to the American public--that's why they used intelligence data so selectively. Anything that buttressed their case for war, they used. That which which weakened their case for war, they ignored or attacked. In other words, they behaved not like objective truth finders, but more like salesmen trying to make a sale or a lawyer at court trying to win his case. I guess there is nothing remarkable about the fact that politicians behaved like politicians, but at least this fact should be acknowledged and not hidden behind noble sounding words.

For a candid view of how things were on the ground in Iraq, read the following Godspy interview with Evan Wright, a writer who spent two months with a front line Marine unit and wrote a book which was (generally) praised by the marines he described. Read the whole thing before jumping into conclusions.

http://www.godspy.com/reviews/Into-Iraq-With-Generation-Kill-An-Interview-with-Evan-Wright-by-Angelo-Matera.cfm

al

Unapologetic Catholic is right about JWD alone being insufficient, in particular is their imminent use is suspect due to their existence being dubious.

And since this was articulated before the war (for example, note Sen. Boxer's confrontation of Dr. Rice on the aluminium tubes--the dubitum on the tubes came from the USG's Livermore labs, at the time) the charge of a post fact de-justification is not true.

If there was ironclad, but ultimately false proof before the war, then you'd have an argument of a genuine error, no one's fault.

However the argument that there was a persisting right of war, perduring from the First Gulf War, which meant that, in effect, Iraq's soveriegnty was impaired from the invasion onward is absurd.

Gulf War I was about the invasion of Kuwait. The arms control regime was not related to the original casus belli, as the original weapons inspection team will verify.

To claim that Casus belli is still operative, and requires only a technical violation of the cease fire, even absent any belligerent intent (and no, shooting at planes flying over Iraq doesn't count) is ludicrous.

ajb

Paul Wolfowitz is on record as stating that WMDs were simply the rationale that the administration thought would be easiest to sell to the public.

Rich Leonardi

Wolfowitz observed that among the range of reasons for going to war, WMD was the one that resonated with the public and so received more attention from the administration. It was less sinister than ajb is making it appear.

Donald R.McClarey

Let's see, Saddam was continuing to violate the cease fire agreement, threw out the inspectors, continued to butcher the Kurds and the Shia, attempted to murder Bush 41, routinely shot at our planes attempting to enforce the no-fly zones, was up to his eyeballs in the first world trade bombing, gave sanctuary and aid to a laundry list of terrorist groups, and was rebuilding his weapons stockpiles through illegal diversion of dollars from the oil for food UN boondoggle. How could anyone believe that we possibly had a just casus belli against Saddam?

al

Donald,
Which one of those demonstrates an imminent threat, or extant aggression?

ajb

Wolfowitz' quote to VF was "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

Now over 1,300 young Americans and countless thousands of Iraqis, have died for a "bureaucratic reason".

c matt

And which of those from the range of reasons satisfied JWD from the pre-war pov?

Liberating Iraq from a dictator? That would not fall under defense of US, for which W is charged (and therefore the competent authority). I guess we could be as self-appointed global cop, but that does seem to stretch the concept of competent authority.

Rich Leonardi

So was it a "bureacratic" decision or one determined by "selling" criteria?

Donald R.McClarey

Donald,
Which one of those demonstrates an imminent threat, or extant aggression?

All of them Al. Next question?

c matt

They were so imminent they were going on for TWELVE YEARS.

al

Maybe for someone who has another reason to go to war, and is looking for a pretext, but to most americans, its hard to see how people in Oklahoma are endangered by any of those things.

Liam

For anyone who wishes to be released from the feedback loop, please read the third comment in the thread.

ajb

Rich, on the selling of the war angle, here's White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, quoted in the NYT, on why the administration began its push in September:

"From a marketing point of view you don't introduce new products in August."

Donald R.McClarey

Maybe for someone who has another reason to go to war, and is looking for a pretext, but to most americans, its hard to see how people in Oklahoma are endangered by any of those things.

Attempted murder of a former president, shooting at our pilots, bombing the world trade center, aid to terrorists? I doubt if the people of Oklahoma would view this with equanamity. Some of the inhabitants of St. Blog's however would, I am sure, view Iraq as "a far away country" and cherish "peace in our time" above all other considerations. At least peace for Americans.

ajb

Donald, you're just wrong:

1. Saddam allowed the inspectors back in. It was North Korea that threw them out. The inspectors only left Iraq when Bush told them to get out of the way of his bombs.

2. The Kurds were protected by our no-fly-zones. They did, however, provide cover for the only known Al-Qaida connection, Zawqari. And btw, when he was gassing the Kurds, he was using weapons we gave him during the Iran-Iraq war.

3. THere's absolutely no evidence of a connection with the first World Trade Center attack. That's tin-foil hat territory.

4. What's the laundry list of terrorist groups? At most he funded Palestinians against Isreal, as do most of our Arab allies.

5. He simply wasn't rebuilding his weapons stockpiles. Remember, Bush had to lie about uranium from Niger to support that proposition.

Phil

Not that it will change my mind about the Iraq War, but for me to get a better grip of the Just War Doctrine itself, according to this doctrine which past wars *clearly* (without controversy) passed muster for the invading (or attacking) party?

Donald R.McClarey

"1. Saddam allowed the inspectors back in. It was North Korea that threw them out. The inspectors only left Iraq when Bush told them to get out of the way of his bombs.

2. The Kurds were protected by our no-fly-zones. They did, however, provide cover for the only known Al-Qaida connection, Zawqari. And btw, when he was gassing the Kurds, he was using weapons we gave him during the Iran-Iraq war.

3. THere's absolutely no evidence of a connection with the first World Trade Center attack. That's tin-foil hat territory.

4. What's the laundry list of terrorist groups? At most he funded Palestinians against Isreal, as do most of our Arab allies.

5. He simply wasn't rebuilding his weapons stockpiles. Remember, Bush had to lie about uranium from Niger to support that proposition."

1. How nice of him, after having tossed them out for several years, and after having made sure they could not perform their tasks while in country.

2. Those nasty Kurds, they had it coming didn't they? What full moon source told you we sold any chemical weapons to Saddam, let alone the specific weapons used against the Kurds.

3. I only use tin foil to wrap leftovers. Please read Laurie Mylroie's book The War Against America which makes the case for Sadddam's involvement in the first WTC bombing. She is a notorious right wing source, however. She was Bill Clinton's advisor on Iraq during the 92 campaign.

4. Al Qaeda, Abu Nidal's organization, Ansar-al-Islam, all Palestinian terrorist organizations, to name just a few.

5. Bush lied about nothing. If anything he relied on flawed intelligence. As to the "yellow cake" purchases in Niger by Iraq, that issue is still very much open.

falerina

Still harping on WMD? In spite of the evidence of nuke development, biomedical labs, and the purchase of arms from France and Russia; What else do you want? If this is the best you can say, what kind of half truths do you write in your books? Evil is Evil, either within your own church (by way of pediphiles) or masked by another religion. Christain are divided: Cath, Prost & East Orth. Get over this picky stuff and look at the BIG picture. What I've read so far on this site is all little picky stupid stuff. The terrorists from that region don't care if you're warm and fuzzy. They don't care that you love them, as Jesus commands us. They only know that you are non-believers and there is only ONE way to deal with non-belivers according to the Koran--DEATH

Richard

Hello ajb,

"And btw, when he was gassing the Kurds, he was using weapons we gave him during the Iran-Iraq war."

To what precisely is this in reference to?

I know some dual use stuff got through Commerce Dept. during the Reagan Administration. But nothing (to my knowledge) that wasn't a good long ways away from weaponization.

Christopher Rake

3. THere's absolutely no evidence of a connection with the first World Trade Center attack. That's tin-foil hat territory.

Not tin foil--not even close--though I am uncertain if that was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

ajb is also mistaken on linking Bush to a supposed lie about uranium from Niger. This is one of the old misreprenstations--you must find new material. He mentioned an Iraqi search for uranium in Africa, a very credible claim, and of course it was later shown (after the media spotlight, oddly enough, wandered away from anything supporting Bush's case) that Joseph Wilson actully stumbled across evidence supporting that. And of course the Brits still insist on the truth of this point.

Iraq is part of the beginning of the war against terrorism. I see the same old tapes being played above so have at it. I am confident that Bush is doing the right thing to make sure we don't wait for another 3000 or 50000 or million people to be killed to satisfy al & co. I live and work in the DC area and am grateful that Bush is not satisfied with watching the terrorists point a gun at my head.

al

the WTC connection is definitely tin foil. Laurie Myrolie is a nut.

The Al Quieda links are still up in the air (which I would say constitute a right on their own, without WMD's)

Spaghetti on the wall doesn't cut it for JWD, it just make your case weaker, because its just rhetorical.

c matt

Iraq is part of the beginning of the war against terrorism.

If it is, and I don't doubt it is in W's view, we better do a few things first -

1) Finish chewing what we bit off before we go bite off anything else (meaning Afghanistan and Iraq). Syria, et al will have to wait.

and

2) We better seriously consider using methods other than invasion and nation building - we've not got the manpower, money or stomach for any more excursions like the present two.

Unapologetic Catholic

"which past wars *clearly* (without controversy) passed muster for the invading (or attacking) party?"

The Catechism clearly refers to legitimate defense--not to attacking or invading in any way. So the short answer is "None."

However, some people are reading into the catechism an implicit "resonableness" requirement that a defensive party to war doesn't need to wait until the missles are acutally in the air, and can launch a "defensive attack" in an emergency situation. Although that's not actually in the Catechism, I don't think it's an unreasonable implied condition. However, I would think that a defensive attack under such an implied exception to the general rule would essentially be a counteratttack on military units already deployed or on the move.

"Non-emergencies" such as yellowcake uranium purchases are not in this category at all. Drones that can't reach the U.S. aren't in this category. "Possible" computer graphic representations of mobile biological weapons labs aren't in this category either.

Mark Shea

They only know that you are non-believers and there is only ONE way to deal with non-belivers according to the Koran--DEATH

Um, ever hear the phrase "People of the Book". It's just not true that the Quran teaches that Christians and Jews must all be killed. But when you are having a good hysterical fit of jingoism, I guess such pedantries are a nuisance. Better to just demonize a billion people and demand we do something rash and stupid. That will help things.

Christopher Rake

the WTC connection is definitely tin foil. Laurie Myrolie is a nut

The truth is I have never felt like I know quite enough about Myrolie's reasoning (putting aside the easy slurs) to decide where I should place her on the Chris-O-Meter. But here we are talking about the first WTC bombing, and Myrolie is far from alone in asserting an Iraqi link.

al

Christopher,
Who else asserts it, not relying on her. Even Pentagon figures have been caught out citing her, so I'd be interested to know if there's a reliable source.

Jim

Did I hear Secretary of State Rice the other day say that the just war theory was not particularly useful? I haven't seen a transcript, but that's what I thought I heard. Anybody know for sure?

Christopher Rake

Well, for starters--and I do mean for starters, because I can't devote my evening to this--former CIA chief James Woolsey wrote the forward to her book on Iraq-terrorism links, and speaks favorably of her here. If you judge the American Enterprise Institute as "tinfoil" or think it likely they would publish an obviously insane theory, then we have radically different frames of reference and there is no need for further discussion.

I don't know that Woolsey actively endorses her view, and I haven't read the forward. But I doubt he writes, "Mylroie--Tinfoil. But enjoy!"

There is something in between proving something beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law and calling someone, or someone's theory, "tinfoil." Best to reserve that language for performances like that of the Frenchman who wrote a book claiming an airliner didn't crash into the Pentagon on 9/11.

al

The reason why people think she's tin foil hat territory is 1)that the Oklahoma City bomnbing was Iraq, the Cole Bombing, Khobar Towers, were Iraq; that 2) 9/11 was actuall Saddam, who made it look like it was "al Queida (here's here testimony before Congress: "But that bombing is said to mark the start of a new kind of terrorism that does not involve states. That notion is dubious. Rather, the claim that a new, stateless terrorism emerged with the 1993 Trade Center bombing was a convenient explanation. . .
There isn't time to properly address that issue in this testimony. Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War against America contains the fullest account of this author's argument that there is no new source of major terrorist attacks on the U.S. They were state-sponsored--and remain so. That that is not understood is the result of a major intelligence and policy failure that occurred in the 1990s.

In the time allotted here, I want to address three major terrorist plots that have been attributed to so-called "loose networks," including al Qaeda,"; and on CNN ""....the Clinton administration put out a false and fraudulent explanation for terrorism, saying that terrorism was no longer state-sponsored, but carried out by individuals. That false and fraudulent explanation was accepted and allowed Saddam to continue to attack the U.S.""

al

Her theory is not just that Saddam helped, its that it was actually him, and not Al Queida.

Maybe he's making all those tapes from the slammer that keep appearing from Al Queida too.

I can't believe what they let people have in prison nowadays. . . someone should take away his video camera.

Donald R. McClarey

"It's just not true that the Quran teaches that Christians and Jews must all be killed."

You are correct Mark as long as the "People of the Book" surrender, agree to accept third class citizenship in perpetuity and pay a supertax for being infidels. For those who do not accept these conditions, the alternative is fleeing to areas not controlled by Islam, or being put to the sword. The Koran is quite precise in this area.

Sydney Carton

Mark: "It's just not true that the Quran teaches that Christians and Jews must all be killed. But when you are having a good hysterical fit of jingoism, I guess such pedantries are a nuisance. Better to just demonize a billion people and demand we do something rash and stupid."

Mark, I agree that it's more complicated than that, but in practice the reality is grim. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorist today are Muslim. There's a reason for that.

This debate, by the way, is complete balderdash. The evidence for WMDs was honestly believed to be reliable. There were sufficient causes for alarm, based on the threat of WMDs and Iraq's support for terrorists, of the future threat that Iraq and terrorists would team up to use a WMD against America. Now, in certain fantasy worlds which people seem to inhabit, monday-morning quarterbacking transforms a just action into an unjust action in the blink of an eye. But reality is not like that.

The war was just.

c matt

The evidence for WMDs was honestly believed to be reliable

There is a distinction between honest belief and wishful thinking. I grant that if an honest, bust mistaken belief was made, the war is not rendered just, but the actions taken may have been justified. But the jury is still out on honest belief v. wishful thinking. And some of the later evidence coming in seems to tilt it toward wishful thinking.

c matt

Mark:

I think you need to make a distinction between what the Koran teaches and how particular Muslims act on or interpret it. It is true that many, if not most Muslims are not all out to get the infidel, and soften the Koranic teaching on this subject. But it is equally true that the Koran does teach the infidel, including People of the Book, need to be converted, dhimmi, or dead.

Tom K.

"Rob asks, "can we all agree that, if the intelligence accurately revealed (what turned out to be) the absence of WMD, then the just war requirements would not have been satisfied?"

The intelligence DID indicate that there were no WMDs that were still viable (they have a shelf life) and that there was no missile capacity to get anything to us; it had to be tweaked, finessed, obscured to suggest a justification and that is what Feith's Office of Special Planning was doing, releasing suggestions that they could put a glider on a ship and release it close to our coast; the "glider" was a rickety crop duster and there were people saying that at the time. They just didn't have the microphones and the president's ear. Then we had Israelis like Netanyahu saying we couldn't pinpoint the labs because they were mobile, the size of "washing machines". it was all hogwash and lots of people knew it.

Joseph R. Wilson

Who can really say with any degree of confidence that WMDs weren't present in Iraq, and clandestinely removed, shortly before we re-invaded Iraq? And who wants to diminish the sacrifice of those aviators who were fighting a "hot war" in the no-fly zones during the 90's and up to the second invasion? And what of the imminent threat represented by Saddam's payments of the suicide bombers in Israel (an ally under attack)? This whole business of second-guessing, after the fact, smacks of partisan politics to me. Let’s not forget the following words of wisdom on the matter:

“Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.”
Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff 2/17/98

I like what George Weigel wrote in the Denver Catholic Register:

“The just war tradition isn't algebra. It's not a question of lining everything up neatly on both sides of the equation in order to obtain the right answer. The just war tradition is more like calculus: it's an art as much as a science, and it asks us to use our moral imaginations as well as our logical skills. The tradition is also a developing body of thought; contemporary formulations of it must be in constant conversation across the generations and centuries with the old masters of moral reasoning.”


Phil

All right. I get it. The Pope, that European wimp, was terribly wrong about all this.

Joseph R. Wilson

I love our Pope very much. I'm glad that he isn't our President, and I think he is too. I'm sure that he would be very much opposed to any suggestion that our President should run major policy decisions past him for approval.

Marv Wood

"Well, for starters--and I do mean for starters, because I can't devote my evening to this--former CIA chief James Woolsey wrote the forward to her book on Iraq-terrorism links, and speaks favorably of her here. If you judge the American Enterprise Institute as "tinfoil" or think it likely they would publish an obviously insane theory, then we have radically different frames of reference and there is no need for further discussion."

No, the American Enterprise Institute is not "tinfoil." However, you would have had to have been under a rock during the past 3 years if you didn't know that it has been described as the citadel of "neoconservativism" and biggest proponents of the Iraq delenda est philosophy which existed well before 9/11. They'd praise any book that made Saddem look bad.

Jim

Joseph wrote:

"I like what George Weigel wrote in the Denver Catholic Register:

'The just war tradition isn't algebra. It's not a question of lining everything up neatly on both sides of the equation in order to obtain the right answer. The just war tradition is more like calculus: it's an art as much as a science, and it asks us to use our moral imaginations as well as our logical skills.'"

Amazing how conservatives can apply this kind of squishy nuancing here, but almost nowhere else in the Church's teaching....at least with those teachings they like.

Joseph R. Wilson

"conservatives can apply this kind of squishy nuancing here, but almost nowhere else in the Church's teaching"

Jim, can you be more more specific about where you would have Weigel use "squishy nuancing" to your satisfaction?

Jim

Joseph, can you tell me what led you to believe that I would like to apply squishy nuancing to anything?

You're reading quite a bit between the lines of my post.

My point was that Weigel would be the last person I would believe would apply the "it's an art as much as a science" argument to a pretty well-developed teaching of the Church. But it apparently suits him in this case and you, in your own words, "like" it.

Mark Shea

Guys:

I'm well aware of the long tradition of dhimmitude for People of the Book. My point was that hysterical screeds about how "The Koran commands that Muslims KILL US ALL!!!" is exactly *not* the sort of rhetoric that contributes anything but reactionary hysteria to a conversation.

Celine

Weigel's analogy is wacked. Calculus is as much a science as algebra and has nothing to do with art. Besides, if the War in Iraq is a "work of art," it is modernist monstrosity, full of accidental, if not intentional, errors of perspective and a lousy color scheme in the grand tradition of agit-prop poster art.

John T. Stein

"The terrorists from that region don't care if you're warm and fuzzy...They only know that you are non-believers and there is only ONE way to deal with non-belivers according to the Koran--DEATH"

Good grief. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, we were attacked because we back up Israel's occupation and illegal settlement of civilians on lands acquired in war.

Christopher Blosser

http://www.husseinandterror.com/ , for starters.

You could also read Stephen Haye's The Connection, on the links btw/ Iraq and Al Qaeda and Daniel Darling's (Regnum Crusis/Winds of Change) post on the same topic Imminent Threat and whether Iraq's collaboration w/ Al Qaeda posed an unacceptable threat to international security entirely apart from any WMDs.

It's not just about Saddam's financial support of suicide bombing in Israel.

smmtheory

"Good grief. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, we were attacked because we back up Israel's occupation and illegal settlement of civilians on lands acquired in war."

Yep, that was the essence of Zarqawi's last tape. NOT!

smmtheory

"They were so imminent they were going on for TWELVE YEARS.


In Kentucky Revised Statutes, imminent danger can be inferred from a past pattern of repeated serious abuse. That sounds a lot like it applies to Saddam Hussein's Iraq (invasion of Iran, invasion of Kuwait, gassing the Kurds, gassing the Shi'a, lobbing Scud missiles at Israel, repeated attempts to shoot down our planes, attempted assassination of the elder President Bush, paying benefits for nearly every Palestinian suicide bombing in Israel). I'd be authorized to use Deadly Physical Force to stop the threat. Best defense is "Self Defense". Second best defense is "Defense of Others".

You can say all you want that this war was not justified, and in the strictest sense, you might possibly even be right, but it was necessary and excusable nonetheless. The real question is, why did it take 12 years to finish what should have been done prior.

al

First of all, on the second guessing canard, that's just not true.

These caveats were present on WMD's before the war, and were simply ignored: from the Aluminum Tubes, to the "Mobile Weapons Labs", to the yellowcake, to the expiration of chemical and biological stocks--there were doubts on everyone of those pieces of evidence, which is why the dirty commie Blix, the person charged with the whole disarmament regime, was asking for more time.

And if you are unsure the weapons even exist, you don't preemptively invade, you get more certain about your antagonists intent.

that is, unless you don't give a fig about the Thousands of American Dead, 10's of thousands of Iraqis, and 10's of thousands of americans wounded.

Sure if the lives of those people don't matter to you, you can posture all you like about Saddam being extremely uncooperatve and the like.

Joseph R. Wilson

"Sure if the lives of those people don't matter to you, you can posture all you like about Saddam being extremely uncooperatve and the like."

Wow! Al, you may have saved me a great deal of time that I might spend in reading your future posts. You know very little about how much I value innocent human life.

Phil

Al and others: this discussion, regardless of which side you are on, is a waste of time. "I'm right and you are wrong." "No. I'm right and you are wrong." "NO. I AM THE ONE WHO IS RIGHT AND YOU ARE VERY WRONG!" "NO. IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND, I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE EXTREMELY WRONG!" I get sucked in into this too, but everything is so predictable that it's laughable. Not that intelligent things are not said or that good points are not made, the overall effect, though, is the one of a broken record.

Adios!

al

And on Saddam's terror connections, the question is whether he was involved with Al Quieda. Not whether he supported the MEK.

Heck, we're giving money to the MEK right now. Israel gave plenty to Hamas.

al

Joseph,
Please. Don't feign indignation.

Wasn't it you above who said pointing out that the evidence agaisnt WMD was available above the war "smacked of partisan politics"?

What do you know about the politics of anyone here? Do you know, for example that I volunteered to work for the election of Bush 41, served as a republican delegate, have voted republican in every election I've ever voted in?

And point out the truth regarding the miasma of sophistry pumped out about the justification for war is "diminishing the sacrifice of the flyers in the no fly zone"?

You've got some nerve feigning indignation after those remarks.

al

Phil,
true, but I've provided ample citations to news sources to back up my "I'm right"

Shaun Gallagher

As Al mentioned, some proponents of Operation Iraqi Freedom argue that the war is justified because the first war (Desert Storm) never really ended — a cease-fire was agreed upon (U.N. Security Council Resolution 687), contingent (proponents would argue) upon Iraq's obedience to the Security Council's disarmament provisions. Once Iraq violated those provisions, proponents say, the cease-fire agreement should have ended, effectively reinstating the war.

But wait. That first war had a pretty limited scope: The U.N. gave it the go-ahead in Security Council Resolution 678, which authorized military force only for the purpose of driving Saddam out of Kuwait. To suggest that Operation Iraqi Freedom is justified because we had what Al calls "a persisting right of war" would mean that Iraqi Freedom inherits that first war's scope; clearly, though, this second war falls far outside that scope.

Michael C. Dorf, a law professor at Columbia, wrote about this argument in a March 2003 article titled "Is the War on Iraq Lawful?"

Regarding the Security Council resolutions, he writes:

"Resolution 687 makes clear that its disarmament provisions are governed by the Security Council's resolve 'to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.'

"That last statement hardly reads as a blank check to any Security Council member or other state to act on its own to require Iraq's disarmament. Instead, it suggests, quite to the contrary, that the Security Council itself, acting via additional resolutions, could take 'further steps.'"

Clearly, then, Operation Iraqi Freedom cannot piggyback on the preceding war's moral justification. And on top of that, even though Iraq did appear to violate the disarmament provisions, further military action would only have been justified under Resolution 687 if it were authorized by the U.N. Security Council, not by the United States acting on its own.

Shaun Gallagher
shaun.pressbin.com

John T. Stein

" 'Good grief. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, we were attacked because we back up Israel's occupation and illegal settlement of civilians on lands acquired in war.'
Yep, that was the essence of Zarqawi's last tape. NOT!"

Zarqawi was NOT the architect of the 9/11 attacks. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the architect and main planner. It started with him and he, himself, has said his hatred of the US stemmed from his observation of America's acquiesence to illegal Israeli policy. So you can say "not" like a fifteen year old but you are dead wrong about the 9/11 attacks.

Russell

"I'm sure that he [the Pope]would be very much opposed to any suggestion that our President should run major policy decisions past him for approval."

He tried very hard to dissuade him from attacking Iraq, including sending an emissary who reported that Bush wasn't listening.
For that matter, supposed devout Christian wouldn't even meet with a delegation from his denomination, although he had almost 2 hours recently for Sharansky.

smmtheory

John,
So you are saying Zarqawi lied when he implied Al Qaida's goal is to destroy democracy? &ltsarcasm&gtI'm so glad I have you to tell me what's really in their hearts.</sarcasm>

Laura

"threw out the inspectors,"

Didn't North Korea do that too?

"continued to butcher the Kurds"

So did/does Turkey.

"attempted to murder Bush 41"

I do believe the USA has also had a hand in killing foreign leaders, notably in Vietnam, Guatemala and Chile. Should we pay the piper for that?

"was up to his eyeballs in the first world trade bombing"

According to Bush and Cheney. How convenient.

"gave sanctuary and aid to a laundry list of terrorist groups"

All of them living in Pakistan now.

"and was rebuilding his weapons stockpiles"

No evidence found, and the UN inspectors said so.

"through illegal diversion of dollars from the oil for food UN boondoggle"

Kind of like our own Iran-Contra mess?

Face it, the Pope was right. You were wrong.

Laura

"Now, in certain fantasy worlds which people seem to inhabit, monday-morning quarterbacking transforms a just action into an unjust action in the blink of an eye. But reality is not like that."

The Pope knew from the beginning. Millions of people who marched in cities around the world knew. You were blinded by Bush's propaganda.

"The war was just."

You're still wrong and the Pope is still right.

Laura

"I love our Pope very much. I'm glad that he isn't our President, and I think he is too. I'm sure that he would be very much opposed to any suggestion that our President should run major policy decisions past him for approval. "

Except that we fall all over ourselves quoting him on abortion. But when it comes to other areas where we have yet to experience a real conversion, like in the dealth penalty or the Iraq war, we take the easy way out and say, "yes, but he's not our government leader."

Hmmm.......pot-kettle-black.

Donald R.McClarey

Al and others: this discussion, regardless of which side you are on, is a waste of time. "I'm right and you are wrong." "No. "I'm right and you are wrong." "NO. I AM THE ONE WHO IS RIGHT AND YOU ARE VERY WRONG!" "NO. IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND, I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE EXTREMELY WRONG!" I get sucked in into this too, but everything is so predictable that it's laughable. Not that intelligent things are not said or that good points are not made, the overall effect, though, is the one of a broken record.

Adios!"

How true. This is a dialogue of the deaf.

Liam

I tried to warn you: this topic guarantees a feedback loop at St. Blog's.

John T. Stein

"John,
So you are saying Zarqawi lied when he implied Al Qaida's goal is to destroy democracy? I'm so glad I have you to tell me what's really in their hearts.

Posted by: smmtheory"

Escape into confusion, smm. No, I'm saying what the 9/11 Commissioners said on pages 145-147 of their Final Report.

Also: Saddam did not "kick out" the inspectors; they were pulled out by the head inspector when Clinton notified him that he was going to resume bombing. This is a matter of record. The fact that it is continually misrepresented suggests dishonesty on the part of those advancing this falsehood in the face of the evidence.

Donald R.McClarey

"Also: Saddam did not "kick out" the inspectors; they were pulled out by the head inspector when Clinton notified him that he was going to resume bombing. This is a matter of record. The fact that it is continually misrepresented suggests dishonesty on the part of those advancing this falsehood in the face of the evidence."

After repeated instances of Iraqi non-compliance with the inspection regime, the US and Great Britain decided to launch a series of retaliatory airstrikes against Iraq in December 1998. As a result, Butler withdrew the inspectors, saying "we can't adequately do our jobs under these circumstances" and that it "made logical sense therefore to pull our people out." After the strikes, Saddam did not allow the inspectors to return.

jtbf

WHAT A DIFFERENCE 4 YEARS MAKE:
"This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain."

--Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98

"What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out."

--John King, CNN, 8/18/02

By the way, his name was Richard Butler.

al

And Mr. McClarey indicates his rectitude clearly goes up to Eleven . . . .

smmtheory

"Escape into confusion, smm. No, I'm saying what the 9/11 Commissioners said on pages 145-147 of their Final Report."

Oh, and "we" know they could never ever ever be wrong because they're not 'liar-liar-pants-on-fire Bush', isn't that what you're saying John?

Look, you're talking about people that your compatriots are saying were gullible enough to believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD.

Another Steve

Okay, so there are no WMDs and so Pres Bush and others have decided 'well they're goin' to git democracy whether they like it or not.' Reminds me of ole Wackford Squeers from Dicken's Nicholas Nichelby who declared he would have the spirit of cheerfulness maintained even if he had to flog it into every boy in the school.
Way to go.

ELC

If the war was unjust, then one necessary remedy to the injustice is the restoration of Saddam Hussein to power in Iraq. Why isn't anybody arguing for that? Let me repeat myself: the object of the war was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power; if the war was unjust, then Saddam Hussein should be put back into power. No?

smmtheory

"Okay, so there are no WMDs and so Pres Bush and others have decided 'well they're goin' to git democracy whether they like it or not.' Reminds me of ole Wackford Squeers from Dicken's Nicholas Nichelby who declared he would have the spirit of cheerfulness maintained even if he had to flog it into every boy in the school.
Way to go."

How many Iraqis have you talked to that don't want democracy?

Joseph R. Wilson

It is my fervent hope that those who are so vehement about the injustice of the war may soon be able to pay a visit to a free, stable, secure, and prosperous Iraq to publicly voice their dissatisfaction to the Iraqi people; something they could not have had much hope of doing during Saddam's reign of terror.

And yes, I understand that a good end doesn't justify an evil means. I just think that the prudential judgment, given the available (mis)information, was more than enough to justify the war. Now, I will do my best to stay out of this fruitless loop.

Another Steve

smmtheory wrote/asked me "How many Iraqis have you talked to that don't want democracy?"

My answer none actually and I know my post wasn't exactly constructive except in a backhanded way and as a non American I actually support the idea of America mopping up a mess it needlessly created and I was also extremely pleased that Bush defeated Kerry. The fact is Islam and democracy are incompatible. There is not one Islamic majority nation practising democracy--and don't say Turkey either because behind every Turkish government is the spectre of the Turkish military ready to intervene and take over at the drop of a hat and the Turkish record of human rights is appalling which is why the EU keeps blackballing their attempts to gain admission.
So, what to do about Iraq. Well actually get their election over with, their 'Government' installed and hopefully withdraw all coalition forces as soon as things look like cooling down. But I'll bet my last good shirt that it won't be long before whoever manages to get to the top of the Iraqi heap will have to turn into another despot to stay there. As I said, "way to go." Hence the allusion to Wackford Squeeres.

smmtheory

What is this "America mopping up a mess it needlessly created" rhetoric mean? I thought it was the British Empire that left Iraq to the Baathists when they bugged out after WWII. My mind must be playing tricks on me again.

Another Steve

smmtheory said
"What is this "America mopping up a mess it needlessly created" rhetoric mean? I thought it was the British Empire that left Iraq to the Baathists when they bugged out after WWII. My mind must be playing tricks on me again."

You're probably right about the Brits--and just for the record I am not one, but if I were you I would drop that 'holier than thou' approach and put it all down to the Doctrine of The Fall. The history of the world is full of emperors who set out to change the world and they all did for a while and the sad thing about all this is you'd think we would learn something important from history and we do and it's this "that what we learn from history is that we don't learn from history." Why else do we keep repeating mistakes?

smmtheory

Okay, here's my best 'lowlier than thou', please explain what mess you believe America needlessly created that we are cleaning up? Would that be the mess of everything we've done and everything we've said?

This reminds me of that old joke. "There are only two things wrong with them... everything they say and everything they do."

Another Steve

smmtheory if you can't get "lowlier" than that you're in big trouble. Go take a look in the mirror--you and people like you are the problem.

smmtheory

Oh, I see. You want me to beg for an answer. Okay, if you don't want to tell me what the mess is don't tell me. But if you don't say what it is, what am I to think other than there is no substance to your implications.

Unapologetic Catholic

Repeating a dumb question doesn't help:

"the object of the war was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power; if the war was unjust, then Saddam Hussein should be put back into power. No?"


Of course. that's why when the police make a mistake and arrest the wrong guy whose backpack is ful of heroin they release him and cheerfully return the heroin.

The object of the war was iminent use of weapons of mass destrcution. He didn't have them, but he was a despicable dicator, a diffent crime. Innocent of the cahrges of WMD possession but we don't return him to power.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.