BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?

Subject: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Colin Rand
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 03:07 PM

I posted this, and im ready to argue that its not.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 03:18 PM

I think I've already come across a thread about Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Frankham
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 04:31 PM

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 04:46 PM

No. Take a look at THIS.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 04:48 PM

Make that three no's on a row...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 04:51 PM

Yes at times and no others -

I'll say yes just to keep the urine flowing -

Piss

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: DougR
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 05:02 PM

yes.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 05:06 PM

If it's a war which breaks the term of the United Nations Charter, which an attack on Iraq will do, unless the Security Council backs it (which seems highly unlkely at this stage), then it depends on what status that has in the legal system of the country involved.

I'd think that in the case of the UK it would be illegal. A court refused to rule on this when an action was brought by CND last year, largely I think because it was a hypothetical case.

I'd have thought the same would be true in the USA, since it involves a solemn treaty obligation.

But I'd imagine, whatever the actual theoretical legal situation, any court is going to roll over on an issue like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: gnu
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 05:21 PM

Most of the UN thinks so. Are they incorrect ?

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 05:32 PM

I think Laura Bush is frigid and Dumbya only has a half inch prick, but he's goofed up on Viagra, creating a situation where the poor boy has to get his rocks off somewhere. He's already fucked over the American people and Afghanistan, so I figure Iraq should have their turn in the barrel. Ol' George is just itchin' to fire off some big ones at 'em ................

Spaw.......who just got home from Peace Vigil in Columbus....in 8 inches of snow....small crowd because of the Winter Storm Advis. still in effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Sam L
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 05:34 PM

I'm not the doveyest of liberals. I think if you believe in human rights they are sometimes worth fighting for, and it is the responsibility of the strong to help the weak. I don't think mixed motives necesarily turn the whole question around, or because you don't always do the right thing it means you never should.

I also think a much better case for war with Iraq could be made, than is being made. Bush is harming a reasonable cause with his ill-tempered and simple-minded approach to it. He is creating dissent by seeming utterly impatient with the concerns of many U.S. citizens. He is doing his job very very poorly, pro or con.

But short answer, no. I think aid to other interests who would like to topple Hussein would be much wiser. I'd love to be rid of all such brutes, but it doesn't hurt to be smart.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 06:43 PM

"Legit" or no, it's barbaric. Morally repugnant. And just plain stupid on humanistic and environmental grounds. IMO.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: KarlMarx
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 10:38 AM

Many of the "liberals" have been just as bad on this issue as the right-wingers. Take Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, for example. They both voted to give that little turd from Crawdad, Texas full authority to massacre the people of Iraq. Now Kerry is avoiding any mention of this vote, so he can position himself with the left-wing of his party come Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary time next year. At least Boy George is consistent in his monomania to kill Arabs for Christ . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 10:45 AM

Ummmmmm....John Kerry and Joe Lieberman wanna be President. Would you not be surprised if they DIDN'T take this was out? I sure would.

I think if you're looking for actual integrity, you'll only find it wayyyyyy back down the power chain...like perhaps 'dog-catcher'

It's all cementing alliances now.

Cheers

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 11:49 AM

Declaring war on Iraq is totally abhorrent and certainly not justifiable by ANY of the so-called evidence which either Bush or Blair allege thay have found, but are totally unable to produce. All I have heard referred to consists of smear and heresay.
Saddam has NOT Threatened any neighbouring countries. He has NOT invaded anyone. He IS legally under Iraqui law their leader, however disgusting we might find his treatment of the Iraqui people, and minorities such as the Kurds in Northern Iraq.
The main outcome of these threats of war is to destabilise crude oil prices across the world. It has already also caused a major crash of the London Stock Market, with billions wiped off the nominal share value of many companies. My major suspicion is that the war is all about wrecking the world economy whilst the USA being self-sufficient in its own oil supplies can make a "Killing" financially.
Reading a rack of UK Newspaper front pages yesterday, the concensus was that NOBODY except Blair and Bush regard this war as acceptable.
Yesterday there was a protest rally in London against the proposed war. The organisers reckoned over 2 million attended, the police (government sponsored estimate) was one million. It wasn't the numbers which impressed, so much as the type of person protesting against the war. There were World War II veterans wearing their bravery medals, soldiers who fought in the last Gulf War, old-age pensioners who have lived through every conflict for the past 70 years. There were people who have NEVER felt strongly enough to feel the need to protest about ANY issue previously. Those attending cut across every barrier of race, political belief and social status.

My personal belief during the last gulf War, when Saddam invaded Kuwait was that once the war started, they should never have allowed Iraqi tanks or military vehicles to return to Baghdad. The troops should have been returned un-harmed but unarmed. The tanks should have been permanently disabled and the guns and explosives put in a big pile and blown up. After this Saddam should have been left, on his own, to argue with his countrymen about his right to govern (how long would he have lasted then?).
As it is. None of this was done. Saddam is still Iraq's legitimate ruler, and as far as I can see offers no real threat to ANY other country, and has not done so for the past 10 years. Bush says that there are terrorists in his country. So what! I'll bet there are a larger number resident in the USA than in Iraq! Perhaps Bush should be bombing Memphis or Disneyland?

I hope that the people of the USA see sense and prevent Bush from dragging us down this road of destruction.

Geoff!!

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: SINSULL
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 11:53 AM

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: KarlMarx
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 12:39 PM

Rick:
   No, I'm not looking for integrity. I gave up on that Arthurian quest 25 years ago. I'm simply flashing my own credentials, before anyone mistakenly believes me to be a liberal, as many do, when they see me unloading upon the neo-con white-wingers . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 05:29 PM

I guess it's 'legit' or not according to whoever's making the rules. And we all know the Golden Rule - He who has the gold makes the rules.

Here's a little related humour about who's (unfortunately) making the rules today ...

"Texans are Tough

THREE MEN ARE SITTIN' ON A BENCH. ONE'S A TEXAN WEARING A STETSON, ONE'S A MUSLIM WEARING A TURBAN, AND THE LAST AN APACHE WITH AN EAGLE FEATHER WOVEN IN HIS HAIR.

THE INDIAN IS RATHER GLUM AND SAYS "ONCE MY PEOPLE WERE MANY, BUT NOW WE ARE FEW."

THE MUSLIM PUFFS UP AND SAYS "ONCE MY PEOPLE WERE FEW, BUT NOW WE ARE MANY MILLIONS."

THE TEXAN ADJUSTS HIS HAT, FINISHES ROLLING A SMOKE, LEANS BACK IN HIS CHAIR AND DRAWLS, "THAT'S CAUSE WE AIN'T PLAYED COWBOYS AND MUSLIMS YET."

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 06:37 PM

"Fighting Terrorists Since 1492"

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Deda
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 06:59 PM

No, no, no, no. I feel I haven't spoken clearly enough. No.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: KarlMarx
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 07:06 PM

Deda: Come on, tell us what you really think . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 07:18 PM

Surely "legit" isn't a question of whether it's a good idea or not, but of whether it is legal. And for it to be legal certain conditions need to be met. In principle a war on any country would be legal if those conditions are met.

So the question is what condition need to be met, and have they yet been met in the case of Iraq. My understanding is that approval bythe Security Council - with nine votes, and no vetos by permanent members - would be needed. And tht hasn't happened so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 10:20 PM

There's also the requirement of a casus belli. While Bush is doing everything in his power to manufacture one, he hasn't done it yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 02:11 AM

Geoff the Duck: I don't think it is truly a matter of declaring war on Iraq. I don't think that is even being contemplated. Iraq is not in compliance with seventeen UN Resolutions. Probably there will be a eighteenth within the next two weeks, and they won't be in compliance with the new one either. If there is to be a war with Iraq, it will be because Iraq has thumbed it's nose at the UN since 1991! After the UN ... or more likely the U.S., Great Britain and other willing allies use military force to force Iraq's compliance it will be all over! Saddam will be history, and the Iraqi people will live a better life.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 10:59 AM

There is only one hinge point on the legitimacy of this proposed military action, and that is whether or not Saddam's government is prosecuting a program of developing and retaining NBC weapons of the sort for which the only use is to slay populations wholesale.

IF he is, it is my opinion that he should be disarmed, as he agreed to do.   It is unsettling to recall that there are tens of thousands of gallons of toxic weapons-grade chemicals unaccounted for in the Iraqi armamentum.

That is the only question of fact. As far as Bush's practices he is, in my view, mishandling the matter tragically, and is power-mad and incompetent to preside. If he had the brains god gave a peacock, the facts on which his alarums are based would have been known and their rationale clear. As it is we are being handed skimpy glimmers of possibility on the side of the prosecution, with blood and mayhem in the offing as a certainty. Vonnegut really summed it up in his description of psychopathic personalities -- his sense of consequences is pathetic, and his indifference to the human side of things is comic folly at its worst.

The core of the problem is the man is not candid, is not capable of being truthful, and is in love with his own exercise of power for its own sake. He and his Iraqi counterpart are two of a kind. Would they could go duke it out on a deserted island somewhere. I believe the Iraqis proposed such a duel, but were nto taken seriously!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: chip a
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 11:12 AM

I guess I'm with Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: outfidel
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 11:15 AM

Until definitive proof shows that Saddam 1) is harboring WMD for the purpose of terrorizing his neighbors, or 2) is linked to and supporting Al Qaeda, then my answer is "no".

BTW, I don't think Dubya is doing this for oil. If he were, he would be attacking Venezuela instead of Iraq. Instead, I think he's doing it partly because he thinks its necessary to protect the U.S., and partly for political gain -- he's got 2004 (and the memory of 1992) on his mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 11:52 AM

As gnu up top there said yes and the UNSC thinks so too.

A couple of questions relating to the report delivered last Friday.

1.
The telexed announcement that the Iraqi Parliament had declared to rennounce WMD and abandon all programmes relating to them. As much as it was worth this was also backed up by a Presidential Decree from SH.

2.
SH also told the heads of the UNMOVIC and IAEA Inspection Teams that he was setting up two Revolutionary Command Council Commissions tasked with cleansing Iraq of WMD and associated bits and pieces.

WHY? Isn't all this stuff that he has repeatedly stated that he does not have - You know that full and accurate declaration that the UNSC asked him to hand in around the beginning of December.

Still been offered no reasonable explanation for their attempt to acquire one ampules of Atropine - We don't have CB weapons so it can only be to protect himself against the stuff he knows that he has got squirrelled away.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 11:54 AM

Sorry the last paragraph should have referred to one million ampules of Atropine.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: breezy
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 12:04 PM

Ask the 'Free' people of Iraq what they want, listen to them crying for the ones who have dissappeared.
Its ok for us, to say no, but we must fight for liberty where-ever it is needed, that is what being free is about, so until the people are freed,whhatdo we do? do we turn away and pretend nothing is happening like we did with Hitler?
I dont agree with war but I accept it could be the only answer.
I hope there will not be war but that Saddam will 'give it up for humanity's sake.
Fat chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 12:10 PM

Geoff:

I think George Bush is pulling us up the road from destruction.

Yes I think the war is legitimate.


   Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 12:16 PM

Whether it is "legit" depends on who's making the laws - Dubya seems to think that's his perogative. The fact that he's in a global minority is probably not going to make much difference to him, unfortunately.

Perhaps we should be discussing what the outcome might be - who will replace him - how much support will a US controlled Iraqi government receive - and how long will it survive ?

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Mark Clark
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:17 PM

I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't see this thread when it first appeared. Let me say that Colin Rand, who started this thread, is a good friend of mine. We visit and play music whenever the opportunity presents itself. I've been telling him about Mudcat and I see he's found us. Welcome, Colin.

In answer to Colin's question, no I don't think a preemptive war on Iraq is legit. I agree with the philosophy in the article Don posted that a President has no Constitutionally mandated authority to declare war. I agree that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy but I don't think an all-out war is required to solve the problem.

For some reason the U.S. national phyche clings to this black-or-white, good-or-bad, no-shades-of-gray, with-us-or-against-us, love-it-or-leave-it, I'm-right-you-don't-matter mentality that oversimplifies everything and understands relatively little. We seem so often to be playing Alexander to the rest of the world's Gordian Knot. That solution is fine for meaningless puzzles but falls seriously short when it comes to human interaction.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Cluin
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 12:01 AM

How can any war be "legit"?

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 12:08 AM

Cluin:

Legitimacy derives from human agreement.

When a mass of humans comes to the consensus that they are under threrat of survival for their very lives, and that physical overwhelm is the only remedy that will cure thew condition, they will legitimize the use of physical violence.

I think your question is a fair one, because any such condition must be predicated on an earlier failure if dialoge and imagination and creative solution, unless one is dealing with a complete psychotic. On an individual level, of course you can sometimes still find yourself confronting a pure-dee psycho. But I feel among nations, it is a contrived condition built on the dissemination of lies and fear-mongering.

Despite that, it has happened several times just inthe last century that the U.S. and U.K. have gone through just such a cycle of legitimzing and deploying violence.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Cluin
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 12:29 AM

So "legitimate" is based upon a subjective viewpoint? There's no higher court to appeal to after all. And it all comes down to lots of people just killing each other doesn't it?

One group of people decides to attack another group of people because they feel their fear or desire legitimizes it. The other group of people fights back, because they have now in fact been attacked. Whatever the reason in the first place, it doesn't matter. The shit has hit the fan and we all get a faceful.

We're fucked, aren't we, Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 12:46 AM

To answer the original question,

No

this is not a legitimate war. But it is a war, because Georgie says it is so. And no one on his staff seems to be arguing against it.

This is a classic, obvious case of Wag the Dog. The rich live for today, the rich get richer, and even if Dubya is only in for one term, he's done the maximum amount of damage on behalf of himself and his rich friends as he can manage, and it will take years to untangle it. And the sleight of hand that is making this possible is his "WAR" with Iraq.

sRS

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: leprechaun
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 02:11 AM

Maybe if we wait another twelve years for Saddam to comply with the UN resolutions, then we could issue some stern warnings or something.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 11:14 AM

It's not legitimate unless Congress actually gives a declaration of war. They don't have the power to cede war declaration to the executive branch, because the Constitution explicity states that Congress alone can declare war. If Congress does declare war, though, then it's legitimate by the laws of the U.S. Doesn't make it a good idea, but it would be legit.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 01:23 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Beccy
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 03:03 PM

Saddam only kills his own people. It's none of our business.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 03:23 PM

Beccy:

A lot of people felt that way about Adolf before the invasion of Austria. I am of mixed feelings about the advisability of leaving populations at the mercy of psychopaths no matter what nationality they have stamped on them.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Beccy
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 03:47 PM

Amos- I was being sarcastic. I actually think that due to his barbarism, we are justified in going in and removing him.

I renew my request for someone to invent a "sarcastic font" to make up for my lacking communication skills. :-)

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: DougR
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 03:52 PM

Just a suggestion, Beccy, but were you to follow the remarks you intend as sarcasm with a :>) or other such symbol we probably would "catch" your meaning. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 03:56 PM

Amos:

Beccy was being sarcastic, my friend.

Now, lots of folks kill their own countrymen and lots of folks other country's countrymen. And it's a pretty screwed up thing to do. Sure, we can hold the magnifying glass over Iraq and dwell on whats going on there. Or we could hold the magnifying glass over many places on the planet and find the same crap going on. Texas included where folks have been put to death for not having enough money to hire a competant lawyer.

Problem I have is that the current administration shoots first and asks question, if they feel like it, later. Where's Jimmy Carter when we need him?

And I also ask the question, "Will the world be safer after the US attacks Iraq, killing thousands and thousands of civilians? I don't think so. But Osoma should have a field day with his recruitment campaign.

And just where has been the diplomacy? And why don't we hear the current administartion using the term "human rights" except in trying to sell a war that will bring about such a high number of civilian deaths? And why isn't this adminstartion *doing* anything about the Isreali/Palestianian war when it most certainly... *can*?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Beccy
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 03:57 PM

Thanks, DougR. I think "Evil Beccy" was trying to start a little something there.
;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 04:39 PM

Naw... I think most war is an imbicile's round trip ticket to 'greatness'... implying the 'and back again'... This war is a distracting cog in the corporate economic circus...

Has anyone else noticed that the tax-rebate we 'common' folks were dished out on a silver platter will just about cover the increased cost of gas due to the war? I sure don't like it when the people of this country are used as middle-men between 'corporate' and 'greed'... How'd we get here anyway? ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 07:19 PM

You must have goten a much bigger rebate than I did, TTR. Besides, the slowdown in the economy from Bush's ham-handed handling of the post-9/11 decline has already cost us all more than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: mg
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 10:03 PM

Can I predict what will happen or how many people will die if we do vs. not do? No. Do I think we have not just the right but the obligation to rid the world of monsters who would enslave and torture their own people, to say nothing of outsiders...yes. My own life is on the line on behalf of that belief.

mg

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST, herc
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 10:08 PM

So is mine, Mary. But we go to trial in Family Court next month and I think things will mellow out after that. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 10:27 PM

mary garvey:

Fine! Now get your "own life" down to Texas and stop the senseless killing of poor black people whose only crime is being too poor to hire a competent attorney on their way to George Bush's death chamber.

Mean while, where do you want to stop? I mean, what countries are on *your* list of bad countries? I'm real curious about this. And is the US on the list? Like I said, just curious...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 11:54 PM

mary garvey:

The anti-war protestors here do not think about the barbarism that goes on in Iran, They don't want to think about it. They keep repeating "thousands of bombs being dropped on thousands of innocent people" and "millions killed" and variations of the same while completely ignoring evidence to the contrary. If you ask them if it is OK for the people in Iraq to suffer because nothing is done to liberate them, they do not answer.

Nobody's plan is any good except their plan which is to do nothing. It is hard to screw that one up.

They attack anyone of authority and call their actions illegal, unconstitutional, stupid etc. They find evil conspiracies everywhere. Greedy oil men are trying to grab the oil in Iraq.

They are in general a bunch of insecure crybabies huddling together in an attempt to find strength and reinforcement in numbers. The only ones they convince are each other.

It is a waste of time to post your opinions here unless you are anti-war. If you support of the government you get personally insulted. Some of them even warn you not to post your opinions here at the same time that they are defending the right of free speech.

They are the "usefull idiots" that Lenin wrote about.

Good luck.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Feb 03 - 11:55 PM

Not much of a tax cut when you figure that most working stiffs with anything left over to invest usually put it in IRAs or 401Ks, which won't be affected by it at all. Big flamin' deal!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 11:41 AM

Oldguy, just because intervention of some kind is necessary doesn't mean that we should stand idly by and watch Bush destroy the Constitution to make it easier for him to carry out his quite possibly unneccessary war. As you might have heard, Bush has now announced that Saddam must go into exile or we will invade Iraq. He doesn't have any legal basis for it, but he made the demand anyway. Do not accept the wrong course of action simply out of a desire to do something.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Les in Chorlton, Manchester
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 01:27 PM

OK, the west armed and supported him. The west and global capitalism has done lots of very bad things.

1. Sadam is very evil
2. He has done most of the evil things that can be done
3. He shows no sign of changing
4. People of Iraq are not 'his own people' they are the People of Iraq and he is a gangster.
5. He will not go soon
6. People in Iraq are suffereing and they want him to go
7. He will remain a danger to lots of us until he goes
8. He has refused to do what the UN asked for 12+ years
9. He is moving a bit because of US/UK etc pressure
10. The sooner he goes the safer the people of Iraq and the rest of world will be
11. It looks as if the US through the UN will remove him by war

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Beccy
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 02:24 PM

Read the article at the other end of this blue clicky


Iraq


and you will understand just why I support regime change in Iraq (however it is accomplished most quickly and thoroughly.)

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Beccy
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 02:26 PM

... And before you say, "Well, the government WOULD say that..." please note that a great deal of their information is footnoted as sourced by Amnesty International. The last time I checked, no one was accusing AI of being in the backpocket of GW Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: TIA
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 03:13 PM

Old Guy, for someone who recently pissed and moaned about being subjected to "derision and insults" in this forum, you're sure dishing out a hell of a lot of derision and insult.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Mark Clark
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 03:31 PM

Beccy, No one is doubting that all those horrible things are true. I suggest making a list of all heads of state for whom a similar list of atrocities exists and check to see which of their countries are also being threatened with preemptive attack. It might also be instructive to see which despots on the list are actually being supported by the U.S. government or one of its agencies.

If we have no choice but to commit the world to war over Saddam Hussein's atrocities, don't you think we should also begin working down the list and get them all? Read this article on “Friendly Dictators” to begin to get some appreciation of how the U.S. has traditionally dealt with these monsters.

My experience has been that many people are looking for a simple, feel-good solution to the world's toughest issues and don't make time to really do the research necessary to develop an informed opinion. Instead, they decide which of the loudest voices on an issue they are willing to trust and adopt that point of view. If the loudest voice is also in some official capacity or is a media star of some kind, the choice may be easier.

The world isn't so much a struggle of good against evil as it is a complex interaction of national interest, private interests, desire for power, human interests, religious belief and historical perception. Until one is really familiar with all aspects of this complex matrix of powerful human imperatives as they bear on a particular situation, one is really just at the mercy of the currently loudest voice.

Think about it, please.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 04:26 PM

Thanks, Mark, for a well written post and an excellent link. If Beccy, Old Guy, et al, will take the time to read this link I think they will no other choice but to do some serious rethinking.

This is the point we have been trying to make all along. Why Iraq? And why now? And why *war* as pretty close to the the top of the list of first resorts? Why the lack of diplomacy? Why all this huff 'n puff foriegn policy? Why... Why...

These are seasonable questions that have not been answered. All we have gotten is a lot of PR crap but not a single answer that a civilized and thinking person, especially aftering reading your post and link, would recognize as being an "answer".

I mean, personally, I'd rather hear Bush tell the truth for a change and tell us his real motivations but he won't. At least they would be *honest*. But to give us this same old PR is disrespectfull to not only the folks that are going to die but for the American people who pay his salary!

Beam me up!

Resist stupid foreign policies!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 05:40 PM

Tia:

I said I could handle the personal insults and derision. Actually it is a bit much but all I see is attacks and insults here, nothing constructive except to protest against somebody with a plan.

The main course of action I hear from the protestors is let the inspections continue. I think we can all see that what has been found so far (what Saddam was not able to cover up) is an indication that much more exists.

12 more years of inspections would not be enough time to discover everything. In the meantime people are suffering. Inspections do not seem like much of a plan, just a way to stretch things out indefinitely.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: DougR
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 05:44 PM

One despot at a time, Mark. One at a time.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Mark Clark
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 07:24 PM

I've often thought an “insider's” perspective can help shed some light on a situation.

“Why of course the people don't want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship …Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”

Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Frankham
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 07:49 PM

Inspections are a means of containment. If they went on for thirty years it would keep Saddam at bay.

A first strike would set up a model for the rest of the world to do the same thing. Any country could rationalize this sanguinary action.

The only solution the US has is to work through the UN. Instead of detracting and running it down, it's time to listen carefully to every country. The UN not perfect but it's better than any country in the world acting unilaterally to create another world war.

Bush has no coherent plan for Iraq. His Administration isn't even handling Afghanistan particularly well. Karzai shouldn't have to beg Bush Administration for help.

Our foreign policy is a shambles.



Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Skippy
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 07:53 PM

"We" voted our leaders in, because we want to them to deal with the "big problems", once done, it is too late to disagree with their decisions, therefore we must stand by then in their hour of need. We can remove them later if we feel that they failed us. That is the whole point of democracy.
They see "the bigger picture" because they are privvy to one hell of a lot of info that we are not, so lets let our elected sort this out on our behalf, because in theory that is why we elected them in the first place!
I support them however please note I would rather eat my own spleen that vote labour!

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Mark Clark
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 08:22 PM

That would be the “Doctor Science” argument…

“I know more than you do. I have a masters degree… in science.”

Skippy, I think you've opted to believe the loudest voice rather than think for yourself. Here in the U.S. we expect to have access to the same background information as do our leaders.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Jeep man
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 08:29 PM

Of course. Remember the Chad Mitchell Trio's song "With God On Our Side"? Its gotta be alright because we are the good guys. Jeep

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 08:44 PM

Yo, Skippy:

The only folks that voted George Bush into the White House were the 5 memebers of the Supreme Court who Bush's daddy and Ron Reagan put on the court.

Bush *lost* the election! He lost the *popular* vote! And he was within two hours of loosing the *electorial* vote when the Supreme Court, at Bush's (not Gore's) request stepped in and stopped the recount! Those are facts!

So for you to insinuate that we should just sit by while a Conservative Supreme Court's choice of leadership goes about starting a war that could very well *never end*, is not only shortsighted but down right insulting to the ideals of democracy.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 12:44 AM

Skippy:

My independently formed opinion agrees with yours.

The people yelling the loudest are the antiwar protestors. They refuse to accept Bush as the duly elected president even though their candidate ceded the election publicly and announced that he was recognizing GW Bush as the president.

That was after he lost the election and tried to win it back through the use of telemarketers. We all have faith and trust in organizations that need to use telemarketers don't we?

The ruckus began over a ballot that was designed by a Democrat, approved by a Democrat and administered by Democrats in a Democratic district. The same problems were occurring year after year until a Democrat lost. Then the alternate second set of standards for Democrats came into play.

The way I read the Supreme Court decision is that 7 justices ruled that the recount of only certain portions of the ballots was unconstitutional.

So the last leg that the sore losers have to stand on is that some of the judges were appointed by a previous administration which biased their opinion. They have to be approved by congress as per the Constitution and the voters elect the members of Congress. Now the only possible argument is that the Constitution is unconstitutional.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 11:57 AM

Mark Clark:

"denounce the pacifists"

I haven't seen this happening. President Bush himself said this is an indication of a healthy, active democracy. The "pacifists" are denouncing the people that support the government's actions. The pacifists can say what ever they want and anyone can comment on it by saying anything they want.

When the pacifists do their demonstrations and the people that support the government are not swayed, they get mad. The use of quotations by Nazis or publications of defunct companies that publish trading cards about murderers and dictators is about as valid as using the National Enquirer as a source.

Saddam Hussein said "Iraq has no chemical or biological weapons". Should we go by what he said?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 12:46 PM

Many of Bush's supporters denounce the anti-war activists as "un-American." If you want, I can dig up newspaper clips, but I'm prety sure you'll have seen it for yourself. Besides, Bush's "You're either with us, or against us" says pretty much the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 01:22 PM

Forum Lurker:

Is President Bush denouncing anti-war activists?

His with us or against us statement was directed to other countries. He is not calling his administration "us"; he is calling America "us".

To the part of the population that supports the government it seems like the anti-war activists are more supportive of governments of other countries than they are of their own, the more passionate of them might call anti-war activists un-American or unpatriotic but hey, that's the Constitution for you.

However the anti-war activists do not hesitate to denounce the people that support the government by calling them "warmongers"


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Beccy
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 08:59 AM

Mark- I did think about it. And I remain in favor of removing Saddam Hussein and his regime. I will not say that because we haven't removed the other "friendly" dictators that we should not remove Hussein. That's a ridiculous non-sequitor.
Do you think that my support of a military campaign is a "feel good solution"? (your words) You can't really think that I feel GOOD about people potentially going to their deaths, can you? I have done a great deal of research into the Iraq situation (among others) and have come to an informed conclusion. That you disagree with it is obvious. But please do not assume that I came to this decision lightly.

Bobert, you said- "If Beccy, Old Guy, et al, will take the time to read this link I think they will no other choice but to do some serious rethinking."
You begin to offend me with your condescension. It seems you think that if I just read the same things you read that I will automatically shift my opinion to be homogenous with yours. Please. You and I both know diversity is the human condition. I read that article that Mark sent the link to and came from it with a renewed support for our potential involvement in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Beccy
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 09:02 AM

... And about the link... Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we see the error of our ways with Hitler and go to war over it????

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 10:32 AM

People (most people) eventually wise up to their mistakes, try to correct them if possible and vow not to repeat them.

EG: "We are not going to close our eyes what a dictator does again"

Some of them think that no action is the best action because they can't screw that up. They think that if other people are making futile attempts and that exonerates them if the attempts do not solve the problem.

EG: "The UN is working on it for the 12th year and we should not interfere. That way the blame will be on the UN and I won't have to feel guilty."

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: TIA
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 11:29 AM

Old guy:

I'm sorry, I'm slow this morning. Who are you quoting?

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,This is a folk forum?
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 12:59 PM

And you expected the majority of this strum and drum audience to do what...........say yes! Come on now.....it wouldn't make any sense for such a bunch of free thinkers to actually work outside the self created 1960's box that you have so corageously put on. Human rights, womens rights, childrens rights, environmental rights ....these things make great topics for songs but it's the war song that makes them real. Remeber..........the best lack all conviction
                               while the worst are full of passionate
                                        intensity.
Europe in 1938............how many died
The world in 2003.............it's tough to watch.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 01:47 PM

Thanks for the Link Mark - "Friendly Dictators" - It is highly recommended reading - It's a far better laugh than the BS: Chemtrails thread currently dropping off the bottom of the page.

The one about Pakistan - "In 1979 drugs were unknown in Pakistan" - Yeah bloody right - The author patently hasn't got a clue, not the foggiest bloody notion.

Surprised he missed out Joseph Stalin, and that idiot in Rumania. All brought to power and aided and abetted by the American Government and CIA covert-ops - Then when you actually get in to the mini-diatribe - you find that in most cases the appellation "Friendly" applied to the Government of the United States is based on the fact that the Ford Motor Company sold some trucks - WOW - Absolutely, laughable in content, style and presentation - and woefully apparent that some actually take all that crap in and believe it, hook-line-and-sinker. If you visit some of the links thrown out by Third World Traveller, there are some even better laughs - best word to describe it is ludicrous.

One historical parallel that was drawn to my attention to-day, relating to France: The last time France demanded to be shown more convincing proof, the proof drove through France waving German flags.

Another attributed to Donald Rumsfeld (but I doubt if actually did say it): Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without you accordian.

Do I think that a war on Iraq is legit? - I'll put it this way - to sit back and do nothing is morally indefensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Mark Clark
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:22 PM

Thanks, Beccy. I don't expect that everyone will adopt my own point of view, only that they come to an independent opinion based on information, not emotion, rhetoric or misinformation. It's clear that you've put some effort into arriving at your view and I can respect that. I share your view of Hussein and your desire to have him removed from power, I just don't think a preemptive attack is the only way to get that accomplished.

As to the legitimacy of a preemptive strike on Iraq, what would you say constitutes legitimacy in a case like this? Can we make a check list of things that, if true, require that the U.S. preemptively attack a country?

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:36 PM

Here's someone I can identify with, and I applaud his action. It's copied in full from the New York Times but I'm not very reliable at making a link:


February 27, 2003

U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation

    The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L.Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

"Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The
baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human
nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also
upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international
legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international
relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September
11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result,
and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11
did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward
self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and
mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what
basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that
overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow
where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close
partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses
of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share."

My apologies in advance for posting something as lenghty as this, but I'm always hopeful that someone may read it all the way through, may change a mind (unlikely), may provide more justification for why you're questioning the Bush Administration's "splendid little war."

Got to run; someone's knocking on my door!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 05:21 PM

I've taken a few days off from this sort of thread. Reading it through, the thing that really strikes me is that so many of us posting here seem to think the way to carry on an exchange about something as important as this is to throw out repetitive insults and sneers.

The useful thing about this kind of discussion is that it makes it possible to understand the way people are actually thinking, when they don't see an issue the same way as we do - and there aren't all that many chances to do that. Sometimes we can present people who are still undecided with facts or interpretations of fact that they might have missed; but the truth is, we aren't too likely to convince people, who have come to a settled view, to change their minds.

And there's room in there for teasing each other too, when we are dealing with people we have got to know. But bad tempered brawling is a waste of time and space; and more important, it destroys a valuable opportunity to widen our understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Mark Clark
Date: 03 Mar 03 - 05:39 PM

And now I see we have Charlotte Beers leaving the State Department as well.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Mark Clark
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 02:38 AM

I received a very interesting link that I thought might also be interesting to folks in this thread. The link is to a set of notes, not really prepared for publication, by Laurie Garrett, prize-winning author and science writer for Newsday. The link is to
Garrett's notes from the recent WEF in Davos, Switzerland. They were posted to a list by Adam Davis, Director, EPRIsolutions Environment Division.

Garrett's notes are just that and don't really include a point of view or proposal for any action. For that reason, and because of the reputation of Ms. Garrett, I thought folks here might like to add her observations to their own background files.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: DougR
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 04:55 PM

So the rest of the world doesn't like us, huh Mark? So when is that big news? I read the opinion piece you posted and saw very little new in it. Heck when thousands of our on citizens march against our government in our own country, what difference does it make that we are not liked in Timbucktu?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 06:52 PM

Ahhhh, what we are beginning to see here, Doug, is "democracy" fighting back. And, yeah, your guy draped himself in the flag and did a PR number on Congress and got his resolution, but this one ain't over yet 'cause when one democracy falls down (ours) another one comes in to pick it up (Turkey's).

And, yeah, related to a question/comment you made on another thread, a lot of folks are starting to see Bush as the emperior with no pants from his policies that are across the board anit-human and driven by greed and a thirst to control. So, yeah, it's hard for me to see much that he does with which I find much agreement.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: TIA
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 10:25 PM

Just got this from my mother. Use it if you wish. Ignore it if you wish.


"Bruce Andrews, retired professor of political science sent Dan and me these
e-mail addresses with a request to e-mail these delegations at the UN
requesting that they do everything they can to stop the war. A political
scientist friend of his sent Bruce the addresses with this note: "I just
spoke with France's UN office. The are BEGGING us to flood their offices and
the other UN offices with emails to STOP the WAR. France needs to know that many
Americans are with them on this. Please forward this to everyone you can.
The UN email addresses are listed below for the Security Council."

[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail];
[e-mail],
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Thanks for considering this, Mom"

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 04 Mar 03 - 10:45 PM

Tia:

Is too much indulgence dimming your intellectual casapity? The first quote is from a warmonger like me. I will let you guess who would issue the second quote.

How about those human sheilds aborting thier paid vacations in Iraq? Bloody ungrateful I'd say.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 08:48 AM

Mark-

Thanks for posting your links.

You know, folks, more thoughtful comments would be welcome here instead of the easy sniping. Yes, this is a serious world crisis that the Bush Administration is initiating, and gambling that they can manage, and I'm convinced it will be seen as a major turning point in our foreign policy.

Looks like March 15th is the next best demonstration to make our voices heard.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 10:26 AM

In a piece of related news, it now appears that Cnada will be stepping in to lend their support to the Bush administration. This just in:

CANADA JOINS THE U.S. In WAR ON TERRORISM
Canada has offered to help the US in the war on terrorism.
They have pledged 2 battleships, 6000 troops and 10 fighter jets.
Unfortunately, with the current exchange rate, that comes out
to 2 canoes, a Mountie and a couple of flying squirrels.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Beccy
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:10 AM

Human Rights Watch links


Here's another informative link for those of you willing to read up on Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Beccy
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:12 AM

One more Iraq link- Amnesty International's report on Iraq

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: DougR
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:33 AM

I agree that it is a world crisis, Charlie, but what I don't understand is why so many people blame Bush instead of Saddam for causing it! Bush and Blair are only trying to get the U.N. to get off it's duff and enforce the resolutions they so seriously adopt in the Security Council.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: TIA
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:05 PM

DougR, I can only speak for myself, but I do not blame Bush for starting the crisis. However, I do not agree with the means that Bush and Blair are proposing to use to end it.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 01:07 PM

DougR-because no problem was apparent until Bush started talking about regime change. No one had heard a peep about Iraq in four or five years, then all of a sudden Bush needs to eliminate this horrible menace. The fact that he did it before election time, and that many people think the war talk helped his party out, raises suspicion, as does the fact that the economy continues to suffer. It seems a lot like he's doing it for political gain.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 01:20 PM

No one heard a peep out of Iraq in four years because they were too busy talking about 1)Monica and 2)the "stolen" election. Just because a nation peeps and no one listens, does it mean they didn't peep at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 01:27 PM

The antiwar protestors do not want to hear about the torture that goes on in Iraq wile instectors inspect.

Vignettes like this make them grow silent:

"Men belonging to Feda'iyye Saddam came to the house in al-Karrada district and found his wife, children and his mother. Um Haydar was taken to the street and two men held her by the arms and a third pulled her head from behind and beheaded her in front of the residents. The beheading was also witnessed by members of the Ba'ath Party in the area. The security men took the body and the head in a plastic bag, and took away the children and the mother-in-law. "

Um Haydar was one of the lucky ones because she was not raped, tortured and forced to watch her childern being tortured and killed before being beheaded. They must have been in a hurry.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. A good doctrine for monkeys.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 04:26 PM

Seems anti-war protesters can't even take it to the mall.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Mark Clark
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 05:57 PM

Beccy, Thanks, I read your links and I agree completely that the treatment of people in Iraq is intolerable. It is shameful that such treatment is allowed to continue.

While I was at the Human Rights Watch site, I typed the word torture into the search box and learned that besides Iraq, according to HRW, there is also torture being conducted in Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Chechnya, Chile, China, Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ingushetia, Iran, Israel, Ivory Coast, Kashmir, Kenya, Macedonia, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Tunisia, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. Not only that but the U.S. is being accused of torture as well and is being asked to prove that the accusations are false.

My data collection took some time so I haven't researched the other atrocities but I have no doubt they are widely practiced as well. I've even heard U.S. officials argue publicly that torture should be permitted on those detainees not protected by the U.S. Constitution as an effective means of gaining intelligence.

Just because a practice is widespread, doesn't mean I think it should be allowed to continue, but I do wonder—if that is the reason for a preemptive attack—how we will muster the resources to conquer each of the countries listed. Will the U.K. join us in the effort? Who else is on board? Will we conquer each of them in turn, as Doug has suggested or will we conquer them two or more at a time?

I'd really like to see the thread participants collaboratively draw up a list of grievances that, taken together, constitute a mandate for preemptively attacking another country—any country. I think everyone here has a piece of the list. Let's see if we can put it all together. I mean, if we, who are all friends and play the same music, can't agree… who can?

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 07:48 PM

The U.S has ADMITTED to using torture, and to turning suspects over to countries notorious for torture. This is one matter in which we can't even pretend to the moral high ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Padre
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 07:54 PM

Yes

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 08:09 PM

Yes.

BTW, France and Germany know that Saddam has WMD. They have the receipts.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 08:24 PM

The question in this thread is, is this scheduled war legitimate, which I take it means the same thing as legal. There are other threads focus sing on whether it's a good idea, or right or wrong.

Given that the United States and the United Kingdom have bound themselves to abide by the United Nations Treaty, there is no way in which this war can be legal, unless and until there has been a resolution, carried by a majority on the Security Council, with no permanent members voting against it, which specifically authorises the use of military force.>/I>

There hasn't been one, and there appears to be no immediate prospect of one. The war which is due to start within the next few days will therefore undoubtedly be illegal, no question about it, so far as I can see. And I wouldn't see it any different if I was in favour of it happening.

That resolution people keep quoting, 1441, just talks about "serious consequences" - it doesn't even mention military action - here is a link to it. If you go for a walk on a rainy day without wrapping up properly, that can have "serious consequences", you might get a really bad cold. It's a meaningless term in itself.

And the new resolution that's supposed to make all the difference if enough countries can be bribed bullied or cajoled it voting for it or abstaining, that is even more vacuous. And don't believe me, - it goes on at length about how Saddam has failed to cooperate - but when it come to the crunch, what does it say should be gone? It says that in the light of all this the Security Council ""Decides to remain seized of the matter."

Which means, in the normal sense of language, it will keep paying attention to what is going on, and decide at a later date what to do about it. And it won't make any difference at all to the illegality of this war, at this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 08:28 PM

The question in this thread is, is this scheduled war legitimate, which I take it means the same thing as legal. There are other threads focusing on whether it's a good idea, or right or wrong.

Given that the United States and the United Kingdom have bound themselves to abide by the United Nations Treaty, there is no way in which this war can be legal, unless and until there has been a resolution, carried by a majority on the Security Council, with no permanent members voting against it, which specifically authorises the use of military force.

There hasn't been one, and there appears to be no immediate prospect of one. The war which is due to start within the next few days will therefore undoubtedly be illegal, no question about it, so far as I can see. And I wouldn't see it any different if I was in favour of it happening.

That resolution people keep quoting, 1441, just talks about "serious consequences" - it doesn't even mention military action - here is a link to it. If you go for a walk on a rainy day without wrapping up properly, that can have "serious consequences", you might get a really bad cold. It's a meaningless term in itself.

And the new resolution that's supposed to make all the difference if enough countries can be bribed bullied or cajoled it voting for it or abstaining, that is even more vacuous. And don't believe me, here is a link to the text. It goes on at length about how Saddam has failed to cooperate - but when it come to the crunch, what does it say should be gone? It says that in the light of all this the Security Council "Decides to remain seized of the matter."

Which means, in the normal sense of language, it will keep paying attention to what is going on, and decide at a later date what to do about it. And it won't make any difference at all to the illegality of this war, at this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 09:23 PM

Mark,

Ya' missed *one* country on your list of countries that participates in "torture" and "human rights" violations...

And it's a biggie...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 09:06 AM

Not strictly true MGoH:

No member state in the United Nations has relinquished it's right to act independently and take what ever action it deems necessary in its own defence.

Forum Lurker:

<<"...no problem was apparent until Bush started talking about regime change.">>

The current regime in Iraq has been in power under the present leadership since 1979. It has consistantly ignored its obligations under the terms on UNSC resolutions directed at its activities. Iraq has been afforded opportunity after opportunity to comply with those resolutions - Iraq has refused to co-operate and comply on every occasion.

With that as the back-ground I would have though it no great bound of logic to link that non-co-operation to the people in power in Iraq, or, to the obvious conclusion that if the international community wants Iraq to disarm, then regime change is essential - because the guys that are there at the moment show absolutely no sign, or intention of doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:23 AM

The United Nations Treaty specifically allows for the situation where states are acting in their own defence in face of an invasion or similar hostile acts, and conditions for that defence are prescribed. The scheduled war doesn't fall within those conditions, and so far as I know, nobody has claimed that it would.

(In the unlikely - because suicidal - event that Iraq were to launch a war, in response to bombing raids, I think it is likely that this would in fact fall within the definition of legitimate self-defence.)

Just saying you believe you are acting in self-defence isn't sufficient. After all Nazi Germany claimed that when it attacked Poland.

Here's a quote which sums up the legal situation as I understand it:

"Since the signing of the UN Charter in June 1945, the only body with the authority to initiate military action is the United Nations Security Council, except in the case of self-defence when an armed attack has actually occurred against a sovereign state. Even then, the exception of self-defence, like all exceptions, is to be strictly construed.

All signatories are bound by Article 2.4 of the Charter which says that 'all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force …' Today, in the light of the UN Charter, especially Articles 2 and 51, it is plain that the only circumstance under which a sovereign state might invoke the authority to go to war is when an armed attack occurs; even in self-defence, it may do so only 'until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security' (Article 51)."

That comes from the Pax Christi site"./a>, which is obviously a source which has a more rigorous view about what might constitute a legal or a just war than some other sites. But I'd be surprised to find an authoritative site that would disagree essentially with that interpretation of the legal position.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:30 AM

The United Nations Treaty specifically allows for the situation where states are acting in their own defence in face of an invasion or similar hostile acts, and conditions for that defence are prescribed. The scheduled war doesn't fall within those conditions, and so far as I know, nobody has claimed that it would.

(In the unlikely - because suicidal - event that Iraq were to launch a war, in response to bombing raids, I think it is likely that this would in fact fall within the definition of legitimate self-defence.)

Just saying you believe you are acting in self-defence isn't sufficient. After all Nazi Germany claimed that when it attacked Poland.

Here's a quote which sums up the legal situation, as I understand it:

"Since the signing of the UN Charter in June 1945, the only body with the authority to initiate military action is the United Nations Security Council, except in the case of self-defence when an armed attack has actually occurred against a sovereign state. Even then, the exception of self-defence, like all exceptions, is to be strictly construed.

All signatories are bound by Article 2.4 of the Charter which says that 'all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force …' Today, in the light of the UN Charter, especially Articles 2 and 51, it is plain that the only circumstance under which a sovereign state might invoke the authority to go to war is when an armed attack occurs; even in self-defence, it may do so only 'until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security' (Article 51)."

That comes from the Pax Christi site , which is obviously a source which could be expected to favour a more rigorous view about what might constitute a legal or a just war than some other sites. But I'd be surprised to find an authoritative site that would disagree essentially with that interpretation of the legal position.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:49 AM

Hi Kevin does your computer have a built in echo???

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 07:22 PM

No, but sometimes it has a hair trigger, so it blasts off a thread before it's in proper shape. In which case it seems good manners to fellow Mudcatters to post the intended one, and trust to a Joe clone to remove the first, unintended, one.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Olguy
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 01:23 PM

Do you think the war on the US in the form of the 9/11 attacks is legitimate?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 03:34 PM

Of course not, it was a criminal act, carried out using equipment purchased in the USA. But what on earth has that that got to do with Iraq, any more than the Oklahoma bombing did?

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 05:37 PM

"Purchased in the U.S.A.," Kevin? How about highjacked? The administration believes that Iraq had some connection with 9/11. No proof has been presented as yet, but who knows what will turn up after the war.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Beccy
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 05:44 PM

McGofH-
You wanted to know how it had more to do with Iraq than Oklahoma City? It's quite simple. Tim McVeigh did not have any nebulous government or independently wealthy militaristic and nihilistic sponsors (read: Iran, Iraq and any other state-sponsors of terrorism) and the 9/11 hijackers did.

Both attacks were horrific and unjustifiable. One occured with the promise of more attacks (9/11) and one occured as a single occasion (Oklahoma City). That's not to say homegrown murderous bastards are less frightening than foreign-born ones. It's just that McVeigh didn't have a nation-state behind his quest.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 11:30 PM

Right on, Beccy! Kevin?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Mar 03 - 08:49 AM

But what's any of that that got to do with Iraq? I didn't say Septemnber 11th or Oklahoma had everything in common, just that one thing they shared was that neither of them was an Iraqi operation.

My point about "purchased in the USA" was that the equipment used was all local - plane tickets and box-cutter knives. No need for multi-million dollar backing and all that stuff. And the essential ingrediant was a bunch of people who felt fanatical about wanting to hit the USA, and were ready to die to do it. And one certain way to produce more supplies of that particular essential ingredient is likely to be this war.

Pastoral letter from our Bishop at Mass this morning. He outlined the rules for a "Just War", and indicated that he didn't think this one qualified as such. First time I can remember that happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 03 - 11:34 PM

Oh yeah, sure...

It's about as legit as:

1. Hitler's attack on Poland in '39

2. Mussolini's attack on Ethiopia a few years earlier

3. O.J.'s attack(s) on his battered wife, Nicole

I hope that Bush, unlike O.J., does not get away with committing murder. Mass murder, in Bush's case. He's already killed more than enough people as it is.

That's it for me for tonight. Sleep well, y'all...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 08:32 AM

MGOH:

"My point about "purchased in the USA" was that the equipment used was all local - plane tickets and box-cutter knives. No need for multi-million dollar backing and all that stuff. And the essential ingrediant was a bunch of people who felt fanatical about wanting to hit the USA, and were ready to die to do it."

Kevin, the operation was 24 to 18 months in the planning. Those responsible did not do this as an "off-the-cuff" operation.

1. Initial training

2. Their move to countries away from their home countries

3. Establishing their cover within those countries

4. They had to do a recon - to establish security routines (sadly lacking on American domestic flights) - to determine just what they could get onboard the aircraft - to identify which were the best airports and flights to board to achieve their objectives.

5. Pilot training because they knew that they would have to fly the aircraft.

All of the above took time and it took money, it involved extensive travel, it required co-ordination. All of which they got from others. I do not believe there was any link between the September 11th attack and Iraq - the current American administration is on record as having stated exactly that.

The September 11th attack groups, Quarter-master was recently tried and found guilty in Hamburg - he was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, recently captured in Pakistan was thought to have been the behind the attack - his interrogation should fill in more of the gaps - might not be multi-million dollar backing Kevin - but the money has to come from somewhere - and that can be found and traced.

The threat, and this IS where countries and regimes such as those that exist in Iraq come into the picture, is that an international terrorist group (not necessarily Al-Qaeda) gets aid from Iraq. What before took 24 to 18 months to plan, would now take less time - the resources behind the planning are that much more extensive. With the focus of effort of intelligence services of 90-odd countries directed at terrorist organisations, these organisations need places where they are not subject to that sort of scrutiny. September 11th, could not have happened without the existance of the Al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan - that was where the plan was originated - that was where the initial training was done. If you doubt the importance of Afghanistan - consider this - without his secure base - Al-Qaeda's second in command only remained at liberty for approximately 18 months in an area of a country largely sympathetic to his cause - he still got captured.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 08:48 AM

Teribus-Unfortunately, the most likely cause of this scenario is U.S. aggression against Iraq. The CIA director is on record as having stated that any usage of Iraqi biological or chemical weapons against the U.S. is very unlikely, UNLESS Saddam is attacked, in which case the probability is almost 100% shoud he possess any at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Beccy
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 09:05 AM

McGrath of Harlow- To my mind, here is what it has to do with Iraq.

1.) Saddam Hussein's regime is proven to have little compunction about murdering their own people.

2.) It would follow that he has little compunction about killing other nations' people, as well.

3.) It is established that he seeks weapons (if not already possesses) weapons of mass destruction without a signature.

4.) If he has these weapons, he will either
            a.) use them himself, or
            b.) give them to someone who will use them.

5.) His financial and physical support of terrorism is not deniable. He has allowed Al Qaeda training camps in his country. That provides a verifiable link between his government and the people who attacked us on 9/11 and perpetrate attacks worldwide.

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 10:08 AM

Still no connection there Beecy - and as Teribus says "I do not believe there was any link between the September 11th attack and Iraq - the current American administration is on record as having stated exactly that." The fact that there might be Taliban or Al Qaeda camps the Iraqi side of the border with Afghanistan (albeit in a part of Iraq of controlleed by Gaghdada) does not add up to anything.

Regimes that are quite willing to kill their own citizens, and which have acquired or sought to acquire weapons of mass destruction are hardly. You don't even have to go to Bush's "Axis of Evil" to find them. Israel, Columbia, Russia, just for a start.

I take the point Teribus makes about September 11th presumably having involved a fair bit of preparation. But nothing in his list really requires very significant resources.

A handful of airline tickets and cars, money to pay for a safe house or two, and for basic pilot training from commerical flying schools, and some forged documents. Food and keep for a small bunch of mean for a few months. It doesn't add up to much really.

It's very comparable to the level of preparation and resources needed for an IRA bombing campaign in England. The assumption that there was any need for a great deal of coordination and support from outside is just an assumption. The whole essence of this type of operation is that it becomes autonomous - even self-financing. I think there is very little likelihood that eliminating external sources of support will make any difference for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 11:21 AM

Beccy-the director of the CIA stated that Saddam would not use weapons of mass destruction unless attacked, and that he would not give or sell them to terrorist organizations. The presence of terrorist training camps in Iraq no more proves Saddam's complicity in the WTC attack than McVeigh's state of residence makes Oklahoma responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Beccy
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 11:35 AM

Not exactly, Lurker. According the the link below:

George Tenet's statements vis a vis Iraq



CIA director George Tenet, for his part, insists there is "no inconsistency" between his letter and the president's policy.
In a statement released on Tuesday, he said Baghdad's links to Islamic militants was likely to increase even absent US military action. "There is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or our allies grows as his arsenal continues to build," he said in the statement.

He DID say Iraq was likely to use their WMDs if provoked... but he also said the statement that I pasted above.

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 12:40 PM

MGOH:

"It's very comparable to the level of preparation and resources needed for an IRA bombing campaign in England. The assumption that there was any need for a great deal of coordination and support from outside is just an assumption. The whole essence of this type of operation is that it becomes autonomous - even self-financing. I think there is very little likelihood that eliminating external sources of support will make any difference for a long time."

OK lets take a closer look at this:

1. Does this organisation have a safe operational base - Yes, the Republic of Ireland. This is used to protect it's stores of munitions, explosives and detonators. The command structure of the organisation is based in the Republic, as are it's training facilities, Quarter-master functions and it's planning staff.

2. Is this organisation self financing - to a certain degree for both sides of paramilitaries in the North - mainly through drugs, extorsion and robbery. These activities are used to maintain the operations locally, However, the main source of funding for the Republicans comes from the USA - still does.

Operations are well planned and co-ordinated - for that you need an organisation and discipline - nothing autonomous about it Kevin - nothing gets done that isn't sanctioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 02:38 PM

"Nothing get done that isn't sanctioned" - so if the "command HQ" far away is destroyed everyone packs up and goes home for tea? Assuming it happens like that is a bit like imagining that somewhere there is an Internet Central Office, and if that ceased to operate the whole Internet would shut off.

The Irish Republic was never "a safe operational base" for the IRA, in the sense that they could operate there in the open or without difficulty. It's fairly clear that arms dumps were sited, and training carried on in Northern Ireland, or for that matter in England, when that was felt to be appropriate.

For terrorist activities in the USA it seems pretty plausible that the best place to stock (and purchase) arms, and to carry on training, would be in North America itself, rather than in some far off country. The value of "a safe operational base" would seem to be primarily for morale purposes, as a place for "rest and recuperation", and it could be dispensed with if necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 04:12 AM

MGOH,

""Nothing get done that isn't sanctioned" - so if the "command HQ" far away is destroyed everyone packs up and goes home for tea?"

No it doesn't happen like that Kevin. What does happen is that things go quiet until until the command structure re-groups and reforms.

"The Irish Republic was never "a safe operational base" for the IRA, in the sense that they could operate there in the open or without difficulty."

LOL at that one Kevin - you are of course joking!!! I included the last part, because, the IRA was declared an illegal organisation in South long before it was declared an illegal organisation by the British. Having said that, you tell me Kevin - for arguements sake, hypothetically, you as a member of that organisation want to establish an arsenal, train your people to use it, and create a command structure - you have the choice of setting it up on one side of the border where you have an extremely active internal security presence, well equipped, well trained, with assets capable of aerial reconnaisance, air-mobility and the potential to put into the field men in their thousands. On the other hand you could set up on the other side of that border where you have a much reduced, minimal, active internal security effort - a place where the resources available to the Government are a fraction of what you would face across the border - a place where emotionally "a-blind-eye" is more than likely to be turned to your efforts and activities - a place where it is much easier to run in the weapons and explosives you need - a place where the population density is less so that your activities stand a better chance of going on unreported if not unnoticed. And you say that the IRA opted for the former!!!

"It's fairly clear that arms dumps were sited, and training carried on in Northern Ireland, or for that matter in England, when that was felt to be appropriate."

I have no doubt you are correct to a limited extent - but arms finds in the North have always been tiny compared to those arms caches discovered in the South. The arms dumps and training you refer to above can be accurately described as extremely local "ready-use" stores - their main dumps and training areas have always been in the South - and you know that as well as I do Kevin.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 05:52 AM

So more arms caches have been discovered or disclosed in the South? What does that prove? Insofar as it was easier doing things on one side of the border and one side of the water rather than the other, that's presumably where they'd be done, but that's just operational details.

The point is, it's perfectly possible to carry on illegal and terrorist activity within the territory of the enemy and without a safe base elsewhere. And it reduces the problems involved in bringing explosives or personnel across borders, or across oceans.

One of the main points of having a cell structure in a terrorist organisation is that it makes it possible to carry on autonomously if need be. And that can have disastrous consequences for the victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 09:03 AM

Kevin,

"So more arms caches have been discovered or disclosed in the South? What does that prove?"

Exactly what I said in the first place - In the Repulic of Ireland the IRA had, established and maintained it base of operations. Note when the IRA offered to show the authorities the grave sites of those they abducted, tortured and murdered - they took them South.

"Insofar as it was easier doing things on one side of the border and one side of the water rather than the other, that's presumably where they'd be done, but that's just operational details."

Again it supports precisely what I said.

"The point is, it's perfectly possible to carry on illegal and terrorist activity within the territory of the enemy and without a safe base elsewhere. And it reduces the problems involved in bringing explosives or personnel across borders, or across oceans."

Of course it is perfectly possible Kevin, but the risks that have to be run in operating that way increases the chances of being detected and caught.

"One of the main points of having a cell structure in a terrorist organisation is that it makes it possible to carry on autonomously if need be."

Yes Kevin but divorced from their command structure and the support it provides, any operations are severely limited. Activities by that cell to replace equipment or finance becomes more noticeable - i.e. attention gets drawn to certain activities occuring in a certain pattern.

"And that can have disastrous consequences for the victims."

The activities of "these hero's" nearly always has disasterous consequences for their victims - but to operate as you suggest fortunately also can result in disasterous consequences for the terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 07:30 PM

The world is changing and things that were impossible become possible and the other way round. September 11th demonstrated that.

Just as "conventional" war changes unrecognisably every few years, so do other types of war, or whatever we call it. The assumption that the factors that have shaped events in the past necessarily apply in the future is as naive as the thinking of those who envisaged the Great War in terms of cavalry charges.

That's what I mean when I say that thinking in terms of bases of operations in distant countries, and sophisticated weaponry and so forth could be a very serious mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 05:23 AM

Kevin,

I sincerely hope that any existing or budding international terrorist organisations subscribe to you train of thought - it will make them that much more easy to detect and neutralise.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 06:53 AM

And I hope they'll accept your asumoptions, Teribus, because I think that could greatly reduce their effectiveness.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,The O'Meara
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 01:41 PM

First, thank you all for this discussion. As a Vietnam combat veteran (medic) I can assure you that war is horrible and tragic and should never be entered into with anything less than the best of reasons and the most serious thought behind it. That is what I see in much of this discussion thans to McGrath and beccy and Mark Clark and Oldguy and the rest. (Is that THE Mark Clark?)

But there are a lot of exceptions. Some of you seem to hate anyone who is politically conservative, as represented by George W. Bush, and presume anything they do or say is inherently not just wrong, but actually evil, and there is no point listening to arguments. Others seem to hate the liberals as represented by Bill Clinton, and presume they live in a dreamworld of wishful thinking are also automatically wrong and not worth listening to. Many of the so-called arguments seem to say "Not only are you automatically wrong, but your dog is ugly, too!"

That may be ok for arguments over taxation and internet control, but this issue involves the immediate loss of human life, that's people just like us, and no honest, reasonable opinion should be automatically dismissed.

The Mudcat forum may not be the place for it, but there are some things I want to know.

Why are we going to war with Iraq? I reject the notion that "The evil Bush clan wants to take over the oilfields." Even if they did, the world and the U.S people would never let that happen, and the whole bunch would be tossed out at the next election. Same with starting an
unnecessary war to get re-elected. I don't think anyone could get away with that anymore, just like I don't think anyone could hijack an American passenger jet after 9/11. (Too many cowboy passengers willing to say "Lets Roll!")

The arguments seem to be: (1.) Since 9/11 we are at war with terrorists and terrorist regimes, that Saddam has or is actively developing really bad chem, bio, and nuke weapons, and will give them to terrorists to use on us or will do so himself. (2.) One of the reasons we didn't march to Bagdhad during the gulf war was that Hussein agreed to the terms we gave him prohibiting thosw weapons. But in the decade since he has not abided by any of them. (3) Ignoring that will surely result in massive and tragic loss of innocent lives in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Does the government have "cards they ain't showing?" In a speech awhile back President Bush referred to an "Axis of Evil" consisting of Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Liberal folks said North Korea was included just for diversity to avoid singling out Iraq. Given recent developments, that doesn't seem to hold water. (And Yesterday there was an article in the NY Times about Iran being closer to having nukes than Iraq.) If that's the case, why doesn't the government, (both Dems and Reps) say "We have cards we ain't showin!"

Is this too heavy for the mudcat?

O'Meara

ps I already know my dog is ugly.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,The O'Meara
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 10:44 AM

Was it something I said?

O'Meara

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 10:03 AM

Here's an most informative article from yesterday's Guardian
claiming a war on Iraq is anything BUT legit. To quote it:

"The prohibition of the use of force is a foundational rule of international law. Only two exceptions are permitted: the use of force in self-defence, or with the express authorisation of the UN security council exercising its powers under chapter VII of the UN charter.

Iraq has not attacked the US, the UK or their allies, nor is there any evidence that it is about to do so. Force may only be used in self-defence in response to an actual or (according to some commentators) an imminent armed attack. Therefore any arguments based on self-defence fail. What the US national security strategy has advocated are pre-emptive attacks on countries which may threaten the US. The use of armed force in such circumstances is contrary to international law."

But will this deter the US? Not likely, as they continue to make every effort to ensure their own immunity from international law. See the thread "Congratulations to Canada" re the creation of the new International Criminal Court and US plans to use "all means necessary" - in UN language that means FORCE - to protect Americans from being charged with war crimes. (Sorry, I haven't mastered 'internal links' yet!)

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 10:27 AM

Seems to me that arguing over whether it is legal, or legit is a pointless exercise unless there are some real consequences for breaking international law in this way. Blair is still trying to justify himself legally - mainly I think because he has signed up to the international court, but Bush obviously doesn't care a hoot about the legality. So what should be done?

I think since it is the UN charter that will be broken, the UN should lay down the consequences. Veto holding members who break the UN charter in this way should lose their veto. When you look at the huge number of resolutions about Israel and Palestine that have failed solely because of the US veto (and occasionally Britain joining them), might this make a real difference to US policy? And might it free the UN to have a real impact on the Palestinian situation?

What do others think?

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 11:19 AM

I don't think that the UN could have a beneficial impact on the Middle East situation simply with the removal of America's veto power. The current situation in the UN is that the Arab states, convinced that Israel is evil, pass resolutions which include condemnations of Zionism as racist and other anti-Semitic crap, and the U.S., convinced that Israel is good, vetos any resolution that is viewed as condemning Israel, even when such condemnation is warranted.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 01:26 PM

Hi Bagpuss,

You say:

"I think since it is the UN charter that will be broken, the UN should lay down the consequences."

They wouldn't be "serious consequences" would they? If so given current UN interpretation cheered on by Saddam's apologists, they would amount to absolutely nothing. Without active American support the United Nations is nothing - others might disagree - but I bet that Kofi Annan, Chirac, Schroeder and Putin aren't among them.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 06:19 PM

March 15! March!

Charley Noble, who's not satisified to weigh body bags to determine which side was more legit.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you think that a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 07:39 PM

"Seems to me that arguing over whether it is legal, or legit is a pointless exercise unless there are some real consequences for breaking international law in this way."

Well, for Blair it could make a difference, since he hasn't managed to get an opt out from the International War Crimes Tribunal for himself and for those following his orders. He could get arrested. And the same would apply particularly to his friend the Prime Minister of Italy, Berlusconi - the courts in Italy are already after him for financial shenanigans, because there are Italian lawyers and judges with guts.

And, in principle, it could make a difference for Bush, if the US courts and legal system do their job. He might have got out from under international courts - but, if this war is illegal under international law, it's illegal under US law, since the United Nations Treaty was formally adopted by the USA, and therefore surely has legal status in the USA.

If it's an illegal war, that means that a crime is being committed, and it must be someone's duty to prosecute those who appear responsible for this crime. After all, one reason given for the USA excluding itself from the International War Crimes Tribunal was that US law could be relied on to deal with cases of war crimes alleged to have been committed by US citizens.

Mind, I wouldn't hold my breath. I imagine it's about as likely that the US courts will see such a prosecution as it is that anything like that will happen in an Iraqi court to Saddam right now. And even when there's been a regime change in Washington (touch wood), I imagine it'll be a question of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours".

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 07:18 AM

And here is a letter lifted from today's Guardian which sums the legal position up pretty well. Whatever justifications might be made for it, there is no legal authority for this war. It is literally a criminal act for which the people responsible could face trial.

The letter is by Corelli Barnett CBE, a very distinguished military historian and academic - and by no means a lefty or a liberal:

We must not let ourselves be deceived by Downing Street's false argument that UN resolution 1441 justifies an Anglo-American attack on Iraq without the need for a further resolution (War Analysis, March 14).

Last October, Washington originally put forward a resolution specifying that failure by Saddam Hussein to fulfil UN demands for his disarmament should be dealt with "by all possible means" - code for automatic use of armed force. This was totally rejected by France, Russia and China. In November, after six weeks of haggling, the present resolution 1441 was passed, stating that a material breach by Iraq would entail "serious consequences" - not code for automatic war. Moreover, France, Russia and China, in accepting resolution 1441, formally stated that they did so only on the clear understanding that it did not carry with it any automatic recourse to war without a further security council decision.

Therefore, Bush and Blair's war will be contrary to resolution 1441. It will also breach the UN charter itself, which reserves decisions over peace and war to the security council except in cases of self-defence against attack. But neither America nor Britain has been attacked, or even threatened with attack, by Iraq.

Of course, the cold-eyed warmongers of Bush's Washington don't give a damn about any of this. But we might have hoped that Tony Blair would have felt some scruples about embarking on a war which will be illegal, as well as opposed by a majority of the British nation.
Correlli Barnett
East Carleton, Norwich