The Iraq Thread

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 19 2003,06:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,10:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Where is that evidence? Are you refering to the forged reports of uranium imports from Nigeria? Or are you talking about the 'secret' British intelligence report that turned out to be a plagiarized report of a grad student?

There has been no credible evidence reported by any mainstream media, not CNN, not Reuters, not FoxNew, nobody. Why? Because the Bush administration has not presented any evidence.

The Powell report sent the UN inspectors on a wild goose chase and they tested the validity of the claims and found that they were all untrue. The inspectors are from many different countries, including the US and they neither support nor oppose a war, they only investigate. They are the closest thing you can come to an unbiased source on the matter.

Where is that "good proof"? Where? Please show me because I have certainly not seen it.<span id='postcolor'>

The UN's proof from 1998.

Aside from that you're still not getting what I was saying.  I quoted you, roughly, saying "truth is the first casualty in war".  Meaning NONE of us have been exposed to the truth, only the bias newsflashes that whatever our news sources are want us to hear.  Every day I'm hearing on the radio of Iraq's links to Al Queda, but every day you're probably hearing all this anti-US stuff.  It simply effects how we make our decisions.<span id='postcolor'>

I find it funny that you keep harping on about the 'proof' of the UN Inspectors in 1998, when one of the most knowlegable and informed men in that group of inspectors is totally and completely against the war, and believes that Iraq has destroyed most of their WMD.

And he's an American.

Look it up... his name is Scott Ritter.

[Akira 0]

"Band Of Brothers"

The US has specific rules against this ever since The Sullivan Brothers in WW2. I guess the UK doesn't....

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 19 2003,06:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 19 2003,07<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Suppose, for a second, the war goes fairly well- relatively few civilian casualties, most Iraqi forces surrender without a fight, and we find stocks of WMD. Who here who is now against the war will switch into retroactive support?<span id='postcolor'>

Chirac.

Elf needs their oil.<span id='postcolor'>

Not just Chirac, everybody. Chances are however that USA will be coming running back to the UN first so that it can rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. That's been the case in the last conflicts so I don't see why it would change now. USA pays for the bombs dropped, Europe and Japan pays for rebuilding the country.

As for Chirac and oil, from the horses mouth so to say:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

AMANPOUR:  The fact is, Mr. President, that in America many people think it's just because you are a friend, a pal of Saddam Hussein. That you have had long contacts with him, that you help build the nuclear reactor there, that there are the oil deals. You invited Saddam Hussein to France. There is a famous picture of you toasting him. They think it is about a personal and a business relationship.

CHIRAC: (laughter) That's myth, so to speak. Or controversy, if you will. I did indeed meet President Saddam Hussein when he was vice president in 1974 and '75, or '75 and '76. Never since. But in those days everybody had excellent relations with Saddam Hussein and with the Baath party. In those days it was seen as a modern party. Everybody had contacts with them.

I have not had any contacts ever since, and that is not something that everybody can say. Some important figures of the current U.S. administration had contacts with Saddam Hussein as late as 1983. I haven't. So we should not delve into controversy.

As for our interests, let us be clear about it. The trade of France with Iraq accounts for 0.2 percent of total French trade. So basically we have no economic interests in Iraq. Iraq isn't even in the list of the 60 largest trading partners of France. Not even the 60 largest.

As for oil import, they only account for 8 percent of Iraqi exports. The U.S. is importing five or six times more Iraqi petrol and Iraqi oil than we are importing. So these alleged motivations are clearly not serious motivations.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex @ ,,,,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here's the reasoning. If only a few civilians are killed (or none- but we can only hope), that will allay the fears of a large group who think that Iraq's people have already been subjected to more than they deserve, and more would just be too much. If Iraq's military dissolves quickly, then that will allay the fears that the war will escalate into a Vietnam-type scenario. And finally, if we find stocks of WMD, it will prove dead-wrong people who have full faith that the inspection regime was working right up until the point that the US pulled the plug. So... where do we stand? Will the war still be considered illegal/immoral/just plain wrong even after a positive outcome?

<span id='postcolor'>

I'll be the first one who will say that the war was a success and that it was right. The fact that it was illegal will be quickly forgotten. Those are however huge "ifs" and they are also very hard to verify since it isn't exactly like we are going to hear fair and objective information on the progress of war.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, I won't change my mind, even if the outcome is optimal. I certainly hope now that war seems inevitable that it does turn out like this, but even if it does it won't change my mind that the US should toe the line and not initiate war without UN approval. If you find stocks of WMD, and there is no doubt they are legitimate and not "planted", then I would agree that the UN inspection process needs to be thouroughly looked into and updated, and people held accountable as to why they didn't find any evidence.

But the bottom line is the war is and will be illegal, even if they find Saddam sitting on top of a pile of nuclear armed ICBMs. Even if Iraq turns out exactly as the US have claimed and their attack goes according to plan with minimal loss of life, it still isn't right. It just opens the door to use their specious reasoning and questionable evidence to barge into whoever's backyard they feel like.

It's like the urban myth of the guy who shot himself in the head and accidentally cured his brain tumor: the end result is great, but his actions are idiotic.<span id='postcolor'>

Well put, but I think you're wrong in a few areas. Should we find (legit) WMDs, it would be a direct breach of the ceasefire arrangements circa 1991. Hence, Iraq will have been in breach of their post-war obligations, and any military action is merely a continuance of the 1991 conflict (which was UN sanctioned and therefore *cough* legal). At least that's the angle I'd argue. Remember, the the PGW ended in a ceasefire, so technically it will last until Iraq comes into compliance or is brought into compliance with UN resolutions, notably 678 and 687. Taking that into account, a war would be legal. Of course, this is all speculation and we won't know until it's all over.

Another question is, how does Count Al-Douri explain to the UN why his country is shelling American troops with mustard gas a week after he swore up and down that Iraq no longer possesses WMDs? I imagine it will be the funniest thing any of us will see for a while

Still pure speculation, but I'd be willing to bet some cash on it happening.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 19 2003,07:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Should we find (legit) WMDs, it would be a direct breach of the ceasefire arrangements circa 1991. Hence, Iraq will have been in breach of their post-war obligations, and any military action is merely a continuance of the 1991 conflict (which was UN sanctioned and therefore *cough* legal). At least that's the angle I'd argue.<span id='postcolor'>

Again, a breach of cease-fire must be confirmed by the UN since the UN was the one to enter the cease-fire, not USA. One country is not allowed to unilaterally start interpreting things and acting upon those interpretations. There has to be a UN SC concesus.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 19 2003,07:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 19 2003,07:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Should we find (legit) WMDs, it would be a direct breach of the ceasefire arrangements circa 1991. Hence, Iraq will have been in breach of their post-war obligations, and any military action is merely a continuance of the 1991 conflict (which was UN sanctioned and therefore *cough* legal). At least that's the angle I'd argue.<span id='postcolor'>

Again, a breach of cease-fire must be confirmed by the UN since the UN was the one to enter the cease-fire, not USA. One country is not allowed to unilaterally start interpreting things and acting upon those interpretations. There has to be a UN SC concesus.<span id='postcolor'>

True.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 19 2003,07:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well put, but I think you're wrong in a few areas. Should we find (legit) WMDs, it would be a direct breach of the ceasefire arrangements circa 1991. Hence, Iraq will have been in breach of their post-war obligations, and any military action is merely a continuance of the 1991 conflict (which was UN sanctioned and therefore *cough* legal).<span id='postcolor'>

But that's like breaking into someone's house without a warrant, and then finding evidence.

In most courts (especially in the USA), this would be "case dismissed" - the evidence would be inadmissable.

You can't go in on a hunch, and then claim you were in the right if you happen to find something.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but does 1441 actually state that if Iraq doesn't comply it is justifcation for war? I think the exact wording is "serious consequences", which in UN lingo doesn't neccessarily mean armed resolution of the problem.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But that's like breaking into someone's house without a warrant, and then finding evidence.

In most courts (especially in the USA), this would be "case dismissed" - the evidence would be inadmissable.

You can't go in on a hunch, and then claim you were in the right if you happen to find something.

<span id='postcolor'>

Well there you go. I was asking everyone's opinion, and I got yours, even if it was in a roundabout way  

The only problem with your opinion that I can see is that law works a little differently on the nation-state level than in domestic cases. You can't compare the US finding VX nerve gas in Saddam's backyard to Officer Krumpkie finding weed in little Johnny's basement lol

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And correct me if I'm wrong, but does 1441 actually state that if Iraq doesn't comply it is justifcation for war? I think the exact wording is "serious consequences", which in UN lingo doesn't neccessarily mean armed resolution of the problem.

<span id='postcolor'>

Sometimes it doesn't, but in this case, from the get-go, all parties involved interpreted the phrase as meaning military action. I can only assume this was for a few reasons. One: the 'usual' serious consequences had already been used up- sanctions, embargoes, the occasional smart bomb, a slap on the wrist. And two: the US would not have bothered with R1441 at all if the phrase had not been meant from the start to be a watch-word for military action.

edited for spelling and clarity

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Mar. 19 2003,07:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 19 2003,07:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well put, but I think you're wrong in a few areas. Should we find (legit) WMDs, it would be a direct breach of the ceasefire arrangements circa 1991. Hence, Iraq will have been in breach of their post-war obligations, and any military action is merely a continuance of the 1991 conflict (which was UN sanctioned and therefore *cough* legal).<span id='postcolor'>

But that's like breaking into someone's house without a warrant, and then finding evidence.

In most courts (especially in the USA), this would be "case dismissed" - the evidence would be inadmissable.

You can't go in on a hunch, and then claim you were in the right if you happen to find something.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but does 1441 actually state that if Iraq doesn't comply it is justifcation for war? I think the exact wording is "serious consequences", which in UN lingo doesn't neccessarily mean armed resolution of the problem.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually the cops can. It's called "probable cause."

It's based on the assumption that the police have "reasonable" evidence and/or suspicion that illegal activities or items are located at said location.

The definition of "reasonable" is argued in court all the time. What you speak of is the "fruit of the poisoned tree" idea. A legal fact that says if evidence is discovered, however damning, but the processes followed or the way in which it is obtained is illegal, then the evidence is inadmissable. Anything AFTER the illegal process is inadmissable.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 19 2003,08:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sometimes it doesn't, but in this case, from the get-go, all parties involved interpreted the phrase as meaning military action. I can only assume this was for a few reasons. One: the 'usual' serious consequences had already been used up- sanctions, embargoes, the occasional smart bomb, a slap on the wrist. And two: the US would not have bothered with R1441 at all if the phrase had not been meant from the start to be a watch-word for military action.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually it wasn't quite so. If you remember there were long negotiations over the wording of that resolution. USA wanted a direct threat of war while France and Russia refused. "Serious consequences" was the compromise. This is underlined by the wish of USA and UK to have it confirmed by a second resolution.

Compare the wording of resolution 687, the Gulf War resolution to 1441.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (678 @ ,,,,,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

<span id='postcolor'>

"To use all necessary means to uphold and implement..." is quite a bit different then the intentionally vague "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;".

It's not even a threat of "serious consequences" just a reminder that Iraq has been previously warned of serious consequences.

Another thing: Sombody here said that if now the UN is irreleveant that a breach of international law as defined by the UN is also irrelevant. That isn't quite so since the UN member countries have ratified the UN charter. So a breach of international law is directly a breach of national law. That makes it possible in theory to impeach Bush. Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark has actually drafted articles of impeachment against Bush on among other things ignoring the UN Charter.

[Warin 0]

I will never cease to be amazed by the power of propoganda.

Revisionist history *cough*Tex and WW 1*cough* that is almost 90 years old is bad enough, but that it is so effective in something less than two years in the past is, bluntly, horrifying.

War is Peace, what?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 19 2003,08:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I will never cease to be amazed by the power of propoganda.

Revisionist history *cough*Tex and WW 1*cough* that is almost 90 years old is bad enough, but that it is so effective in something less than two years in the past is, bluntly, horrifying.

War is Peace, what?<span id='postcolor'>

That just makes me sad

EDIT: Here it is coming on 1:40am and I'm still at work (start at 4pm)...and I'll be here till 7am....god the legislative session sucks!...I'm getting delirious....

[Guest]

This is a beauty (from the article)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In Selma, Ala., firefighter Thomas Wilson supports going to war with Iraq, and brings up Sept. 11 himself, saying we don't know who's already here in the US waiting to attack. When asked what that has to do with Iraq, he replies: "They're all in it together - all of them hate this country." The reason: "prosperity."<span id='postcolor'>

What worries me is that this isn't the reacition of an imbecile but the one of an average citizen. People are always so ready to accept propaganda and extreme simplifications. This is not an US exclusive. I've seen it everywhere, including Sweden. And then people wonder, "How could Hitler come to power? Didn't people see what kind of a monster he was?".

It's the human way. We did it then and we will do it again.

[blackdog~ 0]

I wasted my time on this image:

Feel free to use it wherever you want.

Coming soon: Jaque Chirac pwns j00, K1m j0ng 1l pwns j00...

PS: I totally support George Bush

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually it wasn't quite so. If you remember there were long negotiations over the wording of that resolution. USA wanted a direct threat of war while France and Russia refused. "Serious consequences" was the compromise. This is underlined by the wish of USA and UK to have it confirmed by a second resolution.

Compare the wording of resolution 687, the Gulf War resolution to 1441.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"To use all necessary means to uphold and implement..." is quite a bit different then the intentionally vague "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;".

It's not even a threat of "serious consequences" just a reminder that Iraq has been previously warned of serious consequences.

<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not a big fan of nuances, especially when lawyers are involved and in my humble and uninformed opinion, both resolutions to some extent authorize military action. If everyone would just mean what they say and say what they mean (or in Dubya's case, say something that doesn't mean anything at all), then the world would be a much better, or at least less confusing place.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another thing: Sombody here said that if now the UN is irreleveant that a breach of international law as defined by the UN is also irrelevant. That isn't quite so since the UN member countries have ratified the UN charter. So a breach of international law is directly a breach of national law. That makes it possible in theory to impeach Bush. Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark has actually drafted articles of impeachment against Bush on among other things ignoring the UN Charter.<span id='postcolor'>

In this case however, national law seems to clash with international law-turned national law. According to the Constitution, the government has the right to do what it deems necessary to defend America. Also, any war initiated by the President and subsequently approved by Congress is considered Constitutional, and therefore legal. In this case, Dubya got ahead of himself and managed to get a Congressional carte-blanche for use of military force in Iraq. Therefore, the action in Iraq, assuming we don't commit any atrocities, will be entirely legal as far as the Constitution and the UMCJ are concerned. And I hate to once again get into nuancing, but because the Constitution is mentioned before international treaties in Art. VI Par. 2, it trumps the treaties; that is firmly established precedent in Constitutional law, that the first mentioned is always the first, even among equals. Go figure. I can see where Mr. Clark pulled his reasoning from, however it has no precedent to back it up.

On a purely editorial note, those charges read more like a liberal manifesto than Articles of Impeachment    although I wouldn't mind seeing Ashcroft fired- he's the real threat, imo.

edit: to further editorialize- Ramsey has always been a bit of a left-wing nut in my view. He has championed some very worthy causes, notably the Civil Rights Movement. However, he is simply too extreme in his views to be taken seriously as a force in modern politics. Just look at the spin he puts on the Afghanistan Conflict, which he condemns almost as harshly as any adventure in Iraq

edit edit: Folks that Clark has defended, in court and in the court of world opinion: Muammar Quaddafi, a Nazi guard being extradited from the US to face war crimes, the PLO in a suit against the organization brought by the family of a victim, Saddam Hussein, and Slobodan Milosevic. Incidentally, Clark did not condemn Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait in 1990, but did condemn the US's military action in response. Go figure this guy. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Schoeler:  You guys are fucking nuts.  The U.S. doesn't work that way, and even if it tried, it couldn't get away with it.  Americans would blow the whistle.  That just a bunch of conspiracy theorist irrational paranoid bullshit, and anyone with half an education and a rationally working mind is laughing at you right now.

Longinius:  What about the made up report of Iraqi soldiers killing babies in incubators during GW1?

E6Hotel:  the U.S. did not originate the incubator story.  It was first told by the exiled Kuwaiti housing minister, and reported by The London Daily Telegraph on September 5, 1990.

Bernadotte:  Do you honestly believe it was ok for the US to propagate the incubator deception as long as the fable originated elsewhere?

E6Hotel:  Nope.  Never claimed it was.<span id='postcolor'>

If propagating the incubator deception, as the US did, is also wrong then why are you defending the US merely on the grounds of the US not having originated the deception?

So, based on the incubator scam the bottom line seems to be this:  If Saddam Hussein's enemies plant evidence of WMDs for the US military to find then the US government could be expected to propagate such a deception, even if they know the evidence to be bogus.  However, we'd all have to be "fucking nuts" to believe that the US military would directly plant such evidence themselves, right?  Umm... sure thing, Sarge.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 19 2003,08:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I will never cease to be amazed by the power of propoganda.

Revisionist history *cough*Tex and WW 1*cough* that is almost 90 years old is bad enough, but that it is so effective in something less than two years in the past is, bluntly, horrifying.

War is Peace, what?<span id='postcolor'>

Ouch!

But yeah, it is very worrying. Unfortunately, it stems form several things: an uninformed citizenry, an unwillingness to learn, Joe Millionaire ( ), and an administration willing to exploit ignorance for their political advantage.

And not to get too controversial or anything, but there may be a bit of underlying bigotry/racism as well. Not overt or anything, but the basic stereotyping that occurs in the absence of real knowledge. The average American doesn't really know or care about the difference between a Shia, a Sunni, or a Wahhabi, nor does he care. As far as he is concerned, Saudi Arabia and Iraq are not all that different; both are Arab states, and therefore their citizenry is predominantly terrorist. Doesn't matter if it was Saudis who attacked America, they were Arab and they were Muslim; therefore an attack on any Muslim or Arab (or both) state will do for retaliation.

[Akira 0]

Who Would Make A Better President: Bush Or Tic-Tacs

LOL

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 19 2003,08:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not a big fan of nuances, especially when lawyers are involved and in my humble and uninformed opinion, both resolutions to some extent authorize military action. If everyone would just mean what they say and say what they mean (or in Dubya's case, say something that doesn't mean anything at all), then the world would be a much better, or at least less confusing place.<span id='postcolor'>

I think that there is a big difference between those two resolutions.

678 (GW1 resolution):

[*] Authorizes the use of all necessary means to uphold and implement the resolutions set

[*] Sets a date

[*] Requests all UN member states to give the necessary support

1441:

[*] Recalls that Iraq has been warned of serious consequences in the past.

Recalls is the key phrase here. It's not Authorizes, not Requests and not Decides[/i]. This was introduced on purpose by France and Russia so that it wouldn't be interpreted as a threat of war. There is no threat there, only a recollection of that Iraq has been warned in the past. It does not say anything of future consequences, much less authorizing any action.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another thing: Sombody here said that if now the UN is irreleveant that a breach of international law as defined by the UN is also irrelevant. That isn't quite so since the UN member countries have ratified the UN charter. So a breach of international law is directly a breach of national law. That makes it possible in theory to impeach Bush. Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark has actually drafted articles of impeachment against Bush on among other things ignoring the UN Charter.<span id='postcolor'>

In this case however, national law seems to clash with international law-turned national law. According to the Constitution, the government has the right to do what it deems necessary to defend America. Also, any war initiated by the President and subsequently approved by Congress is considered Constitutional, and therefore legal. In this case, Dubya got ahead of himself and managed to get a Congressional carte-blanche for use of military force in Iraq. Therefore, the action in Iraq, assuming we don't commit any atrocities, will be entirely legal as far as the Constitution and the UMCJ are concerned. And I hate to once again get into nuancing, but because the Constitution is mentioned before international treaties in Art. VI Par. 2, it trumps the treaties; that is firmly established precedent in Constitutional law, that the first mentioned is always the first, even among equals. Go figure. I can see where Mr. Clark pulled his reasoning from, however it has no precedent to back it up.

<span id='postcolor'>

I'll have to take your word for that since I'm not very familiar with US law. I find it strange though - normally when you adopt an international agreement, you make the necessary constitutional changes so that there won't be any conflict between your national laws and the international laws. The whole point of having international law is to have a common set of rules for everybody. Having national law overriding international law destroys the whole concept. What's the point of having international agreements if everybody do as they please?

If national law supersedes international law then who can blame Iraq for not following UN resolutions? They could just say that they are following their local law....

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 19 2003,16:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And not to get too controversial or anything, but there may be a bit of underlying bigotry/racism as well. Not overt or anything, but the basic stereotyping that occurs in the absence of real knowledge. The average American doesn't really know or care about the difference between a Shia, a Sunni, or a Wahhabi, nor does he care. As far as he is concerned, Saudi Arabia and Iraq are not all that different; both are Arab states, and therefore their citizenry is predominantly terrorist. Doesn't matter if it was Saudis who attacked America, they were Arab and they were Muslim; therefore an attack on any Muslim or Arab (or both) state will do for retaliation.<span id='postcolor'>

Unfortunetly its true, and not just in America. In Australia there are alot of people who dislike the actions of the "coaltion of the willing" but there are also quite alot of people (espicially computer gamers I have noticed) that have very rascist views towards muslims and the Arabic countries. I read the opinions of a New Zealander in which he voiced that he thought that the Americans should continue on from iraq to invade Iran and every single other muslim country. Another unfortunate thing is that most of these people are at voting age or are very close to been able to vote. The day when people learn to understand each other and live with our diffrences will be the day when the action called war will start to die out.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Recalls is the key phrase here. It's not Authorizes, not Requests and not Decides[/i]. This was introduced on purpose by France and Russia so that it wouldn't be interpreted as a threat of war. There is no threat there, only a recollection of that Iraq has been warned in the past. It does not say anything of future consequences, much less authorizing any action.

<span id='postcolor'>

I have to say, that isn't how it has been represented here in the US media at all. Duplicity? Who knows? Still, I think that the recollection of 'serious consequences' represents a credible enough warning, considering the sheer volume of resolutions arrayed before Iraq. Oh well, like I said, I'm not especially well-informed on the subject of diplomatic parlance.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll have to take your word for that since I'm not very familiar with US law. I find it strange though - normally when you adopt an international agreement, you make the necessary constitutional changes so that there won't be any conflict between your national laws and the international laws. The whole point of having international law is to have a common set of rules for everybody. Having national law overriding international law destroys the whole concept. What's the point of having international agreements if everybody do as they please?

If national law supersedes international law then who can blame Iraq for not following UN resolutions? They could just say that they are following their local law....

<span id='postcolor'>

Well, there are two basic types of law in the US: statutory law and Constitutional law. Constitutional law is presented as the supreme law of the land in Article VI, Pragraph 2 of the Constitution, making it superior to statutory law, which is any law made by a state or national legislature that is not provided for in the Constitution. So, there are still cases where international law could trump national law, but it would have to be statutory law, not Constitutional law. For example, international laws against discrimination would, in theory, trump a local, state, or federal statute in support of discrimination. Of course, that example is no longer relevant due to the introduction of new ammendments, but you see what i mean. Sort of like rock paper scissors: Constitution beats international treaties, international treaties beat statutes. It's all a little crazy, and one of the reasons why I won't be studying Constitutional Law

And as for Iraq, I suppose it gets down to the fact that the US's obligations per the UN charter are not pursuant to a ceasefire agreement; Iraq's obligations are, on the other hand. So, Iraq may choose to ignore the resolutions, but it must face the consequences. At least that's how I see it.

[Longinius 1]

"And one final reminder, the U.S. did not originate the incubator story. It was first told by the exiled Kuwaiti housing minister, and reported by The London Daily Telegraph on September 5, 1990."

No, it was actually created by a Public Relations firm, Hill & Knowlton (H&K), then the largest PR firm in the world.

"It makes an even better case that the U.S. wouldn't do something as blatantly stupid as planting WMD's in Iraq, because it would get out."

That doesnt mean people would actually believe it, even if it did get out, since it would just be labeled as a conspiracy theory and then disregarded.

"most IRAQ citizens dont even know whats going on in there own country"

And most US citizens dont even know what the US has going on in the rest of the world. So whats your point? Atleast the Iraqis have the excuse of having their infrastructure bombed to shits and being sanctioned for 10 years. Whats your excuse?

"Whether you believe it or not, we have good evidence of links to Al Queda, have good proof that Iraq has WMDs, have good proof that Iraq is a threat to the US."

And this proof is what, exactly?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 19 2003,09:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, there are two basic types of law in the US: statutory law and Constitutional law. Constitutional law is presented as the supreme law of the land in Article VI, Pragraph 2 of the Constitution, making it superior to statutory law, which is any law made by a state or national legislature that is not provided for in the Constitution.<span id='postcolor'>

Here is another view on it.

And for each view, there is an opposing one.

I liked this one, read carefully:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

The U.S. Constitution vs. the U.N. Charter

IRVINE, CA—By waiting for U.N. approval to attack terrorist regimes, President Bush is violating his sworn oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," said David Holcberg, senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute.

"The U.S. Constitution," noted Holcberg, "was created to protect the individual and his rights from power-lusters at home and tyrants abroad. It does the latter by providing 'for the common defense,' which means: the executive branch of the government is charged with defending America from foreign threats. But by surrendering to the United Nations the responsibility to judge whether or not Iraq is a threat that warrants going to war—by placing our self-defense at the mercy of an international body full of appeasers and dictators—President Bush has undermined America's security.

"He, like his father in the Gulf War, is helping to establish the most dangerous of precedents: he is substituting the U.N. Charter for the U.S. Constitution—as the supreme law of our nation.

"While the Iraqis play shell games with the U.N. weapons inspectors, the danger of evil regimes arming terrorists with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons increases. We should, therefore, demand that President Bush uphold his sworn oath to the U.S. Constitution. Our lives depend upon it."

<span id='postcolor'>

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 19 2003,03:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"And one final reminder, the U.S. did not originate the incubator story.  It was first told by the exiled Kuwaiti housing minister, and reported by The London Daily Telegraph on September 5, 1990."

No, it was actually created by a Public Relations firm, Hill & Knowlton (H&K), then the largest PR firm in the world.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, E6Hotel was correct about the incubator story being first told by the Kuwaiti housing minister.  However, I still say it doesn't matter who invented it.  It's the US government's propagation of the deception that matters.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The incubator story was a fabrication, first invented for the London Daily Telegraph by an exiled Kuwaiti housing minister, picked up by Reuters, and then propagated by the international PR firm Hill and Knowlton, which received $10.7 million from the Kuwaiti government for this and other services.

The October 1990 hearing was held by California Democrat Tom Lantos and Illinois Republican John Porter, co-chairs of the self-styled "Human Rights Foundation," lodged in Hill and Knowlton's Washington, D.C., office. Craig Fuller, chief of staff for George Bush when he was vice-president, ran the PR firm. Nayirah was coached by the firm's vice-president, Lauri Fitz-Pegado, who later got a job in the Clinton Commerce Department.

The story was repeated by the Americans to the U.N. Security Council and by President George Bush in a January 1991 speech before he ordered the bombing of Iraq.

The incubator tale was a lie from start to finish – exposed after the war by ABC's John Martin and denounced by the respected rights group Middle East Watch as "a complete hoax." Nayirah was a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family, daughter of Kuwait's Ambassador to Washington.<span id='postcolor'>

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Impeachment for Violating International Law

George Bush has conspired to commit war crimes in violation of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter. By the time you read this he may have gone beyond the conspiracy stage and actively engaged in war crimes by attacking Iraq.

More specifically, if Bush attacks Iraq, against the decisions of the United Nations, then he will have violated the UN Charter. Planning a war of agression is a violation of the Nuremberg Charter. According to the US Constitution these international treaties are part of the "supreme Law of the Land". Bush has already violated the Nuremberg Charter and is about to break the UN Charter. He is, therefore, subject to impeachment.

<snip>

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, there are multiple interpretations- this seems to be identical to the argument set forth in Ramsey Clark's articles (read up this page a little for the skinny on Mr. Clark). However, these arguments do not take into account that the Constitution maintains precedence over international treaties, due to national sovereignty, etc. So, when an international treaty and the Constitution are in direct conflict (as they seem to be here), then the Constitution wins, and that's that. On a side note, I hadn't heard of the drive to impeach President Bush, but from the looks of it these arguments could be used to impeach any president of the past 50 years excepting maybe Jimmy Carter. Also, I love that second argument- I'm a sucker for outside-the-box thinking lol.