War Poll / Second resolution

?

Bump

Why aren't you voting, people?

[Doctor X]

Sorry . . . we Americans stay away from the polls and then wonder why it takes two months to decide an election!

"Bump"

--J.D.

[Jocko]

Ivoted for the first option. I must say that I appreciate the impartial and non-loaded way UE couched the issue, unlike some pollsters here... something to the tune of:

1. I am an American war-mongering xenophobe who supports unleashed carnage upon a harmless 3rd-world nation, that is when I'm not spending my time kicking dogs and pinching babies.

There really can be no credible legal basis for claiming such a war is unjust. I won't rehash the thousands of posts here that support that premise, but the bottom line is that Gulf War 1 never actually ended, and the terms of the armistice have been consistently broken by the Iraqis. By the letter of the law, GW1 is merely on pause and any one of a dozen provocations are more than enough to start things up again.

The problem, it seems to me, arises by way of timing, PR and perception. America's disinterest in pursuing this issue at the time (not to Clinton bash, but he rolled over like a ten-dollar hooker when inspections were terminated in '98). We should have done this five years ago.

It wasn't done. So now we have to do it now. The short memory of the public leads many to believe this is a new fight, a new war, and it's somehow being instigated by the US government, and willfully ignoring the facts of the case.

If we did what we were supposed to do this would have been over years ago. That goes double for the spineless bureaucrats at the UN who can't even muster the courage to send in ANOTHER nation's troops to wipe up their mess.

The timing is unfortunate and I believe the public relations angle is hopelessly damanged. But that doesn't make it wrong. Apologists have an infinite series of fallback positions to apologize for Saddam's insincerity, as if they are trying to talk themselves out of a speeding ticket:

"Well, officer, I was only going ten miles over the limit. I saw another guy doing at least fifteen over, and besides, I didn't harm anyone!"

Doesn't matter. When you're busted, you're busted and you live at the mercy of the law. Saddam has run out of mercy and the law is clear. I'd like to see a little less discussion about "should we do this?" and a little more about "how should we best do this to minimize collateral/civilian losses?"

Interesting result so far, although I thought more people would offer an opinion. The real difference seems to be the attitude toward the UN. Nobody outside America seems willing to condone a non-UN-approved war, but a majority of Americans do not seem to consider this important.

[Darat]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Interesting result so far, although I thought more people would offer an opinion. The real difference seems to be the attitude toward the UN. Nobody outside America seems willing to condone a non-UN-approved war, but a majority of Americans do not seem to consider this important.

UCE - I posted this in another thread and I'm wondering what your view is:

I keep asking people who say we need another "UN resolution" before we kill “innocent” people by going to war – why?

Either it is wrong to kill innocent people or it isn't. Why and how does the UN have the power to change a right to a wrong?

What is the unique ability that allows the individuals who form the UN to determine that it is “now right to kill innocent people”? Why is it only this group of people in the whole world who can make this determination?

When did the UN provide you (or me) with the evidence that they know how to make this determination and know better then a Bush or Blair or any other person including you or I when it is “OK” to kill an innocent and when it isn’t?

[crocodile deathroll]

It is interesting how Americans are so out of touch with the rest of the world with their belligerent foreign policy.
This war in Iraq is only just another one of their rolling battles and will go on indefinitely until they can no longer afford another real life war sequel.

[Martin]

The poll doesn't have my position, so I'll lay it out here. I currently oppose the war, but I'm willing to be persuaded if anyone can come up with a good reason for it. I don't give a toss about a second UN resolution - I'll make up my own mind.

I voted number 5 as the closest choice available.


Still think the war with Iraqs a really bad move, but there you go.

Originally posted by Darat


UCE - I posted this in another thread and I'm wondering what your view is:

I keep asking people who say we need another "UN resolution" before we kill “innocent” people by going to war – why?




Because there is no precendent for a nation acting unilaterily making a pre-eimptive strike against another nation which has neither threatened it nor invaded it. Without another resolution the war is ILLEGAL. It is a recipe of world-wide chaos. It will send the UN the way that the league of nations went.

[LillyThePink]

Isolationist America has no interest in maintaining the UN - there is a distinct lack of respect for the UN as an organisation in the US - that's why they resent giving any funding to UN programs :rolleyes:

[richardm]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Without another resolution the war is ILLEGAL.

I don't think that's true. I think the earlier resolutions give plenty of legal leverage to go to war. The second resolution would be purely a sop to public opinion.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Because there is no precendent for a nation acting unilaterily making a pre-eimptive strike against another nation which has neither threatened it nor invaded it. Without another resolution the war is ILLEGAL. It is a recipe of world-wide chaos. It will send the UN the way that the league of nations went.

Yes...how dare any nation consider exercising its sovereignty... :rolleyes:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
Isolationist America has no interest in maintaining the UN - there is a distinct lack of respect for the UN as an organisation in the US - that's why they resent giving any funding to UN programs :rolleyes:

Without the U.S., there would be no U.N....

[Richard G]

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare, and wage war. There is no mention of the U.N. Sorry, perfectly legal.

that's why they resent giving any funding to UN programs

Why should we, most UN programs are aimed at benefiting our enemies. The rest are social welfare for other countries. The USA isn't the global welfare office.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Richard G
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare, and wage war. There is no mention of the U.N. Sorry, perfectly legal.



Why should we, most UN programs are aimed at benefiting our enemies. The rest are social welfare for other countries. The USA isn't the global welfare office.

Libya was just appointed as the head of the UN's human rights board. :rolleyes:

Libya Heads UN Human Rights Commission (http://www.daily-dementia.net/comment.asp?news=655)

Iran currently heads the Disarmament Commission...

[LillyThePink]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Without the U.S., there would be no U.N....

I think that's what you're trying to prove right now, isn't it? And thank you for proving my point about lack of respect for the UN as an organisation.

Without the US there would be no UN troops of any great number, I think.

I never said you should be a welfare office for the rest of the world, Richard. I merely stated something which you clearly backed up with your rather defensive remark.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Martinm
The poll doesn't have my position, so I'll lay it out here. I currently oppose the war, but I'm willing to be persuaded if anyone can come up with a good reason for it. I don't give a toss about a second UN resolution - I'll make up my own mind.

Well put, my position too.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by LillyThePink


I think that's what you're trying to prove right now, isn't it? And thank you for proving my point about lack of respect for the UN as an organisation.

Without the US there would be no UN troops of any great number, I think.

I never said you should be a welfare office for the rest of the world, Richard. I merely stated something which you clearly backed up with your rather defensive remark.

You're welcome....

I've never had any use for the UN, and would have seriously thought about refusing to serve in the armed forces if a requirement of that service would've been the wearing of the blue beret.

[LillyThePink]

Thanks again, Kodiak.

In light of your opinion, do you find it hard to understand why your leadership has so far waited for UN approval from action in the Iraq situation.

Also, would you describe the term "isolationist" as a fair representation of the majority American view?

Originally posted by Richard G
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare, and wage war. There is no mention of the U.N. Sorry, perfectly legal.


The Qu'ran gives Bin Laden the power to murder infidels. There is no mention of the U.N., or the American constitution. Sorry, perfectly legal.

If you think the American Constitution grants legality to your war thousands of miles away in Iraq then the same applies to The Qu'ran and Osama.

Sauce for the goose. Sauce for the Gander.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jocko
[...]the spineless bureaucrats at the UN who can't even muster the courage[...]

So that would be the various world leaders and their representatives who disagree with US foreign policy?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Jocko
...but the bottom line is that Gulf War 1 never actually ended


Was war actually declared on Iraq?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by armageddonman



Was war actually declared on Iraq?

UN Resolution 678 (http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/unscr-resolution-678.html)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
In light of your opinion, do you find it hard to understand why your leadership has so far waited for UN approval from action in the Iraq situation.

No, I understand it. My individual opinion has no international or diplomatic repercussions. The same cannot be said about the actions taken by the head of the US government. The US is responsible for the creation and continued existence of the UN, and, as such, cannot ignore or dismiss the UN outright. Lip service will be paid publicly while, behind the scenes, the US muscles and cajoles the critical nations in the UN. I suspect that France will enter the fold once a deal is made that is beneficial to them

Originally posted by LillyThePink
Also, would you describe the term "isolationist" as a fair representation of the majority American view?

Absolutely not, but many Americans have an attitude regarding foreign countries that can be summed up in one word: "ingratitude". That can put a lot of chips on a lot of shoulders...

The US carries out extensive relations with nearly every nation on earth. Many Americans just think that we don't need the UN to accomplish this. Our sovereignty is very dear to us, so maybe that is why we view the UN, and even the EU, with such suspicion.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


The Qu'ran gives Bin Laden the power to murder infidels. There is no mention of the U.N., or the American constitution. Sorry, perfectly legal.

If you think the American Constitution grants legality to your war thousands of miles away in Iraq then the same applies to The Qu'ran and Osama.

Sauce for the goose. Sauce for the Gander.

Too bad for you your sauce is made out of apples and oranges...

The US Constitution is a secular legal document ratified by the representative politians of its member states.

The Koran, most obviously, is none of this.

Try again...

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by BillyTK


UN Resolution 678 (http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/unscr-resolution-678.html)

What i meant was: did the congress of the US declare war on Iraq?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Because there is no precendent for a nation acting unilaterily making a pre-eimptive strike against another nation which has neither threatened it nor invaded it.

Bosnia?

Somalia?

The French in the Ivory Coast?


Without another resolution the war is ILLEGAL. It is a recipe of world-wide chaos. It will send the UN the way that the league of nations went.

"Illegal" would imply that there is settled international law in this area -- I think that you would be on better ground if you stick with "wrong" or "unjusitifed" or similar criticisms.

The UN may well go the way of the League of Nations, but that appears to be the UN's doing.

NA

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
Thanks again, Kodiak.

Also, would you describe the term "isolationist" as a fair representation of the majority American view?

Isolationist is somewhat inaccurate from a classical perspective. That would imply a pulling back into the US borders and not having interaction with other countries.

You might mean "jingoistic" or "xenophobic" or "overly nationalistic" for purposes of your criticism.

NA

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Because there is no precendent for a nation acting unilaterily making a pre-eimptive strike against another nation which has neither threatened it nor invaded it. Without another resolution the war is ILLEGAL. It is a recipe of world-wide chaos. It will send the UN the way that the league of nations went.

There is always a first.. That is how precedents work..

The U.N. is impotent. Give me an example where an undisputed peace is in place due to UN intervention..

Originally posted by Diogenes


There is always a first.. That is how precedents work..

The U.N. is impotent. Give me an example where an undisputed peace is in place due to UN intervention..

There is no such thing as an undisputed peace unless one side obliterates the other. The choice is between an uneasy peace like that in Cyprus or bloody warfare ending in victory for one side or the other. But there is a problem here, because the real enemy isn't Iraq at all - it is Al-Qaeda and Islamic Fundamentalism. But they are untouchable because they are spread all over the world and are unified by religion as much as politics. The US is attacking the wrong target because its military might is impotent against the correct target. The result will not be peace. The result will be more terrorism. The more the US tried to intervene to impose its will, the greater will become the anti-American feeling across the globe, the easier life gets for Osama. By attacking Iraq against the will of the international community George Bush is playing right into Bin Ladens hands. He must be laughing his head off.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by armageddonman


What i meant was: did the congress of the US declare war on Iraq?

Okay... PL 102-1 authorised use of US military force to enforce UN Resolution 678. Interestingly, there seemed to be some consider over Bush Snr's attitude to Congressional approval (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19910301faessay6083/michael-j-glennon/the-gulf-war-and-the-constitution.html) and whether this law could be used to authorise a pre-emptive attack on Iraq (http://www.house.gov/defazio/090102DELetter.shtml).

Unfortunately both texts are very long with lots of big words and I've only really scanned them briefly, so if it turns out they're commie pinko atheist propaganda, don't blame me!

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by armageddonman
What i meant was: did the congress of the US declare war on Iraq?


The Constitution states that the president is the commander-in-chief. There is no qualification to that empowerment. It is not linked to the power of Congress to declare war. That is, it doesn't say "When the Congress declares war, the president assumes the control of the military and becomes commander-in-chief.”

If the Founding Fathers wanted to make the president's control of the military dependent upon Congressional recognition of war or its acquiescence to it, they probably would have designed the document to reflect that. But they didn’t. By writing the Constitution as they did, they made it possible for the president to use the military without Congressional mandate.

Commander-in-chief means head of the military, its leader, its top person. It means he controls it, and he controls it because he has ultimate rank. Again, the Constitution doesn't state that the president's rank becomes effective only if Congress approves it. So, as it is written, the president is commander-in-chief, ultimate leader of the military, and there is no qualification to that, or linkage to the Congressional power to declare war.

That doesn't mean that the Congressional power is therefore empty.

While there are many opportunities for interpretation, you can't interpret-away the fact that the president is the commander-in-chief, that this means he controls the military, and that he doesn't have that rank only after Congress approves his military plans.

[Jeff Corey]

The "Commander in Chief", as Hamilton noted in Federalist no.69 only makes the President the "First General" of our armed forces and generals don't decide who we war with.
Congress does. And Congess hasn't passed a declaration of war against Iraq.
If Bush proceeds without such a declaration, this should be grounds for his impeachment.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
If Bush proceeds without such a declaration, this should be grounds for his impeachment.

And the president who presided over the Korean War?

Vietnam (Two Presidents)?

The hostage rescue mission into Iran?

Beirut?

Grenada?

Panama?

The Persian Gulf War?

Somalia?

Kosovo?

Afghanistan?

[Jeff Corey]

Too late for them.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Too late for them.

Convenient...

Well, with such precedents as the ones I listed above, along with the War Powers Act (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html), I'm sure the President would easily survive any and all possible judicial or legislative scrutiny.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Too late for them.

Or perhaps their actions did not warrant impeachment?