Make peace, not facts

[Ben Shniper]

Have the peace communities of the world shown even one iota of evidence that Saddam Huessein is not worse that a war to take him and his lying, international law breaking, civilian masssacreing, terrorist supporting regime out?

Maybe there will be negative consequences. But how could it be much worse than it is now?

-Ben

[Ben Shniper]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/16/03548.shtml

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/targets/2002/0320iraq.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76540,00.html

-Ben

[ssibal]

This is interesting, we may have the shortest war ever:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2107968

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
Have the peace communities of the world shown even one iota of evidence that Saddam Huessein is not worse
You are asking someone to prove a negative. :confused:

[crackmonkey]

No, no... he's asking for evidence that allowing Saddam to stay in power would be better than a war to oust him. Perhaps the phrasing was a bit awkward...

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/16/03548.shtml

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/targets/2002/0320iraq.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76540,00.html

-Ben
Ben, I really don't want to get into another debate on this board about Iraq, but I have to point out some problems with the articles you've posted.

The first is an opinion piece that is hard for me to take seriously. It's just some right-wing extremist spouting a bunch of rhetoric, and even stooping to making a reference to the noncredible allegations that Clinton is a rapist.

The second is 10 months old and badly outdated. It mentions that the Bush administration has made allegations that Iraq is linked to al Qaida and the 9/11 attacks. The basis for these charges has already been dismissed as worthless.

The third is four months old. The centerpiece of the article is the allegation by Condoleeza Rice that aluminum tubes imported by Iraq are evidence of a uranium enrichment program. From the start, experts said that was very unlikely since the tubes were not of the proper gage for that purpose. Iraq has said that they were for developing short-range, conventional weapons. The experts say that is very plausible. The nuclear allegation is not.

The fourth is a piece that speculates on the report to be delivered on Monday by the UN. It says not to expect a smoking gun. The nuclear inspection team said today (in another report I read) that they have uncovered no evidence of a recent nuclear weapons development program, but that they'd need several more months to complete their inspections.

Here is the article "No nuclear evidence." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,882074,00.html)

This article (http://www.futurodecuba.org/Pentagon%20Sets%20Up%20Intelligence%20Unit.htm) from three months ago describes how Rumsfeld was so frustrated at the inability to find any evidence of a link between Iraq's regime and al Qaida that he set up his own division of the defense intelligence apparatus devoted strictly to trying to find such a link. Three months later, we still haven't heard anything. If they had anything, I believe they would be shouting about it.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his senior advisers have assigned a small intelligence unit to search for information on Iraq's hostile intentions or links to terrorists that the nation's spy agencies may have overlooked, Pentagon officials said today.

Some officials say the creation of the team reflects frustration on the part of Mr. Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and other senior officials that they are not receiving undiluted information on the capacities of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq and his suspected ties to terrorist organizations.

But officials who disagree say the top civilian policy makers are intent on politicizing intelligence to fit their hawkish views on Iraq.

In particular, many in the intelligence agencies disagree that Mr. Hussein can be directly linked to Osama bin Laden and his network, Al Qaeda, or that the two are likely to make common cause against the United States. In addition, the view among even some senior intelligence analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency is that Mr. Hussein is contained and is unlikely to unleash weapons of mass destruction unless he is attacked.
The last sentence of the quote may be the "evidence" you seek that Hussein is less dangerous left alone than attacked--if you're willing to trust the judgement of the CIA. The evidence is in favor of the CIA since Hussein, from all indications, has been contained and has not used any "WMD" since the 1980's when he was at war with Iran.

Here is an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34500-2003Jan23.html) that discusses the aluminum tubes.
After weeks of investigation, U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq are increasingly confident that the aluminum tubes were never meant for enriching uranium, according to officials familiar with the inspection process. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.-chartered nuclear watchdog, reported in a Jan. 8 preliminary assessment that the tubes were "not directly suitable" for uranium enrichment but were "consistent" with making ordinary artillery rockets-a finding that meshed with Iraq's official explanation for the tubes. New evidence supporting that conclusion has been gathered in recent weeks and will be presented to the U.N. Security Council in a report due to be released on Monday, the officials said.

Moreover, there were clues from the beginning that should have raised doubts about claims that the tubes were part of a secret Iraqi nuclear weapons program, according to U.S. and international experts on uranium enrichment. The quantity and specifications of the tubes-narrow, silver cylinders measuring 81 millimeters in diameter and about a meter in length-could not be used to enrich uranium without extensive modification, the experts said.

But they're a perfect fit for a well-documented 81mm conventional rocket program in place for two decades. Iraq imported the same aluminum tubes for rockets in the 1980s. The new tubes it tried to purchase actually bear an inscription that includes the word "rocket," according to one official who examined them.
Finally, in an article I read a couple days ago, but which I cannot find on the Internet, a group of British medical professionals affiliated with a relief agency estimates that Iraqi civilian deaths related to the war could go into the hundreds of thousands. This includes direct deaths from collateral damage during the war itself, possible subsequent civil war, and indirect deaths from outbreaks of disease or food and medicine shortages caused by the conditions created by the war, including environmental degradation from oil fires and/or the use of chemical weapons. Of course, that is just an estimate and one that is qualified by various contingencies.

Okay, you've heard enough from me on this issue.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert


Finally, in an article I read a couple days ago, but which I cannot find on the Internet, a group of British medical professionals affiliated with a relief agency estimates that Iraqi civilian deaths related to the war could go into the hundreds of thousands. This includes direct deaths from collateral damage during the war itself, possible subsequent civil war, and indirect deaths from outbreaks of disease or food and medicine shortages caused by the conditions created by the war, including environmental degradation from oil fires and/or the use of chemical weapons. Of course, that is just an estimate and one that is qualified by various contingencies.



They said the same thing about Afghanistan, but they didn't say "hundreds of thousands", what they said was "millions".

-Ben

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
Have the peace communities of the world shown even one iota of evidence that Saddam Huessein is not worse that a war to take him and his lying, international law breaking, civilian masssacreing, terrorist supporting regime out?

Blatant shift of burden of proof. Why don't you point out these mysterious "acts of aggression against the US"? And no, shooting US planes flying over Iraqi airspace does not count!

The only one I know of is the failed assassination attempt of Bush I something like ten years ago. If they had wanted to go after Saddam then for that, I would not have complained one iota.

Maybe there will be negative consequences. But how could it be much worse than it is now?

Uh, dead Americans? Possibly another World War? More terrorist attacks? Yes, it can get a lot worse, and very likely will.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by shanek


Blatant shift of burden of proof. Why don't you point out these mysterious "acts of aggression against the US"? And no, shooting US planes flying over Iraqi airspace does not count!


I can offer you evidence, but what evidence would be enough to convince you of my position?

-Ben

[Martin]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
I can offer you evidence, but what evidence would be enough to convince you of my position?And I can prove I'm psychic, but you closed-minded skeptics wouldn't accept it! :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
I can offer you evidence, but what evidence would be enough to convince you of my position?

How about, one single, verifiable act of agression against the US by Saddam Hussein in the last 5 years (since the inspectors pulled out) that wasn't a direct response to an act of aggression against him?

[crackmonkey]

How about firing on planes enforcing the UN no-fly zones?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Ben, I really don't want to get into another debate on this board about Iraq, but I have to point out some problems with the articles you've posted.

The first is an opinion piece that is hard for me to take seriously. It's just some right-wing extremist spouting a bunch of rhetoric, and even stooping to making a reference to the noncredible allegations that Clinton is a rapist.

The second is 10 months old and badly outdated. It mentions that the Bush administration has made allegations that Iraq is linked to al Qaida and the 9/11 attacks. The basis for these charges has already been dismissed as worthless.

The third is four months old. The centerpiece of the article is the allegation by Condoleeza Rice that aluminum tubes imported by Iraq are evidence of a uranium enrichment program. From the start, experts said that was very unlikely since the tubes were not of the proper gage for that purpose. Iraq has said that they were for developing short-range, conventional weapons. The experts say that is very plausible. The nuclear allegation is not.

The fourth is a piece that speculates on the report to be delivered on Monday by the UN. It says not to expect a smoking gun. The nuclear inspection team said today (in another report I read) that they have uncovered no evidence of a recent nuclear weapons development program, but that they'd need several more months to complete their inspections.

Here is the article "No nuclear evidence." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,882074,00.html)

This article (http://www.futurodecuba.org/Pentagon%20Sets%20Up%20Intelligence%20Unit.htm) from three months ago describes how Rumsfeld was so frustrated at the inability to find any evidence of a link between Iraq's regime and al Qaida that he set up his own division of the defense intelligence apparatus devoted strictly to trying to find such a link. Three months later, we still haven't heard anything. If they had anything, I believe they would be shouting about it.

The last sentence of the quote may be the "evidence" you seek that Hussein is less dangerous left alone than attacked--if you're willing to trust the judgement of the CIA. The evidence is in favor of the CIA since Hussein, from all indications, has been contained and has not used any "WMD" since the 1980's when he was at war with Iran.

Here is an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34500-2003Jan23.html) that discusses the aluminum tubes.

Finally, in an article I read a couple days ago, but which I cannot find on the Internet, a group of British medical professionals affiliated with a relief agency estimates that Iraqi civilian deaths related to the war could go into the hundreds of thousands. This includes direct deaths from collateral damage during the war itself, possible subsequent civil war, and indirect deaths from outbreaks of disease or food and medicine shortages caused by the conditions created by the war, including environmental degradation from oil fires and/or the use of chemical weapons. Of course, that is just an estimate and one that is qualified by various contingencies.

Okay, you've heard enough from me on this issue.


Wayne,

What? No comment on my thread?? I'd really like to see you refute those 10 points. (all fact, no opinion pieces) Of course, you have seen many of my 10 points in previous posts...and did not refute them then, so I can see why you'd rather not participate in that thread.l

The thing is, since we've been conversing here, I thought you were a thoughtful and open minded guy. I have been disappointed. Although I've given you alot of reasons to reassess your thinking, you seem to have closed off your mind to this information. Like a creationist....you only seem to search out and listen to "facts" that appeal to your preconceived notions.

Sad really, I had thought you were a skeptic,

-zilla

[DanishDynamite]

crackmonkey:How about firing on planes enforcing the UN no-fly zones? What UN no-fly zones? The no-fly zones in Iraq are not sanctioned by the UN.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Wayne,

What? No comment on my thread??

Rik, I know how much you value my opinion, but I don't know what thread you're talking about. What is its title and I'll take a look sometime soon, though it may not be this weekend.

Edited to add: I just took a peak at what was on the board. I see that you have started a thread about Iraq being in breach of a UN resolution. I'm quite happy to let the UN make a determination about that. It's their resolution. I'll take a look at your thread later.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
How about firing on planes enforcing the UN no-fly zones?
Shane already stated that he does not consider that to be an act of aggression on the part of Iraq. Indeed, it should be considered a response to an act of aggression by the US and UK. How do you think the US would respond if Iraqi fighter jets flew over its airspace uninvited?

Please repond to Shane. I may not have the time to play with you guys today.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Rik, I know how much you value my opinion, but I don't know what thread you're talking about. What is its title and I'll take a look sometime soon, though it may not be this weekend.

Edited to add: I just took a peak at what was on the board. I see that you have started a thread about Iraq being in breach of a UN resolution. I'm quite happy to let the UN make a determination about that. It's their resolution. I'll take a look at your thread later.

Thanks. :)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
crackmonkey: What UN no-fly zones? The no-fly zones in Iraq are not sanctioned by the UN.

DD,

Please quote the UN condemnation of the NFZ's. If they are not sanctioned, then there must be condemnation?? Mustn't there? Why, it would imply at least tacit approval by the UNSC if there were not!

And besides, how long do you suppose the Kurdish and Shia'a minorities in Iraq would exist in comparative peace without the NFZ's?

-zilla

[shanek]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
How about firing on planes enforcing the UN no-fly zones?

What if Iraq had gotten together with its allies and declared a no-fly zone over the US, and started flying its planes over our soil. Would we not be justified in firing at them?

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by shanek


How about, one single, verifiable act of agression against the US by Saddam Hussein in the last 5 years (since the inspectors pulled out) that wasn't a direct response to an act of aggression against him?

What's your definition of "act of aggression against him". Why shouldn't we be aggressive against this tyrant anyway?

Every action may have many causes. One of those causes may be the Gulf War. Or it may not... how can we tell?

If he trained the Al Queda hijackers who were the "muscle" who took control of the planes while Atta pilotted in his 707 training camp that's been reported, perhaps that was because of the Crusade.

If he shot at George Bush, perhaps that was because we didn't "understand" him enough.

If he supports palestinian suicide bombers who kill Americans, maybe that's because of our tacit support for Israel to the exclusion of those lovable Arabs claiming to want a half a half a state.

If he calls for the destruction of America in his sermons which he tells his government owned clerics to preach, maybe that's because he doesn't like the way we promote the backstreet boys to Arab countries.

-Ben

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
If he trained the Al Queda hijackers who were the "muscle" who took control of the planes while Atta pilotted in his 707 training camp that's been reported, perhaps that was because of the Crusade.

Ah, no. They were trained in the United States. The Atta-Iraq connection has long been discredited, but you refuse to let it go. That's understandable. There are still people who refuse to believe that Big Foot was a hoax.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by shanek


What if Iraq had gotten together with its allies and declared a no-fly zone over the US, and started flying its planes over our soil. Would we not be justified in firing at them?

What if you stayed with the facts of this discussion rather than making up fanciful "what-if" scenarios?? Your post is a non-sequitur.

-z

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Ah, no. They were trained in the United States. The Atta-Iraq connection has long been discredited, but you refuse to let it go. That's understandable. There are still people who refuse to believe that Big Foot was a hoax.

That's a different matter. Iraq is accused of having a 707 at a camp for training terrorists to hijack planes.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/showcase/chi-0111080262nov08,0,7877917.story?coll=chi-newsspecials-hed

The Iraq/Atta connection has not fully been resolved, however.

-Ben

[DanishDynamite]

rikzilla:Please quote the UN condemnation of the NFZ's. If they are not sanctioned, then there must be condemnation?? Mustn't there? Why, it would imply at least tacit approval by the UNSC if there were not! Two points. First, this is very convoluted logic. Are you saying that any action in the world not explicitly condemned by a UN resolution, is automatically sanctioned by the UN? Secondly, the US has veto powers in the Security Council.
And besides, how long do you suppose the Kurdish and Shia'a minorities in Iraq would exist in comparative peace without the NFZ's? What does this have to do with whether the no-fly zones are UN no-fly zones?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
What's your definition of "act of aggression against him".

Oh, come on! Give me a smegging break! If you're going to dispute a simple concept like that there's no talking to you!

Why shouldn't we be aggressive against this tyrant anyway?

The only reason for aggression is to defend against the aggressive acts of another. Note that this necessitates the other actually committing (or at least attempting) such an act.

If he trained the Al Queda hijackers who were the "muscle" who took control of the planes while Atta pilotted in his 707 training camp that's been reported, perhaps that was because of the Crusade.

And where's your evidence that he did? They were actually trained in America.

If he shot at George Bush, perhaps that was because we didn't "understand" him enough.

Lie. I already said that we would have been justified moving against him for that at the time. But I guess you just have to feel better locking your opposition in a box and making assumptions about them, not even trying to understand what they're saying, and having no concept of how much of a foaming imbecile you appear to be.

[more drivel deleted]

Name one act of aggression he has taken against America since the inspectors pulled out in '98. ONE. I'm guessing you can't, or you would have done so by now.

[shanek]

Originally posted by rikzilla
What if you stayed with the facts of this discussion rather than making up fanciful "what-if" scenarios?? Your post is a non-sequitur.

It is not! We would be perfectly justified in shooting the plane down and no one here has disputed that! So why do we get all whiney when Iraq defends their airspace against us?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
That's a different matter. Iraq is accused of having a 707 at a camp for training terrorists to hijack planes.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/showcase/chi-0111080262nov08,0,7877917.story?coll=chi-newsspecials-hed

Hmmm...but, apparently, no confirmation of this in the TWENTY-SIX MONTHS since the accusation of two Iraqis trying to immigrate. At least, I'm assuming so, or you would have been throwing it in our faces.

Not accusations, not allegations, not suggestions, not might-haves...We are skeptics. We demand actual evidence.

[svero]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


They said the same thing about Afghanistan, but they didn't say "hundreds of thousands", what they said was "millions".

-Ben

I've asked this before but nobody ever seems to be able to answer it. Your statement seems to imply that millions didn't die. Me... I just don't know. Since the US bombed afghanistan, how many did die of starvation? None? 100k? 1000? I can't find any documentation on the net about this.

[shanek]

Originally posted by svero


I've asked this before but nobody ever seems to be able to answer it. Your statement seems to imply that millions didn't die. Me... I just don't know. Since the US bombed afghanistan, how many did die of starvation? None? 100k? 1000? I can't find any documentation on the net about this.

I don't think anyone knows the exact numbers. The numbers I've heard seem to be on par with the number killed on 9/11.

[Ben Shniper]

How much damage can we expect to take if we attack Iraq?

I say that if we attack Iraq, we have nothing big to fear. According to peaceniks, Saddam has no Chemical, Biological, or missile weapons since it has kept all its treaties. Therefore the invasion will be easy since we can take out a brutal dictator without problems.

On the other hand, perhaps Saddam is building WMD and we should stop him immediately. Either way we should go in soon.

-Ben

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
I say that if we attack Iraq, we have nothing big to fear. According to peaceniks, Saddam has no Chemical, Biological, or missile weapons since it has kept all its treaties.
What if Iraq does still have chemical and/or biological weapons? If so, then if the US attacks, it is a high probability bet that some of those weapons would be fired at Israel. On the other hand, if the inspections were to continue, any threat from Saddam would be neutralized while the inspections took place, and the chances of finding and destroying those weapons would increase--and would reduce the threat to Israel.

[crackmonkey]

The no-fly zones are an implementation of UN Resolution 688 by the allies. While they were not explicitly authorized, they have been implicitly accepted by the UN as protection for the Kurdish and Shi'ite populations.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmdfence/453/45306.htm

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
How much damage can we expect to take if we attack Iraq?

I say that if we attack Iraq, we have nothing big to fear. According to peaceniks, Saddam has no Chemical, Biological, or missile weapons since it has kept all its treaties. Therefore the invasion will be easy since we can take out a brutal dictator without problems.

On the other hand, perhaps Saddam is building WMD and we should stop him immediately. Either way we should go in soon.

Sorry, I don't buy this and I never have. If Saddam has NBC weapons, the only way he is going to use them against the US is if we attack him and he has nothing else to lose. He may be a murderous despot, but he's not suicidal. So by attacking him we actually facilitate the possibility of him using those weapons against us.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

What if Iraq does still have chemical and/or biological weapons?

I'm glad you care about Israel so much. But I'm sure the democratic state of Israel and its electorate is more a judge of what's better for them than we are.

They are, by majority, in favor of the war, scared of Chem weapons but more scared of the nuclear weapons Saddam will have soon.

I say, if Saddam wants to use his chem/bio weapons, nothing is stopping him. We will already fight him regardless. Therefore, it is only logical to look out for Israel's long term interests, which include ending the billions of dollars of funding by Iraq and Iran and Saudi Arabia for the intifadah. Removing Saddam (and then Arafat) is the most practical way of bringing relative peace and stability back.

-Ben

[DanishDynamite]

crackmonkey:The no-fly zones are an implementation of UN Resolution 688 by the allies. While they were not explicitly authorized, they have been implicitly accepted by the UN as protection for the Kurdish and Shi'ite populations. From your link:
The precise legal basis for the no-fly zones is controversial. Likewise from your link:
Other UN Security Council members have expressed reservations about the no-fly zones. An official spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation said in January 1999 that the no-fly zones had been 'imposed outside the framework of UN Security Council resolutions' and that Russia's 'negative attitude to these unlawful actions is well known'
And from this site: (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/nofly/2002/1119nofly.htm)
Iraq's firing on U.S. and British aircraft enforcing "no-fly" zones in Iraq is not a violation of the latest Security Council resolution, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Tuesday. In short, Iraqi firing on planes in the no-fly zones is not a violation of any UN resolution.

[Ben Shniper]

Most people point to America's emphasis on keeping Saddam from getting nuclear weapons as the key to America's hypocracy. We have nukes, right? Why shouldn't everyone?

Well, obviously, we don't want nukes in the hands of those who will use them indiscriminately and without deliberate purpose. We don't want Al Queda or Hamas or Sri Lankan rebels to have them, for example. That's why we have nuclear non-proliferation agreements, which Saddam has flagrantly repeatedly violated.

When Saddam has nukes, he has three possible actions that others won't have. He can threaten to launch at Israel possibly causing WWIII for no good reason. He can use it to back up the threat of invasion against Kuwait, Iran, and Saudi Arabia or to blackmail these countries to give him more oil sales. And he can simply threaten America, by giving it to Al Queda, currently residing in the Kurdish controlled area of his country by his own funding to mess up his internal opposition.

No other country would dare do this (besides possibly Iran). Now we have to pay attention, Iraq could easily do all three things within five years of a nuclear weapon. Current estimates are he will have a nuke before year's end.

Saddam has not been cooperating with inspecters. The scientists have been refusing to interview UN, even with their families having left the country. Is it because they have something personally to hide, or because Saddam will kill them? All of them have something terrible to hide personally? Every one? Not possibly. Saddam has also been known before to threaten them, and we have seen Iraqis who were threatened that way disappear or die before our very eyes before.

Inspecters, as GWB logically states, can only verify voluntary disarmament, they cannot and will not play "hide-and-seek" to find every little program Saddam has hidden in a country the size of Texas.

-Ben

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
crackmonkey: From your link:
Likewise from your link:

And from this site: (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/nofly/2002/1119nofly.htm)
In short, Iraqi firing on planes in the no-fly zones is not a violation of any UN resolution.

Glad to hear you so sure. I'd hate to have my country's pilots die and be rememberred as heroes for standing up to that fine upstanding President Huessein.

-Ben

[DanishDynamite]

Ben:Glad to hear you so sure. I'd hate to have my country's pilots die and be rememberred as heroes for standing up to that fine upstanding President Huessein. Once again, you miss the point. The point was whether or not the no-fly zones were UN no-fly zones. They are not. Just found another
link: (http://slate.msn.com/id/2074302/)
However, the New York Times editorialized at the time that Resolution 688 provided a "dubious justification" for setting up the no-fly zones because it did not authorize the use of force to stop Iraqi abuses. And in 1993, the U.N. legal department announced that it could find no existing Security Council resolutions authorizing the United States, Britain, and France to enforce the no-fly zones. They are never explicitly mentioned in Resolution 688 or elsewhere. Furthermore, Resolution 688 was not enacted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, the section that is used to authorize and legitimize the use of force.

[crackmonkey]

...so apparently, the use of the no-fly zones in support of UN 688 is controversial. That isn't the same as being illegal, however.
I suspect the UN has a legal mehanism to examine such things similar to how the US Supreme Court examines laws to test their Constitutionality. Just as laws aren't declared unconstitutional until the Supremes decide it to be so, these zones will be legal albeit controversial until the UN declares them to be otherwise.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
...so apparently, the use of the no-fly zones in support of UN 688 is controversial. That isn't the same as being illegal, however.
I suspect the UN has a legal mehanism to examine such things similar to how the US Supreme Court examines laws to test their Constitutionality. Just as laws aren't declared unconstitutional until the Supremes decide it to be so, these zones will be legal albeit controversial until the UN declares them to be otherwise. Let's take this step by step, shall we:

1. UN Security Council resolutions 688 (and later 1441) are passed.

2. France, UK and the US take it upon themselves to create no-fly zones over Iraq.

3. The U.N. legal department announced that it could find no existing Security Council resolutions authorizing the United States, Britain, and France to enforce the no-fly zones. They are never explicitly mentioned in Resolution 688 or elsewhere. Furthermore, Resolution 688 was not enacted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, the section that is used to authorize and legitimize the use of force.

So, the creation of the zones has, according to the UN legal department, no basis in the resolutions. They are illegal.

You apparently require a new resolution declaring them illegal. Given that the zone was established by three members of the Security Council who all have veto powers, how likely do you think it is that such a resolution will pass?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
Removing Saddam (and then Arafat) is the most practical way of bringing relative peace and stability back.

Sorry; I've heard this before. When we "liberated" Afghanistan, we were told that freedom would come; that women would be free to go unveiled, for example. Guess what? The provisional government there is proving to be just as fanatical as the Taliban. Women are still veiled. When we "liberated" Kuwait, all we did was put the previous tyrant back into power. We just choose one murderous, tyrannical dicator over another.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
That's why we have nuclear non-proliferation agreements, which Saddam has flagrantly repeatedly violated.

Really? When did Saddam agree to this?

When Saddam has nukes, he has three possible actions that others won't have.

What others? You mean like Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Pakistan? :rolleyes:

He can threaten to launch at Israel possibly causing WWIII for no good reason. He can use it to back up the threat of invasion against Kuwait, Iran, and Saudi Arabia or to blackmail these countries to give him more oil sales. And he can simply threaten America, by giving it to Al Queda, currently residing in the Kurdish controlled area of his country by his own funding to mess up his internal opposition.

And he can use them to sit upon and sing "Akbar Na Chain" while playing solitaire with Sean Penn. And he can (radical idea) use them for what pretty much everyone else uses them for: As a deterrent to stop the US (and others) from bombing him.

I see a lot of speculation, but no evidence whatsoever.

Current estimates are he will have a nuke before year's end.

Whose estimates, based on what evidence? Not the UN inspectors which have found nothing of the kind.

Saddam has not been cooperating with inspecters.

Would we cooperate with inspectors if Pakistan (say) forced them to come in and look through our military inventory?

Is it because they have something personally to hide, or because Saddam will kill them?

Or because they don't recognize our authority over them.

Again, I see a whole lot of assertion, and a whole lot of ignoring other possibilities, but again, you put forth absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

[crackmonkey]

The no-fly zones aren't explicitly authorized, but that hardly makes them illegal.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
Therefore, it is only logical to look out for Israel's long term interests, which include ending the billions of dollars of funding by Iraq and Iran and Saudi Arabia for the intifadah. Removing Saddam (and then Arafat) is the most practical way of bringing relative peace and stability back.

-Ben
Billions of dollars? Don't you think you may be exaggerating a wee bit? The US gives Israel about 3.5 billion a year in aid (plus a couple billion more in loan guarantees) and look how far that goes. Maybe the funding for the intifadah from those sources is in the thousands of dollars. Let's be realistic.

Hmmm. I wonder: what if instead of pursuing a policy of "transference" and aggressive building of settlements, denying Palestinians building permits and giving them daily doses of abuse, brutality and humiliation, Israel instead ended its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and made a sincere effort to negotiate for peace and a Palestinian state? Would that end the intifadah and be the most practical way of bringing peace and stability?

Sorry, Ben, but I don't think the majority of Israel's electorate has a clue about the best long-term interest of Israel.

[shanek]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The no-fly zones aren't explicitly authorized, but that hardly makes them illegal.

So, where is the authority to create and enforce a no-fly zone without UN authorization?

[crackmonkey]

It doesn't work that way... to use the example of the US, a state doesn't have to be granted the explicit permission of the Supreme Court to legislate a certain law. The legislative branch draws up the law, the executive branch signs it, and if th elaw is challenged, the judicial branch tests its constitutionality. The judicial branch doesn't dictate to Congress what they may or may not legislate. The UN is not identical, of course, but there is a similr system. There is an International Court to address such issues. This issue has not been brought before it, and therefore the 'legality' or 'illegality' of the no-fly zones is moot until the court rules one way or the other.
I thought you were a libertarian, shanek.. I'm surprised that you seem to endorse such a dictatorial approach by the UN. Everything that is not dictated to vassal states by the UN is illegal? Jeez...

[shanek]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
It doesn't work that way...

Work what way? When did I say it worked any way? I simply want to know where we get the power to set up and enforce a no-fly zone and still have the right to get all indignant when Iraq fires back!

to use the example of the US, [incomprehensively convoluted argument excised]

In the US, powers are granted by the Constitution. The Constitution expressly reserves any power not given to the Federal government to the states, unless it prohibits the states from exercising a power, in which case it falls to the people.

What any of this has to do with operating a no-fly zone over Iraq completely escapes me. And since the Constitution forbids military action without a declaration of war by Congress, it would actually be the case that the US is prohibited by its own Constitution from operating the no-fly zone.

I thought you were a libertarian, shanek.. I'm surprised that you seem to endorse such a dictatorial approach by the UN.

When did I ever say I endorsed the UN? Please stop with the strawmen, people.

Now, please answer the question.

[Starshark]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
...so apparently, the use of the no-fly zones in support of UN 688 is controversial. That isn't the same as being illegal, however.
I suspect the UN has a legal mehanism to examine such things similar to how the US Supreme Court examines laws to test their Constitutionality. Just as laws aren't declared unconstitutional until the Supremes decide it to be so, these zones will be legal albeit controversial until the UN declares them to be otherwise.

Does the phrase 'paper tiger' mean anything to you?

[Starshark]

So let's get this straight.

Let's say Australia gets jack of the US and the way it tariffs the crap out of Australian wheat and steel. Say the United Nations, in some resolution or other, 'condemns the US's trade practices and urges them to make it equitable ASAP'.

Say the US tells Australia to bugger off.

Now let's say Australia uses that resolution to make one of the US's harbours a 'no-step' zone and starts bombing any ships that come anywhere near it.

Is this acceptable?

If not, then why is it acceptable for Iraq?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Starshark
If not, then why is it acceptable for Iraq?
Because in the minds of some people, might makes right.

Conscience - the willingness to judge one's actions as those affected by them would judge them.

[crackmonkey]

The no-fly zones were created by the allies in support of the UN safe havens in Iraq, to protect the Kurds and Shi'ite minorities that Saddam had been slaughtering. The protection of these minorities were one of the conditions of the ceasefire, and the allies decided to help Saddam fulfil the terms of the resolution by forcing him to leave the populations in peace by enforcing a no-fly zone. The UN never explicitly authorized it, nor did they condemn it - probably because it the minorities flourished under the no-fly zones. A similar situation happened in Kosovo as well.
Who authorized it? The allies' political leaders - the same people who fought the war. They won, and one term of the peace between the allies and Iraq was the no-fly zone.
You are correct in that war should have been declared - Congress hasn't done its duty in that regard in some time.
Personally, I think that the UN is useful in humanitarian missions but little else.