Speech from Majority Leader Tom DeLay

[eric]

None of this was my question, please answer the original question.

This is the problem everytime a question cannot be answered the focus is shifted.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Maybe this is a little bit clearer:

Legal basis for use of force against Iraq

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, has set out his view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq:

Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:

1. In resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

2. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.

3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.

4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.

9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.

I have lodged a copy of this answer, together with resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 in the Library of both Houses.

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3287.asp

So in other words the limeys went to war because they thought Saddam wasn't co-operating with us and still had WMDs? How nice to have such suckers as our best friends. If they can go along with the above surely they can agree to 30% tarrifs on their steel without putting tarrifs on our oranges and blue jeans.

 

[eric]

So then why didn't we invade Iraq much earlier? It's not as though these missiles only came out in 2002

Damn good question, I would like the answer myself.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by eric
Damn good question, I would like the answer myself.

Perhaps becaue in 2000, any presidential cantidate who suggested as much would have branded a nutcase?

 

[eric]

I'm still waiting for an answer to the questions I posed above. Stop with the spin and answer the question. Did or did not Iraq violate the ceasefire agreement in any way. I do not care to what degree or your personal take on it. I would like a clear concise answer.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Originally posted by SLClemens
Perhaps becaue in 2000, any presidential cantidate who suggested as much would have branded a nutcase?

Bush was branded a nutcase. It didn't stop him. But I grant
you, it may've stopped a man whose only care was his own reputation.

The fact that Clinton did nothing about Hussein during his term, but came out in support of the war on Iraq when Bush went in is interesting, is it not?

 

[eric]

Very interesting XP. Notice posts are being made in other threads. Hard to argue this point I guess.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by eric
I'm still waiting for an answer to the questions I posed above. Stop with the spin and answer the question. Did or did not Iraq violate the ceasefire agreement in any way. I do not care to what degree or your personal take on it. I would like a clear concise answer.

which question is this? The one about missiles? My answer is that it was absurd to invade when the UN was destroying them. As it was I don't know for sure whether they exceeded the 93 mile limit or not.

 

[eric]

My answer is that it was absurd to invade when the UN was destroying them

Again, you are avoiding the question, let me make it simple: Yes or No, not opinon or commentary. I do not care if they were being destroyed, they should not have been there in the first place.

What about attacking our planes in the no fly zone ?

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
Bush was branded a nutcase. It didn't stop him. But I grant
you, it may've stopped a man whose only care was his own reputation.

The fact that Clinton did nothing about Hussein during his term, but came out in support of the war on Iraq when Bush went in is interesting, is it not?

But Gore was branded a bore and Nader a socialist (not inaccurately, mind you) and we'd rather have a nutcase with a low IQ than a know-it-all, of course. Why would we want a president who knows so much?

Where did Clinton come out in support of war, especially unilateral war, on Iraq? Did I miss something here? Or was Clinton just playing the cowardly Democratic patriot game?

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Read this entire page and tell us if they were abiding by each and every point.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

On the day before the invasion based on the evidence found in Iraq, yeah, they were in compliance-with the exception of accounting for the missing Kuwaittis who turned out to be dead.

Posted by Eric
the only point I can see proof of them not abiding is missiles with a range of more than 150 kilometers

They were destroying them at the time we invaded.

Posted by Eric
How about the attacks on our planes in the no fly-zones?

Interesting thing about that. We never lost a plane. We claimed that our aircraft were being lit by targeting radar in the no fly zone and we acted in self defense but the activity (running a national air defense system) is not precluded by any cease fire or UNSCR mandate.

jimnyc
Legal basis for use of force against Iraq

Lord Goldsmiths problem is he hasn't found WMDs' either.

...the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction... if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.
7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

Point to the material breach he is reffering too.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

If they were being destroyed by the U.N. they were clearly
there and clearly in breach. Else why would the U.N. bother?

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by eric
Again, you are avoiding the question, let me make it simple: Yes or No, not opinon or commentary. I do not care if they were being destroyed, they should not have been there in the first place.

What about attacking our planes in the no fly zone ?

I have no idea whether these missiles exceeded the 150 kilometer / 93 mile range or not. My guess is that they were probably testing the limit, in which case, no, they should not have been there. In fact, I don't see why Saddam should have had missiles with a range over 50 miles.

Should they have attacked planes in the no-fly zone? No. Should we have bombed speculative targets in the no-fly zone? No, as well.

 

[eric]

They were destroying them at the time we invaded

So they did posses them at the time in violation ?

 

[eric]

It is simple, they violated terms of the cease fire agreements, no?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
So in other words the limeys went to war because they thought Saddam wasn't co-operating with us and still had WMDs? How nice to have such suckers as our best friends. If they can go along with the above surely they can agree to 30% tarrifs on their steel without putting tarrifs on our oranges and blue jeans.

You read that entire article and all you got out of it was WMD? How sad.

Why is it that everyone that doesn't see your point of view is a sucker? Didn't you say the same about some of our soldiers the other day?

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by eric
It is simple, they violated terms of the cease fire agreements, no?

They probably did. I'm no missile expert, though analysts who are said they could likely fly slightly in excess of 150 km. The solution? Get the UN to destroy them? Invade Iraq and cost thousands of Iraqi and hundreds (maybe thousands in teh future) of American lives? For this? It sounds like the feeblest excuse possible of someone hell-bent on war.

 

[eric]

I'm not debating what could have been done. Let us not lose site of the original debate, which was did we have the legal right to invade, I think you have answered this question.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc

Why is it that everyone that doesn't see your point of view is a sucker? Didn't you say the same about some of our soldiers the other day?

Thankfully, though, some of our soldiers have the guts to tell it like it is, unlike Blair and Hoon, suckers extraordinaire.

For the record, though, Cheney does not see my point of view, and is by no means a sucker. I'm sure he has friends I'd view in the same light.

 

[Bry]

What up? why are all the sharks circling?

jejeje