Speech from Majority Leader Tom DeLay

[eric]

No bry, when people constantly change the focus of a debate to suit their purpose no good debate can insue.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by 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.

When, ever, did you hear us go to the UN complaining about potentially not-quite-short-range-missiles? Our war was premised upon disarming Saddam of WMD, which he didn't have at the time of invasion.

Gosh, our entire army would be engaged right now fighting Indians if they took the same stance on every minor treaty violation we've made!

 

[jimnyc]

Point to the material breach he is reffering too.

Here are just a couple.

“3.Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;"

They never did supply a full and accurate list. This was pointed out by Blix in the past.

“4.Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;"

They omitted (or conveniently forgot) quite a few things that were later found. (missiles, documentation, chemicals)

“5.Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;"

How many reports were released of those who were threatened if they cooperated with investigators. And didn't Iraq state point blank they wanted representatives present during questioning?

“9.Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;"

Unconditionally and actively, hardly.

 

[jimnyc]

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

And the soldiers that don't see your point of view, they're the suckers?

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Gosh, our entire army would be engaged right now fighting Indians if they took the same stance on every minor treaty violation we've made!

Would you say they weren't justified?

There's quite a difference in the two scenarios, though.
We didn't sign most of the treaties we'd made with the
Native Americans were not cease-fire agreements.

We did not sign them to end wars we were losing.

 

[Bry]

Debate can not be limited to yes or no answers. You should be big enough to realize that the "legality" of the invasion is dependent on much more than whether or not Iraq was in violation of the resolutions. If SL didn't want to be pinned in (I'm not saying that was the case, it appears he simply lost track of your question...) when there were three different people making rapid fire responses including such unreasonable limitations, he can hardly be blamed.

1. The US based its justification on the sovereign right of defense against an emminent threat. That threat was at best highly questionable.

2. The US based a secondary justification on the violations of the UN resolutions. It is not "legal" for the US to take unilateral action based on those resolutions without support from the UN: the UN decided that Iraq was not enough in violation of the resolutions to justify invasion. The US took matters into its own hands, in defiance of the only institution that has jurisdiction of such matters as the interpretations and subsequent actions of their own resolutions.

That the "legality" of the invasion is open to various interpretations, i readily admit. But it is not a question that can be resolved with a simple yes / no question.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Debate can not be limited to yes or no answers. You should be big enough to realize that the "legality" of the invasion is dependent on much more than whether or not Iraq was in violation of the resolutions.

Perhaps not, but you cannot have a real debate if you keep
dodging questions. The legality of the invasion depends
upon what the laws state.

The argument was that the action of the United States
was illegal because it was pre-emptive.

It seems to me we've discovered that it was not.

 

[Bry]

And I would disagree. I know you're making some strange distinction between GWB's justification for the war and the "real" justification of the war, but "pre-emptive strike" is precisly the sovereign's right to defend itself against an emminent threat, which is precisely the justification which was cited. And if you look at your justification (for some reason ignoring GWBs justification) it is still a form of pre-emptive strike because the US did not wait for multilateral agreement from the UN: they pre-empted the authority of the UN. You can continue along this symantic line if you like, but I don't see how it's productive.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
Perhaps not, but you cannot have a real debate if you keep
dodging questions. The legality of the invasion depends
upon what the laws state.

The argument was that the action of the United States
was illegal because it was pre-emptive.

It seems to me we've discovered that it was not.

So if Saddam had certain missiles that were illegal, why not draft a UN relosution demanding that these be destroyed? The UN would have gone along with this. Saddam would have destroyed them. The UN did not go along with the WMD argument because several of hte security-council members had much more intelligent intelligence than us, it turned out.

Is it not a principle of international law that one tries to seek peaceful resolution of non-compliance first? This was actually working, until we decided that a war would work better. Now we're paying the price.

 

[eric]

not enough in violation

Bry you try and turn everything into a philosophical debate. Some things are just plain black and white. Rest assured if you sign a contract with my company and do not hold to the terms. We will sue you under an action of specific performance and you will uphold the terms or you will render damages, I have been involved in this senario time and time again, and let me enlighten you the preciding judge allways goes by the contract, plain and simple.

Now foreign affairs may no be this clean cut and you can argue what we should have done but by the letter of the law we were legally justified in our actions. Come and join the real world.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Why not have the UN draft a resolution?

Because we preferred a working solution to lip service.
The U.N. is an organization which will not enforce its own
resolutions. What good is that?

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Originally posted by eric
but by the letter of the law we were legally justified in our actions. Come and join the real world.

Well said.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
Why not have the UN draft a resolution?

Because we preferred a working solution to lip service.
The U.N. is an organization which will not enforce its own
resolutions. What good is that?

The resolution on medium-range missiles (unlike many concerning Israel) was working. It was working so well it was rapidly stripping Bush of a premise for war.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
So if Saddam had certain missiles that were illegal, why not draft a UN relosution demanding that these be destroyed?

It was in the resolution:

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

And they didn't destroy them after 12 years. In fact, in an earlier article I had posted here it was told that Saddam knew and purposely refused. I believe this was brought to his attention by Aziz (sp?)

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
It was in the resolution:

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

And they didn't destroy them after 12 years. In fact, in an earlier article I had posted here it was told that Saddam knew and purposely refused. I believe this was brought to his attention by Aziz (sp?)

If saddam retained Scuds from 12 years ago, where are they now? If the missiles he produced subsequently had a range marginally greater than 150km, why not let the UN destroy them, as they were doing? Why did this only become a serious concern this year? And why is this the justification now when before the war it was WMDs?

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

It took the threat of war to get the U.N. moving. But even when we woke the sleeping beast it crawled. It had plenty of time to
act on its own. It chose either to close its eyes or to sit staring.

 

[eric]

Why, because the UN is nothing more than a hot air balloon, that I would not trust to take crap on their own. Please give me a break with the UN, they cannot even account for millions of dollars of the Iraqi Oil for Food Program, I'm going to trust them on security. No thanks, well take matters into our own hands like it or not. I'm just glad the people with real power in this country think as I do, not as you people otherwise we would be speaking Russian by now.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
If saddam retained Scuds from 12 years ago, where are they now? If the missiles he produced subsequently had a range marginally greater than 150km, why not let the UN destroy them, as they were doing? Why did this only become a serious concern this year? And why is this the justification now when before the war it was WMDs?

Who mentioned scuds?

So on the eve of war, 11 3/4 years after they were compelled to destroy such weapons, we should continue to play their games?

I'll use your words now! You guys who constantly say the war was based solely on WMD are sickening! That was just one part of a VERY long list. I'll grant you the fact that it was an integral part, but in my eyes everything was justified without WMD.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Who mentioned scuds?

So on the eve of war, 11 3/4 years after they were compelled to destroy such weapons, we should continue to play their games?

I'll use your words now! You guys who constantly say the war was based solely on WMD are sickening! That was just one part of a VERY long list. I'll grant you the fact that it was an integral part, but in my eyes everything was justified without WMD.

There's absolutely nothing you mention in terms of Iraq's alleged violations that could not have been brought up in 2000. So why were these awful problems not debated in the 2000 elections?

 

[Bry]

Originally posted by eric
Bry you try and turn everything into a philosophical debate. Some things are just plain black and white. Rest assured if you sign a contract with my company and do not hold to the terms. We will sue you under an action of specific performance and you will uphold the terms or you will render damages, I have been involved in this senario time and time again, and let me enlighten you the preciding judge allways goes by the contract, plain and simple.

Now foreign affairs may no be this clean cut and you can argue what we should have done but by the letter of the law we were legally justified in our actions. Come and join the real world.

Your business contracts may be black and white. Unfortunately (fortunately?) the Iraq war is not in their jurisdiction. When you're talking about going to war, when your talking about thousands of civilian casualties, destabilization, complete annhilation of the infrastructure of a popluation of many millions, and any number of other unforseeable disasters that can come about with a war, I should hope we would think with a bit of philosophy. By the letter of the law, iraq was in violation. But by the letter of the law, our actions were NOT justified. There is one ruling body which has jurisdiction, and they decided that our actions were not warranted.

Come and join the real world.

Feel free to leave out piddling phrases like these. The scope of the real world is not exhausted by your business courts.