Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?

[JRK]

Not so sure about that:

BYPASSING THE SECURITY COUNCIL: Ambiguous Authorizations to Use Force, Cease-Fires and the Iraqi Inspection Regime

Do you understand violations of cease fire, and what those violations bring about... and not explanations of them from some ambiguous site that could have been posted by some 12th grader with made up info??

Need I point out that this was a UN CeaseFire. It stemmed from a UNSCR to remove Iraq's army from Kuwait. Within the ceasefire agreement there is no automatic resumption of hostilities clause for violating any provision in the ceasefire agreement. If one side or the other is accused of a violation it was up to the SC to determine what to do about such a violation.

From that same (12th grader) article

Moreover, paragraph 34 of Resolution 687 states the Council's decision "to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area." That provision makes clear that the Council, not individual states, determines not only whether Iraq has violated Resolution 687 but also whether to take "further steps" for its implementation. The express vesting of this authorization in the Security Council is inconsistent with the view that Resolution 678 continues to allow individual states to decide for themselves whether to use force to implement the cease-fire resolution.

Despite the language and history of Resolution 687, U.S. and UK officials have asserted since 1991 that the Resolution 678 authorization to use force remains in effect, and on several occasions they have deployed forces against Iraq.[107] They argue that the traditional material breach doctrine is applicable to UN cease-fires and that an Iraqi breach of the cease-fire therefore reactivates Resolution 678. However, even if the resolution survived the cease-fire and can be reignited under traditional armistice law to address material breaches, the question remains: who decides when a material breach reactivates the authorization to use force — the Security Council or the United States and its coalition partners? The practice since the cease-fire confirms what is central to Resolution 687: that this authority is held by the Security Council alone. Since the Council made the cease-fire with Iraq, it is the party to determine whether Iraq is in breach. Thus, for Council-imposed cease-fires, retaining the material breach doctrine turns out to lead to the same consequences as the Charter rule propounded above: only the Council can decide to resume hostile

Guys this is what is wrong with-our country
1) If this war was illegal, then why did congress keep funding it?
2) what does the UN have to do with what we do in this country?
3) why did the Dems congress vote 29-21 to support GWB in removing saddam from power?
read this also

While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.

Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The USA is one of the founding members of the UN.

Irrelevant.

While you may wish it were otherwise, the UN is not a world governing body.

The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States.

False.

Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties-of which the U.N. Charter is one-are considered the supreme law of the land.

Utterly false.

What if Barack Obama gets tired of this Jan Brewer and signs a treaty with Libya ceding all territory and land in Arizona to Libya and placing all people in Arizona into chattel slavery as property of the Libyan government?

Would that be the "supreme law of the land?"

Why, or why not?

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Thus authorizing Bush to use force at his discretion.

You can hate Bush, you can rewrite history, but you can't obliterate the past - Edward Murrow is dead and the complete managing of news died with him.

Bummer.

 

[DiamondDave]

Not so sure about that:

BYPASSING THE SECURITY COUNCIL: Ambiguous Authorizations to Use Force, Cease-Fires and the Iraqi Inspection Regime

Do you understand violations of cease fire, and what those violations bring about... and not explanations of them from some ambiguous site that could have been posted by some 12th grader with made up info??

Need I point out that this was a UN CeaseFire. It stemmed from a UNSCR to remove Iraq's army from Kuwait. Within the ceasefire agreement there is no automatic resumption of hostilities clause for violating any provision in the ceasefire agreement. If one side or the other is accused of a violation it was up to the SC to determine what to do about such a violation.

From that same (12th grader) article

Moreover, paragraph 34 of Resolution 687 states the Council's decision "to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area." That provision makes clear that the Council, not individual states, determines not only whether Iraq has violated Resolution 687 but also whether to take "further steps" for its implementation. The express vesting of this authorization in the Security Council is inconsistent with the view that Resolution 678 continues to allow individual states to decide for themselves whether to use force to implement the cease-fire resolution.

Despite the language and history of Resolution 687, U.S. and UK officials have asserted since 1991 that the Resolution 678 authorization to use force remains in effect, and on several occasions they have deployed forces against Iraq.[107] They argue that the traditional material breach doctrine is applicable to UN cease-fires and that an Iraqi breach of the cease-fire therefore reactivates Resolution 678. However, even if the resolution survived the cease-fire and can be reignited under traditional armistice law to address material breaches, the question remains: who decides when a material breach reactivates the authorization to use force — the Security Council or the United States and its coalition partners? The practice since the cease-fire confirms what is central to Resolution 687: that this authority is held by the Security Council alone. Since the Council made the cease-fire with Iraq, it is the party to determine whether Iraq is in breach. Thus, for Council-imposed cease-fires, retaining the material breach doctrine turns out to lead to the same consequences as the Charter rule propounded above: only the Council can decide to resume hostilities.

Sorry bubba.... the UN is not the end all be all of world government.... The battling parties made the cease fire.. the UN helped it be drafted up and documented... they have no authority as a sovereign government to tell us how to handle our own battles...

You want some one world government with the fucking corrupt UN calling the shots?? I certainly hope not

 

[BlindBoo]

Do you understand violations of cease fire, and what those violations bring about... and not explanations of them from some ambiguous site that could have been posted by some 12th grader with made up info??

Need I point out that this was a UN CeaseFire. It stemmed from a UNSCR to remove Iraq's army from Kuwait. Within the ceasefire agreement there is no automatic resumption of hostilities clause for violating any provision in the ceasefire agreement. If one side or the other is accused of a violation it was up to the SC to determine what to do about such a violation.

From that same (12th grader) article

Moreover, paragraph 34 of Resolution 687 states the Council's decision "to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area." That provision makes clear that the Council, not individual states, determines not only whether Iraq has violated Resolution 687 but also whether to take "further steps" for its implementation. The express vesting of this authorization in the Security Council is inconsistent with the view that Resolution 678 continues to allow individual states to decide for themselves whether to use force to implement the cease-fire resolution.

Despite the language and history of Resolution 687, U.S. and UK officials have asserted since 1991 that the Resolution 678 authorization to use force remains in effect, and on several occasions they have deployed forces against Iraq.[107] They argue that the traditional material breach doctrine is applicable to UN cease-fires and that an Iraqi breach of the cease-fire therefore reactivates Resolution 678. However, even if the resolution survived the cease-fire and can be reignited under traditional armistice law to address material breaches, the question remains: who decides when a material breach reactivates the authorization to use force — the Security Council or the United States and its coalition partners? The practice since the cease-fire confirms what is central to Resolution 687: that this authority is held by the Security Council alone. Since the Council made the cease-fire with Iraq, it is the party to determine whether Iraq is in breach. Thus, for Council-imposed cease-fires, retaining the material breach doctrine turns out to lead to the same consequences as the Charter rule propounded above: only the Council can decide to resume hostile

Guys this is what is wrong with-our country
1) If this war was illegal, then why did congress keep funding it?
2) what does the UN have to do with what we do in this country?
3) why did the Dems congress vote 29-21 to support GWB in removing saddam from power?
read this also

While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.

Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.

And the rest of the story....The UN did sent in a final round of weapons inpectors SCR 1441, which were stopped due to the impending/illegal US led invasion.

 

[gekaap]

Utterly false.

What if Barack Obama gets tired of this Jan Brewer and signs a treaty with Libya ceding all territory and land in Arizona to Libya and placing all people in Arizona into chattel slavery as property of the Libyan government?

Would that be the "supreme law of the land?"

Why, or why not?

You don't seem to know much about the constitution, do you?

Treaties in which the USA is a party are binding law under the US constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

If the US made a treaty to cede the state of AZ to Libya, then yes that would become legally binding. The state would no longer be part of the United States. But you seem to not understand well how treaties come to be under the constitution. The President can only make a treaty by and with the advise and consent of the Senate. So his signature alone does not make the treaty valid under the constitution. It has to be approved by the Senate. But the US cannot make a treaty that would enslave anyone in the US, because that would be against the constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sorry bubba.... the UN is not the end all be all of world government.... The battling parties made the cease fire.. the UN helped it be drafted up and documented... they have no authority as a sovereign government to tell us how to handle our own battles...

You want some one world government with the fucking corrupt UN calling the shots?? I certainly hope not

Hey Dave, No Pathologically Sarah to bash here.....

Anyway, a one world dictatorship is the holy grail of the left. It is what the perpetually strive for.

Blind Boo is spewing leftist doctrine, but is full of hot air. No treaty can supersede the US Constitution, despite his wishes.

Here's why;

By Article II, Section 1, paragraph 7, the President is required to swear he will: "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article VI, paragraph 3 requires all Federal and State officers to also swear: "...to support this [U.S.] Constitution..."

Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1 declares: "No State shall enter into any Treaty..."

ALL civil magistrates are bound by oath to abide by the U.S. Constitution, and nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is any authority given for these United States to be subject to and bound by any earthly piece of paper that abrogates or is alien to the Constitution of the United States. As a matter of fact, Article VI, paragraph 2, the latter half of which is quoted at the outset above, in its first half, says only three (3) pronouncements are "the supreme Law of the Land":

(1) "THIS [the U.S.] Constitution," (2) "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" (i.e., as permitted by, in conformity with, and to implement this Constitution), and (3) "all treaties made....under the Authority of the United States" ("under" designates that treaties are not over, not above, and not even equal to the authority of the United States granted to it by the States via the U.S. Constitution --- but remain under, inferior to its jurisdiction).

 

[Uncensored2008]

If the US made a treaty to cede the state of AZ to Libya, then yes that would become legally binding.

Nope, this isn't a Stalinist dictatorship but rather a constitutional republic.

All laws made by congress must be in concert with the United States constitution. Sorry, laws which violate the 5th and 13th amendments cannot take effect, nor can treaties.

The state would no longer be part of the United States.

Wrong again, no president by fiat, even should he have concurrence of 2/3rds of the Senate, has the authority to usurp and discard the US Constitution.

If you truly want the one world dictatorship you desire, you're going to have to take up arms and overthrow the republic.

 

[gekaap]

Nope, this isn't a Stalinist dictatorship but rather a constitutional republic.

All laws made by congress must be in concert with the United States constitution. Sorry, laws which violate the 5th and 13th amendments cannot take effect, nor can treaties.

Congratulations tearing down that straw man. Nobody said that a treaty can otherwise violate a provision of the constitution. The question is whether, according to the constitution treaties to which the US is a part are binding law.

Wrong again, no president by fiat, even should he have concurrence of 2/3rds of the Senate, has the authority to usurp and discard the US Constitution.

Again, congrats on another straw man. Nobody is talking about discarding the constitution. We're talking about whether treaties to which the US is a party are US law. The constitution says they are.

If you truly want the one world dictatorship you desire, you're going to have to take up arms and overthrow the republic.

Straw man trifecta!

 

[JRK]

what in gods name are you guys debating about?
The UN has no jurisdiction in our matters, none


This war has support from congress from the start
and every time they funded it, it was justified (legal)


what are you 2 guys hung up on?

 

[gekaap]

what in gods name are you guys debating about?
The UN has no jurisdiction in our matters, none

Nobody said the UN has "jurisdiction." Just that the US has a legal obligation to honor the UN charter, because the charter is a treaty to which the US is a party.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?

Simple:
Liberals cannot afford to allow any sort of positive impression of GWB seep into the public consciousness. So, they lie about the success that was the war in Iraq, and they continue to repeat those lies, hoping that they are eventually accepted as the truth.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The USA is one of the founding members of the UN. The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States. Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties-of which the U.N. Charter is one-are considered the supreme law of the land.

So...
If the UNSC passed a resolution that prohibited the people of a member state from having abortions, abortions would be then be illegal in the United States?

If the UNSC passed a resolution that prohibited the people of a member state from having firearms, firearms would be then be illegal in the United States?

If the UNSC passed a resolution that required the people of a member state to become active members of a mosque, failure to do so would be then be illegal in the United States?

 

[JRK]

The USA is one of the founding members of the UN. The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States. Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties-of which the U.N. Charter is one-are considered the supreme law of the land.

So... If the UNSC passed a resolution that prohibited the people of a member state from having abortions, abortions would be then be illegal in the United States?

If the UNSC passed a resolution that prohibited the people of a member state from having firearms, firearms would be then be illegal in the United States?

If the UNSC passed a resolution that required the people of a member state to become active members of a mosque, failure to do so would be then be illegal in the United States?

I cannot put into words the level of detail those guys went at it
I respect it
I ask a simple question, one should have took that to another thread
It cannot be a success if it was illegal. In my world and in the U.S. constitution the UN has no jurisdiction and it seems to me that every time the left funded the war the left accepted the war as legal

 

[eots]

1) remove saddam
done
2) stabilize country
done
3) have a republic born of these events
done

am missing something here?

yes.. The murder ten of thousands of woman and children.... Engaginge in imperialistic nation building...invading sovereign nations... Bankrupting the country financially and morally

 

[xotoxi]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

There is nothing better than defining the mission of a war after it is over. That way, you always win.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It cannot be a success if it was illegal. In my world and in the U.S. constitution the UN has no jurisdiction and it seems to me that every time the left funded the war the left accepted the war as legal

Ultimately, the US has the right to act in their own self-defense as they find necessary.
No state need ask permission from anyone to do this.

Further, as was stated before, Iraq violated the terms of its cease-fire with the US and their allies - violation of a cease-fire is, alone, sufficient reason for any party of that cease-fire to resume hostilities.

:shrug:

 

[gekaap]

So...
If the UNSC passed a resolution that prohibited the people of a member state from having abortions, abortions would be then be illegal in the United States?

The UN does not have grounds for such. The UN, by its nature and build in to its structure, has a specific scope. Notice how the UN does not pass resolutions that deal things like abortion, murder, etc? That is not the scope of the UN, or of the UN charter.

If the UNSC passed a resolution that prohibited the people of a member state from having firearms, firearms would be then be illegal in the United States?

If the UNSC passed a resolution that required the people of a member state to become active members of a mosque, failure to do so would be then be illegal in the United States?

See my comment above. The right seems to enjoy painting the false picture of the UN as a world legislative body. But that is not the truth at all. It is an organization whose members have agreed to certain basic rules of international conduct, for the sake of maintaining global peace and stability.

 

[BlindBoo]

The USA is one of the founding members of the UN. The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States. Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties-of which the U.N. Charter is one-are considered the supreme law of the land.

So...
If the UNSC passed a resolution that prohibited the people of a member state from having abortions, abortions would be then be illegal in the United States?

If the UNSC passed a resolution that prohibited the people of a member state from having firearms, firearms would be then be illegal in the United States?

If the UNSC passed a resolution that required the people of a member state to become active members of a mosque, failure to do so would be then be illegal in the United States?

No the UN has no authority to determine domestic policy in any member state. War/Military action is not a domestic issue. Do you understand the difference?

 

[ABikerSailor]

It cannot be a success if it was illegal. In my world and in the U.S. constitution the UN has no jurisdiction and it seems to me that every time the left funded the war the left accepted the war as legal

Ultimately, the US has the right to act in their own self-defense as they find necessary.
No state need ask permission from anyone to do this.

Further, as was stated before, Iraq violated the terms of its cease-fire with the US and their allies - violation of a cease-fire is, alone, sufficient reason for any party of that cease-fire to resume hostilities.

:shrug:

Hey stupid.......you DO realize that the Taliban (those responsible for 9/11) didn't move into Iraq until AFTER Saddam was removed from power, right?

Why did we go to war with Saddam when Jr. was president? Simple.........Jr. was looking to try to fix the fuck up that his father did with Desert Storm pt 1. I served over in the Persian Gulf during that time.

After 9/11, Jr. had an excuse to resume hostilities with Saddam, so he blamed Saddam for helping out the Taliban (he was actually their enemy, not their ally), let OBL (who WAS responsible for 9/11) get away, mainly because Jr. was interested in getting the oil fields.

I wanna know why OBL never got caught under Jr. and why 2 years after 9/11, Jr. stated that he wasn't concerned about OBL.

Me personally? I'd like to see Cheney, RumsFAILED and Jr. all taken to Geneva, put up on war crimes charges and then put in Spandau for the rest of their miserable lives.

 

[BlindBoo]

It cannot be a success if it was illegal. In my world and in the U.S. constitution the UN has no jurisdiction and it seems to me that every time the left funded the war the left accepted the war as legal

Ultimately, the US has the right to act in their own self-defense as they find necessary.
No state need ask permission from anyone to do this.

Further, as was stated before, Iraq violated the terms of its cease-fire with the US and their allies - violation of a cease-fire is, alone, sufficient reason for any party of that cease-fire to resume hostilities.

:shrug:

As a matter of fact the Ceasefire was with the UN. In a Ceasefire agreement there is usually a clause or set of clauses that spell out in detail what constitutes a violation and what the consequences of such violations would be were they to happen.