Bush's Lies Caused The Iraq War

[whutTHEYsay]

The US signed onto SCR 1441 and the reneged on the obligation when:

"The government of Iraq decided not to avail itself of its final opportunity under Resolution 1441 and has clearly committed additional violations," Negroponte said.

Without following the terms of that agreement.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion - Los Angeles Times

Two points:

(1) Negroponte did not nor does not speak for the UNSC. He speaks only for the US Government when he was an ambassador.

(2) Will you explain what 'reneged' means to those here that are arguing that 1441 authorized the use of force against Iraq by the US and UK in March 2003 instead of continued UN inspections.

 

[U2Edge]

Regardless of the "Final Oportunity", it clearly states that Iraq is in MATERIAL BREECH OF ITS OBLIGATIONS. Being offered a "final opportunity" does NOT change that FACT!.

Of course UNSC Resolution 1441 states that Iraq is in material breach of its obligations. That is why 1441 was passed. I am not arguing that Iraq was not in material breach of its obligations in resolutions passed prior to 1441.

I am pointing out the error you made on 07-12-2014 at 02:28 PM when you claimed that, "1441 already says that SADDAM is in material breech and in violation of resolution 1441 itself."

Besides being wrong your claim makes absolutely no sense. Why have 1441 at all? The purpose of 1441 was to give SH an opportunity to comply with all his obligations so as to avoid war.

If you still think 1441 says what you claimed on 07-12-2014 at 02:28 PM, you ought to post it.

It says relevant resolutions of which 1441 is one. What are Iraq's obligations. Is Iraq in material breech of them. The particular resolution does not matter. The only thing that matters is that Iraq is in material breech of its obligations and that the United States has the authority to use military force to bring Iraq into compliance.

1441 makes clear that resolutions 678, 687 and the rest are all still in effect and their consequences are in no way rescinded. In fact it says they are reaffirmed. There is nothing in 1441 that says that the United States no longer has the authorization to use military force to bring Iraq into compliance. NOTHING. There is nothing that rescinds resolution 678! NOTHING! Violation of any prior resolution is violation of 1441!

There were many people including Al Gore and Dick Cheney that were against drafting and passing another resolution because there was very little point to one, except to restate the case already made and get other members of the security council to vote for it. That's it! Essentially an extra padding of support for military action. That is all it is. Its about building support among the international community for money and military forces. IT SERVES NO LEGAL PURPOSE THOUGH BECAUSE THE USE OF FORCE WAS ALREADY AUTHORIZED LONG AGO! Its about politics and recruiting support, NOT international law.

 

[U2Edge]

The US signed onto SCR 1441 and the reneged on the obligation when:

"The government of Iraq decided not to avail itself of its final opportunity under Resolution 1441 and has clearly committed additional violations," Negroponte said.

Without following the terms of that agreement.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion - Los Angeles Times

Two points:

(1) Negroponte did not nor does not speak for the UNSC. He speaks only for the US Government when he was an ambassador.

(2) Will you explain what 'reneged' means to those here that are arguing that 1441 authorized the use of force against Iraq by the US and UK in March 2003 instead of continued UN inspections.

Force was already authorized by resolution 678. The United States had been using military force against Iraq EVERY YEAR since 1991 under that very authorization! 1441 is simply a restatement of Saddam's violations an the authority of the international community to use military force to bring him into compliance.

 

[U2Edge]

Its up to Saddam to resolve the issues and bring about compliance in total and full with every aspect of all 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules.

Where does 1441 invoke Chapter VII?

Resolutions do not invoke Chapter rules, they are passed under Chapter Rules. For example the many resolutions passed against Israel by the UN over the past few decades were passed under Chapter VI rules which do not allow the use of military force to bring about enforcement. Every Resolution passed against Iraq since 1990 was passed under Chapter VII rules which do allow the use of military force to enforce the resolutions.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Did the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 provide sufficient legal basis for military action against Iraq? - US - Iraq War - Pros and Cons - ProCon.org

I will take Kofi Annan's opinion on the matter. From your link:

"[Owen Bennett-Jones] (Q): Do you think that the resolution that was passed on Iraq before the war did actually give legal authority to do what was done?

Kofi Annan (A): Well, I'm one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution because the Security Council indicated that if Iraq did not comply there will be consequences. But then it was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what those consequences should be.

Q: So you don't think there was legal authority for the war?

A: I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council - with the UN Charter.

Q: It was illegal?

A: Yes, if you wish.

Q: It was illegal?

A: Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."

Sep. 16, 2004 - Kofi Annan, MS

 

[whutTHEYsay]

At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its the US position that is stated here:

" under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately"

Why would the US need the entire UNSC to convene to authorize war if 1441 automatically authorized war (when it was written) by any member state that decides it wants to launch one?

Like Negroponte said, Bush reneged on 1441 to invade Iraq. Why did he say that?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

IT SERVES NO LEGAL PURPOSE THOUGH BECAUSE THE USE OF FORCE WAS ALREADY AUTHORIZED LONG AGO! Its about politics and recruiting support, NOT international law.

Do you have any legal basis in making your claim? Are you saying that the fifteen members of the UNSC including three permanent members, Russia, China and France voted for it not to grant Iraq a final opportunity to comply without war in accordance with international law? Do you actually believe that those three nations, France Russia and China voted for 1441 for politics and recruiting support for the US and UK to invade Iraq on their own.

 

[Contumacious]

Its up to Saddam to resolve the issues and bring about compliance in total and full with every aspect of all 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules.

Where does 1441 invoke Chapter VII?

Resolutions do not invoke Chapter rules, they are passed under Chapter Rules. For example the many resolutions passed against Israel by the UN over the past few decades were passed under Chapter VI rules which do not allow the use of military force to bring about enforcement. Every Resolution passed against Iraq since 1990 was passed under Chapter VII rules which do allow the use of military force to enforce the resolutions.

Really. Fucktard?


The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12


.

 

[TooTall]

The US does not need UN authorization to invade Iraq.

That is true. I agree 100%. What is your point?

In post 542 you stated:

The 54% majority of Americans did not need to know the difference between Sunni and Shiite to know that Bush had no business invading Iraq without UN authorization.

You have a funny way of agreeing.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You have a funny way of agreeing.

On 07-14-2014 at 01:13 PM You wrote, "The US does not need UN authorization to invade Iraq."

In response on 07-14-2014 at 03:54 PM I wrote, "That is true. I agree 100%. What is your point?"

Then on 07-14-2014 at 06:37 PM you wrote, that what I wrote on 07-14-2014 at 05:58 AM was "a funny way of agreeing."

Can you explain why you think this .... "The 54% majority of Americans did not need to know the difference between Sunni and Shiite to know that Bush had no business invading Iraq without UN authorization." .... Is a disagreement with this .... "The US does not need UN authorization to invade Iraq."?

The facts are that Bush invaded Iraq without UN authorization. And the well accepted conclusion by the majority of Americans and people in the world is that Bush had no business invading Iraq without UN authorization.

I will state both again. The US did not need UN authorization to invade Iraq and Bush had absolutely no business invading Iraq without it.

Do you actually have a point?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

1441 is simply a restatement of Saddam's violations an the authority of the international community to use military force to bring him into compliance.

That makes no sense whatsoever. There was no need to restate the obvious conditions of Saddam Hussein's violations. No one disputed that Saddam was in violation and that a U.S. President could 'enforce' UN Security Council Resolutions if non-compliance with those resolutions posed a genuine threat or a humanitarian crisis that justified military action.

Not making sense is one thing. But the second part of your statement is just plain wrong. 1441 did not authorize the international community to use military force as you claim.

You wrote on 07-14-2014 at 02:19 PM, "Its up to Saddam to resolve the issues and bring about compliance in total and full with every aspect of all 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules."

On the same day at 04:04 PM I asked you, "Where does 1441 invoke Chapter VII?"

You quickly replied at 04:32 PM, "Every Resolution passed against Iraq since 1990 was passed under Chapter VII rules which do allow the use of military force to enforce the resolutions."

You are wrong, as Contumacious pointed out today at 06:25 PM, "The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said: “ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12

 

[Kosh]

1441 is simply a restatement of Saddam's violations an the authority of the international community to use military force to bring him into compliance.

That makes no sense whatsoever. There was no need to restate the obvious conditions of Saddam Hussein's violations. No one disputed that Saddam was in violation and that a U.S. President could 'enforce' UN Security Council Resolutions if non-compliance with those resolutions posed a genuine threat or a humanitarian crisis that justified military action.

Not making sense is one thing. But the second part of your statement is just plain wrong. 1441 did not authorize the international community to use military force as you claim.

You wrote on 07-14-2014 at 02:19 PM, "Its up to Saddam to resolve the issues and bring about compliance in total and full with every aspect of all 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules."

On the same day at 04:04 PM I asked you, "Where does 1441 invoke Chapter VII?"

You quickly replied at 04:32 PM, "Every Resolution passed against Iraq since 1990 was passed under Chapter VII rules which do allow the use of military force to enforce the resolutions."

You are wrong, as Contumacious pointed out today at 014 06:25 PM, "The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said: “ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12

And you keep proving that you are a far left hack!

Like I pointed out earlier no matter how many times it is explained, you do not deviate from your far left programming!

The history of Iraq did not start in 2003..

What happened in Iraq in 2003 was NOT illegal..

Those that spoke against it were tied up in the OIL FOR FOOS SCANDEL.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

The history of Iraq did not start in 2003..

That is true and I have never argued that it did.

In fact I have argued that Bush was right to confront Saddam Hussein's threat of being in violation of international law in 2001 up until the time UN inspectors were back into Iraq disarming Iraq peacefully with a satisfactory level of Iraq's cooperation.

Here it is:

On 07-11-2014 at 07:39 AM U2Edge wrote, "In February 2001, 7 months before the 9/11 attacks. Gallup polling company had a poll where it asked Americans if they supported using US military force to remove Saddam from power. 52% in the poll, a clear majority said YES ."

Four hours later at 11:43 AM I replied, "In 2001 I would have said yes to using military force against Iraq because SH was in violation of international law by not allowing UN inspectors in."

So does that sound like I am a far left hack that does not deviate from far left programming? Where do you come up with your stuff?

 

[Kosh]

The history of Iraq did not start in 2003..

That is true and I have never argued that it did.

In fact I have argued that Bush was right to confront Saddam Hussein's threat of being in violation of international law in 2001 up until the time UN inspectors were back into Iraq disarming Iraq peacefully with a satisfactory level of Iraq's cooperation.

Here it is:

On 07-11-2014 at 07:39 AM U2Edge wrote, "In February 2001, 7 months before the 9/11 attacks. Gallup polling company had a poll where it asked Americans if they supported using US military force to remove Saddam from power. 52% in the poll, a clear majority said YES ."

Four hours later at 11:43 AM I replied, "In 2001 I would have said yes to using military force against Iraq because SH was in violation of international law by not allowing UN inspectors in."

So does that sound like I am a far left hack that does not deviate from far left programming? Where do you come up with your stuff?

Yes you are far left hack and what you posted proved it...

 

[whutTHEYsay]

On 07-14-2014 at 10:41 PM Kosh wrote, "Yes you are far left hack and what you posted proved it..."


Can you explain how my posts proved something like that?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Oh my the far left will just ignore any history that does not fit with in their programmed talking points or propaganda.

Here's some history for you:

In June 2006, the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), a US Department of Defense entity, released a report detailing the weapons of mass destruction that had been found in Iraq, including pre-1991 sarin gas and mustard agent. The report stated that, "While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal."[14]

The Bush administration commissioned the Iraq Survey Group to determine whether in fact any WMD existed in Iraq. After a year and half of meticulously combing through the country, the administration’s own inspectors reported:[15]

“ "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered." ”
The review was conducted by Charles A. Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group. In October 2004, Bush said of Duelfer’s analysis:[16] "The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TooTall]

You have a funny way of agreeing.

On 07-14-2014 at 01:13 PM You wrote, "The US does not need UN authorization to invade Iraq."

In response on 07-14-2014 at 03:54 PM I wrote, "That is true. I agree 100%. What is your point?"

Then on 07-14-2014 at 06:37 PM you wrote, that what I wrote on 07-14-2014 at 05:58 AM was "a funny way of agreeing."

Can you explain why you think this .... "The 54% majority of Americans did not need to know the difference between Sunni and Shiite to know that Bush had no business invading Iraq without UN authorization." .... Is a disagreement with this .... "The US does not need UN authorization to invade Iraq."?

The facts are that Bush invaded Iraq without UN authorization. And the well accepted conclusion by the majority of Americans and people in the world is that Bush had no business invading Iraq without UN authorization.

I will state both again. The US did not need UN authorization to invade Iraq and Bush had absolutely no business invading Iraq without it.

Do you actually have a point?

My point is that Bush had numerous valid reasons to invade Iraq based on intelligence from the CIA and other allied intelligence agencies. He also had the support of the US Congress and an international coalition of NATO and non-NATO forces.

I stated that he did not need UN authorization, but my reading of Res 1441 says he did have authorization.

 

[BlindBoo]

The US signed onto SCR 1441 and the reneged on the obligation when:

"The government of Iraq decided not to avail itself of its final opportunity under Resolution 1441 and has clearly committed additional violations," Negroponte said.

Without following the terms of that agreement.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion - Los Angeles Times

Two points:

(1) Negroponte did not nor does not speak for the UNSC. He speaks only for the US Government when he was an ambassador.

(2) Will you explain what 'reneged' means to those here that are arguing that 1441 authorized the use of force against Iraq by the US and UK in March 2003 instead of continued UN inspections.

1. Negroponte was lying when he said it. Iraq was trying desperately to avail itself of its opportunity under Resolution 1441

2. Reneged mean nothing to those who think 1441 authorized the use of force. By giving Saddam another chance and having had no reports of Iraq obstructing the inspector, I believe we reneged.

 

[Camp]

The lie denier Bush defenders now sound like defense attorneys claiming a dismissal of charges is necessary due to a technicality. Either that or Bush made an understandable mistake and should be forgiven. Bush's legacy will forever be the President who refused to take responsibility for the things he was responsible for.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

My point is that Bush had numerous valid reasons to invade Iraq based on intelligence from the CIA and other allied intelligence agencies.

What valid reasons are those? I understand Bush had many reasons, but my interest is in what you presume to believe the 'valid' reasons.

I stated that he did not need UN authorization, but my reading of Res 1441 says he did have authorization.

Reading 1441 does not resolve the problems with your argument. The language in 1441 does not authorize the use of force after 1441 was passed. There is no autonacity or trigger to use force. Only the permanent and acting ten members on the UNSC had the authority to authorize military force or other consequences if Iraq failed to take its final opportunity to comply.

Iraq was not cited for any hard core violations that were egregious enough the the UNSC was required to convene to decide the matter of consequences.

Your reading of 1441 is in error.


Bush did not need UN authorization because what he actually did was renege on his committment to peaceful disarming of Iraq through 1441 in order to go down the path of preemptive self defense.

That is not legal under the UN Chartet by any means. Only Bush supporters go along with that case for starting a war.

Read a little on it here:

After months of trying to roally international support for a war and a two-day ultimatum demanding that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein step down, the United States attacked Iraq on March 19, 2003. The goal, U.S. President George W. Bush said in a speech, was "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

Experts disagree as to whether the war was legal under international law. Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a party, a nation's use of force is authorized under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42.

Self Defense
Since it was not directly attacked by Iraq the United States did not have an obvious right to self-defense. The administration, though, argued that it had a right to defend itself preemptively against a future possible attack.

The War on Iraq: Legal Issues