Speech from Majority Leader Tom DeLay

[X.P. Alidocious]

Thanks for the welcome.

First of all, this was not a pre-emptive strike. As I mentioned
before, it was the continuation of a war temporarily halted by a
broken cease-fire agreement.

Iraq refused inspections it had agreed to. It continually mislead
inspectors when it did admit them and obstructed the inspection
process. When it was told to destroy its SCUD missles, it
moved them instead.

Iraq continued to produce stockpiles of anthrax and other
biological weapons after it had agreed to completely eliminate
its biological weapons.

It continued to buy weapons materials it had agreed not to buy
from other countries.

It continued to support international terrorism and to terrorize its neighbors. (It even attempted to have a former U.S. President killed)

Meanwhile, former Iraqi weapons designers have
testified that Iraq continued to develop nuclear weapons
and that it had methods of hiding and moving such weapons.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

No, I didn't say the end justifies the means.
What I'm saying is that the definition of terrorism
includes the word, "intent." I do not think that the intent
of the United States fits under that definition.

 

[eric]

First of all, this was not a pre-emptive strike. As I mentioned before, it was the continuation of a war temporarily halted by a broken cease-fire agreement.

Thank you for bringing this up too. I have mentioned it in other posts but it has largely been ignored. I see two arguments for the invasion; one legal, one moral. I do not think there is any question of the legality of our actions, the rest I leave to debate, though I personally think we did the right thing.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

I agree. Morality is a much more complex thing than legality.
A law, while open to some interpretation, is clearly written.
Morals vary from person to person, and although I personally
believe in absolute rights and wrongs, many people don't,
and many people have a different idea of what rights and wrongs are - so the argument over morality will probably never end.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
Thanks for the welcome.

First of all, this was not a pre-emptive strike. As I mentioned
before, it was the continuation of a war temporarily halted by a
broken cease-fire agreement.

Read the October 2002 Bush Speech where he lays out his rational for the upcoming invasion. If you can continue that line of argument after you read his speech we'll talk some more on it.

Iraq refused inspections it had agreed to.

No, in the end the US had the inspectors leave Iraq. Hans Blikz wanted more time. The violations that were on the table at that point had to do with accounting for chem and bio weapons that Iraq claimed it had destroyed while the inspections were halted. Amazingly enough, their position has a growing validity since the weapons in question haven't been found.

Iraq continued to produce stockpiles of anthrax and other biological weapons after it had agreed to completely eliminated it's biological weapons.

Unfortunately for your arguments, you lack any substantial evidence that your claims were in fact true on the eve of invasion. They must be considered in light of the fact that we've found little evidence after seven months of occupation. Before you respond with the "Iraq is a big country" argumument, I must remind you we are a big country too. We've had a sattelite watching Iraq 24/7 for the last two or three years. You're going to have to find something a little more compelling that a rusty pail of botulism if your charges can be seriously considered.

 

[dijetlo]

sorry, this line is not factually correct:

No, in the end the US had the inspectors leave Iraq. Hans Blikx wanted more time

The inspectors had already left, Blikz had spoken with Hussein and recieved assurances that they would recieve all cooperation. Blix then wanted to return to Iraq to resume inspections and GWB wouldn't vouch for their safety during the upcoming invasion.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

you lack any substantial evidence that your claims were in fact true on the eve of invasion.

It's not really necessary for me to have that. My argument was that this was not a pre-emptive attack. Hussein declared war on the United States. That war was never declared over, though a
cease-fire agreement was made. Once breached, the agreement
ceases to apply. This leaves our countries at war.

If that was not enough,we gave Hussein a chance to comply completely before our strike. He did not. Instead, he fought and obstructed the inspections to the end. That is a violation of the
agreement. He didn't need to break them all the second
before the attack for the strike to be justified.

The war was legal. Whether Bush made a good enough case
for it is another question. Whether the democrats did what
they should have is another, but by law, the war was justified.

 

[dijetlo]

X.P. Alidocious
My argument was that this was not a pre-emptive attack.

and that is where it fails. The president stated clearly in the link I posted that we reserve the right to attack iraq (or any other country) that we percieve as a future threat. This is the stated reason and it was further expounded in the State of the Union in January 2003. Arguing that our grounds were a violation of the cease fire has no basis in fact. Again no evidence you might prefer it to be that way but it is not up to you. GWB makes that decision and he told us why.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Buddy. I told you already that whether Bush made the right
case for the war was another matter. Try to follow the argument.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
Buddy. I told you already that whether Bush made the right
case for the war was another matter. Try to follow the argument.

earlier post by XPA
My argument was that this was not a pre-emptive attack. Hussein declared war on the United States. That war was never declared over

Perhaps you can see the source of my confusion.
The cease fire was signed by the UN, not the USA. We don't have the right to unilaterally revoke it. You also have no evidence he was in violation of the terms at the time we invaded, do you?

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
It's not really necessary for me to have that. My argument was that this was not a pre-emptive attack. Hussein declared war on the United States. That war was never declared over, though a
cease-fire agreement was made. Once breached, the agreement
ceases to apply. This leaves our countries at war.

If that was not enough,we gave Hussein a chance to comply completely before our strike. He did not. Instead, he fought and obstructed the inspections to the end. That is a violation of the
agreement. He didn't need to break them all the second
before the attack for the strike to be justified.

The war was legal. Whether Bush made a good enough case
for it is another question. Whether the democrats did what
they should have is another, but by law, the war was justified.

The war between North and South Korea was never declared over, though a cease-fire agreement was made. Would that make it legal for North Korea to invade the South?

 

[eric]

Would that make it legal for North Korea to invade the South?

Is South Korea in breech of the cease fire agreements ?

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by eric
Is South Korea in breech of the cease fire agreements ?

Each side claims the other has sent boats into the other's waters and has engaged in espionage activities contrary to the agreement. My guess is that South Korean claims are for the most part more credible, at least in recent years. Thankfully they have more sense than to use this as a premise for war.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by eric
Is South Korea in breech of the cease fire agreements ?

Can you demonstrate Iraq was in violation of the UN ceasefire at the time we invaded?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by dijetlo
Can you demonstrate Iraq was in violation of the UN ceasefire at the time we invaded?

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

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Hehe. Alright. In that case, the United States signed no cease-fire agreement and we are still at war.

 

[SLClemens]

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

In the past ten years the only point I can see proof of them not abiding is missiles with a range of more than 150 kilometers, and hte UN was in the process of destroying missiles that may have had a slightly longer range than this when they were pulled out.

So far no evidence has been found of Saddam stilll having Scuds.

 

[eric]

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

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

Is this not a violation ?

If the answer is yes then the argument ends, period !

 

[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

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by eric
How about the attacks on our planes in the no fly-zones?



Is this not a violation ?

If the answer is yes then the argument ends, period !

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

Their range was quite debatable, in any event. Some analysts said they could travel for up to 160 kilometers. In the end Saddam decided to let the UN destroy them. Is this an adequate argument for sending 450+ (and who knows how many in the future) Americans to their deaths in Iraq?

Thankfully we don't respond to Israel the same way when they break UN resolutions. I wouldn't even wan't to think about what the IDF would do to an equal number of US soldiers...

I'm sure hte North Koreans are learning some valuable lessons from all this - be strong and well organized and you can ignore the UN. Having no desireable resources also helps.