The Iraq War retrospective Thread

[Chesspiece_face]

It would have been worth discussing if say you had any position in the middle ground. But, your post and its extreme view means that no, there is no middle ground worth discussing. It's beyond my capability to reason with you if that is your position.

Lets be perfectly clear that your position is equally extreme and you have as well been equally in refusal to taking any steps towards a middle ground. Demanding that someone concede their position before a debate can even begin while you make no effort at equal concession is hypocritical at best and decays quickly from there to wilfull ignorance.

[Jester]

It would have been worth discussing if say you had any position in the middle ground. But, your post and its extreme view means that no, there is no middle ground worth discussing. It's beyond my capability to reason with you if that is your position.

It was clear you missed the concepts of "Just cause" because the author even discussed your misinterpretation of it. The author, refutes every point you make. Which leads me to believe you didn't read it at all before posting.

If you would care to point me to where you are getting this, it would be appreciated. A quick read of the article reveals no such refutation. Perhaps its in the footnotes somewhere. Most of the article appears to be dealing with ways in which otherwise just wars become unjust due to failure in dealing with the postwar situation, the necessity of Jus Post Bellum legitimacy. Fine and good, I agree, but not the point here, except that the failure to establish such a peace will simply be another failure of the Iraq war in terms of legitimacy.

And no, I didn't read it at all prior to now, except to find the immediate citation you gave, and its surrounding context. Since you presented the 6 principles "for discussion", and merely indicated where you got it from, I thought that was what you wanted to discuss. Apparently you were just setting a tiger trap, but nevermind that, if this is what you'd actually like, then fine.

I am willing to accept the idea that there exist just wars. I am not willing to accept that the criteria for them are very malleable, and if you're wanting to claim that Iraq was such a war, you'll have to do better than just yelling "gotcha" when I don't read every article you link to. This is not me being inflexible, it is me applying well-accepted notions of Just War to the Iraq conflict, rather than simply making excuses for the United States.

-Jester

[swirly]

If you would care to point me to where you are getting this, it would be appreciated. A quick read of the article reveals no such refutation. Perhaps its in the footnotes somewhere.

I'm not wishing to take either side, but a quick browse did lead me to a footnote that may be something he is referring to. Specifically the second paragraph, but I'm including the whole footnote for some vague context.

48 See JOHNSON, supra note 1, at 24. For example, the criterion of just cause permits a
nation to respond in self-defense when confronted with an external armed attack. See
supra note 46 and accompanying text (discussing just cause). This parallels the general
concepts embodied in Articles 2 and 51 of the U.N. Charter. Article 2(3) of the U.N.
Charter states: “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means
in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”
U.N. Charter art. 2, para. 3. Article 2(4) notes: “All Members shall refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes
of the United Nations.” Id. art. 2, para. 4. The first sentence of Article 51 of the U.N.
Charter, however, adds: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the
United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
international peace and security.” Id. art. 51.
The concept of proper authority is interesting and debatable. Can the United States,
acting unilaterally, be a proper authority? Must the United Nations Security Council
sanction every action? See JOHNSON, supra note 1, at 58-63 (observing that the United
Nations lacks the cohesion, sovereignty, and chain of command necessary to be a
competent proper authority under the just war tradition); Weigel, supra note 29 (arguing
that prior U.N. authority to use force is not required before a state acts); see also TEMES,
supra note 14, at 15-16 (arguing that although the term proper authority may have once
accounted “for the idea that a Just War might also be undertaken by, as examples,
revolutionary movements, breakaway provinces, clans, tribal groups, or religious sects”
the form of war today in some way always involves nations and nations have become the
proper authorities). But see Dinstein, supra note 31, at 879 (arguing that the Security
Council is the only proper authority absent self-defense).

That could be read to say that the UN is not a valid proper authority and so things should be only considered in terms of the nation in question itself (in this case the US). Course the last line also is somebody saying the UN is the only proper authority. My point is more that there seems to be disagreement outside of those on this forum of if the UN is a valid proper authority. If you side with the people saying the proper authority is the US then you argueing in regard to the UN being the proper authority isn't going to count for much. Once again, not saying where I side personally. Just explaining that I can see where kandrathe could get some justification for saying that the use of the UN as a proper authority is disputed.

[Jester]

I'm not wishing to take either side, but a quick browse did lead me to a footnote that may be something he is referring to. Specifically the second paragraph, but I'm including the whole footnote for some vague context.
That could be read to say that the UN is not a valid proper authority and so things should be only considered in terms of the nation in question itself (in this case the US). Course the last line also is somebody saying the UN is the only proper authority. My point is more that there seems to be disagreement outside of those on this forum of if the UN is a valid proper authority. If you side with the people saying the proper authority is the US then you argueing in regard to the UN being the proper authority isn't going to count for much. Once again, not saying where I side personally. Just explaining that I can see where kandrathe could get some justification for saying that the use of the UN as a proper authority is disputed.

Thanks, that does clear some things up.

However, this merely raises the question of whether a nation, *in the case of an existing just cause for war*, can act without the United Nations authority. That would be an interesting case, and I would likely accept war from a nation whose case for just war was ironclad, but simply lacked the political support of the UN, or who was blocked by a veto. However, since the US does not have such a cause for war, it is somewhat irrelevant whether they would be justified in declaring war if they had one.

And, of course, it is only a footnoted list of arguments people of made, and is hardly itself a refutation of my argument. Some of the cited articles might have convincing arguments against me, but then, some of them obviously support my position on this issue. I haven't read them, so perhaps a more curious poster will weigh the arguments more carefully.

-Jester

[Zenda]

"Here is a CBC biography of Saddam for you. Here is a HRW article on The Mass Graves of al-Mahawil. But, that might be too much truth for you. Also, here is a Weekly Standard article attempting to estimate the number of lives saved by removing Saddam from power."

Allright, let's see.

From your first link:

"He nationalized the oil industry. He instituted a nation-wide literacy project, non-attendance punishable by three years in jail. Hundreds of thousands of illiterate Iraqi men, women and children learned to read. He advocated the building of schools, roads, public housing and hospitals. Iraq created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East. UNESCO gave him an award."

Obviously a monster of a man, bad enough to destroy a whole nation for.

From your second link:

"The mass executions documented in this report took place at a time when the Iraqi government was in great turmoil. Its infrastructure and its military were severely damaged from the effects of the first Gulf War and many of its local officials in the south were killed during the 1991 uprisings."

So, because we had made it impossible for them to deal with (USA supported) rebellions in a decent way, they had to resort to these crimes. Terrible. He should have let his country fall into civil war, ofcourse, just like we wanted.

From your third link:

"U.N. economic sanctions were also killing civilians. Critics regularly claimed sanctions caused 4,000 to 5,000 Iraqi children to die per month from poor nutrition and health care. UNICEF attributed some 500,000 unnecessary deaths to the sanctions in the 1990s. The sanctions remained in place as long as Saddam's regime refused to comply with international requirements. Liberation made it possible to lift the sanctions almost immediately--thus saving approximately 60,000 lives a year, if we use UNICEF's numbers."

So, because he didn't turn himself in to be hanged, he is responsible for all the lives we took in retaliation. Makes sense, yes.


"So, by a conservative estimate, the regime was killing civilians at an average rate of at least 16,000 a year between 1979 and March 2003."

By extremely conservative estimate, the number of violent deaths between 2003 and 2008 was over 100000. That's 20000 a year. The real number may be 5 to 10 times as high, unfortunately.

"The war was caused by spineless bureaucrats who corrupted the oil for food program, and through ineptitude or greed caused the enforcement of sanctions to fail."

Do you even know why the USA has always been opposed to the (perfectly fine) Oil for Food program? Have you looked up 'petrodollar' on the internet? Let me explain.

Trading Iraq's oil for food and other stuff meant that there were no dollars involved. So, the USA could make no profit from 10% of the world's oil transactions. That's an awful lot of money, and extremely dangerous if other countries decide to do the same. Punishment was inevitable, and it would also serve as a warning to others.

Venezuela is doing the same, btw. Fortunately for them, their share in the oil market is not big enough to provoke the USA sufficiently.

[kandrathe]

"He nationalized the oil industry. He instituted a nation-wide literacy project, non-attendance punishable by three years in jail. Hundreds of thousands of illiterate Iraqi men, women and children learned to read. He advocated the building of schools, roads, public housing and hospitals. Iraq created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East. "

Yup, even monsters need to show the facade of progressive reform. Nationalizing the oil industry means he kicked out western companies and stole the wealth for himself. Literacy at the end of a gun, how magnanimous. And, UNESCO even gave him an award! UNESCO gave him an award for eradicating illiteracy by force. Maybe that would work for health care? BTW... How did Riyadh Ibrahim Hussein die?

"The mass executions documented in this report took place at a time when the Iraqi government was in great turmoil. Its infrastructure and its military were severely damaged from the effects of the first Gulf War and many of its local officials in the south were killed during the 1991 uprisings."

Um, did you read the HRW report? Yes, some people were involved in the uprising, but the HRW story is more of the mothers, daughters and children who were murdered by Special Republican Guard forces led by Qusay Hussein. What they did was go town by town and round up people randomly and bring them to an area where they murdered and buried them. They didn't care who the people were or even question them other than to record their identities.

So, because we had made it impossible for them to deal with (USA supported) rebellions in a decent way, they had to resort to these crimes. Terrible. He should have let his country fall into civil war, of course, just like we wanted.

Sorry, are you trying to justify the Iraqi murders of unknown thousands of people by blaming the US? "Following the defeat of the rebellions in the north and south, the government began indiscriminately arresting tens of thousands of persons on suspicion of supporting the rebellion. Because of the active role played by Shi`a soldiers and deserters in the uprising, they were particularly targeted. In city after southern city, loyalist forces organized checkpoints and went house to house to round up suspects. Their arrest campaign was as indiscriminate as the firepower used to crush the rebellion. Countless civilians, at times entire families, were arrested and “disappeared.”

Note that it says "Following" the brutal crushing of the rebellion. Then the Special Republican Guard went on reprisal killing spree. Did we force Hitler to exterminate the Jews too?

"U.N. economic sanctions were also killing civilians. Critics regularly claimed sanctions caused 4,000 to 5,000 Iraqi children to die per month from poor nutrition and health care. UNICEF attributed some 500,000 unnecessary deaths to the sanctions in the 1990s. The sanctions remained in place as long as Saddam's regime refused to comply with international requirements. Liberation made it possible to lift the sanctions almost immediately--thus saving approximately 60,000 lives a year, if we use UNICEF's numbers." So, because he didn't turn himself in to be hanged, he is responsible for all the lives we took in retaliation.

Ah, so war is bad, and sanctions are bad. What is your proposal for dealing with someone like Saddam? Angry letters? March around Piccadilly with signs and loudspeakers? There was an alternative. He might have complied with the UN's demands which were not for him to be hanged and would have left him in charge. When the US gave him the ultimatum to leave Iraq, he could have gone into exile to any nation that would have him.

"So, by a conservative estimate, the regime was killing civilians at an average rate of at least 16,000 a year between 1979 and March 2003."

By extremely conservative estimate, the number of violent deaths between 2003 and 2008 was over 100000. That's 20000 a year. The real number may be 5 to 10 times as high, unfortunately.

And... Who is killing the people? This is a case of "How to lie with statistics" --> (read more) "In other words, the death rate in Iraq today is less than half of the rate suffered under Saddam"

Do you even know why the USA has always been opposed to the (perfectly fine) Oil for Food program? Have you looked up 'petrodollar' on the internet? Let me explain.

Trading Iraq's oil for food and other stuff meant that there were no dollars involved. So, the USA could make no profit from 10% of the world's oil transactions. That's an awful lot of money, and extremely dangerous if other countries decide to do the same. Punishment was inevitable, and it would also serve as a warning to others.

Venezuela is doing the same, btw. Fortunately for them, their share in the oil market is not big enough to provoke the USA sufficiently.

Ahem, from the Wikipedia... "The programme was introduced by United States President Bill Clinton's administration in 1995, as a response to arguments that ordinary Iraqi citizens were inordinately affected by the international economic sanctions aimed at the demilitarisation of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War." (link)

Why would the US introduce a program if we were against it?

From the Duelfer report, "The final official version of the report cites only France, Russia and China (countries who were also strongly anti-war) as violators who paid kickbacks The Duelfer report's list (volume 1, annex B, p. 302) of all "Known Oil Voucher Recipients" includes each recipient's nationality, as well as a chart broken down by nationality (figure 16, p.166). The list indicates that 30 percent of the recipients were Russian; 15 percent were French; 10 percent were Chinese; 6 percent each were Swiss, Malaysian, and Syrian; and 4 percent each were Jordanian and Egyptian. American and German recipients were included in the approximate 20 percent of "recipients from other nations."

So, the same nations that stood firmly against war with Iraq in upholding Resolution 1441, were also heavily involved in getting kick backs on corrupt oil sales. Then, there was also the outright smuggling of oil from Iraq.

[Zenda]

"Nationalizing the oil industry means he kicked out western companies and stole the wealth for himself"

Are you saying the oil didn't belong to Iraq, but to western oil companies? And you still insist the war had nothing to do with oil or profit?

"Literacy at the end of a gun, how magnanimous. And, UNESCO even gave him an award! UNESCO gave him an award for eradicating illiteracy by force. Maybe that would work for health care?"

It said punishable by 3 years jail. It said that because of it, many Iraqis learned to read and write. It says nowhere that people were threatened, shot, or actually sent to jail. It also doesn't say why UNESCO gave the award. Do you often see things that aren't there?

"Um, did you read the HRW report?"

Did you? You don't seem to agree with it. Also, in none of the links you provided there is actual evidence shown that it really was Saddam Hussein who was responsible. All it says is that many of the deaths are from the time that he was in power, and that a few of the mass graves are big enough to suspect that autorities were involved. That's all. But as we have seen these last years, shooting others and dumping them in a hole is quite popular over there. And don't forget that Saddam Hussein was never convicted for all of this. There wasn't any proof, so they had to use a single attack on a village, in 1982, where hundreds (not thousands) were killed.

"When the US gave him the ultimatum to..."

The US doesn't have the right to give ultimatums. But seriously, do you really think a blackmail scheme like this was going to work? Wasn't he a dictator that didn't care for his people? Trying to force him by hurting those people must seem like a bad plan, if you believe all that.

"In other words, the death rate in Iraq today is less than half of the rate suffered under Saddam"

Doesn't look like a reliable site, where you got this from. Lots of advertising and one-sided opinions, but no sources. A banner that counts the days since Obama was in Iraq? How insinuating can you be, without being ridiculous?

But let's take a look at that claim. According to your numbers, before the war 16000 lives a year were lost. So, that should be 8000 a year since the invasion, or some 40000 between 2003 and 2008. That's odd, because estimates for that period range from 150000 to 1000000. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

"The programme was introduced by United States President Bill Clinton's administration in 1995"

I didn't know that, but I did know that Clinton wasn't the worst president of the USA, and maybe the best in the past decades. Anyway, back then they propably didn't realize all the consequences, or maybe they thought the oil trading would be mostly with the USA.

"...heavily involved in getting kick backs on corrupt oil sales. Then, there was also the outright smuggling of oil from Iraq."

What are corrupt oils sales? Transactions that don't involve dollars? And the smuggling? Did they use invisible tankers for that? Either way, I don't see what this has to do with the Food for Oil program.

Ah well, this discussion is getting rather pointless. Isn't your time better spent looking for reasons to declare war on Iran?

[kandrathe]

"Nationalizing the oil industry means he kicked out western companies and stole the wealth for himself" Are you saying the oil didn't belong to Iraq, but to western oil companies? And you still insist the war had nothing to do with oil or profit?

Well, yes Virginia, it was the Iraqi's oil. And, they parleyed their untapped wealth by signing deals with western companies to come in and invest in building the oil industry infrastructure. Then, overnight, Saddam decided to change the deal to "I get it all", and thanks so much for helping. Hugo Chavez, another hero of the socialist elite, also stripped legitimate standing contracts to nationalize the oil and put it at his personal disposal. Do I insist the war had nothing to do with oil? No. The war involved oil, because it generates wealth, and wealth can be translated into power, and power is an intoxicant to a tyrant. Is the US in Iraq to rob their oil? No. BTW, are you a Chomskyite?

"Literacy at the end of a gun, how magnanimous. And, UNESCO even gave him an award! UNESCO gave him an award for eradicating illiteracy by force. Maybe that would work for health care?" It said punishable by 3 years jail. It said that because of it, many Iraqis learned to read and write. It says nowhere that people were threatened, shot, or actually sent to jail. It also doesn't say why UNESCO gave the award. Do you often see things that aren't there?

Or, maybe its the truth? See Page 9, KRUPSKAYA Prize -- 1979 -- Supreme Council of the National Campaign for Compulsory Literacy of Iraq I suggest you remove your head from... the sand. How would you like to spend 3 years in an Iraqi jail? You do know that there was very little chance of emerging from them right?

"Um, did you read the HRW report?" Did you? You don't seem to agree with it. Also, in none of the links you provided there is actual evidence shown that it really was Saddam Hussein who was responsible. All it says is that many of the deaths are from the time that he was in power, and that a few of the mass graves are big enough to suspect that authorities were involved. That's all. But as we have seen these last years, shooting others and dumping them in a hole is quite popular over there. And don't forget that Saddam Hussein was never convicted for all of this. There wasn't any proof, so they had to use a single attack on a village, in 1982, where hundreds (not thousands) were killed.

OMG! You feel free to Bush bash everything, because he's the President and you know crap rolls uphill. But, in this case, poor maligned Saddam hadn't a clue about the hundreds of thousands of detained and executed civilians. Hundreds? Do you know how many mass graves sites they uncovered? 270 so far. (link) What you've shown me is that you are entirely clueless of the Iraqi security apparatus and how short the chain was to the Tikriti mob and Saddam's inner circle. Please, please, buy a clue!

"If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II."

"When the US gave him the ultimatum to..." The US doesn't have the right to give ultimatums. But seriously, do you really think a blackmail scheme like this was going to work? Wasn't he a dictator that didn't care for his people? Trying to force him by hurting those people must seem like a bad plan, if you believe all that.

Your word choice is telling. Why doesn't the US have the right to give another country an ultimatum? You also don't seem to have a clue about how nations go to war, or why. You don't see it as an attempt by the US before unleashing its might to give Saddam one last out before subjecting his nation to the horrors of war. No, you see it as blackmail.

"In other words, the death rate in Iraq today is less than half of the rate suffered under Saddam" Doesn't look like a reliable site, where you got this from. Lots of advertising and one-sided opinions, but no sources. A banner that counts the days since Obama was in Iraq? How insinuating can you be, without being ridiculous?

Ah, you take the tactic of denouncing the site, rather than look at the veracity of the data contained. Maybe if I linked to Pravda you would believe it? Here is an interview with James Dunnigan on Mother Jones (link). Is that left wing enough for you? I mean if Mother Jones gives him an interview, does he have credibility now?

But let's take a look at that claim. According to your numbers, before the war 16000 lives a year were lost. So, that should be 8000 a year since the invasion, or some 40000 between 2003 and 2008. That's odd, because estimates for that period range from 150000 to 1000000. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

The 16,000 per year was just from Saddam's murders. You need to include all non-state murders to get an apples to apples comparison. Your low number of 150,000 over 6 years would be 25,000 per year, which is probably too small. The high number is ludicrously exaggerated. There is probably some level of error in the assumption that the post war Iraqi death rate (due to violence other than war), is 45/100000. But, from your same link, "The United Nations reported that 34,452 violent deaths occurred in 2006, based on data from morgues, hospitals, and municipal authorities across Iraq." So, let's assume that it was higher from 2003 to 2005 and has dropped to around the UN 2006 figure. Many of the individuals killed were killed by insurgents. Many were killed in gun battles with coalition forces. Many were murdered in rampant lawlessness. The population of Iraq is 27,499,638, and even discounting this is a war zone the violent death rate is 34,452 / 27,499,638 = 0.00125, or 125 violent deaths per 100,000 people. It is high when comparing to the worst places in the world whose murder rates are around 80 to 90 per 100,000 (including Washington DC -- who also had a gun ban until recently). Consider Sudan whose death rate in 2007 is estimated to be 14.39 deaths/1,000 people.

"The programme was introduced by United States President Bill Clinton's administration in 1995" I didn't know that, but I did know that Clinton wasn't the worst president of the USA, and maybe the best in the past decades. Anyway, back then they probably didn't realize all the consequences, or maybe they thought the oil trading would be mostly with the USA.

Nope, you didn't know that. And, according to you, that person and all his advisers who "wasn't the worst president of the USA" was too stupid to understand the oil economy. Or, maybe your petrodollars argument is bunk.

"...heavily involved in getting kick backs on corrupt oil sales. Then, there was also the outright smuggling of oil from Iraq." What are corrupt oils sales? Transactions that don't involve dollars? And the smuggling? Did they use invisible tankers for that? Either way, I don't see what this has to do with the Food for Oil program.

Oh, I don't know. Corruption? Kick backs? Bribes? Influence peddling? Buying votes on the security council? How would you feel if some large company was handing your local politician tons of money for future deals?

Ah well, this discussion is getting rather pointless. Isn't your time better spent looking for reasons to declare war on Iran?

If you say so. :) Or, maybe the truth is dashing your illusions. Haven't you read the extreme fringe liberal literati? The next war will be launched once we figure out how to fake another 9/11 and pin it on Iran.

[Thecla]

The next war will be launched once we figure out how to fake another 9/11 and pin it on Iran.

Or, perhaps, when we use an attack from terrorists based in Pakistan as an excuse to invade Iran.;)

[Vandiablo]

Or, perhaps, when we use an attack from terrorists based in Pakistan as an excuse to invade Iran.;)

...and the attack is virtually guaranteed to happen before the 1st of November.

[Jester]

Or, perhaps, when we use an attack from terrorists based in Pakistan as an excuse to invade Iran.;)

Who needs that? Israel and Iran are going to annhilate each other in a great multiethnic holocaust of nuclear fire before the year is out, at the rate things are going.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Who needs that? Israel and Iran are going to annhilate each other in a great multiethnic holocaust of nuclear fire before the year is out, at the rate things are going.

Yeah, but you also need to worry about China trying to make a play for control of the petrodollars.

[Thecla]

Yeah, but you also need to worry about China trying to make a play for control of the petrodollars.

No need to worry about that --- China already owns half-a-trillion dollars of US Treasury Securities. Well, the US did have to borrow all that money for the Iraq war from somewhere, right?

[Occhidiangela]

Look up "Policy for a New American Century", you'll see it was all telegraphed back in '97 or there abouts.

PNAC is the Project for a New American Century. It makes the google easier to get the words right. :)

[Occhidiangela]

Kofi Annan, as Secretary-General, declared that the war was illegal by the charter. The US did not have the Security Council's permission to declare a war of aggression, and did it anyway. The charter (to which the US is signatory) says you can't do that. What part of this am I confusing?

-Jester

The simple fact that you tend to ignore, that the UN war of 1991 wasn't finished. Failure to comply with ceasefire and UNSCR's was a commonplace starting by day ninety of the first ceasefire's expiry. You will note that the trade embargo on Iraq was an explicit UNSC action, and was to be lifted upon Saddam's government complying with the terms of the cease fire.

Who got the red arse from the usual gutless, bleeding hearts in the Greek Chorus for supporting this marvelous UN, and this rule of law, these holy UNSC sanctions? The US.

There is a similar problem in Korea, has been since 1953. No armistice. A cease fire, and that's it.

The UN, specifically the UNSC, and this an included problem of American security policy from 1991-2003 is culpable in all of its variations, lacked the political will to support UNSC decrees. This is sorta like the sheriff turining a blind eye when the coon gets lynched in Mississippi, circa 1930. Kofi Annan and Boutrous By Golly are both as useless as teats on a bull. The real players,

UK
Russia
China
France
US

likewise emulated the bull teat once the initial cease fire was agreed at Safwan. W's dad, Clinton, and their entire security apparatus let the coon get lynched. (Some of them were Sunni shortly after the war.) And the bleeding hearts played along.

The UN could not prevent NATO from attacking Serbia in 1999. How special is your UN now, Jester?

Putting one's faith in the UN is a phenomenally stupid idea: ask any Rwandan, or the folk of Darfur.

Who needs that? Israel and Iran are going to annhilate each other in a great multiethnic holocaust of nuclear fire before the year is out, at the rate things are going.

-Jester

Works for me, except for a few problems in reality.

Iran hasn't the nukes, hasn't the means to deliver them, and hasn't the air force C2 to defeat the Israeli IAD network.

Israel doesn't have enough bombs, nor missiles, to do as you suggest. See also the problem of whose airspace Israel has to go through to get to Iran.

What you suggest is a cabal between Turkey and Israel, or between Israel and the Saudis, or between the US, Jordan, and Israel, (the US still owns the airspace over Iraq, nothing Maliki can do about it) to close eyes and let the IAF fly in.

The radar networks in the Mid East are significantly more robust and sophisticated since the 1981 Osirik raid, thanks in a great part due to the US selling missiles and radars to pretty much every one there, and to the Russians selling some good missile systems to Iran.

Are you subscribing to the Conspiracy Theory that the Israeils, Jordanians and US will violate Iraqi airspace and attack Iran?

LOOK AT A MAP! One of the three under the table deals have to be cut or this IAF attack on Iran is dead in the water, and sure as hell not covert. Covert and clever is how the Osirik raid happened.

Syria recently had a problem with an IAF attack on "some building somewhere" that had none of those obstacles, as the IAF had no one else's airspace to deal with. Also, timeline for a local op is very short. Not so in this chimerical attack on Iran.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I don't need to justify the starting of a war. I claimed Saddam, and his Tikriti mob were scumbags who deserved their fate.

Then the game is to body snatch them.

Two men well in the public eye, both of whom were far better versed in foreign policy and bayonets than you or I, Anthony Zinni and James Webb (there were others, but those were two men I have met) were publically and vocally opposed to the war in Iraq due not to any silly moral argument, like what is going on in this thread, but from a powerful practical geotstrategic argument:

By taking out Iraq, Iran's core rival is neutralized, and the biggest pain in the nose to American policy in the Persian Gulf, Iran, wins out by default, all risks of Iraq fragmenting like Yugoslavia being extra salt in the wound. Containment worked for 40 years vs the USSR, and has worked more or less for fifty plus years versus North Korea. The argument for "why now" was never answered. Please do a search on my name, and the "why now" question on this forum if you like.

The policy decision to implement democracy at the point of a bayonet was a gamble, not a risk, that assumed away a lot of unpleasantness within the borders of what is called "Iraq" due to British lines on a map.

Saddam being deposed as a good thing, sorta, but two things that attended it are not so good:

Five straight years of Civil War in Iraq
Saddam's hanging, and the political message that sent: yeah, it was a lynchmob we supported by going over there.

A variety of lesser bad things have also come out of this Iraq war, which need not be listed here.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

...and the attack is virtually guaranteed to happen before the 1st of November.

I'll bet you a hundred American dollars that you are wrong.

Loser forwards a check or paypal to Bolty to defray costs of running the Lounge.

Care to put your money where your crystal ball is, Van?

Occhi

[Jester]

The simple fact that you tend to ignore, that the UN war of 1991 wasn't finished.

First, that makes so very little sense. Like Korea, the 1991 war was only "ongoing" in the strict diplomatic sense that there was no peace treaty. The actual war part of the 1991 war ended a decade before 2003, and it's silly to pretend otherwise.

Second, if you're going to go with 2003 being a continuation of 1991, then it was the UN's business to "continue" the war, or let it drop. The US no more gets to make this decision than any other random nation.

Failure to comply with ceasefire and UNSCR's was a commonplace starting by day ninety of the first ceasefire's expiry. You will note that the trade embargo on Iraq was an explicit UNSC action, and was to be lifted upon Saddam's government complying with the terms of the cease fire.

Yes. And that was everyone doing what they were supposed to: the UN was deciding what happens with its own ceasefire, declaring sanctions, just as it has every right to do

The UN could not prevent NATO from attacking Serbia in 1999. How special is your UN now, Jester?

Putting one's faith in the UN is a phenomenally stupid idea: ask any Rwandan, or the folk of Darfur.
Works for me, except for a few problems in reality.

And putting your faith in the US is turning out to be a real winner. Ask the Iraqis.

I don't believe the UN is some super awesome "special" institution that wins every fight, walks on water, and dispenses holy justice from its fingertips. It is, however, the highest body of international law in the world.

Israel doesn't have enough bombs, nor missiles, to do as you suggest. See also the problem of whose airspace Israel has to go through to get to Iran.

Are you subscribing to the Conspiracy Theory that the Israeils, Jordanians and US will violate Iraqi airspace and attack Iran?

Well, it would hardly be a conspiracy on the Israeli end; they've said they'd do it. Ditto the Iranians. For the rest, I have no idea. I'm not making a serious prediction here, more a tongue-in-cheek world's-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket comment.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

First, that makes so very little sense. Like Korea, the 1991 war was only "ongoing" in the strict diplomatic sense that there was no peace treaty. The actual war part of the 1991 war ended a decade before 2003, and it's silly to pretend otherwise.

As Patton said to the press . . .

Jester, understanding has been in front of you for nearly five years. It's in my sig.

In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--

War is a political act of force. Are we getting anywhere?

Second, if you're going to go with 2003 being a continuation of 1991, then it was the UN's business to "continue" the war, or let it drop. The US no more gets to make this decision than any other random nation.

Until you grasp that politics is about power, and not about ideology, I can't help you. The excuse of 12 years of non action by the UN, collectively, is one of the reasons given for someone "doing something" rather than just "standing there." Enough people bought it to make it politically possible, see above, war is a political act, to include an interesting collection of NATO allies.

How soon they forget.

Yes. And that was everyone doing what they were supposed to: the UN was deciding what happens with its own ceasefire, declaring sanctions, just as it has every right to do

The UN decides nothing, typically, but to have tea and wring its hands. When a power decides to do something, then things happen. Note who is on the UNSC. Mostly, Powers. The UN is a tool, at best. It was so designed.

And putting your faith in the US is turning out to be a real winner. Ask the Iraqis.

You note that they didn't have a choice in that matter, so try again, will you please, for an analogy that fits?

What they, the people living in Iraq, had a choice in was fighting in a civil war once Saddam's power was broken.

That, they chose to do once the opportunity was presented. So like Yugoslavia -- but in Arabic. We discussed the risk of that before the war, on this forum, as a troubling possible outcome of imposing democracy at the point of bayonet.

I don't believe the UN is some super awesome "special" institution that wins every fight, walks on water, and dispenses holy justice from its fingertips. It is, however, the highest body of international law in the world.

That is a falsehood.

Care to try again?

If you cannot grasp what the UN actually is, then you cannot pretend to figure out what it can and can't, will or won't, be able to do. It is a once exclusive club that now lets pretty much anyone in, but some members are more equal than others.

It's at best Orwellian soup. Citations of "law" are pretense for action and power plays.

Well, it would hardly be a conspiracy on the Israeli end; they've said they'd do it. Ditto the Iranians. For the rest, I have no idea. I'm not making a serious prediction here, more a tongue-in-cheek world's-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket comment.

Indeed it is, in a handbasket. Invest in asbestos futures.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

No need to worry about that --- China already owns half-a-trillion dollars of US Treasury Securities. Well, the US did have to borrow all that money for the Iraq war from somewhere, right?

Cool. I'd rather be China's pit bull, than their mutton dinner.