2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.
The entire military needed to be reoganized, all of the logistical details revised, deployments changed, etc. The US military, as left at the end of the cold war, was unsuited for the post-cold-war world.
We see that change even now -- the army is evolving from a division-based to a brigade-based deployment in order to be more flexible with a smaller footprint, necessitated by the changing demands of war.
Interesting statement, given that you've been trying (and failing) to support this notion all afternoon.And BTW, anyone who doesn't believe that former VP isn't a war-crazed lune who didn't get is two-pronged war just has a hard time accepting the reality of the deception that was and IS the Iraq War.
Last edited by Goobieman; 06-02-09 at 02:17 PM.
The Security Council never authorized the invasion.Are you referring to Iraq? No, but that's only because we had U.N. authorization to use military might. So, no, the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. was not illegal. Immoral, perhaps. Unnecessary...ditto, but illegal, no.
No, I haven't. It was just something I noticed from the Sept. 2000 PNAC report. This debate just took one of three progressive turns...from "Iraq involved with 9/11" to "who wanted a war in Iraq" to "U.S. military's capability to fight a 2-pronged war".
So, allow me to bluntly state my position on all three in summary:
- I don't believe the Iraqi gov't had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, but I do believe that the Bush-43 attempted to make a "reasonable" connection between the two early on and then backed off from their position when they couldn't find evidence to support same.
- I do believe that some within the Bush-43 administration wanted to go to war w/Iraq - some before G. W. Bush was elected president, he himself perhaps once he believed he had the presidency wrapped up.
- I do believe that the Bush Doctrine on the heels of the 2000 PNAC report called for a strong display of U.S. military might and the Iraq WMD situation provided the perfect timely vehicle to showcase that military power while already at arms against terrorist factions in Afghanistan.
Regardless on what you believe or how true or untrue you believe reports or one's arguments, the fact remains that the last time this country fought a 2-pronged war was WWII, and that was the most justified military action the world has ever seen. Somehow, I don't see Iraq on the same level of justified military superiority.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 06-02-09 at 02:42 PM.
The invasion was a violation of both UNSCR687 and the UN Charter.The UNSC doesn't have to authorize a war for it to be "legal".
The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).Show this to be true.
Let me also refer you to UN Resolution 687:
"6. Notes that as soon as the Secretary-General notifies the Security Council of the completion of the deployment of the United Nations observer unit, the conditions will be established for the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end consistent with resolution 686 (1991);
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);
34. Decides 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."
Paragraph 6 clearly states that upon the "deployment of the United Nations observer unit" the Member States (including the US) must "bring their military presence in Iraq to an end consistent with resolution 686 (1991)." Paragraph 33 declares the cease-fire. Paragraph 34 states that the Security Council will "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." This gives full authority to the Security Council with regards to the securement of "peace and security in the area". As a member of the UN, the US was obligated to comply with the Resolution and with the Charter as well, which states that the only use of force justifiable is in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. The US had neither.
EDIT: Fixed formatting.
Last edited by Khayembii Communique; 06-02-09 at 02:53 PM.
Yes, and yes. Relevance?Regardless on what you believe or how true or untrue you believe reports or one's arguments, the fact remains that last time this country fought a 2-pronged war was WWII, and that was the most justified military action the world has ever seen.
Let's hope there's NEVER a war as justified as WW2 --- but, understanding that, having said that, a war not need be as justified as WW2 in order to be justified.Somehow, I don't see Iraq on the same level of justified military superiority.
Given the situation, going into Iraq was the right thing to do. As I stated before, it wasnt until it was clear that GWB was actually going to do something about Iraq was there ever any question about the threat posed by Iraq --- and so, the 'questions' raised once there was a significant chance of war indicate any number of things, not the least of which was a lack of REAL desire for people to actually DO something about the monsters they are so happy to otherwise complain about.
Consider, for a moment, had the international community been more serious about Iraq from 1993-2001, with a degree of backbone and an urgency of action regarding the threat that everyone agreed was present, there might not have been a war in 2003.
Last edited by Goobieman; 06-02-09 at 02:55 PM.