If no WMD found; will Bush be made out to be a liar?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Darius871


However, as was already mentioned, Americans weren't the ONLY potential enemy Iraq was planning on. Iran and Syria have chemical weapons, and Iraq was probably just being prepared for any contingency when keeping its chem suits.

Yes, but they were carrying the gas masks and nerve agent antidotes in combat against American and British forces.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned


This is a very good question and goes to the heart of the matter. Clearly for 1441 stated that Iraq was material violation of its obligations under UN resolutions. The question therefore was what was the appropriate remedy. The UN Security Council divided on that issue. No remedy was available through the UN Security Council. Does this mean that Iraq is free to continue to violate international law? If the question to answer this question is no, then how does one enforce international law when the UN itself is incapable of doing so?

The United States and Britain have adopted the position, first in Kosovo and now with Iraq, that a coalition of nations can legally enforce international law when the UN has been given an opportunity to do so and does not or cannot act.

The French, German's and Russians clearly strongly disagree with this position, particularly because it strips France and Russia of their veto.

No doubt, we haven't heard the end of this debate. However, Kosovo seems to have been a success. Iraq also seems to be a success in progress. But whether this provides a legal basis for the future is questionable for the very reason that France, Germany, Russia and many other countries do not agree with the action of the coalition.

It does not just strip these countries of their veto. It strips the U.N. of power to prevent countries from acting without U.N. authority. All the countries in the security council became powerless to stop the U.S. by democratic vote. The majority of the world became powerless against the will of the U.S. government.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


GePap, I know we've been through this before, but your position seems to reduce the following:

The United States should not be concerned about other nations developing of weapons of mass destruction except to the extent that a particular country involved directly threatens the United States in some fashion. I assume, for example, that you would be in favor of doing something about Fidel Castro basing nuclear weapons in Cuba. But beyond this, you would not support United States action, either alone or in cooperation with others, to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

You are moslty correct. We have no evidence whatsoever that Iraq did anytihg to porliferate any sorts of weapons, biological, chemical, nuclear, or missile technology. Unilateral force to enfrce non-ploriferation is a doomed act, as long as the Us keeps doing things like acrapping weapons treaties, or doing this like developing low yield nukes (which becomes in theory, weapons we could use). The world won;t toplarte hypocrasy, and as INdia and Pakistan prove, we don;t have the intelliegence to actually know how far the programs of other nations have gone.

I support actions if done with international legitimacy, since then, they are defacto legal and have international support. I do not support the sort of "coolition of the willing" or "whom can we cajole, bribe and so forth to join us in our little adventure" efforts, since they udnermine the international order, and I can;t see how undermining the order that makes us paramount helps us in any significant way, and we won;t be paramount for ever either, so why not try to create an order that will be seen as legitimate in the future that helps us, instead of an order built only on our current, but temporary, power?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ned

Yes, but they were carrying the gas masks and nerve agent antidotes in combat against American and British forces.

The way I read it, thousands of masks and suits were found en masse in schools, hospitals, etc., and NOT distributed to Iraqi troops. This should go to show that they only had the suits in the country as a precaution, and didn't expect to need them in this war.

[Japher]

I thought thousands of the suits were found in schools, hospitals, etc., and not distributed to all the troops. This should go to show that they only had the suits in the country as a precaution, and didn't expect to need them in this war.

Also note that the Iraqii's used schools, hospitals, churches, etc. as military bases so that the US would not attack them due to UN crap...

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


I support actions if done with international legitimacy, since then, they are defacto legal and have international support. I do not support the sort of "coolition of the willing" or "whom can we cajole, bribe and so forth to join us in our little adventure" efforts, since they udnermine the international order.

Then, I take it, we should turn the NK matter over to Annan and the UN SC?

[GePap]

No, but I would not support an unilateral attack on NK without council approval (which would really mean China) and obviously SK.

The US can act diplomatically with homwever without ever bringing the UN in. But acting militarilly, that is different, unless we are acting in self-defense (real self-defense, not made up, "future nebulous threat self defense")

[Ned]

Does self-defense include defending against threats to our allies, like Japan and South Korea?

[Master Zen]

What threats Ned? Please, tell me, what threats??? Have you ever thought that just as SK and the US considers NK missiles a threat to the region, then so does NK think of the US's carrier battle groups based on Yokosuka, the 2nd Infantry Division based in Korea and the plethora of Air Force fighters and bombers which could be deployed in the event of war? (not to mention the thousands of nuclear warheads which can be targeted at NK in an instant) Sheesh man, you don't seem to get it do you, that other countries are just as paranoid of the US as the US is of them, and just as the US feels it has the right to flex its muscles to persuade those countries to do as they wish, the other countries have the exact same right to do so? My god, step out of your little "the US can do it but others can't" mentality, it really makes your arguments look moronic.

[Ned]

Master Zen, I'm sorry, I'm not going to dignify that with a response.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
Does self-defense include defending against threats to our allies, like Japan and South Korea?

Yes, since they are allies and we have defense obligation with them. Nothing wrong with carrying out our diplomatic obligations.

[Spiffor]

Ned :
Master Zen has a point. Do not forget NK is exceptioanlly paranoid, and its recent behaviour can be explained to some extent by the fear of an American attack.
You may say "the NKers have it coming, they should change their threatening behaviour to avoid such a fate". But be aware a NKer could say "The Yanks have it coming, they should change their threatening behaviour to avoid such a fate".
Both are equally valid statements. If NK had the possiblity, I'm sure they'd be tempted by starting a pre-emptive war to deter the American threat. It probably sounds utterly silly to you, but I'm sure it sound perfectly cohesive to Pyongyang's Joe.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Ned :
Master Zen has a point. Do not forget NK is exceptioanlly paranoid, and its recent behaviour can be explained to some extent by the fear of an American attack.

Spiffor, in this case I do not think that North Korea is being paranoid at all. We have not taken the military option off the table and they know that.

What is perverse about the situation is that they seem to think they can prevent an attack by continuing to develop nuclear weapons and missile systems to deliver those weapons. Somehow I think they got the lesson of Iraq backwards.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
What is perverse about the situation is that they seem to think they can prevent an attack by continuing to develop nuclear weapons and missile systems to deliver those weapons. Somehow I think they got the lesson of Iraq backwards.

To me, they seem to think they can prevent an attack by having nuclear weapons and missile systems. In this sense, they have the Iraqi lesson straight : If you threaten of being threatening, the US will get you. If you are threatening, the US won't.

Please notice that I cannot criticize the US for appeasing NK, since it is absolutely normal they don't want LA to be nuked (or even Tokyo for that matter).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
What is perverse about the situation is that they seem to think they can prevent an attack by continuing to develop nuclear weapons and missile systems to deliver those weapons. Somehow I think they got the lesson of Iraq backwards.

They got it right. Consider this:

Iraq -> no nuclear weapons -> gets invaded
DPRK -> nuclear weapons -> talks under way

Is there any other conclusion that you could draw from this?