Iraq War a Mistake

[Toontown]

No, sorry. You are all over the place here. I have not said anything was 'criminally swept under the rug'. I'm not sure what that means. Sunmaster was implying that an illegal war can be ratified subsequently so that it becomes legal after all. I was simply asking for some authority for that proposition.

'criminally swept under the rug' would mean declaring war criminals the legal occupying force.

If they were actually war criminals, like Saddam. So, as I pointed out in my reduction to absurdity, it wouldn't be any different from declaring Iraq the legal occupying power of Kuwait. It would be an act of criminal complicity by the UNSC, as I already pointed out.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I prefer to think it simply has not occurred to you that the commander in chief has the authority to use whatever information he is provided to reach his own conclusions.

Reaching his own conclusions from information provided to him would not be lying. It would be reaching his own conclusions. Which is what he was elected to do.

Sort of like when Nixon said, "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

 

[Toontown]

It was a token coalition. It didn't exist. When you pretend a token thing is a real thing then you lie.

When you pretend a real thing is a token thing then you lie.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptic Ginger already posted this article and another one like it. I eviscerated the allegations here. She didn't do her homework and never examined the primary source (i.e. the interview with Chris Matthews), trusting instead in the honesty of partisan hacks at MotherJones and Salon. You have done the same, although in your case, the laziness and partisan bias is even more egregious. I mean it was only two pages ago that I gave my rebuttal.

In your dreams.

 

[Toontown]

Sort of like when Nixon said, "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

Nope. It's like when you look at the information you have, and reach your own conclusion. Like you're paid to do if you're president.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And now, quite predictably, you have committed the Nirvana Fallacy.

Your Nirvana Fallacy consists of comparing the "token" (well poisoning) coalition to another larger, ideal coalition, and based on the bogus comparison, declare the less numerous coalition nonexistent.

BTW: when you say something didn't exist, and you admittedly know it did exist, you have lied.

Even at the time this occurred, criticism of the padded coalition list was well known.

 

[Toontown]

This is really the most amazing bit of logic that I've seen posted on this forum. What are you trying to say here? That because you once believed Proposition A, and you changed your mind so now you don't, that all people who believe Proposition A are wrong? And not just wrong, but dishonest?

Yeah, I think that pretty much covers it. Sad and pathetic though it may be. And worse yet, he was overtly lying the whole time, claiming the coalition didn't exist while admitting he actually knew it existed.

 

[sunmaster14]

Having played the game myself I recognize it.

Well, finding myself in broad agreement with Toontown, I can say with conviction that I am not playing a game, and because I'm not, I suspect he isn't either. So how do you like them apples?

 

[Toontown]

Even at the time this occurred, criticism of the padded coalition list was well known.

At the time just about anything portentious occurs, criticism of whatever has occurred is usually well known.

Way to say nothing and make it look like...nothing.

 

[RandFan]

When you pretend a real thing is a token thing then you lie.

It wasn't a real thing. You are not now engaging me in any kind of good faith discussion so that's the last we talk.

 

[RandFan]

Well, finding myself in broad agreement with Toontown, I can say with conviction that I am not playing a game, and because I'm not, I suspect he isn't either. So how do you like them apples?

You most certainly are not trying to engage in a discussion. In any event, the "coalition" wasn't. It was a joke the world laughed at.

If you cannot move beyond rhetorical brow beating then this is all a waste of time. Would you like to have a reasonable discussion or win something?

 

[anglolawyer]

'criminally swept under the rug' would mean declaring war criminals the legal occupying force.

If they were actually war criminals, like Saddam. So, as I pointed out in my reduction to absurdity, it wouldn't be any different from declaring Iraq the legal occupying power of Kuwait. It would be an act of criminal complicity by the UNSC, as I already pointed out.

So, say a rogue state illegally invades another and in the course of doing so kills people, destroys property and commits other war crimes. Are you suggesting that a UN resolution purporting to wipe the slate clean would be effective in international law in barring any subsequent prosecution or claim for reparation? If so, I would appreciate some authority for that.

 

[Toontown]

...The stated objective of the allies was unconditional surrender, not rėgime change.

I find it so difficult to believe that you actually expect sane people to believe Hitler and his cronies would have been left in power if only Hitler had surrendered, that I am forced to conclude that you are appealing to the insane here.

Moreover, the west did not decapitate the Nazi rėgime. As I understand it. the regime collapsed entirely in the course of Germany's total defeat. But anyway, as I said, international law has developed a fair bit since then so you may be comparing apples and oranges.

False. The regime was caused to collapse by Germany's total defeat, in much the same way that a head would collapse from a body when the neck is sliced through.

But perhaps you can get some crazy people to believe it wasn't intentional.

 

[Toontown]

So, say a rogue state illegally invades another and in the course of doing so kills people, destroys property and commits other war crimes. Are you suggesting that a UN resolution purporting to wipe the slate clean would be effective in international law in barring any subsequent prosecution or claim for reparation? If so, I would appreciate some authority for that.

I would have thought that by now you would finally understand that I am saying the UNSC would not declare such a rogue the legal occupying force in the first place, but if it did it would be criminally complicit in the war crime.

Have I said that enough times yet?

 

[anglolawyer]

I find it so difficult to believe that you actually expect sane people to believe Hitler and his cronies would have been left in power if only Hitler had surrendered, that I am forced to conclude that you are appealing to the insane here.

It should be easy enough for you to source the claim that rėgime change was an allied war aim. It's very likely that, even if most of the Nazi leadership had not fled or died but tried to cling to power they would have found themselves facing war crimes trials on such a scale as to leave the Nazi party incapable of wielding power, even if they retained the support of the German people, which I doubt. That is not the same, though, as saying the war was fought in order to replace the Nazi regime. TBH I don't think you have a great argument here. Too many differences.

False. The regime was caused to collapse by Germany's total defeat, in much the same way that a head would collapse from a body when the neck is sliced through.

But perhaps you can get some crazy people to believe it wasn't intentional.

You contradicted yourself and agreed with me here.

 

[anglolawyer]

I would have thought that by now you would finally understand that I am saying the UNSC would not declare such a rogue the legal occupying force in the first place, but if it did it would be criminally complicit in the war crime.

Have I said that enough times yet?

It might if its members had business to attend to which could not be done without regularising the occupying powers as having legal authority in Iraq. Something compelling must have induced SC members to vote for 1483 but I'll bet it wasn't the sudden realisation that they got the law wrong.

 

[Toontown]

It wasn't a real thing. You are not now engaging me in any kind of good faith discussion so that's the last we talk.

Your concept of a "good faith discussion" consists of you declaring something that existed did not exist, and me quietly accepting that overt lie.

So it is good that this is the last we talk.

 

[Toontown]

It should be easy enough for you to source the claim that rėgime change was an allied war aim. It's very likely that, even if most of the Nazi leadership had not fled or died but tried to cling to power they would have found themselves facing war crimes trials on such a scale as to leave the Nazi party incapable of wielding power, even if they retained the support of the German people, which I doubt. That is not the same, though, as saying the war was fought in order to replace the Nazi regime. TBH I don't think you have a great argument here. Too many differences.

That may be a good argument for crazy people to latch on to. I wouldn't know. Doesn't work for me.

The war was fought to remove the Nazi regime, but the removal of the Nazi regime was not an end in itself, but served the larger purpose of removing the cause of the war and preventing WWIII.

The same principle applies to Iraq and the Hussein regime. Regime change was not an end in itself, but a means to an end.

It's frankly ridiculous that I have to spell this out. You people really know how to waste time, don't you.

You contradicted yourself and agreed with me here.

I'm sure some crazy people will buy into that. Them being crazy and all.

 

[Toontown]

It might if its members had business to attend to which could not be done without regularising the occupying powers as having legal authority in Iraq. Something compelling must have induced SC members to vote for 1483 but I'll bet it wasn't the sudden realisation that they got the law wrong.

Reduction to absurdity: The SC might have declared Iraq the legal occupying power in Kuwait if it didn't want to liberate Kuwait but had some business to attend to which could not be done without regularizing Iraq as having legal authority in Kuwait. Something compelling might induce SC members to do so but it wouldn't be the sudden realization that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was legal.

You know your speculation is ludicrously weak when it's reduction to absurdity is a nearly verbatim repeat of your speculation.

Unless you're crazy, in which case you will likely double down on the crazed speculation.

Or perhaps I'm crazy, in which case Putin will sleep peacefully tonight, secure in the anglolawyer-guaranteed knowledge that, when he makes his move on Ukraine, the SC will declare Russia the legal occupying power in Ukraine.

 

[LSSBB]

Good discussion of the legality of Regime Change actions here:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1930993

I myself am still processing the paper.


I remember similar discussion regarding Panama, which bears a lot of comparison to the second gulf war. Especially with regards to the insufficient forces applied afterwards for stabilization (aside from questions of legality).