If Saddam Had Stayed

[leftysergeant]

This is a fine example of how clueless and out of touch you are, lefty. I couldn't count the number of times this has been mentioned and documented on this forum by me and others. Much less discussed in the media. And you missed them all?

No. You were prattling on as though you were discussing something I didn't know about.

As a soldier, I have to say you know bugger-all about the subject you are addressing.

Satisfied? Or are you just hopeless because you imagine you are still sooooo *connected* with the military (assuming you ever actually were)?

Satisfied that you have no bloody clue when it comes to military matters.

The IED didn't even make anybody seriously ill. One of the rightwhacker talk show hosts in the Seattle market was in Iraq as an artillery officer before the round was discovered. He thought it was amusing at most.

Now, what that incident should tell you is that Rummy was unfit to hold his position as Secretary of Defense. And, since the invasion was in large part his idiotic idea, the whole invasion is of questionable military worth and possibly a war crime. The only thing to ameliorate any such charges against Rummy is that he is probably senile.

 

[BeAChooser]

The IED didn't even make anybody seriously ill. The IED didn't even make anybody seriously ill.

Just keep digging that hole for your credibility, lefty. If there is actually any left at this point?

The reason noone was made *seriously* ill (and I notice you used that qualifier) is because of the way the round was used as an IED and the fact that it was being disarmed at the time it "partially" detonated. Again, from the ISG report (which you obviously never bothered to read):

The use of this type of round as an IED does not allow sufficient time for mixing of the binary compounds and release in an effective manner, thus limiting the dispersal area of the chemicals.

But then a military *expert* like yourself already knew that. Right?

One of the rightwhacker talk show hosts in the Seattle market was in Iraq as an artillery officer before the round was discovered. He thought it was amusing at most.

So you wish to imply that the contents of that shell was "amusing at most"?

Say "so long" to your credibility, lefty.

Because 4-5 liters of 40% sarin is the same amount and same potency as the sarin used in the Tokyo sarin attack. And here is what that attack, where terrorists simply poked holes in plastic bags filled with sarin and left it up to air currents to spread the stuff in subway trains/tunnels, did according to http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/guidterr/sup1.pdf and other sources:

- it killed 12 people.

- as many as 5,500 were sent to hospitals.

- about 500 of those people were serious enough to require a hospital stay.

- more than 50 of those were listed in critical or serious condition.

- some were in a comatose state.

- and while most of the survivors recovered, some victims suffered permanent damage to their eyes, lungs, and digestive systems.

And you imply that's an amusing threat?

According to

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;105/3/662

ten percent of prehospital personnel, including police and paramedics, experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning as a result of exposure to victims and the contaminated environment. As many as 46% of the hospital staff became symptomatic through improper handling of victims.

And you imply that's an amusing threat?

The Stimson center published this:

www.stimson.org/cbw/pdf/atxchapter3.pdf

The effectiveness of the attack was certainly not aided by the decidedly lowtech method of delivery—umbrella-poking of plastic bags filled with sarin. Most commuters scattered through the resulting vapor hazard to the station exits, where fresh air diluted the mist even more. Comparatively few people received a lethal dose under these conditions. Those who died apparently had direct contact with liquid agent, and those who were most seriously injured were standing or sitting right next to the packages from which the toxic fog originated. Consequently, the vast majority of the victims were mildly affected.

But what if terrorists with a little more knowledge had gotten hold of that amount of 40% binary sarin and more effectively dispersed it?

Would you find the possibility of thousands dead an "amusing" threat as well, lefty?

 

[Virus]

Not our freaking business.

Breaking a ceasefire agreement with the US is not the US's business? You sure you're in the military?

 

[willhaven]

Breaking a ceasefire agreement with the US is not the US's business? You sure you're in the military?

That would be the UN's business if they were breaking a UN ceasefire. Right?

 

[Toontown]

Breaking a ceasefire agreement with the US is not the US's business?

Not in Leftyworld. In Leftyworld, there wouldn't be any ridiculous "ceasefire agreement". Because there wouldn't have been any liberation of Kuwait in Leftyworld. Political Darwinism. Kuwait's luck just ran out. That's the way you have to look at it.

Because everyone minds their own business in Leftyworld. Leftist wonks, paid by George Soros, decide what everyone's business is, and everyone else follows along.

No, the president and the congress have no say in the matter. Especially if it's a foreign matter. All countries are to stay out of other countries' business. Except Israel. All countries are to mind Israel's business. In fact, that is the only legitimate function of the UN. To closely monitor and pass resolutions against Israel.

Well, actually, that's not exactly the way it works. It's complicated. If Cuba was being whacked, the leftists would be screeching like banshees, demanding international intervention. Or a country like Iraq. They screeched about that, didn't they. I suppose it comes down to opposition to the US. Any country opposed to the US is inviolate, and everyone is to stay out of their business. But Russia and China can meddle, undermine, and kick all the others around.

Yes, I know it's complicated. Just don't worry about it. Lefty will tell you what to be concerned about.

And don't ever call Lefty a communist. He's not a communist. That little prole cap is just an affectation.

 

[Toontown]

That would be the UN's business if they were breaking a UN ceasefire. Right?

Yes, and the UN said so in no uncertain terms, via UNSCR 1441. Condensing UNSCR 1441 down to statements relevant to the cease-fire requirements, I obtain the following:

“Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

“Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

“Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

“1.Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

“2.Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

“9.Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

“13.Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

“14.Decides to remain seized of the matter.”


For those suffering from diplomatic-document-reading disabilities, UNSCR 1441

1. Affirmed the continued existence of the original authorization to use force.

2. Explained why the authorization to use force remained in force.

3. Declared Iraq to be in material breach of the cease-fire agreement as well as other obligations.

4. While acknowledging all of the above, offered Iraq a final chance to come into compliance.

5. Again threatened "serious consequences" to Iraq for continued violations.


In short, member states retained the standing authorization to use force at their discretion, but Saddam was offered an unspecified amount of time to convince member states of his full and continued compliance with all his accrued obligations.

Saddam was unable to convince all member states of his full and continued compliance with all of his accrued obligations.

Cue the Iraqi equivalent of "Taps", if such exists. Game over.

 

[leftysergeant]

Breaking a ceasefire agreement with the US is not the US's business? You sure you're in the military?

Do stop and thinkl about what you are posting. Nobody appointed us the final arbiters of international law.

WE DO NOT RUN THE UN. I know that that scum bag Bolton thought we did, but you saw how the Senate responded when the Shrub tried to formalize his appointment as UN Ambassador.



We are not Rome. I consider that a good thing.

 

[Virus]

The US was at war with Iraq. A ceasefire was signed. He broke it. The war was back on. Saddam could have ended the war and saved his regime by complying, but he couldn't do that because he was mad. If you claim it's not the US's business then you have to claim the US had no business evicting Saddam's forces from Kuwait.

 

[leftysergeant]

The US was at war with Iraq. A ceasefire was signed. He broke it. The war was back on. Saddam could have ended the war and saved his regime by complying, but he couldn't do that because he was mad. If you claim it's not the US's business then you have to claim the US had no business evicting Saddam's forces from Kuwait.

Care to show me the documentation on that declaration of war that gave our idiot-in-chief the right to invade just 'cause he felt like it?

As I recall, the war was a UN operation. And, in spite of what a raging sociopath like John Bolton might tell you, the UN does not operate on orders from the White House.

 

[Virus]

Care to show me the documentation on that declaration of war that gave our idiot-in-chief the right to invade just 'cause he felt like it?

Look up. Toontown did you the favor of posting the resolution along with a summary. Can you name a resolution condemning the Iraq war as illegal?

As I recall, the war was a UN operation. And, in spite of what a raging sociopath like John Bolton might tell you, the UN does not operate on orders from the White House.

Why do you keep bringing up claims I never made? Why do you keep bringing up John Bolton? I don't care about John Bolton.

 

[leftysergeant]

Look up. Toontown did you the favor of posting the resolution along with a summary.

So where does that authorize the Shrub, specificly, to take action when he felt like it? Show me the precise wording, because I can't find it.

Why do you keep bringing up claims I never made? Why do you keep bringing up John Bolton? I don't care about John Bolton.

You seem to be asserting that the US had some sort of command authority to commit the UN to war, or was specificly authorized to go to war if a certain brain-damaged drunk's ear crickets told him it was time to do so.

John Bolton should figure into your reasoning here. He is one of the merry morons who had the invasion of Iraq all planned out before Tom Delay's staffers diddled with the vote recount in Florida. For some reason the little sociopath thinks that the UN exists for OUR purposes and that the rest of the world will just have to accept that.

You seem to follow his doctrine in a lot of what you post here.

 

[willhaven]

For those suffering from diplomatic-document-reading disabilities, UNSCR 1441

1. Affirmed the continued existence of the original authorization to use force.

2. Explained why the authorization to use force remained in force.

3. Declared Iraq to be in material breach of the cease-fire agreement as well as other obligations.

4. While acknowledging all of the above, offered Iraq a final chance to come into compliance.

5. Again threatened "serious consequences" to Iraq for continued violations.

6. US gets impatient with the whole UN resolution business, doesn't wait for weapons inspectors to finish their job and simply decides to invade.

The Gulf War had the backing of the UN, the latest Iraq war did not. One can't use UN resolutions as a pretext for war and then bypass getting UN approval for the invasion that followed.

 

[Virus]

Nobody ever said the US couldn't remove a genocidal fascist dictatorship. No resolutions have been passed condemning the removal of the genocidal fascist dictatorship. The occupation of Iraq is legitimate. The new democratic Iraqi government is recognized as legitimate.

 

[BeAChooser]

6. US gets impatient with the whole UN resolution business, doesn't wait for weapons inspectors to finish their job and simply decides to invade.

rolleyes:

Do you really think the signers of that resolution on November 8th didn't understand what "severe consequences" meant ... given that at the time, the US was busy putting over a quarter million men and women on Iraq's borders, surrounding the country with thousands of armored vehicles and aircraft, and telling Saddam that an invasion was coming to free his people if he didn't get his act together where WMD and terrorism are concerned? They'd have had to be stupid not to understand that was the situation.

Here are excerpts from a speech given by Bush at the UN on September 2, 2002:

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with the international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

... snip ...

If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. ... snip ... If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity.

How could they not know what "serious consequences" meant when this was the statement of the US representative to the UN just prior to the vote: http://www.un.org/webcast/usa110802.htm

"By this Resolution, we are now united in trying a different course. That course is to send a clear message to Iraq insisting on its disarmament in the area of weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems, or face the consequences.

... snip ...

Let us be clear: the inspections will not work unless the Iraqi regime cooperates fully with UNMOVIC and the IAEA. We hope all member states now will press Iraq to undertake that cooperation. This resolution is designed to test Iraq's intentions: will it abandon its weapons of mass destruction and its illicit missile programs or continue its delays and defiance of the entire world? Every act of Iraqi non-compliance will be a serious matter, because it would tell us that Iraq has no intention of disarming.

As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The Resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And one way or another, Mr. President, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security.

To the Government of Iraq, our message is simple: non-compliance no longer is an option.

... snip ...

This Resolution affords Iraq a final opportunity. The Secretary General said on September 12, "If Iraq's defiance continues, the Security Council must face its responsibilities." We concur with the wisdom of his remarks. Members can rely on the United States to live up to its responsibilities if the Iraq regime persists with its refusal to disarm.

With language like that, how could ANYONE have thought "serious consequences" meant something other than our invading and deposing Saddam if he failed to cooperate?

As for the US being impatient, we were more than patient. Iraq was given a specific date to comply and failed to comply. Iraq was to have made a full accounting of its WMD in December of 2002. It did not. In fact, in December the UN stated (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7658.doc.htm ) that

In early December, Saddam Hussein had all Iraqi scientists warned of the serious consequences that they and their families would face if they revealed any sensitive information to the inspectors. They were forced to sign documents acknowledging that divulging information was punishable by death. He also said that scientists should be told not to agree to leave Iraq; doing so meant they would be treated as spies. He noted that, in mid-November, just before the inspectors returned, Iraqi experts were ordered to report to the headquarters of the Special Security Organization for Counter-Intelligence for training, which focused on evasion methods, interrogation resistance techniques, and how to mislead inspectors. Among other points: weapons at a facility in mid-December were replaced by Iraqi intelligence agents who were to deceive inspectors about the work being done there; on order from Saddam Hussein, Iraqi officials issued a false death certificate for one scientist, and he was sent into hiding.

That's NOT evidence of cooperation. Just the opposite.

Even in mid March of 2003, Blix was still complaining that the Iraqis were not being forthcoming with documents and were not allowing interviews which were crucial if the inspectors where to find out what happened to Iraq's WMD, WMD programs and if Iraq still possessed either. And every second we waited to act, Iraq increased it's war preparedness. Made more contacts with terrorists. And cooperated even further with them.

Furthermore, the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese were not honest brokers. We had reason to suspect that then. But now know with certainty that they weren't ... that many in those countries were taking bribes from the Iraqi regime and had negotiated what would be very lucrative deals on oil and military equipment provided they could keep Saddam in power and eliminate the sanctions. The reality is that because of corruption in the UN staff and the leadership of some of the key Security Council members, the UN was an obstacle to resolving the Iraq situation.

Had the US not acted when it did, Saddam and his sons would probably have remained in power, the sanctions would have ended, oil would have flowed freely, Saddam would have rearmed (that is what the ISG concluded he would do), and the world would now be facing a resurgent Iraq collecting billions in oil dollars every year to fund both military and WMD expansion. And terrorists would likely still be using the country as a safe haven. And it would likely be a source of arms ... perhaps even WMD. And then what would you have us do? Besides join you under your blanket of denial?

 

[leftysergeant]

B.A.C., where is the UN resolution saying specificly that our idiot-in-chief could launch the invasion when he felt like it?

 

[Toontown]

UNSCR 678, recalled by UNSCR 1441, authorized cooperatiing member states to use all necessary means to force compliance with all relevent subsequent resolutions and to restore peace and security in the area.

This authorization to use "all necessary means" never went out of force, as affirmed by UNSCR 1441, because Saddam never honored the cease-fire agreement, thus the required condition of "peace and security in the area" likewise never existed.

1441 plainly stated that a cease-fire condition depended on compliance by Iraq of the terms of the cease-fire agreement, as well as all subsequent resolutions. 1441 then immediately declared that Iraq had been and remained in material breach of the required agreements and resolutions.

There was thus no need for yet another resolution to re-re-re-affirm the de facto state of war and the standing authorization to use force.

For those who continue to suffer from myopia in the matter:

1. Attempting to assassinate the head of state of the country with which one has signed a cease-fire agreement, was a brazen act of war, potentially suicidal, bringing Saddam's sanity into grave question, and calling for a much more severe response than the actual response.

2. Repeatedly launching missiles at US and British aircraft patrolling the no-fire zones under a UN mandate, were brazen an acts of war.

3. Expelling UN arms inspectors was a breach of the already nonexistent cease-fire agreement.

C1. When acts of war are perpetrated in violation of a cease-fire agreement, the cease-fire agreement is breached.

C2. When condition "C1" exists, then the previous state of war continues to exist.

C3. Cooperating member states already had UN authorization to use "all necessary means" to "restore peace and security to the area." - a condition which clearly did not exist.

C4. Cooperating member states, after nearly a decade of forbearance, and some 3 months after the passage of UNSCR 1441, opted for "all necessary means" in the form of invasion and regime change.


Here is the full text of UNSCR 678:


The Security Council,

Recalling and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990, 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of of 29 October 1990 and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990.

Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council,

Mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of international peace and security,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;

Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;

Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;

Decides to remain seized of the matter.

 

[Toontown]

Nobody appointed us the final arbiters of international law.

Who is the final arbiter of international law?

I submit that those who enforce international law are it's final arbiters. And who might that be?

WE DO NOT RUN THE UN.

Nor does the UN run the US. It's a cooperative enterprise. Frankly, without US muscle, the UN is powerless. And without US compliance, the UNSC cannot even pass a resolution. That's just the way it is, like it or not. However, if another big ol' strong country would like to step up and take the lead in enforcing international law, I'm sure the US would be happy to unload the burden for a while, at least until the New Boss jacks up. After all, the US would retain veto power in the UNSC, so the New Boss wouldn't be able to get too far out of line.

At any rate, it is either the case that you are right and 2 US congresses + 2 US presidents + the UN Security Council have gravely misunderstood their own words, or you are wrong.

Because one president and one congress made regime change in Iraq a US foreign policy objective in 1998, via the Iraq Liberation Resolution of 1998. Another congress authorized the use of force pursuant to said objective, and another president opted to use force to carry out the policy, joined by a number of other countries which are not exactly considered to be rogue states. Except perhaps by the rogue left, which doesn't count for Bo Diddly squat.

The UN security council, for it's part, affirmed the standing authorization to use force and Iraq's material breach, and did nothing to stop or condemn the subsequent invasion and regime change, instead declaring the coalition the Occupying Powers in Iraq.

 

[Taarkin]

However, if another big ol' strong country would like to step up and take the lead in enforcing international law, I'm sure the US would be happy to unload the burden for a while, at least until the New Boss jacks up.

The US government would **** a brick if there actually was anyone powerful and willing enough to enforce international law.

 

[Praktik]

However, if another big ol' strong country would like to step up and take the lead in enforcing international law, I'm sure the US would be happy to unload the burden for a while, at least until the New Boss jacks up.

Poor America - nobly shouldering the burden of world justice alone in a valiant and unending struggle. And worse, people say mean things about them after all they've done for everyone!!!

 

[Virus]

The worst tyrant in the region got stomped and replaced with a government the Iraqis chose themselves. Get over it already.