Explaining French anti-americanism (an attempt to)Follow

But I thought we didn't go to war for WMDs!!!111

Because I cruise the various talk radio stations on my way to and from work. Air America didn't have anything on it, but all the "conservative" talk shows were talking about it. Dunno if the document you linked is exactly the one they were talking about. More correctly, they were talking about Santorum saying that they had a declassified document mentioning them. He could very well have been mentioning declassified information, and the document you linked is just a relatively new release in reference to it.

Edited, Jun 26th 2006 at 7:58pm EDT by gbaji

The point isn't the degree of quality of the weapons, or whether they could have or would have been used as weapons at any point. The point is that many people out there have been blindly parroting the Liberal party line of "There were no WMDs", and honestly believe that *no* chemical or biological munitions were found. Not one.

I don't recall Sean Penn standing at the podium at the Oscars saying "There were no WMDs built after 1991 in Iraq". I don't recall ever once, when having someone argue that "Bush lead us to war on a lie", that they said that he lied because he told us there were WMDs, but the only WMDs in the country were those built prior to the Gulf war.

Not once have I heard that argument. It's always been "there were NO WMDs". Not "a few", or "none built after 1991". "NO WMDs". So yeah. The fact that 500 or so actually were in the country, and were not destroyed as Saddam claimed repeatedly, is a significant issue to those of us who believe that the whole thing had far more to do with whether Iraq was complying with the terms of the cease fire they signed then whether or not some specific qualifications invented by the Left after the fact had been met.


Unless someone can show me where, in the UN resolution 687 it specifies that Iraq is only required to report and destroy chemical weapons built *after* 1991. Oh wait! That makes no sense, because the resolution was passed in 1991. So when they said that Iraq must destroy all of that stuff, somewhat by defintinion they were talking about stuff built *before* that time period, right?

The problem is that for some people, the UN resolutions stopped being about getting Iraq to comply with regards to his past weapons, but instead simply prevent him from building new ones. If you are one of those people, you'll tend to think that the "Resolutions were working" because Saddam was unable to build more weapons. For those of us who define "working" as getting Saddam to comply with the terms of the cease fire he signed in 1991, that's not accurate at all. And for us, *any* number of chemical weapons, no matter how old, constitute a violation of the agreement and a confirmation of the legitimacy of the war. Because for us, it's always been about compliance with the terms of a cease fire agreement. Not the mangled mess that the resolution and sanctions process turned into later on.

The "point"? The "point" for whom? What does it matter? You just said that we didn't go to Iraq for WMD! So why do you care if they did find old unusable weapons that were sold to them by Rumsfeld anyway?

Or is that you are on a mission to educate the American people and debunk the propaganda that's been poisoning your political debate? Well tehn I suggest you start with the 70-odd% that believe there was a link between 9/11 and the Iraqi regime.




Same, why do you care about UN Resolutions? Why do you care about the UN full stop, since the neo-cons consider it to be a tool for third-wolrd countries to get money, and since your goverment doesn't give a rats' *** about international law? How is this relevant to any of your reasoning?

You don't give a ****, you are just happy that you have an argument to counter all those liberals that say Iraq did not pose an imediate threat to the US. Now you cant ell tehm: "Hold on! We found 15 year old chemical weapons that have been buried in the sand all this time! So what if they are unusable, a weapon is a weapon."

Thats the sad thing. You dont give a **** about the realities, all of this to you guys is just another theoretical argument that you twist and turn to score petty political points. You don't know why you went to war Iraq anymore. Saudi Arabia, the weapons, the resolutions, the freedom, the Bush assassination, it doesnt matter, which ever one suits the news of the day. That real people are dying everyday in this mess you not only created, but that you keep on justifying like a two-bob ambulance-chasing lawyer, is the least of your worries. As long as you can feel clever behind your computer screen, by legitimising daily massacres and the breaking-up of a country with pseudo-legalistic arguments and deceivign semantics, then you'll feel you've "won" the war.

But this whole thing is a charade. The "War on Terror" is a meaningless oxymoron. The War in Iraq was the biggest mistake this goverment could possibly make, not just for the US, nor just for the Iraqis, but for the whole ******* world. The one thing they did right, the war in Afghanistan, was not even properly followed-through, and now the Talibans are coming back in many parts of the country. And it's only a matter of time before you guys leave it for good, and it goes back into a semi-civil war.

And has any of this made America safer? Or the rest of the world, for that matter? Only apologists like you can argue it has.

Pay close attention. I said that we didn't go to war because of the presence or absense of usable WMD. We went to war over violations of the terms of the cease fire agreement signed in 1991. Most of which were clearly violated by Iraq.

These weapons are significant not in that they represent a huge part of the justification for war, but because they debunk the one tiny part that those opposed to the war have clung to. No one's debated that Saddam was trying to rebuild WMDs. No one's debated that he failed to turn over all the materials he was supposed to. No one's debated the violations in terms of recognizing Kuwait, paying reparations, and ending violations of human rights within his country. Basically, out of a dozen or so major terms Iraq has failed to comply with, only *one* was debated. And that was whether he'd actually destroyed all the biological and chemical weapons as he claimed he had. That has been the sole point of contention over this war. These weapons essentially destroy even that one argument since they represent physical proof that Saddam didn't destroy them all as he claimed.

I'm just confused why this is so hard for you to understand. Saddam was required to destroy all his weapons. He claimed he did, but blocked any attempt to verify that. This lead many to assume that he had not destoryed them all, but we could not prove that absolutely. Now we find old weapons that he claimed were destroyed. This is the proof. The condition of the weapons is irrelevant. The terms did not say that he had to destroy only those munitions that were still in perfect working condition, but he could keep any old stuff that was lying around. It said *all* such weapons. What part of "all" is not clear to you?



So by that logic, we can't make murder illegal because 70% of the population believes that murder is wrong because God says so. Um... Iraq was in violation of those cease fire terms regardless of whether people believe they were also involved in 9/11. It's totally irrelevant.





Huh? This is the most screwed up illogic I've seen in awhile.

The "neo-cons" don't like many of the actions of the UN specifically because it's seen as a paper tiger. UN resolutions are ignored willy-nilly when it's convenient. Just like this one.

After all, if you cared so much about UN resolutions, why are you arguing against the war? It's pretty darn clear cut. UN resolution defining cease fire terms. Iraq violates those terms. In any normal sane world, that means a resumption of hostilities occurs. But in the UN, well... we'll just ignore that violataion and the subsequent dozen violations because it's just not in our interests do actually enforce that resolution.

That *is* the problem with the UN. The only inconsistency here is yours. You seem to be in favor of the UN, but don't think it's resolutions should be followed. Hmmmm...



The phrase "immediate threat" does not appear once in the War powers resolution the US congress wrote authorizing the invasion of Iraq.

Strawman once again. Once again, we've got those opposed to the war creating their own criteria for war, and ignoring the ones actually written down and voted on. You may have thought that we should only go to war if there is an "immediate threat", but that's not why we went.

Sheesh. That's really the crux of this whole issue. You've got the Bush administration on one side, arguing a case for war, and you've got various anti-war groups imposing their own requirements on war and arguing those instead of what the Bush administration and Congress are actually basing the decision on. That's where the idea that WMDs only count if they are fully functional comes from. It's not a requirement in the UN resolution, and it's not a requirement in the US congressional resolution. It *only* exists in the heads of those opposed to the war.




Turn this argument around and you'll be much closer to the truth. Those of us in support of the war know *exactly* why we went to war. We've read the resolutions. We've listened to the entirety of the speeches (not just the small snippets shows on the news). We understand that there were a number of violations which together represent the argument for war and we agree that those things, taken together are sufficient cause for war.

It's the anti-war folks who keep dancing from issue to issue, constantly changing the subject, and twisting semantics around, not to make a logical case, but just to make it *seem* like the war is illegal, or unjust. Heck. Just look at your arguments in this thread. You've danced from arguments about whether these weapons "count" as WMDs. Then try to argue that since neo-cons don't agree with the UN, that the UN resolution shouldn't mean anything to us. Then you argue the "imminent threat" angle. Then it's the "evil agenda for war" angle (totally unsupported, but that doesn't matter). Then you shift to bashing the "war on terror" (another subject change that's irrelevant to this specific debate). Basically, you keep stringing up little bits of information, never supporting your assertions, and when you get called on their falsehood, you shift the topic to the next bit of rhetoric in your bag.

How about we stick to one simple thing. Just answer one question. Are these weapons detailed in this report evidence of a violation of the terms of the UN resolution I linked above? Yes or no?

Which senior defense department official Joph? Is he speaking officially? Or is that just his opinion? The executive branch (of which the defense department is part) does not have the constitutional power to declare war. Congress does. The defense department, and members thereof can hold any view in terms of why we went to war. But it's Congress' reasons that actually count, not theirs. And it's Congress' reasons that this document is relevant to.

Keep your eye on the ball here. This information is being brought up by a Senator and a Congressman, both Republican. The objective here is to have a specific document upon which they can counter arguments saying that they specifically (or Republican members of Congress specifically) voted "wrongly" to go to war because there "were no WMD in Iraq". It has nothing to do with what the Defense Department thought. It has to do with the Resolution passed by Congress, and the accuracy of the statements made in that resolution.

This particular defense department official can hold whatever view he wants in terms of which WMDs he or his department may have thought existed in Iraq. But that has no specific relevance here. This is specifically about members of Congress who voted for the war to be able to defend that decision in this election. And the resolution they wrote and voted on specifically spoke of violations in terms of Iraq not fully destroying its old WMD stock (in addition to many other things of course). Thus, this document gives them something they can point to directly when cornered on the issue and say "see! This is what we were talking about. This is the stuff Saddam claimed to have destroyed but didn't".


It's not exactly telling that a newspaper can find one senior official of one department of one branch of government who'll make a statement that matches what they want to write. I'm pretty sure they could get someone in a similar position to state pretty much anything they wanted. I'm also pretty sure that Santorum could get 5 senior defense department officials who'd say exactly the opposite. It's pretty irrelevant to play the "get the quote" game.

*cough*

You are aware your whole argument only works if you start with the assumption that Fox News is 100% conservative biased, right? If one were to take their moniker "fair and balanced" to heart, it would make sense that they'd write both "sides" of the issue into their story.

Not sure what your point is here. That Fox News is secretly a leftist rag, or maybe that they're just reporting the "official response" from the department of defense. You know. Honestly and openly. As opposed to just highlighting the bits that support your own argument...

Oh wait! You did conveniently leave off the bits that didn't support what you were trying to argue, didn't you? The same official also said:



and




So. Is Fox being "fair and balanced" by including statements that "these weren't the WMDs we went to war for" from the official right along with the "weapons may have been sold on the black market" bits.

Are you "fair and balanced" by including *only* the one quote that supported the argument you were making? Interestingly enough, an argument that (as I've already pointed out) in no way changes the relevance of the document in question.


Once again, it comes back to what things you believe are important. I have always believed that the true and legal justifications for war are contained in the constitutionally empowered document that lists why we went. That's the one Congress wrote and voted on. Everything else is opinion. Thus, if we're to look at relevant evidence in support or in opposition to the war, we need to find things that support or refute statements made in that document. Finding things that refute statements made by an official at the departmment of defense doesn't do it. Finding facts that don't match statements made by the Bush administration doesn't do it. They may be relevant all by themselves, but they are *not* relelvant in the context of the legal justification for war.


I just find it amusing that those opposed to war insist on looking at every single statement and document written by anyone and everyone *except* the one body that actually is constitutionally empowered to make the decision to go to war. It's just mindboggling...

If that is your argument, that the US went to war to make Iraq respect teh terms of the cease-fire, then they did it in clear violation of interntioanl law.

Firstly, the Resolutions you talk about relating to the cease-fire did not involve just the US and Iraq. It involved Kuweit and the international community, and Iraq. Kuweit asked the international community for help in self-defense (colelctive self-defense). Therefor, if the terms of the cease-fire are broken, it is for the international community to intervene. Not one, single member, no matter how pwerful he might be. Would you think it would've been legal for France, 5 years ago, to suddenly decide to go and invade Iraq on the grounds the latter had not respected the cease-fire? Even more precisely "on the ground France decided that the latter had not respected the cease-fire"? Of course not. Well, I'm sorry to break this to you, but the US has no special right in international law.

Secondly, every single UN Security Council Resolution ends with the words "The Security Council shall remain seized of teh matter", which, in layman's terms, means that they are the only authority on this subject. It is not up to teh US to decide, willy nilly, that the time is right for them to go and invade and their own. Otherwise, it is outside the international framework, and therefor illegal under international law. Which is what happened.

The onyl way this invasion would've been illegal is they had received a clear mandate from teh Secuirty Council to pursue military action. Which they did not. You can't use the cease-fire, an international law instrument as a pretext to go to war illegally. This was not a decision the US could make under international law. Once again, the cease-fire was not between Iraq and the US.



Erm, no. Thise opposed to the war have many arguments as to why that war was:
a) illegal (under international law)
b) pointless
c) counter-productive.

The fact you pick one argument, whichever best suits the mood of the day (tyranny, democracy, US troops in Saudi, the gassing of the Kurds, the WMD, 9/11 and terrorism, etc..), and then try to find a shred of evidence to support it, does not make this war legal.




The part where it is not up to the US to decide what treaties to enforce when they are not the main participants in it. The fact that you rely on a 15 year old cease-fire between Kuweit and Iraq, concerning the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuweit. A full-scale invasion is not within the remit of these UN Security Council Resolution, since it concerns the withdrawl of Iraq from KUweit, not regime change. Had the US got a Security Council Resolution to invade RIaq and make regime change, it would've been different. They didnt get it. The invasionw as illegal. Now, which part of that do you not understand?





Er, what?



Because the UN Resolution fit within a specific framework called International law. They are not "Wanted" posters that any armed country can go and enforce. I think Resolutions should be enforced. With the threat of force if necessary. But, in 2002, there were inspectors in place, looking for weapons. The US forced them to withdraw before they could finish their work, so they could go and invade. What was the hurry? Why invade NOW?

Second, in this cease-fire, was the US was one of many parties. Not the main one. It was not up to the US to decide when/if to invade.

Third, you make me laugh with your "a violation of the cease-fire leads to a resolution of hostilities". It's not that simple. There is a thing called "proportionality". There is a concept called "parties to the cease-fire". The cease-fire you keep referring to is about the invasion of Kuweit. The US came and help to defend Kuweit on Kuweit's request. It is not up to them to decide when the cease-fire is broken, and what actions to take.

Unfortunately, I'm coming to the conclusion that all of this is to subtle for a simple mind. There are too many nuances that dont fit within your gung-ho philosophy. So keep saying "cease-fire broken US invade". It's wrong on many levels, but if thats all you can comprehend...



To be honest, the internal reason of how the US legitimises the war is mostly irrelevant to its legality. If Sudan has internal laws that make it legal for them to invade a country because they produce heavy wool, it wont make it legal under internationa law. So, the "requiremetns of Bush and Congres" are irrelevant to the legality of the war. Once again, the US is one country amongst many others. It might be legal under Chinese domestic law that they should invade Taiwan. But you'll be screaming its illegal if they do. Why? Because of international law.






And who is "we"? Ok, let me get this right, you and your mates read a bunch of Resolutions, framed in legal terms you dont understand, and decided "they are sufficient cause for war"?? Great! What a system! Well done you guys.

"We" is irrelevant. Only one body matters, and thats the Secuirty Council. You might not agree with it, but thats tough sh*t. If you go outside it, you go outside the international law framework.



Yes. But, unfortunately for you, things are never that straight forward. A breach of a cease-fire does not automatically gie the right for one party to the cease-fire, let alone an auxilliary one, to proceed, unilaterally, to a full-scale invasion of that country and to make a regime change, and to change their economic system radically.

Now your turn:

Considering that the cease-fire was between Kuweit and Iraq, that it concerned the invasion of Kuweit, that the US was one party amongst many parties to that cease-fire, considering that the Security Coucil did not expressedly authorise any country to take military action, and finally, considering that the Security Council should "remain seized of the matter", would it have been legal under international law for Egypt to invade Iraq in 2000?

Or ask yourself this: Why do most of the academics that spend their lives studying international law consider this war illegal? Why did countries that agreed to take part in the first Gulf War, and in Afghanistan, say that this war was illegal? Forget about France, we might be a bunch of corrupted ******* with special interests as you probably think, but what about all the others? Everyone that knows about international law and does not have a vested interest in teh question says the war was illegal. The only people arguing it was legal are those that have a special financial interest in argiung this case. Funny that, isn't it?

I dont know why I'm asking since you know @#%^ all about it, but nevermind.



Edited, Jun 29th 2006 at 6:26am EDT by RedPhoenixxxxxx

You are aware your whole argument only works if you start with the assumption that Fox News is 100% conservative biased, right?

No, I think his argument works pretty well if they're only 97% conservative biased. Since they're more than that, he's all set.

Is gbaji human, or is he a robot from the future sent by the neo-cons to brainwash us with their propaganda and mentally prepare us for their upcoming world domination?

I'm starting to hate living here. In WoW if i get on vent for the first time and theres more than one english teenager there i say something game related or nothing even remotely offending, the next thing i know im being verbally assualted for being an *** hole american. Ok firstly america has been the top dog militarily for a while. We've been known as rough and tough and ready to completely kick your *** if you provoke us to. Up until recently we were viewed by the rest of the world, to my knowledge, as normal people theres the father, the strong paterfamilias. The caring mother, and the mostly responsible children. We ate food out of a can and loved andy griffith. Then there were the 60s. from that point on american youth declined increasingly. Now when i think of my own country i think of an incredibly obesse person walking out of a mcdonalds every day to go home and watch hours upon hours of the worst tv i have ever imagined. And from what i've heard people outside of the states saying we are no longer the virtuos hardy americans coming to save the day. We are the stubborn fat, unreasonable americans who patrol the world and enforce out might upon the weak. I am hated by 70% of europe and i'm @#%^in tired of it.

Guess it's time to move to canada or something.

Edited, Jun 29th 2006 at 4:43pm EDT by TheCheeseburgler