Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Maliki shoots back
Posted by: mcq on Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Says the Iraqi PM:
Iraq's prime minister lashed out Wednesday at U.S. criticism, saying no one has the right to impose timetables on his elected government and that his country "can find friends elsewhere."
He's right. We certainly have no right to impose timetables on his elected government. However we do have the right to say that no progress in a reasonable amount of time means we leave. He can call that whatever he likes. Bottom line, however, is while he and his government are welcome to plod along at any speed they choose, in the end, we get to decide when we leave, don't we?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
hmm if we pull out i bet maliki will be dead by the ensuing civil war within a year.
 
Written By: SLNTAX
URL: http://
Bottom line, however, is while he and his government are welcome to plod along at any speed they choose, in the end, we get to decide when we leave, don’t we?

Well, I’d bet that depends on the definition of "we," there. If "we" means the Democratic Congress, then I’d be willing to bet dollars to donuts that the proprietor of this site, along with the entire wingnuttosphere, will be foaming at the mouth, screaming about treason.

And George W. Bush isn’t leaving Iraq. Period.

So there "we" are.
 
Written By: stickler
URL: http://
But of course that nonsense flies in the face of many recent US visitors to Iraq telling Maliki that our commitment isn’t open ended.

What we don’t want to do though, is publish a timeline so the insurgents and terrorists know how long they need to lay low. There’s a difference, even if you don’t understand it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Maliki can find other friends. Next door to the east. Friends that can help eliminate the Sunni threat, and assure Malaki’s government survives. Friends that he might think are more reliable than the Americans. Maliki’s statement was a veiled — albeit only slightly veiled — threat.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
But of course that nonsense flies in the face of many recent US visitors to Iraq telling Maliki that our commitment isn’t open ended.

None of those visitors was named George W. Bush. And Bush isn’t pulling our troops out of Iraq, under any circumstances. Didn’t you hear his speech today? His stubbornness on this point has been crystal-clear for years now: he sees any withdrawal, under any conditions, as defeat. And any limits on our support WILL be tagged as "defeatism," or "cut and run," or whatever other shinola the White House dictates and Fox News regurgitates.

We’re as much a hostage to Maliki as LBJ was to whatever flavor of South Vietnamese tinpot head-o-state you’d care to mention. Senator Levin can say any damned thing he wants: he’s not President of the USA. And the President isn’t pulling troops out, so Maliki can secure the ascendancy of the Shi’a to his heart’s content. Who’s going to stop him?
 
Written By: stickler
URL: http://
He’s right. We certainly have no right to impose timetables on his elected government. However we do have the right to say that no progress in a reasonable amount of time means we leave. He can call that whatever he likes. Bottom line, however, is while he and his government are welcome to plod along at any speed they choose, in the end, we get to decide when we leave, don’t we?
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Thursday August 23, 2007
The Guardian

President George Bush sought to buy more time for his Iraq "surge" strategy yesterday by making a risky comparison for the first time with the bloodshed and chaos that followed the US pullout from Vietnam.

Making it clear he will resist congressional pressure next month for an early withdrawal, he signalled that US troops, whom he hailed as the "greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known", will be in Iraq as long as he is president. He also said the consequences of leaving "without getting the job done would be devastating", and "the enemy would follow us home".
We are in Iraq until at least January 2009. That much is clear. So until then, we have no leverage over Maliki. Maliki can do anything he wants. He knows this. Hell, he could fly to Tehran, get on his kneews and publicly pledge his fealty to the mullahs, and Bush would still want to prop his "government" up - with American blood.
What we don’t want to do though, is publish a timeline so the insurgents and terrorists know how long they need to lay low.
But we also don’t want to the do the opposite: announce we will stay no matter what the circumstances, and no matter what Maliki does. But that is exactly what Bush did today.

What’s most fascinating to watch is the complete schizophrenia of the right on this issue. Most are still loyal Bushies, and thus they support using American military force on behalf of the Maliki government, and, indirectly, on behalf the Shia radicals allied with Iran. At the same time, most wingers consider Iran to be the number one threat in the region. And they see no contradiction between these positions.

I have asked the question before, and I will ask it again: Why does the right wing in the United States not understand that the main benefactor of our efforts in Iraq is Iran? And why do they love Iran so much that the support a President who told the Iranians today that we will do anything for their boy in Baghdad, no matter what he does?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
To quote Bill Cosby’s dad: "We brought you into this world, and we can take you out."

Of course, stickler and mkultura will squeal like a pig, but I could bear that burden very easily.

This is the natural result of everyone being aware that this country hasn’t had the will since WWII to fight a war the way it must be fought.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Yeah, so that is a veiled threat he made. Most of the opposition parties to Saddam have ties to Iran. Even the Kurds. It’s a fact. Some of the Shia groups fought for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. (Maybe Chalabi isn’t looking so bad?)

MK Ultra is also right that without a deadline, negotiations take longer. Then again, Iraq has elections, too, and Maliki has to worry about those. Next time the Sunnis will take part.

I also think the changes in the military situation are effecting the political negotiations and that’s why we see a slow-down in the top-level progress.

Meanwhile, if you think about the political issues they are supposed to address, they really are not going to take a long time to implement once the agreement is made. It’s the negotiating process that’s bound to take time. It’s the opposite of building up the Iraqi army, where the decision is easy, but implementing takes years. Thus, I would not worry too much about top-level political progress not being made, because it will occur "suddenly" and then be finished in one big comprehensive deal.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
To quote Bill Cosby’s dad: "We brought you into this world, and we can take you out."

Of course, stickler and mkultura will squeal like a pig, but I could bear that burden very easily.
This is a black comedy.

Bush invades, opponents of the invasion claim that we will be installing a puppet government, Bush promises that no, Iraq will have self determination of their government, the "self determined" government isn’t cooperative with Bush...

"We brought you into this world, and we can take you out."

This is what happens when you nation build, you end up building a nation that you don’t like any better, and perhaps less, than the you one you deconstructed.

GHW Bush considered what kind of government would be likely if Saddam and the Baathists were toppled, and he decided he didn’t like it. That’s why he didn’t life a finger to assist in the Shiite and Kurd uprisings in March of 1991. The former Bush administration didn’t want a new government, they wanted the same government, just without Saddam. Any other outcome would destabilize the region far more than Saddam could by removing a check on Iranian power, and potentially creating a powerful Iranian ally.

In the end, even if the military strategy works perfectly, it is very likely that this is what we will have accomplished.

We did it for the children... they had rape rooms

This is what happens when you have petulance as a foreign policy.




 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
"This is what happens when you nation build, you end up building a nation that you don’t like any better, and perhaps less, than the you one you deconstructed."

and yet nuking them into glass parking lots isn’t the answer either. Leaving them alone also causes issues. Even sanctions on countries caused us grief. The devil you know...which is why no one seriously wants to invade Pakistan as long as we get a semblance of cooperation from them. Same with Saudi Arabia. Let’t not even talk about Darfur.

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I also forget the famous idea that "if we just sat down with Israel and told them to pull the settlers out of the West Bank..." as if they really are employees or puppets. Oh sure, we could cut aid to nothing...and then what? Same with China over North Korea. Leverage is there but its not that simple.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Thus, I would not worry too much about top-level political progress not being made, because it will occur "suddenly" and then be finished in one big comprehensive deal.
I don’t know, that sounds like wishful thinking to me. The more I consider the situation there, the worse it looks. Meanwhile, President Bush would have more credibility if he admitted the obvious: the invasion was a mistake, we are the reason there is a chance for a bloodbath in Iraq, and the entire venture shows the hubris of superpower. That said, we have to think about the Iraqis first, and our own interests second — that’s a moral obligation at this point. I doubt the GOP is up to that — they’re more concerned about oil and geopolitics, while the Democrats are more focused on electoral politics.

This is how it looks when empires decline and fall.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Scott,

That’s not wishful thinking, that’s how negotiations will end in this situation. It won’t be small steps leading up to an oil deal, etc., it will be a full deal, because all of the small steps are part of the jockeying and can’t be done first.

Sure, there may be NO agreement or the agreement may fail, but if there is one, it doesn’t need to take 5 years. The Dayton Peace Accord ending a bloody ethnic civil war took only 20 days to hash out. There was 3 years of fighting before those 20 days.

"The more I consider the situation there, the worse it looks."

Yeah, no attacks in Anbar - that just seems AWFUL to me. If Anbar was still SNAFU, I’d probably agree with you. But its not. Knock on wood.

"Meanwhile, President Bush would have more credibility if he admitted the obvious: the invasion was a mistake, we are the reason there is a chance for a bloodbath in Iraq, and the entire venture shows the hubris of superpower"

We are 100% the reason? Like if Saddam Hussein and sons had died in an air crash in 2002, Iraq would be peaceful? Like if Al Qaeda had not bombed Shia mosques then there still would have been a civil war (or not, let me know, either argument hurts your "America is the only actor in the world, everyone else just reacts" argument.)

"That said, we have to think about the Iraqis first, and our own interests second — that’s a moral obligation at this point. I doubt the GOP is up to that — they’re more concerned about oil and geopolitics, while the Democrats are more focused on electoral politics."

OIL. WAR FOR OIL. PIPELINES IN AFGHANISTAN. Nice try. P.s. a whole lot of Dems voted for the war. and a whole lot more want to leave ASAP ignoring any moral obligation (which they can conveniently hang on Bush’s peg.)

Now, let’s see, even if everything goes bad in Iraq, what’s the worst case scenario I have been hearing lately....oh right, Iraq will become an Iranian sphere of influence, etc., etc. Scott, aren’t you the guy who claims Iran is a nascent democracy? In which case, why worry about Iran taking over?
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Boris Erb, obviously refreshed by renewed commerce through his rear portal, writes:
This is how it looks when empires decline and fall.
No, Boris, you are how it looks when the inner Ward Churchill expresses itself by setting up a lemonade stand.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Who needs the Iranians when we have Scott Erb?

Malaki’s other "friends" would put him in the center of the crosshairs.
 
Written By: Sharpshooter
URL: http://
It seems to me that a good bit of the rhetoric out of Congress seems to be that Congress rules Iraq. That Congress can decide, not what we do, but what Iraq must do and how they must do it.

Of course, it sort of all amounts to the same thing in the end but the incredible
tone deafness of Congress in relation to our allies is nearly mind boggling. The worst offenders are, of course, the Democratic candidates for President, such as Obama and his remarks about Pakistan. But seriously, what possible reaction to our domestic posturing is there for our allies other than to announce loudly, "You’re not the boss of me!"

There simply isn’t any *diplomacy* going on. There is no care taken for the sovereign dignity of foreign leaders and their need to appear independent of America. And frankly, it’s exactly those who are most likely to whine and self-flagellate about American bully-tactics and our blundering about the world acting like no one else matters that go ahead and say these incredibly stupid things in such incredibly stupid ways.

Maybe members of the House (who aren’t in leadership) can get away with it because they aren’t particularly powerful or prominent, but House leadership and Senators simply have no excuse for failing to assume any pretense (at the very least!) of Statesmanship.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
Harun, I think there are legitimate concerns about oil, but this is actually making the problem worse. I also think the surge did a good job in gaining Sunni support against al qaeda (though they don’t really like us), but if you follow my point, the Sunnis never had a chance to win an insurgency anyway, as long as we were there. The Shi’ite majority is where the problem lies — I see them less willing to work with the Sunnis, closer to the Iranians than ever, with intensive Iranian arming of militias that will be far harder to tame than the Sunni insurgents ever were. You are so focused on the Sunnis that you don’t see that the real problem is the Shi’ites, and Iran.

Who knows what would have happened if Saddam had died, or how Iraq would have evolved on its own, but clearly the invasion was misguided, based on false assumptions and illusions of power. If there is a bloodbath, we will bear some responsibility for making choices to go and bomb, kill and destroy in a manner that unleashes all hell, and causes massive innocent suffering. That is why I agree we have a moral obligation to try to make our departure one that tries to, if possible, prevent that — and thus I agree we may have to stay longer than might be in our self-interest. But to wash our hands of the mess, to somehow think that our good intentions means that nothing is our fault, well, that is untenable. And I think if you talk to most Americans, they recognize that fact. The good news is, especially in talking to young people, it appears that Iraq may push us to a very different foreign policy in the future. But we still need to get out of this mess.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm


There simply isn’t any *diplomacy* going on. There is no care taken for the sovereign dignity of foreign leaders and their need to appear independent of America. And frankly, it’s exactly those who are most likely to whine and self-flagellate about American bully-tactics and our blundering about the world acting like no one else matters that go ahead and say these incredibly stupid things in such incredibly stupid ways.
I disagree here. I think that the State Department under Rice has undertaken a more effective diplomatic path with the NATO allies, and there has been a change of tone from Washington that has made it easier for countries to cooperate on most matters. The question I have is whether or not there is a real diplomatic effort being made with Iran, or if the administration assumes, as Rice once said, that we would be "supplicants" and thus could not achieve any positive result. I think that underestimates our capacity to provide diplomatic carrot and sticks to Iran, and Iran’s concerns about our Sunni friends in the region. So I’m not willing to say there is no diplomacy now; if there is good diplomacy involving Iran and in the region, it’s at this point "behind the scenes."

As for House and Senate leaders, they’ve also been loud mouthed about foreign leaders and states, in different eras and from different parties as well. That’s not going to change.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris Erb glibly dissembles:
Who knows what would have happened if Saddam had died, or how Iraq would have evolved on its own, but clearly the invasion was misguided, based on false assumptions and illusions of power.
The invasion of Iraq and the removal of the Hussein regime was based on the most thoroughly adjudicated case against a rogue regime in the history of the UN. It was a very crucial enforcement of a collective security determination via the UN Security Council and one of the few times that body has done what it was intended to do.

Boris has apparently still not read UNSC 1441 and the underlying resolutions, which is typical for the "go to the UN crowd" whenever the U.S. actually goes to the UN and comes back with something substantial.

There were no "false assumptions" or "illusions of power." There were clear and necessary inferences based on the consistent behavior of the regime, and the efficient use of power to enforce a clearly adjudicated standard of expected conduct. In the aftermath we find ourselves in a low-intensity conflict besieged more by the accelerated rhetoric of compulsive Leftist liars in the West than by the serious but not insurmountable facts on the ground in Iraq.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
The invasion of Iraq and the removal of the Hussein regime was based on the most thoroughly adjudicated case against a rogue regime in the history of the UN.
Wow, just freakin’ wow.

You’d think that with all that adjudicatin’, them UN folks might have passed a resolution supporting regime change. Oh wait, they initiated and were granted entry and access for weapons inspections in Iraq on George Bush’s request, who summarily told the inspectors to get of Iraq because the bombing was imminent.

But you express all your misunderstood law and history with so much passion and conviction that I almost believe it...

I have read 1441.

Go teach yourself what this phrase means...
The Security Council will remain seized of this matter
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Yes, anyone who says resolution 1441 approves of the 2003 invasion simply doesn’t understand the basics of how the UN operates and international law. Or worse, they do understand but don’t care — all that matters to such folks is the political "game." And when they’re losing, they get even more impassioned and resistant to self-criticism.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The idiot Sarcastic writes:
You’d think that with all that adjudicatin’, them UN folks might have passed a resolution supporting regime change.
They did, it’s called UNSC 1483, passed after the fall of Baghdad, which names the U.S. and the U.K. the "authority" in the occupation of Iraq, asks for international support for the security and rebuilding of Iraq, and calls for a timely return of sovereignty. It does not recall for the restoration of the deposed regime.

And 1441 offered Iraq "by this resolution," not by "a resolution yet to come," a "final," not a "next to final," opportunity to comply.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Boris Erb writes:
I disagree here. I think that the State Department under Rice has undertaken a more effective diplomatic path with the NATO allies, and there has been a change of tone from Washington
Nothing compared to the change of tone from German and French leaders, Boris.

Even in the face of populations gone insane with anti-American hysteria.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Boris Erb writes:
anyone who says resolution 1441 approves of the 2003 invasion simply doesn’t understand the basics of how the UN operates and international law. Or worse, they do understand but don’t care
Well then, Boris, explain what you mean, with direct quotes from 1441.

Of course you’ve never read it, or the underlying resolutions. You don’t understand the direct and immediate references to 678 and what they mean. You don’t even understand the import of 687 to 1441, needless to say.

In other words, you formed an opinion about 1441 that you were expected to form regardless of whether you had ever read it or not.

And, it goes without saying, you completely ignore 1483, passed right after the fall of Baghdad.

And you’re a "political science" professor at an American university. Of course you are. That’s the baseline requirement for saying what you say in the above quote.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
They did, it’s called UNSC 1483, passed after the fall of Baghdad, which names the U.S. and the U.K. the "authority" in the occupation of Iraq,
So you are arguing, seriously, with a straight face, that the invasion of Iraq was legitimate at the time of the invasion, because the UN put in writing the legal responsibilities of an occupying power, AFTER the invasion?

riiiiiiiiigggghhht.

How’s that Thorazine working out for you?
And 1441 offered Iraq "by this resolution," not by "a resolution yet to come," a "final," not a "next to final," opportunity to comply.
I told you to educate yourself on the meaning of the phrase, "The Security Council,... decides to remain seized of the matter". (the last line of UNSCR 1441)

You have still failed to do so.
Syria has confirmed that it received a letter from US Secretary of State Colin Powell "in which he stressed that there is nothing in the resolution (1441) to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq."
members of the Security Council have not acquiesced in using force in connection with Iraqi weapons inspections. The ceasefire resolution declares that sanctions will remain on Iraq until inspectors certify it is free of weapons of mass destruction. The debate since 1991 has been about lifting or leaving the sanctions, not whether states should be able to use military force to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and the means to produce them[4]. No acquiescence has occurred to allow force for enforcing weapons inspections, and certainly none has developed to authorize ousting Saddam Hussein.

This conclusion was underscored when President Bush acknowledged as much in his speech to the UN on September 12[5]. He said the US would pursue the necessary resolutions in the Security Council, meaning that new resolutions, authorizing force, would be necessary before the US or any other country could carry out lawful enforcement action in respect to any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Resolution 1441 provides no new authorization for using force. It states in paragraph 12 that a meeting of the Security Council will be the first step upon a report by inspectors that Iraq has obstructed their activities. Consequences will follow a meeting. Syria has confirmed that it received a letter from US Secretary of State Colin Powell "in which he stressed that there is nothing in the resolution to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq."[6] Thus, if and when a meeting is called, Security Council members will have an opportunity to state their assessment of whether serious consequences are called for or not.

Yet, if the Council is silent on consequences or even decides affirmatively not to use force, the US and UK may try to argue that once a meeting has been held they are free to act, that holding the meeting is all that is required. The resolution does not state explicitly that results of the meeting will determine future action. The US has stated repeatedly it will use force in Iraq. President Bush said to the UN on September 12: “If Iraq’s regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively, to hold Iraq to account."[7] The US made this position clear throughout the negotiations of Resolutions 1441 and can point to the fact that Resolution 1441, unlike the ceasefire resolution (687), does not explicitly state it will be for the Security Council to decide on measures to take in response Iraqi non-compliance. Other members of the Security Council, however, have consistently taken the position that the Security Council must decide on consequences. That position tracks both the explicit terms of the United Nations Charter and the general law, discussed further below. As it stands, none of the Security Council resolutions authorize the US or UK to use force to enforce Iraq’s obligations to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, including Resolution 1441.
Why do you suppose this paragraph was in the final resolution, but was NOT in the draft submitted by the United States?
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
Sell crazy somewhere else, we’re all stocked up here.

Is it just me, or do some of you right of center folks think this guy is a bit over the top?

The link script is not working for me, so here are the relevant links...

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/0522resolution.htm

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
The idiot Sarcastic writes:
I told you to educate yourself on the meaning of the phrase, "The Security Council,... decides to remain seized of the matter". (the last line of UNSCR 1441)
Read this line:

"5. Decides to remain seized of the matter."

It’s from Resolution 678, the 1990 authorization to use force in Iraq. The Security Council of course "remains seized of the matter." What do you expect it to say? "And now we wash our hands of this affair?"

Then, after quoting some long passage from who knows where, you ask about the one line in 1441 with a hint of ambiguity:
Why do you suppose this paragraph was in the final resolution, but was NOT in the draft submitted by the United States?

"12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;"
Fine, the Council did indeed meet again to "consider the matter," but there was no need for them to act, which has already been made clear earlier in 1441.

Since you didn’t understand what "remain seized of the matter" means, there’s little hope that you’ll understand this either. It’s from the beginning of 1441 and I’ll emphasize the part that’s going to get lodged in the middle of your half-wit:
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,
In other words, the authorization to use force in 678 covered 660 and all the resolutions that followed, including 687 and 1441, which is here restating that authorization. The Council never rescinded 678, and now emphatically restates it up front in 1441. (In fact, the Clinton administration relied on 678 as the authority for Operation Desert Fox in 1998.)

What, do you think 1441 restates the pre-existing authorization to use force by accident? Did some overzealous typist slip it in there?

Do you think that when 1441 offers a "final opportunity" to comply and promises "serious consequences" if Iraq fails to do so, that it really really really means "a next to final opportunity" and "not really serious consequences?"

1441 also finds Iraq in "continuing material breach" of 687, the cease fire, and 1441 triggers automatically the state of "further material breach" the second that Blix merely reports back to the Council anything less than complete and immediate compliance, which Blix did on at least two occasions.

So, in that light, along with the promise of "serious consequences" along with the post-war implicit approval of the regime change of 1483 and the fact that the Council did meet pre-war to "consider the matter," if you turn your argument sideways it disappears, that’s how thin it is.

And this:
Sell crazy somewhere else, we’re all stocked up here.
Sell your ignorance of what these resolutions actually say somewhere else. And meditate on your absurd conclusion about what "remains seized of the matter" means.




 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I told you to educate yourself on the meaning of the phrase, "The Security Council,... decides to remain seized of the matter". (the last line of UNSCR 1441)

You have still failed to do so.
You can find some pro-Administration interpretations of the UN resolutions that try to make the argument that the UN approved the action in previous resolutions. In my International Law class last year I had students look for the various arguments and discuss if the action was legal. Even the most ardent supporters of the US action agreed that the case that the UN resolutions approved the invasion was weak to non-existent, though some claimed that as long as a case could be made that was enough — if you could twist the interpretation to create a rationalization, that’s all that mattered. These people also believed international law was a farce, not to be taken seriously. But almost all scholars of international law, the other Security Council members, and the preponderance of legal evidence is pretty clear that the US did not have approval. That won’t stop some people from stating the opposite, with no regard for truth. They are, however, on the margins and not taken too seriously.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris Erb tries this:
Even the most ardent supporters of the US action agreed that the case that the UN resolutions approved the invasion was weak to non-existent,
Discuss the resolution, Boris.

Stop dissembling and discuss what resolution 1441 actually says. Not what you want it to say.

Does it or does it not clearly restate the pre-existing authorization to use force under 678? Yes or no.

Does it or does it not find Iraq in "continuing material breach" of the cease fire resolution, 687?

What, in your "mind," happens when a pre-existing authorization to use force is re-stated, a cease fire is declared breached, and the party breaching the cease fire is offered a "final opportunity" to comply or face "serious consequences?"

And when the merest report of less than full and immediate compliance triggers a state of "further material breach?"

Is there anything there that is unclear to you?

Finally, did you actually have your students, God help the poor bastards, read the resolution to see what it actually says?

Look, everyone who participates at this blog already knows that you do not know your own field and that you re-double that problem by having no integrity.

But I can also tell them that from the very beginning you have always refused to discuss what the UNSC resolution(s) actually say, and began dissembling about it the very day that 1441 was passed by the Security Council.

You are a liar, Boris. Prove me wrong. Discuss what the resolutions actually say.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
McPhilipp’s is a hoot, I love when these guys are around. It’s like having a shill in the audience.

The bottom line is that you want to say that the US had the right to protect it’s sovereignty by attacking (in pre-emptive self defense), fine, it can be argued, but the bottom line is that we did it, and no one could stop us. But the history of UNSCR is clear, you are changing all of that to make your pitiful case.

When the UNSC remains seized of the matter, it means that it remains the deciding body on any and steps going forward, and assisgns itself as the body that will review the relevant information as described in section 12, "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;"


Mr. McPhillips conveniently ignored this little tidbit of information...
Syria has confirmed that it received a letter from US Secretary of State Colin Powell "in which he stressed that there is nothing in the resolution (1441) to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq."
Are you going to argue that the US Secretary of State LIED to Syria?

Was Presidential Bush just kidding when he said...
acknowledged as much in his speech to the UN on September 12[5]. He said the US would pursue the necessary resolutions in the Security Council, meaning that new resolutions, authorizing force, would be necessary before the US or any other country could carry out lawful enforcement action in respect to any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
As I said, if you want to fool yourself, which I kow you are quite capable of, feel free, but don’t expect expect anyone to buy it, because you can’t change the law, you can only mangle it in your interpretation.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
The incredible idiot, Sarcastic, writes:
Are you going to argue that the US Secretary of State LIED to Syria?
I don’t care what Syria thinks Colin Powell wrote to it in a letter, or even what Colin Powell actually wrote in the letter.

What I care about is what the resolution actually says.

Then you pretend to quote Bush, but instead quote an interpretation of what he said in his speech to the UN made before the passage of 1441.

I mean, guy, you’re a bloody idiot.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Oh, and the idiot Sarcastic repeats this:
When the UNSC remains seized of the matter, it means that it remains the deciding body on any and steps going forward,
It means the same thing that it meant in 678, the 1990 resolution that authorized force directly preceeding miltiary action in 1991.

"Remain seized of the matter" does not mean in 678 or anywhere else "yet further approvals to approve what we just approved to come." It means that the Security Council is engaged. In 1441, as you have been shown, the pre-existing authorization to use force from 678 is already explicitly restated. There is no need to say it again. Iraq is given a "final opportunity" "by this resolution," not a next to final opportunity by yet another resolution yet to come.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
the pre-existing authorization to use force from 678 is already explicitly restated
You are basing your entire house of cards on the interpretation that the authorization of force in 678 was still in effect, and remained in effect to enforce compliance with resolutions AFTER 678.

That is patently absurd. (Not that the administration has not made this absurd argument, but it’s not alone in absurd arguments they have made either).

From UNSCR 1441

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use allnecessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and torestore international peace and security in the area,"

International Law experts agree that this doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Try to focus on the text and the logic, so your head doesn’t explode calling too many people idiots in your ad hominemania.

"This paragraph is a clear attempt to provide post hoc legal justification for the bombing of Iraq since 1991. It suggests that resolution 678 authorized the use of force to implement all resolutions on Iraq from 1990 to the present day. This is clearly untrue: 678 only justifies the use of force to implement resolutions on Iraq passed between 2 August and 29 November 1990. This is a position that has been repeated by Council members ad nauseum since 1991, with no state but the U.K. and U.S.holding anything other than a literal and meaningful construction of 678."

"The invocation of resolution 678 here is another step in the absurd attempt to claim that 678 somehow justified all us eof force against Iraq for all time, if it’s in aid of enforcing Security Council resolutions. This would include a claim that 678 justified the imposition of the’no-fly zones,’ a novel claim that no previous administration managed to come upwith. Although 678 authorized ’all necessary means’ to uphold 660 and ’all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660,’ the only reasonable interpretation of the language is to mean all subsequent resolutions up to the time that 678 was passed, not all resolutions for all time to come."

"It makes no sense, legal or otherwise, to claim that an earlier resolution can authorize the use of force to enforcesubsequent resolutions"

Law is not a matter of faith, it does not mean something because you want it to, or because you think it should. It means what it means, and in the case of ambiguity, we have bodies to make these determinations. Out government did NOT go back to the UN as promised for a resolution authorizing "any and all means necessary" because they did not want the actual meaning of the 1441 codified AGAIN disapproving of force.

The US decided, without the UN, to enforce 1441. That’s it. No big deal. It’s not like they are going to drag the country who allows the UN to exist in the Hague. Without 1441, we still would have gone, and the pretext would have been the same. We did it for self defense.

It’s an argument that I actually support in general, just not in this specific circumstance because I was not convinced that Iraq had WMD’s. But the idea that we CAN attack a nation that we perceive as an imminent danger is valid, and needs no UN resolution. We just failed to insure that we were right about the threat we perceived.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
The raging idiot, Sarcastic, writes:
You are basing your entire house of cards on the interpretation that the authorization of force in 678 was still in effect, and remained in effect to enforce compliance with resolutions AFTER 678.
Well, of course, that’s what "all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660" means.

It does not say "all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 and preceding this resolution." The Security Council knows that there will be more "relevant resolutions" to come and that they will be useless without enforceability.

For instance, this is the language of Resolution 686, which, if you are familiar with the number series, comes after 678:
Taking note of the suspension of offensive combat operations by the forces of Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait pursuant to resolution 678 (1990),

Bearing in mind the need to be assured of Iraq’s peaceful intentions, and the objective in resolution 678 (1990) of restoring international peace and security in the region,
....
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

1. Affirms that all twelve resolutions noted above continue to have full force and effect;
678 is one of the "twelve resolutions noted above" and it is still in "full force and effect." It is never rescinded and never declared in anything less than full force and effect.
International Law experts agree that this doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Oh, really? Let’s see, "all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660" means something different to "International Law experts" does it?

The above claim by the idiot Sarcastic is followed by uncited quotations and obvious blather.

The very reason that 678 is explicitly restated at the beginning of 1441 is to re-confirm that the authorization to use force is still in full force and effect.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider