The five year anniversry

[Redleg]

Oh the soveriegnty thingy the US command authority , how could I forget .
Hmmm two deployments wasn't there . One whose sole mandate was the expulsion of Iraqi forces under the auspices of UN authority , the second a US deployment to protect Saudi Arabia from invasion . Both passed by congress , one subjecting the forces actions to UN authority , one keeping US authority ...the one with US authority was very limited in scope and not relevant at all to the ceasefire .
Nice try though Red .

Not an absolute rebuttal there Tribes. Remember that the Cease Fire was signed by Nations - not the United Nations. The collation put forces into the UN Resolution under their own national authority. The United Nations did not have command authority over the United States. The United States signed the cease fire, which makes it revelant to the ceasefire.

If you act under an authority then the actions are under that authority , in this case the US ceded the authority to the UN , so the UN doesn't have to trump anything , the hand was given away .

Actually the United States did not cede authority to the United Nations. The United Nations does not grant authority, it grants something else.

Edit: Then again I see you dropped your second arguement completely with your response.

[Adrian II]

Then again I see you dropped your second arguement completely with your response.

Welcome back, Redleg.




You probably missed Tribesman, huh?

[Redleg]

Welcome back, Redleg.

You probably missed Tribesman, huh?

LOL

Never really been away - new job keeps me very busy with lots of travel. Got sort of a mini vacation this week. One that doesn't cost me my vacation time but I still get paid.

Life is grand

[Lemur]

Paid vacations are the bomb. And why is everyone so glum? It's been fire years of triumph!

Hitchens does a nice retrospective on our glorious victories in Iraq.

-edit-

Joe Klein has an astute evaluation of where the candidates are on Iraq:

So we now have a pattern. Obama's chief economic advisor (Austan Goolsbee) and a prominent foreign policy advisor (Power) have now told the truth on two important issues, trade and Iraq respectively. Their truth contradicted some of the overheated rhetoric their boss was using on the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton--whose actual positions on trade and Iraq are probably the same as Obama's advisors--has attacked Obama in both cases for saying one thing and believing another...when she is doing the exact same thing.

You'd hope for something better in a crucial election year, but hey, this is politics. For what it's worth, I score this contretemps slightly in Obama's favor: At least his advisors know the truth about these issues and are impolitic enough to be honest about it.

I am certainly disappointed that Clinton didn't use this opportunity to address the Iraq problem for real--to say, "Look, even though Samantha Power called me a monster, what she said about Iraq is true. Both Senator Obama and I would like to be able to pull a brigade a month out of Iraq, and I'm sure we'll both try to do that. But truth in advertising requires me to say to you that it's a best case scenario. I have no idea what the situation on the ground is going to be on January 20, 2009. I have no exact idea how we can use the prospect of our withdrawal to leverage the Iraqis into getting their political act together, but it's the only real leverage we have--and a new President needs to point the military and our diplomats in that direction. So my policy will be different from John McCain's, which is to use Iraq as a permanent U.S. base in the region. That's a bad idea. Permanent U.S. bases would be a permanent irritants in the region. So we're going to try to leave. But it won't be easy and it won't be as quick as we'd all like it to be."

Update: Matt Yglesias notices that John McCain has gone back to his old, irresponsible, incendiary baloney-slicing on Iraq. You may recall that on the night McCain won the Republican nomination, he--accurately--emphasized sectarian violence as the major threat if the U.S. didn't leave Iraq carefully. Now he's back to his utterly bogus "victory" or "defeat" in the war against Al Qaeda. Once again--and I'll keep on saying this as long as McCain keeps on trying to scare and hoodwink the public--Al Qaeda in Iraq is down to less than 5000 fighters...acccording to its own estimates in captured documents. There is a reason for that: most Sunnis in Iraq have turned against the salafist-jihadi extremists. To be sure, it will require a continuing effort to chase after the terrorist remnants, which is why both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will keep a small residual special operations force in Iraq. But Al Qaeda in Iraq is--happily--no longer the biggest problem in Iraq. There is no chance that it will "win" or take over the country...even though it retains the capacity to launch suicide bombers, as was the horrific case today in Karbala.

The real problem we face now is that "Iraq" isn't really a country and "Iraqis" don't get along with each other very well. The big question is, how much bloodshed will it take to sort out that 90 year disaster...and how much more American blood should be contributed to this tribal struggle. It is outrageous and dishonorable that John McCain continues to purposely oversimplify this situation for imagined political gain.

Upshot: Everyone is saying things they don't mean to win the election. Shocking, I know.

[Vladimir]

Cherry picking Lemur's post.


Fear

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I don't get it: Who is afraid? When you hear the wolves howling in the wood and one of them attacks, you don't cower in fear, you hunt the wolves!

and




Blood

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Soldiers die all the time. No one cares about it in less it's thrown in their face.

[Adrian II]

LOL

Never really been away - new job keeps me very busy with lots of travel. Got sort of a mini vacation this week. One that doesn't cost me my vacation time but I still get paid.

Life is grand

Good to hear that. And like the man said, paid vacations be da bomb.

[El Diablo]

Can anyone actually tell me why Iraq was invaded?

People seem to flip flop between getting rid of a tyrant, human rights abuses to kurdish nationals, WMD and Iraq was not adhereing to UN mandates as reasons for invading.

Now if these are the reasons there are far worse examples in the world today.

Zimbabwe, Darfur and Tibet to name three.

Whist the troops stationed in Irag have my full sympathy, I feel that the warmongers that put them there are perhaps up for war crimes. If not for illegal invasion (without full UN mandate) then for bombing of civilians and civilian targets. To even holding "terrorist targets" illegally.

And to Redleg who thinks that Iraq breaking UN rules makes it ok for the US to do the same, I think that you may find that means that the UN could theoretically "attack" the US. Breaking international mandates does not mean that one act allows another.

[Tribesman]

Can anyone actually tell me why Iraq was invaded?

Because it was there .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Can anyone actually tell me why Iraq was invaded?

People seem to flip flop between getting rid of a tyrant, human rights abuses to kurdish nationals, WMD and Iraq was not adhereing to UN mandates as reasons for invading.

The ostensible reasons put forward were two-fold: 1) Iraq had not complied with the strictures placed upon it as a result of the truce following Gulf 1. 2) Iraq was continuing covert efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction up to and including efforts to develop a nuclear weapon. The first point is demonstrable and inarguable. It was also, in the opinions of many of our Allies, insufficient to warrant a renewal of hostilities. The second point has been largely overturned by better intelligence. Iraq had discontinued its efforts to develop nuclear weaponry and had, at a minimum, frozen its efforts to stockpile other WMDs. Yes, there were WMD-classified weapons discovered in Iraq following the invasion. However, many of these appear to have been lost stockpiles, poorly stored materials, or flat out useless. The best read on things now is that Western Governments generally, and the USA in particular, were listening to sources of dubious credibility and giving their assessments too much weight -- a poor decision making practice.

Iraq did not need to be our next stop in the war on terror -- al queada presence in Iraq was fairly "token" and Saddam was NOT their biggest fan by any means. My personal view is that Iraq was chosen as a weak target that, once toppled, would place Iran (easily the biggest threat in the "axis of evil) in the position of having US bases and troops close at hand on both its Eastern and Western borders and that it was a geopolitical pressure ploy. It was not sold that way to the public because the general US population wouldn't see it as a valid approach in the war on terror. The General public in the USA doesn't like to think/do things in such a brutally practical fashion.

The war was handled brilliantly. The underestimation of chaos following the overthrow of Saddam and the failure to provide the 500-600k troops needed to suppress violence from the get-go was just a stupid move -- and one we're still paying for. Heck, we didn't even demobilize Sddam's army properly, we just let them go home without even outprocessing them for weapons and the like as we mustered them out. The occupation was poorly managed from the outset. I am frankly amazed we've been able to turn it around as well as we have after the completely insufficient efforts at the outset.

Now if these are the reasons there are far worse examples in the world today.

Zimbabwe, Darfur and Tibet to name three.

The first two are, morally, certainly every bit as bad as Saddam's regime. I think you are correct -- at least on a purely moral level -- that action in those areas is no more or less justified.

AN Iraq-style action in Tibet means war with China. At the least, this is NOT a decision to take lightly. Nor do I believe it is the same kind of genocidal repression seen in Darfur and Rwanda -- it's not even as bad as Burma.

Whist the troops stationed in Irag have my full sympathy, I feel that the warmongers that put them there are perhaps up for war crimes. If not for illegal invasion (without full UN mandate) then for bombing of civilians and civilian targets. To even holding "terrorist targets" illegally.

It was not an "illegal" invasion. Iraq's failure to abide by the terms of the truce from Gulf 1 -- in the old strict legal approach through such things -- means that hostilities should not have ended and that the USA (as signatory to that truce) was acting "legally" in its invasion of Iraq. Whether or not you think we SHOULD have acted on our strict legal right to do so is a separate issue (and far more arguable). You are certainly correct in asserting that the UN did NOT agree with the decision to resume violence.

Civilian targets? We go to great lengths not to target civilians. Missions are cancelled and millions of dollars worth of ordinance dumped or re-targeted at nothing to minimize such casualties. When and where investigations determine that civilians have been targeted, we prosecute the offenders.
This process is, of course, imperfect. Weapons misfire or become damaged en route; poor intelligence may lead us to attack an area we believe to be of legitimate military importance that is not, investigations into episodes may run short of clear evidence, etc. The only way to avoid civilian casualties in a war zone is not to fight. I assume you're not enough of a pollyanna to believe that likely or intelligent.

And to Redleg who thinks that Iraq breaking UN rules makes it ok for the US to do the same, I think that you may find that means that the UN could theoretically "attack" the US. Breaking international mandates does not mean that one act allows another.

Actually, the same legalistic interpretation that means we were legally correct to invade Iraq probably could be used to justify and attack on the United States. There are a number of UN resolutions with which we are not in compliance, etc., so the UN could, I suppose, authorize the use of force against us. I don't think that would be prudent.

[Redleg]

Actually, the same legalistic interpretation that means we were legally correct to invade Iraq probably could be used to justify and attack on the United States. There are a number of UN resolutions with which we are not in compliance, etc., so the UN could, I suppose, authorize the use of force against us. I don't think that would be prudent.

My arguement is not based upon the United Nations - but an even older document - the Hague Conventions.

So no legalistic interpretations of violations of UN resolutions or charter articles is not my arguement.

Now if we want to discuss that aspect of the UN - all nations are subject to attack because of their failure to comply with the UN. Which also demonstrates its main weakness - it has no command authority.

[Redleg]

And to Redleg who thinks that Iraq breaking UN rules makes it ok for the US to do the same, I think that you may find that means that the UN could theoretically "attack" the US. Breaking international mandates does not mean that one act allows another.

Now only North Korea, and China can theoretically attack the United States. Since these are the only nations that have a current cease fire that involves the United States as an opposing force. Can you prove that the United States has violated that cease fire agreement? I happen to know both sides have violated the cease fire numerous times over the last 60 odd years.

Iraq did not just break UN rules, it violated a cease fire agreement that the United States was involved in as a signatore nation.

Read the argument carefully before making assumptions that are not in evidence.

[Veho Nex]

HURRAH HURRAH HURRAH

4 MORE YEARS 4 MORE YEARS!!




Now that that is out of my system, I take it this is a debate on the war an im joining this so late its going to be fun.

The man above me is not going to compare Nazi's to American but to take the devils side I will.

Note: Remember 97.7% of statistics are made up on the spot

We americans since 9/11 have increased in our hatred of the middle eastern races

Have followed our fearless leader despite his incompetencies

Have still signed up for the army to fight in the most retarded excuse for a war since desert storm and before that vietnam.

Had no intention of freeing the Iraqi people only installing a puppet president as we soon plan to control the world while china moves in on all SE asian countries and russia just sits up there sipping vodka.

I know I may sound off my rocker right now but maybe thats cause its 10:pm and I just had like 12 cups of coffee and 4 5hour shots for the hell of it, I'm surprised im not dead yet. Danke and Good night I hope to get some sleep.