Quoting:
Here's another open question: what happens after the war? All the pro-war people posting seem to be thinking 'Once Saddam's out of the picture, all will be well with Iraq'. End Quote

My guess is that Al Quida (and Iran) will support the fundamentalist Shiia majority (at least 1000 of whom are now armed and in military camps in Kurdistan according to All Things Concidered on NPR), and there will be attacks against U.S. forces until all heck breaks out, U.S. troops are withdrawn because of domestic pressure, and Iraq creates a fundamentalist, Taliban style regime - just what the U.S. dosen't need.  No democracy, no oil, just women murdered for wanting to be a part of society.  A real victory

Quoting:

Simply put, Taoist, the peace-mongers on this site haven't really displayed much outrage towards Hussein.  Or, if they do, they never fail to rush in with a litany of accusations towards the United States.  That attitude, and the offense it causes some of us, I believe accounts for the light-less heat this topic generates.
End Quote

  I can generalize, too, Steve. For it seems to me there are three kinds of people supporting this war:

- Group 1: People who are too stupid to avoid war.
- Group 2: People who are too lazy to avoid war.
- Group 3: People who like violence and think it is a solution to any problem.

(We might include a Group 4: People who are too frightened to think.)

  Transcending our animal natures is a tough task. Just because we don't feel like it on any given day is not a reason to start killing people.

  Peace is difficult. The cooperative element of humanity is fairly unique, if not outright unique, on this planet. It's just easier to act like ants or dogs, I guess, than to exploit the intellectual capacity to overcome a craven dependence on violence.

  What part of "civilization" involves being civilized?

Quoting:
"Peace-mongers"? You're yankin' my crank, aren't you? I laughed out loud when I read that. Then suddenly I stopped laughing when I realized that I know people who think like you.

End Quote

  I don't think that was intended as a slight, bro. ;)

Quoting:
Assassination is the most sensible option, IMO.

It will not cause the death of innocents.

It will not cost billions.

It's less hassle.

It's clean.

It gets rid of the problem.

End Quote

That would be the perfect solution, unfortunately the only problem would be finding him and guaranteeing that it is the correct Saddam.  He has body doubles because he is a paranoid man.

Quoting:
We really, really, REALLY like to discuss politicks, don't we? :) :D ;D  

Reading this topic from post one, an outsider may presume there are a lot of angry souls, with so much energy at their disposal, using this forum as their platform to let out their political dogma (almost forcefully sometimes). Hopefully, at the end of the day, anything stated here will be like water off a duck's back (so cliche :D !). I don't mean that we should not offer our opinions and thoughts, but, I, for one, will make an attempt to either think before I post or just let it go (I like the last one since it's very Zen :) ). Seriously, if you feel getting angry or annoyed, count to ten or just log off. Posting more on the subject just pours more salt on the wound.

Then again, to-morrow is another day and all this will mean nothing 8)

Your resident Nihilist,

Don Juan Triumphant
End Quote

Hmmm... so no more wrapping our opinions in an insult and topping it with a slur?  That is Strange...

Quoting:


Hmmm... so no more wrapping our opinions in an insult and topping it with a slur?  That is Strange...
End Quote

Strange, but certainly a nice gesture ;)

*ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom...*

8)

Quoting:
By your reasoning, you say we should allow him to get away with everything he has done because

A: he is old and will die soon
B: he is only hurting the people around him so why should we care....the very same innocent people that anti-war types claim will be murdered if  the USA attacks?

I understand everyone has a point of view and an opinion, but I find no logic or justice in this whatsoever.
End Quote

Who said anything about justice?  I don't mean to sound a heartless bastard, but there is very little justice in the world - and at the risk of sounding anti-american, the US has had a very big hand in scuppering treaties which might help.

Quoting:
It also sends a very bad message to other terrorist factions not to mention every crackpot would be dictator around the globe that they can do what they please because there will always be someone around to make sure they are protected. IMHO
End Quote

This war has sweet FA to do with terrorism: terrorism is being used as a ruse to frighten folks into agreeing to the war.  As for messages to crackpot dictators, they usually come to one of the following ends:
1) they die naturally (or otherwise)
2) they are overthrown by their own people
3) they escape to some safe haven (usually just before 2)
When foreign powers intervene (which is extremely unusual, if all they're doing is tyrranising their own people), there is usually some kind of deal involving 3) - this has been offered to Saddam, but he don't want it.

Phil

Quoting:

This war has sweet FA to do with terrorism: terrorism is being used as a ruse to frighten folks into agreeing to the war.  As for messages to crackpot dictators, they usually come to one of the following ends:
1) they die naturally (or otherwise)
2) they are overthrown by their own people
3) they escape to some safe haven (usually just before 2)
When foreign powers intervene (which is extremely unusual, if all they're doing is tyrranising their own people), there is usually some kind of deal involving 3) - this has been offered to Saddam, but he don't want it.

Phil
End Quote

Indeed. "Crackpot dictators" rarely come to any kind of justice. Pol Pot, Josef Stalin and Augusto Pinochet died of old age. Idi Amin is living in luxury as a guest of the Saudi royal family.  Muamir Gaddafi is still in power. Our belief that bad people get what's coming to them is generally flawed. Most really evil people get away with what they do.

Quoting:
Thought it'd be appropriate here instead of starting a new thread...

Anyway...DAAAAAANG that's a big #(*$ing bomb!  :o

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/11/sprj.irq.moab/index.html
End Quote

Here in Utah there is a little town called Moab.  It is a tourist haven, close to Canyonlands and Arches national park.  The people there are might mad that the bomb is called Moab.  I personally think it is great and still would even if I were from Moab.  I really got a kick out of a newcaster today talking about how the army dropped Moab over Florida today. ;D

Quoting:
Yes, nukes are a riot.
End Quote

It's not a nuke, it's a really big bomb.  Read the story, it's pretty interesting :)

Quoting:
So now we have increased our arsonal of weapons of mass destruction, should we worry about other countries invading us?End Quote

::)

...you just don't get it do you?

Quoting:
Thought it'd be appropriate here instead of starting a new thread...

Anyway...DAAAAAANG that's a big #(*$ing bomb!  :o

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/11/sprj.irq.moab/index.html
End Quote

  Well, this answers my question of how the bomb achieves the force of a "small nuclear device".

  A friend of mine, a student of Tibetan Buddhism, commented back in October, 2001, that invading the Hindu Kush had, historically, proven foolhardy. I see mention of Tora Bora and our Daisy-Cutters and can only think: It somehow wasn't enough.

  "Shock and awe" may be exactly correct. I seriously hope CNN or somebody gets some distant footage of one of these things going off in Iraq so people can see it.

  So we'll trade scorched earth for presidential palaces; but can you imagine this thing going off over Baghdad?

  Think of it: It's a weapon of mass destruction. It has the force of a small nuclear device; as a weapon it will be somewhat indiscriminate about what's in its blast radius. The whole point of this weapon is that we've agreed to not set off a nuclear device. Apparently, this is only for environmental concerns, as we still want to do the damage.

  The air around you, the very sky above, will catch on fire and all within the grasp of this bomb will be set alight.

  The strategic advantage is that it might incinerate any biological or chem stocks readied for use, but to the other, if Hussein is still hiding that much stuff, isn't this bomb the kind of stuff that leads an insane, power-hungry dictator to use such ugly weapons?

  When the bullet hits the bone? How about when the sun hits the sky and the world is reborn less than a mile overhead ....

  P.S.-   I think I see Jesus' face in the mushroom cloud, or maybe it's Ayatollah Khomeni's. But then again, I also see Mr. Magoo and the Pink Floyd pig. Sorta. Yes ... I'm going to go smoke, now.

Quoting:
So now we have increased our arsonal of weapons of mass destruction, should we worry about other countries invading us?
End Quote

Only if you use those weapons in an illegal attack on another country, I guess... Oh wait a minute...

Quoting:

  P.S.-   I think I see Jesus' face in the mushroom cloud, or maybe it's Ayatollah Khomeni's. But then again, I also see Mr. Magoo and the Pink Floyd pig. Sorta. Yes ... I'm going to go smoke, now.
End Quote

Awright! The future is so bright, I gotta wear shades 8)

Quoting:


::)

...you just don't get it do you?
End Quote

I think she's gets it. I think she gets it just fine.

Quoting:

I think she's gets it. I think she gets it just fine.
End Quote

Thank you, Dude.


Cat

Quoting:
It seems most of the folks against war totally - citing the constant statements that we shouldn't interfere, what right do we have, etc. - have forgotten one minor item:  UN resolution 1441.  Think about it for just a moment here.  Inssein has had a good twelve years to comply with UN resolutions and an agreement he signed with the U.S. to totally disarm.  It's been proven, whether folks would like to believe it or not, that this guy has weapons that are forbidden by UN terms.  He also violated the terms of 1441 by not accurately telling the UN what he has in his arsenal.  That right there is enough to justify war, by the terms in the resolution.  Now I'm not saying I'm particularly in favor of war, but the guy has had twelve friggin' years to comply.  All it takes is complete disarmament - NOW!  Not over a period of months by destroying a couple missiles here and there.  It means everything forbidden by the terms of the various resolutions is to be destroyed immediately.  The little Inssein has destroyed, as Bush himself said, is acting as a diversion.  "Oh look, he's complying."  Yeah sure, meanwhile he moves the main component of weapons around leaving the inspectors in the dust.  He hasn't spent billions of dollars on his weapons (mass destruction, biological, etc.) just to end up destroying them in cooperation with Western demands.  It'd be nice, but think realistically for just a second if it's possible.
Why don't the French want war?  Easy enough. It is documented that France has provided Inssein with the weapons he's not suppose to have in the first place.  Now the argument that will come back will be "what about all the stuff the U.S. has given him?"  Because we were against Iran and provided Saddam (foolishly I might add, but if only Reagan would have had the foresight as to what this guy is really like and after) with the artillery necessary to fight off Iran.  Of course, all this was before the resolutions placed against Iraq, which began in 1991.  
After eight years of BS, we're finally cleaning house.  Inssein has had twelve years to limit his arms and he thumbs his nose at the UN and U.S. every time.  I'm sick of this liberal BS that the U.S. is so "arrogant" about its might and whatnot.  Come on now.  We're doing what the UN and the rest of the world refuses to do:  enforce the resolutions placed against Iraq.  If Inssein (yes, I know it's Hussein, but "Inssein" fits him much better I'd say) would have complied long ago, we wouldn't be where we're at today.  We wouldn't be having this "discussion."  So don't tell me the U.S. is bullying; we've given peace so many last chances it's almost tiring to hear of diplomacy now.  Twelve years of this crap is too long and it's about darn time we did some about it.
Remember something here.  No matter what, Inssein will ultimately destroy his weapons, but not in the manner that will be pleasing to the rest of the world community.  We didn't do anything to instigate the 9/11 attacks (despite what anti-America, anti-West folks say), yet we were hit on our own soil!  No one really saw it coming.  What makes anyone think Saddam wouldn't do the same thing.  And no I'm not connecting him to Osama bin Fartein, even though I do believe the two are affiliated whether by money, arms or men.  For all we know, another attack could come.  But before I get off my point here, let me again say that we are enforcing 1441.  And to go along with that, the entire government of Iraq will be taken out in effort to say the world has had enough of this BS.  It's time something was done!

-M.G.

-------------------
Proud to be American, even if it is politically incorrect!
-------------------
End Quote

I am impressed with your reply. It is well thought out.

I still do not favor this war but...

Still a very good post.

Quoting:
It seems most of the folks against war totally - citing the constant statements that we shouldn't interfere, what right do we have, etc. - have forgotten one minor item:  UN resolution 1441.  Think about it for just a moment here.  Inssein has had a good twelve years to comply with UN resolutions and an agreement he signed with the U.S. to totally disarm.  It's been proven, whether folks would like to believe it or not, that this guy has weapons that are forbidden by UN terms.  He also violated the terms of 1441 by not accurately telling the UN what he has in his arsenal.  That right there is enough to justify war, by the terms in the resolution.  Now I'm not saying I'm particularly in favor of war, but the guy has had twelve friggin' years to comply.  All it takes is complete disarmament - NOW!  Not over a period of months by destroying a couple missiles here and there.  It means everything forbidden by the terms of the various resolutions is to be destroyed immediately.  The little Inssein has destroyed, as Bush himself said, is acting as a diversion.  "Oh look, he's complying."  Yeah sure, meanwhile he moves the main component of weapons around leaving the inspectors in the dust.  He hasn't spent billions of dollars on his weapons (mass destruction, biological, etc.) just to end up destroying them in cooperation with Western demands.  It'd be nice, but think realistically for just a second if it's possible.
Why don't the French want war?  Easy enough. It is documented that France has provided Inssein with the weapons he's not suppose to have in the first place.  Now the argument that will come back will be "what about all the stuff the U.S. has given him?"  Because we were against Iran and provided Saddam (foolishly I might add, but if only Reagan would have had the foresight as to what this guy is really like and after) with the artillery necessary to fight off Iran.  Of course, all this was before the resolutions placed against Iraq, which began in 1991.  
After eight years of BS, we're finally cleaning house.  Inssein has had twelve years to limit his arms and he thumbs his nose at the UN and U.S. every time.  I'm sick of this liberal BS that the U.S. is so "arrogant" about its might and whatnot.  Come on now.  We're doing what the UN and the rest of the world refuses to do:  enforce the resolutions placed against Iraq.  If Inssein (yes, I know it's Hussein, but "Inssein" fits him much better I'd say) would have complied long ago, we wouldn't be where we're at today.  We wouldn't be having this "discussion."  So don't tell me the U.S. is bullying; we've given peace so many last chances it's almost tiring to hear of diplomacy now.  Twelve years of this crap is too long and it's about darn time we did some about it.
Remember something here.  No matter what, Inssein will ultimately destroy his weapons, but not in the manner that will be pleasing to the rest of the world community.  We didn't do anything to instigate the 9/11 attacks (despite what anti-America, anti-West folks say), yet we were hit on our own soil!  No one really saw it coming.  What makes anyone think Saddam wouldn't do the same thing.  And no I'm not connecting him to Osama bin Fartein, even though I do believe the two are affiliated whether by money, arms or men.  For all we know, another attack could come.  But before I get off my point here, let me again say that we are enforcing 1441.  And to go along with that, the entire government of Iraq will be taken out in effort to say the world has had enough of this BS.  It's time something was done!

-M.G.

-------------------
Proud to be American, even if it is politically incorrect!
-------------------
End Quote

Thanks for a great post!!!

Quoting:
It seems most of the folks against war totally - citing the constant statements that we shouldn't interfere, what right do we have, etc. - have forgotten one minor item:  UN resolution 1441.  Think about it for just a moment here.  Inssein has had a good twelve years to comply with UN resolutions and an agreement he signed with the U.S. to totally disarm.  It's been proven, whether folks would like to believe it or not, that this guy has weapons that are forbidden by UN terms.  He also violated the terms of 1441 by not accurately telling the UN what he has in his arsenal.  That right there is enough to justify war, by the terms in the resolution.  Now I'm not saying I'm particularly in favor of war, but the guy has had twelve friggin' years to comply.  All it takes is complete disarmament - NOW!  Not over a period of months by destroying a couple missiles here and there.  It means everything forbidden by the terms of the various resolutions is to be destroyed immediately.  The little Inssein has destroyed, as Bush himself said, is acting as a diversion.  "Oh look, he's complying."  Yeah sure, meanwhile he moves the main component of weapons around leaving the inspectors in the dust.  He hasn't spent billions of dollars on his weapons (mass destruction, biological, etc.) just to end up destroying them in cooperation with Western demands.  It'd be nice, but think realistically for just a second if it's possible.
Why don't the French want war?  Easy enough. It is documented that France has provided Inssein with the weapons he's not suppose to have in the first place.  Now the argument that will come back will be "what about all the stuff the U.S. has given him?"  Because we were against Iran and provided Saddam (foolishly I might add, but if only Reagan would have had the foresight as to what this guy is really like and after) with the artillery necessary to fight off Iran.  Of course, all this was before the resolutions placed against Iraq, which began in 1991.  
After eight years of BS, we're finally cleaning house.  Inssein has had twelve years to limit his arms and he thumbs his nose at the UN and U.S. every time.  I'm sick of this liberal BS that the U.S. is so "arrogant" about its might and whatnot.  Come on now.  We're doing what the UN and the rest of the world refuses to do:  enforce the resolutions placed against Iraq.  If Inssein (yes, I know it's Hussein, but "Inssein" fits him much better I'd say) would have complied long ago, we wouldn't be where we're at today.  We wouldn't be having this "discussion."  So don't tell me the U.S. is bullying; we've given peace so many last chances it's almost tiring to hear of diplomacy now.  Twelve years of this crap is too long and it's about darn time we did some about it.
Remember something here.  No matter what, Inssein will ultimately destroy his weapons, but not in the manner that will be pleasing to the rest of the world community.  We didn't do anything to instigate the 9/11 attacks (despite what anti-America, anti-West folks say), yet we were hit on our own soil!  No one really saw it coming.  What makes anyone think Saddam wouldn't do the same thing.  And no I'm not connecting him to Osama bin Fartein, even though I do believe the two are affiliated whether by money, arms or men.  For all we know, another attack could come.  But before I get off my point here, let me again say that we are enforcing 1441.  And to go along with that, the entire government of Iraq will be taken out in effort to say the world has had enough of this BS.  It's time something was done!

-M.G.

-------------------
Proud to be American, even if it is politically incorrect!
-------------------
End Quote

If your argument is that the US is just trying to enforce the UN resolutions that Sadamm has violated, than how come the US is not enforcing the 68 that Israel has violated?

I don't think anyone is debating whether or not Sadamm is a madman and should be removed from power. But if the US had proof that Iraq is an imminent threat to the world, don't you think that the US would have more support? Why would the US need to try and pass off forged documents as proof that Sadamm is trying to rebuild his nuclear program?http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-08-un-us-forged-reports_x.htm

Resolution 1441 does not authorize war, it states that it is up to the security council to decide if there has been compliance, and if not, what to do about it. So as you can see Resolution 1441 is being followed right now.

Quoting:
...have forgotten one minor item:  UN resolution 1441.  Think about it for just a moment here.  Inssein has had a good twelve years to comply with UN resolutions and an agreement he signed with the U.S. to totally disarm.  It's been proven, whether folks would like to believe it or not, that this guy has weapons that are forbidden by UN terms.  He also violated the terms of 1441 by not accurately telling the UN what he has in his arsenal.  That right there is enough to justify war, by the terms in the resolution.

End Quote

  See my post above...

Quoting:  
 
  Now I'm not saying I'm particularly in favor of war, but the guy has had twelve friggin' years to comply.  All it takes is complete disarmament - NOW!  Not over a period of months by destroying a couple missiles here and there.  It means everything forbidden by the terms of the various resolutions is to be destroyed immediately.  

End Quote

  Time is irrelevant when you stop and consider that the 12 years was an uneven accord resulting from the unwillingness of the US to become the world imperium. In the long run, that unwillingness will profit better, as it would here. Justice is most important, and the focus over these twelve years has been Saddam Hussein and his military machine, not the people who suffer under it. They're a nice cause to wave for the war-wagon, but if they were really important to the Americans or to the UN, we would have found a better way to go about this long ago.

  Incidentally although I am a pacifist, I fully support a full military invasion of Iraq the moment Saddam Hussein begins his invasion of the United States. In the meantime, find another way. (The Arab-American Institute notes that the US has only spent $3m of a total $97m appropriated by Congress during the Clinton years to aid an internal toppling of Saddam.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.doc.htm

  Ah well, this thread has far too much in it for me to respond to everything. I hope people actually read the material I have provided...

Quoting:

Why don't the French want war?  Easy enough. It is documented that France has provided Inssein with the weapons he's not suppose to have in the first place.  Now the argument that will come back will be "what about all the stuff the U.S. has given him?"  Because we were against Iran and provided Saddam (foolishly I might add, but if only Reagan would have had the foresight as to what this guy is really like and after) with the artillery necessary to fight off Iran.  Of course, all this was before the resolutions placed against Iraq, which began in 1991.

End Quote

  The absolutely balderdash assumption there is in the idea of what seemed to make the most amount of sense at the time. This lack of vision, this foreign-policy idiocy, only made sense if you operated under the presumption that the military is the primary option.

  It's not like I'm recommending UN sanctions or anything. It's just that when we stop stroking the dictators, there will be fewer of them to worry about.

  Because the wrong of the past (supporting Shah Reza) justified a wrong of the past (supporting Hussein) which in turn leads to the circumstances justifying the present wrong (invading Iraq).

  How many cycles--how many generations--should we endure?

  On France: If French greed is holding the line against open warfare, at least greed is giving something back instead of merely taking taking taking. Philosophical theories have dwelt on this question for at least a thousand years without a clear answer: In this case, however, the countervailing interest--greed--is maintaining the progressive passion--peace. Strange how it works out.

Quoting:
 
After eight years of BS, we're finally cleaning house.
 Inssein has had twelve years to limit his arms and he thumbs his nose at the UN and U.S. every time.  I'm sick of this liberal BS that the U.S. is so "arrogant" about its might and whatnot.  Come on now.  We're doing what the UN and the rest of the world refuses to do:  enforce the resolutions placed against Iraq.  If Inssein (yes, I know it's Hussein, but "Inssein" fits him much better I'd say) would have complied long ago, we wouldn't be where we're at today.  We wouldn't be having this "discussion."  So don't tell me the U.S. is bullying; we've given peace so many last chances it's almost tiring to hear of diplomacy now.  Twelve years of this crap is too long and it's about darn time we did some about it.
Remember something here.  No matter what, Inssein will ultimately destroy his weapons, but not in the manner that will be pleasing to the rest of the world community.  We didn't do anything to instigate the 9/11 attacks (despite what anti-America, anti-West folks say), yet we were hit on our own soil!  No one really saw it coming.  What makes anyone think Saddam wouldn't do the same thing.  And no I'm not connecting him to Osama bin Fartein, even though I do believe the two are affiliated whether by money, arms or men.  For all we know, another attack could come.  But before I get off my point here, let me again say that we are enforcing 1441.  And to go along with that, the entire government of Iraq will be taken out in effort to say the world has had enough of this BS.  It's time something was done!

End Quote

  You know, when someone is bugging me in a bar, I'll let him hit me a couple of times before I drop him. Why? Because he's drunk, he's stupid, and he doesn't deserve to die. Die? Yes, it is possible that I can kill someone in a fight. I would rather this day never come.

  The analogy would be to punch anyone who looks at me wrong, in order to be "secure".

  In the War on Terror, who are we fighting? It's an amorphous enemy, but we can hardly, as a nation, sit around breaking things and hitting people just because we can't find the guys we're angry with.

  In the old manner of warfare, once the war started, there were clear objectives: destroy supply lines, divide & conquer--a number of reasonable strategies can, properly executed, ensure victory.

  The new manner of warfare isn't like that. There is no identifiable HQ to bomb; there is no nation to invade. So we're looking for anyone who looks at us wrong and threatening to hit them. What the US is doing abroad is pretty much having a childish tantrum. We teased the dog, as such, for years, and don't know why it finally bit us. So we're taking it out on dogs everywhere.  And yes, that's a dangerous metaphor because it uses dogs, but it, uh... illustrates my point.

Quoting:
Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power

France
..
Germany
..
Russia
..
China
..
End Quote

It explains why they want there to be no war... pointing out the deviousness of some of your opponents motives in no way excuses the dissemination of lies and misinformation from the pro-war camp - that's why my Amiright Idle entry was "Hypocrisy", because there's been so much from both sides at the highest levels.  NB A lot less so at the grass roots, as "ordinary" people ain't going to me making or losing megabucks, just lives.

Phil

Quoting:
In fact, a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, under whatever pretext, would be an act of aggression and a violation of the U.N. charter, plain and simple.  End Quote

I respectfully disagree.
The right to self-defense is codified in customary international law and in the charter of the United Nations. The right of "anticipatory self-defense" allows for preemptive strikes. The United States government alone has the authority to determine what constitutes a threat to its citizens and what should be done about it. The President as commander in chief has the authority to use America's armed forces to "provide for the common defense."

Quoting:
I guess Mr Bush doesn't care about that though, since he has been withdrawing from international agreements right and left (like Koyoto)...
End Quote

You can't blame this on Bush. The Kyoto treaty was never ratified by the US Congress, therefore we have never been bound by it.

Quoting:


I respectfully disagree.
The right to self-defense is codified in customary international law and in the charter of the United Nations. The right of "anticipatory self-defense" allows for preemptive strikes. The United States government alone has the authority to determine what constitutes a threat to its citizens and what should be done about it. The President as commander in chief has the authority to use America's armed forces to "provide for the common defense."
End Quote

The right to self defense (article 51), states that a preventative strike is only allowed if:

1. an armed attack is launched, or is immediately threatened, against a state’s territory or forces (and probably its nationals)

2.there is an urgent necessity for defensive action against that attack

3.there is no practicable alternative to action in self-defence, and in particular another state or other authority which has the legal powers to stop or prevent the infringement does not, or cannot, use them to that effect

4.the action taken by way of self-defence is limited to what is necessary to stop or prevent the infringement, i.e. to the needs of defence.

Iraq has not attacked any state, nor is there any showing whatever that an attack by Iraq is imminent. Therefore self-defense does not justify the use of force against Iraq by the United States or any state.

The Bush administration's reliance on the need for "regime change" in Iraq as a basis for use of force is barred by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

Quoting:
Memphis Gray's post leaves out one important fact.  No one has appointed the U.S. as the inforcer of U.N. resolutions.  
End Quote

Who should be the leader then? Russia? France? Germany? The UN? Sorry my friend but you cannot follow behind a parked car.

Quoting:

It explains why they want there to be no war... pointing out the deviousness of some of your opponents motives in no way excuses the dissemination of lies and misinformation from the pro-war camp - that's why my Amiright Idle entry was "Hypocrisy", because there's been so much from both sides at the highest levels.  NB A lot less so at the grass roots, as "ordinary" people ain't going to me making or losing megabucks, just lives.

Phil


End Quote

  Absolutely, philbo.

  Some of us are realistic. See, we already know. Peace is peace, war is war. I don't like anything propped up because of wrongs, but in this case the countervailing interest promotes the progressive passion. It's a balance that goes back at least to Machiavelli.

  Does it make it right?

  The US has massive financial interests in Iraqi oil. In fact, part of the reason we backed Saddam Hussein with weapons and such is because the revolution in Iran meant we no longer had a ruthless dictator to stroke in exchange for good oil prices.

  So France has a vested interest? Let he who is without interest throw the first stone, so sit the heck down, Georgie boy.

  I haven't followed up an apparent Radio BBC report claiming that Bush intends to carpetbag the reconstruction process, but I won't be surprised when I find the report or press release confirming that allegation.

  The bottom line is that peace is the preferable option. Doing what one can to save lives is a far cry from doing what one can to destroy lives. Ask Donald Rumsfeld.

Quoting:
The Bush administration's reliance on the need for "regime change" in Iraq as a basis for use of force is barred by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."




End Quote

You may be right.  The air tends to get a little heavy when lawyers start working up a sweat and throwing out citation after citation.
In any event, this is the advice the United Kingdom's Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith gave Prime Minister Blair:

Lord Goldsmith's statement

“Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:

1. In Resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and restore peace and security.

2. In Resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under Resolution 678.

3. A material breach of Resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under Resolution 678.

4. In Resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of Resolution 687.

5. The Security Council in Resolution 1441 gave Iraq ‘a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations’ and warned Iraq of the ‘serious consequences’.

6. The Security Council also decided in Resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of Resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of Resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

8. Thus, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.

9. All that 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq’s failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.”


Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,635-614735,00.html

Quoting:
I'm not getting into the political debate here, I am just flabbergasted by the anti-American feel of the thread.
End Quote

It wouldn't seem such an anti-American feel if there were people other than Americans spouting pro-war rubbish, or some kind of world-wide consensus that war was a good idea.  Though given that a very large minority (if not an actual majority) of Americans think that war without a UN mandate is wrong, and the overwhelming opinion of the rest of the world that war without a UN mandate is wrong, this will probably go down in history as the most unpopular war, ever.  

My mother (who runs an international women's organisation with hundreds of US members) has received dozens of letters from the US saying how much they are appalled at what the government is doing, and how worried they are about what the rest of the world will think: the way the US is behaving at the moment, anti-Americanism isn't just unsurprising, it's inevitable.

There's an increasing anti-UK sentiment round the world for much the same reason: in many ways I resent that, given that the vast majority of people here do not think war is justified.

Phil

Phil