Posted on 02/20/2006 7:21:02 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger
I've been arguing the Iraq war and its motivations for a couple of weeks with a peace activist (and been advertising it on my tagline). I've pretty much clobbered him on every other aspect of the debate, and now he's shifted to hugging the United Nations.
This is part of what he wrote:
If you are willing to admit that by invading Iraq in March 2003, President Bush technically violated the specific wording of the provisions in the UN Charter that cover the allowable use of military force, I would be willing to answer all your other questions and continue this discussion.
I have some arguments already in store to respond (indeed, I've already addressed this with him more than once) but I'm looking to expand my base of knowledge on the issue of the UN itself. I've already brought up that the UN did not act on the other 14 resolutions, that it was being paid by Saddam Hussein, etc. but I'm looking for some historical precedent, some further facts and history on the UN about its charter, to refute his point. I know I can always count on the FR body of knowledge to further educate myself.
What are your thoughts/suggestions?
This was a resumption of the 1991 Gulf War due to non-compliance with the cease-fire provisions.
When has the UN enforced any of their resolutions? The UN is a toothless joke run by despots from shitty little countries.
Why are you negotiating with a lefty?
Excellent, in which case let's with drawl the US from the UN since it is obvious the UN is a corrupt, completely useless organization since dozens of violations of its' resolutions by Iraq did NOT warrant any action to force compliance. Based on this "logic" the UN is a completely useless, very expensive, Debating Aociety with NO actual powers.
Violated?? I agree.
We should have invaded much sooner, before Hussein had a chance to kill his internal enemies and hide his WMDs.
The UN Charter has a self-defense exception, which would support one line of argument. The other is that of the need for police actions within the community of nations. The policeman is supposed to be the Security Council, but if that body fails to act agianst international lawbreakers after however many Security Council resolutions, extra UN coalitions of the willing may need to take action, as NATO did in Kosovo. France made the international security system meaningless by saying that one should never use sanctions and never use force. That renders the UN Security Council meaningless.
The U.N. voted for Bush's Iraq War resolution unanamously. The U.N. has gotten bold enough to float this garbage because the liberal press is in smear mode and the Repub. party are little sheep.
"President Bush technically violated the specific wording of the provisions in the UN Charter that cover the allowable use of military force"
BS.
There are no provisions in the UN Charter that dictate to the US when we are allowed to defend ourselves with US Military force.
You've already lost.
You've let the lefty frame the debate from the perspective that the US is beholden to the UN in any fashion.
Yes, I know that you cannot just say "the UN is Irrelevant" and dismiss the argument by the moonbat. Reverse your argument and ask the commie under what provisions would the UN allow the United States to defend itself without it's approval. Once he's unable to do that, ask him when the US has dismissed the US constituition in favor of a global test.
Should pretty much end the argument.
#1 reason for the US to pull out of the UN, and kick their arse to the curb!
LLS
I think this is the best argument. Our planes actutally took fire and would be periodically "painted" with radar for years after the Gulf War. Likewise, inspections were also a part of the agreement to "cease-fire". Iraq lived up to nothing and despite repeated warnings and opportunities offered by both Clinton and GW Bush, there was no other option. It should have been the option supported by both parties but the Democrats couldn't get past politics and didn't even support the "regime change" policies they'd previously supported when Clinton was President.
I might also follow up and ask the lefty what made Bill Clinton's actions in Kosovo "UN legal" since he is hugging to the UN charter as some sort of governing document?
Nice work!
you're debating with some one who wishes to gain a submission declaration equivalent to "first admit that i am right and then we can discuss how wrong you are"... the UN charter has everything to do with the resolutions that were upheld by a member in good standing of that body... the US did not go in as the US but as a member of the coalition of the willing... yes we didn't do it unilaterally... and as representatives of the UN we kicked butt and restored peace... have him accept that and then discuss how wrong his charter premise is...
teeman
Check this out. Text of a talk by Mark steyn in February Imprimis.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/
You'll have to cut/paste, since I don't know how to put links in. (Although on preview, it looks as if we have a smart editor). fh
You might try searching Thomas Aquinas: 'supreme Arbiter', `just & unjust' wars.
The problem is, after WWII the UN was expected to be a "supreme arbiter", but it turned out to be a huge disappointment. That body feels free to `back-bite' condemn
us and Israel because they know we won't kill them, while they appoint nations like Cuba, Libya etc. to their `human rights' commissions while they keep their lips zipped about the "religion of peace".
Dave,
Please go to www.hillsdale.edu and read the February edition of Imprimus. It is by Mark Steyn, discussing the US relationship with the UN. You can get a free subscription to this monthly letter at this site. Hillsdale College is not beholden to the government because they take no government money so you can get the unbiased truth there.
The UN was created in a time of conventional warfare, and it's molding was under the planet-threatening cloud of nuclear warfare.
The proper UN mandate is to keep the peace, not end war. Ending war sometimes requires drastic measures, such as force and bloodshed. When rogue nations choose to act outside of international conventions and treaties, when it threatens it's neighbors or other countries, when it embarks on a course of economic war - those threatened have a right and a duty to respond.
LOL!
But what do you really think? ;)
Just tell him to stick his UN Charter where the sun doesn't shine. Then after that you may be willing to continue the discussion.
Once.
Write off the discussion and walk away, since your opponent isn't willing to make reasoned arguments.
Why won't he answer your questions now? No point needs to be admitted for him to answer questions. The point is he can't answer them and is deflecting the your argument. You are being played for a fool.
What an idiot.
Clinton bombed Belgrade in 1998 without going to the UN, without any reason of 'self defense', nor any direct US interest.
Ditto. No matter what crap the Democrats say, it boils down to this which is irrefutable.
Clinton should have done something about it long ago. Of course, he was too busy.
exactly... simply put, you can't have a rational discussion/debate with an irrational opponent...
just ask my ex-wife... : )
The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002. It reaffirmed Iraq's multiple violations of the Gulf War cease fire. The U.S. led coalition enforced the resolution.
Please tell me that any other war in the world is governed by the UN charter. China vs India or India vs Pakistan, for instance. Noone bothers, do they?
You might also want to ask him what parts of the U.N. charter cover bribery and sex slaving. ;-)
To paraphrase Huck Finn, "you can't learn a lefty to argue".
Resolution 1441 threatened "serious consequences" if Iraq did not come into complete compliance with previous UNSC resolutions.
Iraq still thumbed its nose at various portions of 1441, and they were not in compliance.
1441 also decided that further non-compliance would constitute a further "material breach" of Iraq's obligations.
Once it had been determined that Iraq was in "material breach" of 1441 and other relevent resolutions the United States and her allies were given the power to impose "serious consequences" upon Iraq and institute regime change.
It is specifically said: "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."
All authorization to use force is given in 1441 under the "serious consequences" clause. And subsequent resolutions after the fall of Baghdad gave further retroactive UN legitimacy.
Well....if we are somehow in violation of whatever sort of rule the UN says we should be following...where are all the resolutions condemning us?
Such an interpretation of the League of Nations Charter would have made the British declaration of war on germany in 1939 "illegal." The liberal is operating on the assumption that the Charter is a kind of Constitution. If so, it is more like the Polish monarchy where the prices are free to act independently.
The UN is certainly anachronistic. If its purpose is to deal with matters of war and peace, then the security council would have to include China, Japan and India and Europe would have one vote, not two or three.
Nope. The underdogs in those wars apparently didn't pay off the right people at the U.N. ;-)
bookmark
Correct. The actions taken were thought in good faith to be self defense, as were those of the UK. The UN Charter explicitly provides for nations to act in their own self defense.
Iraq harbored and funded the folks who committed an act of war on Sept.11, 2001. This is war, war is HELL.
If I recall, that was 17 seperate provisions, each m\with a multiple violation.
I gather the UN's new "take" on the invasion of Iraq was "gee, we never expected you to actually use the military force we authorized". This was John Kerry's excuse, too, btw.
I guess that makes every UN resolution ever passed optional or enforceable "only under the proper 'politically correct' conditions" (i.e The French, Germans, and every African tin pot dictator) dsays it's alright.
Time to cut off fudning for Kofi and Co., leave the Useless Nations, kick 'em out of New York, and let Donald Trump build a casino on the site.
If you are willing to admit that by invading Iraq in March 2003, President Bush technically violated the specific wording of the provisions in the UN Charter that cover the allowable use of military force, I would be willing to answer all your other questions and continue this discussion.
Unless this liberal is supporting you, why would you want to continue this discussion?
The UN is a means, not an end.
The provisions of the UN charter are meaningless if not universally applied, including the qualifications for acceptance and continued membership.
This liberal is ignorant and arrogant too.
Technically, this liberal doofus or doofette can read A Dangerous Place by Patrick Moynahan, or The UN Gang by Pedro A. Sanjuan and educate himself.
The question itself is an insult to reasoned discussion. The concept is irrelevant.
What has the UN ever accomplished that was positive without the participation of the United States?
The U.S. did not have to go to the UN in the first place to "plead its case" for war against Iraq. Technically we were still at war with Iraq after Gulf War I because a peace treaty was never signed.
If he is a real peace activist, tell him Saddam is a great supporter of peace... the peace that comes once you are dead. Tell him to go support that!
I don't believe that anywhere in the UN charter does it forbid a nation from declaring war on another nation--because it can't. No nation gives up the soverign right to declare war under the charter as a condition of their membership.
Secondly, the resolution in Congress amounted to ending the 1991 truce between Iraq and the combined nations in Gulf War I. The UN did not ever state that Gulf War I was illegal or against it's charter. In fact, the UN had tried ineffectively for 12 years to enforce the terms of the truce. Hence, the UN was party to the Gulf War I on the side of the combined nations and against Saddam.
No response from you yet. Did any of this help or was this a joke?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.