[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally posted by Hudson Valley Undead GM
Very true. What he did do, a few months ago, was assert that Saddam was actively trying to obtain them, and provided forged documents as evidence.

True. I'm not sure what happened there. I really can't believe our intelligence agencies thought they could pull a fast one on the interenational community with that document. I'm more likely to believe that this was a mistake made on the part of some lower level intelligence beauricrat, but obviously I don't know.

This, I think, is establishing an exteremely dangerous precedent. If we take as valid the argument that we can start a war without explicit approval of the Security Council AND without proving that we are defending ourselves from an imminent threat, then consider the consequences: how could we diplomatically refute any other country's right to invade any other country?

I wasn't trying to say that they could go to the international community and say "we have this evididence, but we aren't going to share it" and that would be valid. I'm saying what I think they did was show as little as they could to make their case, and are strategically keeping the rest under wraps. If this is the case, they obviously either miscalculated and shared too little, or the amount they could share without compromising their securities interests wasn't enough to make the case. Either way, my main point is that they don't need to proove it in the first place, so it's all moot.

I would find the idea of our president ignoring the advice of his intelligence agencies on this issue to be pretty alarming.

I'll have to go back and read the article, but my memory was that the article that stated the possible outcome was produced by a single individual, or a single department, not an official "this is what the CIA thinks" document. Either way, the CIA could disagree with the joint chiefs who could disagree with the NSA, who could disagree with Bush's advisors.

Do you think the Nuremburg trials were insane?

No, and I don't disagree with the idea of ad-hoc international courts. I do not agree with submitting US military personnel to a court of international public opinion. Look at the UN. So there is some anti-American feelings going on there, so we get kicked off the human rights committee and are replaced by Lybia? Is that the kind of logic we want ot submit our military leaders to without having any control over it? So the courts starts feeling a little anti-American so they throw a couple of our guys in prison out of spite? If you think that is totally impossible, then you should be all for it. I think strager things have happened, so I do not support it.

The writer is clearly speculating, just as I was speculating that diplomacy of international security will break down, and just as the White House is speculating that our version of democracy will succeed in Iraq and spread throughout the region.

Right, but the writer is criticizing the President every time he speculates. The writer calls for proof. So why does the writer get free reign to speculate? Thats my issue with it.

I think the UN resolutions which constituted the Gulf War cease fire contain no language authorizing war as means of enforcement, and that using war to enforce them without the explicit approval of the Security Council is a violation of the UN charter. And Saddam had only destroyed a fraction of his al-Samoud missles, in compliance with the schedule prescribed by Hans Blix.

UN Resolution 678 authorized "all Member States to use all necessary means" to uphold and implement UN Resolution 660. The Security Council gave us authority in '91. We don't need to ask for it again just because we've given Saddam over a decade to comply.

I also think it is rediculous to think that the security council is acting in the best interests of the world. China has gone into Iraw and laid a broadband communications network, against the UN resolutions. China has sold long range rocket fuel to Iraq, possible with the assistance of France (though that evidence is not concrete) against UN resolutions. France is the sole proprietor of Iraq oil contracts from Saddam. They are both on the security council with veto power. You really think they are going to vote against their own financial interests? Is that right? Assuming you agree it is not, why should we have to submit to them?

All right, I really have to get to work. Thanks, Brian, for making a thoughtful and considered reply. And I hope there's never any doubt that I think Saddam is a despicable tyrant; I think getting him out of Kuwait was justified; and I think it's a damn shame that we didn't support the uprising that would have overthrown him after the Gulf War. But we have no business going in there right now without UN approval, it's a violation of international law, and it's not worth the price of blood, treasure, and international stability.

I don't doubt your convictions on Saddam and I certainly respect your right to voice your dissent. I agree that we should have done more post-Gulf War to help the Shiites and Kurds topple Saddam, but instead we let Saddam beat them down again and again.

When the war is over, and Saddam is gone, I optimistically look forward to pro-US rallies in the streets of Bagdad. One of the few moments of joy I have taken from the war so far is the video of the marine along with the Iraqi ripping down the poster of Saddam. I hope there is much more of that footage to come.