Talk:Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 1

of possible interest? http://www.guardian.co.uk/Politics/iraq/story/0,,1700881,00.html

Article title

This article is massive, and not very concise. It is understandable considering the debate involved regarding miltary action, but if the purpose of this page is to simply debate and move the legitimacy discussion to a separate page, we still have quite a bit of work to do. Ive added two sentences of text just to provide a summary of the rest of the article in the first paragraph. CanadianPhaedrus 18:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

Shouldn't this be named something like Legitimacy of the 2003 Iraq War ? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 05:54Z

I could be wrong but perhaps the title was chosen so that a search of Iraq War would include this in the list. I"m not sure.Dawgknot 15:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Revise this section

I think the following paragraph, which has been edited a few times, should be revised a bit differently

In the past, Iraq had been supplied with chemical weapons and the technology to develop them by the United States, Germany and France. [1] In 1988, Saddam allegedly used these weapons against Iraqi Kurds during the Halabja poison gas attack. In 1990 during the Gulf War Saddam had the opportunity to use these weapons, he chose not to. [2] From 1991-1998 UNSCOM inspected Iraq and worked to locate and destroy WMD stockpiles. In 1998 U.S. President Bill Clinton inititated Operation Desert Fox based on Iraq's failure to comply with the inspectors. [3] For 4 years after that, the inspection teams remained out of the country. In late 2002, after international pressure and more UN Resolutions, Iraq allowed inspection teams back into the country. In 2003 UNMOVIC was inspecting Iraq but were ordered out despite their pleas for more time.[4] [5] After the Iraq war no WMDs were found in Iraq.

It originally said "Clinton ordered a bombing campaign", but was changed to "initiated Operation Desert Fox". I think it would be clearer to indicate the Desert Fox was a use of military force...yes the link will explain it, but I think it should at least be indicated as such here also.

The fact that inspectors left Iraq in 1998 was removed. Yet in the next sentence, it says "inspection teams remained out of the country". It seems clearer to say that prior to the Clinton military action in 1998, inspectors left the country. This is a key fact.

Also, the fact that the U.S. Ambassador to the UN argued in 1998 that the Clinton Administration had UN authorization to use military force based on UN Resolutions passed in 1991 was removed completely. Why was this fact removed? In an article discussing the legitimacy of military action against Iraq, the fact that the Bush Administration argued it had the same UN Authority that the Clinton Administration argued it had in 1998 seems very relevant. At the very least in this summary paragraph I think a mention of it and a link to Peter Burleigh's comments to the UN should be included.

The paragraph was edited and a link to Clinton's speech in 1998 following his ordering of military action against Iraq was included. However, the editor who added this link said "Removed "WMD evidence" Bill Clinton's speech makes it very clear that he believes Saddam does not currently have WMDs." I don't quite know what you're talking about. Clinton's speech clearly states, "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. " The intent of the original description was to show what Clinton believed in 1998, not what he now believes in 2006. In 1998, Clinton ordered military action against Iraq based on the WMD evidence that existed at the time and citing prior UN Authorization to use force. This is not my opinion...it is a fact. Clinton said so and his UN Ambassador said so. And yet this fact was removed. Why? Jeravicious 01:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the rest of the speech not just the intro. [6]

"They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors."

"First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens."

"And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

"Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future."

He also talks about this possibility of Iraq rebuilding it's WMD program in earlier speeches too. [7]

Other staff members such as Albright also state that the goal "would be to significantly degrade (Saddam's) ability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction, and to make sure he cannot threaten his neighbors." [8]

Clinton is "acting today" so he doesn't have to "face these dangers in the future". In 1998 Clinton thinks they don't have WMDs now, but could develop them in the future, so he takes action to cripple Saddam's weapons programs and insure that Iraq is incapable of producing WMDs or at least slow him down a bit. Saying "based on the WMD evidence" creates the impression that Clinton thinks Saddam had WMDs ready to use in Iraq. But Clinton instead pressed the cooperation issue as a reason to act. He talks about this much later in interviews and such. [9] This is why he says "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs". And never says anything like: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." [10]

About the UN authorization bit it seems kind of extraneous to me given that there wasn't the massive public protests that occurred before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which is what this article is about. Although there was a good deal of complaints particularly from the Russians. [11][12] But Annan didn't go and call the operation illegal after the fact either. [13] I know you want to draw some sort of parallel between reasoning used by the Bush administration and the Clinton administration. But this article is about the legitimacy of the 2003 invasion, not the 1998 operation's legitimacy. I also don't want this intro to balloon into a second copy of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Might be easiest just to put a "See Also" tag below the intro since that other article covers what we're talking about now in much greater detail, it even talks about the short shelf life of chemical and biological weapons. [14] (additional sources I found I don't want to lose: [15] [16] [17] ) -- Mr. Tibbs 09:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps you lost me...could you clear something up? Did you say that Clinton used military force against Iraq in 1998 1) because he believed at the time that Iraq DID have WMDs or because 2) he believed Iraq DID NOT have them, but MAY reconstitute WMD programs?

It sounds as if you meant #2...which is a new "view" on things which I haven't heard. (btw, you do realize that Clinton gave an interview with NBC in 2005 in which he said he TOO believed that WMDs would be found after the 2003 war and was surprised when they weren't) That's an interesting (wrong) argument that Clinton went to War (yes, bombing a country for 4 days constitutes a War...ask Iraq) with Iraq in 1998 because he believed Iraq DID NOT have WMDs but could redevelop them. It would seem that this view of things makes Clinton's use of military force in 1998 even more relevant to the legitimacy of the 2003 action...that Clinton attacked Iraq even though he thought it did not have WMDs.

This is an article about the Legitimacy of the 2003 Iraq War. Discussing the legitimacy cannot be done without also discussing the entire 12 year lead up (1991-2003) to the 2003 military action. Otherwise you leave the reader thinking Iraq did nothing and was a peaceful country quietly abiding by international standards until the U.S. attacked...which is flat wrong. Jeravicious 12:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the rationale Clinton used, he never insisted on invading Iraq. That is the principal difference between Clinton and Bush and makes the comparison invalid. Nomen Nescio 13:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait, did you just argue that bombing Iraq for 4 days is "OK", but using more substantial military action is "Not OK"? I will remind you of the words of UN Ambassador to the UN, Peter Burleigh, when he spoke in 1998, "the coalition today exercised the authority given by Security Council resolution 678 (1990) for member states to employ all necessary means to secure Iraqi compliance with the Council's resolutions " [18] All necessary means was the wording of the UN Resolution that the Clinton Administration cited as authorization to use military force. It is entirely relevant to discuss this in regards to the 2003 military action also...the SAME UN Resolutions (authority) STILL applied. btw, I agreed with Clinton's action in 1998...I am not in any way criticizing it. Jeravicious 17:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey look. it's BigRexRJ777II, if you create any more socks i won't be able to fit them all in one name--205.188.116.70 19:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

what is the point of that comment mr. anonymous IP address and what do you mean by socks in this instance? Please feel free to browse through my post history and my Talk page...you've seemingly confused me with someone else...please stick to the topic. Thanks Jeravicious 22:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeravicious, it's not my "arguement" that Clinton took action "to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors."[19] instead of taking action like Bush did "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."[20], it's simply what happened. So #2 according to your list, this is why Clinton constantly stresses the possibility of Saddam rebuilding his arsenal of WMDs. [21] Instead of stressing Existing Stockpiles that needed to be "disarmed" ie "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." [22] About the interviews, I linked to one in my earlier statement, its true that Clinton repeatedly states that there were weapons unaccounted for, but he doesn't go out on a limb about existing stockpiles, this is why he wanted inspections to be followed through on, which he also says in interviews. [23] The only people I have seen espousing the "#1" view are sources that are trying to Persuade and not to Inform, and trying the arguement "Oh Bush's mistakes are okay because everyone else was doing and thinking the same thing". [24] [25] And that of course is just an arguement and has nothing to do with this article which should not be trying to persuade the reader of anything. That and those arguements are just as faulty as the previous ones made by such sources. [26] Or the even nuttier arguements that the WMD were secretly moved to Syria. [27] Nutty because of Syria's strong ties to Iran which is Iraq's historical mortal enemy for the past century ie Iraq-Iran War. [28] The Syria theory of course went down the tubes when Bush started taking some responsibility. [29] -- Mr. Tibbs 01:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My friend, with all due respect, you have incorrect facts. First, Iraq DID have WMDs. FACT. From the time the weapons inspectors went into Iraq after the first Gulf War up to 1998, they worked to locate and destroy those weapons. FACT. Iraq continually failed to comply with UN Resolutions and weapons inspectors for years. FACT. In 1998, weapons inspectors were pulled out of the country and the US and UK launched a bombing campaign to, in President Clinton's own words, "...strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs" . He did not say to attack possible future programs, he spoke in the present tense. FACT. (please tell me your not getting into a semantic argument that programs are not weapons...) And the US Ambassador to the UN stated in 1998, "We are attacking Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and its ability to threaten its neighbors." Are you seriously arguing that Clinton, who KNEW Iraq had WMD weapons prior to 1998, decided to use military action even though Clinton believed that they had all been found and destroyed? Is that really your claim? BTW, you seem to misunderstand me, so I will state it once again. I believe Clinton took military action and using UN authorization in 1998 based on the belief that Iraq still had WMD programs. And I FULLY agreed with this action. I'm not arguing against it or characterizing it as a mistake...I'm saying he was correct in his actions based on the intelligence he had at the time. I'm astonished...I've had discussions with countless people over the years regarding the situation in Iraq from 1991 to 2003 and I've honestly never heard someone try to make the argument that Clinton took action in 1998 KNOWING that Iraq no longer had WMD programs. Amazing.

I'll let you reflect on some quotes

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter to President Clinton signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 18, 1998 [30]

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 [31]

After reading these quotes, do you still contend that Clinton believed Iraq no longer had WMDs when he took military action in 1998? Jeravicious 04:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You didn't even read what I wrote. You are going off on some tangent about Iraq having WMDs when thats not even what we're talking about, which is the reason Clinton initiated Operation Desert Fox and how that pertains to the article. The Only Relevant quote you even posted is the last one by Clinton which clearly begins "The UNSCOM inspectors believe". The one before that talks about a program not existing stockpiles just like I said earlier. Take the arguement to some web forum. Don't clutter up Wikipedia with this incoherence. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My point stands. You are trying to reshape this entry concerning the Legitimacy of the 2003 Iraq War by rewriting history to fit a view that just is not factual. The 1998 military action against Iraq is absolutely relevant to the 2003 action. Just as the 1991 action against Iraq is relevant to the 1998 action. You seem to want to use a semantic argument that WMD programs are not weapons...which is disputed by every major expert. It would have been laughable for Saddam to say, "Yes we have chemical, biological programs...but don't worry, we haven't loaded them on any bombs so we don't have WMD weapons" Your view of Clinton's beliefs regarding the 1998 action is not just disputed by me...it is disputed by Clinton's own words. I can present quote after quote after quote from Clinton and those in his Administration as well as quotes from Clinton after he left office stating that they believed Iraq STILL had WMDs (programs/weapons). I can understand that you are reshaping this entry to fit your view of events...and in doing so you have to rewrite the history of the 1998 actions...otherwise your view doesn't hold up to scrutiny. That's fine. The facts remain. And I will continue to add the FACTS (minus POV) to this entry. I ask that you refrain from removing these FACTS because you think they don't support your view. Bill Clinton took military action against Iraq in 1998 and George Bush took military action against Iraq in 2003 based on the WMD evidence they had at the time and using UN Authorization from prior UN Resolutions. That is an undisputable fact.

I know there are people who want to present the 2003 military action as "illegal" and yet when presented with the facts of the 1998 military action, they are left to come up with excuses or a reshaping of history in order to not criticize the Clinton action. Some try to come up with the argument that Clinton attacked in 1998 and destroyed all of Iraq's WMDs (yes there are people who believe this) and others do as you do and try a semantic argument that programs are not weapons...in either case, these views do not hold up to scrutiny or the facts.

I'll leave you with another quote regarding Iraq's WMDs

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002 - David Kay, Oct. 2 2003 [32]

Jeravicious 18:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have several observations. 1 When I say bombing does not equal invading a country apparently this means bombing is OK and war is not. Clearly this misrepresentation of my words is not helping the discussion. No I only said that morally and legally war is not equivalent to dropping a bomb.

2 Although people insist that EVERYBODY was convinced there were WMD this ignores certain details. The IAEA repeatedly stated it was possible but no hard evidence existed, even the NIE said more or less the same. Furthermore, this negates that the weapons inspectors were unable to locate any WMD or program. When these inspectors said they needed a few months extra they were forced out of Iraq by the US.

3 As to the UN resolutions, I know the Bush administration advanced that logic but you must be aware that few others share that position. Most legal experts insist that at best the rationale is questionable, if not invalid. More to the point Annan himself has called the invasion of Iraq illegal. Nomen Nescio 23:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave #1 alone (3 days of bombing is not War!?...um...ok....) ...as to #2, I will remind you of the facts again. Iraq DID possess WMDs. They declared they had WMDs...the U.S., along with France and Germany sold them WMDs and the technology to develop them. This is a fact..are you seriously disputing this??? The question was not, did Iraq have WMDs, but rather what did Iraq do with it's WMDs and what was the status of it's ongoing WMD programs. That is the question that remained unanswered in 1998 when Clinton used military action and again remained unanswered in 2003 when Bush used military action. At no time during the period between 1991 to 2003 did the UN Security Council or Weapons Inspectors come to the conclusion that Iraq was in full compliance. If you doubt this, please go back and re-read UN RES. 1441 passed unanimously in 2002. As to #3, I ask you this question: Do those "experts" you cite also say the same thing about Clinton's military action in 1998 when the U.S. Ambassador to the UN cited specifically the previous Resolutions from 1991 as it's UN Authorization to use "all necessary means"? Can anyone please explain how the military force used by Clinton in 1998 can be considered "legal", but the 2003 action can be "illegal" and unauthorized under UN Resolutions?? Anyone?? (btw, I believe that both were legal) Please explain how the Resolutions the Clinton Admin. cited as it's authorization were relevant in 1998 and irrelevant in 2003 (btw, these Resolutions were referenced in RES 1441 from 2002) To your point about Annan...he is NOT the UN Security Council.

Let me see if I can sum up your position and you tell me if I'm wrong

Clinton used military force against Iraq in 1998 citing UN Resolutions from 1991 which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to ensure Iraq's compliance. And you believe this was LEGAL.

Bush used military force against Iraq in 2003 citing UN Resolutions from 1991 which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to ensure Iraq's compliance. And you believe this was ILLEGAL.

That is indeed an interesting reshaping of history....Jeravicious 01:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, please show me where I use the word legal or illegal: "bombing does not equal invading a country." Furthermore, you make a interesting claim: "Iraq DID possess WMDs." Of course you can explain where these WMD are today? Or are you talking about 1995? The fact of the matter is that in 2003 SH did NOT posses any WMD or else we surely would have found them. Last, if you assert Annan does not represent the UN you clearly are unwilling to accept information contrary to your personal agenda. Nomen Nescio 12:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Nescio...Nescio...Iraq possessed WMDs. FACT. Under UN Resolutions it was up to Saddam to fully account for it's weapons programs and to verifiably destroy them. If the Iraqis destroyed it's WMDs but didn't show the international community the evidence of this, then they would STILL be in violation of UN Resolutions. FACT. We were not going to take the word of Saddam Hussein...it had to be PROVED. In 1995, Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions. In 1998, Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions and Clinton took military action using previous 1991 UN Authorization. In 2003, Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions and Bush took military action using previous 1991 UN Authorization. These are all FACTS. Using your argument, if it could be shown that Iraq destroyed it's WMDs in 1995, then you would also have to say that Clinton's 1998 action was illegal. But again you miss a key point...Saddam was not in compliance if he just destroyed his weapons programs, he had to verifiably prove this to the International community...and he did not. Even France and Russia said that Iraq was not in compliance in the 2003 UN RES 1441. Iraq was not in full compliance in 2003 and previous UN Authorization to use military force STILL applied. These are the facts. Finally, Annan represents part of the UN...he is NOT the UN Security Council who passed RES 1441. Jeravicious 01:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He did not have WMD in 2003 or we would have seen Bush telling us he found them. Where are these WMD, that could not be found, today?! Second, having to prove you are innocent is of course ridiculous. Analogy: Bush has to prove he did not order the torture of detainees. If he cannot prove he did not order it he is guilty. You must see this is an impossible task and no-one can prove a negative. How do you prove you do not have a weapon? How do you prove you did not rob the liquor store? Exactly the reason why the burden of proof is on the accusing party: you are innocent untill proven guilty.

As to the resolutions, it is a ludicrous idea, and disputed by legal experts, that the initial resolutions, following the invasion of Kuwait, can be used 10-15 years later as a sword of Damocles (would it be possible after 50 years?) and in an entirely different context. Heck, why did Bush seek 1441? If you are right he already possessed the legal authority to invade. Resolution 1441 was needed and even that did not authorize war. At least in the Netherlands "serious consequences" does not equal "war." If that was meant the resolution would have said "all military means." Let's not get started on the debate as to who decides SH did not comply, the US or the UN? Nomen Nescio 14:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What's truly an interesting reshaping of history is that you're suggesting the 2003 invasion was about ensuring Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions. If you'll notice, Iraq didn't have WMDs in 2003. So where's the non-compliance? 71.236.33.191 01:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed interesting. Did Iraq have WMDs in 1998 when Clinton took military action and stated "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." ? Did Iraq have them in the period of 1998-2002 when the weapons inspectors were OUT of the country? Did they have them when the UN unanimously (including France & Russia) passed RES 1441 stating that Iraq was not in compliance? Did they have them and were they in compliance when, days before the Iraq War 2003 began, Hanz Blix stated to the UN that Iraq was still attaching conditions to the inspection teams? At what point in the 12 years between 1991 and 2003 did Iraq become in compliance with UN Resolutions and "all necessary means" became no longer needed to enforce their compliance? Enlighten me somebody.... explain how these 2 things can be true

Clinton used military force against Iraq in 1998 citing UN Resolutions from 1991 which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to ensure Iraq's compliance. And you believe this was LEGAL.

Bush used military force against Iraq in 2003 citing UN Resolutions from 1991 which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to ensure Iraq's compliance. And you believe this was ILLEGAL.

Jeravicious 03:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"when the UN unanimously (including France & Russia) passed RES 1441 stating that Iraq was not in compliance"? 1441 stated that Iraq was not in compliance with 1441? Hmm. VERY interesting. Also, didn't Clinton claim that the airstrikes had destroyed Iraq's remaining WMD programs? 71.236.33.191 04:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't even bother arguing with Jeravicious. He can't tell the difference between WMD programs and the WMD themselves and keeps referring to a quote that I sourced to begin with: 'Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." As if Clinton believed Saddam had a live nuclear weapon. Of course he didn't, if Saddam did he would have launched it at Israel just like he did with the Scuds during the Gulf War. Don't argue with him, just keep his POV out of the article. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this about sum up our discussion?

You - "Bush's military action against Iraq in 2003 was illegal"

Me - "Really? Was Clinton's action against Iraq in 1998 also illegal?"

1) You - "No, because Clinton took military action believing that Iraq had NO WMD weapons, only WMD programs. And Clinton had prior UN Authorization from previous UN Resolutions from 1991 to use "all necessary means" to enforce Iraq's compliance

Me - "But didn't those same Resolutions apply in 2003?"

You - "Um...quit arguing with me"

OR

2) You - "No, because Clinton's airstrikes destroyed all of Iraq's WMDs"

Me - "Really? Then why did Clinton himself say that he believed Iraq still possessed WMD stockpiles after the 1998 military action?"

You - "Um...quit arguing with me"

And...how do all of your "arguments" square with this Clinton interview from Nov. 2003 [33]

He [Clinton] said that in 1998, when Saddam Hussein threw out the UN inspectors, the US "knew that there were unaccounted for stocks of at least two biological agents, Botulinum and Aflatoxin, and two chemical agents, VX and Ricin." US and British forces then conducted four days of air strikes against suspected biological/chemical weapons sites. But, Clinton said, "we obviously had no idea whether we destroyed all the stuff, none of it, or something in between. I just didn't believe that we possibly had destroyed all of it."

Or this statement from the Clinton Administration in Sept. 1998 [34]

The Security Council has made crystal clear that the burden remains on Iraq to declare and destroy all its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.

(A side note - do you notice how Clinton mentions "nuclear"...and in his address following the start of Operation Desert Fox, he mentions "nuclear" 3 times)

I know...I know...Clinton was attacking "programs" not weapons (even though he REPEATEDLY refers to WEAPONS)...and Clinton's airstrikes destroyed the WMD stockpiles (even though he states the EXACT OPPOSITE). Your argument is not with me...it's with Clinton himself.

It seems clear to me, if the military action in 2003 was illegal, then the 1998 action must also be illegal, however, if the 1998 action was legal, then the 2003 action must be also. Jeravicious 01:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, so eager to push his point of view that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was fine and dandy, that he completely loses sight of the "based on WMD evidence" issue and even the entire article. And instead makes up some imaginary opposition to his "arguement" that he proceeds to bicker with. Again, take it to a web forum, Wikipedia article discussion pages are for discussing article issues. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

First Mr. Tibbs, this is a discussion page about the Legitimacy of the 2003 Iraq War. I am discussing the Legitimacy of the 2003 Iraq War and the reasoning why YOU removed my edits. Edits which are facts. Second, nothing I've said is "imaginary"...The details of Clinton's military action in 1998 "based on WMD evidence" (as you put it) and it's RELEVANCE to the legitacy of the 2003 military action is explained in detail further down in this article...I was merely wondering why you chose to edit my summary statement at the top. I do note that you have not removed the 1998 reference later in the article (perhaps you missed it and will now do so??). Again, we are discussing the legitimacy of the 2003 action and it must be discussed in context of the entire Iraq situation from 1991 - 2003. And again, I ask anyone explain how these 2 things can be true

Clinton used military force against Iraq in 1998 citing UN Resolutions from 1991 which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to ensure Iraq's compliance. And you believe this was LEGAL.

Bush used military force against Iraq in 2003 citing UN Resolutions from 1991 which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to ensure Iraq's compliance. And you believe this was ILLEGAL.

How could UN authorization apply in 1998 and not apply in 2003?? And yes, this WAS referenced in the 2002 UN RES 1441. If the UN Authorization that Clinton cited in 1998 was valid and relevant, and this same authorization was referenced in 2002, how could the 2003 action be illegal? I know...nobody has an answer other than "Clinton was going after programs, not weapons" even though he repeatedly said weapons...or "Clinton's airstrikes destroyed all the WMD weapons" even though he says just the opposite.

I can understand how someone might try to argue that the 2003 Iraq War might have been illegal (with no WMD programs/weapons yet to be found in Iraq), however I cannot understand how if you make that argument that it doesn't apply to the 1998 action. It seems clear, either you believe both were legal or both were illegal, but not one without the other...it makes no sense. Jeravicious 01:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding earlier resolutions supposedly invoked by 1441

Consider this:

• Part of Resolution 1441 is the cooperation of Saddam Hussein with the investigation of his weapensprogram. Contrary to many statements by the Bush administration, he did comply [35]. That no WMD have been found only proves non-military options were not exhausted.
• “Serious consequences” was no carte blanche for the invasion. Note that the words “military intervention” were not used. Reason for scholars to debate the legality [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. On top of that, China, France and Russia explicitly stated this resolution did NOT mean invading Iraq.
• More to the point

1. According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced. This was made clear in a Security Council meeting on Dec. 16, 1998. That day, U.S. and British warplanes launched air strikes against Iraq after learning that Iraq was continuing to impede the work of UNSCOM, the weapons inspectors sent to Iraq at the close of the Gulf War, and thus was not in compliance with Resolution 687. When the Security Council met that night to discuss whether individual member states could resort to force without renewed Security Council consent, it was clear that the Security Council members did not all agree on the legality of the U.S. and British resort to force. [48]
2. ... without Security Council authorization, states do not have the right to use force to enforce the Council's resolutions, whether a breach is material or immaterial. The Security Council's history with respect to its resolutions on Iraq make clear that it has not relinquished to the US the right to enforce its resolutions unilaterally.[49]

There clearly is doubt regarding the arguments advanced by the Bush administration and repeated by Jeravicious. Nomen Nescio 02:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

First, Iraq was NOT in compliance. There are no UN Resolutions which stated that Iraq was in compliance. Just days before the Iraq War began, Hans Blix reported to the Security Council that Iraq was "attaching conditions" and not cooperating "promptly". This is NOT compliance.

Let me state this in this way - I can understand that some may want to argue that the 2003 military action in Iraq was "illegal" (a view I don't agree with, but a view that I can understand)...but what I cannot understand is how these same people don't also apply the same legal criteria to the 1998 Clinton military action and declare that it was ALSO illegal. I will supply you with facts again. In November 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously passed RES 1441. It said

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

Now, keep in mind, this is the SAME Resolution and wording that the Clinton Administration cited as authorization for it's military action in 1998. As you can plainly see, 1441 referred to 678 which said "all necessary means" could be used. Clinton used "all means" he believed were necessary in 1998. And after that military action, he still believed that there were unaccounted for weapons stockpiles. The U.S. and UK also used "all means" they deemed necessary in 2003.

So to your comment about the Security Council meetings in 1998 in which not all members agreed that the military action was legal...I fully buy into that. If you argue that Bush's action was illegal, you must therefore logically also argue that Clinton's action in 1998 was illegal. However, if you argue that Clinton's action was legal, then Bush's 2003 action must also be legal. That was my only point...but there are VERY few who will condemn Bush's 2003 action as illegal and in the same breath condemn Clinton's military action as illegal also.

Was Clinton's 1998 military action against Iraq illegal? Answer that and you have the answer to the legality of the 2003 military action. Jeravicious 03:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It was not for Bush to determine whether Iraq was in comliance. Nor is it for you to determine. That was an issue for the Security Council to decide. Bush bypassed the Security Council, probably because he knew the inspectors would eventually declare that Iraq was in compliance and had no weapons of mass destruction. Once that happened, of course, Bush would never be able to get the American public to support his war. 71.236.33.191 04:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Security Council did decide...in RES 1441 from Nov. 2002, just 4 months before the Iraq War, they decided the Iraq was NOT in compliance and they again warned Iraq that member states were authorized to use "all necessary means" to enforce the UN Resolutions. And just days before the Iraq War started, Hans Blix reported to the Security Council that [50] "The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions" and " these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation."

In 1998, Clinton did not have RES 1441, he had 5 less years of Saddam not abiding by UN Resolutions...and Clinton took military action citing previous UN Authorization to use "all necessary means". How could Clinton's action 5 years earlier with 5 less years of non-compliance be "legal" and Bush's action with 5 more years of non-compliance be "illegal"? Jeravicious 01:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Because Clinton too violated international law! Beyond that, I still have to see a resolution by the UN stating that SH did not comply. For those that follow the news, just such a resolution was what Blair wanted Bush to ask for. Why? PR? As it became clear any resolution allowing "invading Iraq," would be blocked by the UN, Bush decided not to go to the UN. Why? Couid it be that such a resolution, explicitly prohibiting war, would make invading Iraq by definition a war of aggression? Nomen Nescio 14:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. If you believe that Bush (and the entire Coalition...including the UK, Australia, Japan, Spain, etc, etc) violated international law by using military force against Iraq in 2003 even though they cited previous UN Resolutions authorizing member States to use "all necessary means", then it would be reasonable for you to believe that Clinton's military action in 1998 based on similar WMD evidence and using the SAME UN Authorization must therefore ALSO be illegal. I believe they were both legal, but if you believe the 2003 action was not, then you are also arguing that the 1998 action was not. Perhaps you should re-read UN RES 1441 from Nov. 2002. [51] It was passed unanimously by all Security Council members including France and Russia just months before the 2003 Iraq War began. It has the answers you're looking for.

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeravicious (talk • contribs)

However interesting, I still have to see the first quote saying "all necessary means including invading Iraq". For some strange reason the explicit objection by countries that serious consequences does NOT constitiute an invasion, mysteriously is not mentioned. Furthermore, who gets to decide that Iraq did not comply? I have not seen any resolution doing that!

As to the coalition, you must be joking. How many countries were there, five? Clearly the overwhelming majority of countries in the world did not participate and even objected to inading Iraq. Why don't you mention that! Nomen Nescio 20:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you don't have all the facts. I'll help you out...First, you've seen the UN Resolution stating "all necessary means". In 1998, Clinton interpreted this to mean that after Iraq had disregarded it's obligations for 7 years, a bombing campaign was necessary. After that, Clinton stated that he was certain that Iraq STILL retained it's WMD programs and that they had not been destroyed. In 2002, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly interpreted "all necessary means" to mean: [52] "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq". It appears you are also arguing that the U.S. Congress is ALSO guilty of an "illegal war"...Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have some explaining to do I guess. In 2003, Bush, and the Coalition, decided that after 12 years of Iraqi non-compliance with the UN, that the "all necessary means" UN Authorization and the Congressional AUMF provided the needed authorization to resume military action with Iraq. Now, I use the word "resume" because after 1991, a cease-fire was declared and remained in place. UN RES 1441 specifically mentions this fact:

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

The Iraq War 2003 Coalition consisted of 48+ members [53] including these countries who provided military troops: U.S., U.K., South Korea, Spain, Japan, Italy, Poland, and Australia (I know, I know...they're all lightweights). Again, you are arguing with the Bush Administration, the 48+ member Coalition who provided troops and material support to the 2003 Iraq War, the Clinton Administration, and the Coalition who participated in the 1998 military action.

These are facts that we know for certain: The UN Authorized member States to use "all necessary means" to enforce the UN Resolutions. Clinton used this authority in 1998 when he used military action. In Nov. 2002, the UN unanimously passed RES 1441 which stated that Iraq was still in violation of it's cease-fire obligations and again stated previous UN authorization to use "all necessary means". Bush used this authority (along with Congressional authority) in 2003 when he used military action. These are the facts...and they are undisputed. Jeravicious 01:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, they aren't "undisputed". The UN did not, and never has, given individual member states the authority to determine on their own whether another member state is in violation of UN resolutions. It is, and has always been, the role of the entire UN Security Council to make such determinations. Otherwise, your "logic" means that anyone who wants to attack another country can just claim that country is in violation of a UN resolution, and their aggression will be automatically legitimate.

Also, please forgive me if I fail to take seriously the claims of a "Coalition" when over 90% of the troops are American, and much of the "Coalition" consists of world powers like Micronesia, Palau, and the Solomon Islands, whose only "support" provided was of the moral variety. 71.236.33.191 12:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Repeating the same argument does not make it valid. You still have to show:

• Why 1441 was needed if all is already legal based on previous resolutions?
• You still evade the question, which part of 1441 said "invading Iraq?"
• Most importantly, where did any resolution state that not the UN, but the US is the party that decides if Iraq complies and whatever measure is needed? You fail to understand that no single country can decide for the entire UN. This is exactly what Bush did.
• As to the authority of Bush, he violated US law because Congress, and not the President, declares war!

Nomen Nescio 01:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

* You are quite correct, RES 1441 was not needed to authorize military force...in 1998, Clinton didn't even have RES 1441 and he used military force against Iraq based on previous UN Authorization.

* RES 1441 cited previous UN RES 678 which "authorized Member States to use all necessary means "...which part of the word ALL don't you understand? btw, the Coalition had already "invaded" Iraq all through the 90's. The U.S. and the UK were flying military flights in the North and South...now I assume your gonna argue that a country flying military no-fly-zones over another country is not really an invasion.

* The U.S. didn't decide unilaterally that Iraq was not in compliance...RES 1441 passed unanimously by ALL Security Council members including France and Russia said that Iraq was NOT in compliance.

* You are quite wrong. First, in Oct. 2002 Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq. And second, even without a Congressional declaration of War, the President CAN commit the U.S. military to armed combat. Read up on the War Powers act.

Again, my point is this: You can argue that the 2003 military action was illegal (and I and many others will disagree), but to do so, you must also argue that Clinton's action in 1998 was ALSO illegal. And you must argue that ALL of the countries that provided military support (troops, etc) to those military conflicts were ALSO engaged in an illegal activity...including the UK, Spain, Italy, Japan, Australia, etc. Is that your contention?? Jeravicious 21:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. Yes the invasion of Iraq is illegal, and yes the bombing by Clinton is also questionable. But Clinton is not part of this discussion. Bush invaded contrary to the UN Charter and thereby is guilty of a war of aggression. End of story, end of this discussion. Start reading the sources I provided! Nomen Nescio 13:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

the US was one of many nations that supplied chemical weapon precursors, even when well aware of what it was being used for.

It would be good to supply evidence to support this claim!

I'm sure citations won't be hard to find. It was, if I recall correctly, under the reagan administration, via our good friend rummy and then envoy-whatever georgie. Kevin Baas^talk 16:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a political dispute

This is a political dispute, not a legal one. Though the focus may be on interpretations of law, this dispute ultimately boils down to a sovereignty dispute. Sovereignty disputes are always optical, never legal. Unless and until we have One world government, we are talking about multiple legal standards from multiple countries. Because there is no single standard, the battle is over which standard is paramount. That's a political dispute. Merecat 19:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Legitamcy:

1. lawfulness by virtue of being authorized or in accordance with law
2. undisputed credibility

legal:

adj.

1. Of, relating to, or concerned with law: legal papers.
2. • a. Authorized by or based on law: a legal right.
   • b. Established by law; statutory: the legal owner.
3. In conformity with or permitted by law: legal business operations.
4. Recognized or enforced by law rather than by equity.
5. In terms of or created by the law: a legal offense.
6. Applicable to or characteristic of attorneys or their profession.

political:

adj.

1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: "Calling a meeting is a political act in itself" Daniel Goleman.
3. Relating to or involving acts regarded as damaging to a government or state: political crimes.
4. Interested or active in politics: I'm not a very political person.
5. Having or influenced by partisan interests: The court should never become a political institution.
6. Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives: a purely political decision.

The dispute that this article discusses is over whether or not the war was legal. The administration argues that it was, others argue that it was not. both sides are presented. If you want to make an article about the "Politics of the 2003 invasion of Iraq", go right ahead. Kevin Baas^talk 22:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"Prevent" is correct, whether you choose to accept it or not

To prohibit X is to decree that anyone who engages in X will be subject to sanctions. To prevent X means to make it practically impossible to engage in X. They're not the same thing; while a prohibition of X may prevent X from occurring in some cases, that is not necessarily the case. Murder is prohibited, but it still occurs--thus, it is not (entirely) prevented. Running backwards on ones' toes at twenty million miles a second, however, while not prohibited, is still prevented. Though no one (or at least no one being taken seriously) is threatening to punish you if you run backwards on your toes at twenty million miles per second, it is still impossible to do.

Thus, "prevent" is clearly the correct word to use in the disputed sentence. Please do not use English if you refuse to understand the distinctions between its many words. Kurt Weber 23:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, WP:Civility.

pro·hib·it Pronunciation (pr-hbt)

tr.v. pro·hib·it·ed, pro·hib·it·ing, pro·hib·its 1. To forbid by authority: Smoking is prohibited in most theaters. See Synonyms at forbid. 2. To prevent; preclude: Modesty prohibits me from saying what happened.

pre·vent Pronunciation (pr-vnt)

v. pre·vent·ed, pre·vent·ing, pre·vents v.tr. 1. To keep from happening: took steps to prevent the strike. 2. To keep (someone) from doing something; impede: prevented us from winning. 3. Archaic To anticipate or counter in advance. 4. Archaic To come before; precede. v.intr. To present an obstacle: There will be a picnic if nothing prevents.

It is not a matter of whether someone or thing is standing in his way, tying his hands, or in any case keeping him from doing the thing. It is obvious that this is not the case. It is a matter of whether any law or principle, or other "authority", forbids it. Kevin Baas^talk 23:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of the policy, but it does not apply when dealing with such a prevalent and frustrating problem as using a language one does not understand.

Anyway, the insanity of your argument stems from the ridiculous notion that anyone would claim that the impossibility of verifying the authenticity of the Downing Street Memo means that someone would indeed place a prohibition on commenting it. This is absurd. Thus, the proper word is "prevent" because there is no reason to think that a prohibition would ever be placed. Kurt Weber 13:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand why you are argusing about a single word. The whole section is badly worded and could do with a whole re-write. What it should do is succintly summarise, from the main article, why new information included within the Downing Street Memo supports, or challenges, the argument that the war was illegal and/or illegitimate. Can someone do this? AndrewRT 23:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason I'm letting this go is because it is a trivial issue, and, to be frank, from the short time I've interacted w/Kmweber, I don't expect him to change either his views or his behavior. I know that prohibit is the right word in this case, and prevent the wrong word, but it's really not worth my time. Andrew, I'm not up for a rewrite. If you want to give it a shot, go ahead. Nothing prohibits you, and I couldn't prevent you if I wanted to, or thought it admissible. Kevin Baas^talk 01:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is too long

The introduction is way too long. Would anyone have an objection to moving the current introduction into the body of the article and writing a 2-3 sentence summary? Thanks,TheronJ 15:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not from me, I have to agree it is too big. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do, it could do with a tidy! AndrewRT 20:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I did some work on the article to shorten the introduction, then moved around information and am trying to sort it out, the article mentions WMD's so I am gonig to also add a section on human rights abuses and one on terrorism to balance everything out. Feel free to use the subpages discussion section to give feedback. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgot the link ... User:Zer0faults/Legitamacy_Rework --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Theron, intros are Not supposed to be 2-3 sentences long. See WP:LEAD. -- Mr. Tibbs 08:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD section reccomends an intro no longer then 3-4 paragraphs, that does not state it has to be 3-4 paragraphs. Please see: Korean_war, Vietnam War, United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan, Soviet_invasion_of_Afghanistan, Seven_Days_War, Gulf_war ... etc. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Tibbs is right that 2-3 sentences is probably too short, but, IMHO, the current version has too much detail to function as a summary and is hard to read. (I was probably being optimistic with my 2-3 sentence estimate). Does anyone else have thoughts? TheronJ

I expanded what I had in my above link User:Zer0faults/Legitamacy_Rework, hopefully giving a brief mention to the reasons covered for or against he legality:

"A legal dispute exists over the legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The debate is centered around the question; was the invasion an unprovoked assault on an independent country -- thus an invasion breaching international law -- or whether the conditions set in place after the Gulf War allowed the resumption if Iraq did not uphold to the Security Council resolutions.[54] Those arguing for its legality often cite Congressional Resolution 114 and previous UN Security Council resolutions, as well as Resolution 1441, stating these documents allow for military action. Those arguing against its legality also cite much the same sources, stating they do not actually permit war but instead layout conditions that must be met before war can be declared. Critics often cite the Downing Street memo as further proof the war was waged under misleading terms. The terms of the debate change depending on the subject of domestic or international law."

Since noone replied yet I changed it up a little more covering more indepth the debate. Will change it in the one on my talk page as well. Comments suggestions? Most of the information is carried later and the overview is suppose to just summarize this. If I am missing a legal basis just let me know and I will try to fill it in. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"The WP:LEAD section reccomends an intro no longer then 3-4 paragraphs, that does not state it has to be 3-4 paragraphs." Actually it states exactly what it should be: "The length should be one to three paragraphs, depending on the length of the entire article, and should never be limited to one or two short sentences." - WP:LEAD -- Mr. Tibbs 07:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)