Act Acting » Acting School » Peace Activists Funded by Iraq and North Korea

Peace Activists Funded by Iraq and North Korea

Question:

First, the US Constitution supercedes the UN Charter; we are still a sovereign nation, which is respected even under the UN Charter. Yes – and in case you hadn’t noticed, so is Iraq. Not that I think this is the most important reason to oppose the war, but you can’t have one rule for the US and another for everyone else. Well, it seems you *can*, but don’t expect other countries to like it.

There is a major difference between the US and Iraq: one nation is not in material breach of 17 UN Security Council resolutions requiring it to disarm. Those requirements are also part of a larger context, namely the ceasefire of the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam’s brazen non-compliance is sufficient justification for this action. Second, various articles of the UN Charter explicitly recognize the right of states to protect themselves. This is against the country that three weeks ago everyone was confident was so poorly armed and defended that the whole place would collapse under shock and awe tactics

Does not follow. For the record, not everyone was "confident" of what you allege. Certainly the President and the Pentagon were far mroe cautious than the talking heads on the networks, but the talking heads never had the benefit of intelligence reports. Third, this war is authorized under some seventeen UN Security Council resolutions under which the crumbling Iraqi regime was to disclose all WMD and related programs AND allow unfettered weapons inspections. The crumbling Iraqi regime did not live up to their end, they are facing the serious consequences of Resolution 1441. The ’serious consequences’ wording was *specifically* chosen because it did *not* authorise war. The US and UK stated this clearly at the time. If it had authorised war (said ‘all available means’, essentially), then it would have been vetoed.

France originally accepted that "serious consequences" meant war. As did Russia and Germany. Then their idea of serious consequences became sending in more inspectors and giving them more time. Twelve years, seventeen resolutions. It’s been a bullshit process to disarm Saddam, and any suggestion that this is a rash, cowboy action is thoroughly ignorant.    I am certain you can read the charter and make your case if you hold otherwise. Been there, done that. The Charter does not require member nations acting in matters of their own or even collective security to obtain resolutions or consensus before responding to threats. Even if it did, how would the UN back it up? It has no standing army, no means of enforcing. Great – ‘we’re going to war so nyahh, what you going to do about it’?

It would be much easier to take you seriously if you’d come up with a mature response. :-)

Response:

    The UN Charter is binding upon all signatories. It gives the only conditions under what war is permitted. This war does not satisfy them. First, the US Constitution supercedes the UN Charter; we are still a sovereign nation, which is respected even under the UN Charter.

        If you insist upon bringing up the Constitution, that requires a declaration of war by Congress and we have none. That means the Iraq war is being conducted by the people in the military who are personally loyal to Bush. You should recall in 1990, Bush I did not start that war without specific authorization from Congress to do so. Bush II has no such authorization. Second, various articles of the UN Charter explicitly recognize the right of states to protect themselves.

        Iraq has never at any time attacked the United States so that excuse is out. Third, this war is authorized under some seventeen UN Security Council resolutions under which the crumbling Iraqi regime was to disclose all WMD and related programs AND allow unfettered weapons inspections.

        The UN Security Council did not find any fault with Iraq’s compliance with their own resolutions. The US has no independent standing in that matter. And there are countries in violation of many more resolutions and for much longer and known to have all three types of unconventional weapons so that cannot be a justification for this war on Iraq. The crumbling Iraqi regime did not live up to their end, they are facing the serious consequences of Resolution 1441.

        The UN did not determine that and only the UN has standing in the matter. 1441 is between Iraq and the UN. The US is not a party to it. Nor is the US a party to any agreement with Iraq, not even the cease fire after the 1991 war.     I am certain you can read the charter and make your case if you hold otherwise. Been there, done that. The Charter does not require member nations acting in matters of their own or even collective security to obtain resolutions or consensus before responding to threats. Even if it did, how would the UN back it up? It has no standing army, no means of enforcing.

        Iraq has never attacked the US so that is not an excuse. — Bush’s first act of the war was to try to kill Hussein. While we will have to kill the perps, there is no moral condemnation of Hussein for trying to return the favor.         — The Iron Webmaster, 2602

Response:

        Israel was not found to by in material breech of 1441 or any other I am aware of. Perhaps you can cite one.

http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html lists UN resolution concerning Israel, some of which have been complied with at that nations choosing. You can search http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm for the entire wording of any of them.   http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/d744b47860e5c97e85256c40005d01d6/d7e… is the last one not vetoed — Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip     Even if true, it has no bearing upon this war being in violation of international laws to which the US is signatory. Which ones? :-)     The UN Charter is binding upon all signatories. It gives the only conditions under what war is permitted. It does?  I think you haven’t read the charter.  I think that’s why you didn’t offer any relevant citations from it. I have.  I can’t find anything in Chapters VI ("Pacific Settlement of Disputes") and VII ("Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Aggression"), the only two that deal with disputes, that lays out conditions under which war is permitted. Chapter VI, Article 33    1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.    2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means. Chapter VI, Article 37    1. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.    2. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate. Chapter VII, Article 39 The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. Chapter VII, Article 40 In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ I think you’re a lying blowhard who makes references to documents you haven’t read. This war does not satisfy them. I think you don’t know your ass from your face.  The pronoun "them" serving as a direct object in your sentence is bullshit; a complete fiction.     I am certain you can read the charter and make your case if you hold otherwise. I am certain you have not read the charter.     I have and have read what you posted.     I find nothing to legalize this war. Can you cite something specific? Can you find something specific that indicates the war is not "legal"?   No, you can’t.     Obviously you must know what it is as you posted it. What did I post?     Please do so and give the reasoning. Your claim is disproved.  You said the UN charter "gives the only conditions under what war is permitted."  You are wrong.  Either you were lying, or you have not read the charter and so do not know what you’re talking about.  In other words, you don’t know your ass from your face. Which is it?  Were you lying, or just ignorant?

        Would you kindly recite when the Security Council determined Iraq was a threat to peace and authorized this war?         Absent such Security Council determination and authorization as in the 1991 Gulf War, this is simply unprovoked aggression by the US on Iraq.         The US insisted upon _only_ the Security Council having that power because of WWII. There is no justification for any nation starting a war as Justice Jackson pointed out. === We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.    –Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, U.S. Representative to    the International Conference on Military Trials, August 12, 1945 — How old are you and why do you still believe in polls?         — The Iron Webmaster, 2587

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –     I have and have read what you posted. You must have very low reading comprehension. The only evidence I have observed that this action is illegal has been tautoligically "given" from the protestors.     I find nothing to legalize this war. Can you cite something specific? First, the UN Charter does not forbid nations from protecting themselves;     Iraq has not at any time or in any manner attacked the US therefore there is no issue of the US protecting itself. please show some evidence to the contrary if you are going to continue your nonsense and ignorance. Second, try UN Security Council Resolutions including but not limited to 667, 668, 678, 688, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, 1284, 1409, and 1441.     What do those have to do with the US war on Iraq? Only the UN is the enforcer of its resolutions.

LOL.  Since the UN has never had any military of its own that is as ludicrous as other anti-war nonsense. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The "not limited to" would include others that found Iraq in material breach of earlier resolutions.     Israel was not found to by in material breech of 1441 or any other I am aware of. Perhaps you can cite one. I can also give you ample moral and ethical justifications for this war, but are you open-minded enough to even consider them?     Morality and ethics are not justifications for war so it would do you no good to waste your time.     Obviously you must know what it is as you posted it.     Please do so and give the reasoning. Why don’t you do the same? JB has cited the Charter itself. You continue your tautology without any citation which would disabuse him (good reason for that: you cannot find what you assert in the Charter). The only possible argument that can be made that the UN Charter forbids such action comes from a very strict reading of Article 51 — which then puts it in contrast to other Articles (read the WHOLE thing in CONTEXT). Funny, too, that such strict interpretations are seldom esteemed by your side when reading the Constitution — or maybe you secretly appreciate the scholarship of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. :-)     Nothing in the Charter gives the US any justification for war on Iraq. It is not self defense. It does not have UN approval. Therefore it is a war of aggression not different from any other war of aggression.     Did you never read this? We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.   –Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, U.S. Representative to   the International Conference on Military Trials, August 12, 1945

Response:

    The UN Charter is binding upon all signatories. It gives the only conditions under what war is permitted. This war does not satisfy them.

First, the US Constitution supercedes the UN Charter; we are still a sovereign nation, which is respected even under the UN Charter. Second, various articles of the UN Charter explicitly recognize the right of states to protect themselves. Third, this war is authorized under some seventeen UN Security Council resolutions under which the crumbling Iraqi regime was to disclose all WMD and related programs AND allow unfettered weapons inspections. The crumbling Iraqi regime did not live up to their end, they are facing the serious consequences of Resolution 1441.     I am certain you can read the charter and make your case if you hold otherwise.

Been there, done that. The Charter does not require member nations acting in matters of their own or even collective security to obtain resolutions or consensus before responding to threats. Even if it did, how would the UN back it up? It has no standing army, no means of enforcing.

Response:

    The UN Charter is binding upon all signatories. It gives the only conditions under what war is permitted. This war does not satisfy them. First, the US Constitution supercedes the UN Charter; we are still a sovereign nation, which is respected even under the UN Charter.

Yes – and in case you hadn’t noticed, so is Iraq. Not that I think this is the most important reason to oppose the war, but you can’t have one rule for the US and another for everyone else. Well, it seems you *can*, but don’t expect other countries to like it. Second, various articles of the UN Charter explicitly recognize the right of states to protect themselves.

This is against the country that three weeks ago everyone was confident was so poorly armed and defended that the whole place would collapse under shock and awe tactics Third, this war is authorized under some seventeen UN Security Council resolutions under which the crumbling Iraqi regime was to disclose all WMD and related programs AND allow unfettered weapons inspections. The crumbling Iraqi regime did not live up to their end, they are facing the serious consequences of Resolution 1441.

The ’serious consequences’ wording was *specifically* chosen because it did *not* authorise war. The US and UK stated this clearly at the time. If it had authorised war (said ‘all available means’, essentially), then it would have been vetoed.     I am certain you can read the charter and make your case if you hold otherwise. Been there, done that. The Charter does not require member nations acting in matters of their own or even collective security to obtain resolutions or consensus before responding to threats. Even if it did, how would the UN back it up? It has no standing army, no means of

enforcing. Great – ‘we’re going to war so nyahh, what you going to do about it’? Danny

Response:

    I have and have read what you posted. You must have very low reading comprehension. The only evidence I have observed that this action is illegal has been tautoligically "given" from the protestors.     I find nothing to legalize this war. Can you cite something specific? First, the UN Charter does not forbid nations from protecting themselves;

        Iraq has not at any time or in any manner attacked the US therefore there is no issue of the US protecting itself. please show some evidence to the contrary if you are going to continue your nonsense and ignorance. Second, try UN Security Council Resolutions including but not limited to 667, 668, 678, 688, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, 1284, 1409, and 1441.

        What do those have to do with the US war on Iraq? Only the UN is the enforcer of its resolutions. The "not limited to" would include others that found Iraq in material breach of earlier resolutions.

        Israel was not found to by in material breech of 1441 or any other I am aware of. Perhaps you can cite one. I can also give you ample moral and ethical justifications for this war, but are you open-minded enough to even consider them?

        Morality and ethics are not justifications for war so it would do you no good to waste your time.     Obviously you must know what it is as you posted it.     Please do so and give the reasoning. Why don’t you do the same? JB has cited the Charter itself. You continue your tautology without any citation which would disabuse him (good reason for that: you cannot find what you assert in the Charter). The only possible argument that can be made that the UN Charter forbids such action comes from a very strict reading of Article 51 — which then puts it in contrast to other Articles (read the WHOLE thing in CONTEXT). Funny, too, that such strict interpretations are seldom esteemed by your side when reading the Constitution — or maybe you secretly appreciate the scholarship of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. :-)

        Nothing in the Charter gives the US any justification for war on Iraq. It is not self defense. It does not have UN approval. Therefore it is a war of aggression not different from any other war of aggression.         Did you never read this? We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.    –Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, U.S. Representative to    the International Conference on Military Trials, August 12, 1945 — Compared to the WWII axis, Bush’s axis is up to his intellectual level.         — The Iron Webmaster, 2623

Response:

various articles of the UN Charter explicitly recognize the right of states to protect themselves. This is against the country that three weeks ago everyone was confident was so poorly armed and defended that the whole place would collapse under shock and awe tactics Er…do you have a point?

Well, yes – the point is, the US is supposedly ‘protecting themselves’ against a country that has not been proven to have any means or intention to attack them, and which they were at some pains to emphasise was poorly equipped and held by means of force. That may or may not be true – but it’s certainly not been shown up to now. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Third, this war is authorized under some seventeen UN Security Council resolutions under which the crumbling Iraqi regime was to disclose all WMD and related programs AND allow unfettered weapons inspections. The crumbling Iraqi regime did not live up to their end, they are facing the serious consequences of Resolution 1441. The ’serious consequences’ wording was *specifically* chosen because it did *not* authorise war. Prove it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,914020,00.html ‘The language of 1441 is restrained precisely because if it had been stronger it would not have got the full support of the security council, many of whose members explained they voted in favour precisely because, in their view, it was not a trigger for authorising force. "The phrase ‘all necessary means’ was unacceptable; France and Russia would have vetoed it", says Professor Nicholas Grief, barrister and head of the school of finance and law at Bournemouth. "Resolution 1441 is opaque for political reasons", echoes Malcolm Shaw QC, professor of international law at Leicester University. This argument applies even more to subsequent resolutions drafted by Britain and referring back to 1441. ‘ The US and UK stated this clearly at the time. Prove it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,916184,00.html ‘…resolution 1441 does not do what Lord Goldsmith says it does. It does not authorise the use of force. The term "serious consequences" is not UN code for enforcement action. Once again, the majority of members of the security council rejected automaticity. Even US Ambassador John Negroponte said that the resolution "contained no ‘hidden triggers’ and no ‘automaticity’ with the use of force". ‘ Also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,836496,00.html ‘But Mr Negroponte made sure the council understood the resolution had not tied Mr Bush’s hands. The resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself and protecting world peace and security, he said, hinting that the US could move ahead with an attack on Iraq even without the security council’s approval. ‘ Note – even here, the implicit assumption is that to go ahead on the basis of 1441 would not be sufficient, even though he made it clear that that was what was likely to happen. If it had authorised war (said ‘all available means’, essentially), then it would have been vetoed. I don’t believe you have any expertise whatsoever in the wording of UN resolutions.

Then believe this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,915534,00.html ‘Keir Starmer QC is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers specialising in international human rights law. He is a fellow of the Human Rights Centre at Essex University.’ ‘The second route, which depends on Article 42 of the UN charter, appears more promising for the government. There are two strands to this argument. The first is that resolution 1441 itself authorises the use of force against Iraq. It warns Iraq that "it will face serious consequences" if it continues to violate obligations spelled out in that resolution. But, critically, the words "all necessary means" have not been used. They are important words because they are the formula used by the UN to indicate that the use of force is authorised. They were the words used to justify military action against Iraq in 1991 and, subsequently, when the security council authorised intervention in Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti. The argument that all the security council members, including France and Russia, intended to authorise the use of force when they voted for resolution 1441 is hardly compelling, and arguments that resolution 1441 implicitly authorises the use of force run into the same difficulty. ‘ (incidentally, I realise I mis-spoke ‘all available means’ when I meant ‘all necessary means’, I assume you’re not talking about this as being an issue) Also http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,913589,00.html ‘Security council resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of force. Any attack on Iraq would consequently be illegal. ‘Resolution 1441 finds Iraq to be in "material breach" of its disarmament obligations under earlier security council resolutions. It gives Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply with its obligations and, to that end, establishes an onerous and rigidly-timetabled programme of Iraqi disclosures and UN inspections. Failures by Iraq to comply are to be reported to the security council, which must then "convene immediately … to consider the situation and the need for full compliance". The resolution also recalls that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq of "serious consequences" as a result of its continued violations of its obligations. But the resolution does not authorise the use of force. The term "serious consequences" is not UN code for enforcement action (the term used is "all necessary measures"). And, in their explanations of their votes adopting resolution 1441, council members were careful to say that the resolution did not provide such an authorisation. ‘    I am certain you can read the charter and make your case if you hold otherwise. Been there, done that. The Charter does not require member nations acting in matters of their own or even collective security to obtain resolutions or consensus before responding to threats. Even if it did, how would the UN back it up? It has no standing army, no means of enforcing. Great – ‘we’re going to war so nyahh, what you going to do about it’? No.

Well, that’s the implication. The above para basically says that even if the UN were to say the US is acting against the Charter, there’s nothing they can do about it. I’m not agreeing with the statement necessarily, but it does say something about the US attitude in this scenario. Danny

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    The UN Charter is binding upon all signatories. It gives the only conditions under what war is permitted. This war does not satisfy them. First, the US Constitution supercedes the UN Charter; we are still a sovereign nation, which is respected even under the UN Charter. Yes – and in case you hadn’t noticed, so is Iraq. Not that I think this is the most important reason to oppose the war, but you can’t have one rule for the US and another for everyone else.

We don’t.  The U.S. has acted with restraint and forbearance for the dozen years since the Gulf war. Well, it seems you *can*, but don’t expect other countries to like it. Second, various articles of the UN Charter explicitly recognize the right of states to protect themselves. This is against the country that three weeks ago everyone was confident was so poorly armed and defended that the whole place would collapse under shock and awe tactics

Er…do you have a point? Third, this war is authorized under some seventeen UN Security Council resolutions under which the crumbling Iraqi regime was to disclose all WMD and related programs AND allow unfettered weapons inspections. The crumbling Iraqi regime did not live up to their end, they are facing the serious consequences of Resolution 1441. The ’serious consequences’ wording was *specifically* chosen because it did *not* authorise war.

Prove it. The US and UK stated this clearly at the time.

Prove it. If it had authorised war (said ‘all available means’, essentially), then it would have been vetoed.

I don’t believe you have any expertise whatsoever in the wording of UN resolutions.    I am certain you can read the charter and make your case if you hold otherwise. Been there, done that. The Charter does not require member nations acting in matters of their own or even collective security to obtain resolutions or consensus before responding to threats. Even if it did, how would the UN back it up? It has no standing army, no means of enforcing. Great – ‘we’re going to war so nyahh, what you going to do about it’?

No.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip     Even if true, it has no bearing upon this war being in violation of international laws to which the US is signatory. Which ones? :-)     The UN Charter is binding upon all signatories. It gives the only conditions under what war is permitted. It does?  I think you haven’t read the charter.  I think that’s why you didn’t offer any relevant citations from it. I have.  I can’t find anything in Chapters VI ("Pacific Settlement of Disputes") and VII ("Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Aggression"), the only two that deal with disputes, that lays out conditions under which war is permitted. Chapter VI, Article 33    1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.    2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means. Chapter VI, Article 37    1. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.    2. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate. Chapter VII, Article 39 The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. Chapter VII, Article 40 In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ I think you’re a lying blowhard who makes references to documents you haven’t read. This war does not satisfy them. I think you don’t know your ass from your face.  The pronoun "them" serving as a direct object in your sentence is bullshit; a complete fiction.     I am certain you can read the charter and make your case if you hold otherwise. I am certain you have not read the charter.     I have and have read what you posted.     I find nothing to legalize this war. Can you cite something specific?

Can you find something specific that indicates the war is not "legal"?  No, you can’t.     Obviously you must know what it is as you posted it.

What did I post?     Please do so and give the reasoning.

Your claim is disproved.  You said the UN charter "gives the only conditions under what war is permitted."  You are wrong.  Either you were lying, or you have not read the charter and so do not know what you’re talking about.  In other words, you don’t know your ass from your face. Which is it?  Were you lying, or just ignorant?

Response:

    I have and have read what you posted.

You must have very low reading comprehension. The only evidence I have observed that this action is illegal has been tautoligically "given" from the protestors.     I find nothing to legalize this war. Can you cite something specific?

First, the UN Charter does not forbid nations from protecting themselves; please show some evidence to the contrary if you are going to continue your nonsense and ignorance. Second, try UN Security Council Resolutions including but not limited to 667, 668, 678, 688, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, 1284, 1409, and 1441. The "not limited to" would include others that found Iraq in material breach of earlier resolutions. I can also give you ample moral and ethical justifications for this war, but are you open-minded enough to even consider them?     Obviously you must know what it is as you posted it.     Please do so and give the reasoning.

Why don’t you do the same? JB has cited the Charter itself. You continue your tautology without any citation which would disabuse him (good reason for that: you cannot find what you assert in the Charter). The only possible argument that can be made that the UN Charter forbids such action comes from a very strict reading of Article 51 — which then puts it in contrast to other Articles (read the WHOLE thing in CONTEXT). Funny, too, that such strict interpretations are seldom esteemed by your side when reading the Constitution — or maybe you secretly appreciate the scholarship of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. :-)

Response:

Red Guard, huh? All your heroes are mass murderers.  Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Hussein, Arafat, the list goes on and on. How many more millions will die in the name of your outdated ideologies? Do yourself and the world a favor.  Donate your body to science so that we may dissect your brain and discover what causes your mental illness.

Response:

        It is always unpleasant to see peace labeled antiamerican. It is too close to the truth.

But you’ve already begged the question.  Some of us would still consider it open to debate: Do the protestors argue against the US because they are for peace, or for peace because they are against the US? The articles Chive has cited (although he tries to take it beyond what they actually say) lend credible support to the latter assertion. — Regards, Mike Combs We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely. Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable – the best site is "somewhere else entirely."                         Gerard O’Neill – "The High Frontier"

Response:

The articles Chive has cited (although he tries to take it beyond what they actually say) lend credible support to the latter assertion.

The articles I posted speak for themselves.  The "peace movement" is really an anti-american movement.

Response:

       It is always unpleasant to see peace labeled antiamerican. It is too close to the truth. But you’ve already begged the question.  Some of us would still consider it open to debate: Do the protestors argue against the US because they are for peace, or for peace because they are against the US?

        The "against the US" part is an allegation without facts to support it. Therefore it is not debatable until it is established.         Second, the two are not opposites. Whether one is for or against the US has nothing to do there being no justification for this war and that it is criminal agression against Iraq. The articles Chive has cited (although he tries to take it beyond what they actually say) lend credible support to the latter assertion.

        Even if true, it has no bearing upon this war being in violation of international laws to which the US is signatory. — 2003 March 24: US destroys bus killing five Syrian civilians.         — The Iron Webmaster, 2613

Response:

<snip     Even if true, it has no bearing upon this war being in violation of international laws to which the US is signatory.

Which ones? :-)

Response:

<snip     Even if true, it has no bearing upon this war being in violation of international laws to which the US is signatory. Which ones? :-)

        The UN Charter is binding upon all signatories. It gives the only conditions under what war is permitted. This war does not satisfy them.         I am certain you can read the charter and make your case if you hold otherwise. — Memory hole: The number of Kurds gassed was 5000 by Iran not 60,000 by Iraq.         — The Iron Webmaster, 2582

Response:

The articles Chive has cited (although he tries to take it beyond what they actually say) lend credible support to the latter assertion. The articles I posted speak for themselves.  The "peace movement" is really an anti-american movement.

It sure is.  It’s always been that way. Bob

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip     Even if true, it has no bearing upon this war being in violation of international laws to which the US is signatory. Which ones? :-)     The UN Charter is binding upon all signatories. It gives the only conditions under what war is permitted.

It does?  I think you haven’t read the charter.  I think that’s why you didn’t offer any relevant citations from it. I have.  I can’t find anything in Chapters VI ("Pacific Settlement of Disputes") and VII ("Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Aggression"), the only two that deal with disputes, that lays out conditions under which war is permitted. Chapter VI, Article 33     1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.     2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means. Chapter VI, Article 37     1. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.     2. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate. Chapter VII, Article 39 The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. Chapter VII, Article 40 In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ I think you’re a lying blowhard who makes references to documents you haven’t read. This war does not satisfy them.

I think you don’t know your ass from your face.  The pronoun "them" serving as a direct object in your sentence is bullshit; a complete fiction.     I am certain you can read the charter and make your case if you hold otherwise.

I am certain you have not read the charter.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip     Even if true, it has no bearing upon this war being in violation of international laws to which the US is signatory. Which ones? :-)     The UN Charter is binding upon all signatories. It gives the only conditions under what war is permitted. It does?  I think you haven’t read the charter.  I think that’s why you didn’t offer any relevant citations from it. I have.  I can’t find anything in Chapters VI ("Pacific Settlement of Disputes") and VII ("Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Aggression"), the only two that deal with disputes, that lays out conditions under which war is permitted. Chapter VI, Article 33    1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.    2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means. Chapter VI, Article 37    1. Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.    2. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate. Chapter VII, Article 39 The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. Chapter VII, Article 40 In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ I think you’re a lying blowhard who makes references to documents you haven’t read. This war does not satisfy them. I think you don’t know your ass from your face.  The pronoun "them" serving as a direct object in your sentence is bullshit; a complete fiction.     I am certain you can read the charter and make your case if you hold otherwise. I am certain you have not read the charter.

        I have and have read what you posted.         I find nothing to legalize this war. Can you cite something specific?         Obviously you must know what it is as you posted it.         Please do so and give the reasoning. — All during the Cold War we were promised bringing down the Soviet Union would lead to peace for the US. And it did.         — The Iron Webmaster, 2589

Response:

Thanks for posting the latest anti-American hate message from the leftists.

        It is always unpleasant to see peace labeled antiamerican. It is too close to the truth. — The most obvious consequence of the war on Afghanistan has been to increase the world heroine supply.         — The Iron Webmaster, 2572

Response:

Thanks for posting the latest anti-American hate message from the leftists. Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – UNITE TO FIGHT THE WAR-MAKERS! Statement by International ANSWER coalition Unable to contend with the historic and constitutional right of the people to control their own government and the direction of their country, the Bush Administration has now launched an assault on the anti-war movement. As the clock ticks down and the administration rushes to wage war against Iraq, it is starting another war here at home against the people of the United States. On January 18 half a million people marched in Washington, D.C. in a true democratic expression of their opposition to an illegal and immoral war of aggression being driven by a tiny few who hold the reigns of military and economic might. Another 200,000 marched in San Francisco. Around the world people in over 35 countries held solidarity demonstrations. Now we are all mobilizing for the February 15/16 mass actions against the war that have been initiated by the European peace movement. The people of conscience who are taking to the streets represent the sentiments of so many millions more. This is a powerful rejection of the Bush administration’s attempt to drag us all into war and global conflagration. On January 28, ten days after the historic January 18 march, the Free Congress Foundation, the Center for Security Policy and other ultra-right wing members of the U.S. political establishment, including former officials of the Heritage Foundation and the Reagan administration, began promoting the creation of a new version of the House Un-American Activities Committee to investigate not only the organizers but the demonstrators themselves who came to Washington to protest Bush’s march to war. On January 30, the New York Daily News published the Bush administration’s latest smear — a purportedly leaked intelligence report from his Homeland Security department claiming that "Iraqi spies" came to the U.S. from Canada to carry out the anti-war demonstrations. This first act for Bush’s Homeland Security department — which had officially opened a mere six days earlier — speaks volumes about what Bush’s view of "homeland security" is: using the power of the government to lie, to discredit, to disrupt and to try to shut down the opposition of the people of the U.S. to his program of violent domination and empire. The Center for Security Policy is a group funded by arms manufacturers and big business who are being given the U.S. taxpayer’s money looted from programs that would otherwise fund education, healthcare and jobs in America. The Free Congress Foundation is a haven for extremists so out of step with social justice that they pay staff members who have written that we in the U.S. might be better off if the confederacy had won the civil war, who advocate that the racist Trent Lott should have remained in his leadership position, who push anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and who spoke at a neo-Nazi conference last summer. These groups both work with and are received by the Bush Administration. We call on all people of conscience to rally together and defend our movement for justice and peace. The red-baiting and demonization of certain leading anti-war organizations has one purpose — to weaken the whole peace movement. PURPOSE OF RED-BAITING: TO STOP COLLECTIVE ACTION AND SILENCE DISSENT These efforts are the apex of a repugnant red-baiting campaign against the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition because of its role as a principal organizer of the mass grassroots movement of opposition to war throughout the United States. It is not only A.N.S.W.E.R. that is the target of these attacks. The Not In Our Name Project (NION) and others who have been organizing for peace have also been subject to virulent red-baiting. The point of the associational red-baiting and smear campaign is to warn all of us who are coming out into the streets, many who have found public voice for the first time and are empowered by the strength of their actions, that what we think we experienced is tainted, that we are dupes of some hidden hand and should go back inside. These are the identical mechanisms that were used by the government to try to destroy the labor movement of the thirties and forties and the civil rights and anti-war movements of the fifties, sixties and seventies. (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was labeled a "communist sympathizer.") All of us who have been involved with the Coalition have been subjected to an intensive associational red-baiting attack that emanates from pro-war supporters. It often gets carried by others who claim to be from the progressive community but who unfortunately are more focused on engaging in sectarian factionalization than, on the eve of war, stopping a needless slaughter. Fortunately, the thousands of people organizing around the country to stop this war drive have been rejecting these efforts, as is evidenced from the success of the mobilizations and the outpouring of support received by A.N.S.W.E.R. at the grassroots level. THE JANUARY 18 DEMONSTRATION AND THE RED-BAITING TACTICS The demonstrations have been supported by, organized by, and attended by persons from all walks of life. For January 18, hundreds of thousands of people traveled all night by bus and car from communities around the country with their children, their grandparents, their friends and neighbors, many attending their first demonstration and not knowing fully what to expect. Once arriving in the freezing cold of D.C. or the streets of San Francisco they met others from different backgrounds who shared a simple and heartfelt demand: that there be no war of aggression launched by the government of the U.S. on the people of Iraq. We have heard stories of the veteran from Pennsylvania who spent the day with the family from Alabama, the mother and her son from Mississippi who made new friends with the students from Wisconsin. We all listened as speakers representing veterans, labor and working people, youth and students, communities of faith, members of Congress, artists and writers, and fighters for social justice from different struggles all brought messages of solidarity in opposition to a war on Iraq. And then we all marched together. Those who seek to diminish and divide this growing movement often dishonestly claim that A.N.S.W.E.R. is a "front" group in order to diminish the Coalition and all the people from different backgrounds and organizations that are part of it, including on its Steering Committee, and who have their own honorable independent histories in the anti-war and social justice movements. The red-baiters have focused on singling out the presence of socialists and Marxists, in particular members of the Workers World Party (a socialist party in the U.S.), because some people in that party have been prominent in supporting the anti-war movement and the work of A.N.S.W.E.R. and their political positions have been routinely caricatured. Those who claim that A.N.S.W.E.R. is a "front" demonstrate their own racist and elitist perception of reality. Oddly invisible to them is the role of the various communities and organizations, including Arab Americans, African Americans, Korean Americans, Filipino Americans, Latinos, faith-based and solidarity groups who clearly have a central leadership role in organizing A.N.S.W.E.R. and carrying out the actions of the past year. That there are socialists or Marxists in the peace movement is neither a shock, nor a matter for repudiation. There are also Democrats, Republicans, Greens, anarchists, independents, and people with no party affiliation, and everyone is welcome. This is a united front of opposition that is becoming a big problem for the administration — hence the stepped up demonization and red-baiting, particularly after successful mass actions. WHAT IS "MAINSTREAM" AMERICA: THE POWER OF REAL DEMOCRACY While thousands of grassroots activists have worked tirelessly organizing their communities, holding teach-ins, handing out leaflets, putting up posters, and doing all the other necessary tasks to build a movement to stop Bush’s war against Iraq, it is sad that a few on the sidelines claiming to speak for the liberal and progressive community have so willingly been partners with the right wing and pro-war supporters in their efforts to disrupt the growing peace movement. Much of the red-baiting and disinformation campaign emanated first from the pages of the Nation magazine and its columnists, which is now approvingly cited by the new Joe McCarthys in the conservative establishment. Some writers who have done nothing to organize against the war — Todd Gitlin, Marc Cooper, Christopher Hitchens, David Corn and a few others — have been feverishly exposing "reds" in the anti-war movement and demanding purges for months. A handful of people who claim to be leaders of the peace movement have also supported these attacks and demurred that they are not red-baiting but only trying to look out for the best interests of the movement. They state that the anti-war movement must appeal to "mainstream America" and that A.N.S.W.E.R.’s leadership and organizing, despite the turnout of hundreds of thousands of people in the streets, is a barrier to reaching that "mainstream" America. They wrongly insist that A.N.S.W.E.R.’s linking issues of war, racism and economic justice — inclusion of the struggle against the death penalty, or presenting a taped anti-war message to the demonstration from political prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal, or supporting Palestinian self-determination — that this bringing

… read more »

Response:

UNITE TO FIGHT THE WAR-MAKERS! Statement by International ANSWER coalition Unable to contend with the historic and constitutional right of the people to control their own government and the direction of their country, the Bush Administration has now launched an assault on the anti-war movement. As the clock ticks down and the administration rushes to wage war against Iraq, it is starting another war here at home against the people of the United States. On January 18 half a million people marched in Washington, D.C. in a true democratic expression of their opposition to an illegal and immoral war of aggression being driven by a tiny few who hold the reigns of military and economic might. Another 200,000 marched in San Francisco. Around the world people in over 35 countries held solidarity demonstrations. Now we are all mobilizing for the February 15/16 mass actions against the war that have been initiated by the European peace movement. The people of conscience who are taking to the streets represent the sentiments of so many millions more. This is a powerful rejection of the Bush administration’s attempt to drag us all into war and global conflagration. On January 28, ten days after the historic January 18 march, the Free Congress Foundation, the Center for Security Policy and other ultra-right wing members of the U.S. political establishment, including former officials of the Heritage Foundation and the Reagan administration, began promoting the creation of a new version of the House Un-American Activities Committee to investigate not only the organizers but the demonstrators themselves who came to Washington to protest Bush’s march to war. On January 30, the New York Daily News published the Bush administration’s latest smear — a purportedly leaked intelligence report from his Homeland Security department claiming that "Iraqi spies" came to the U.S. from Canada to carry out the anti-war demonstrations. This first act for Bush’s Homeland Security department — which had officially opened a mere six days earlier — speaks volumes about what Bush’s view of "homeland security" is: using the power of the government to lie, to discredit, to disrupt and to try to shut down the opposition of the people of the U.S. to his program of violent domination and empire. The Center for Security Policy is a group funded by arms manufacturers and big business who are being given the U.S. taxpayer’s money looted from programs that would otherwise fund education, healthcare and jobs in America. The Free Congress Foundation is a haven for extremists so out of step with social justice that they pay staff members who have written that we in the U.S. might be better off if the confederacy had won the civil war, who advocate that the racist Trent Lott should have remained in his leadership position, who push anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and who spoke at a neo-Nazi conference last summer. These groups both work with and are received by the Bush Administration. We call on all people of conscience to rally together and defend our movement for justice and peace. The red-baiting and demonization of certain leading anti-war organizations has one purpose — to weaken the whole peace movement. PURPOSE OF RED-BAITING: TO STOP COLLECTIVE ACTION AND SILENCE DISSENT These efforts are the apex of a repugnant red-baiting campaign against the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition because of its role as a principal organizer of the mass grassroots movement of opposition to war throughout the United States. It is not only A.N.S.W.E.R. that is the target of these attacks. The Not In Our Name Project (NION) and others who have been organizing for peace have also been subject to virulent red-baiting. The point of the associational red-baiting and smear campaign is to warn all of us who are coming out into the streets, many who have found public voice for the first time and are empowered by the strength of their actions, that what we think we experienced is tainted, that we are dupes of some hidden hand and should go back inside. These are the identical mechanisms that were used by the government to try to destroy the labor movement of the thirties and forties and the civil rights and anti-war movements of the fifties, sixties and seventies. (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was labeled a "communist sympathizer.") All of us who have been involved with the Coalition have been subjected to an intensive associational red-baiting attack that emanates from pro-war supporters. It often gets carried by others who claim to be from the progressive community but who unfortunately are more focused on engaging in sectarian factionalization than, on the eve of war, stopping a needless slaughter. Fortunately, the thousands of people organizing around the country to stop this war drive have been rejecting these efforts, as is evidenced from the success of the mobilizations and the outpouring of support received by A.N.S.W.E.R. at the grassroots level. THE JANUARY 18 DEMONSTRATION AND THE RED-BAITING TACTICS The demonstrations have been supported by, organized by, and attended by persons from all walks of life. For January 18, hundreds of thousands of people traveled all night by bus and car from communities around the country with their children, their grandparents, their friends and neighbors, many attending their first demonstration and not knowing fully what to expect. Once arriving in the freezing cold of D.C. or the streets of San Francisco they met others from different backgrounds who shared a simple and heartfelt demand: that there be no war of aggression launched by the government of the U.S. on the people of Iraq. We have heard stories of the veteran from Pennsylvania who spent the day with the family from Alabama, the mother and her son from Mississippi who made new friends with the students from Wisconsin. We all listened as speakers representing veterans, labor and working people, youth and students, communities of faith, members of Congress, artists and writers, and fighters for social justice from different struggles all brought messages of solidarity in opposition to a war on Iraq. And then we all marched together. Those who seek to diminish and divide this growing movement often dishonestly claim that A.N.S.W.E.R. is a "front" group in order to diminish the Coalition and all the people from different backgrounds and organizations that are part of it, including on its Steering Committee, and who have their own honorable independent histories in the anti-war and social justice movements. The red-baiters have focused on singling out the presence of socialists and Marxists, in particular members of the Workers World Party (a socialist party in the U.S.), because some people in that party have been prominent in supporting the anti-war movement and the work of A.N.S.W.E.R. and their political positions have been routinely caricatured. Those who claim that A.N.S.W.E.R. is a "front" demonstrate their own racist and elitist perception of reality. Oddly invisible to them is the role of the various communities and organizations, including Arab Americans, African Americans, Korean Americans, Filipino Americans, Latinos, faith-based and solidarity groups who clearly have a central leadership role in organizing A.N.S.W.E.R. and carrying out the actions of the past year. That there are socialists or Marxists in the peace movement is neither a shock, nor a matter for repudiation. There are also Democrats, Republicans, Greens, anarchists, independents, and people with no party affiliation, and everyone is welcome. This is a united front of opposition that is becoming a big problem for the administration — hence the stepped up demonization and red-baiting, particularly after successful mass actions. WHAT IS "MAINSTREAM" AMERICA: THE POWER OF REAL DEMOCRACY While thousands of grassroots activists have worked tirelessly organizing their communities, holding teach-ins, handing out leaflets, putting up posters, and doing all the other necessary tasks to build a movement to stop Bush’s war against Iraq, it is sad that a few on the sidelines claiming to speak for the liberal and progressive community have so willingly been partners with the right wing and pro-war supporters in their efforts to disrupt the growing peace movement. Much of the red-baiting and disinformation campaign emanated first from the pages of the Nation magazine and its columnists, which is now approvingly cited by the new Joe McCarthys in the conservative establishment. Some writers who have done nothing to organize against the war — Todd Gitlin, Marc Cooper, Christopher Hitchens, David Corn and a few others — have been feverishly exposing "reds" in the anti-war movement and demanding purges for months. A handful of people who claim to be leaders of the peace movement have also supported these attacks and demurred that they are not red-baiting but only trying to look out for the best interests of the movement. They state that the anti-war movement must appeal to "mainstream America" and that A.N.S.W.E.R.’s leadership and organizing, despite the turnout of hundreds of thousands of people in the streets, is a barrier to reaching that "mainstream" America. They wrongly insist that A.N.S.W.E.R.’s linking issues of war, racism and economic justice — inclusion of the struggle against the death penalty, or presenting a taped anti-war message to the demonstration from political prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal, or supporting Palestinian self-determination — that this bringing together unity of different social justice struggles to oppose war on Iraq can only "limit" the anti-war movement. A.N.S.W.E.R. has mobilized the largest demonstrations against the Bush administration’s policies that have been filled not only by radical activists but by broad sections of the population reaching across ethnicities, races, genders, economic status and many political divides to include many who are participating for the … read more »

Response:

Who Pays For These Demonstrations? By Stephen Schwartz FrontPageMagazine.com | January 24, 2003 Both before and after the latest round of so-called peace demonstrations, many respected liberals, leftists, and pacifists have expressed their concern over the events’ control by a tiny Stalinist cult, the "Workers World Party" or WWP. WWP created International A.N.S.W.E.R., the umbrella group for the protests, and WWP leaders, posing as peace activists, have gained extraordinary media access in recent weeks. In addition, the group manipulates former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark as a pliable puppet, in an effort to gain respectability. The despicable record of WWP in promoting Stalinist and fascist dictators is old news. WWP, the patron of International A.N.S.W.E.R., is on record supporting:  * The pitiless massacre of Chinese protestors by the armed forces in Tiananmen in 1989. WWP states, "troops were issued arms

Related Posts

Leave a Reply