So You Don't Have To

SNL is main stream entertainment just like Rush except once in a while it is actually funny.

Oil man, I still laugh every time I hear "In a Yugo" on Rush's show.

That show was worthwhile up until 1980.

" agree - international law is irrelevant."

This is true if you are in CONUS (continental United States, including Alaska & Hawaii et. al. territories) but when you are OCONUS, international law is relevant or you operating illegally.  Iraq is clearly OCONUS.

IP ---- Your 'my way or the highway attitude' seems a bit like GWB.  I actually believe there are more than "one of two sides" to any issue.  How boring----only two choices-----so little to discuss.  I have been told dictatorships and kingdoms are the most efficient forms of government because of the two choice operations for their citizens.

Per your request IP---- http://www.wmo.int/web-en/about.html   Guess what the USA does not enforce this.

And if the WMO mandates reductions in "carbon footprints", who is going to enforce that?

Your posts IP indicate that you have not done much world traveling.  Correct?

"This is an interesting list.  I wouldn't normally compare the actions of our country with the tyrants and butchers in Darfur, Bosnia or North Korea but when it comes to Iraq you seem to be on target.  Indeed, International Law was unable to stop the slaughter in Darfur, Cambodia, Bosnia, North Korea AND Iraq.  Yes, the list is now complete.  Thanks for clarifying."

I'm sorry that you think we've "slaughtered" that many people in Iraq.

"By ignoring international law the United States of America now belongs on a list with Pol Pot, Slobodan Milosevic, and Kim Jung Il.  Fantastic!"

Only in your mind.  One, I don't think the US "ignored" international law in invading Iraq.  Two, even if we had, our actions there aren't comparable to those listed above.  Why do you think they are?

"I wonder what Hitler thought of International Law?  Does it occur to you that by declaring it irrelevant to our country you are doing the EXACT thing that the worst leaders of the last centruy did?  Does that make a dent at all?  Lord almighty."

Actually, I'm accepting reality - does that make me part of the "reality based community?"  International laws don't work - period.  They never have, and they never will - absent the will of the USA to enforce them, which we only do when its in our national interests.  They're only used by lawbreaking nations to dictate to the US how and when we're allowed to interact with them to protect our national interests.

I'll ask again, because I think you're deliberately ignoring the question:  please discuss international laws as they apply to Iran's behavior currently.  What consequences should Iran face for repeatedly pissing in the face of your much-valued and oh-so-effective international law?  And who should be responsible for enforcing those consequences?  How?

If there had been no Iraq War then tens, or perhaps hundreds of thousands of people would not be dead.

How many people per year was Sadam feeding thru the grinders?  How many mass graves did our soldiers find as they went thru Iraq?  

"Outside of Iraq you could look at the peacekeeping in the Sinai Peninsula in 1956, the limited but real successes in East Timor (continuing), the have been successes in Afghanistan, Eritrea and Lebanon as well."

All successes because of US leadership. And the US participated because it was in our national interests to do so.

"No question that the UN lacks the "bite" to get the job done in some places, and there have been many failures over the years (many more than successes? not sure). But to simply claim that the US doesn't need to follow international laws and treaties THAT IT HAS SIGNED AND AGREED TO FOLLOW is to firmly place us in the camp with despots and dictators who flaunt the law for their own purposes."

I'm all for sticking to the treaties we've signed.  And we've signed some that bind us to obey some international "laws."   But - and I keep repeating myself because you keep ignoring the point - international laws are only effective when the US is the one enforcing them.  And we broke no treaties by invading Iraq - in fact, the argument can be made that we were simply responding to multiple Iraqi violations of the existing cease-fire signed in 1991.

And again, what about Iran?  Why do you keep ignoring the complete failure of your beloved and revered international law in preventing those madmen from acquiring (and announcing their intentions to use) nuclear weapons?

Obviously laws, international or otherwise are only good if most people believe they have benefit.  The Interstate system's legal speed limit is one that is pretty much broken each day by most in this country.  We, like other countries have broken International laws when they conflict with what our leaders want to do.  As a USA citizen, I do not have to agree with our nation's leaders when they break international laws.  Nor do I have have to support their decisions if I do not agree.  Obviously, our leaders do not see benefit in these laws.

Internationally, I am ashamed the USA leadership used untrue justifications to gain support from its citizens and some countries of the world for our invasion of Iraq.  I am also ashamed of the USA's inability in the last four years to assist the people of Iraq in switching from a dictatorship to some peaceful, viable from of government they could support.  I am also ashamed of the USA's inability to deal effectively with all those responsible for 9/11.  I can only hope that the current leadership does not bring more shame in their dealings with Iran.

FEAR is what this administration has been and continues to use quite successfully. 

Sorry RSW but I am not buying FEAR as realism.  Fear is an emotional reaction.  I'll buy threats as potentially being real if that is what you meant.

How about "respect for the threat"?  The threat from Iran, the threat from Islamo-terrorists around the globe, and, yes, even the threat to the middle east oil supply.  Pulling troops out of Iraq and thinking all these threats will just go away is unrealistic.

"North Korea is much closer than that and Pakistan already has them as well asOsama Bin Laden."

So how effective have international laws been in dealing with North Korea, Pakistan and OBL?

I would argue they've been completely ineffective, absent a coincidence with US national interests and US leadership.

I check back to see if anyone gave me crap for my little joke about watching SNL... and wow... a full blown debate about the effectiveness and value of international law as it applies to the current situation in Iraq and other regions contrasted with US interests and ability to act decisively.

anonymous:  This may sound ethnocentric to you, but I assure you it is absolutely critical:  It is better to win the wrong war than to lose any war.  Losing wars greatly diminishes the power projection of the nation who loses.  It shows weakness to other nations and a perceived and actual lack of will in the future to use military force.  This leaves other nations believing they can act with impunity against our interests.

You truly believe this is the wrong war.  That's fine.  But don't drag your nation down into dumps over it, especially considering our ability to actually do some good compared to international law without teeth.  We aren't the only nation that acts to protect our own interests, and somehow I doubt you'd want too many of the runners up in global power making the big decisions either.

As to the other general comments on the lead up to the Iraq War:

International Law was not ignored.  It was enforced.  It is true that it was enforced in a way that the international community did not agree upon within the UN, but the international laws that were enforced were absolutely agreed upon.  A distiniction that is lost upon many due to its rarely ever being mentioned is that the international community agreed that Iraq was in violation of international laws, all the way back to the original ceasefire agreement, and that it should suffer serious consequences for further violation.  What they disagreed upon was what those serious consequences should be.  The US made it clear that it wanted it to be military force.  Many others felt that serious consequences meant "or we'll say it again."

Enforcing the ceasefire agreement and relevant UN resolutions, read "international law," has been the policy of the United States government since 1991.  It was made law by a Democratic Congress, signed into law by a Republican President, and used by that President to use military force to enforce that agreement without resistance by Congress.   That same power was used by a Democratic President under the same law without resistance by a Republican Congress.  And then it was further used by our current Republican President without resistance by a Republican Congress.  AND THEN after all that a new authorization that made clear the broad military force allowed by the President to enforce the agreement, citing previous laws and relevant UN resolutions, read "international law," needing to be enforced was made US law before the full invasion took place.   Democrats and Republicans who had for years supported military force to some extent or another overwhelmingly supported the new authorization, including many whose beliefs of Iraq being a threat to the US and our allies due to its continued stance, definace to show it had disarmed, and potential to aid terrorists or other subnational groups who would could attack us beyond Iraq's own limited military capability.  Their beliefs, Democratic and Republican alike overwhelmingly pre-dated the Bush Administration and are on record to this effect.   Kerry, both Clintons, many of our new congressional leaders are either lying about being "misled" or they were heavily influenced by a Governor of Texas in foreign policy in the late 90's and are now getting their dates wrong.

Furthermore these snide little comments about "little drawings of supposedly mobile chemical labs in trailers" to me just shows the desperation of the argument against invading as those little drawings, and satelite images, were absolutely a critical issue.   The mobile labs that were found were extremely similar to the descriptions we had obtained... the problem was that they could not be shown to have been used for making biological or chemical weapons yet they also could not be effectively used for their alleged purpose, hydrogen production for wheather balloons.  They were ill suited for both, and their existence was known prior to the war.  Iraqs disavowal of their existence was a violation, and an important one, as the UN was not allowed to ensure that they were being used for legitimate purposes or capable of being used for illegitmate purposes.  The fact that they turned out to be merely suspicious as opposed to damning does not equate to the US acting poorly, but rather it points out the glaring difficulties we had in getting compliance with the ceasefire agreement.  They were and still are an important part of the argument as to why the war was necessary.

The situation where the overwhelming majority of Democrats, Republicans, the UN, foreign leadership generally, etc all believed that Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire agreement and relevant UN resolutions, read "international law," were absolutely not cooperating with the UN in order to prove compliance especially with regard to WMD disarmament, and the general belief that their behavior and prior admissions added up to still having significant WMD stockpiles and little desire to disarm all pre-dates Dubya.  That's the story of the 1990's.  It continued on into the Bush Administration and came to a head with the dramatic shift in our foreign policy that put rogue nations at a far higher priority level than before as the idea of "containment" of any enemy crumbled into billowing clouds of dust.

It is easy to blame a central figure and ignore the rest.  Easy to ignore 16 years of a complicated foreign policy in its relation to Iraq and other events.  Easy to ignore the flaws in ones own desired leaders or agenda in order to justify ones own long held position.  But it isn't very healthy to keep lying by omission to oneself and keep repeating the protest sign slogans mindlessly during every argument.  If you win an argument using slogans against someone who isn't aware of why your slogans are wrong, have you really won, or merely cheated yourself to make yourself feel better?

--

http://glock21.blogspot.com

It is actually better not to start the war in the first place.

Go back far enough and you will hear Bush Sr. getting the same story.  Go a little further and you will find Chaney arranging aid for Sadam.   Regardless of the documentation, it seems quite clear to me that this administration refocused military efforts from Afganistan and Bin Laden to invade Iraq.  GWB et al made it quite clear why it was done at the time in a public address. Since then, we have learned his reasons had little or no basis as they came from 'faulty' intelligence.  "Both sides of the aisle" acted like lemmings behind GWB et al.

You are fairly good at 'spinning' --- you could probably increase you income by moving closer to the Beltline.

Great Retort!!!!  Nice Spin on Responsibility!!!!!  The fact is, as the President of the USA, GWB is the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces.  He is responsible soley for the Iraq invasion.  It was not Clinton's or Kerry's or even Congress's decision to send the armed forces into Iraq and maintain the occupancy since.  Nobody but GWB has that authority.  You are correct there is a lot of information about Iraq, much prior to GWB's decision but it was his decision.  If it obvious you are still having problems with who was and is responsible for the USA's invasion of Iraq.  The fact is GWB cut the orders to invade Iraq and continues to order the occupancy of that country.  You can spin those facts any way you want to feel good but they are facts.  There is no fool in my mirror and I hope there is not one in yours either.

"...I am saying that this poppycock about him somehow making all this up out of thin air is absurd and a political jab at best, pure propaganda for an agenda at worst."

Your reference to me being a fool implying I was the source of 'this poppycock' was a cheap shot.  You stated  "your precious WMD "fabrications" when I never posted such a statement is another cheap shot. 

You stated "And you are left pinning the blame on the United States for supporting them against Iran in the previous decade when almost every major nation did."  Here you are correct, I am blaming us for this support.  It was clearly a mistake, similar in nature to our early support of the elements that formed the Taliban.  Is this a political jab---YES.  Why----with the sincere hope that future politicial leaders of this great nation will exercise more care in who and why they support.  I do not mind, in fact, welcome the discussion on differences but minimize the cheap shots.

"Your reference to me being a fool" - Actually I said you are only fooling yourself with a particular line or rationalizing, not that you were a fool.  Nor was I attempting to imply that you are the original source of any of the "poppycock" in question, but nobody seems to be denying that you are currently using it.  Nor was I attempting any cheap shot by rehashing your comment about being "ashamed the USA leadership used untrue justifications to gain support from its citizens and some countries of the world for our invasion of Iraq. "  I don't think I am taking a cheap shot or being inaccurate in considering that a central, if not precious component, of your anti-Iraq war and anti-Bush argument.

As for the main issue for me with your statements... it isn't that we disagree about the US involvement, or of Bush's current role in it.  My issue is ignoring the other players (nations, politicians, IGOs, etc) that also played a strong role.  I just don't understand this demonization of Bush and the US for its actions in light of the other players unless it is purely for propagandizing.  I mean one could easily argue that these were all poor positions to hold, policies to enact, and actions to take without letting everyone else off the hook.  I'd be the sort that believes the positions were correctly held, policies correctly enacted, and actions (mostly) taken correctly.  So I include more in the credit.  Your focus on your opponents makes you sound like you don't care who you let off the hook for the same issues, as long as it gets BushCo out of office.

*Great Picture* James Mortland... pretty well sums it up.

--

http://glock21.blogspot.com

"I will go ahead and agree with the first part of this statement, but surely you realize this is the situation we have designed for ourselves?  You make it sound like we are a humble player on the world stage, only exercising our immense power when the cheese and wine crowd at the UN fails to act."

I never meant to give anyone that impression - what I meant to convey was exactly as you put it in your next sentence:

"Our foreign policy over the last sixty years has been designed to make us the strongest, most influential country in the world."

My entire point has been that internation law is a joke, unless it coincides with American national interests and America is compelled to enforce it.  Given that, I don't understand why people who otherwise bemoan America acting in its own interests also somehow believing that International Law is somehow required for America to do so.

"There are only two conditions in which a war is legal under international law: when force is authorized by the United Nations Security Council or when the use of force is an act of national self-defense and survival. The UN Charter, based on the Nuremberg Principles, prohibits war "as an instrument of policy."  We are a signatory to the Charter and are thereby obligated to follow it's mandates."

Then the Iraq War certainly was legal under International Law, as Iraq had repeatedly violated the 1991 Cease Fire agreement which was the result of armed action approved by the UN.  Even if you don't accept any of the other legal justifications for the 2003 use of force, certainly America was justified in enforcing the 1991 cease fire, and thus the 2003 invasion was absolutely legally justifiable.

That said, it doesn't alter my opinion in the least about the efficacy of international law.  The only time interanational law is ever or has ever been enforced is when it coincindes with American national interests.

"The idea is that America's interests should not dominate the world.  I think that is the piece you are missing.  There are a lot of good things that America has offered the world, but there are also a lot of negatives there."

Why not?

America has been a force for good in the world for over 200 years.  There have been negatives, but they're so minor when compared to the global good of America and Americans that it's laughable to even mention America as being a negative force in global affairs.

"I noticed you skipped over my larger point: that China and the EU (not to mention the Islamists) are going to only grow in power as the years go on.  We need a strong organization dedicated to creating and enforcing International Law in order to keep our foot on totalitarianism"

International law has never been an effective restraint on totatitarianism, and won't be in the future.  Only democray and democracies have ever been able to restrain totalitarianism.  The UN can't control a dictator in Darfur.  There's absolutely zero chance they'll be willing or able to do so in China.

"It is not our responsibility to enforce UN cease fire agreements, even if those agreements are being broken (examples?), if the Security Council or the UN does not ask us for our help."

It certainly is, because nobody else was capable of it.  Which is another illustration of the folly of international law, eh?

"Whoa.  Start with slavery, move on to the Native American genocides, take a trip to Hawaii, Cuba, Phillipines, Mexico, Hiroshima, Nagasaki.  Move into Latin America and pick a death squad: Columbia, Guatemala, Nicaragua?  Vietnam?  Cambodia?  Should I go on?

Hardly laughable, especially to the millions of innocent civilians who have been either killed, injured, or severely damaged because of our foreign policy maneuvers.  I am not saying it is all bad, just that "laughing" about the bad stuff is not exactly appropriate or helpful for the discussion."

On balance, has America and Americans been a force for good in the world, or a force for evil?  I say the balance has been overwhelmingly good.  You seem to disagree.  I'm not going to convince you, and you're sure as heck not going to convince me.

"Tell that to the Bolsheviks in Stalingrad circa 1939.  And it's not about stopping a dictator in China - it's about stopping China from taking countries like Nepal or Taiwan."

Hitler v. Stalin isn't exactly a great argument for the efficacy of international law.  They were allied by written treaty when they went to war, remember?

Again, no one will stop China from doing anything unless the US participates, and the US will not participate unless its in US interests.  The UN is useless unless the US is the enforcer of their goals, and the US will only enforce UN goals if and when such goals are in alignment with US aims.  Why is that so hard to understand?  Am I not being clear?

Let me put this another way:  The UN only has power when the US uses the UN as a tool to advance US interests.  True or False?  If false, please provide an example of UN power that didn't involve US participation.

"But that's beside the point: if the US example is that we will cherry pick the laws we want to follow because we have the nukes and the tanks then what message does that send to the rest of the world?  Get nukes and tanks!"

Exactly - and that's exactly what the rest of the world has been doing since the UN was formed.  Or do you have an example of the UN actually preventing someone from getting nukes and tanks?

"Without international organizations and laws in place and in practice there is very little we can do to stop the dangerous regimes in the world.  We should be buying more and more into the UN and the Non-Proliferation Treaties instead of moving further away."

We should be following our own interests, because the international organizations and laws are powerless unless they coincide with our own interests.

If the US were so stupid as to willingly ignore its own national interests to promote cooperation, do you really think other countries will also likewise sacrifice?  Of course not!  They'll laugh at us, seek to take advantage, and hope we do it again and again and again so that they can gain at our expense.

"The longer we dwell in the politics of the past (with us or against us, might makes right, etc.) the sooner our power will be eclipsed by other countries that seek to work together to solve problems."

There are no other nations that "seek to work together to solve problems."  They may seek to work together to advance their own interests, but there isn't anyone on the international stage that willingly subjugates their own national interests for some feel-good do-nothing notion of working together.  They'll cooperate when they think it benefits them, and they won't when it won't - just as we do.

"You can waste more words trying to defend the idea that it is ok for America to do as it pleases (invade whichever country we choose, etc.) but you'll never convince me it is ok."

I'm not saying it's OK.  I'm not passing any sort of moral judgement whatsoever.

I'm saying that's they way it is, for us and for every other country in the world.  Self-interest first, and then international law/cooperation a distant second.  I'm discussing the realities of international politics, not a pie-in-the-sky dream world of "If America would just stop being self-interested, so would every other nation on earth."  If America stops being self-interested, every other nation in the world will line up to take advantage.  Why is that so difficult to accept?

What I don't understand is those who want America to fail in Iraq because we disobeyed some nebulous international law that has never been enforced without American power.  That's a disconnect that is just absurd.