This link to a Washington Post story ought to be required reading for anyone who claims to care about the well-being of our troops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061701351.html?hpid=topnews

Iraq the second most unstable in the world? Obviously, the survey left out Washington DC, Detroit, Oakland and parts of Chicago.

Little Georgie Bush, continuing to strive to make Iraq numero uno,worst country in the world.

These liberal commie rags are just wrong. Shopping in a Bagdad market is no more dangerous than at a flea market in the United States. You people just hate George W. Bush. History will show that he is the greatest visionary to reside in the White House

Doogie Zook, that is a very interesting article from the Post. Believe me, I do not like any U.S. military person going through what those men and women are unduring in Iraq, especially because some of the Iraqis are ungrateful Arabs, but not all of them.

The point is, sooner or later what is occurring in Iraq and has been occurring would have happened no matter what. Sooner or later the looniest or the Islamics would have to be dealt with because hiding our heads in the sand and hoping if we play nice that that is the answer and solution is not practical. It's never been that way in history, and more than likely it never will be that way.
As difficult as it is, stable, democratic countries in the Middle East, ultimately is the solution. It may work, it may not. But you at least have to try and change the situation and the culture and to support and develop fair leaders like Abbas in Palestine, Karzai in Afghanistan, etc. That, ultimately, will dedice the world's future and most likely hoping it all goes away by ignoring ir leavingv will jut lead to a worse situation.

Why does this not surprise anyone. Thanks to our own illustrious and esteemed President Bush and his coterie of the best, brightest, and stoopidest minions the World is becoming more and more fornicated up. What he did and is doing in Iraq makes the blood boil just to think about it. His mantra "the world is safer without Saddam" will soon become ours in Jan 09 when it becomes the world is safer without Bush and his minions screwing things up. This is not "loony left" thinking but irrefutable truth.

Posted by John D June 18, 2007 12:42 PM

Little Johnny Highschooldropout,

Are you out of your freaking mind?

As much as you mouthbreathing Republic Party goons don't want to admit it, Iraq and the middle-east were a safer, more stable place while Saddam was in charge.

Your guys blew it and I'm going to enjoy watching your 08 Republic Party nominee for President spending one whole year giving stump speechs with the Bush/Cheney noose hanging around their neck.

Obviously the concept of 'nation' is something beyond the grasp of Mahalo.

It's also funny that I don't hear about multiple car bombs going off every day here in Chicago. Oh well, never let facts get in the way of a Republic.

A quick look back at this Republican administrations "accomplishments".

Spying on Americans - check

Lying to Congress - check

Waging an Illegal War - check

Torturing Prisoner's - check

Operating Secret Prisons - check

Ignoring Pre- 9/11 Warnings - check

GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS and the reasons why the Wingnuts won't win the 08 Prez election...thank god.

John E:

You are wrong one one point. The The Iraq war, was and is unpopular, foolish and insane. But it wasn't (and isn't) illegal. Don't even go there.

This so-called surge is just getting a lot more people killed for no good reason.

There isn't just one civil war there are several. These people don't want democracy, they hate each others guts.

Our soldiers are getting killed and maimed while the Iraqi politicians do nothing.

And the king of denial Deserter Dubya continues to bury his deluded mind in the sand.

How many of you sycophant 29% dead-enders even kmow someone fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan?

None of you?

But you don't have a problem with somebody elses loved one doing your dirty work. Of course the biggest problem with this dirty work is - IT ISN'T WORKING!

You chickenhawks are pathetic little men.

John E:

You are wrong one one point. The The Iraq war, was and is unpopular, foolish and insane. But it wasn't (and isn't) illegal. Don't even go there.

Posted by: John W. | June 18, 2007 3:36 PM

Boy oh boy. Talk about damning something with faint praise...

a blinkin:

John E has blown a lot of this out of proportion, but is not basically wrong in most of his complaints. I complain about much of the same stuff about the neo-cons. However, he is wrong about his claim that the Iraq war was and is “illegal.”

There is no "damning something with faint praise." If he wants to complain, let his complaints be accurate or not made at all. We can’t let political views on the war cloud the issue of whether the war was “legal” or not. The one is not determinative of the other. That is why I conceded the “foolishness” aspect: to leave open debate on the “illegal” issue.

"Don't even go there."

OK, I'll go there.

"According to the Charter of the United Nations, every state has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of any state. ( Protocol I, Preamble )

The Geneva Conventions must not be construed as legitimizing or authorizing any act of aggression or any other use of force inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. ( Protocol I, Preamble)

I'll say it slowly: This is an illegal war and occupation. John E. is absolutely correct.

As difficult as it is, stable, democratic countries in the Middle East, ultimately is the solution. It may work, it may not. But you at least have to try and change the situation and the culture and to support and develop fair leaders like Abbas in Palestine, Karzai in Afghanistan, etc. That, ultimately, will dedice the world's future and most likely hoping it all goes away by ignoring ir leavingv will jut lead to a worse situation.

Posted by: John D | June 18, 2007 12:42 PM

Mr. Dyslin, this is pretty much the standard neocon line, and it sounds nice in theory, but..

I don't think that it is possible, or even desirable to change the "culture" of the middle-east region. Sure, we would like to see extremism disappear, especially religious fundamentalist that espouse violence. And most Westerners have trouble with the role of women in that society, not to mention such abhorrent practices as "honor killings."

But is this something we can really fix externally by military intervention? I see no problem with using diplomacy and sanctions to encourage reform, and even international military intervention in cases of genocide, but we have shown by the Iraq quagmire that we can't fix everything, and in fact, have made things much worse in some places.

Your position is not only impractical, it smacks of ethnocentrism, not to mention hypocrisy, since we don't consistently apply our own "ethical" standards to our dealings with other nations of the world (e.g., Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, even China).

Did it ever occur to you that other countries of the world find many things in our culture deplorable? Many European countries that I've visited don't understand why we are such a violent society, why we have such a love affair with guns.

Many foreigners I've talked to are totally turned of by the omnipresence of advertising and marketing in our society. They find it appalling that virtually nothing is left unturned in order to bombard the masses with the message that "consumerism" is what matters most.

Furthermore, we still deal with our own extremist groups in America, The Aryan Nation, Christian Fundamentalist who condone bombings at abortion clinics and assassination of doctors employed there, racist and bigots who drag minorities behind trucks or beat to death homosexuals and stake them to a fence.

And there remain many inequities in this country, including the opportunities for women and minorities. Where do we get off saying we can fix things in Iraq when we have millions of homeless and people living below the poverty level that we say we can't help. When we have 50 million people uninsured in this country that we say we can't afford to help?

The neocons are not concerned about a "fair" government in Iraq, any more than they care about preserving Social Security benefits and worker's pensions in this country.

What they care about is maintaining their privileged lifestyles and insulating themselves from all those who would threaten, or otherwise sully there enclave of exclusivity.

You talk about establishing "fair" governments abroad. How about we start by re-establishing a fair government at home, not one beholden to the uber-wealthy, the special interest, the war profiteers? How can Bush claim that he must cut social programs, but he can dump a trillion or so in Iraq ? (little of which has gone to help the masses, btw.)

The greatest threat to this country is not from without, but rather from within. The destruction of the middle class is happening, 1984 is happening, the "Gilded Age" is back. As a once great country, we are now "late Rome". There's still time to turn things around, but only if people pull their head out of the sand here at home.

John W:

Once you (accurately) characterize the Iraq war as "foolish" and "insane," you've pretty much conceded that it's "illegal" too. If Bush launched a war under either a delusion or (as was almost certainly the case here) out of recklessness, he's committed an act that would be considered murder. Bush can't be convicted of murder because he acted as President when he killed, but certainly a valid argument can be made that his state of mind was no better than that of a murderer.

Among the most compelling proof is his utter lack of remorse upon "learning" that he was entirely wrong about WMD. Even if you accept the wingnut lie that the WMD intelligence was wrong, you'd expect someone with a conscience to be upset that even though he acted in good faith, innocent people died unnecessarily. Not this smirking murderer, nor his equally reprehensible apologists. Bush has no regard for human life.

On another hand, Congress did authorize the use of force under certain conditions, among which was that Bush certify that diplomatic efforts had failed. Bush, being a murderer, had not the slightest hesitation to make a false certification. And, of course, we have ample evidence that the WMD evidence was cooked -- Downing Street Memo; Office of Special Plans -- yet this information was of course not fully disclosed to Congress. So there are genuine questions whether the authorization to use force was obtained under false pretenses and/or disregarded in material ways.

I agree that our political judgments should not be determinative. However, I think there are sufficient established facts to suggest there is at least a genuine question whether the war is illegal, rather than reject that assertion out of hand.

Coming back around to the original point: if the best you can say about this war is that it's not illegal, you're not saying much for it. We (almost) all agree that the war is a disaster that we need to get out of in some sort of rational, competent way. The first step in that direction is to get rid of the murderous slug who got us there in the first place.

Let's try this again as the hypocritical goofs who make up the Chicago LIBune sure love to pick and choose what they censor. Funny though, any personal attack by the Loony Left gets posted. Call conservatives sex offenders, Frank James and Mark Silva are OK with that. But you call the Loony Left anything but loony and Mark Silva and Frank James censor. Really, how does the Undynamic Duo sleep at night being the worst offenders of Free Speech in journalism? While the Sun-Times is kicking the Tribune's butt in reporting about Obama and Rezko or even Stroger's prostate cancer, the Chicago LIBune is too busy looking out for their fellow Left Wing Loons. Sam Zell really needs to do some cleaning house, that's for damn sure.

Anyway, I'll ask these questions again since Frank James and Mark Silva seemingly are so afraid to see them asked:
You Left wing Loons call Iraq illegal, please explain then how use bombing Bosnia for 46 straight days and enacting unilateral regime change was legal?
Come on, Frankie and Markie, it's OK to let the other side speak without your constant interference.

dt, you are correct on one thing: the destruction of the U.S from within not from outside forces, except it's the Loony Left that is destroying this country, not the Right.
Studies show conservatives, and especially Christian conservatives give more to charity and to help those in need that the anyone else, especiall the Loony Left.
A good percentage of those in the military are devout conservative Christians.
Now, let's compare the U.S. to the world: No country gives more in foreign aid, whether via the government or private donation, than the U.S.
No other government comes to the aid of other countries and people than does the U.S.
Those 50 million insured you speak of can still get medical treatment in the U.S. Every hospital I've been in has signs stating "we do not deny service based on ability to pay." You need medical help, you get it whether you are insured or not.
Crime and violence, well we have many illegals here who provide much crime and violence. Sorry, as much as some of you folks want to deny that, that is a truth. But we've also become a country in which too many neglect personal responsibility for their actions and too many willing to excuse bad behavior, which is often lead by liberals. Throughout this country, Democratic judges and legislators let child rapists go or just put them on probation.
More violence? You talk about those who blow up abortion clinics (and when was the last time this happened, hmmmm?), but what about the abortion clinics themselves? What are they killing and how many hundreds of thousands or millions of babies a year? What about Dr. Tiller in Kansas who practices partial birth abortions regularly, including when a mother says she doesn't want the baby because it'll make her miss a rock concert?
The U.S. has spent trillions of dollars over the past 40 years helping those in poverty, often keeping them there with failed government programs.
And what about the genocide taking place in Sudan? The genocide that took place in Iraq under Hussein? The genocide in Iran? Islamic militants chopping heads off people? Muslims rioting in France because they have no opportunties there? The genocide in China? The slaughter of endangered species in Africa?
So, dt, take your anti-U.S. garbage and go where you will be happier: Venezuala perhaps? Ooops, hmmm, darn, isn't Chavez (the so-called man of the poor) closing down opposition media outlets, businesses, killing opposition leaders and people?

John D at 9:11, see my post from last night. Also, Bosnia was not a 'state' at the time, so that example does not apply.

So much anger this AM. It's a beautiful day here in Chicagoland. Try to get some rest.

Posted by: John D | June 19, 2007 9:47 AM

Spoken with the coherence and lucidity of Charles Manson. You are a wonderful spokesperson for rightwing politics. I marvel at the tacit approval from all of your pals who stay silent while you spew your "understanding" of the world.

John D at 9:11, see my post from last night. Also, Bosnia was not a 'state' at the time, so that example does not apply.

So much anger this AM. It's a beautiful day here in Chicagoland. Try to get some rest.

sorry for the double post.

Weinerdog43, are you claiming that Bosnia was not a state at the time we bombed it for 46 straight days and removed its leader: Slobodon Milosovic? Are you actually claiming that?
Wow, you folks sure do live in your own little twisted alternative reality world, don't you? You folks are dumber, lamer and weirder than I thought!!
And, yeah, it is a beautiful day in Chicago and many areas got some much needed rain and the White Sox actually won a game! Still doesn't make up for the crap in this country that is the loony left. All normal-thinking intelligent people are sickened by that ilk.

"You Left wing Loons call Iraq illegal, please explain then how use bombing Bosnia for 46 straight days and enacting unilateral regime change was legal?"

It's time for another history lesson to try and cure Johnny D's ignorance.

Well, lets's start with the fact that the 46 day combing campaign was in Kosovo, not Bosnia. Those are two different places.

Second, There was no "unilateral regime change" in Serbia. Slobadan Milosevich was removed from power by the Serbian people NOT the US or any other outside power. Milosevich did leave power until October of 2000, almost a year and a half after the NATO bombing campaign that ended in June 1999.

"Weinerdog43, are you claiming that Bosnia was not a state at the time we bombed it for 46 straight days and removed its leader: Slobodon Milosovic? Are you actually claiming that?
Wow, you folks sure do live in your own little twisted alternative reality world, don't you? "

No, Johnny D, you are the dumb one in this case. Slobadan Milosevic was the President of Serbia and Yugoslavia, NOT Bosnia - Herzegovina. They are differnt countries.

I do stand corrected in my mix up of countries and where Milosovic lead. But some of you folks have your facts wrong as well. Anyway, while opinionated and clearly against Clinton, this piece does a nice job of setting the record straight:

AS AMERICANS DEBATE what President Clinton’s legacy should be, too little attention is given to his remarks on Kosovo. The United States launched a war against a European nation largely at Clinton’s behest. Clinton’s war against Serbia epitomized his moralism, his arrogance, his refusal to respect law, and his fixation on proving his virtue by using deadly force, regardless of how many innocent people died in the process.

Clinton claimed on March 24, 1999, that one purpose of bombing Serbia (including Kosovo) was “to deter an even bloodier offensive against innocent civilians in Kosovo and, if necessary, to seriously damage the Serbian military’s capacity to harm the people of Kosovo.” The CIA had warned the Clinton administration that if bombing was initiated, the Serbian army would greatly accelerate its efforts to expel ethnic Albanians. The White House disregarded this warning and feigned surprise when mass expulsions began.

Yet NATO Supreme Commander Gen. Wesley Clark said on March 26 that the upsurge in crackdowns on ethnic Albanians was “entirely predictable.” Since NATO had no ground forces in the area ready to intervene and since NATO planes stayed three miles above the ground to minimize pilot casualties, NATO could do nothing to stop the surge in ethnic cleansing. Violence spurred by the bombing was quickly invoked as the ultimate justification for the bombing.

The longer the bombing went on, the more brazenly NATO ignored the limits it had initially imposed on its targets in order to limit civilian casualties. In the final weeks of the 78-day war, all that mattered was finding new targets so that NATO spokesmen could continue their daily bragging about a “record number of sorties flown” and “record number of bombs dropped.” According to Human Rights Watch, at least 500 civilians were killed by NATO bombing; the Yugoslavian government claimed that 2,000 civilians were killed. NATO repeatedly dropped cluster bombs into marketplaces, hospitals, and other civilian areas.

As Serbian civilian casualties rose, purported Serbian atrocities mushroomed. On May 13, 1999, Clinton declaimed that “there are 100,000 people [in Kosovo] who are still missing” — clearly implying that they might have been slaughtered. Clinton also claimed that 600,000 ethnic Albanians could be “trapped within Kosovo itself, lacking shelter, short of food, afraid to go home, or buried in mass graves dug by their executioners.”

On April 15, 1999, Clinton opened a speech to newspaper editors by proclaiming the “stark contrast between a free society with a free press and a closed society where the press is used to manipulate people by suppressing or distorting the truth.” However, NATO consistently misrepresented its own actions. The Washington Post’s Bradley Graham noted on May 24, 1999, that Pentagon and NATO

briefings about the air operation have ... acquired a propaganda element aimed at demonizing Milosevic and his Belgrade government and imparting a moral imperative to the conflict. U.S. and NATO spokesmen, in scripts closely coordinated with the help of several public affairs specialists loaned by Washington to Brussels, routinely mix reports on allied strikes with fresh accusations of atrocities by Yugoslav forces.
Graham noted that the spokesmen routinely sought to delay admitting NATO responsibility for bombing civilians for “at least one news cycle or two before owning up to attacks gone awry.”

For Clinton, bombing Serbia was a triumph of idealism. The Washington Post reported that on the day after NATO planes bombed the Chinese embassy, “Clinton complained to British Prime Minister Tony Blair that news coverage was not fully presenting the moral dimensions of the war.” In the final days of the bombing, the Washington Post reported that “some presidential aides and friends are describing Kosovo in Churchillian tones, as Clinton’s ‘finest hour.’” The Post also reported that according to one Clinton friend “what Clinton believes were the unambiguously moral motives for NATO’s intervention represented a chance to soothe regrets harbored in Clinton’s own conscience.... The friend said Clinton has at times lamented that the generation before him was able to serve in a war with a plainly noble purpose, and he feels ‘almost cheated’ that ‘when it was his turn he didn’t have the chance to be part of a moral cause.’”

Clinton’s Kosovo peace

On June 10, 1999, NATO and the government of Yugoslavia reached an agreement to end the bombing. In his June 10 victory speech, Clinton proclaimed:

The demands of an outraged and united international community have been met. I can report to the American people that we have achieved a victory for a safer world, for our democratic values, and for a stronger America.... We have sent a message of determination and hope to all the world.... Because of our resolve, the 20th century is ending not with helpless indignation but with a hopeful affirmation of human dignity and human rights for the 21st century.
However, experts who compared the final surrender agreement with the Rambouillet text were surprised to see that NATO had dropped many of its most onerous demands from three months earlier. In a June 11 speech at an Air Force base, Clinton bragged: “Day after day, with remarkable precision, our forces pounded every element of Mr. Milosevic’s military machine, from tanks to fuel supply, to anti-aircraft weapons, to the military and political support.” Throughout the bombing campaign, NATO and Pentagon spokesmen gushed about the slaughter NATO was inflicting on the Serbian military.

However, once the bombing stopped, the Clinton administration was stunned to see the Serbian army withdraw in fine order with polished buttons and good morale. A confidential postwar U.S. military investigation concluded that the damage claims had been exaggerated nearly tenfold. In reality, only 14 tanks, 18 armored personnel carriers, and 20 artillery pieces were taken out, despite the claimed dropping of more than 20,000 bombs on the Serbian military.

On the other hand, NATO did have a very high “kill-rate” for the cardboard decoy tanks that the Serbs erected all over Kosovo. At the end of the war, the Serbian military largely was unscathed, but the country’s civilian infrastructure was in ruins. NATO bombs were far more effective against women, children, hospitals, and retirement homes than against soldiers.

After the peace agreement, NATO was plagued by a surplus of dead Serbian civilians and a severe shortage of dead ethnic Albanians. In late October, pathologist Emilio Perez Pujol, who headed a team of Spanish investigators in Kosovo, told The Times of London, “I calculate that the final figure of dead in Kosovo will be 2,500 at the most. This includes lots of strange deaths that can’t be blamed on anyone in particular.”

In a special videotape address to the Serbian people, Clinton declared,

I want you to understand that NATO only agreed to be peacekeepers on the understanding that its troops would ensure that both sides kept their commitments and that terrorism on both sides would be brought to an end. They only agreed to serve with the understanding that they would protect Serbs as well as ethnic Albanians and that they would leave when peace took hold.
In a Thanksgiving 1999 speech to American troops in Kosovo, Clinton proclaimed, “Thanks to you, we have reversed ethnic cleansing.” Clinton noted that there had been “almost one million refugees,” but “because we acted quicker [than in Bosnia], they all came home.” Clinton ignored the ongoing massive exodus of Serbs racing north for their lives. Jiri Dienstbier, the UN representative on human rights, declared in late 1999,
The spring ethnic cleansing of ethnic Albanians, accompanied by murders, torture, looting, and burning of houses, has been replaced by the autumn ethnic cleansing of Serbs, Romas [gypsies], Bosniaks, and other non-Albanians accompanied by the same atrocities.
One U.S. government official told the Washington Post in August 1999: “It looks like it’s over for the Serbs. We can talk about peace, love, and democracy, but I don’t think anyone really knows how to stop this.” A November 1999 report by the International Crisis Group concluded that “there are as many killings right now in Kosovo as there were before NATO intervened.”

Clinton also declared in November 1999 that the Kosovar children “love the United States ... because we gave them their freedom back.” Perhaps Clinton saw freedom as nothing more than being tyrannized by people of the same ethnicity. Once the bombing started, NATO transformed former terrorists into “freedom fighters” — a term explicitly used in the June 1999 agreement between the NATO and the KLA. As the Serbs were driven out of Kosovo, Kosovar Albanians became increasingly oppressed by the KLA, which ignored its commitment to disarm.

In his 1999 talk to troops in Kosovo, Clinton bragged, “You just look around this room today. We just celebrated Thanksgiving, with, I bet you, conservatively, 25 different ethnic groups represented among the American military forces here in this room — maybe 50, maybe it’s more.”

Clinton’s standard of virtue seemed to consist of little more than ethnic bean counting: the greater the number of ethnic groups, the greater the virtue. He talked as if every bomb dropped was a triumph for multiculturalism and diversity. He was far more concerned with counting the number of ethnic groups at dinner than in noticing the ongoing purge of the Serbs. Since the United States promised to bring peace to Kosovo, Clinton bears some responsibility for every burnt church, every murdered Serbian grandmother, every new refugee column streaming north out of Kosovo. Despite these problems, Clinton bragged at a December 8, 1999, press conference that he was “very, very proud” of what the United States had done in Kosovo.

The legacy of the Serbian War

Clinton’s experience in Kosovo gave him great empathy for Boris Yeltsin when Yeltsin sent in the Russian military to obliterate Chechnya. At a summit of Western leaders in Istanbul in November 1999, Clinton declared,

We want Russia to overcome the scourge of terrorism and lawlessness. We believe Russia has not only the right but also the obligation to defend its territorial integrity.... Russia has faced rebellion within, and related violence beyond, the borders of Chechnya. It has responded with a military strategy designed to break the resistance and end the terror.
At the time Clinton endorsed Yeltsin’s policy, the Russian military was flattening Grozny with long-distance rockets and pounding the entire province with its bombers, making little effort to limit civilian casualties. A few weeks after Clinton endorsed Yeltsin’s policy, the Russian military announced that they would kill any person still residing in Grozny at the end of a 72-hour period. (At that time, an estimated 40,000 civilians, largely elderly, were still in the city.) This brutal ultimatum did not stop Clinton from later characterizing the Russian military assault as an effort to “liberate Grozny.”

Conclusion

In a CNN interview shortly after the peace agreement with Serbia was announced, the president enunciated what his aides labeled the “Clinton doctrine”:

There’s an important principle here.... While there may well be a great deal of ethnic and religious conflict in the world ... whether within or beyond the borders of a country, if the world community has the power to stop it, we ought to stop genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Thanks Tony. Note he also avoided addressing the crux of the issue, namely the illegal war in Iraq.

Nice long article Johnny D. Too bad it had nothing to do with your original, completely erroneous points.

Oh Tony Boy, yeah, it did. I fully acknowledge my screw up in coutries, but that article correctly points out the fallacies dished by Clintoon (though I was still in favor that something had to be done) and my points in that you Loons do not see the actions taken in Bosnia as illegal, but Iraq is and how that belief is hypocrital and wrong.

Johnny D-

I'm tired of having to keep correcting you but we did not bomb BOSNIA, nor did we bomb because of BOSNIA.

We bombed SERBIA, because of KOSOVO.

We did not remove the government of Serbia, the Serbians did.

If you cannot understand the difference between limited bomobing campaigns and the invasion and occupation of a country, including the complete destruction of the government of that country, you really are dumb.

Still ignoring the basic question there Tony? Not surprised. And you might want to do some reading too about what was bombed and what wasn't.

NATO Continues Extensive Bombing Across Bosnia
By Daniel Williams
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, August 31, 1995; Page A01
NAPLES, Aug. 30 -- NATO warplanes, dodging antiaircraft gunfire and missiles, continued a massive assault on Serb military positions around Bosnia today in an effort to force the Bosnian Serb leadership to cease attacks on Sarajevo and other Muslim-held cities and agree to a peace settlement in the 3 1/2-year-old war.

And this:

NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia is destabilizing neighboring regions in which the United States and Europe have stationed tens of thousands of troops, spent billions of dollars and invested years of work in trying to secure peace, build democracy and improve moribund economies.

Since the bombing started on March 24, the 32,000 NATO-led troops who keep Bosnia's shaky peace have faced numerous attacks from Serbs and are on high alert in the worst tension since the end of war in 1995. The Government put in place by the West is frozen and inactive. In Montenegro, a President who has won backing from Washington and other foreign capitals is devoting all his energies to averting a coup backed by the army of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

Macedonia, already coping with hundreds of thousands of Kosovo refugees, is worried about tens of thousands more arriving, and Croatia's tourist-dependent economy faces a bleak summer of empty hotels and beaches.

For involved foreigners and locals, the real fear is that prolonged NATO bombing of the Serbs will reopen all the wounds still festering from the Balkan wars of this past decade.

"The security situation is stable, but the longer the bombing goes on the more difficult it will be to control the situation," said Lieut. Gen. Mike Wilcocks, a British officer who is the deputy commander of the Stabilization Force in Bosnia, the NATO-led peacekeepers known here by the acronym SFOR. "We are watching the situation like a hawk."

In Bosnia and Montenegro, the best face that diplomats or military officials have put on the Serbian fury stoked by three weeks of bombing is that they should be able to contain it until Milosevic is defeated. At that point, they suggest, prospects for democratic development in the region will soar.

"If getting rid of Milosevic fails, then everything else fails," said Carlos Westendorp, the top international official charged with keeping peace in Bosnia. "That is the condition we need for full development of the region, respect of borders and democracy."

He and other Western officials concur, however, that the longer the bombing campaign continues, the more difficult it will be for peacekeeping forces in Bosnia to hold back Serbian radicals and for the elected government in Montenegro to escape a coup that could spark a civil war.

The bombing has halted efforts to rebuild infrastructure or return Bosnians who fled the war to their old homes. Hundreds of Westerners have evacuated what is called Republika Srpska, as the Bosnian Serbs' 49 percent of Bosnia is known. Westendorp has ordered the elected Serb assembly not to hold any sessions until the Kosovo war is over.

"What I am doing is freezing the situation," Westendorp, the high representative enforcing the 1995 Dayton peace accords, said here today. "The hard-liners are constantly harassing the moderates. It would do a lot of harm to have the assembly meet."

Next door, fears of a coup in Montenegro, a Yugoslav republic where the American Government is making significant diplomatic and financial investments, have paralyzed the economy while backing elected leaders into a corner. They are struggling to stop the Yugoslav Army from taking over the news media, conscripting senior officials in the republic and fomenting street violence.

The bombing also scuttled a bid to improve relations between Montenegro and its neighbor, Croatia.

According to a Western diplomat, Montenegro had been planning before the bombing to apologize to Croatia for Montenegrin forces that in 1991 and 1992 shelled the historic coastal city of Dubrovnik, the jewel of Croatia's Adriatic coastline and once a major tourist draw.

While Croatia has supported the bombing of its old foe Serbia, the assaults appear to have shattered prospects for the country's tourist industry this year. Most summer hotel bookings up and down the Adriatic coast have been canceled, hotel owners said.

In the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, too, there is widespread concern that the flood of refugees from Kosovo could destabilize a government that has been receptive to Western influence.

The West has the most control where it has the most military muscle. That is in Bosnia, where peacekeepers from 37 countries, including 6,200 American troops, are heavily armed and have more than three years' experience dealing with the terrain and managing the anger of local Serbs.

After the bombing began on March 24, General Wilcocks said he ordered a ban on the training and movement of local armies across Bosnia. SFOR troops have been ordered to wear body armor in the field at all times and not to travel in groups of less than three.

In the week after the bombings began, there was a sharp increase in Serbian attacks on SFOR troops, including several incidents when hand grenades were thrown at soldiers from moving cars. General Wilcocks said no troops have been injured in the attacks.

The general said in an interview that forces in Bosnia "have nothing to do with NATO." But the credibility of that distinction, if it ever held much weight among Bosnian Serbs, took a severe blow on April 3, when SFOR troops, acting on orders from Washington, blew up a stretch of railroad that connects Belgrade with Montenegro.

The tracks were destroyed in a stretch of the railroad that cuts across a tip of Bosnia. Western diplomats here said SFOR troops were ordered to take immediate action because of information that a trainload of armed Serbian paramilitary forces was headed to Montenegro to make trouble for the pro-Western government there.

The destruction of the tracks, during which SFOR troops killed a local watchman who fired at them, gave Serbian nationalists in Bosnia a reason to argue that their country was being occupied by the same forces that are bombing Serbia.

The NATO bombing, moreover, exacerbated an already severe political crisis in Republika Srpska.

Earlier in March, Westendorp in effect fired the elected President of the Serbian republic, Nikola Poplasen, a radical Serbian nationalist who had refused for months to work with the government's moderate prime minister.

On that same day, an arbitrator in Vienna denied the Serbs exclusive control of a city, Brcko, that connects two parts of their territory. Many Serbs regard the city as an essential link for the survival of their government inside Bosnia, a loosely federated country they share with the Muslim-Croat Federation that covers 51 percent of Bosnian territory.

The bombing, then, was perceived as part of a triple whammy by the West against Serbs and has sharply raised the risks of violence, said Bryan Hopkinson, director of the Sarajevo-based Bosnia project of the International Crisis Group, a think tank financed by European governments and Western foundations.

"At worst, the capacity might soon exist to mount an armed secessionist movement, at least for that part of Republika Srpska east of Brcko, perhaps using paramilitaries so that the political instigators would not be directly implicated," Hopkinson, a former British Ambassador to Bosnia, wrote in a report last week. "The public, in its present baffled and enraged state, would probably not be hostile."

Hopkinson said in an interview that any move by the Bosnian Serbs to secede would be easily handled by peacekeepers.

"They might lose a few men, but if SFOR is determined to resist an insurrection, they could," Hopkinson said.

In neighboring Montenegro, however, Western diplomats are not at all certain that the elected government could resist an army coup. The army has tanks and artillery, while the republic's police, although well trained and believed to be highly motivated, do not.

The President of Montenegro, Milo Djukanovic, has told American diplomats that he was confident that he could avoid bloodshed in Montenegro while challenging Milosevic's authority, but only if the West refrained from bombing.

Since the bombs started to fall, Djukanovic has said in interviews that his police would prevail in a fight against the army, but he and other officials have conceded that such a fight could ignite a civil war among his heavily armed population.

This war is "preemptive." A preemptive war is internationally recognized as one that does not violate international law, and is justified (even when it comes to sovereign nations). It is not an occupation as long as there is a UN mandate in effect (which there is).

If you want to argue its legitimacy look up "preemptive war." (More accurately Bush's doctrine of preemptive warfare.) That is where the controversy lies not in any violation of any UN Charter or Geneva Accord concerning sovereign nations. So as a preemptive war it does not violate sovereignty laws. Its the part about establishing that it meets the legal grounds for preemptive action that causes controversy. If it can be shown it does not meet the legal grounds it becomes a precautionary war. THAT doesn't fly with international laws.

Remember Bush doctrine calls upon the "US right to self defense" and some how that overrides international sovereignty laws.

So it depends. Does John E want to argue its "illegal" bc it is not a preemptive war, or bc of the contentions that surround the use of such warfare (ex imminent and future are an oxymoron, defining the grounds for "imminent" -insert WMD argument here- ). It is a good argument, and opinion. But, if he's going with the prevailing misconception that it is "illegal" bc it violates international law, concerning sovereign nations, without considering and addressing that it is considered, at the very least, to be preemptive, therefore legal, it becomes a baseless argument, and becomes the misguided cliche that it certainly enjoys its popularity as.

The new idea of preemptive warfare as laid out by the Bush doctrine has to be addressed bc it does not follow past guidelines, or at the time of the invasion did not include any clear guidelines for use. The whole concept of which, applied to power plays by global powers and parallels the advancement of technology, is still treading on uncertain controversial grounds.

Aside. John D concerning you first article; "opinionated and clearly against" aren't exactly the standards one typically opts for to "set a record straight."

We took part in NATO bombing during the Kosovo War (Operation Allied Force) '99 and Bosnia Herzegovina-War (Operation Deliberate Force) '95. What exactly are you contending? What are you arguing? (I would love to ask why your still contending this since I did answer you questions way back somewhere, but I won't.)

John D.,

You really need to get a check on your rage, you're losing it, my friend.

Lets see, the (insert Crazy Joe rant) is responsible for the countries demise yet under Democratic rule we have had balanced budgets, a healthy middle-class, respect in the world. Under repubs, none of the above plus a war on science, on the environment and civil liberties.

Re: U.S. aid. Before you get too full of yourself about how many dollars the U.S. contributes to foreign aid, consider this basic fact;

USA’s aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP has almost always been lower than any other industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically since 2000, their dollar amount has been the highest. (Only since 2004 have they moved up from last place, by just one or two places.)

So, in other words John, taking into account the dollar amounts at our disposal, we're cheapskates. If you made $200,000 last year and gave $1,000 to charity while Joe Smo made $30,000 last year and gave $300 dollars to same, who's making the bigger sacrifice?

And then you want to brag about availability of health services to all. The truth is, many hospitals and clinics will absolutely deny treatment for lack of insurance. Only if someone goes to the emergency room can service not be denied. Then, the emergency bill is considerably higher than regular treatment, the cost of which we all pay. Furthermore, the uninsured are less likely to get regular check-ups that might catch serious health risk in early stages where it is more treatable, and less expensive. Once again, we pick up this bigger tab for a failed system.

And this doesn't even address how a hard working person getting slave wages and no benefits can have one health emergency and be financially devastated, losing everything. Yeah, no problem there, J.D.

Crime and violence. All the "illegals" doing, eh? Well there is some truth to that, the impact of which is exacerbated by our free-wheeling gun culture. France has a huge immigrant population from North Africa, but has nowhere near the random violence we experience on a daily basis in this country.

Besides, what exactly has the Republican president and Congress done to fix the immigration problem the past six years?, Nothing.

I really love this statement of yours:
"But we've also become a country in which too many neglect personal responsibility for their actions and too many willing to excuse bad behavior, which is often lead by liberals."

How funny is that, coming from someone who supports the most inept and least accountable administration in U.S. history?

Iraq fiasco- we cooked the intelligence, but hey, the Dems went along with it.

The attempts at diplomacy were a sham, but hey, the Brits were complicit.

Rummy ignored the advice of his field commanders and failed to secure the peace. "Stuff happens", he proclaimed.

New Orleans was lost to Katrina, Bush had several days warning but did nothing to aid evacuation, prepare for the levee breaks, mobilize federal agencies. How could we have known, he said, even after videotape shows him receiving the warnings and not asking a single question, then going on vacation. Oh, but it was that unwieldy local bureaucracy that was to blame, we're told.

9/11, Bush, Rice and others ignored warnings of the type of attack that occurred, than claimed that "no one could have forseen".

Many, many experts warned Bush that his Iraq plan would invite sectarian violence and civil war. Bush chose to listen to Chilobi and the neocons who had their own agendas. When asked if he'd made any mistakes a couple years back, Bush couldn't think of any on such "short notice." Yeah, these guys are a beacon of accountability.

Genocide, John D., is defined as such:

"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."

There are narrower definitions, but I haven't heard anyone make the claim for Iran and few for Iraq. And if you were to classify, say Hussein's gassing of the Kurds as genocide, why the inaction from Reagan's administration? We gave Saddam the technology and components to deliver chemical and biological weapons, then looked the other way when they used them on their own people and Iran, offering only mild protest.

So you don't like government programs, John? Whatever happened to the "compassionate conservative" mantra. Is Social Security a failed government program?, Medicare?, Head Start? All of us don't have a few hundred thousand to care for a sick elderly parent, but J.D. says, in effect, that's o.k., that's their problem.

Finally, John, the opinions that I state here are not anti-U.S. The country I grew up in didn't condone torture, pre-emptive unilateral wars, indefinite suspension of habeas corpus, unwarranted wiretaps. In the country I grew up in a person could disagree with government policy without being branded a traitor and enemy sympathizer. You may think things in Bushworld are hunky dory, Dyslin, but 70% of Americans know better.

To John E, weinerdog43, and others,

The war in Iraq isn’t Bush’s war. In case you’ve forgotten (and I’m sure you have), the war against Iraq has been running continuously from the time we expelled Iraq from Kuwait in 1991. As such, this war wasn’t new in 2003, much less pre-emptive. And, for reasons that will make themselves apparent below, this war was, and is, perfectly legal.

The United States and its coalition partners went to war with Iraq in 1991 pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolutions 660 and 678. The fighting ended in an “cease fire” pursuant to Resolution 687. One should note that an armistice or “cease-fire” is not the end of a war – it is only the temporary cessation of hostility. As such, the state of war never ended.

Unfortunately, hostilities began again almost as soon as they stopped. President George Herbert Walker Bush established the northern “no-fly zone” in Iraq in April of 1991 to prevent Saddam Hussein from using aircraft in operations against Kurds. A southern no-fly zone was established in 1992 to protect the Shiites from Saddam’s wrath.

These actions were undertaken pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution (hereafter “Resolution”) 678, which authorized “Member States cooperating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, . . . the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; . . .”, and Resolution 688, which condemned “the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish-populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region.” If it was our responsibility as a Member State to “restore international peace and security in the area” as Resolution 687 said it was, then we had a duty to stop the repression against the Kurds and others which the U.N. recognized as a threat to international peace and security in the region in Resolution 688.

Those same Resolutions provided justification for President William Jefferson Clinton to maintain those no-fly zones, and even to expand them to restrict Iraqi aircraft to an even more limited area. Under Clinton’s leadership, American and British airmen targeted and destroyed numerous Iraqi aircraft and missile and radar facilities in the no-fly zones. They also killed a substantial number of innocent civilians.

This was especially the case after Clinton launched “Operation Desert Fox” in December of 1998 – a 70 hour bombing campaign undertaken in retaliation for Iraq’s termination of the U.N.’s inspection regime. Earlier, in 1994, Clinton launched a missile attack against Iraq in retaliation for plotting to kill George H.W. Bush.

One journalist described the no-fly zone enforcement under Bush and Clinton as the “longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam.” Another went further, describing it as the longest Anglo-American bombing campaign since the end of World War II. [Operations over the no-fly zones continued up to the moment we invaded Iraq in 2003. Thus, we have been continuously at war with Iraq.]

Over time, a more fundamental purpose developed for Bill Clinton in prosecuting the no-fly zones. He viewed operations in the no-fly zones as a means of containing and even ruining the Iraqi military, humiliating Saddam Hussein and getting the locals to rise up against Saddam. Clinton, along with all his loyal Democrats in Congress, had concluded that Iraq under Saddam would never be anything than a rogue state and, therefore, “regime change” would be the official policy of the United States in Iraq. This policy of regime change was made explicit in Public Laws 105-174, 105-235 and 105–338, all of which President Clinton signed into law in 1998. [And you probably thought Dubya came up with this “regime change” policy all by himself, didn’t you?].

And if you doubt that Clinton and his loyal Democrats were behind all of this go look at

http://www.usiraqprocon.org/documents/1998iraqliberationactstatement.html
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm
and,
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html

The reason you didn’t hear about all of this stuff is that the press and media were howling about the President’s “money-shot heard ‘round the world,” the activities of the Special Prosecutor, and talk of impeachment. [Aren’t the press and media wonderful?]

So, when George W. Bush (hereafter “Duh’bya”) gets into the White House in 2000 he found himself the leader of a country that is, and has been, at war with Iraq from the days of Daddy Bush and Billy Clinton; and which already has an affirmative policy of “regime change” in Iraq, signed sealed and delivered by Billy Clinton and the U.S. Congress. He also has strong evidence that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, has consistently and repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council resolutions that were made to keep Iraq from posing a threat to international peace and security – so much so, that it is obvious to any but the deaf, dumb and blind that Saddam never intended to abide by those resolutions, and will never willingly abide by them. The Security Council resolutions that Saddam’s Iraq refused to obey between 1991 and 1999 include: 676, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, and 1284.

Many (but certainly not all) of these resolutions dealt with the requirements initially set out in Resolution 687 that Iraq submit to being disarmed of all Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons (NBCs – now known as WMDs) under international supervision, and not possess any missile with a range of more than 150 kilometers. Acceptance of this requirement was part of the quid pro quo for the 1991 cease-fire. (Resolution 687, para. 33.)

Yet, we knew as early as 1995 that Saddam never intended to comply with this disarmament regime. At that time, Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamal al-Majid, defected and told us that Iraq possessed large quantities of anthrax, and that Saddam continued to pursue technology for dispersing anthrax. This was just one of the circumstances that led President Clinton to state, on February 17, 1998, that “instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment.” (For the rest of his factual recitations, see http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/ ) Saddam had engaged in a relentless and systematic program of deception, obstruction and intimidation to thwart the efforts of arms inspectors to discover, disarm and remove weapons caches. It blocked U.N. weapons inspectors’ convoys; openly and routinely refused inspectors access to search suspected weapons facilities, or rooms within those facilities; refused to turn over documents, submitted numerous, falsified weapons estimates that were rejected by UNSCOM. Despite these difficulties, UNSCOM inspectors were still able to discover and destroy a large part of Saddam’s weapons cache before Saddam expelled them in 1998.

At the time of their expulsion, UNSCOM inspectors believed that Iraq still maintained caches of chemical and biological munitions, some Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program to build such weapons in the future. This was confirmed again in 2001 when another Iraqi defector, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, said he had been to 20 secret facilities for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and supported this claim with Iraqi government contracts, complete with technical specifications. (See “Secret Sites: Iraqi tells of Renovations at Sites for Chemical and Nuclear Arms,” The New York Times, December 20, 2001.) And, of course, neither Iraq nor any other governmental or international agency had given anyone reason to believe the situation had changed since the 1998 expulsion. Even Iraq’s 2002-2003 compliance papers failed to account for weapons UNSCOM knew had existed, even though they only had to provide some plausible explanation for their disposal.

So, we know Saddam had banned weapons, he obstructed their discovery, they remained unaccounted for, and no-one saw him get rid of them (and Resolution 687 REQUIRED disarmament under supervision). So, where did the unaccounted-for weapons go? Things in existence presumably stay in existence until acted upon. Saddam’s hindrance of UNSCOM efforts is evidence of guilty knowledge and intent to do that which is prohibited (which is a presumption used in criminal trials all the time.) Add to that Saddam’s undeniable desire to restart his weapons programs at the earliest possible moment, and you are left with one clear picture: Saddam and Iraq still had some WMDs and/or had every intention of producing more WMD’s at the earliest and safest opportunity. [Mind you, Saddam was also obliged by Resolution 687 not to possess OR manufacture such weapons in the future as part of his acceptance of the cease-fire.]

I wouldn’t have been unreasonable for anyone in Duh’bya’s position to believe the situation in Iraq would not improve, compliance with U.N. Resolutions would not occur, and that Iraq would remain a threat to international peace and stability in the region unless Saddam Hussein’s government was removed. Entirely aside from the WMD issue, Iraq had threatened to re-invade Kuwait in 1994, Saddam had terrorized his own people, and the Iraqi government had failed to abide by many parts of Resolutions necessary to end the 1991 Gulf war, including repatriation of Kuwaitis, return of stolen property and return of POWs. Nor was it reasonable to suggest that further diplomacy would help. By 2003, twelve (12) years of diplomacy on many levels had produced no significant change in the attitude or policies of Saddam’s government.

Consequently it was not unreasonable for the United States and the United Kingdom to invade Iraq pursuant to Resolution 678 “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 . . . and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.” Twelve years of remaining an international threat, violating resolution 660 and every “subsequent relevant” U.N.S.C. resolution without being checked was long enough. War was now being used as a final alternative as all others had failed.

Critics have condemned this approach, claiming it was up to the U.N., and the Security Council in particular, to determine whether the conditions for further action have been met, and what further actions to take. The critics, on this point, are terribly wrong.

The actual wording of the resolutions, and Resolution 678 in particular, specifically state that it is up to the Member States (including the U.S.) to take appropriate action. Nowhere in any of the resolutions does it suggest that the U.N. had to give any further authorization for military action to be appropriate, much less that it had to specify what further action to take. Nor do any relevant Resolutions include any wording to lead any reasonable reader to believe the authorization to use force had come to an end.

The provisions of Resolution 687, paragraph 34, which the critics point to as support of their position, doesn’t say what they suggest. It merely states that the U.N. decided to remain “seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region.” It doesn’t say purport to annul the power of Member States to act pursuant to prior authorizations, and it doesn’t say the U.N. would have to authorize further action or specify what that action would be. It only says the U.N. retains jurisdiction to act to make things work. If these resolutions have the hidden meaning to which the critics have ascribed to them, those meanings certainly don’t show up in any English version. I might add that no further U.N. resolution, from either the Security Council or the General Assembly, has ever condemned enforcement of the no-fly zones or the Iraq invasion.

Consequently, a fair reading of all relevant Resolutions on the matter show that the invasion was legal under the U.N. Charter. Chapter VII, Articles 39 and 42 of the Charter expressly allow military action authorized by the Security Council.

The invasion was also authorized under United States law and the Constitution. Congress passed a resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq. That satisfies the Constitution’s requirement that Congress declare war. (U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 11.) For those who claim Congress was lied to by Bush to obtain this authorization, I say: B.S. As shown above, the claims regarding the threat of WMDs were not false even if they were puffed a bit by the Bush Administration. Furthermore, on that heading, anything Bush had to say was so much preaching to the choir. Congress and President Clinton had already come to the conclusion that Saddam was still in possession of WMD’s and that Iraq would remain a threat to international peace as long as Saddam remained in power. We already had three federal statutes that said so. As such, any claim the authorization for the Iraq war was obtained by fraud was nonsense.

Finally, here is something to think about. If Duh’bya is a war criminal for invading Iraq, then his father and Bill Clinton are also war criminals for creating and policing the no-fly zone over Iraq and taking other war-like actions. Their actions were just as justified, or just as damnable, for being based on the same Resolutions that Duh’bya used to justify the invasion. So, what will it be?

And weinerdog43: You can say whatever you like at any speed you choose. But to claim the war was illegal is wrong for the reasons given above.

John E: ditto and have a nice weekend.

If you look up "specious argument" in the dictionary you'll see, case-in-point;

The following article
Posted by: John W. | June 20, 2007 8:01 PM

"Not George Bush's War"? That's all you need to now about this absurd argument pieced together from the RNC database.

More nonsense from the party of non-accountability. What's next, Hitler was blameless for WWII?

To: TheReamer:

Try answering the arguments on the merits with facts and logic, rather than slurs, epithets and hyperbole. Then try not to take quotes entirely out of context, as you have. If you do, then someone might actually take you seriously instead of believing you are the Democratic Party lap-dog you appear to be.

John W.

How do you, if you do, marry the aspect of the Project for the New American Century made up of parties (neo cons) who are tied to Iraq before Clinton, to Clinton and Iraq, and to the influence it had on the Bush Doctrine (preemption coming into play verbatim before the invasion), and Bush in Iraq today with the undisputed account of the threat of WMD as you lay out? (Calling for the removal of Saddam as well as stepping up our military role in foreign policy to deter potential threats)

BTW I'm not disputing what you offered. I agree that Iraq did not materialize from thin air when Bush came into office. (Although, my take has both the WMD in the picture and the issue of oil going way back past, Kuwait, the Carter Doctrine, etc., but that is my take.)

Regardless, I guess what I'm curious of is as to why you see this Administrations moves in light of all that you offered as not fitting in with preemptive?

AR:

To my understanding, a “pre-emptive” war – as the name implies – is one launched against an opposing country before that country has committed any overt hostile act that would offer plausible justification for war. As so defined, the “pre-emptive war doctrine,” in my view, is a doctrine still waiting for a concrete case because it really didn’t apply to Iraq. I think Bush and his neo-con buddies floated the concept of a “pre-emptive” war as a means of frightening rogue states into believing the U.S. was serious about direct military confrontation against them without provocation. As evidence of this, one must observe that the doctrine was often mentioned by Bush in the context of our “longer war” against terrorists and those states who support or practice terrorism. It was mentioned in the context of the Iraq invasion as an example to “terrorists” that they, too, could fall victim to American might. It was more of a saber rattling exercise, so to speak.

What supports this notion, in my mind, is the fact that the White House has offered a justification similar to the one I described above – as an alternative to the pre-emptive war justification. I’m sure someone must have briefed the White House regarding what works and what doesn’t work under international law, and especially with regard to the grounds used by Daddy Bush and Bill Clinton to justify aggression in Iraq. I am equally sure someone must have told Bush his “pre-emptive” war justification runs contrary to the U.N. Charter unless it is really a case of self-defense anyway. As you and I both know, there was no way for Bush to have made out a case for self-defense, because that justification requires the existence of an imminent threat of significant magnitude.

I find it hard (but not impossible) to believe that Bush would opt to stand on an invalid justification for war when another, more plausible justification exists that is prima facie consistent with international law and the purpose of the U.N. After all, it only takes one good legal justification to render an act legal, regardless of how many invalid grounds are also given. All the bad ones are then so much hype.

I hope that answers your questions. Yell if it didn’t.

Yes, that answers my questions. Thanks. I personally think that Iraq is both a continuation on the acts of previous Administrations, and a case of preemption as constructed by the NSS '02 and '06. Iraq is the same, and only veering off to now be included in a new concept. Why do I say this? The way I see it is that the NSS of '02 and renewed '06 (Bush Doctrine) is laid out addressing three things; terrorist, states tied to them, and includes WMD; not only to prevent passing them off, but prevent those states from having them in the first place.

"direct and continuous action using all the elements of national and international power. Our immediate focus will be those terrorist organizations of global reach and any terrorist or state sponsor of terrorism which attempts to gain or use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or their precursors."

Any moves towards acquiring WMD, where states are considered "rouge," and ties exist to terrorists does tie in with the imminent threat of significant magnitude necessary for self defense in anticipation of a possible future strike. I think our wonderful neo-people have set this combination up as the standard that meets the use of preemption bc they anticipated that combination as the new challenge facing America for the next century; hence long war. The combination of those factors putting us on the defense-offensive, and preemptive action being necessary in that context bc of the advancement of WMD technology. The spread of which the NFT treaty (maybe the UN Security Council too) is becoming more useless towards in the cases of certain states we like to call "rouge".

NSS lays out deterrence measures, but they are kept separate from action they formulate as being preemptive where WMD are a real concerned;

"Deterring potential foes and assuring friends and allies, however, is only part of a broader approach. Meeting WMD proliferation challenges also requires effective international action – and the international community is most engaged in such action when the United States leads.

Taking action need not involve military force. Our strong preference and common practice is to address proliferation concerns through international diplomacy, in concert with key allies and regional partners. If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. This is the principle and logic of preemption. The place of preemption in our national security strategy remains the same. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just."

What's interesting is that think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the Brooking Institute, or AEI don't exactly argue Iraq's preemptive status. (Liberal tend to alternate pre-emptive with preventative.) Although , in the Washington Post,

"Thomas Donnelly, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who has written on the 2002 strategy, said the 2003 invasion of Iraq in the strict sense is not an example of preemptive war, because it was preceded by 12 years of low-grade conflict and was essentially the completion of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Still, he said, recent problems there contain lessons for those who would advocate preemptive war elsewhere. A military strike is not enough, he said; building a sustainable, responsible state in place of a rogue nation is the real challenge."

So in a separate sense it is a continuation, but I feel since the Administration prepped the case against Saddam, including that history of violations and conflict, in the way they constructed the neo-con influenced imminent threat, WMD-terrorist-rouge regime, constituting pre-emptive action it becomes both. Since WMD are the common ground (with the history of violation and conflict which is clear) it makes a case for both. An event in itself, and fitting into the pre-emptive notion advanced by neo-cons. If those violations should not have been acted upon bc of how weak Saddam has become bc of sanctions and previous bombing as a result, or he wasn't at that point number one threat compared to other countries; taking into account the existence of terrorist next to regimes looking to build up arsenals undeterred. Well, then preemptive action falls apart since a call for preemptive action includes other factors that generate to this significant threat. Your left with WMD, and you still have that to fall back on legally concerning self defense in the context of a continuation of defying the UN Security council for several years. I think you said it best. A legal move yes. I would say regardless. Wise move maybe not.

Now, I hope I made any sense. You did though. I just view it differently. Sorry, about the length.

AR:

Thanks for the reply. It was an interesting read. You shouldn't apologize for the length (as I never do). I think it's important to explain one's position as completely and clearly as you have.

I wish I had known of the piece by Thomas Donnelly. I would have then been able to point to it and say, "Read this. It explains my views on the pre-emptive component of the war in Iraq completely."

I have trouble with the Bush Doctrine's formulation of pre-emptive war because it takes too much of a one-size-fits-all approach to rogue states with any WMDs. For instance, the doctrine appears less objectionable when applied to a rogue nation with nuclear warheads, a missile (or other) system for delivering that payload anywhere in the world and an unequivocal intent to launch an imminent nuclear attack. In that scenario, a plausible case for a pre-emptive attack in self-defense would exist – because too much would be risked by non-action. In the case of Iraq, however, the known or suspected WMDs didn’t have the ability to kill or injure on the scale of a nuclear weapon, the Iraqis lacked a delivery system capable of impact outside their immediate vicinity and Iraq hadn’t engaged in much saber rattling toward anyone since the ’91 war. Thus, as I mentioned earlier, there was no good case for a pre-emptive strike in self-defense.

The differences between the two scenarios are significant. The U.N. charter only permits attacks against another state: 1) in self-defense; or 2) when authorized by the U.N. Security Council. The rigid Bush doctrine (as you describe it) doesn’t track the U.N. Charter and, therefore, might make us run afoul of international law if applied exactly as formulated. If, for example, the Iraq invasion truly was waged as a pre-emptive war, and no other justification existed, the invasion would have violated international law. This is a reckless policy.

Buy a piece of paradise in Costa Rica. Visit http://www.mycrestate.com for Real Estate in Costa Rica. Visit the following links for more information. Costa Rica Real Estate, Costa Rica Real Estate Listings, Costa Rica Map and Costa Rica. You wont go wrong with MyCREstate.com Costa Rica Real Estate.