Glenn also said scroll down and follow the links. The term "warblogger" is rather passe at this point. If you go through my posts, maybe 1/3 apply to "the war."

I am happy to link your post, which I will now do.

He does this a lot with his posts. Eric, we've chatted elsewhere, he knows what I'm talking about.

As for your linking, no need. As you yourself have said, you're out of this debate.

The term "warblogger" is rather passe at this point.

Ah-hahhahaha! Then I suggest we rename them the "Auto-erotic Death Fetishists" instead! Or maybe the "Phallocratic Linktards?" How about the "Frustrated KillBunnies?" Or the "Circle-jerking GunHumpers"? Do I have a second, here?

[The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the management. I'm just feelin' feisty.]

Yup. Phallocratic Linktards has my vote.

Boys, can I strongly suggest that this is played in a courteous manner? There's a two-way mirror here.

(That's why I put the disclaimer in, Bb. Sorry.)

More abuse can be found at my place. I note in admiration that Shelley's been relentlessly polite and reasonable, a demeanor that I simply can't maintain in the face of these No Longer Called Warbloggers.

(Delete my comments if you want to Bb, with my apologies - I've textualized my contempt over at my own 'blog...)

I would never delete your comments, chickie baby. Besides, I've been deleting in comments and in posts too much lately.

Chris, I think I'm going to drive the Alcan in September. What think?

The Alaska Highway? That would rock! September should get you through before the snow flies...beautiful time of year to be doing it, I'd say. No bugs, leaves turning...

*envies Bb*

You should stop in and say hi to my folks, and the Mighty Bearman of course, if you do it! Also, I have an old friend who's just moved into a house beside the Alaska Highway in the Yukon, who could certainly provide a waypoint, I'd think...

I'm hoping to miss snow and at the Alcan web site they've said I should be okay in September--just to be prepared. Would be a fun trip. Bucks is the big issue. Bucks, and lack thereof. But I'm restless.

I'm also really hot tonight, burning. so Alaska sounds great right nwo.

Bb,

We are talking so far past each other that it's surprising we can even understand the other person. Darmak and Jilard at Tenagra, essentially.

One example: I did NOT say that laws are illusory because they are not enforced. I said that laws, if they are to be meaningful, must be ACCEPTED by the majority of the polity.

FPIF cites the UN Charter. Is that the sum total of international law? Is the only basis for going to war a UNSC resolution? I take it, then, that our intervention in Kosovo was illegal? I take it that you feel Korea and the Gulf War of '90 was justified? The former was NOT formally approved by the UN, the latter were. There's questionable international legal foundation for militarily intervening to prevent genocide---so you supported our standing by and doing nothing w/r/t Rwanda (note that there was no UNSC resolution calling for intervention there at the time, thanx to the Administration's deliberate quashing of debate---all perfectly legal).

Moreover, you suggest that I am "debating the UN's own understanding of international law." The last I checked, Mr. Zunes doesn't speak for the UN, either. Nor did I make myself out to be a practitioner of international law. (In fact, I've said NOTHING about what I do.)

I think I asked you earlier exactly what provisions of international law we would be violating. As w/ so much in law, it is a matter of interpretation of the law (and international lobbying). After all, if situations really were so cut-and-dried, one wonders where any debate would come from at all. :-)

Dean, sorry for misinterpretation of your view of law.

As for the UN:

"The UN Charter specifically calls on the United Nations to undertake the progressive codification and development of international law. The conventions, treaties and standards resulting from this work have provided a framework for promoting international peace and security and economic and social development. States which ratify these conventions are legally bound by them"

As for Kosovo, from defense position brief

"A NATO offensive in Yugoslavia without the U.N. authorization would be unprecedented. To date, NATO has never violated the borders of a sovereign country based on nothing more than the decision of its own political superstructure. Most NATO allies are reluctant to cross this line, as reflected in the European Union (EU) declaration on Kosovo. On June 16, the EU, which includes 13 of NATO’s 16 countries, issued a statement suggesting that military options under consideration “may require an authorisation by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.”

If the United States accepts as part of its membership in the UN that it must abide by the rules of the UN charter, including any laws codified by the UN, then when the US acts outside of these laws, it is in violation of these laws. No amount of word play and semantics changes this. And no amount of past examples changes this. I stated that the US would be in violation of international law, and this is a verifiable fact. You may not agree that the UN is a viable entity. And you might not agree that the law is viable because it's been violated in the past, but this does not change the US membership in the UN and its agreement to abide by the rules of said membership, including laws.

As a final addendum:

UNSC Resolutions 660, 686, and 687 provide us w/ (according to some interpretations) sufficient justification to intervene. UNSCR 686 and 687, in particular, lay out Iraqi obligations regarding inspections, and failure to comply (which, again, is a matter of interpretation) would, apparently, justify continued use of force. Indeed, UNSCRs 700 and 707 indicate that the UNSC was quite peeved at Iraq, and lays out requirements for compliance that the Iraqis have not done. These UNSCRs do not, apparently, require a separate UNSC determination of compliance.

These (and related UNSCRs, incl. 688) also justify the maintenance of sanctions---indeed, opposition to sanctions is based, not on international legality of them, but whether the relevant UNSCRs trump or are trumped by humanitarian concerns.

Dean, enforcement of sanctions can only occur through the UN, not through invasion by individual states

We cannot unilaterally act on this. The sanctions against Iraq are imposed by the UN and only the UN can 'legally' act on this.

The United States can not act as an enforcement for UN sanctions, without UN agreement.

Bb,

Another example of our very different starting points so that our views are talking past each other (and this is what makes this, for me, a less than enjoyable experience) is your citation of states that will not support us in a war w/ Iraq.

You note that some countries, including Turkey have "come out in protest and/or refused support". The two, of course are VERY different things. Many states will protest, for a variety of reasons (including genuine opposition, playing to their own domestic politics, etc., etc.), and yet may well provide support in the end (especially away from the glare of the press). States that have REFUSED support, AFAIK, are Germany and Saudi Arabia.

Moreover, your Turkish cite, as one example, is an opinion writer, who is talking to the "man in the street." This is not to say the man in the street is irrelevant (they're not), but that does not necessarily mean that the state's actions will be reflective of the opinions cited. Coming from an opinion-piece, I'm even more skeptical of its representativeness.

Similarly, you cite a piece about Saddam trying to get Iran to side WITH it, as evidence that Iran would actively oppose a US war w/ Iraq. Not that I'd expect much in the way of support, but in international affairs, what's NOT said is often as significant as what IS said, and Iraqi wooing of Iran would suggest, to me, that he is concerned about Iran SUPPORTING the US ('else, why bother?).

I would simply suggest that many of these same concerns were noted back in '90-'91. Arab states, it was said, would oppose the toppling of one of their own, the Arab street would not stand for US bombing of an Arab city, etc. The same arguments were heard AGAIN in '01, when we were preparing to bomb Afghanistan. Yet, each time, the feared "street" did not materialize, the Arab states lined up (albeit grudgingly), and US policy proceeded apace.

I doubt very much that I've changed anyone's minds here, or even made any arguments that are viewed as meaningful. I therefore leave you to your endeavors, Bb, and hope that you find the debate you seek.

Dean, point blank -- as I found with Eric, you all don't want debate, you want agreement. I, at least, provide references, you provide rhetoric and opinion. I provide supporting material whether you agree with it or not, you provide words.

And, when you can't control the situation, or you can't get me to 'back down', you say things such as "we're talking past each other", when we are specifically talking about the same points. However, I'm not agreeing with you, therefore, as with Eric, you'll pick up marbles go home.

You don't want debate, you want me to agree.

And this is Glenn Reynold's idea of good arguments?

Paper tigers.

Bb,

You wanted an international-law based justification for a war w/ Iraq. I provided some of the UNSCRs (not EVERY one of them since '90, but certainly some of the most important ones), which you dismiss as rhetoric.

You claim that when we act outside the UN Charter, then we are, somehow, acting illegally. I hate to break it to you, but the UN Charter hardly covers ALL international activity. For that matter, as I've hinted at repeatedly, it is hardly difficult for the US to get the UNSC to go along. And, in the case of the referenced UNSC Resolutions, we may NOT require going back to the UN, because we are ALREADY authorized to act! We would be acting LEGALLY (this is my point which, for some reason, I'm having trouble expressing).

You may not agree w/ that, but there is plenty of room there for debate on this. The same applies to enforcement of sanctions. The UNSC Resolutions I cited provide the US, at some level, w/ the necessary cover, because, if you had read them, they call for all states to act as necessary to support them.

You provide citations from a think-tank (the Center for Defense Information), whose politics are in agreement w/ yours. Worse, NATO went INTO Kosovo, w/o explicit UN support, effectively obviating your very argument. (The UN did NOT support Kosovo, there is no UNSCR authorizing it explicitly.) They did so in 1999, AFTER your citation! If yours are "references" and not "words," I'll take "words," thank you very much!

You cite some people's opinions (Carroll's, Geyer's) as though they are somehow legal briefs. They are NOT, they are the opinions of some folks, some of whom are in the defense biz, some of whom are not. (Aka words.)

This is part of what I'm talking about, when I say that we are starting from completely unrelated starting points.

If you cannot tell the difference, however, between a person's opinion (e.g., Carroll), and actual events (e.g., the bombing of Kosovo), I think that it is you who are a paper tiger.

And, no, Bb, I do NOT want you to agree. I could actually care very little whether you agree or not. I just want you to stop acting as though your weblog and your opinions are somehow the only place where things are real. Responses happened, if not here. Kosovo happened, if not according to Eugene Carroll and your citation. You might start from there.

Dean, UN 660:

Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States.

This is the only portion of this that encourages intervention by other states and this has to do with the two countries reaching an accord.

Resolution: 686

The sections that provide support for member states to act on their own accord are:

"Designate military commanders to meet with counterparts from the forces of Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait pursuant to resolution 678 (1990) to arrange for the military aspects of a cessation of hostilities at the earliest possible time"

"Welcomes the decision of Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait pursuant to resolution 678 (1990) to provide access and to commence immediately the release of Iraqi prisoners of war as required by the terms of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross"

"Requests all Member States, as well as the United Nations, the specialized agencies and other international organizations in the United Nations system, to take all appropriate action to cooperate with the Government and people of Kuwait in the reconstruction of their country"

Nothing in there about any member state unilaterally acting on its own to punish violations.

And to further clarify all of this, these resolutions had to do with Iraqi invasion of Kuwait over ten years ago, and providing military support to Kuwait to force Iraq to return back behind its borders, free Kuwait prisoners, and so on.

You're using dated resolutions. You're using precedent with past violations as justification for future ones.

I agree with you -- this is a waste of both of our time.

Bb,

First, my apologies for misreferring to UNSCR 686. It is 687 that discusses inspection regimes for WMD.

But more to the point, the UNSCR's are the basis for subsequent UN (and US) activity. UNSCR 660, 661, 662, etc., are the basis for the SUBSEQUENT UNSCR's that justify the inspections.

I'm truly bewildered by your comment about "dated resolutions." Dated or not, they are the basis for actions---Iraqi failure to comply w/ inspections is an ongoing affair since 1991.

The POINT of referring to these is that:

1. Iraq invades Kuwait.
2. UN authorizes activities regarding Iraqi invasion.
3. Iraq loses war.
4. UN authorizes additional activities, including inspections.
5. Iraq refuses to comply up to today.

Steps 1-5 lay open the door for US actions today---the same way, to use a domestic legal example, violation of parole, when the original crime that sent you to the pokey was committed a long-time ago, is sufficient to revoke parole. And you do NOT require a new trial to end the parole, you simply need to provide evidence of breaking of parole.

The Iraqis committed a crime, they've been put on parole, they are violating parole, we are going to put them back in the pokey.

If you are going to argue that because the UN Resolutions are dated (keeping in mind they are STILL in force), then you'd better be prepared to revise your views of international law, since the Palestinian homeland issue dates back to the 1940s-1950s, and lots of laws (international and otherwise) refer to laws and precedents set sometimes decades or even a century ago.

Yes, Dean. They authorize inspections, but under the auspices of the UN. And any decision to penalize Iraq must also occur under the auspices of the UN. No UN member state can unilaterally invade Iraq under some charge that Iraq is violating UN santions. You don't have to believe me, check with Reynolds, he's a law professor.