Obama

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Oh, I know it was clear.

[Super Dude]

Don't see how that was confusing, but he was saying that the Iraq war was more legal and justifiable than Libya.  He's wrong,  but they were valid points to make. 

I'm not sure how they would be valid and wrong?

Also I asked this in another thread I think and no one answered me: what are the credentials for a war to be legal?  Is it U.N. peacekeeping approval or something like that?  A multilateral military force?

[El Barto]

I don't recall the exact context, but I was probably suggesting that it was a perfectly reasonable thing for him to believe, I just disagree with it. 

[jsem]

Obama didn't seek the congress' approval for Libya... or did he? Idk, that may be what EV is talking about.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

It was a UN thing. AFAIK, the Iraq war had neither Congressional nor UN approval

[El Barto]

I believe the Iraq war had Congressional approval. Whether or not their was UN approval is a matter of debate.   Libya had UN approval, but Obama never ran it by Congress first (who probably would have gone along with it anyway).  

With regards to Congress:  Technically, I'm not sure how much the Congressional thing really matters since we've pretty much abandoned the notion of a formal declaration of war.  We weren't technically at war with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq either time, or anybody else we've fought since WWII.  It has become customary to get congressional approval for "police actions", but I don't know if it's actually required.  Like everything else in Washington, it honestly depends on who's in power and who's complaining.  .

As for the UN:  (like anybody really gives a shit).  The legality of a war has a lot to do with whether or not it would constitute a war crime.  In this instance, the US is pretty much in line with international law.  The Afghan war, probably, as one could articulate a threat from the large AQ presence.  Iraq is a pretty big question mark.  As I understand it, for a war to be lawful there has to be approval form the UN or an imminent threat.  Barring that, it would be considered a war of aggression and therefore a war crime.  The nutshell version as I understand it is that the UN issued a laundry list of resolutions pertaining to Iraq after Gulf War I.  These were specific to maintaining peace in the region.  Colin Powell's waving around of that anthrax vial was the precursor to UN 1441, which basically said that Iraq was in violation of the earlier resolutions and constituted a breech of the peace.  However, the consensus appears to be that 1441 did not authorized a use of force.  Presumably, another resolution would have been called for specifically authorizing military action.  Dumbass's justifications were that Iraq was not in compliance with the UN and that automatically authorized military intervention, and, that the provisions of the 1990 resolutions which he was in violation of also allowed for that intervention.  There is a legal rationale behind it,  it's not something they just pulled out of their ass,  but the opinion seems to be that if it were questioned in international court, the invasion would have been considered unlawful.  The 1990 resolutions were likely confined to the resolution to GWI, and 1441 didn't designate the US as the enforcer of any provisions.  Basically he had a legal leg to stand on, but it was really wobbly.  

Honestly, SnakeEyes probably has a better understanding of W's justification under the UN.  I'd be curious to here the pro-Bush side from a true-believer.

[MetalMike06]

I think the idea on the pro-Bush side is that since Saddam Hussein had violated certain UN resolutions, that made any action against him legit, whether there was UN approval or not...

Whatever the case, I personally don't believe in the UN, so to me it's wrong no matter what side you come from. It's kind of weird - a lot of the neocons would cite Saddam's violation of UN measures as justification, yet at the same time they scoff at the UN as an obstacle to our unilateralism.

[El Barto]

Part of my concern is that we're pretty quick to wave Hague and Geneva around in people's faces when we feel like we've been wronged, but those sorts of things never apply to anything we do wrong.  In this case, there's a very strong possibility that invading Iraq was about as lawful as Saddam invading Kuwait. 

[SnakeEyes]

I only have a minute to reply to this right now, but I'll try to come back and read through the thread and give a more in depth response (since El Barto mentiond my name).  

From what I understand, Bush DID get congressional approval as evidenced by the Iraq War Resolution.  They gave the President the "right" to invade Iraq if he made a "determination" that Iraq was a threat to the security of the United States.  In the beginning of the Iraq War Resolution, there's a laundry list of things that Saddam did that was used as evidence of Saddam being a threat to the U.S., including the assassination attempt on former President Bush (the father), shooting at U.S. plans in no-fly zones and paying suicide bombers to attack Israel, which is a friend of the U.S.  There were other reasons, too, I just can't remember them.  So, that's the U.S. side of things as far as "permission" goes.  

Concerning the U.N., if I remember correctly, the Security Council did NOT give Bush permission to invade Iraq.  Supporters of Bush, like myself, however, point out that a lot of the members of the Security Council were being bribed by Saddam Hussein through the Oil for Food program, which led to them not supporting Bush invading Iraq because then their shady dealings would have been uncovered (which they, embarassingly for these countries, were exposed).  

With Obama, I believe it's the opposite: he didn't get Congressional approval for Libya, but didn't ask for it, but DID get U.N. approval.  Dennis Kucinich said he and most other Democrats would have voted against it, anyway, so Obama probably knew that and bypassed Congress for that reason.  

[EPICVIEW]

I only have a minute to reply to this right now, but I'll try to come back and read through the thread and give a more in depth response (since El Barto mentiond my name).  

From what I understand, Bush DID get congressional approval as evidenced by the Iraq War Resolution.  They gave the President the "right" to invade Iraq if he made a "determination" that Iraq was a threat to the security of the United States.  In the beginning of the Iraq War Resolution, there's a laundry list of things that Saddam did that was used as evidence of Saddam being a threat to the U.S., including the assassination attempt on former President Bush (the father), shooting at U.S. plans in no-fly zones and paying suicide bombers to attack Israel, which is a friend of the U.S.  There were other reasons, too, I just can't remember them.  So, that's the U.S. side of things as far as "permission" goes.  

Concerning the U.N., if I remember correctly, the Security Council did NOT give Bush permission to invade Iraq.  Supporters of Bush, like myself, however, point out that a lot of the members of the Security Council were being bribed by Saddam Hussein through the Oil for Food program, which led to them not supporting Bush invading Iraq because then their shady dealings would have been uncovered (which they, embarassingly for these countries, were exposed).  

With Obama, I believe it's the opposite: he didn't get Congressional approval for Libya, but didn't ask for it, but DID get U.N. approval.  Dennis Kucinich said he and most other Democrats would have voted against it, anyway, so Obama probably knew that and bypassed Congress for that reason.  

Best post of the Year.

sent you a PM to further talk about this SE

[jsem]

PLM owned here. Still, doesn't mean that any of the wars are morally justified.

[Adami]

I admit I haven't followed Lybia a whole lot, since I've focused more on the middle east, but what exactly is America doing there? All I read about are the rebels and NATO. Doesn't sound like America is engaged in war or anything there.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

They're not engaged in war

[Adami]

They're not engaged in war

So what are we talking about?

[El Barto]

I admit I haven't followed Lybia a whole lot, since I've focused more on the middle east, but what exactly is America doing there? All I read about are the rebels and NATO. Doesn't sound like America is engaged in war or anything there.

It's actually quite difficult to pin down what America's involvement is now.  Early on, we were doing the bulk of the work.  With the transition to NATO command (and ostensibly before), we were supposed to be doing only the sort of stuff that we do which others can't.  C&C, battlefield surveillance, that kind of stuff.  My guess is that we dealt with iron hand and slinging tomahawks all hell over the place the first couple of days, and then moved into the support role.  Honestly, I don't know as I'd consider this a war any more than Clinton's Iraq soiree.  It's more like helping others fight a war.

[Adami]

Does America have troups on the ground there actually fighting? I thought it was mostly air strikes.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Not that I've heard, but I don't know all the details

[j]

I'd think there would have to be some troops on the ground lasering targets, etc.

-J

[El Barto]

If there are any Americans operating on the ground over there, they're the Bermuda shorts wearing type, armed with briefcases full of Krugerrands.  I believe the French do have some guys on the ground operating as advisers. 

Needing guys on the ground to laze targets is a thing of the past.  You do that from on high. 

[ricky]

If there are any Americans operating on the ground over there, they're the Bermuda shorts wearing type, armed with briefcases full of Krugerrands.  I believe the French do have some guys on the ground operating as advisers.  

Needing guys on the ground to laze targets is a thing of the past.  You do that from on high.  

not true, i can personally attest to that.

it depends on the specific location.

[j]

If there are any Americans operating on the ground over there, they're the Bermuda shorts wearing type, armed with briefcases full of Krugerrands.  I believe the French do have some guys on the ground operating as advisers.  

Needing guys on the ground to laze targets is a thing of the past.  You do that from on high.  

not true, i can personally attest to that.

it depends on the specific location.

Yeah this was my understanding too.  Ricky, are there other significant reasons to have troops on the ground when you're in the air?

-J

[El Barto]

If there are any Americans operating on the ground over there, they're the Bermuda shorts wearing type, armed with briefcases full of Krugerrands.  I believe the French do have some guys on the ground operating as advisers. 

Needing guys on the ground to laze targets is a thing of the past.  You do that from on high. 

not true, i can personally attest to that.

it depends on the specific location.

Unless you're going to tell us there are troops on the ground, I figure you're talking about lazing targets.  Is it something you actually need, though?  I'm sure having a guy there to light up a tank is great, but I suspect we can still do a helluva lot of damage without him.  There's a major policy problem with having troops there.  I'm guessing there isn't enough need to bother.  Also, I think the French and British are handling armor on their own now.  Is there anything else that needs to be lazed?