Talk:Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq/Archive 1

of possible interest? http://www.guardian.co.uk/Politics/iraq/story/0,,1700881,00.html

Article in Serious Need of Overhaul

This article does not at all coherently present the debate over the legitimacy of the invasion. It seems a jumble of conflicting views mixed in together. One sentence will make a reference to some fact, and the next sentence will seem to contradict what was just said.

Regarding to the section on Weapons of Mass Destruction: The focus of this section should be that the Bush Administration made the case that Iraq had WMD, and intended to give them to terrorists. UNMOVIC carried out inspections of Iraq from the fall of 2002 to March 2003 and found no evidence of WMD. The United States and Britain claimed that Iraq was hiding WMD and thus in noncompliance with UN resolutions, and invaded Iraq. After the invasion, it was found that Iraq possessed no WMD.

As a sidenote about the lack of WMD in Iraq: Fox News made a big deal about a report that about 500 artillery shells with degraded chemical weapons agents were reported to have been found. These shells were not of military grade, and are assumed to have most likely been misplaced ordinances from before the Gulf War. As the agents were no longer active and so few ordinances were found, they would have been useless militarily. They were probably only in existence through neglect.

The section currently makes it seem as if it is a contentious issue as to whether Iraq possessed WMD and had a WMD program before the invasion, while this is not at all the case. The article needs a serious overhaul so as not to sound like an apology piece for the administration; it should at least admit what every intelligent observer - not to mention former UN and US weapons inspectors - around the world knows. --Thucydides411 23:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is an extended poorly sourced essay that includes just enough material to seem like an article rather than an essay. LEGITIMACY is the topic, the "Legitimacy of the 2003 Invasion".

I redid the existing non-structure to: (1) Legitimacy according to the UN (2) Legitimacy according to the ICC, (3) Legitimacy according to the Court of Public Opinion. This format was reverted, without comment. While the reversion alone was within editorial discretion stndards, failing to enter into effective dialog suggests that the editor intends a pointless edit war. ANY alternative format will be welcomed by me, offer one, don't quietly revert? Please? Raggz 23:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Article title

This article is massive, and not very concise. It is understandable considering the debate involved regarding miltary action, but if the purpose of this page is to simply debate and move the legitimacy discussion to a separate page, we still have quite a bit of work to do. Ive added two sentences of text just to provide a summary of the rest of the article in the first paragraph. CanadianPhaedrus 18:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

Shouldn't this be named something like Legitimacy of the 2003 Iraq War ? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 05:54Z

I could be wrong but perhaps the title was chosen so that a search of Iraq War would include this in the list. I"m not sure.Dawgknot 15:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Revise this section

I think the following paragraph, which has been edited a few times, should be revised a bit differently

In the past, Iraq had been supplied with chemical weapons and the technology to develop them by the United States, Germany and France. [1] In 1988, Saddam allegedly used these weapons against Iraqi Kurds during the Halabja poison gas attack. In 1990 during the Gulf War Saddam had the opportunity to use these weapons, he chose not to. [2] From 1991-1998 UNSCOM inspected Iraq and worked to locate and destroy WMD stockpiles. In 1998 U.S. President Bill Clinton inititated Operation Desert Fox based on Iraq's failure to comply with the inspectors. [3] For 4 years after that, the inspection teams remained out of the country. In late 2002, after international pressure and more UN Resolutions, Iraq allowed inspection teams back into the country. In 2003 UNMOVIC was inspecting Iraq but were ordered out despite their pleas for more time.[4] [5] After the Iraq war no WMDs were found in Iraq.

It originally said "Clinton ordered a bombing campaign", but was changed to "initiated Operation Desert Fox". I think it would be clearer to indicate the Desert Fox was a use of military force...yes the link will explain it, but I think it should at least be indicated as such here also.

The fact that inspectors left Iraq in 1998 was removed. Yet in the next sentence, it says "inspection teams remained out of the country". It seems clearer to say that prior to the Clinton military action in 1998, inspectors left the country. This is a key fact.

Also, the fact that the U.S. Ambassador to the UN argued in 1998 that the Clinton Administration had UN authorization to use military force based on UN Resolutions passed in 1991 was removed completely. Why was this fact removed? In an article discussing the legitimacy of military action against Iraq, the fact that the Bush Administration argued it had the same UN Authority that the Clinton Administration argued it had in 1998 seems very relevant. At the very least in this summary paragraph I think a mention of it and a link to Peter Burleigh's comments to the UN should be included.

The paragraph was edited and a link to Clinton's speech in 1998 following his ordering of military action against Iraq was included. However, the editor who added this link said "Removed "WMD evidence" Bill Clinton's speech makes it very clear that he believes Saddam does not currently have WMDs." I don't quite know what you're talking about. Clinton's speech clearly states, "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. " The intent of the original description was to show what Clinton believed in 1998, not what he now believes in 2006. In 1998, Clinton ordered military action against Iraq based on the WMD evidence that existed at the time and citing prior UN Authorization to use force. This is not my opinion...it is a fact. Clinton said so and his UN Ambassador said so. And yet this fact was removed. Why? Jeravicious 01:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the rest of the speech not just the intro. [6]

"They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors."

"First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens."

"And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

"Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future."

He also talks about this possibility of Iraq rebuilding it's WMD program in earlier speeches too. [7]

Other staff members such as Albright also state that the goal "would be to significantly degrade (Saddam's) ability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction, and to make sure he cannot threaten his neighbors." [8]

Clinton is "acting today" so he doesn't have to "face these dangers in the future". In 1998 Clinton thinks they don't have WMDs now, but could develop them in the future, so he takes action to cripple Saddam's weapons programs and insure that Iraq is incapable of producing WMDs or at least slow him down a bit. Saying "based on the WMD evidence" creates the impression that Clinton thinks Saddam had WMDs ready to use in Iraq. But Clinton instead pressed the cooperation issue as a reason to act. He talks about this much later in interviews and such. [9] This is why he says "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs". And never says anything like: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." [10]

About the UN authorization bit it seems kind of extraneous to me given that there wasn't the massive public protests that occurred before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which is what this article is about. Although there was a good deal of complaints particularly from the Russians. [11][12] But Annan didn't go and call the operation illegal after the fact either. [13] I know you want to draw some sort of parallel between reasoning used by the Bush administration and the Clinton administration. But this article is about the legitimacy of the 2003 invasion, not the 1998 operation's legitimacy. I also don't want this intro to balloon into a second copy of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Might be easiest just to put a "See Also" tag below the intro since that other article covers what we're talking about now in much greater detail, it even talks about the short shelf life of chemical and biological weapons. [14] (additional sources I found I don't want to lose: [15] [16] [17] ) -- Mr. Tibbs 09:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps you lost me...could you clear something up? Did you say that Clinton used military force against Iraq in 1998 1) because he believed at the time that Iraq DID have WMDs or because 2) he believed Iraq DID NOT have them, but MAY reconstitute WMD programs?

It sounds as if you meant #2...which is a new "view" on things which I haven't heard. (btw, you do realize that Clinton gave an interview with NBC in 2005 in which he said he TOO believed that WMDs would be found after the 2003 war and was surprised when they weren't) That's an interesting (wrong) argument that Clinton went to War (yes, bombing a country for 4 days constitutes a War...ask Iraq) with Iraq in 1998 because he believed Iraq DID NOT have WMDs but could redevelop them. It would seem that this view of things makes Clinton's use of military force in 1998 even more relevant to the legitimacy of the 2003 action...that Clinton attacked Iraq even though he thought it did not have WMDs.

This is an article about the Legitimacy of the 2003 Iraq War. Discussing the legitimacy cannot be done without also discussing the entire 12 year lead up (1991-2003) to the 2003 military action. Otherwise you leave the reader thinking Iraq did nothing and was a peaceful country quietly abiding by international standards until the U.S. attacked...which is flat wrong. Jeravicious 12:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the rationale Clinton used, he never insisted on invading Iraq. That is the principal difference between Clinton and Bush and makes the comparison invalid. Nomen Nescio 13:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait, did you just argue that bombing Iraq for 4 days is "OK", but using more substantial military action is "Not OK"? I will remind you of the words of UN Ambassador to the UN, Peter Burleigh, when he spoke in 1998, "the coalition today exercised the authority given by Security Council resolution 678 (1990) for member states to employ all necessary means to secure Iraqi compliance with the Council's resolutions " [18] All necessary means was the wording of the UN Resolution that the Clinton Administration cited as authorization to use military force. It is entirely relevant to discuss this in regards to the 2003 military action also...the SAME UN Resolutions (authority) STILL applied. btw, I agreed with Clinton's action in 1998...I am not in any way criticizing it. Jeravicious 17:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, I think that sort of information is pertinent to the discussion and should eb included in the article under the heading, Bipartisian support for the Invasion of Iraq prior to downfall of Houssein. It is confusion how quickly some politicians change thier statements to woo certain constituents and this leads to the confusion of the people who didn't understand that action was almost unanimously called for. PLease consider updating the article with such information. --DjSamwise 00:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey look. it's BigRexRJ777II, if you create any more socks i won't be able to fit them all in one name--205.188.116.70 19:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

what is the point of that comment mr. anonymous IP address and what do you mean by socks in this instance? Please feel free to browse through my post history and my Talk page...you've seemingly confused me with someone else...please stick to the topic. Thanks Jeravicious 22:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeravicious, it's not my "arguement" that Clinton took action "to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors."[19] instead of taking action like Bush did "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."[20], it's simply what happened. So #2 according to your list, this is why Clinton constantly stresses the possibility of Saddam rebuilding his arsenal of WMDs. [21] Instead of stressing Existing Stockpiles that needed to be "disarmed" ie "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." [22] About the interviews, I linked to one in my earlier statement, its true that Clinton repeatedly states that there were weapons unaccounted for, but he doesn't go out on a limb about existing stockpiles, this is why he wanted inspections to be followed through on, which he also says in interviews. [23] The only people I have seen espousing the "#1" view are sources that are trying to Persuade and not to Inform, and trying the arguement "Oh Bush's mistakes are okay because everyone else was doing and thinking the same thing". [24] [25] And that of course is just an arguement and has nothing to do with this article which should not be trying to persuade the reader of anything. That and those arguements are just as faulty as the previous ones made by such sources. [26] Or the even nuttier arguements that the WMD were secretly moved to Syria. [27] Nutty because of Syria's strong ties to Iran which is Iraq's historical mortal enemy for the past century ie Iraq-Iran War. [28] The Syria theory of course went down the tubes when Bush started taking some responsibility. [29] -- Mr. Tibbs 01:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My friend, with all due respect, you have incorrect facts. First, Iraq DID have WMDs. FACT. From the time the weapons inspectors went into Iraq after the first Gulf War up to 1998, they worked to locate and destroy those weapons. FACT. Iraq continually failed to comply with UN Resolutions and weapons inspectors for years. FACT. In 1998, weapons inspectors were pulled out of the country and the US and UK launched a bombing campaign to, in President Clinton's own words, "...strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs" . He did not say to attack possible future programs, he spoke in the present tense. FACT. (please tell me your not getting into a semantic argument that programs are not weapons...) And the US Ambassador to the UN stated in 1998, "We are attacking Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and its ability to threaten its neighbors." Are you seriously arguing that Clinton, who KNEW Iraq had WMD weapons prior to 1998, decided to use military action even though Clinton believed that they had all been found and destroyed? Is that really your claim? BTW, you seem to misunderstand me, so I will state it once again. I believe Clinton took military action and using UN authorization in 1998 based on the belief that Iraq still had WMD programs. And I FULLY agreed with this action. I'm not arguing against it or characterizing it as a mistake...I'm saying he was correct in his actions based on the intelligence he had at the time. I'm astonished...I've had discussions with countless people over the years regarding the situation in Iraq from 1991 to 2003 and I've honestly never heard someone try to make the argument that Clinton took action in 1998 KNOWING that Iraq no longer had WMD programs. Amazing.

I'll let you reflect on some quotes

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter to President Clinton signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 18, 1998 [30]

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 [31]

After reading these quotes, do you still contend that Clinton believed Iraq no longer had WMDs when he took military action in 1998? Jeravicious 04:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You didn't even read what I wrote. You are going off on some tangent about Iraq having WMDs when thats not even what we're talking about, which is the reason Clinton initiated Operation Desert Fox and how that pertains to the article. The Only Relevant quote you even posted is the last one by Clinton which clearly begins "The UNSCOM inspectors believe". The one before that talks about a program not existing stockpiles just like I said earlier. Take the arguement to some web forum. Don't clutter up Wikipedia with this incoherence. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My point stands. You are trying to reshape this entry concerning the Legitimacy of the 2003 Iraq War by rewriting history to fit a view that just is not factual. The 1998 military action against Iraq is absolutely relevant to the 2003 action. Just as the 1991 action against Iraq is relevant to the 1998 action. You seem to want to use a semantic argument that WMD programs are not weapons...which is disputed by every major expert. It would have been laughable for Saddam to say, "Yes we have chemical, biological programs...but don't worry, we haven't loaded them on any bombs so we don't have WMD weapons" Your view of Clinton's beliefs regarding the 1998 action is not just disputed by me...it is disputed by Clinton's own words. I can present quote after quote after quote from Clinton and those in his Administration as well as quotes from Clinton after he left office stating that they believed Iraq STILL had WMDs (programs/weapons). I can understand that you are reshaping this entry to fit your view of events...and in doing so you have to rewrite the history of the 1998 actions...otherwise your view doesn't hold up to scrutiny. That's fine. The facts remain. And I will continue to add the FACTS (minus POV) to this entry. I ask that you refrain from removing these FACTS because you think they don't support your view. Bill Clinton took military action against Iraq in 1998 and George Bush took military action against Iraq in 2003 based on the WMD evidence they had at the time and using UN Authorization from prior UN Resolutions. That is an undisputable fact.

I know there are people who want to present the 2003 military action as "illegal" and yet when presented with the facts of the 1998 military action, they are left to come up with excuses or a reshaping of history in order to not criticize the Clinton action. Some try to come up with the argument that Clinton attacked in 1998 and destroyed all of Iraq's WMDs (yes there are people who believe this) and others do as you do and try a semantic argument that programs are not weapons...in either case, these views do not hold up to scrutiny or the facts.

I'll leave you with another quote regarding Iraq's WMDs

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002 - David Kay, Oct. 2 2003 [32]

Jeravicious 18:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have several observations. 1 When I say bombing does not equal invading a country apparently this means bombing is OK and war is not. Clearly this misrepresentation of my words is not helping the discussion. No I only said that morally and legally war is not equivalent to dropping a bomb.

2 Although people insist that EVERYBODY was convinced there were WMD this ignores certain details. The IAEA repeatedly stated it was possible but no hard evidence existed, even the NIE said more or less the same. Furthermore, this negates that the weapons inspectors were unable to locate any WMD or program. When these inspectors said they needed a few months extra they were forced out of Iraq by the US.

3 As to the UN resolutions, I know the Bush administration advanced that logic but you must be aware that few others share that position. Most legal experts insist that at best the rationale is questionable, if not invalid. More to the point Annan himself has called the invasion of Iraq illegal. Nomen Nescio 23:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave #1 alone (3 days of bombing is not War!?...um...ok....) ...as to #2, I will remind you of the facts again. Iraq DID possess WMDs. They declared they had WMDs...the U.S., along with France and Germany sold them WMDs and the technology to develop them. This is a fact..are you seriously disputing this??? The question was not, did Iraq have WMDs, but rather what did Iraq do with it's WMDs and what was the status of it's ongoing WMD programs. That is the question that remained unanswered in 1998 when Clinton used military action and again remained unanswered in 2003 when Bush used military action. At no time during the period between 1991 to 2003 did the UN Security Council or Weapons Inspectors come to the conclusion that Iraq was in full compliance. If you doubt this, please go back and re-read UN RES. 1441 passed unanimously in 2002. As to #3, I ask you this question: Do those "experts" you cite also say the same thing about Clinton's military action in 1998 when the U.S. Ambassador to the UN cited specifically the previous Resolutions from 1991 as it's UN Authorization to use "all necessary means"? Can anyone please explain how the military force used by Clinton in 1998 can be considered "legal", but the 2003 action can be "illegal" and unauthorized under UN Resolutions?? Anyone?? (btw, I believe that both were legal) Please explain how the Resolutions the Clinton Admin. cited as it's authorization were relevant in 1998 and irrelevant in 2003 (btw, these Resolutions were referenced in RES 1441 from 2002) To your point about Annan...he is NOT the UN Security Council.

Let me see if I can sum up your position and you tell me if I'm wrong

Clinton used military force against Iraq in 1998 citing UN Resolutions from 1991 which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to ensure Iraq's compliance. And you believe this was LEGAL.

Bush used military force against Iraq in 2003 citing UN Resolutions from 1991 which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to ensure Iraq's compliance. And you believe this was ILLEGAL.

That is indeed an interesting reshaping of history....Jeravicious 01:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, please show me where I use the word legal or illegal: "bombing does not equal invading a country." Furthermore, you make a interesting claim: "Iraq DID possess WMDs." Of course you can explain where these WMD are today? Or are you talking about 1995? The fact of the matter is that in 2003 SH did NOT posses any WMD or else we surely would have found them. Last, if you assert Annan does not represent the UN you clearly are unwilling to accept information contrary to your personal agenda. Nomen Nescio 12:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Nescio...Nescio...Iraq possessed WMDs. FACT. Under UN Resolutions it was up to Saddam to fully account for it's weapons programs and to verifiably destroy them. If the Iraqis destroyed it's WMDs but didn't show the international community the evidence of this, then they would STILL be in violation of UN Resolutions. FACT. We were not going to take the word of Saddam Hussein...it had to be PROVED. In 1995, Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions. In 1998, Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions and Clinton took military action using previous 1991 UN Authorization. In 2003, Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions and Bush took military action using previous 1991 UN Authorization. These are all FACTS. Using your argument, if it could be shown that Iraq destroyed it's WMDs in 1995, then you would also have to say that Clinton's 1998 action was illegal. But again you miss a key point...Saddam was not in compliance if he just destroyed his weapons programs, he had to verifiably prove this to the International community...and he did not. Even France and Russia said that Iraq was not in compliance in the 2003 UN RES 1441. Iraq was not in full compliance in 2003 and previous UN Authorization to use military force STILL applied. These are the facts. Finally, Annan represents part of the UN...he is NOT the UN Security Council who passed RES 1441. Jeravicious 01:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He did not have WMD in 2003 or we would have seen Bush telling us he found them. Where are these WMD, that could not be found, today?! Second, having to prove you are innocent is of course ridiculous. Analogy: Bush has to prove he did not order the torture of detainees. If he cannot prove he did not order it he is guilty. You must see this is an impossible task and no-one can prove a negative. How do you prove you do not have a weapon? How do you prove you did not rob the liquor store? Exactly the reason why the burden of proof is on the accusing party: you are innocent untill proven guilty.

As to the resolutions, it is a ludicrous idea, and disputed by legal experts, that the initial resolutions, following the invasion of Kuwait, can be used 10-15 years later as a sword of Damocles (would it be possible after 50 years?) and in an entirely different context. Heck, why did Bush seek 1441? If you are right he already possessed the legal authority to invade. Resolution 1441 was needed and even that did not authorize war. At least in the Netherlands "serious consequences" does not equal "war." If that was meant the resolution would have said "all military means." Let's not get started on the debate as to who decides SH did not comply, the US or the UN? Nomen Nescio 14:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What's truly an interesting reshaping of history is that you're suggesting the 2003 invasion was about ensuring Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions. If you'll notice, Iraq didn't have WMDs in 2003. So where's the non-compliance? 71.236.33.191 01:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed interesting. Did Iraq have WMDs in 1998 when Clinton took military action and stated "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." ? Did Iraq have them in the period of 1998-2002 when the weapons inspectors were OUT of the country? Did they have them when the UN unanimously (including France & Russia) passed RES 1441 stating that Iraq was not in compliance? Did they have them and were they in compliance when, days before the Iraq War 2003 began, Hanz Blix stated to the UN that Iraq was still attaching conditions to the inspection teams? At what point in the 12 years between 1991 and 2003 did Iraq become in compliance with UN Resolutions and "all necessary means" became no longer needed to enforce their compliance? Enlighten me somebody.... explain how these 2 things can be true

Clinton used military force against Iraq in 1998 citing UN Resolutions from 1991 which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to ensure Iraq's compliance. And you believe this was LEGAL.

Bush used military force against Iraq in 2003 citing UN Resolutions from 1991 which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to ensure Iraq's compliance. And you believe this was ILLEGAL.

Jeravicious 03:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"when the UN unanimously (including France & Russia) passed RES 1441 stating that Iraq was not in compliance"? 1441 stated that Iraq was not in compliance with 1441? Hmm. VERY interesting. Also, didn't Clinton claim that the airstrikes had destroyed Iraq's remaining WMD programs? 71.236.33.191 04:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't even bother arguing with Jeravicious. He can't tell the difference between WMD programs and the WMD themselves and keeps referring to a quote that I sourced to begin with: 'Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." As if Clinton believed Saddam had a live nuclear weapon. Of course he didn't, if Saddam did he would have launched it at Israel just like he did with the Scuds during the Gulf War. Don't argue with him, just keep his POV out of the article. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this about sum up our discussion?

You - "Bush's military action against Iraq in 2003 was illegal"

Me - "Really? Was Clinton's action against Iraq in 1998 also illegal?"

1) You - "No, because Clinton took military action believing that Iraq had NO WMD weapons, only WMD programs. And Clinton had prior UN Authorization from previous UN Resolutions from 1991 to use "all necessary means" to enforce Iraq's compliance

Me - "But didn't those same Resolutions apply in 2003?"

You - "Um...quit arguing with me"

OR

2) You - "No, because Clinton's airstrikes destroyed all of Iraq's WMDs"

Me - "Really? Then why did Clinton himself say that he believed Iraq still possessed WMD stockpiles after the 1998 military action?"

You - "Um...quit arguing with me"

And...how do all of your "arguments" square with this Clinton interview from Nov. 2003 [33]

He [Clinton] said that in 1998, when Saddam Hussein threw out the UN inspectors, the US "knew that there were unaccounted for stocks of at least two biological agents, Botulinum and Aflatoxin, and two chemical agents, VX and Ricin." US and British forces then conducted four days of air strikes against suspected biological/chemical weapons sites. But, Clinton said, "we obviously had no idea whether we destroyed all the stuff, none of it, or something in between. I just didn't believe that we possibly had destroyed all of it."

Or this statement from the Clinton Administration in Sept. 1998 [34]

The Security Council has made crystal clear that the burden remains on Iraq to declare and destroy all its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.

(A side note - do you notice how Clinton mentions "nuclear"...and in his address following the start of Operation Desert Fox, he mentions "nuclear" 3 times)

I know...I know...Clinton was attacking "programs" not weapons (even though he REPEATEDLY refers to WEAPONS)...and Clinton's airstrikes destroyed the WMD stockpiles (even though he states the EXACT OPPOSITE). Your argument is not with me...it's with Clinton himself.

It seems clear to me, if the military action in 2003 was illegal, then the 1998 action must also be illegal, however, if the 1998 action was legal, then the 2003 action must be also. Jeravicious 01:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, so eager to push his point of view that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was fine and dandy, that he completely loses sight of the "based on WMD evidence" issue and even the entire article. And instead makes up some imaginary opposition to his "arguement" that he proceeds to bicker with. Again, take it to a web forum, Wikipedia article discussion pages are for discussing article issues. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

First Mr. Tibbs, this is a discussion page about the Legitimacy of the 2003 Iraq War. I am discussing the Legitimacy of the 2003 Iraq War and the reasoning why YOU removed my edits. Edits which are facts. Second, nothing I've said is "imaginary"...The details of Clinton's military action in 1998 "based on WMD evidence" (as you put it) and it's RELEVANCE to the legitacy of the 2003 military action is explained in detail further down in this article...I was merely wondering why you chose to edit my summary statement at the top. I do note that you have not removed the 1998 reference later in the article (perhaps you missed it and will now do so??). Again, we are discussing the legitimacy of the 2003 action and it must be discussed in context of the entire Iraq situation from 1991 - 2003. And again, I ask anyone explain how these 2 things can be true

Clinton used military force against Iraq in 1998 citing UN Resolutions from 1991 which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to ensure Iraq's compliance. And you believe this was LEGAL.

Bush used military force against Iraq in 2003 citing UN Resolutions from 1991 which authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to ensure Iraq's compliance. And you believe this was ILLEGAL.

How could UN authorization apply in 1998 and not apply in 2003?? And yes, this WAS referenced in the 2002 UN RES 1441. If the UN Authorization that Clinton cited in 1998 was valid and relevant, and this same authorization was referenced in 2002, how could the 2003 action be illegal? I know...nobody has an answer other than "Clinton was going after programs, not weapons" even though he repeatedly said weapons...or "Clinton's airstrikes destroyed all the WMD weapons" even though he says just the opposite.

I can understand how someone might try to argue that the 2003 Iraq War might have been illegal (with no WMD programs/weapons yet to be found in Iraq), however I cannot understand how if you make that argument that it doesn't apply to the 1998 action. It seems clear, either you believe both were legal or both were illegal, but not one without the other...it makes no sense. Jeravicious 01:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding earlier resolutions supposedly invoked by 1441

Consider this:

• Part of Resolution 1441 is the cooperation of Saddam Hussein with the investigation of his weapensprogram. Contrary to many statements by the Bush administration, he did comply [35]. That no WMD have been found only proves non-military options were not exhausted.
• “Serious consequences” was no carte blanche for the invasion. Note that the words “military intervention” were not used. Reason for scholars to debate the legality [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. On top of that, China, France and Russia explicitly stated this resolution did NOT mean invading Iraq.
• More to the point

1. According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced. This was made clear in a Security Council meeting on Dec. 16, 1998. That day, U.S. and British warplanes launched air strikes against Iraq after learning that Iraq was continuing to impede the work of UNSCOM, the weapons inspectors sent to Iraq at the close of the Gulf War, and thus was not in compliance with Resolution 687. When the Security Council met that night to discuss whether individual member states could resort to force without renewed Security Council consent, it was clear that the Security Council members did not all agree on the legality of the U.S. and British resort to force. [48]
2. ... without Security Council authorization, states do not have the right to use force to enforce the Council's resolutions, whether a breach is material or immaterial. The Security Council's history with respect to its resolutions on Iraq make clear that it has not relinquished to the US the right to enforce its resolutions unilaterally.[49]

There clearly is doubt regarding the arguments advanced by the Bush administration and repeated by Jeravicious. Nomen Nescio 02:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

First, Iraq was NOT in compliance. There are no UN Resolutions which stated that Iraq was in compliance. Just days before the Iraq War began, Hans Blix reported to the Security Council that Iraq was "attaching conditions" and not cooperating "promptly". This is NOT compliance.

Let me state this in this way - I can understand that some may want to argue that the 2003 military action in Iraq was "illegal" (a view I don't agree with, but a view that I can understand)...but what I cannot understand is how these same people don't also apply the same legal criteria to the 1998 Clinton military action and declare that it was ALSO illegal. I will supply you with facts again. In November 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously passed RES 1441. It said

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area

Now, keep in mind, this is the SAME Resolution and wording that the Clinton Administration cited as authorization for it's military action in 1998. As you can plainly see, 1441 referred to 678 which said "all necessary means" could be used. Clinton used "all means" he believed were necessary in 1998. And after that military action, he still believed that there were unaccounted for weapons stockpiles. The U.S. and UK also used "all means" they deemed necessary in 2003.

So to your comment about the Security Council meetings in 1998 in which not all members agreed that the military action was legal...I fully buy into that. If you argue that Bush's action was illegal, you must therefore logically also argue that Clinton's action in 1998 was illegal. However, if you argue that Clinton's action was legal, then Bush's 2003 action must also be legal. That was my only point...but there are VERY few who will condemn Bush's 2003 action as illegal and in the same breath condemn Clinton's military action as illegal also.

Was Clinton's 1998 military action against Iraq illegal? Answer that and you have the answer to the legality of the 2003 military action. Jeravicious 03:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It was not for Bush to determine whether Iraq was in comliance. Nor is it for you to determine. That was an issue for the Security Council to decide. Bush bypassed the Security Council, probably because he knew the inspectors would eventually declare that Iraq was in compliance and had no weapons of mass destruction. Once that happened, of course, Bush would never be able to get the American public to support his war. 71.236.33.191 04:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Security Council did decide...in RES 1441 from Nov. 2002, just 4 months before the Iraq War, they decided the Iraq was NOT in compliance and they again warned Iraq that member states were authorized to use "all necessary means" to enforce the UN Resolutions. And just days before the Iraq War started, Hans Blix reported to the Security Council that [50] "The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions" and " these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation."

In 1998, Clinton did not have RES 1441, he had 5 less years of Saddam not abiding by UN Resolutions...and Clinton took military action citing previous UN Authorization to use "all necessary means". How could Clinton's action 5 years earlier with 5 less years of non-compliance be "legal" and Bush's action with 5 more years of non-compliance be "illegal"? Jeravicious 01:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Because Clinton too violated international law! Beyond that, I still have to see a resolution by the UN stating that SH did not comply. For those that follow the news, just such a resolution was what Blair wanted Bush to ask for. Why? PR? As it became clear any resolution allowing "invading Iraq," would be blocked by the UN, Bush decided not to go to the UN. Why? Couid it be that such a resolution, explicitly prohibiting war, would make invading Iraq by definition a war of aggression? Nomen Nescio 14:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. If you believe that Bush (and the entire Coalition...including the UK, Australia, Japan, Spain, etc, etc) violated international law by using military force against Iraq in 2003 even though they cited previous UN Resolutions authorizing member States to use "all necessary means", then it would be reasonable for you to believe that Clinton's military action in 1998 based on similar WMD evidence and using the SAME UN Authorization must therefore ALSO be illegal. I believe they were both legal, but if you believe the 2003 action was not, then you are also arguing that the 1998 action was not. Perhaps you should re-read UN RES 1441 from Nov. 2002. [51] It was passed unanimously by all Security Council members including France and Russia just months before the 2003 Iraq War began. It has the answers you're looking for.

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeravicious (talk • contribs)

However interesting, I still have to see the first quote saying "all necessary means including invading Iraq". For some strange reason the explicit objection by countries that serious consequences does NOT constitiute an invasion, mysteriously is not mentioned. Furthermore, who gets to decide that Iraq did not comply? I have not seen any resolution doing that!

As to the coalition, you must be joking. How many countries were there, five? Clearly the overwhelming majority of countries in the world did not participate and even objected to inading Iraq. Why don't you mention that! Nomen Nescio 20:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you don't have all the facts. I'll help you out...First, you've seen the UN Resolution stating "all necessary means". In 1998, Clinton interpreted this to mean that after Iraq had disregarded it's obligations for 7 years, a bombing campaign was necessary. After that, Clinton stated that he was certain that Iraq STILL retained it's WMD programs and that they had not been destroyed. In 2002, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly interpreted "all necessary means" to mean: [52] "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq". It appears you are also arguing that the U.S. Congress is ALSO guilty of an "illegal war"...Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have some explaining to do I guess. In 2003, Bush, and the Coalition, decided that after 12 years of Iraqi non-compliance with the UN, that the "all necessary means" UN Authorization and the Congressional AUMF provided the needed authorization to resume military action with Iraq. Now, I use the word "resume" because after 1991, a cease-fire was declared and remained in place. UN RES 1441 specifically mentions this fact:

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

The Iraq War 2003 Coalition consisted of 48+ members [53] including these countries who provided military troops: U.S., U.K., South Korea, Spain, Japan, Italy, Poland, and Australia (I know, I know...they're all lightweights). Again, you are arguing with the Bush Administration, the 48+ member Coalition who provided troops and material support to the 2003 Iraq War, the Clinton Administration, and the Coalition who participated in the 1998 military action.

These are facts that we know for certain: The UN Authorized member States to use "all necessary means" to enforce the UN Resolutions. Clinton used this authority in 1998 when he used military action. In Nov. 2002, the UN unanimously passed RES 1441 which stated that Iraq was still in violation of it's cease-fire obligations and again stated previous UN authorization to use "all necessary means". Bush used this authority (along with Congressional authority) in 2003 when he used military action. These are the facts...and they are undisputed. Jeravicious 01:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, they aren't "undisputed". The UN did not, and never has, given individual member states the authority to determine on their own whether another member state is in violation of UN resolutions. It is, and has always been, the role of the entire UN Security Council to make such determinations. Otherwise, your "logic" means that anyone who wants to attack another country can just claim that country is in violation of a UN resolution, and their aggression will be automatically legitimate.

Also, please forgive me if I fail to take seriously the claims of a "Coalition" when over 90% of the troops are American, and much of the "Coalition" consists of world powers like Micronesia, Palau, and the Solomon Islands, whose only "support" provided was of the moral variety. 71.236.33.191 12:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Repeating the same argument does not make it valid. You still have to show:

• Why 1441 was needed if all is already legal based on previous resolutions?
• You still evade the question, which part of 1441 said "invading Iraq?"
• Most importantly, where did any resolution state that not the UN, but the US is the party that decides if Iraq complies and whatever measure is needed? You fail to understand that no single country can decide for the entire UN. This is exactly what Bush did.
• As to the authority of Bush, he violated US law because Congress, and not the President, declares war!

Nomen Nescio 01:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

* You are quite correct, RES 1441 was not needed to authorize military force...in 1998, Clinton didn't even have RES 1441 and he used military force against Iraq based on previous UN Authorization.

* RES 1441 cited previous UN RES 678 which "authorized Member States to use all necessary means "...which part of the word ALL don't you understand? btw, the Coalition had already "invaded" Iraq all through the 90's. The U.S. and the UK were flying military flights in the North and South...now I assume your gonna argue that a country flying military no-fly-zones over another country is not really an invasion.

* The U.S. didn't decide unilaterally that Iraq was not in compliance...RES 1441 passed unanimously by ALL Security Council members including France and Russia said that Iraq was NOT in compliance.

* You are quite wrong. First, in Oct. 2002 Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq. And second, even without a Congressional declaration of War, the President CAN commit the U.S. military to armed combat. Read up on the War Powers act.

Again, my point is this: You can argue that the 2003 military action was illegal (and I and many others will disagree), but to do so, you must also argue that Clinton's action in 1998 was ALSO illegal. And you must argue that ALL of the countries that provided military support (troops, etc) to those military conflicts were ALSO engaged in an illegal activity...including the UK, Spain, Italy, Japan, Australia, etc. Is that your contention?? Jeravicious 21:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. Yes the invasion of Iraq is illegal, and yes the bombing by Clinton is also questionable. But Clinton is not part of this discussion. Bush invaded contrary to the UN Charter and thereby is guilty of a war of aggression. End of story, end of this discussion. Start reading the sources I provided! Nomen Nescio 13:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

the US was one of many nations that supplied chemical weapon precursors, even when well aware of what it was being used for.

It would be good to supply evidence to support this claim!

I'm sure citations won't be hard to find. It was, if I recall correctly, under the reagan administration, via our good friend rummy and then envoy-whatever georgie. Kevin Baas^talk 16:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, during that period of time there is evidence that the U.S. government was making efforts to curtail to export of chemical weapons precursors to Iraq. See for example (Guardian, March 6th, 2003 [54].) This is in contrast to a several U.S. citizens, and in particular one or two U.S. citizens naturalized from Iraq, who worked in partnership with some European firms to make such transfers happen. I have seen no substantive evidence that Rumsfeld discussed issues of chemical weapons with Saddam Hussein during their meeting.

This is a political dispute

This is a political dispute, not a legal one. Though the focus may be on interpretations of law, this dispute ultimately boils down to a sovereignty dispute. Sovereignty disputes are always optical, never legal. Unless and until we have One world government, we are talking about multiple legal standards from multiple countries. Because there is no single standard, the battle is over which standard is paramount. That's a political dispute. Merecat 19:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Legitamcy:

1. lawfulness by virtue of being authorized or in accordance with law
2. undisputed credibility

legal:

adj.

1. Of, relating to, or concerned with law: legal papers.
2. • a. Authorized by or based on law: a legal right.
   • b. Established by law; statutory: the legal owner.
3. In conformity with or permitted by law: legal business operations.
4. Recognized or enforced by law rather than by equity.
5. In terms of or created by the law: a legal offense.
6. Applicable to or characteristic of attorneys or their profession.

political:

adj.

1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: "Calling a meeting is a political act in itself" Daniel Goleman.
3. Relating to or involving acts regarded as damaging to a government or state: political crimes.
4. Interested or active in politics: I'm not a very political person.
5. Having or influenced by partisan interests: The court should never become a political institution.
6. Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives: a purely political decision.

The dispute that this article discusses is over whether or not the war was legal. The administration argues that it was, others argue that it was not. both sides are presented. If you want to make an article about the "Politics of the 2003 invasion of Iraq", go right ahead. Kevin Baas^talk 22:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"Prevent" is correct, whether you choose to accept it or not

To prohibit X is to decree that anyone who engages in X will be subject to sanctions. To prevent X means to make it practically impossible to engage in X. They're not the same thing; while a prohibition of X may prevent X from occurring in some cases, that is not necessarily the case. Murder is prohibited, but it still occurs--thus, it is not (entirely) prevented. Running backwards on ones' toes at twenty million miles a second, however, while not prohibited, is still prevented. Though no one (or at least no one being taken seriously) is threatening to punish you if you run backwards on your toes at twenty million miles per second, it is still impossible to do.

Thus, "prevent" is clearly the correct word to use in the disputed sentence. Please do not use English if you refuse to understand the distinctions between its many words. Kurt Weber 23:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, WP:Civility.

pro·hib·it Pronunciation (pr-hbt)

tr.v. pro·hib·it·ed, pro·hib·it·ing, pro·hib·its 1. To forbid by authority: Smoking is prohibited in most theaters. See Synonyms at forbid. 2. To prevent; preclude: Modesty prohibits me from saying what happened.

pre·vent Pronunciation (pr-vnt)

v. pre·vent·ed, pre·vent·ing, pre·vents v.tr. 1. To keep from happening: took steps to prevent the strike. 2. To keep (someone) from doing something; impede: prevented us from winning. 3. Archaic To anticipate or counter in advance. 4. Archaic To come before; precede. v.intr. To present an obstacle: There will be a picnic if nothing prevents.

It is not a matter of whether someone or thing is standing in his way, tying his hands, or in any case keeping him from doing the thing. It is obvious that this is not the case. It is a matter of whether any law or principle, or other "authority", forbids it. Kevin Baas^talk 23:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of the policy, but it does not apply when dealing with such a prevalent and frustrating problem as using a language one does not understand.

Anyway, the insanity of your argument stems from the ridiculous notion that anyone would claim that the impossibility of verifying the authenticity of the Downing Street Memo means that someone would indeed place a prohibition on commenting it. This is absurd. Thus, the proper word is "prevent" because there is no reason to think that a prohibition would ever be placed. Kurt Weber 13:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand why you are argusing about a single word. The whole section is badly worded and could do with a whole re-write. What it should do is succintly summarise, from the main article, why new information included within the Downing Street Memo supports, or challenges, the argument that the war was illegal and/or illegitimate. Can someone do this? AndrewRT 23:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason I'm letting this go is because it is a trivial issue, and, to be frank, from the short time I've interacted w/Kmweber, I don't expect him to change either his views or his behavior. I know that prohibit is the right word in this case, and prevent the wrong word, but it's really not worth my time. Andrew, I'm not up for a rewrite. If you want to give it a shot, go ahead. Nothing prohibits you, and I couldn't prevent you if I wanted to, or thought it admissible. Kevin Baas^talk 01:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is too long

The introduction is way too long. Would anyone have an objection to moving the current introduction into the body of the article and writing a 2-3 sentence summary? Thanks,TheronJ 15:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not from me, I have to agree it is too big. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do, it could do with a tidy! AndrewRT 20:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I did some work on the article to shorten the introduction, then moved around information and am trying to sort it out, the article mentions WMD's so I am gonig to also add a section on human rights abuses and one on terrorism to balance everything out. Feel free to use the subpages discussion section to give feedback. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgot the link ... User:Zer0faults/Legitamacy_Rework --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Theron, intros are Not supposed to be 2-3 sentences long. See WP:LEAD. -- Mr. Tibbs 08:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD section reccomends an intro no longer then 3-4 paragraphs, that does not state it has to be 3-4 paragraphs. Please see: Korean_war, Vietnam War, United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan, Soviet_invasion_of_Afghanistan, Seven_Days_War, Gulf_war ... etc. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Tibbs is right that 2-3 sentences is probably too short, but, IMHO, the current version has too much detail to function as a summary and is hard to read. (I was probably being optimistic with my 2-3 sentence estimate). Does anyone else have thoughts? TheronJ

I expanded what I had in my above link User:Zer0faults/Legitamacy_Rework, hopefully giving a brief mention to the reasons covered for or against he legality:

"A legal dispute exists over the legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The debate is centered around the question; was the invasion an unprovoked assault on an independent country -- thus an invasion breaching international law -- or whether the conditions set in place after the Gulf War allowed the resumption if Iraq did not uphold to the Security Council resolutions.[55] Those arguing for its legality often cite Congressional Resolution 114 and previous UN Security Council resolutions, as well as Resolution 1441, stating these documents allow for military action. Those arguing against its legality also cite much the same sources, stating they do not actually permit war but instead layout conditions that must be met before war can be declared. Critics often cite the Downing Street memo as further proof the war was waged under misleading terms. The terms of the debate change depending on the subject of domestic or international law."

Since noone replied yet I changed it up a little more covering more indepth the debate. Will change it in the one on my talk page as well. Comments suggestions? Most of the information is carried later and the overview is suppose to just summarize this. If I am missing a legal basis just let me know and I will try to fill it in. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"The WP:LEAD section reccomends an intro no longer then 3-4 paragraphs, that does not state it has to be 3-4 paragraphs." Actually it states exactly what it should be: "The length should be one to three paragraphs, depending on the length of the entire article, and should never be limited to one or two short sentences." - WP:LEAD -- Mr. Tibbs 07:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice to know my rework is following the rules. Thank you for pointing that out. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What about Iraq's support for terrorism?

Iraq's support for terrorism was one of the reasons mentioned by Powell in his speech before the UN. Powell's speech tied Saddam to Zarqawi and to al-Qaeda directly. I know information has come out showing part of Powell's speech on WMD was incorrect, however the part of Powell's speech on terrorism was analyzed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and found to have been "well-vetted." We also have the letter by George Tenet to Congress about the ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda. And now that the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents are slowly being released, even more evidence of the link is coming out. Any thoughts? RonCram 15:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

He also funneled money to the PALF to support Palestinian suicide bombers, but noone ever talks about that, only about AQ because they feel it was wrong. Everyone keeps stating Zarqawi didnt have links to AQ, however the article on Zarqawi shows that he was given funds to start his own camp from AQ. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If having ties, however remote, to terrorism trumps the UN charter, more specifically the absolute ban on any war of aggression, we can invade alot more countries. Heck, the US itself has trained and financed Mr OBL. Second, did Powell not regret his performance in light of the many unsubstantiated and wild accusatioons in it?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not really sure what you are talking about, the topic was ties to terrorism ... Are you stating the links that do exist should or should not be stated? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that if ties are used to justify this invasion, ipso facto it justifies invading any country with ties to terrorism even though the UN charter specifically prohibits that. It would mean you advocate abolishing the absolute ban on a war of aggression. Second, what exactly are ties? Is it harbouring/training terrorists? Is it funding terrorists? Is it funding organisations that are linked to organisations that support terrorism? Is it having had contact in the past with persons/organisations that are considered supporting terrorists? Is it having gone to scholl with a suspected terrorist (see McCarthy and his odious list of communists)? In other words, what constitutes links to terrorism?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We dont argue over justification here, this isnt a political chat forum. We discuss facts, and ipso facto you are violating WP:OR. Furthermore read up on the rulings by the Supreme Court on international treaties and their place according to Congressional Acts. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In other words, the US is not bound by the UN charter. And even if their argyments presented are not relevant as requirements stipulated therein, the US is incapable of waging a war of aggression since the rule of law does not apply to them.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't remember saying that, what I said was "We dont argue over justification here, this isnt a political chat forum", if you want to argue over things like that and conduct your original research, by all mens do it, however try to refrain from your summaries of what I say, since apparently you have trouble understanding it at all. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So it us original reasearch to conclude that allowing the US to justify violating the UN charter sets a precedent?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Its OR for you to make original arguements based on your own conclusions. Please see WP:OR for more information, the talk page there is the more appropriate place for questions of what is and isnt OR. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

State-sponsored terrorism (SST) is a political term used to refer to finance and bounties given across international boundaries to terrorist organizations and the families of deceased militants for the purpose of conducting or rewarding attacks on civilians. As with any form of terrorism, SST is used because it is believed to produce strategic results where the use of conventional armed forces is not practical or effective. See

As well as the terms themselves, the distinctions between state-sponsored terrorism and state terrorism are controversial. Generally speaking, sponsored terrorism is simply a more specific form of state terrorism; the controversy largely arises in the definition of "state terrorism" as regards sponsorship, asymmetric warfare (clandestine warfare) and international character. In Western politics, however, the term state-sponsored terrorism is largely used in reference to certain politics and finance in the Arab world, i.e. politics and finance used to promote terrorism rooted in ideological Islamic nationalism amongst various radical Islamist militant groups.

The intentions of such terrorism are believed to be any or all of the following:

• Destabilisation of a target state
• Creation of international visibility for a persistent problem
• Acts of retaliation against a target state
• Attempts to promote a state's interests

There is an article on state sponsored terrorism. That is from the header. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Odd definition "used to refer to finance and bounties given across international boundaries to terrorist organizations and the families of deceased militants for the purpose of conducting or rewarding attacks on civilians." If we look at the support part, does this mean that UNICEF and UNHCR which are providing all sort of aid to Palestinians, and necessarily to families of terrorists, are also considered to support terrorism? As to the rewarding part, how exactly do we determine that a certain party is helping out with the specific intend of rewarding terrorism?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I find your comment to be racist, Palestinians are not terrorists. Just disgusting Nescio, please refrain from making such horrible comparrisons. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the families of the suicide bombers in Israel are Palestinians. Your argument is that helping these families is the casus belli for violating the UN charter. I only observe that many organisations provide aid to Palestinian families and necessarily among those families are families of terrorists. Inevitably those organisations have provided hwkp to famoloes of terrorists. Brings us to my original point. If Iraq was invaded for helping families of terrorists, what should we do with UNHCR that is helping out families of terrorists?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If I understand this discussion correctly, Zero wants to include Iraq's links to terrorism and Nescio does not. Am I correct? Since Colin Powell clearly made the case that Iraq's support for terrorism was one of the reasons for invading, why is it Nescio does not want it included? I saw some mention in Nescio's response about "If having ties to terrorism... trumps the UN charter" and would like some clarification. Nescio, are you saying that support for terrorism is not aggression? Regarding Nescio's mention of US support for OBL. Surely you realize at the time we supported him, he was fighting against the aggression of the Soviet Union? Supporting him at that time was the right thing to do. Fighting him now is the right thing to do. Why is that hard for you to understand? And what does that have to do with this article? And finally Nescio asks if Powell did not regret his performance? The answer clearly is that Powell learned later that some of the CIA analysts had problems with some of his comments regarding WMD. Powell regretted these analysts had not spoken up prior to his speech. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence looked closely as Powell's comments on Iraq's support for terrorism and found them all to be "well-vetted." (See page 369 of the Senate Report) Powell has never voiced any regret over anything he said linking Saddam to al-Qaeda. Is there any reason this linkage should not be mentioned in the article? RonCram 11:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not object to including them. All I ask is to consider the consequense of allowing it as casus belli. 1 It suggests that if a country has ties, however remote, to terrorism the UN charter can be ignored and a war of aggression is allowed. 2 What exactly constitutes ties to terrorism? Many countrues and organisations in some way or other are involved with terrorist organisations. Does including this argument not mean that all countries and organisations that have such ties are "fair game?"

Please again see that Wikipedia is not here to crystal ball events in the future or justify any actions. As for what constitues ties to terrorism, I have already copy and pasted the definition of what state sponsor of terrorism is. Please review it and if you havea ny questiosn I will attempt to find the answers. Thank you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is the Iraqi government had links to terrorism, any narrowing of the debate to include only al-Qaeda and furthermore only narrowing the story to the quote from the Senate Select Intelligence Committee is censorship and POV. The Senate committee found the CIA information on Iraq and AQ links to be poor, but this commitee also met before much of the actual information came out. It also looked at the information from a court persepective, refusing to draw conclusions unless the evidence fully supported it. This is fine in a court, but not adequate in the intelligence field. I think I will start adding some terrorist connections between the Iraq government to articles that seem to lack the information.

• 1998 indictment of bin Laden stating Al Qaeda reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development.' [56]
• The day after the initiation of the Gulf War, police in Indonesia defused a bomb planted in a flower box below a window of the U.S. ambassador’s residence in Jakarta. An Iraqi operative had secretly inserted himself into a team of laborers renovating the home and buried twenty-six sticks of TNT in the dirt. [57]
• Two days after the beginning of the Gulf War; Muwufak al Ani, consul general of the Iraqi embassy in Manilla was linked to Ahmed J. Ahmed and Abdul Kadham Saad, two Iraqi students who attempted to detonate a bomb at the U.S. Information Service and the Thomas Jefferson Cultural Center. Hisham Abdul Sattar and Husam Abdul Sattar, sons of the Iraqi ambassador to the Philippines, were ejected from the country for having possible ties to the events, furthermore upon expulsion of Muwufak al Ani, he screamed: I finished my diplomacy and will go fight. Long Live Saddam Hussein. [58] [59]
• Upon information and belief, there have been numerous meetings between IRAQI Intelligence agents and high-ranking al Qaeda terrorists to plan terror attacks. Once such meeting occurred in 1992, when Zawahiri (Egyptian Islamic Jihad leader and al Qaeda officer) met with Iraqi Intelligence agents in Baghdad, Iraq over several days. An Iraqi serving with the Taliban who fled Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, was captured in Kurdistan and has corroborated this meeting and confirmed that Iraqi contacts with al Qaeda began in 1992. - Findlaw, Ashton, et al. v. al Qaeda
• Funding of terrorist group Abu Sayyaf, also being fought in OEF-P and linked to al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah (responcible for 2002/2005 Bali bombings. [60] ("PHILIPPINES: ABU SAYYAF LEADER SAYS IRAQIS OFFERING FINANCIAL SUPPORT," by Guzman and TJ Burgonio, carried by Philippine newspaper Philippine Daily Inquirer web site on March 2, 2003 via BBC Monitoring International Reports)
• When hijacker Khalid al Midhar arrived in Malaysia in January of 2000 for a meeting of key al Qaeda operatives, he was met at the airport by an Iraqi named Ahmad Shakir, who worked part-time greeting VIPs, a job he got with the help of someone in the Iraqi Embassy. One week later, al Midhar flew to the United States, and 18 months later he was aboard the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon. He is considered one of the most important hijackers because he was in charge of the so-called muscle – the young Saudi men responsible for subduing the passengers. - "9/11 Bombshell: New Evidence Of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties?," by David Martin, CBS News Oct. 1, 2002 David Martin
• In February 2001, Saddam Hussein's pro-Iraqi "terror banker" on the West Bank, Rakad Salem, 58 - who personally met with Saddam in Baghdad - boasted he had handed out nearly $4 million- to Palestinian suicide bombers and that there was more where that came from. "Even if there were 2,000 martyrs, His Excellency would continue to pay," he said of Saddam. "At a time when the Arab states are failing to make good on their promises of assistance to us, Iraq is offering considerable moral and financial support," he added. But Salem said Iraq was praised because it is the only Arab nation that had not "abandoned the option of war" with Israel. Israeli officials said the cash payouts explain Saddam's popularity in Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank and Gaza.- "TERROR BANKER" by URI DAN, New York Post , October 9, 2002
• An internal Iraqi Intelligence memo dated March 28, 1992, lists individuals Hussein's regime considered assets of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. Osama bin Laden is listed on page 14. The Iraqis describe him as a Saudi businessman who "is in good relationship with our section in Syria." [61]
• The Philippine government booted the second secretary at Iraq's Manila embassy, Hisham al Hussein, on February 13, 2003, after discovering that the same mobile phone that reached his number on October 3, 2002, six days later rang another cell phone strapped to a bomb at the San Roque Elementary School in Zamboanga. While that device failed, another exploded one day earlier in Zamboanga, wounding 23 and killing three, including U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson. That mobile phone also registered calls to Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Ali, leaders of Abu Sayyaf, al Qaeda's Philippine branch. It was launched in the late 1980s by the late Abdurajak Janjalani, with the help of Jamal Mohammad Khalifa, Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law.[62]
• Palestinian terrorist Abu Abbas. Green Berets captured him on April 14 in Baghdad, where he had lived under Hussein's protection since 2000. After masterminding the 1985 Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking, in which U.S. retiree Leon Klinghoffer was murdered, Abbas slipped Italian custody. How? Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport, Italy's then-premiere Bettino Craxi announced then. So, Rome let him split for Yugoslavia, and beyond. [63]
• Washington Times's Marc Lerner reported on March 3, 2003, Hamsiraji Ali, an Abu Sayyaf commander on the southern island of Basilan, bragged that his group received almost $20,000 annually from Iraqis close to Saddam Hussein. [64]
• "an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden." The report goes on to state: "sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis." (9/11 Commission Report)
• The al-shifa facility in Sudan was bombed for having being used as a chemical and biological weapons factory. The factory was used by Saddam to circumvent the Oil-for-Food programme setup by the UN. The company was given 199,000 contract through the Iraqi government, however no supplies were ever delivered after the signing and before the strike, 8 months total. Other evidence included " soil sample indicating the presence of a precursor for VX nerve gas of Iraqi provenance", phone intercepts as well as Iraqi chemical weapons experts hired at the location. [65]
• Ayad Allawi, the first post-Saddam prime minister of Iraq, stated that Iraqi intelligence documents show that Zarqawi was in Saddam-controlled parts of Iraq in late 1999. The documents, according to Allawi, also show that Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells with the full knowledge of Saddam's intelligence services. [66]
• There were many early reports that Iraqi intelligence officers were among Ansar's leadership and thus Zarqawi's cohorts. One of these was a man known by his nom de guerre, Abu Wael. Ansar's Kurdish enemies, and several IIS and al Qaeda detainees, claimed from the beginning that Abu Wael was an Iraqi Intelligence officer who managed the relationship between Ansar and Saddam's regime. The Kurds have also repeatedly claimed that he, as well as other IIS officers, supplied Ansar with funding and arms. Abu Wael's real name is Colonel Saadan Mahmoud Abdul Latif al-Aani his wife is Izzat al-Douri's cousin, Izzat was deputy chairman of Saddam's Revolutionary Command Council.[67] [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37255] [68]
• Zawahiri was present at the Popular Islamic Congress held in Baghdad every year prior to Saddam's regimes collapse. Zawahiri was asked to come by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri, deputy head of the council of the leadership of the revolution, Saddam was in attendance where he showed off a Koran written in blood and handed out funds to those who did arrive. Iyad Allwai, former interim Prime Minister of Iraq, went on to state "The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period,"

So as you see bin Laden was not just a CIA asset at one point, he was also a IIS asset. The Iraqi government also had plenty of links to Al Ansar, Zarqawi's group, documents show he was not always in Kurdish terroritory, and the IIS has actively engaged al-Qaeda. If you need more proof of terrorist support and sponsorship just let me know. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Shall I cite the multitude of articles proving the US has done exactly the same? What is the point if you refuse to acknowledge the consequense of your argument, which is: any country with ties (whatever that means) to terrorism can be invaded contrary to the UN charter. What you are afvocating in effect abolishes the rule of law, a notion I abhor and as such object to as a casus belli.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not advocating anything, we are not here to pass judgement just recite facts, again please understand this. As for US commiting acts, I believe the article is called "Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq" meaning its covering reasons to invade Iraq, not past events of the US. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Zerofaults, first I agree with you. Powell's argument before the UN did not focus exclusively on al-Qaeda and neither should the article. However, regarding you claim that the Senate Report found the CIA information linking Saddam and al-Qaeda to be "poor," I must comment. The Senate Report talks about Saddam training al-Qaeda and offers of safehaven to al-Qaeda. The Senate did not regard these acts to be a "cooperative relationship," but the report did say the CIA's assessment on the situation is "evolving." More information is coming out all the time regarding the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Powell's speech before the UN was criticized for the WMD portion but not for the portion that talked about Saddam's support for terrorism, including Saddam's support for al-Qaeda. No hard feelings, I am just trying to set the record straight. RonCram 22:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I must have been over simplifying the situation. I agree with you about Powell as well. If you read about people that testified about intelligence in Iraq they say that they didnt have many assets and the group handling Iraq was a mess. This goes to support the idea of evolving that you stated, as they had to get into gear on short notice. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

UN Charter and U.S. law

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties of the United States, along with federal law and the Constitution itself, are the supreme law of the land. (Treaties and federal law are on an equal footing, below the Constitution; the term "supreme law of the land" was intended to indicate that they supersede state law where the federal and state levels share jurisdiction.) The United States ratified the UN Charter, and therefore under U.S. law the U.S. is bound by the UN Charter.

I removed the following paragraph:

However, it is not possible to use this logic to argue that the war could have been conducted illegally under United States law. Treaties do not necessarily supersede other acts of Congress; as the Supreme Court stated in Whitney v. Robertson, "By the constitution, a treaty is placed on the same footing . . . with an act of legislation. . . . if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other". Therefore, the authorization for use of force (noted above) automatically overrode the UN Charter, if there was any conflict to begin with.

Congressional authorization for the use of force against Iraq never authorized the president to violate or set aside existing laws, nor to abrogate the UN Charter. As far as US federal law is concerned, the UN Charter never stopped being the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court case cited is applicable only when Congress passes legislation that contradicts a treaty. First, the Congress. resoultion authorizing use of force was passed before the UN Sec. Council passed the resolution giving Iraq one final chance to remove WMD. Thus, Congress in passing the resolution could not have intended to contradict or abrogate the UN Charter--the US was still prepared at that time to work with the UN Sec Council to solve the issue, eventually sending the UN weapons inspectors. Second, it was a resolution, not legislation signed into law by the president.

Accordingly, the paragraph should be removed because it is not true to state that "the authorization for use of force (noted above) automatically overrode the UN Charter, if there was any conflict to begin with." Nor is it true to state that "it is not possible to use this logic to argue that the war could have been conducted illegally under United States law." Further, the phrase: "Treaties do not necessarily supersede other acts of Congress" is inaccurate and misleading. It is inaccurate because, as discused, it was a resolution, not an act of Congress. It is misleading becasue whether the treaty (the UN Charter) "supersedes" an act is not the issue. The issue is whether a Congressional resolution that never authorizes any acts that violate the UN Charter or any other treaties, never mentions violating the UN Charter (in fact, many Congress members passed the resolution precisely hoping that the US would go back to the UN Sec Council) abrogates the UN Charter. The answer to that question is "no." I will provide the oppurtunity to respond before removing.

1. Noone said it authorized anyone to violate a law.
2. It was an act of congress.
3. Again noone said it authorized anyone to violate the UN Charter.
4. What you think or what people meant to do is different then what the law and what they voted for says.

Again please stop removing the paragraph, you seem to not be grasping the very idea of it since you keep stating violating UN Charter. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Last I remember Joint Resolutions were technically considered laws just didnt follow the same procedure as bills, true or false? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A joint resolution requires the approval of both houses of Congress and the signature of the President, just as a bill does, and has the force of law if approved. There is no real difference between a bill and a joint resolution. The latter is generally used in dealing with limited matters, such as a single appropriation for a specific purpose.[69]

Joint resolutions, which are essentially the same as bills, usually focus on a single item or issue. They are designed as either "HJ Res" (when originating in the House) or "SJ Res" (when originating in the Senate).[70]

Joint resolutions are used to pose constitutional amendments, to fix technical errors, or to appropriate funds. They become public law if adopted by both the House and Senate and approved by the President (unless they propose constitutional amendments). If a joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment, it must be approved by 3/4 of the states. Joint resolutions are designated HJRes. or SJRes., depending on the chamber in which they originate.[71]

I was right about them being laws after all. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. The first parag says, essentially, the UN Charter is the law in the US and binds the US. Therefore, this paragraph implies that IF the US invasion violated the UN Charter it also violated US law. The paragraph in question says that even if the invasion violated the UN Charter, that's OK under US law because the Cong. Res. is later in time than the US ratification of the Charter and therefore superceded it.

My point, which I think you missed, is that if the invasion violated the UN Charter (if it did not this whole discussion is moot) then the Cong. Res would not cure the violation of US law, for the reason stated: the Congressional resolution never authorized any acts that violate the UN Charter (in fact, many Congress members passed the resolution precisely hoping that the US would go back to the UN Sec Council) or any other treaties or laws. Since it never authorized any acts violating the UN Charter, it cannot be said to abrogate the UN Charter. In other words, the Cong. Res authorized the Pres to use force if necessary to remove WMD, not to withdraw from treaties or violate any other laws. --NYCJosh 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What you do not understand is that it doesnt have to explicitly state its knowingly violating the UN Charter. The simple fact that a law was created after a prior law makes the newer law take precedent, as stated by the Supreme Court. In the US the Supreme Court has the final say, and they stated that the latest takes over when both cannot be met. Your understanding of why it was passed is irrelevant, if Bush tricked Congress is not relevant either, they created a law that superceded the UN Charter according to Witney by creating the resolution they did. The fact that they did not know what they were doing, that they hoped Bush would pursue other venues is all not relevant. The fact that Witney says the latest law takes precedent and they passed a law after the UN Charter that could not be met at the same time as the Charter is all that matters. Your opinion and their hindsight does not change a Supereme Court ruling unfortunatly. Neither does the Supreme Court ruling state that the latter law needs to specifically state its overwriting the previous law. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Law is specific. It would be a farce were it not. And international treaties are "the supreme law of the land", just like the constitution. laws, according to legal theory, are to be interpreted so as to avoid constitutional conflicts. therefore, the JR is to be interpreted, if at all possible, to not be in conflict with, or overwrite, existing supreme law. Kevin Baas^talk 14:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly the Supreme Court does not agree with you. A law was passed that cannot be fulfilled at the same time as another, the Supreme Court says when that happens the latter one takes over. You are wasting time arguing with me, you should be arguing with the Supreme Court, nowhere in their ruling does it state the latter law specifically needs to adress the previous one. Furthermore the ruling is specifically in the case of them not addressing eachother, please read the ruling and the laws themselves to better understand the conflict they ruled on and to understand better the ruling itself. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry for wasting time arguing with you. Or perhaps I should apologize to myself? Let's hope that neither of us are wasting time discussing this, because if people's views are so unchangeable, then, by the same logic we'd both be wasting time writting an article. I said interpretation - you interpretated the laws so as to be inconsistent with eachother. This is not neccessary, and, in fact, improper according to american legal standards. If possible, laws are to be interpreted so as not to be inconsistent with eachother. If there is no such interpretation, then one law may take precedence. Kevin Baas^talk 14:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion, but gonig to war, and not gonig to war seem to be in conflict. Furthermore the rulings are no the same footing as per Witney.

Third, as a matter of domestic United States law, there is no basis to hold that a treaty has an ability to confer authority upon the executive that is superior to that of a federal statute. As Hilario aptly noted, treaties and federal statutes are equivalent for purposes of conferring powers upon the Executive Branch: both are considered the supreme law of the land and both are entitled to equal dignity. See Hilario, 854 F. Supp. at 173; U.S. Const., art. VI, § 2 ("This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land."); Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194 (1888) ("By the constitution a treaty is placed upon the same footing, and made of like obligation, with an act of legislation. Both are declared by that instrument to be the supreme law of the land and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other").

Its been said many times over by many people. Your arguements need to go to the Supreme Court if you do not like their rulings. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is moer reading on it being used to support the Geneva Convetion, again another instance when neither recognize the other.[72] This legal defense is quite common and can be easily discovered online if you would care to do some research. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK Zero, you have to read the Whitney case you keep citing. Kevin Bass is correct. Laws are presumed not to conflict, and you get into deciding which supercedes the other only when there is no other way out based on the letter of what they say. What you're saying, Zero, is ridicolous. According to you we have only one law on the books in the United States that is binding on the government: the most recent law passed. All previous laws can be violated without a problem because the most recent law supercedes them all irrespective of whether or not it contradicts them by its own terms. The UN Charter was and is the law of the land in the U.S. (typically its provisions restrict only the government not individual Americans). The Cong. Res by its own terms never addressed the Charter or authorized any acts that violate the Charter. Thus any acts that violate the U.N. Charter are illegal under U.S. law. --NYCJosh 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you do not know what I am saying so please refrain from paraphrasing me incorrectly to support your own arguement. I have sourced the information, please do not use WP:OR to remove it thank you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 08:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious what you are saying zer0faults; you've made your argument very clear. The point is that laws are presumed not to conflict. That logically precedes what you said, which we both understand (it's a pretty simple concept and to say that someone doesn't understand it is to insult their intelligence - bad form, at best). What you said regarding the relative status of treaties and what happens if there is a conflict among laws, zer0faults, is correct. We are both correct. There is no logical contradiction between what you and me have said. the two logical pieces fit together nicely. Kevin Baas^talk 15:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You stated I said "According to you we have only one law on the books in the United States that is binding on the government" and that is not what I said. I said that the laws conflict in this case so the latter takes precedent, its called the "last-in-time" rule, and its not a new concept. Your inability and personal legal opinion is not a reason to remove cited material. So please stop, if you however find a source refuting the other then we can gladly debate the merits and choose which is more prominent and how each side should be displayed. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore I never said the UN Charter is disregarded, as the other portions that are not conflicting with this law takes over. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced paragraph that seems to be causing confusion since it was unsourced legal opinion, and didnt make sense. How can federal law be equal to treaties, yet be under treaties because they are equal to state laws, which federal laws are not equal to state laws anyway. Anyway, beyond my own jabbering of OR, perhaps someone can rewrite it with a person giving a legal opinion on the subject as it relates, sources over OR please. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Zero, you've got to be joking with this kind of treaty/fed. law/state law logic. Please engage thought process before doing any more harm to the article. This article is not your personal sandbox. Please provide sources, with page numbers, that support each of the following statements made in your paragraph: (1) it is "not possible" to use this logic to argue that the war could have been conducted illegally under United States law. (3) the Congress authorization for use of force is "inconsistent" with the UN Charter. (2) the authorization for use of force "automatically overrode" the UN Charter. --NYCJosh 20:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A source is provided. The paragraph I removed had no source. Please adhere to WP:OR. Thank you. I dont remember arguing the war was conducted illegally, a source is provided that argues Witney v Robertson in relation to the Iraq War. The exact ruling is also noted with the Supreme Court Justice explaining the last-in-time rule. It seems the only one who hasnt provided any sources is you and Kevin Baas. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The ratio of sources I have provided to text that I wrote in the "U.N. Charter and U.S. law" section is infinity. Kevin Baas^talk 16:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You have to provide a source here of someone arguing your point. I think you already know how WP:V and WP:OR work however. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What? mine and NYCJosh's point is that you need to attribute or remove things like

(1) it is "not possible" to use this logic to argue that the war could have been conducted illegally under United States law.

(3) the Congress authorization for use of force is "inconsistent" with the UN Charter.

(2) the authorization for use of force "automatically overrode" the UN Charter.

Are you saying that I have to provide a source of someone arguing the point that you need to provide sources? Kevin Baas^talk 06:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read more carefully a source is provided. I will remove not possible to argue this logic as that isnt in the source however. That is just an introduction to the point countering the point before it, which is now removed anyway. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Zero, we (Kevin and I) tried to reason with you but apparently to no avail. Therefore, since we have no consensus on the paragraph you added, I propose removing it from the article. Not only have you failed to generate consensus regarding your proposed pararaph, Kevin and I outvote you. The paragraph should be deleted because the Sup Ct case cited is inapplicable here (where there is no conflict between the Res and the Treaty). I note that Kevin and I tried to reach consensus. Zero on the other hand has kept unilaterally changing the article notwithstanding our objections.--NYCJosh 00:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What you like adn what you do not like are not important, its sourced. And its from a WP:V source at that. You argue that its not appropriate here, however my source argues otherwise. Therefore you are in violation of WP:OR. Please stop attempting to remove a sourced paragraph simply because you do not like it. When your objections become more then your own research or ideas, then we can discuss this further, until then you are attempting to remove sourced content. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You have failed, despite repeated detailed requests from Kevin and me (see above), to provide sources for several assertions. Citing a legal treatise without page/paragraph numbers is insufficient (because I am not sure what you read in the book that you think supports you). The Sup Ct case becomes irrelevant here without those. --NYCJosh 14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a source, try going to the library and reading it. Furthermore the legal ruling is cited seperatly, I will add a page since you are unfamiliar with the ruling apparently yet still seem to argue its not relevant. Again please refrain from adding your legal opinion as its a violation of WP:OR when not supported by valid sources. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Another source has been added and its been put in the reference section. The quote of the ruling is on page 2. Again unless you have a source refuting my sources, please stop constatly arguing with me over your original research. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you failed to actually read the paragraph before commenting thist ime I just want to point out that items not in the source were removed such as the beginning sentence etc. Please read before returnnig to comment, just in case somethnig has changed since your last visit. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Zero, it's still misleading. Since on their own terms there is no conflict between the Res and the Charter, the Sup Ct case and the last sentence about the Res having a later date are inapplicable. It is misleading because the reader might understand that the Res somehow mitigates the legal status of the Charter under US law, which is not the case. I am giving you one last chance. --NYCJosh 21:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it seems you have not read WP:OR. After you do please return and we can continue this conversation. Your "last chance" threats are moot until you understand that its sourced and you need to provide counter sources, not your own original research. Again please read it and then come back and I will gladly discuss this with you, until then your comments will be ignored as you have filled this section with your OR and now apparent unspecified threats. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Zero, let's get this straight. You cite a case from the 19th Century and a multi-volume legal series without a page number and you accuse me of OR? More to the point, the case does not support the point of law you want people to think it does: there is no conflict between the Res and Charter on their own terms or in the ways in which they must, necesseraily, be applied. Finally, when I give you every chance to defend your point, instead of just removing your paragraph as Kevin and I should have done several days ago now, you accuse me of "threatening." Give me a break. I can't give a counter source b/c you have not provided a relevant source. Kevin and I pointed out several allegations that you failed to support. What you woud need to support is your allegation that a federal law that does NOT contradict or conflict with a U.S. treaty on its own terms supercedes the treaty or the contradicted portion of the treaty and abrogates the treaty or that part of the treaty. You have not stated a conflict in their terms so you must be alleging this. In fact you stated repeatedly (see above) that the Res did NOT authorize a violation of the Charter. Further, you would need to support the proposition that this is the case "automatically" without a federal court holding so. Recall that the Whitney court went through the legal analysis after full briefing from adversaries, and it is the Sup Ct; your alleging that the abrogation happens simply because you decided that there is a conflict between the provisions. But then you admit that the Res did not authorize a violation. What's so difficult to undersand about these issue? --NYCJosh 03:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read before commenting, the page is cited in the source for the ruling. This is why I am asking you to read up on policies and procedures because it seems you are not too familiar with how Wikipedia works. There is a reference group at the bottom that corresponds to the numbers beside certain points, the ruling itself is cited and the page number is given in the reference section. Also please see WP:OWN as you seem to have ownership issues with this article stating "instead of just removing your paragraph as Kevin and I should have done several days ago". The information is sourced, the second source, the book contains a chapter on Iraq War ... perhaps that is the best place to start, it seems you want to complain about the source but have not even attempted to read it. What you and Kevin did is introduce your OR to the conversation in an attempts to refute a WP:RS book saying otherwise, again please read WP:OR and WP:CITE to see how your arguements need to be supported by more then your own opinion and how references work as you keep calling my paragraph OR however it has 2 sources. So again, please provide sources argunig your points as that is how Wikipedia works, thank you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I did read your footnotes. You cited a page number in the headnotes to the case. That is not legal authority because it war prepared by the case reporter not by the court. If you actually read the opinion of the court you might see that it is more specific of a holding than you make it out to be. In considering the opinion, remember that dicta does not count; only the specific holding necessary to resolve the case before the court counts. More important, you did not provide a page number for the multi-volume treatise for the page that supposedly supports the specific points allege (see above, I cannt repeat each time). Nobody disputes that there was a Cong. Res regarding Iraq. I provided sources (the US Constit) showing that Charter is US law. If you want to show it is not the law because it conflicts with a law, you have to establish all the things we discussed. --NYCJosh 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not say the Charter is not a law, I am done arguing with you as you keep attempting to change my arguement to something you can actually argue against. If you attempt to remove the paragraph I will simply add it back unless its being removed with a supplied source coutnering it, again there is a chapter on Iraq War in the book, try reading it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the specific volume is listed, so I do not see the relevance ins tating its a multi-volume set, unless that was for dramatic appeal. Again pick up the book and read the section on Iraq War, how can you complain so much on a book you wont even go get, amazing. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Zero, if you are done talking than I am too. I have removed the misleading sentences because Kevin and I outvoted you, after giving you ample opportunity to defend your position. You are free to seek WP mediation. I will help you get started if you are unfamiliar with the WP mediation process. If you restore it unilaterally you are starting an edit war, which I would not advise. WP is built on editing based on consensus. You would be reverting knowing that you have failed to persuade at least 2 other editors. --NYCJosh 19:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We do not vote here, have a good day. Read up on things like WP:OR & Wikipedia is not a democracy, it will help your understanding on how things work here, also WP:V and WP:CITE. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

First, the UN Charter does not outlaw declarations of war. Second, the War Powers Act itself (in section 5(b), and appelate court ruling makes it clear that there is no legal distinction between Congress' authorizing force and declaring war. The IRaq resolution clearly says that it has the meaning of war in section 5(b) of the war powers act. Iraq was in violation of the Cease Fire Agreement signed in 1991 and that alone is enough justification for a declaration of war in the UN charter. And finally, to be a violation of the UN Charter, the UN must vote with the approval of the security council that a violation ocurred. Kofi Annan is not dictator or arbiter of the Charter. His opinion, while notewoirthy is obviously not binding nor is a reflection of the U.N. position. No resolution that declared the war on Iraq was an act of agression so by definition, there is no violation. You have put the cart before the horse. Just because there is a war, does not mean there is a violation of the U.N. charter. The ICC says so in not so many words when they say they have no authority to investigate a so-called "war of Agression." That is left to the U.N. and the U.N. has not made that declaration. Also, previous attacks by coalition forces, most notably in 1998 went uncomdemned by the U.N. This tacit approval of the bombings in 1998 is a legal precedent that the current attacks are also legal under previous U.N. resolutions. And if your counting votes, I agree with Zer0faults and I see no consensus for NYCJosh's version. --Tbeatty 05:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition, if you think it needs to be justified under the U.N. Charter, you need only to look at the preamble of the Joint Resolution (read all the Whereas statments). It is clearly meant as an extension of the 1991 Gulf War which was a "War of Agresssion" committed by Iraq. The current War in Iraq, legally, is an extension of that. The preamble states the U.S.'s grievances and why it ius autorized to use force. To take Kevin's argument, these statments should be presumed to support the U.S. interpretation of the U.N. Charter's requirements for using force, and not be interpreted to conflict with them. The U.S. was perfectly within it's right, under the U.N. Charter to stop the War of Agression by Iraq and to set terms for the ceasefire. These terms are jointly and severally enforceable by all parties to the ceasefire. And if you want more evidence that the U.S. is allowed to act in this way, please take a look at Kosovo. The U.N., just like in he Iraq case, failed to authorize force. The U.S. then involved the NATO coalition to begin a bombing and occupation campaign to stop Slobodan Milosevic. Congress also authorized force in that case. This was also not illegal.--Tbeatty 05:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try a succint version. If you believe that law should be interpreted so as not to conflict, the correct interpretation is that Congress and the President believed that by authorizing force, they had met the requirements of the U.N. charter for engaging in armed conlfict. The presumption must be that Congress understood the requirements for authorizing armed conflict and believed that those requirements were met when they passed it. Seperation of powers would prevent any court from second guessing the knowledge of laws that Congress possess. The presumption of the court would be that Congress passed the Joint resolution such that it's enactment would be legal. No court would hold that Congress passed a law that it never intended to enforce or, indeed, believed that it was illegal to enforce. The only chance that the JR has of being overturned is if it's unconstitutional but that argument has not been made. --Tbeatty 05:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Theatty, (1) You are mistaken when you state "the UN Charter does not outlaw declarations of war." It does just that between members states of the UN, except in two carefully circumscribed circumstances (self defense against imminent armed attack and UN Sec Council Res). That was one of the main aims for setting up the UN. See WP articles, for example on the subject. (2) Your point about voting here is irrelevant to whether Zero can add stuff to the article that confuses the reader with inapplicable Sup Ct decisions, when at least two editors agree that his point is irrelevant and misleading. (3) Why misleading? First, the Cong. Res never authorized violation of the UN Charter. Congress intended the gov't to work within the law in implementing its resolution. There is no record of Congress intending otherwise. The Administration was in the process of trying to get UN Sec. Council authorization and had it succeded in doing so, the Cong Res could have been legally implemented. The Cong Res autorized the president to use force but did not require that he do so in any particular circumstance. You are correct, the presumption of a US court would be that Congress passed the Joint resolution such that it's enactment would be legal and no court would hold that Congress passed a law that it never intended to enforce or, indeed, believed that it was illegal to enforce. Thus, there is no conflict between the Cong Res and the UN Charter on their own terms. Since there is no conflict, Zero's citation of the Sup Ct case and his statement of the date of the Congr Res are irrelevant. They are also misleading because the reader is left with the misimpression that somehow the Cong Res mitigated or set aside the UN Charter's prohibition of the use of force. (4) As to the unconstitutionality of the Cong Res, I was not arguing that point. I was talking about the legitimacy under US law of the US invasion (the Administrative Branch's decision to invade and occupy). --NYCJosh 23:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you two arguing about, this isnt a chat forum. I cited a source as required, get over it already. Your personal belief does not change the fact taht a cited source exists no matter how much you type here about what your personal opinion is, or if other argue differently. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop attempting to argue with me if you havent read the source I provided, your comments like "Zero's citation of the Sup Ct case and his statement of the date of the Congr Res are irrelevant" show you have not read the source, until you do I will ignore your comments about it and the statement it supports. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

UN / US law 2: balance in the microcosm

By "begging the question" I mean that it implies that there is a significant populace that argues the opposite. But let me be more objective: it is redundant. You, yourself, agree with this in your edit summary [73]:"it's what it says". You can take a look on my user page to see my stance on redundancy in regards NPOV. Kevin Baas^talk 16:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am no longer hearing your WP:OR arguements, have a good day. You want everything removed that proves the war wasnt illegal, I get this not and will treat it as such. Save your soon to follow AGF tag. Considering the shape of the article, the fact that everything you seem to feel that is wrong with it directly relates to proof the war is legal says enough for me. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, I am not sure what your point is. Factual accuracy and logical fallacies are separate items that need to addressed. It is not redundant to point out that the people who believe it to be illegal is both inaccurate and a logical fallacy. It is not the predominant view of experts or politicians and therefore it doesn't require "equal time" even in the article called "legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq". In this article there is a giant elephant in the room in that no major politician and no court has come forward with an opinion that it is not legitimate. The "significant populace" you speak of lacks citable references on experts in law. This article is on par with "legitimacy of the round earth theory". The flat-earthers may deserve a sentence but it is not the predominant view of recognized experts. Until a substantial number Congressmen, legal experts and courts go on the record with a charge of illegitimacy, the overwhelming part of this article should be on the legitimacy of the article, not idle speculation and wishes and dreams. NPOV isn't equal time. It is notable the lack of finding of illegitimacy.--Tbeatty 07:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"Factual accuracy and logical fallacies are separate items ..." -- insofar as they are mutually exclusive, maybe. Something cannot simultaneously be factually accurate and logically fallacious. In this way, factual accuracy and logic are inseparable. This is at the very core of logic -- one of its founding principles. Frankly, I didn't read further after that. Kevin Baas^talk 16:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me then. I'll try to put it in the first sentence so your attention span is not exceeded this time. Your argument starts with an inaccurate statement and then moves with that argument and creates logical fallacies. Both your inaccurate statements and your illogical conclusions need to be addressed. Both your facts and process are flawed and they are addressed in turn. It is not redundant to use the facts to refute both your inaccurate statements and your illogical process. --Tbeatty 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

From the Definition of WP:OR

Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

Using Whitney v. Robertson as a legal precedent for the legal justification of the Iraq war has been established by many legal sources as Zer0faults has credited one with a citation. In light of this, I don’t see how this is a violation of WP:NOR. Zer0faults is not presenting material that has not been argued before by a reliable source. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Torturous, please cite ONE legal source that cites Whitney v. Robertson as a legal precedent for the legal justification of the Iraq war. Theatty, just because you are ignorant of the state of scholarly debate on the subject, doesn't mean a vigourous debate does not exist. Many experts on int'l law regard the US-led invasion as illegal. Here are two: Benjamin Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq (OneWorld.net, August 25, 2006, free archived version available at www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0825-06.htm)."There was no authorization from the U.N. Security Council ... and that made it a crime against the peace," said Francis Boyle, professor of international law, who also said the U.S. Army's field manual required such authorization for an offensive war (The Seatlle Times, Aug. 18, 2006, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003207442_watada18m.html).--NYCJosh 00:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I cited a source, you ignoring it does not make it go away. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the tome, please provide a page number for your citation, as I requested several times, so your claim can be verified. --NYCJosh 14:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I provided you the chapter already, please read it and get back to me then. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Your cite is: Sean D. Murphy. "United States Practice in International Law Volume 2, 2002–2004", Cambridge University Press. According to Amazon, it's 440+ page tome. I don't think this satisfies WP rules for citation. Please provide a page number in this volume before you send me to the law library. --NYCJosh 21:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again "Use of Force and Arms Control" - Get back to me and let me know what you think. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you citing a whole chapter of a book? How about a specific page citing Whitney as it relates to the Cong Res's supposed superceding the UN Charter's status in US law? This is the specific point you appear to be supporting. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources Page numbers should always be cited where appropriate. Citing a whole chapter is not accepted generally for a legal citation (unless most of the chapter is about the specific point you're supporting). WP rules also state that the type of citation, e.g. legal, should dictate what type of citation convention to follow. Legal citations include page numbers, when available. --NYCJosh 15:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The chapter is like 12 pages and covers the issue, so start at page one of it, I believe page 320 but I will get back to yuo when I get home. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What page? If you tell me the page, then we could getm specific about whether or not the passage on that page supports the allegation you make. Let's try to follow WP rules. --NYCJosh 16:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Page 332, I will expect your apology shortly as well as your opinion on the entire chapter. It amkes some other interesting points in your favor, however I feel no need to cite those. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Apology for what exactly? My having to request from you more than a half dozen times over a period of around a month that you follow WP rules and provide a proper cite (all the while refraining from deleting improperly sourced material)? I'll try to get to a law library this weekend.--NYCJosh 21:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I am sure you will, your opinion on if the chapter supports the citation doesnt really matter since we have all seen your attempts at WP:OR violations in your "interpretations of law" --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That the Coalition did not have prior UN approval to take military action in Iraq in 2003 is a common misconception. The U.S. operated under the SAME authority that was cited in 1998 during the Clinton Administration when it took military action against Iraq and bombed the country for days. The words of the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Peter Burleigh, in 1998 state it very clearly, "...the coalition today exercised the authority given by Security Council resolution 678 (1990) for member states to employ all necessary means to secure Iraqi compliance with the Council's resolutions and restore international peace and security in the area." [74] The Resolutions cited in 1998 by the Clinton Administration were STILL in effect in 2003. JustTheTruth 16:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The state of war against whom?

This sentence seems unclear to me: "For instance, in WWII, the state of war with Germany did not end until 19 October 1951 and with Japan, not until 28 April 1952 [35]."

Does it indicate that the state of war between Germany and Japan didn't end until 1951 or 1952? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.142.46.107 (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Powell and Rice claim no WMD in Iraq pre-9/11

No comments on this? What a surprise 195.157.52.65 12:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)