Science Undecided on Room Temperature Superconductors

[pErvinalia]

Well get your World Police undies on then! Off you go!

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

Not that the legal aspect matters. Nations will always start a war if they regard it as advantageous to themselves and they think they will get away with it. Everything else is nothing better than yapping points.

What does matter, is the outcome. In my opinion the net result globally is worse than if Saddam Hussein, regardless of the wars he initiated, the thousands of Kurds he killed, the personal and political opponents he executed et cetera, had been left in place. Looking at you, JimC.

Well, basically I agree that the net result was a bad one, with the proviso that it may have been difficult at the time to predict the mess that would follow. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but...

[pErvinalia]

Bollocks. There was widespread prediction of civil war in Iraq and an increase in terrorism. Were you reading Murdoch rags back then??

[piscator]

Yawn.

[JimC]

Bollocks. There was widespread prediction of civil war in Iraq and an increase in terrorism. Were you reading Murdoch rags back then??

Some commentators were saying that, but others were not. But were those bad consequences automatic once the initial invasion had taken place, or were they contingent on the poor decisions taken after the initial military success?

What I guess I'm saying is that there were at least some reasons to justify the initial invasion, whether it was Saddam's intransigence about the overflights, his internal massacres, and concerns over chemical weapons; perhaps, with hindsight, they were not enough. In comparison, were there any ethical justifications whatsoever for Germany's invasions of various countries in 1939?

[Hermit]

Well, basically I agree that the net result was a bad one, with the proviso that it may have been difficult at the time to predict the mess that would follow. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but...

It was predicted by the CIA no less, two months before the war in a 40 page report. President Bush read it, and it was widely circulated in his administration. He just ignored it for reasons best known to himself. Don't mention Halliburton.

... the CIA warned the administration of the risk and consequences of a conflict in the Middle East.

Among other things, the 40-page Senate report reveals that two intelligence assessments before the war accurately predicted that toppling Saddam could lead to a dangerous period of internal violence and provide a boost to terrorists. But those warnings were seemingly ignored.

In January 2003, two months before the invasion, the intelligence community's think tank — the National Intelligence Council — issued an assessment warning that after Saddam was toppled, there was “a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other and that rogue Saddam loyalists would wage guerilla warfare either by themselves or in alliance with terrorists.”

It also warned that “many angry young recruits” would fuel the rank of Islamic extremists and "Iraqi political culture is so embued with mores (opposed) to the democratic experience … that it may resist the most rigorous and prolonged democratic tutorials."

The CIA repeated in a follow up report a few weeks before the war that the war also could be "exploited by terrorists and extremists outside Iraq."

There were even earlier warnings. One of them was a briefing book titled 'The Perfect Storm: Planning for the Negative Consequences of Invading Iraq', Delivered in September 2002, it included the following prognosis by the CIA:

The United States will face negative consequences with Iraq, the region and beyond which would include:

• Anarchy and the territorial breakup of Iraq;
  
  Region-threatening instability in key Arab states;
  
  A surge of global terrorism against US interests fueled by (militant) Islamism;

(Link)

And all of that emanated despite Wolfowitz's best efforts to plug such information emanating from the CIA. He need not have bothered. The chickenhawks had oil fever. Nothing would stop them from getting at that black gold.

[JimC]

Fair points, Hermit.

I surrender...

[piscator]

Well, basically I agree that the net result was a bad one, with the proviso that it may have been difficult at the time to predict the mess that would follow. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but...

It was predicted by the CIA no less, two months before the war in a 40 page report. President Bush read it, and it was widely circulated in his administration. He just ignored it for reasons best known to himself. Don't mention Halliburton.

... the CIA warned the administration of the risk and consequences of a conflict in the Middle East.

Among other things, the 40-page Senate report reveals that two intelligence assessments before the war accurately predicted that toppling Saddam could lead to a dangerous period of internal violence and provide a boost to terrorists. But those warnings were seemingly ignored.

In January 2003, two months before the invasion, the intelligence community's think tank — the National Intelligence Council — issued an assessment warning that after Saddam was toppled, there was “a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other and that rogue Saddam loyalists would wage guerilla warfare either by themselves or in alliance with terrorists.”

It also warned that “many angry young recruits” would fuel the rank of Islamic extremists and "Iraqi political culture is so embued with mores (opposed) to the democratic experience … that it may resist the most rigorous and prolonged democratic tutorials."

The CIA repeated in a follow up report a few weeks before the war that the war also could be "exploited by terrorists and extremists outside Iraq."

There were even earlier warnings. One of them was a briefing book titled 'The Perfect Storm: Planning for the Negative Consequences of Invading Iraq', Delivered in September 2002, it included the following prognosis by the CIA:

The United States will face negative consequences with Iraq, the region and beyond which would include:

• Anarchy and the territorial breakup of Iraq;
  
  Region-threatening instability in key Arab states;
  
  A surge of global terrorism against US interests fueled by (militant) Islamism;

(Link)

And all of that emanated despite Wolfowitz's best efforts to plug such information emanating from the CIA. He need not have bothered. The chickenhawks had oil fever. Nothing would stop them from getting at that black gold.

Groundbreaking stuff here, © 2013.
So the CIA red teamed the invasion? Whodathunkit?
Toppling a dictator created a power vacuum? I'm sure that never occurred to anyone beforehand.
Islamists going jihad over a 6-month buildup and invasion of Mesopotamia? Gosh. No one predicted that, even years after leading Islamists had already proclaimed fatwas urging all Muslims to attack and kill Americans whenever and wherever possible, because Israel.
Good thing a former CIA Director had a self-serving book to sell, or else we'd never have this information.

Thank you so much Hermit, for blowing the lid off this.

[Hermit]

Groundbreaking stuff here, © 2013.
So the CIA red teamed the invasion? Whodathunkit?
Toppling a dictator created a power vacuum? I'm sure that never occurred to anyone beforehand.
Islamists going jihad over a 6-month buildup and invasion of Mesopotamia? Gosh. No one predicted that, even years after leading Islamists had already proclaimed fatwas urging all Muslims to attack and kill Americans whenever and wherever possible, because Israel.
Good thing a former CIA Director had a self-serving book to sell, or else we'd never have this information.

Thank you so much Hermit, for blowing the lid off this.

Could you translate that into English, please? I don't read, write or speak gibberish.

[piscator]

You suck at this.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_team

[pErvinalia]

And this has what to do with the clusterfuck that was/is Iraq? Merka RAH RAH RAH?

[Hermit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_team

Ah. Thanks. A relabelling of an ancient tradition. The Vatican's version of it is 'The Devil's Advocate'.

Looks like the red team's prognostications were right, doncha think?

So, what's your point? Not listening is a good thing? If so, Bush Jr. and Co. have done exceedingly well.

[rainbow]

That's right. I do remember talking about your avoidance of manhood and responsibility at several secret national neocon meetings...

...on the other hand Neodymium shows some interesting properties.

That's metal, man. Did you vote for Lemmium?


http://www.metalsucks.net/2016/01/06/si ... ter-lemmy/

Well yeah.

[Forty Two]

We are discussing legality. "Who gives a fuck" isn't a sensible answer.

If we're discussing legality, then clearly the Security Counsel approval is not required for a war or military action to be legal. Most wars are not approved the Security Council.

There's two(?) provisions in international law for declaring war on someone else. They don't need UNSC approval. Self defence, and something else (protecting an ally, I think?). Outside of that, you need UNSC approval for war, for it to be legal. The US is legally covered in their bombing of Syria as they are protecting their ally Iraq. Iraq in 2003 met neither of those two conditions. The UN resolution made it clear that war wasn't cleared in the case of Iraq's violations of other resolutions. The rest is all just version of "who gives a fuck?".

Syria attacked Iraq? You say the US and UK are covered for war in Syria, when Syria did not attack the US or Iraq, and Syria has not granted permission for the US/UK to engage within the Syrian borders? But, you think that Iraq's recognized government in 2003 taking military action against the military forces of the US and UK is not sufficient to allow military action in response, even though the same was a direct violation of Cease Fire Accords in place at the time by one of the State parties to the Accords?

The US and UK were attacked by Iraq in that Iraq violated the Cease Fire Accords and fired upon Coalition aircraft and personnel. Those personnel were there under UN auspices, enforcing the UN enacted no-fly zone and monitoring the UN oil-for-food program. A country enforcing said resolutions is not obliged to allow its forces to be fired upon, pending UN permission to fire back.

The UN resolution did not at all "make it clear" that war wasn't cleared. Resolution 1441 is part of the legal basis for war, because it can be interpreted as allowing for that as a serious consequence of Iraq's noncompliance.

[Forty Two]

The second gulf war was probably not illegal, and had some ethical justification in terms of Saddam's vicious treatment of the Kurds etc. However, that doesn't change the fact that, after the initial successful blitzkrieg, it was both poorly managed, and had some very bad political consequences for the region.

bullshit, Jim. Your version of what is ethical is not the standard for declaring war and invading another country. If you are worried about the Kurds, you better start calling for an invasion of Turkey.

Would an invasion of Turkey have been justified based on treatment of the Kurds?