Putin 2003:“The use of force abroad...can only be sanctioned by the United Nations. This is intl law

[stevenleser]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alisonvingiano/times-russia-condemned-the-use-of-force-without-un-approval



1. Putin on Iraq in 2003: “The use of force abroad, according to existing international laws, can only be sanctioned by the United Nations. This is the international law." http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/18/sprj.irq.uk.baker/

2. “I am convinced that it would be a grave error to be drawn into unilateral action, outside of international law,” he (Putin) said. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/international/europe/11WIRE-RUSS.html

.
.
.

4. Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich has said: “Any unilateral use of force without the authorisation of the U.N. Security Council, no matter how ‘limited’ it is, will be a clear violation of international law.” http://news.yahoo.com/ap-interview-putin-warns-west-syria-action-050109984--finance.html

.
.
.

[Romulox]

1. LOL. Now do John Kerry's quotes from IWR! nt

[Fumesucker]

2. +2003

[stevenleser]

4. LOL. So, if past unprovoked wars are justification for the next one, the US gets a freebee next

right? Or is it China's turn?

How does that strange logic you seem to be employing work?

[Romulox]

7. Sorry Steve, but that's how "credibility" works. nt

[stevenleser]

11. No, it isn't. Not by a longshot. nt

[Fumesucker]

12. ...

[ProSense]

14. The silliness here is ignoring that Putin said that in 2003, and now has invaded a country.

I mean, what the hell do Kerry's statement have to do with that?

[ProSense]

13. OK, here:

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq

By John F. Kerry
Published: September 6, 2002

It may well be that the United States will go to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have to -- not because we want to. For the American people to accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their consent to it, the Bush administration must first present detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and then prove that all other avenues of protecting our nation's security interests have been exhausted. Exhaustion of remedies is critical to winning the consent of a civilized people in the decision to go to war. And consent, as we have learned before, is essential to carrying out the mission. President Bush's overdue statement this week that he would consult Congress is a beginning, but the administration's strategy remains adrift.

Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein -- the ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism -- should be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the inspection process is merely a waste of time should be reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential foundation of success.

If we are to put American lives at risk in a foreign war, President Bush must be able to say to this nation that we had no choice, that this was the only way we could eliminate a threat we could not afford to tolerate.

In the end there may be no choice. But so far, rather than making the case for the legitimacy of an Iraq war, the administration has complicated its own case and compromised America's credibility by casting about in an unfocused, overly public internal debate in the search for a rationale for war. By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration has diminished its most legitimate justification of war -- that in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.

<...>

For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the evidence and making the case. Then, in concert with our allies, it must seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security Council. We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise. Some in the administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating. If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act. But until we have properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow citizens and our allies that we really have no other choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral decision-making in going to war against Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/we-still-have-a-choice-on-iraq.html

Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

KERRY, A SENATOR from Massachusetts, first said Thursday that Rumsfeld should step down, saying he proceeded in Iraq “in an arrogant, inappropriate way that has frankly put America at jeopardy.”

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3087318

And the truth is that George Bush has made America weaker by overextending the armed forces of the United States, overstraining, overstraining our reserves, driving away our allies and running the most arrogant, reckless, inept and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of our country.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/03/se.13.html

<...>

As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility.
<...>

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html

He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort.

Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. "Last resort." You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, "I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter."

I don't believe the United States did that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html

[Romulox]

16. Senate Roll Call: Iraq Resolution Friday, October 11, 2002--John Kerry (D): Yes

Senate Roll Call: Iraq Resolution
Friday, October 11, 2002


Following is an alphabetical listing by state of how each senator voted on President Bush's Iraq resolution. A "yes" vote was a vote to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq unilaterally. A "no" vote was a vote to defeat the measure. Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans. Voting "no" were 1 Republican, 21 Democrats, and 1 Independent.

...

Massachusetts Edward Kennedy (D): No John Kerry (D): Yes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm

[ProSense]

18. LOL! Moving the goalposts from Kerry's comments

"Senate Roll Call: Iraq Resolution Friday, October 11, 2002--John Kerry (D): Yes"

...to the vote changes nothing. Bush lied, and that doesn't make Putin emulating Bush OK.

There were NO UN inspectors in Iraq when Congress voted on the IWR, but they returned shortly after.

July 5, 2002

Iraq once again rejects new UN weapons inspection proposals.

<...>

November 13, 2002

Iraq accepts U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and informs the UN that it will abide by the resolution.

Weapons inspectors arrive in Baghdad again after a four-year absence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_2001-2003

Following the mandate of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein allowed UN inspectors to return to Iraq in November 2002. UNMOVIC led inspections of alleged chemical and biological facilities in Iraq until shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but did not find any weapons of mass destruction. Based on its inspections and examinations during this time, UNMOVIC inspectors determined that UNSCOM had successfully dismantled Iraq’s unconventional weapons program during the 1990s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monitoring,_Verification_and_Inspection_Commission

Bush removed the inspectors before launching the invasion. He had it all planned. He had a Senate that was in complete agreement that Saddam possesed WMD based on the bogus intelligence fed them. The Senate was voting on several versions of the resolution to authorize force, including the Byrd Amendment with an expiration date one year from passage.

Here is the Durbin Amendment, which only got 30 votes, including Feingold and Kennedy.

To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236

The Byrd Amendment got 31 votes, Kennedy voted for, Feingold voted against.

To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00232

Bush only needed a few months to launch the war. Setting a date for the termination of the authorization would still have given Bush enough time to lie and launch a war. And as anyone could see, once the Iraq war was launched, none of these Senators committed to forcing a withdrawal. In 2006, Kerry-Feingold, setting a date for withdrawal, got 13 votes.

After the IWR vote, Bush lied, first in his state of the union:

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Bush's 16 words still hotly debated
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/20/sprj.irq.wmd.investigation/

How Powerful Can 16 Words Be?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0720-09.htm

...and then in the bullshit letter and report he sent to Congress claiming a link to the 9/11 attacks.

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Bush's signing statement spelled out his intent to ignore the conditional aspects of the IWR. He acknowledged that while Congress agreed that a threat existed, they didn't give him the full support to launch a war unconditionally.

Statement on Signing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
October 16th, 2002

<...>


The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. On the important question of the threat posed by Iraq, however, the views and goals of the Congress, as expressed in H.J. Res. 114 and previous congressional resolutions and enactments, and those of the President are the same.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64386

[SidDithers]

19. It's *so unfair* that Putin's present credibility is determined by his past actions!...nt

Sid

[SidDithers]

3. DU rec...nt

Sid

[treestar]

5. International law is inherently unenforceable

Not that's it is useless. It's just that nobody has to abide by it. So it gets trotted out when they don't want another country to do something. But can justify it for their own countries. So as we did for Iraq, and Pooty will now do for Ukraine.

[okaawhatever]

10. No, it's just that Russia and the US each have veto power so it's difficult for the international

community to take action when we're going against a UN country with veto power.

[treestar]

20. Even so, where all the veto power countries agreed

Individual countries would still send their forces to the offending country by their own decision. UN peacekeeping troops aren't an army of the world that can go and enforce anything in any country - and it would be dangerous if that power existed.

[Jefferson23]

6. All world powers are ready to suggest they respect international law, when convenient.

Looks like its one for one now...how dismal is that.

Thanks for posting. K&R

[reformist2]

8. ZOMG, Putin lied!!!!

[NCTraveler]

9. I think we all just need to agree...

I think we all just need to agree that the guy is a complete piece of shit. Get that simple part out of the way and worry about our own governments actions with respect to the Ukraine. Putin is a piece of shit and a hypocrite, that we can agree on. Let worry about what we have more control over, our own decisions.

[stevenleser]

17. I would love for everyone to agree about that. We have a lot of folks justifying the invasion.

As my French friends would say, tres bizarre, no?

[NCTraveler]

21. Steven, I wish I was educated enough about the situation to have a better opinion.

DU is normally great at education me with respect to world issues or correcting me when I am wrong. With this situation it seems that many people are either pro or anti Putin and that is their starting point for how they address the Ukrainian situation. When that happens it takes a lot of time to read and decipher what is truly going on. It adds a lot of time to the process of education ones self because the starting point for arguments is based off of feeling for an individual rather than historical and current facts.

Side note: I saw you on Neil Cavuto about 2 years ago and you were simply awesome. Your demeanor, intelligence, and common sense are just what is needed for our side on FOX. Your method of debate will open eyes and get people to think. Great job and thanks for the reply. Please keep going into the lions den(FOX).

[pampango]

15. Putin as republican. "Who needs the UN and international law when 'our interests' are at stake?"

Bush and Putin: "It is the sovereign right of my country to act when its interests are threatened. And I decide when that threshold is crossed not some foreigners sitting at a table at the UN or at some international tribunal somewhere."

As pointed out on another OP, if republicans could find an American birth certificate for Putin he would be a truly representative candidate for all they believe in.