NationStates Jolt Archive

No, really explain it.

Because the UN told them not to

No, really explain it.
Because we didn't ask the UN "pretty please" before we invaded.

I know that.

I want to know what justification people have for running round and shouting "illegal" that's all.

No, really explain it.

Because it Broke the Law

Because it Broke the Law

What law, jus cogens ?

I know that.

I want to know what justification people have for running round and shouting "illegal" that's all.
Because the US agreed to follow the rules of the UN.

UN:"You can't go to war, based on no evidence"
US:"Fuck you, we don't have to listen to you commies. We're going to war"

No, really explain it.



Because there were no WMDs and you based all of your marketing to the world on that. Colin Powell made a presentation the UN about where Iraqis were hiding these weapons and you've not found one since you stepped foot in Iraq. So now, you justifty it that you were getting rid of Saddam. You don't need 100 000 soldiers to capture and/or kill a leader or overthrow the Iraqi Army. Now you actually need those trops because of the insurgents but before you didn't.

Because the US agreed to follow the rules of the UN.

UN:"You can't go to war, based on no evidence"
US:"Fuck you, we don't have to listen to you commies. We're going to war"

No we didn't.

You can't amend the constitution with a treaty.

What law, jus cogens ?Where did the "Illegal act" took place?

As Bush stated a war aim was to remove the Head of State of a Sovreign nation, this is contrary to the UN Charter and hence, in International Law, not legal.

No we didn't.

You can't amend the constitution with a treaty.
constitution schmonstitution.
The US agreed to follow WHATEVER the UN tells them to do. Period.

What does this have to don with lex loci delicti?

No, really explain it.
First I'll refute the other side.
The no fly zones were not done by the UN thus we can't say its an act of war when they defend themselves. Its not a sanctioned policy we made.

Bush tried to say he was just policing the UN but should the police go against the govt(UN) who made the laws? The UN said no thus we are against the law makers.

Logically you realize this meakes it illegal point 1.

Next: Saddam was innocent until proven guilt according to US law. Thus we have to act according to that law. Therefore we must not act without reasonable proof.

Bush tried to use many things as proof. There was a lot of proof contradicting the proof but he downplayed that.

Bush is not sorry he went without proof. He said he would do it again if he had the chance. Kerry said he would give the Commander in cheif the ability but that is just commonsense. Bush should have the authority so Saddam backed down and let inspectors complete job. Its not like Kerry believed at that time Bush was a warmonger.

However, Bush did not care if Inspectors finished he wanted to wipe the guy out. He doesn't trust UN or its findings which tuirned out to be factual.

Count that as Proof #2 of illegal war for no true proof.

I'll stop amd see what others post because the list can go longer.

constitution schmonstitution.
The US agreed to follow WHATEVER the UN tells them to do. Period.

I am pretty sure the US never agreed to do that.

constitution schmonstitution.
The US agreed to follow WHATEVER the UN tells them to do. Period.

No it didn't.

Every treaty the US signs has clawbacks.

DeaconDave... Where did the "Illegal act" took place?

WHY IN GODS NAME WOULD THERE BE A UN IF ANYONE COULD STILL DO WHATEVER THEY LIKED?!?!?!?

Think about it please

DeaconDave... Where did the "Illegal act" took place?

What does this have to do with lex loci delicti?

explain yourself.

WHY IN GODS NAME WOULD THERE BE A UN IF ANYONE COULD STILL DO WHATEVER THEY LIKED?!?!?!?

Think about it please

The US cannot amend it's own constitution through a treaty. It's not that the US can do "whatever it like[s]" , rather that it cannot ammend the war power.

The United States has failed to follow the parameters laid down by the Geneva Convention, in the initial strikes, and later the occupation of Iraq. Normally, no, the United States would not have to follow laws of international communities that it doesn't want to. The problem lies with the fact that the United States agreed to follow the Geneva convention.

The United States has failed to follow the parameters laid down by the Geneva Convention, in the initial strikes, and later the occupation of Iraq. Normally, no, the United States would not have to follow laws of international communities that it doesn't want to. The problem lies with the fact that the United States agreed to follow the Geneva convention.
And the UN is the Guard Dog of the Geneva Convention (amongst other things)

The US cannot amend it's own constitution through a treaty. It's not that the US can do "whatever it like[s]" , rather that it cannot ammend the war power.
Actually, the Iraq War was technically unconstitutional. We signed and ratified the UN charter, which means that, according to Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution, it became the "supreme law of the land." So when we violated the UN charter, we violated our own law.

The United States has failed to follow the parameters laid down by the Geneva Convention, in the initial strikes, and later the occupation of Iraq. Normally, no, the United States would not have to follow laws of international communities that it doesn't want to. The problem lies with the fact that the United States agreed to follow the Geneva convention.

So. It's not binding on the US. Read our law.

Simply, one of the main reasons that the US wanted into Iraq in the first place was because they believed Iraq was in possession of WMD, which it was not allowed to have because of UN resolutions passed after the first Gulf War. The US petitioned the UN to go into Iraq to remove these WMDs, and the UN said no. Since the main reasoning for the proposed invasion was the illegal possession of WMDs, illegal because of the UN resolutions, then it was up to the UN to determine whether or not military action was necessary. They decided that military action was unneeded, and the US went against that decision and invaded anyway. Without the UN backing, the US war is unjustified. Iraq possessing WMDs was only illegal in regards to UN law. If you are to maintain that the US is not governed by the laws of the UN, then neither should Iraq be, and therefore its possession of WMDs would no longer be illegal. You cannot retain the assertion that Iraq broke UN law by having WMDs, but then break the law by invading Iraq anyway because you found the decision distasteful. Either you follow international law, where Iraqi possession of WMDs is illegal, and so is the US invasion, or you do not, where Iraq was justified in having WMDs, and the US invasion was a unprovoked attack. You cannot claim moral right and then abandon those same morals like that.

So. It's not binding on the US. Read our law.

Then neither should it be in Iraq, and Iraq should therefore be allowed to possess whatever arms it so desires. It can't apply to Iraq and not to the US. It has to be either one way or the other.

No we didn't.

You can't amend the constitution with a treaty.
Your Constitution provides for the recognition of signed treaties. So by violating the UN Charter, you in essence violated the US Constitution. Look it up.....it is there in black and white.

DeaconDave... Where did the "Illegal act" took place?

hmm DeaconDave...all that latin...I think you are avoiding the answer....you are spinning like a WhiteHouse speaker...

Then I guess I have to aswer it for you...

The "Illegal Act" Took place in Iraq.

Simply, one of the main reasons that the US wanted into Iraq in the first place was because they believed Iraq was in possession of WMD, which it was not allowed to have because of UN resolutions passed after the first Gulf War. The US petitioned the UN to go into Iraq to remove these WMDs, and the UN said no. Since the main reasoning for the proposed invasion was the illegal possession of WMDs, illegal because of the UN resolutions, then it was up to the UN to determine whether or not military action was necessary. They decided that military action was unneeded, and the US went against that decision and invaded anyway. Without the UN backing, the US war is unjustified. Iraq possessing WMDs was only illegal in regards to UN law. If you are to maintain that the US is not governed by the laws of the UN, then neither should Iraq be, and therefore its possession of WMDs would no longer be illegal. You cannot retain the assertion that Iraq broke UN law by having WMDs, but then break the law by invading Iraq anyway because you found the decision distasteful. Either you follow international law, where Iraqi possession of WMDs is illegal, and so is the US invasion, or you do not, where Iraq was justified in having WMDs, and the US invasion was a unprovoked attack. You cannot claim moral right and then abandon those same morals like that.


Hypocrits yes. Felons no.

That's what I say. The war is not and cannot be "illegal".

Hypocrits yes. Felons no.

That's what I say. The war is not and cannot be "illegal".

As long as you accept that anyone who supports the war on the grounds of removing Iraqi WMDs is a hypocrite.

Then neither should it be in Iraq, and Iraq should therefore be allowed to possess whatever arms it so desires. It can't apply to Iraq and not to the US. It has to be either one way or the other.

I agree. It's called sovereignty.

But don't expect to arm up and not have others come after you. That's all.

This whole "international law" thing is stupid.

As Molkte (sp-?) observed, realpolitik.

As long as you accept that anyone who supports the war on the grounds of removing Iraqi WMDs is a hypocrite.

Doesn't make it illegal though, does it.

I agree. It's called sovereignty.

But don't expect to arm up and not have others come after you. That's all.

This whole "international law" thing is stupid.

Again, I refer you to Article VI, Clause II. US Constitution. When we approve "international laws," they become national laws.

I agree. It's called sovereignty.

But don't expect to arm up and not have others come after you. That's all.

This whole "international law" thing is stupid.

As Molkte (sp-?) observed, realpolitik.

Okay. Then I have no qualm with you. You understand the hypocrisy.

The people that get me bent out of shape are the ones who say we shouldn't be governed by international law for going after another sovereign nation for breaking international law.

Doesn't make it illegal though, does it.

As long as you don't accept international law, no.

Hypocrits yes. Felons no.

That's what I say. The war is not and cannot be "illegal".
You really should try reading every word of UN Resolution 1441. You might be amazed what you could learn?

http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-08UNResolution1441.asp

BTW, I am only trying to help answer the question that you asked.

Again, I refer you to Article VI, Clause II. US Constitution. When we approve "international laws," they become national laws.

Article VI, Clause 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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI, Clause 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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Thanks for posting that. Notice the part where treaties we sign become the "supreme Law of the Land"

As long as you don't accept international law, no.

It's fair to say that under the jurisprudence of the alien tort claims act the US only accepts international law to the extent that is is jus cogens, which was not violated here. So we agree it is not "illegal" per se.

Note, I am not addressing the morality of the "war".

Article VI, Clause 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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Therefore, violation of the UN Charter in general and Resolution 1441 specifically was in violation of US Law.

Thanks for posting that. Notice the part where treaties we sign become the "supreme Law of the Land"

No they don't.

They only become federal law.

That can be repealed. Legally.

DeaconDave... please stop your quasi-intellectualness. You're not fooling anyone

No they don't.

They only become federal law.

That can be repealed. Legally.

Well, in that case, was the UN charter legally repealed in this country?

DeaconDave... please stop your quasi-intellectualness. You're not fooling anyone

Way to argue the issue at hand, champ.

dp

Article VI, Clause 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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So we could repeal the first ammendment with a treaty? I hardly think so.

Way to argue the issue at hand, champ.
I'm just telling him no to use bad argumentation (for instance, flinging in Latin just to impress the readers)

Hypocrits yes. Felons no.

That's what I say. The war is not..."illegal".

Who are you to say what is Illegal in another Country?

Who is Bush to say what is Illegal in another Country?

Who is any American Judge or Legislator to say what is Legal in another Country?

So we could repeal the first ammendment with a treaty? I hardly think so.

I didn't comment on it; I just posted it for reference. Interpretation is up to you.

No they don't.

They only become federal law.

That can be repealed. Legally.
I don't remember hearing that resolution being repealed. Furthermore, Bush never went to congress for the requisite declaration of war.

Hypocrits yes. Felons no.

That's what I say. The war is not and cannot be "illegal".


Several people have given clear justification that the war was Illegal, based both on the US constitution, and the UN charter.

The worst blind is the one which does not want to see.

Well, in that case, was the UN charter legally repealed in this country?

No, but since I am sure that it was only signed with "clawbacks", and the war power resides in congress, who we do and do not fight and why is not a legal matter that resides solely with the US government.

In other words, it is only binding to the extent that it does not modify constitutionally defined sovereignty. That's all.

Again, note, that I am not arguing the morality or justification for the war. I am only contending that calling it illegal is mislabeling.

I'm just telling him no to use bad argumentation (for instance, flinging in Latin just to impress the readers)


Actually, it's terms of art. Not latin per se. So there.

I don't remember hearing that resolution being repealed. Furthermore, Bush never went to congress for the requisite declaration of war.
There has not been a Congressional declaration of war since WWII.

Actually, it's terms of art. Not latin per se. So there.
so you're the one that stole my smarty pants

so you're the one that stole my smarty pants

yes, and they are still warm. :)

There has not been a Congressional declaration of war since WWII.

But congress can authorize millitary action without an outright declartion of war, see mcculloch v. maryland, and they did in this case.

But congress can authorize millitary action without an outright declartion of war, see mcculloch v. maryland, and they did in this case.
My reply was not an argument for or against it being illegal. I was simply pointing out to the gentleman who thought it was relevant.

This thread is cool

bump

But congress can authorize millitary action without an outright declartion of war, see mcculloch v. maryland, and they did in this case.
What in gods name are you talking about?!?! McCulloch v. Maryland dealt with the supremacy of the federal government over the state governments. It said a state cannot tax a branch of the Bank of the United States because the power to tax is the power to destroy. Waaaaaaaaay off!

What in gods name are you talking about?!?! McCulloch v. Maryland dealt with the supremacy of the federal government over the state governments. It said a state cannot tax a branch of the Bank of the United States because the power to tax is the power to destroy. Waaaaaaaaay off!

1. Go to a bluebook, "see" stands for supports the proposition. If it was directly supported I would have just cited the case without the use of "see."

2. McCulloch v. Maryland stands for the implied powers doctrine. Or do you really wish to limit the holding to that extent. If that is case, bye-bye, civil rights act of 1964.

3. If congress holds the explicit war power it also holds implicitly the power to authorize the current Iraq conflict. Which they did. Therefore it is legal .

I hope this answers your questions.

1. Go to a bluebook, "see" stands for supports the proposition. If it was directly supported I would have just cited the case without the use of "see."

2. McCulloch v. Maryland stands for the implied powers doctrine. Or do you really wish to limit the holding to that extent. If that is case, bye-bye, civil rights act of 1964.

3. If congress holds the explicit war power it also holds implicitly the power to authorize the current Iraq conflict. Which they did. Therefore it is legal .

I hope this answers your questions.

So, your country reserves itself the right to attack any other sovereign country without a reason?

Who are you to say what is Illegal in another Country?

He cant but the UN can and have declared what Saddam Hussein has done in violation of International Law but did nothing

Who is Bush to say what is Illegal in another Country?

He can under the provisions of the UN and have declared what Hussein was doing in violation of international law. Thus we literally had legal grounds to go into Iraq.

Who is any American Judge or Legislator to say what is Legal in another Country?

By passing Congressional Resolutions ironically enough and they stated that our actions in Iraq were legal since they passed a resolution for the President to use force in Iraq.

I don't remember hearing that resolution being repealed. Furthermore, Bush never went to congress for the requisite declaration of war.

Now this is BS!!!

What President Bush got was an Authorization to Use Force against Iraq. This is the same as declaring war but with different words. The last time we officially Declared War on another country was Japan on December 8, 1941!

He cant but the UN can and have declared what Saddam Hussein has done in violation of International Law but did nothing



He can under the provisions of the UN and have declared what Hussein was doing in violation of international law. Thus we literally had legal grounds to go into Iraq.



By passing Congressional Resolutions ironically enough and they stated that our actions in Iraq were legal since they passed a resolution for the President to use force in Iraq.

You would still need a UN resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. No such resolution was approved. So, according to UN law, the war against Iraq was illegal.

But congress can authorize millitary action without an outright declartion of war, see mcculloch v. maryland, and they did in this case.

Your right! And under said authorization, it made the war in Iraq LEGAL!!!!

So, your country reserves itself the right to attack any other sovereign country without a reason?

You still need a reason and we had several! Many of which were stated in the Resolution on Authorizing the Use of Force on Iraq!

You would still need a UN resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. No such resolution was approved. So, according to UN law, the war against Iraq was illegal.

No we don't need a resolution to use force in Iraq. Besides we have had several of them including the Cease Fire agreement. Saddam Hussein VIOLATED THIS!! As such, in accordence with International Law (which you seem to harp on), makes this war 100% LEGAL!!!!!!!

By passing Congressional Resolutions ironically enough and they stated that our actions in Iraq were legal since they passed a resolution for the President to use force in Iraq.

This don´t come close to making sense... it´s like "I can kill you because I autorized myself to do so".

So, your country reserves itself the right to attack any other sovereign country without a reason?

Yes, that's the law here.

And in just about every other country in the world.

It's called sovereignty. Even the UN recognizes that.

....Thus we literally had legal grounds to go into Iraq.....and thus we almost had legal Grounds to Arrest citizens of other countries and Bring them to Guantanamo.....Almost...

This don´t come close to making sense... it´s like "I can kill you because I autorized myself to do so".

No, that'll be 1st degree murder! Why do you think people who hire hitmen are found guilty of murder?

However, when a resolution is passed by Congress, it becomes law. Thus, when the Resolution for the Use of Force was passed, it made the War in Iraq legal

and thus we almost had legal Grounds to Arrest citizens of other countries and Bring them to Guantanamo.....Almost...

That is a totally different thread!

The Iraq War was not illeagal because there was no real end to the first Iraq War, which you can't say was illeagal. So the 12 years following the first Iraq War and OIF itself, was an extension of it.

The Iraq War was not illeagal because there was no real end to the first Iraq War, which you can't say was illeagal. So the 12 years following the first Iraq War and OIF itself, was an extension of it.

Finally someone gets it! :)

Here have a cookie and congratulations on getting it 100% right!

No, that'll be 1st degree murder! Why do you think people who hire hitmen are found guilty of murder?

However, when a resolution is passed by Congress, it becomes law. Thus, when the Resolution for the Use of Force was passed, it made the War in Iraq legal

What Congress aproves becomes law INSIDE the US. It means NOTHING outside your borders...

That is a totally different thread!It is all about: It's called sovereignty.

Your right! And under said authorization, it made the war in Iraq LEGAL!!!!
Except for the repeatedly brought up point that treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land. So unless the US withdrawls from the UN preemptive war is illegal. According to the Charter you can only attack another country if you are defending yourself or if authorized by the Security council.

What Congress aproves becomes law INSIDE the US. It means NOTHING outside your borders...

However, Britain also passed the same resolution! Under our laws, if the President issues orders to attack with approval from Congress, it is considered legal action here in the USA! Under the UN, we've had a Cease-Fire and 17 UN Resolutions, all of whom were broken. When the Cease-fire was broken, we could've legally gone in and resume the war.

This don´t come close to making sense... it´s like "I can kill you because I autorized myself to do so".

Thats because countries are sovereign while individual people are not.

What Congress aproves becomes law INSIDE the US. It means NOTHING outside your borders...
Apperantly, it does since we have the power to back it up.

Except for the repeatedly brought up point that treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land. So unless the US withdrawls from the UN preemptive war is illegal. According to the Charter you can only attack another country if you are defending yourself or if authorized by the Security council.

Nope! We were defending ourselves from WMD in the hands of terrorists. Yes there were no wmd in iraq, however according to the IAEA, he had them and we believe that they were moved or buried. Thus we still had legal grounds to go in under UN Resolutions and the violation of the Cease-fire.

You still need a reason and we had several! Many of which were stated in the Resolution on Authorizing the Use of Force on Iraq!

That resolution did NOT passed in the UN security council, ence the war was illegal according to the UN charter that regulates international relations.


No we don't need a resolution to use force in Iraq. Besides we have had several of them including the Cease Fire agreement. Saddam Hussein VIOLATED THIS!! As such, in accordence with International Law (which you seem to harp on), makes this war 100% LEGAL!!!!!!!

Wrong. You need the security council authorization. No such authorization was given. The cease fire agreement, in the eyes of the UN monitoring team led by the now conviniently forgotten Hans Blix was being respect, as no weapons of mass distruction were being found in iraq, and all missiles with illegal range were being dismantled.


Yes, that's the law here.

And in just about every other country in the world.

It's called sovereignty. Even the UN recognizes that.


Not in every other country in the world. Many countries (such as my own) have constitutions that allow war declarations only in self defence, or in defence of an ally.
But hell, if you can declare war on a whim, then you ain't better than lets say.. alqaeda, are you?



The Iraq War was not illeagal because there was no real end to the first Iraq War, which you can't say was illeagal. So the 12 years following the first Iraq War and OIF itself, was an extension of it.

You are mixing things up. The first gulf war objective was to expell Iraq out of Kuwait, end of story. The war ended when that objective was achieved.

The Iraq War was not illeagal because there was no real end to the first Iraq War, which you can't say was illeagal. So the 12 years following the first Iraq War and OIF itself, was an extension of it.[/I]

You are mixing things up. The first gulf war objective was to expell Iraq out of Kuwait, end of story. The war ended when that objective was achieved.
The proof that the war didn't end is that after Desert Storm, there were still peacekeepers there.

The war in Iraq was illegal because Iraq conformed to UN resolution 1441 by allowing UN inspectors in and producing evidence which showed the destruction of their weapons of mass destruction, which was reason given for invasion of Iraq. Hence illegal

However, Britain also passed the same resolution! Of Course, Blair is a Complice in the Chimps Illegal War...

The Iraq War was not illeagal because there was no real end to the first Iraq War, which you can't say was illeagal. So the 12 years following the first Iraq War and OIF itself, was an extension of it.


[WIKIPEDIA]Iraq did not use chemical weapons and the allied advance was much swifter than US generals expected. On February 26, Iraqi troops began retreating out of Kuwait, setting fire to Kuwaiti oil fields as they left. A long convoy of retreating Iraqi troops — along with Iraqi and Palestinian civilians — formed along the main Iraq-Kuwait highway. This convoy was bombed so extensively by the Allies that it came to be known as the Highway of Death. One hundred hours after the ground campaign started, President Bush declared a ceasefire and on February 27 declared that Kuwait had been liberated. Journalist Seymour Hersh has charged that, two days after the ceasefire was declared, American troops led by Barry McCaffrey engaged in a systematic massacre of retreating Iraqi troops, in addition to some civilians. McCaffrey has denied the charges and an army investigation has cleared him. (Forbes, Daniel)

A peace conference was held in allied-occupied Iraq. At the conference, Iraq negotiated use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border. Soon after, these helicopters — and much of the Iraqi armed forces — were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support a people's uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. These incidents would later result in no-fly zones in both the North and the South. In Kuwait, the Emir's dictatorship was restored suspected Iraqi collaborators were attacked extra-judicially, especially Palestinians. Eventually, over 400,000 people were expelled from the country.

On March 10, 1991, Operation Desert Farewell began to move 540,000 American troops out of the Persian Gulf. [WIKIPEDIA]


This looks like an end to me. US accorded to leave Saddam in power if he followed the resolutions, wich, he did...

Nope! We were defending ourselves from WMD in the hands of terrorists. Yes there were no wmd in iraq, however according to the IAEA, he had them and we believe that they were moved or buried. Thus we still had legal grounds to go in under UN Resolutions and the violation of the Cease-fire.

Yes, there were no WMD in Iraq, your country had no moral reason to go there, especially with the truck load of information there was that Iraq had no WMD. Now, don't go justify an argument for an action after the action is taken, that is like, I killing you because there is a 0.000001% chance that you might kill someone in the future.

The ones that said that those weapons were either moved or buried where the US goverment officials, dude, no one else.

There was no UN resolution authorizing your country to bomb and/or invade Iraq. Period.

We all know that the UN was corrupt in dealing with Saddam Hussein. Therefore, the UN lost it's credibility in judging Saddam Hussein because they will obviusly take his side on everything.

That resolution did NOT passed in the UN security council, ence the war was illegal according to the UN charter that regulates international relations.

Under Internatal Law, Saddam Hussein Violated the United Nations brokered Cease-Fire. Thus, with this in mind, we went in and kicked Hussein out of power.


Wrong. You need the security council authorization. No such authorization was given. The cease fire agreement, in the eyes of the UN monitoring team led by the now conviniently forgotten Hans Blix was being respect, as no weapons of mass distruction were being found in iraq, and all missiles with illegal range were being dismantled.

There was no UN Cease-Fire team! The cease-fire team was (and this will suprise you) The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! Hans Blix was a Weapons Inspector only! The Cease-fire, according to the UN was violated and we finally had enough of it and took care of it in accordence with the consequences of violating the Cease-fire Agreeement.



The Iraq War was not illeagal because there was no real end to the first Iraq War, which you can't say was illeagal. So the 12 years following the first Iraq War and OIF itself, was an extension of it.

You are mixing things up. The first gulf war objective was to expell Iraq out of Kuwait, end of story. The war ended when that objective was achieved.

Your right that the objective was achieved, however, look at the facts! The Cease-fire agreement specifically required the termination and destruction of all of Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction! His failure to do so to UN Satisfaction ment the war is not over regardless of his leaving Kuwait.

[WIKIPEDIA]Iraq did not use chemical weapons and the allied advance was much swifter than US generals expected. On February 26, Iraqi troops began retreating out of Kuwait, setting fire to Kuwaiti oil fields as they left. A long convoy of retreating Iraqi troops — along with Iraqi and Palestinian civilians — formed along the main Iraq-Kuwait highway. This convoy was bombed so extensively by the Allies that it came to be known as the Highway of Death. One hundred hours after the ground campaign started, President Bush declared a ceasefire and on February 27 declared that Kuwait had been liberated. Journalist Seymour Hersh has charged that, two days after the ceasefire was declared, American troops led by Barry McCaffrey engaged in a systematic massacre of retreating Iraqi troops, in addition to some civilians. McCaffrey has denied the charges and an army investigation has cleared him. (Forbes, Daniel)

A peace conference was held in allied-occupied Iraq. At the conference, Iraq negotiated use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border. Soon after, these helicopters — and much of the Iraqi armed forces — were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support a people's uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. These incidents would later result in no-fly zones in both the North and the South. In Kuwait, the Emir's dictatorship was restored suspected Iraqi collaborators were attacked extra-judicially, especially Palestinians. Eventually, over 400,000 people were expelled from the country.

On March 10, 1991, Operation Desert Farewell began to move 540,000 American troops out of the Persian Gulf. [WIKIPEDIA]


This looks like an end to me. US accorded to leave Saddam in power if he followed the resolutions, wich, he did...
Well, that happened in the Korean War too. But the Korean War is technicly still going on today. And he still had WMDs, as we saw with the gassing of Kurds in the 1990's

The proof that the war didn't end is that after Desert Storm, there were still peacekeepers there.


Newsflash: Peacekeepers cannot be sent to war zones, they are only sent to zones were cease-fire agreements are in place, to make shure that things don't roll back to war, again. If there were peacekeepers there, that is the proof that the war was ended.

We all know that the UN was corrupt .... And we all know that America is the Worlds Beacon of Freedom and Democracy [/sarcasm]

Because of people here not willing to listen to reason or to the evidence at hand regarding Saddam's violation of the Cease-Fire agreement, I have reached the decision that no one is going to change their minds.

The facts of Saddam's constant violations of the ceasefire and of UN Resolutions is grounds for the current war in Iraq. That is the facts of this case.

Newsflash: Peacekeepers cannot be sent to war zones, they are only sent to zones were cease-fire agreements are in place, to make shure that things don't roll back to war, again. If there were peacekeepers there, that is the proof that the war was ended.
And what do you think peacekeepers do? They prevent the war from breaking out again. Thats why they call it a cease-fire line, not a border. When a war ends, there aren't any peacekeepers, because there already is peace.

maybe the answer is more simple ? i remember when the guardian did this voter stunt for the ohio clark county, sensitive people sent abusive messages to guardian's reader mail section. but the summarization of it was this: don't mess with our country. which means people recognize that if country A agrees not to mess with country B's affairs then B automatically will agree not to mess with country A's affairs. if the US agrees that we can access their interior policy like a supermarket then i will of course have no problems if the US wages the same policy against other countries. it's after all just fair.

And we all know that America is the Worlds Beacon of Freedom and Democracy [/sarcasm]
Mabey, but at least we're didn't cut back door deals with Saddam.

Apperantly, it does since we have the power to back it up.

This is the question, this unfair situations only happens because you have lotsa nuclear weapons, if Frace did the same thing there would be americans soldiers there right now.
I still think that the fair act in this case would be the invasion of the US, since you proved to be dangerous to the world, but world war is a big thing and is very probable that would lead to a nuclear holocaust... so, it´s better, for now, leave you thinking you can do whatever you want...

Because of people here not willing to listen to reason or to the evidence at hand regarding Saddam's violation of the Cease-Fire agreement, I have reached the decision that no one is going to change their minds.

The facts of Saddam's constant violations of the ceasefire and of UN Resolutions is grounds for the current war in Iraq. That is the facts of this case.

When saddam broke the cease-fire agreement?

But at least we're didn't cut back door deals with Saddam.
Which deals are we thinking about?

But at least we're didn't cut back door deals with Saddam.we never gave him Chemical weapons either...

Which deals are we thinking about?
Oil for food program. Lots of coroption there. And that may only be the tip of the iceberg.

Not in every other country in the world. Many countries (such as my own) have constitutions that allow war declarations only in self defence, or in defence of an ally.
But hell, if you can declare war on a whim, then you ain't better than lets say.. alqaeda, are you?


1. which country are you from?

2. I know that many countries have that, japan comes to mind.

3. It still does not make the war on iraq "illegal."

4. Al-queda - come on - that is not helping the debate.

Oil for food program. Lots of coroption there. And that may only be the tip of the iceberg.
How is oil for food corrupt? It provided the Iraqi people with humanitarian aid and provided UN backed countries with oil. Not seeing a problem

Mabey, but at least we're didn't cut back door deals with Saddam.
Just Iran. Actually didn't the US comapanies have back door dealings with Iraq? Oh yeah, Halliburton had signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million while Cheney was at the helm, almost forgot about that.

Just Iran. Actually didn't the US comapanies have back door dealings with Iraq? Oh yeah, Halliburton had signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million while Cheney was at the helm, almost forgot about that.
Can you find any proof? And by proof, I mean credible resources.

Just Iran. Actually didn't the US comapanies have back door dealings with Iraq? Oh yeah, Halliburton had signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million while Cheney was at the helm, almost forgot about that.
And which back door deals with Iran are you talking about?

Because of people here not willing to listen to reason or to the evidence at hand regarding Saddam's violation of the Cease-Fire agreement, I have reached the decision that no one is going to change their minds.

The facts of Saddam's constant violations of the ceasefire and of UN Resolutions is grounds for the current war in Iraq. That is the facts of this case.


You have your facts wrong, I'm sorry.

And what do you think peacekeepers do? They prevent the war from breaking out again. Thats why they call it a cease-fire line, not a border.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unikom/index.html
They were there to insure that no border violations occured.

Newsflash: Peacekeepers cannot be sent to war zones, they are only sent to zones were cease-fire agreements are in place, to make shure that things don't roll back to war, again. If there were peacekeepers there, that is the proof that the war was ended.
Technically, a War is not over until a treaty is signed.

Its illegal to go into a country and take the leader off the topspot. The war in Iraq is nothing more than an illegal coup.

Can you find any proof? And by proof, I mean credible resources.

Halliburton's Iraq Deals Greater Than Cheney Has Said
Affiliates Had $73 Million in Contracts
By Colum Lynch
Special to The Washington Post
Saturday, June 23, 2001; Page A01

And which back door deals with Iran are you talking about?
I was referring to the Iran contra scandal which is the best known example of US back door dealings with Iran. But halliburton does business there as well.

Halliburton's Iraq Deals Greater Than Cheney Has Said
Affiliates Had $73 Million in Contracts
By Colum Lynch
Special to The Washington Post
Saturday, June 23, 2001; Page A01
Find a link.

1. which country are you from?

2. I know that many countries have that, japan comes to mind.

3. It still does not make the war on iraq "illegal."

4. Al-queda - come on - that is not helping the debate.


1. Portugal. 80% of the population against the war on Iraq.
2. Ence, i assumed that in the constitution of the US, somethings about declaring war against other countries were stated, perhaps i was naive.
3. In US law (which i won't discuss, for i do not know) perhaps it is not illegal. By international law, it is.
4. Perhaps. "For when fighting a monster, one must be careful not to become the monster. And when you look at the abyss, the abyss looks at you"

I was referring to the Iran contra scandal which is the best known example of US back door dealings with Iran. But halliburton does business there as well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that proven false?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that proven false?
So was the findings of WMD in Iraq

1. Portugal. 80% of the population against the war on Iraq.
2. Ence, i assumed that in the constitution of the US, somethings about declaring war against other countries were stated, perhaps i was naive.
3. In US law (which i won't discuss, for i do not know) perhaps it is not illegal. By international law, it is.
4. Perhaps. "For when fighting a monster, one must be careful not to become the monster. And when you look at the abyss, the abyss looks at you"

I see a key similarity beetween Al Qaeda and the US. Both thinks that their message will be heard by killing people.
Al Qaeda: "We killed you, but it was to show you that you are evil"
US: "We killed you, but it was yo show you that freedom is good"

BTW: Boa noite, deixa eu aproveitar pra escrever confortavelmente por um momento. :)

So was the findings of WMD in Iraq
Not nessicarily. WMDs were used by Saddam on several occasions in the 90's.

Not nessicarily. WMDs were used by Saddam on several occasions in the 90's.
Yes, but by 1998 UNSCOM reported that Iraq had no WMD's

Find a link.
Well the article is 3 years old so you have to pay to veiw it. Here is an excerpt from the article which I got from lexisnexis. Lexisnexis also costs money therefore you get no link. I'm sure if you don't believe me you can go spend the 5 bucks or whatever it costs to buy old washingtonpost articles.

June 23, 2001 Saturday
Final Edition

SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A01

LENGTH: 1771 words

HEADLINE: Firm's Iraq Deals Greater Than Cheney Has Said;
Affiliates Had $73 Million in Contracts

BYLINE: Colum Lynch, Special to The Washington Post

DATELINE: UNITED NATIONS

BODY:


During last year's presidential campaign, Richard B. Cheney acknowledged that the oil-field supply corporation he headed, Halliburton Co., did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries. But he insisted that he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq.

"Iraq's different," he said.

According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, however, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $ 73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company.

How is oil for food corrupt? It provided the Iraqi people with humanitarian aid and provided UN backed countries with oil. Not seeing a problem

Guess you must have been living in a cave forr these past few months to have not heard about this current scandal.

Not nessicarily. WMDs were used by Saddam on several occasions in the 90's.

How about the WMD that the US has? Perhaps the world should force them to dismantle? Hmm? They have, afterall, shown that they're willing to use them (Hiroshima and Nagasake anyone? Heh, I prolly spelled that wrong). And also the Firebombings of Tokyo and several other japanease cities killing tens of thousands of cvilians with no intended -military- target? So why does the States get to say "you're not allowed to have WMDs and we are"? The excuse that they fear they'll use them dosn't fly as I already pointed out.

Hey! China has nukes! Go piss them off and say they can't have em! Oh right! China has such a large army that unlike Iraq it'll crush the states. Forgot about that there for a sec.

Can you find any proof? And by proof, I mean credible resources.

Okay, then give us proof that there were "backdoor deals" with Iraq. Your burden, too.

1. Portugal. You know when They decided to hold the Imperial Summit at Azores...I was under the Impresion that The Portugal Prez was aquired to the Dark side...

Then..at the TV...It was all Blair and Bush...The spanish and Portugese Prez were kinda snubed...At one point Aznar kinda pushed elbowbs to be included in the Photo-op.

What were the reactions of the Peoples of Portugal to all of this...

Guess you must have been living in a cave forr these past few months to have not heard about this current scandal.... Actually i think its more like this...You live in America...And you assume thet the Rest of the World gets the same biased angles at the "News"

Its illegal to go into a country and take the leader off the topspot. The war in Iraq is nothing more than an illegal coup.
I must point out that the military and political leaders are legitmitate targets in any war, and they were especially primary targets in Gulf War II.

In other cases, the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not treaties or anything else. Treaties fall under federal law, and can be repealed with legistlation.

Guess you must have been living in a cave forr these past few months to have not heard about this current scandal.
The scandal was never proven, it was merely alledged by the US. Hang on, isn't that a great reason to go to war?
"Extra, Extra. Iraq govt using food money to buy WMD's"

No proof

Guess you must have been living in a cave forr these past few months to have not heard about this current scandal.

Despite the immense flaws of the programe, with the diversion of oil funds to Saddam himself, what do you wished placed instead of the said program? This program was placed in 97. Before that, he international sanctions placed upon Iraq severely diminuished its capability not only to wage war, yes, but also to do simple things, like treat diseases. UNICEF estimates that over 90000 childreen died per year before 96 due to a shortage of everything to food from medicine, isnt that great? And even after the program was placed, the people of Iraq was still short on food an medicine supplies, as they continue to be now. Again, what do you wished placed instead of the said program?

Okay, then give us proof that there were "backdoor deals" with Iraq. Your burden, too.
did you see my post #120? Everybody was trading with iraq. US, Russia, france, the whole damn planet!

1. Portugal. 80% of the population against the war on Iraq.
2. Ence, i assumed that in the constitution of the US, somethings about declaring war against other countries were stated, perhaps i was naive.
3. In US law (which i won't discuss, for i do not know) perhaps it is not illegal. By international law, it is.
4. Perhaps. "For when fighting a monster, one must be careful not to become the monster. And when you look at the abyss, the abyss looks at you"

Is that some kind of Friedrich Nietzsche point. Becuase as we all know he was a Nazi (j/k and I only say that owing to the total lack of humor on this forum)

And US law does not recognize international law, other than to the extent is is either jus cognens or is a valid treaty obligation.

As the US war power resides solely with the US government, the Iraq war cannot be illegal as per US law.

edit: if memory serves me right the uk and portugal have the longest survivng treaty between them, is that true?

did you see my post #120? Everybody was trading with iraq. US, Russia, france, the whole damn planet!

I know, I wanted him to provide proof of his argument since he was requiring proof of yours.

You know when They decided to hold the Imperial Summit at Azores...I was under the Impresion that The Portugal Prez was aquired to the Dark side...

Then..at the TV...It was all Blair and Bush...The spanish and Portugese Prez were kinda snubed...At one point Aznar kinda pushed elbowbs to be included in the Photo-op.

What were the reactions of the Peoples of Portugal to all of this...


Our goverment supported the intervention, against the wishes of 80% of the population. I study in a right wing university, and i haven't found one single supporter of the war.
Regretfully, we are stuck with this goverment for two more years. Still, according to the polls, they shouldn't win.

You know when They decided to hold the Imperial Summit at Azores...I was under the Impresion that The Portugal Prez was aquired to the Dark side...

Then..at the TV...It was all Blair and Bush...The spanish and Portugese Prez were kinda snubed...At one point Aznar kinda pushed elbowbs to be included in the Photo-op.

What were the reactions of the Peoples of Portugal to all of this...

Where do you live? I mean, Blair and Bush appeared more often in the media here then other presidents. but the focus of the media was really "countries that don´t like the war" (wich, I opposed at the time, even being against the war in Iraq, I hate when the media "chooses a side", specially here, where we don´t have "liberal media" or some fox news. Here, the media claim to be neutral, but are always chosing sides!)

I know, I wanted him to provide proof of his argument since he was requiring proof of yours.
my bad. It gets confusing remembering who is arguing which side sometimes

The scandal was never proven, it was merely alledged by the US. Hang on, isn't that a great reason to go to war?
"Extra, Extra. Iraq govt using food money to buy WMD's"

No proof

Wrong! Its been proven that there IS a scandal involving the Oil for Food program! Guess who is guilty? France and Russia!!!

I must point out that the military and political leaders are legitmitate targets in any war, and they were especially primary targets in Gulf War II.

In other cases, the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not treaties or anything else. Treaties fall under federal law, and can be repealed with legistlation.

You are right in what you say CoreWorlds. To bad the people on here won't see it except those that actually have the facts and know what those facts are.

Because there were no WMDs and you based all of your marketing to the world on that. Colin Powell made a presentation the UN about where Iraqis were hiding these weapons and you've not found one since you stepped foot in Iraq. So now, you justifty it that you were getting rid of Saddam. You don't need 100 000 soldiers to capture and/or kill a leader or overthrow the Iraqi Army. Now you actually need those trops because of the insurgents but before you didn't.
No atomic WMDs, maybe, but germ and biological warfare, which they did have, are also considered types of WMDs. Also, why would Saddam make inspectors wait for 12 hours outside of bases while mysterious trucks left in large fleets before the inspectors would be allowed in? We should always listen to the recommendations of the U.N., but we don't have to concede our military powers to them. Illegal; Koffi Annan can screw off. If it was so illegal, why isn't he doing anything about it? Because the U.N. depends on the United States. We give more money and support to them than any other country. U.N. headquarters is even in New York City. Listen to them, yes, but do exactly what they say? Not always.

Where do you live? I mean, Blair and Bush appeared more often in the media here then other presidents. but the focus of the media was really "countries that don´t like the war" (wich, I opposed at the time, even being against the war in Iraq, I hate when the media "chooses a side", specially here, where we don´t have "liberal media" or some fox news. Here, the media claim to be neutral, but are always chosing sides!)
Do you even know what Summit I am talking about?

Is that some kind of Friedrich Nietzsche point. Becuase as we all know he was a Nazi (j/k and I only say that owing to the total lack of humor on this forum)

And US law does not recognize international law, other than to the extent is is either jus cognens or is a valid treaty obligation.

As the US war power resides solely with the US government, the Iraq war cannot be illegal as per US law.

edit: if memory serves me right the uk and portugal have the longest survivng treaty between them, is that true?


But since the US signed the UN charter, does it not become obliged to obey to the UN charter, that states that a military action against a foreign country must be previously approved by the security council?

About UK and Portugal.. we have an alliance treaty since 1373, never broken since then (If you don't count on us crunching their soccer team as breaking the treaty :D )

Wrong! Its been proven that there IS a scandal involving the Oil for Food program! Guess who is guilty? France and Russia!!!

Actually, individuals were guilty, not the countries. People were profitting when they weren´t supposed to, not their government.

Listen to them, yes, but do exactly what they say? Not always.

Then we just have chaos...

But since the US signed the UN charter, does it not become obliged to obey to the UN charter, that states that a military action against a foreign country must be previously approved by the security council?

Absolutely not. It would fall under federal law, just like all other treaties. The Security Council can pass resolutions saying "no, you can't do that", but if the President is backed by the people and Congress, what can they do? Fine us? Wage war for our disobedience?

Absolutely not. It would fall under federal law, just like all other treaties. The Security Council can pass resolutions saying "no, you can't do that", but if the President is backed by the people and Congress, what can they do? Fine us? Wage war for our disobedience?

Actually that would be right and fair action... the problem is that it would lead to a world war and nuclear holocaust, but, a war against the US would be the right and fair action...

Actually, individuals were guilty, not the countries. People were profitting when they weren´t supposed to, not their government.

However, if you read the deufer (sp?) report, it clearly spells out what the French and Russians were doing IN VIOLATION of sanctions and the Oil For Food Program.

Actually that would be right and fair action... the problem is that it would lead to a world war and nuclear holocaust, but, a war against the US would be the right and fair action...
Sounds like a plot for a nuclear-war movie! :D

Sounds like a plot for a nuclear-war movie! :D

Hey, write hollywood. I'm sure they'll be glad to do it with the US losing it! LOL

But since the US signed the UN charter, does it not become obliged to obey to the UN charter, that states that a military action against a foreign country must be previously approved by the security council?

About UK and Portugal.. we have an alliance treaty since 1373, never broken since then (If you don't count on us crunching their soccer team as breaking the treaty :D )

Yah, but there is always clawbacks.

Again, the US considers itself absolutlety soveriegn, and no amount of treaties can supercede the constitutionally mandated powers that derive from its soveriegnty.

As I said before, I'm not addressing the morality of the war. Only that saying it is "illegal" is a misnomer.

Plus I'm glad that I remembered the UK/Portugal treaty.

Sounds like a plot for a nuclear-war movie! :D
The sum of all fears?

Sounds like a plot for a nuclear-war movie! :D

Yes it does, you understand now how idiotic all this situation is?The whole world trying to evolve and the US holding everyone back by making unrealistic decisions based on "my gun is bigger then yours", I mean, cmon, we can flush 6000 years of learning down the toilet, because mankind returned to the caves where the man with the bigger club do whatever he wants.

Again, the US considers itself absolutlety soveriegn, and no amount of treaties can supercede the constitutionally mandated powers that derive from its soveriegnty.
every country considers itself absolutlety soveriegn, yet they honor their Word.

If they dont...they are considered Pariah Countries.

America does not answer to the UN. We do not need UN permission to fight a war or to do anything. We attack who we want when we want! The only reason we go to the UN is because the war would cost us less money if other countries joined us. And you know America is all about money.

But why should other countries join us in this war? We did not NEED the help. us asking UN for help during the iraq war is like a grown man(USA) asking for help to fight a 10 year old girl(iraq).

We should have just gone in kicked ass with out asking anyone if it was ok.

And to those other countries that have a problem with us attacking our enemies I say, What are you going to do about it?
Answer is, Not a damn thing except hold up your little protest signs.
No war has ever been stopped by protesters.

every country considers itself absolutlety soveriegn, yet they honor their Word.

If they dont...they are considered Pariah Countries.

Pariah != illegal.

No empire has ever lasted forever.

America does not answer to the UN. We do not need UN permission to fight a war or to do anything. We attack who we want when we want! The only reason we go to the UN is because the war would cost us less money if other countries joined us. And you know America is all about money.

But why should other countries join us in this war? We did not NEED the help. us asking UN for help during the iraq war is like a grown man(USA) asking for help to fight a 10 year old girl(iraq).

We should have just gone in kicked ass with out asking anyone if it was ok.

And to those other countries that have a problem with us attacking our enemies I say, What are you going to do about it?
Answer is, Not a damn thing except hold up your little protest signs.
No war has ever been stopped by protesters.


To be fair Clon, the Vietnam war was stopped by protestors.

No empire has ever lasted forever.

Yes, in particular the third reich.

Now, your input here is not welcome.

America does not answer to the UN. We do not need UN permission to fight a war or to do anything. We attack who we want when we want! The only reason we go to the UN is because the war would cost us less money if other countries joined us. And you know America is all about money.

But why should other countries join us in this war? We did not NEED the help. us asking UN for help during the iraq war is like a grown man(USA) asking for help to fight a 10 year old girl(iraq).

We should have just gone in kicked ass with out asking anyone if it was ok.

And to those other countries that have a problem with us attacking our enemies I say, What are you going to do about it?
Answer is, Not a damn thing except hold up your little protest signs.
No war has ever been stopped by protesters.

Repeating myself: World is trying to evolve and the US is holding everyone back.

Then we just have chaos...

No we have freedom. And America will not back down from a fight just because the UN says to.
And the reason the UN did not want Iraq invaded was because they where making billions from the food for oil program. The UN received a small % of the money that was giving to Iraq for "administration fees"

No empire has ever lasted forever.

That had less than nothing to do with the actual debate here.

Actually the US profited from the oil for food program just as much as all the others in it.

That had less than nothing to do with the actual debate here.
It was a response to Clontopia's imperialistic worldview that the US can do what they want without any consequences.

No we have freedom. And America will not back down from a fight just because the UN says to.
And the reason the UN did not want Iraq invaded was because they where making billions from the food for oil program. The UN received a small % of the money that was giving to Iraq for "administration fees"

So freedom = doing whatever you want because you hold the bigger gun?

Because the UN told them not to

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's quite possibly the silliest thing I've ever heard.

To answer your question, Sblargh, freedom is using the big gun to do what is right, instead of just waving it around.

Repeating myself: World is trying to evolve and the US is holding everyone back.

lol what a stupid thing for you to say.
The rest of the world can not even feed itself!!
And how was Iraq evolving? Be mudering and raping its own people?
By feed soldiers whild childrens starved, oh wait that is north korea.
by gasing their own people. How many mass graves did our soldiers find in Iraq? A hell of a lot.

Absolutely not. It would fall under federal law, just like all other treaties. The Security Council can pass resolutions saying "no, you can't do that", but if the President is backed by the people and Congress, what can they do? Fine us? Wage war for our disobedience?

They could bring a case in the International Court of Justice. By the way the US is on the Security Council so why would the US pass something than not follow it? That wouldn't make any sense. But yeah if the US wants to violate international law nobody can physically stop it. But the debate is over legality.

So freedom = doing whatever you want because you hold the bigger gun?

no but if you do not have the big gun AND use it some one will take your freedom away. As soon as you stop fighting for freedom you lose it

It was a response to Clontopia's imperialistic worldview that the US can do what they want without any consequences.

So fighting for freedom is now Imperialistic. you poeple crack me up. Just face the fact that the US does not answer to the UN never had and never will. And no one can make us. There is nothing Imerialistic about that. In fact the view that we should do what ever the UN tells us sounds Imperialistic to me.

Actually the US profited from the oil for food program just as much as all the others in it.

And we where willing to give up that profit in order to help spread freedom where as the UN would have the Iraqi people living in poverty just so the UN could make money.

No empire has ever lasted forever.

Got deleted and came back as a new one! Welcome back! And your right no empire lasts forever but the US IS NOT AN EMPIRE!!!!

They could bring a case in the International Court of Justice. By the way the US is on the Security Council so why would the US pass something than not follow it? That wouldn't make any sense. But yeah if the US wants to violate international law nobody can physically stop it. But the debate is over legality.

But there is a problem with that! Well two!

1) We don't recognize the ICC!

2) It is non-binding!

Thanks for playing

lol what a stupid thing for you to say.
The rest of the world can not even feed itself!!
And how was Iraq evolving? Be mudering and raping its own people?
By feed soldiers whild childrens starved, oh wait that is north korea.
by gasing their own people. How many mass graves did our soldiers find in Iraq? A hell of a lot.

Of course not, but things were getting "fixed" in time, this kind of brutality, unfortunatly, is part of their culture, it is horrible to look at it from here, but most iraqis tought it was right for the government to act that way, the world hated the fact that you re-elected bush, but this is part of your culture, we complain a lot, but we don´t kill americans for re-electing bush, that kind of stuff is only done by terrorists like Al Qaeda and the world is trying to get rid of this terrorist way of thinking "we don´t like, we kill", so, all over the world, there is peacekeepers and, even in countries where the human rights are abbused, is taken in consideration how the people inside the country feels about it, politics are complicated, you can´t just kill someone who you don´t agree.
It´s the way of thinking that is the bigger problem, peace is achivied when people wants peace and you simply don´t... but, like someone said, no empire lasts forever, you saw a small demonstration of this at 9/11, yet, you continue to think you rule the world. One day a big nation will be pissed (like China or even North Korea) and then there we go again to another world war and UN job is to prevent another world war to happen, but, to prevent this, you have to accept other cultures "flaws", yet, americans don´t, so, all that was build during the 50s, 60s and 70s is falling and the world is gets more dangerous every time bush opens his mouth...
Sorry if I, in any way, offended, it´s just my point of view. You can either respect it (while disagreeing) or act like an american and kill me.

Got deleted and came back as a new one! Welcome back! And your right no empire lasts forever but the US IS NOT AN EMPIRE!!!!
No we just have military bases in practically every country in the world and exploit lesser countries for cheap labor and natural resources.

All I am asking for is a non-rebuttable assertion that the war was "illegal."

If no-one comes up with one soon I am going to ask the mods to lock this thread.

No we just have military bases in practically every country in the world and exploit lesser countries for cheap labor and natural resources.

As for military bases, we have treaties that allow us to have them there.

All I am asking for is a non-rebuttable assertion that the war was "illegal."

If no-one comes up with one soon I am going to ask the mods to lock this thread.

Might as well do this because no one has come up with one.

But there is a problem with that! Well two!

1) We don't recognize the ICC!

2) It is non-binding!

Thanks for playing

Nice try law-wizard I was talking about the International court of justice not the International Criminal Court. The ICJ is the propper forum to adress grievances commited by signatories to the UN charter. OF course we don't have to follow it since nobody can really stop the US (unless they want a nuclear war) but the court ruled against the US for mining nicaragua's harbors in the 1980s-- we didn't do shit but it does rule on international law.

But there is a problem with that! Well two!

1) We don't recognize the ICC!

2) It is non-binding!

Thanks for playing

But this is exactly the problem!
Putting it simple.

Recognizing the ICC = Legal
Don´t recognizing the ICC = Illegal

Again, go outside your house, kill the first people you see, when a policeman comes to arrest you, you say "I don´t recognize your laws" and he would just say "oh, well, if that´s so, then I cannot arrest you, sorry" and walk away.

Nice try law-wizard I was talking about the International court of justice not the International Criminal Court. The ICJ is the propper forum to adress grievances commited by signatories to the UN charter. OF course we don't have to follow it since nobody can really stop the US (unless they want a nuclear war) but the court ruled against the US for mining nicaragua's harbors in the 1980s-- we didn't do shit but it does rule on international law.

We don't recognize that court either! Thanks for playing!

But this is exactly the problem!
Putting it simple.

Recognizing the ICC = Legal
Don´t recognizing the ICC = Illegal

Hmmm nope since we never signed on to that TREATY!! Thus we don't recognize it! Get the picture?

We don't recognize that court either! Thanks for playing!

You agree that you acted against UN resolutions?

You agree that you acted against UN resolutions?

Iraq did and we all know it

Iraq did and we all know it

I´m asking about US

I´m asking about US

If we did, nothing was done about it!

However, I'm not 100% sure we did or did not. I'm sure some companies did and they are being found out as we speak and are getting punished for it in accordence with US law.

UN is rubbish. It would take them years before they can finally decide on something.

And of course UN wouldn't allow US to go to war, because all the US has is only 1 vote.

Nice try law-wizard I was talking about the International court of justice not the International Criminal Court. The ICJ is the propper forum to adress grievances commited by signatories to the UN charter. OF course we don't have to follow it since nobody can really stop the US (unless they want a nuclear war) but the court ruled against the US for mining nicaragua's harbors in the 1980s-- we didn't do shit but it does rule on international law.


Yah, but the US doesn't recognize that either.

If you want to say we broke international law (the US that is), you need one of our federal courts to say so. They haven't yet.

If we did, nothing was done about it!

However, I'm not 100% sure we did or did not. I'm sure some companies did and they are being found out as we speak and are getting punished for it in accordence with US law.

Ok, I am trying to do this step by step.
Now, the thing is, UN said "no" and US did it anyway, that means that you acted against a UN resolution.
Now, I´m not asking if this applies to US or not, all I´m asking is:
Who makes the International Laws?

... Actually i think its more like this...You live in America...And you assume thet the Rest of the World gets the same biased angles at the "News"

There really isnt any doubt about the oil for food scandal exists, one of the many questions remaining is to whether the UN was simply imcompetant or whether it knowingly participated. Whether sign of corruption were not seen or whether they were intentionally ignored.

Ok, I am trying to do this step by step.
Now, the thing is, UN said "no" and US did it anyway, that means that you acted against a UN resolution.
Now, I´m not asking if this applies to US or not, all I´m asking is:
Who makes the International Laws?

However, if you read the Cease-fire agreement that Hussein signed, Saddam was in violation of it but yet the UN did nothing. So the UN actually went back on the cease-fire by doing nothing. US in 2003, had enough of Hussein's constent violations and used Past resolutions as well as the cease-fire to justify Iraq.

All I am asking for is a non-rebuttable assertion that the war was "illegal."

If no-one comes up with one soon I am going to ask the mods to lock this thread.

Just admit that no answer would have convinced you that you were wrong, and have them lock the thread now. Because it's just devolved into a metaphorical butting of heads between people who are equally thick-skulled and will not change their opinions no matter what.

However, if you read the Cease-fire agreement that Hussein signed, Saddam was in violation of it but yet the UN did nothing. So the UN actually went back on the cease-fire by doing nothing. US in 2003, had enough of Hussein's constent violations and used Past resolutions as well as the cease-fire to justify Iraq.

Prove it, please, as I did a quick search, but did not found where it says that Saddam broke the Cease-fire agreement.
And, please, answer my question.

Despite the immense flaws of the programe, with the diversion of oil funds to Saddam himself, what do you wished placed instead of the said program? This program was placed in 97. Before that, he international sanctions placed upon Iraq severely diminuished its capability not only to wage war, yes, but also to do simple things, like treat diseases. UNICEF estimates that over 90000 childreen died per year before 96 due to a shortage of everything to food from medicine, isnt that great? And even after the program was placed, the people of Iraq was still short on food an medicine supplies, as they continue to be now. Again, what do you wished placed instead of the said program?

What I would like is that the institution that received $2 billion in fees actually do its job and ensure that the program is run properly.

While it bothers me that Saddam was able to set up a slush fund, it bothers me more than because of the UNs behavior Saddam was able to buy spoiled food and expired medicine for his people.

There are 2 claims to be made about the legality of the war.

The first rests upon a distinction between preemptive war and preventative war. Preemptive war includes such actions as those taken by Israel to knock out Iraqi nuclear production in the 1980s, or any other strike made by a power who would be on the offensive in an impending, irreversible war. Preventative war seeks to destroy a possible rival or military power before it can become such. The difference is like that between facing Hercules in a battle he started and trying to get in the first strike, and sending a snake to kill him in his crib. Preemptive war is legal under international law; preventative war is not.

The argument for this is indistinct. While Saddam did, according to the United States' intelligence, possess an arsenal of WMD, this does not necessarily make him a target for preemptive war. What had to be demonstrated was a long-running and continuing active animosity, as well as the ability to deliver such a payload in such a way as would constitute an act of war. So, under this argument, things such as support for terrorists would not be just cause for preemptive war. Giving weapons to terrorists under the assumption that they were to be used against the US would also not be a cause for preemptive war, because they would not be attacking the group that was about to attack them. Complicated, yes, but if you want to attack someone preemptively and have it be justified by international law, then you must prove that this attack will stave off an imminent attack by that nation. So attacking Saddam wouldn't do much if Osama already had the weapons.

The second is the one that has been expounded upon before me: that the UN must approve wars. In fact, the UN has no purview over wars, only their peaceful resolution. To say that we could not be justified in going to war agains the UN's resolutions is to rule out at least 5 countries from ever being attacked. It simply doesn't make sense, and oversteps the bounds of the UN into the realm of sovereignty reserved for the states specifically since 1648.

Prove it, please, as I did a quick search, but did not found where it says that Saddam broke the Cease-fire agreement.
And, please, answer my question.

And you never will but it actually is a known fact. Hussein never DISMANTLED his WMD Program. That was part of the Cease-fire agreement and he did not according to the latest report regarding this. I'll have to think of the others because right now, I"m drawing a blank on the other ones.

There are 2 claims to be made about the legality of the war.

The first rests upon a distinction between preemptive war and preventative war. Preemptive war includes such actions as those taken by Israel to knock out Iraqi nuclear production in the 1980s, or any other strike made by a power who would be on the offensive in an impending, irreversible war. Preventative war seeks to destroy a possible rival or military power before it can become such. The difference is like that between facing Hercules in a battle he started and trying to get in the first strike, and sending a snake to kill him in his crib. Preemptive war is legal under international law; preventative war is not.

The argument for this is indistinct. While Saddam did, according to the United States' intelligence, possess an arsenal of WMD, this does not necessarily make him a target for preemptive war. What had to be demonstrated was a long-running and continuing active animosity, as well as the ability to deliver such a payload in such a way as would constitute an act of war. So, under this argument, things such as support for terrorists would not be just cause for preemptive war. Giving weapons to terrorists under the assumption that they were to be used against the US would also not be a cause for preemptive war, because they would not be attacking the group that was about to attack them. Complicated, yes, but if you want to attack someone preemptively and have it be justified by international law, then you must prove that this attack will stave off an imminent attack by that nation. So attacking Saddam wouldn't do much if Osama already had the weapons.

The second is the one that has been expounded upon before me: that the UN must approve wars. In fact, the UN has no purview over wars, only their peaceful resolution. To say that we could not be justified in going to war agains the UN's resolutions is to rule out at least 5 countries from ever being attacked. It simply doesn't make sense, and oversteps the bounds of the UN into the realm of sovereignty reserved for the states specifically since 1648.

Interesting, some of these things abou the second topic I wasn´t aware, but, if this is true, means anyone can attack any other one at any time and not be punished? What is the deal with having an international law if someone can just go and break it?

Interesting, some of these things abou the second topic I wasn´t aware, but, if this is true, means anyone can attack any other one at any time and not be punished? What is the deal with having an international law if someone can just go and break it?

Very good question! Why don't you ask the UN?

And you never will but it actually is a known fact. Hussein never DISMANTLED his WMD Program. That was part of the Cease-fire agreement and he did not according to the latest report regarding this. I'll have to think of the others because right now, I"m drawing a blank on the other ones.

Get your facts right please "no one proved, but it is a known fact" is not... ehrm... proof...

Get your facts right please "no one proved, but it is a known fact" is not... ehrm... proof...

Actually it is a known fact otherwise, why would Iraq have had 17 UN Resolutions, all stating that he was in violation of previous resolutions which the Cease-fire was a resolution since they approved of it?

Interesting, some of these things abou the second topic I wasn´t aware, but, if this is true, means anyone can attack any other one at any time and not be punished? What is the deal with having an international law if someone can just go and break it?


Yes. You've got it, anyone can attack anyone else; whenever they want.

They can be punished however, by other nations if they choose to do so.

Biafra anyone.

UN = teh sux

Very good question! Why don't you ask the UN?

Wich, still, don´t give you the right to go and attack someone at your own will. The fact that UN does not do his job right, don´t give the US the right to go and kill people, this the kind of thinking that the Klux Klu Klan have. "oh, the justice don´t do a thing about those damn niggers, so we will just have to do the work ourselves"

There really isnt any doubt about the oil for food....this is what i mean:

....This oil-for-food was treated by the World media like an side Allegation....Page six...

In America it was Page-1-coverage....Repeated over and over CNN/AP/FOX etc.

On the other hand The Spybuggin at the UN top offices was minimized by the American Media...while at the World Media It was given page1 subtitles...

there is hundreds of examples like this

All in all....im sad to say we are less informed that the Europeans, Asians , etc

At the end of the day...Millions of Americans Think that Saddam did 9-11...Millions think that we found some kind of WMD "labs" or something...Millions Do not have a clue that it is us who gave him the WMD in the first place....

Some europeans say we are Ignorant...and if we do not double check our feeded "news"...we are more than Ignorant....we are stupid.

Yes. You've got it, anyone can attack anyone else; whenever they want.

They can be punished however, by other nations if they choose to do so.

Biafra anyone.

UN = teh sux

It´s true, I never respected the UN, as it always been US´s bitch, but this is horrible, I mean, you can´t just go into an country killing people for no reason. And you had no reason because Saddam was proved to be inocent of everything you accused him.
The fact you people seems to be holding is that "Saddam is a criminal, the UN did nothing, so we had to do it", but, the fact is, this fact is just wrong, he was proved inocent...
And say that "they can be punished however, by other nations if they choose to do so." means that at any moment a world war can happen, you know? A attacks B, C disagrees, attacks A, D gets Pissed, attacks A, then E gets pissed attacks B,C and D... well, get it? The reason of an organization like UN is to prevent people from attacking each other for no reason but bloodlust, now, if the UN has no power to stop it, then I would be preparing to fight against China real soon...

this is what i mean:

....This oil-for-food was treated by the World media like an side Allegation....Page six...

In America it was Page 1...Repeated CNN/AP coverage.

On the other hand The Spybuggin at the UN top offices was minimized by the American Media...while at the World Media It was given page1 subtitles...

there si hundreds of examples like this

All in all....im sad to say we are less informed that the Europeans, Asians , etc

At the end of the day...Millions of Americans Think that Saddam did 9-11...Millions think that we found some kind of WMD "labs" or something...Millions Do not have a clue that it is us who gave him the WMD in the first place....

Some europeans say we are Ignorant...and if we do not double check our feeded "news"...we are more than Ignorant....we are stupid.

In the end the world spins around economy, wich is a pain, but we can live with it, the problem is when a genocide happens "in the name of freedom".
Wich crime is worst? Stealing money from the food for oil program or mass murdering humans for political distraction?

It´s true, I never respected the UN, as it always been US´s bitch, but this is horrible, I mean, you can´t just go into an country killing people for no reason. And you had no reason because Saddam was proved to be inocent of everything you accused him.
The fact you people seems to be holding is that "Saddam is a criminal, the UN did nothing, so we had to do it", but, the fact is, this fact is just wrong, he was proved inocent...Saddam was not Inocent, he was A Dictator...

But while it was Washington's Puppet...His sins were .no-big-deal....

When he turned his back to Washington...He was demonized for the very same sins. His sons were killed and his fate sealed.

It´s true, I never respected the UN, as it always been US´s bitch, but this is horrible, I mean, you can´t just go into an country killing people for no reason. And you had no reason because Saddam was proved to be inocent of everything you accused him.
The fact you people seems to be holding is that "Saddam is a criminal, the UN did nothing, so we had to do it", but, the fact is, this fact is just wrong, he was proved inocent...

Read the whole thread.

As I said before, I am not addressing the morality of the Iraq thing. I've said this at least twice now - and Im not going back to count so don't post a different number.

My point is that calling it "illegal" is a misnomer.

Saddam was not Inoccent he was A Dictator...

But while it was Washington's Puppet...His sins were .no-big-deal....

When he stopped taking orders from Washington...He was demonized for the very same sins.

This yes, but then again, there are worse dictators, but the accusation wasn´t this, as, his disrespect to human rights were considered at "acceptable levels", now, all the other stuff, he, yes, was innocent, as he had no weapons of mass destruction or any contact to Al Qaeda...

This yes, but then again, there are worse dictators, but the accusation wasn´t this, as, his disrespect to human rights were considered at "acceptable levels", now, all the other stuff, he, yes, was innocent, as he had no weapons of mass destruction or any contact to Al Qaeda...

This is incorrect. He had contacts with Al Qaeda, just no relationship with them.

Actually the US profited from the oil for food program just as much as all the others in it.
Actually, the actual figures showed US firms with a total of between 2 and 300 million dollars, while countries such as France, Germany, and Russia were involved to the tune of 2 to 5 billion.

Yes. You've got it, anyone can attack anyone else; whenever they want....."illegal" is a misnomer.

riiigh...killing People in another Country is not Illegal...

Brazil Soldiers can go and Burn houses in Paraguay.....Chinese Soldiers can rampage cities in mozanbique....Honduras tanks can run wild in Iceland...

FREE FOR ALL....Living la vida loca !!!

Damn at this rate some locos are going to Fly an Airplane in NewYork...

riiigh...killing People in another Country is not Illegal...

Brazil Soldiers can go and Burn houses in Paraguay.....Chinese Soldiers can rampage cities in mozanbique....Honduras tanks can run wild in Iceland...

FREE FOR ALL....Living la vida loca !!!

Damn at this rate some locos are going to Fly an Airplane in NewYork...


Yes. The US can legally kill people once it invokes its war power. Also the death penalty is legal too. Planes into buildings however != legal, for obvious reasons.

Ok, I'm seeing a lot of "Nuh-uh"ing and "Yuh-huh"ing going on, so I'm going to try to get things straight on the topic and put things in perspective.

ESTABLISHED FACT
-Saddam was in fact found in violation of international law, which it had agreed to participate in, by making things difficult for weapons inspectors.

-The United States was in fact found in violation of international law, which it had agreed to participate in, by attacking Iraq for (the main reasons being) 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', connections with Al Qaeda, and violating international law. (both of which, in my opinion were sketchy in the first place even before they were discredited. But that's not directly relevant to the topic.)

-The US Government has been forced to admit statements that there is no evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, and that there is no evidence of WMD's, so only the claim of violating UN Law remains as a solid reason. (Sorry, taking a dictator out of power doesn't count. There were many, many worse ones out there anyway.)

-The Constitution defines signed treaties as "supreme law" in the US, therefore violating UN international law is violating US Law, whether federal or constitutional. Treaties have been backed out of before, so it's likely that a legal provision for that lies within our laws somewhere as well.

There. If we repealed that decision, than the war is therefore legal by our standards, though we might finally solidify ourselves as a rogue state. If we did not repeal it, two crimes only make two criminals. BUT, if we did repeal it and thus no longer participate in UN affairs, what justification do we have to attack the country in the first place? I can't say for sure, but there's gotta be something in our laws somewhere that makes warring without cause against the law. This IS America after all, we're supposed to be better than that. So, even if we aren't bound by international law, we're violating our own. I'm tired right now, but this seems pretty airtight to me. Am I wrong? I hope this is helpful, DeaconDave.

-The Constitution defines signed treaties as "supreme law" in the US, therefore violating UN international law is violating US Law, whether federal or constitutional. Treaties have been backed out of before, so it's likely that a legal provision for that lies within our laws somewhere as well.

There. If we repealed that decision, than the war is therefore legal by our standards, though we might finally solidify ourselves as a rogue state. If we did not repeal it, two crimes only make two criminals. BUT, if we did repeal it and thus no longer participate in UN affairs, what justification do we have to attack the country in the first place? I can't say for sure, but there's gotta be something in our laws somewhere that makes warring without cause against the law. This IS America after all, we're supposed to be better than that. So, even if we aren't bound by international law, we're violating our own. I'm tired right now, but this seems pretty airtight to me. Am I wrong? I hope this is helpful, DeaconDave.


I add the following observation. The US recently abandoned the ABM treaty and did so without recourse to Article V. Therefore treaties != constitutional amendment.

Thus, under the implied powers doctorine, the war was legal.

I add the following observation. The US recently abandoned the ABM treaty and did so without recourse to Article V. Therefore treaties != constitutional amendment.

Thus, under the implied powers doctorine, the war was legal.

No, under the implied powers doctrine, the war was not illegal. If you're not adhering to international law, then declaring war on another nation is neither legal or illegal, it just is.

It's not. It's just not UN condonned. There's really no legal framework ruling when countries can go to war or not. However, having the UN support your case gives it a sense of legitimacy and rightfulness.

Theoretically, without UN support the agressor (the US) is unjustified in its action and other countries can legitimately ask for sanctions or military action to make that country stop. But since no one is going to do that against the US the point is simply academic.

Now, of course, is the US war justified and the war on Iraq reasonable?

There's really no legal framework ruling when countries can go to war or not.

This is not true. Actually there is an extremely detailed system of international laws. http://august1.com/pubs/dict/index.shtml
Then there is the International Criminal Court. The US wont join because if they did they would be tried on a number of counts. http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html&l=en
There was a precursur to this that we were a part of and the US has been tried on many times. http://www.icj-cij.org/

It's not. It's just not UN condonned. There's really no legal framework ruling when countries can go to war or not. However, having the UN support your case gives it a sense of legitimacy and rightfulness.

Theoretically, without UN support the agressor (the US) is unjustified in its action and other countries can legitimately ask for sanctions or military action to make that country stop. But since no one is going to do that against the US the point is simply academic.

Now, of course, is the US war justified and the war on Iraq reasonable?

And they wont either because the US would veto any such resolution. If not us, then the Brits will.

Ok, not reading the last two pages - DeaconDave, you have said several times that treaties are only Federal law, and not the Supreme law of the land - that's incorrect.

As Article VI, Clause II clearly states, they are the supreme law of the land.


Article. VI.

Clause 1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

Clause 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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Source: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

As it quite clearly says, treaties do become the supreme Law of the land. Even Articles of the U.S. Constitution can be repealled - it's been done before. The ability to repeal a law does not affect it's status as "supreme Law of the land" nonetheleast, so your arguement is moot.

Ok, not reading the last two pages - DeaconDave, you have said several times that treaties are only Federal law, and not the Supreme law of the land - that's incorrect.

As Article VI, Clause II clearly states, they are the supreme law of the land.



As it quite clearly says, treaties do become the supreme Law of the land. Even Articles of the U.S. Constitution can be repealled - it's been done before. The ability to repeal a law does not affect it's status as "supreme Law of the land" nonetheleast, so your arguement is moot.


Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

So that's all rubbish then is it. If you want to amend the UScon, you can just do it with a treaty.

Go ahead, you will literally be laughed out of court.

Read the whole thing next time.

There's really no legal framework ruling when countries can go to war or not.

This is not true. Actually there is an extremely detailed system of international laws. http://august1.com/pubs/dict/index.shtml
Then there is the International Criminal Court. The US wont join because if they did they would be tried on a number of counts. http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html&l=en
There was a precursur to this that we were a part of and the US has been tried on many times. http://www.icj-cij.org/
Good site actually. The USA have been found guilty of various breaches - most notably violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and other laws. Never has the USA complied with rulings of the ICJ.

Ok, so the war in Iraq is legal in the US law, but illegal in international law o.o

:fluffle:

No, really explain it.

This is one of the weakest arguments of the anti-war lobby. I cannot speak against whether it is immoral or unjust as that is not my place but on the legailty of the act there is a slightly more definite answer.

After the 1991 Gulf War, the allied force that defeated it was reserved with the legal right to take military action in Iraq if a) Iraq did not cease producing or stockpiling WMDs b) Iraq did not surrender all of its WMDs to the UN for destruction c) Iraq tried to revitalise its WMD programme d) prevented or tried to prevent the UN from searching for or destroying these weapons d) Iraq aggressively attacked any of its neighbours again.

Despite what the anti-war lobby say, the UN did not have to legally pass the notorious 2nd Motion to legalise war in Iraq.

The main debate on the legality of the war is of course on whether Iraq was doing any of these things, which it is not up to me to say. If it was doing any of these things though, the US and UK acted legally, if Iraq wasn't doing any of these then it was an illegal act.

In my opinion, on the information I have, war could be legally justified as Saddam was not co-operating fully with the UN (as Hans Blix himself said) and Saddam did previously have WMDs and could not account for the location of all of these and he did want WMDs back.

Again however, whether that makes the war just or moral, is not my place to say.

Firstly the US, Australia, the UK, Spain Poland and all the other coalition members agreed to the following as matters of principle:



to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained,


The various members are obliged to respect the sovereignty of the nation state and to uphold international law. Breach of this treaty is itself a breach of international law.

Members of the coalition used the basis that Sadam has weapons of mass destruction, the capability to produce more and the will and opportunity to deploy them against his enemies. This is true also of the USA, as well as several other countries. If the war in Iraq is legal, then an invasion of the USA by an international coalition is also perfectly legal.

Pre-emptive strikes are only permitted under the UN treaties in the face of imminent invasion. t hat did not apply to this war. There was not even any evidence to prove Sadam had the weapons, as weapons inspectors had found nothing.

The focus has now been shifted and the claim made that the war was worth fighting to remove Sadam. If regime change on the whim of a nation is an acceptable cause for war then it can be applied indiscriminately. Europe can invade America because we think George W. Needs to be removed from power. He has killed huge numbers of his own people (as governor of Texas), threatens his neighbours (Cuba), has no respect for human rights (Guantanamo Bay).

Neither of these reasons is legal. Changing a countries government because you don't like it is not legal, neither is making up some vague horror story about chemical weapons without any evidence.

The government of the United States has agreed to uphold and be bound by international law; hence the war is illegal.

So that's all rubbish then is it. If you want to amend the UScon, you can just do it with a treaty.

DeaconDave, you appear not to understand the diference between a Constitution and a Law.

If you do something against the Constitution, you are doing something illegal.

If you do something against a Law, you are *also* doing something illegal.

No one ever got off in court by saying "sure, I did it, but it's not banned in the constitution! only in the laws!"

The difference is of course that laws can be amended or repealed more easily than clauses of the Constitution. In particular, the judiciary can strike down a law if it is deemed to conflict with the constitution.

That brings us to treaties, the basis of international law.

A treaty is essentially a contract between governments. National laws on how treaties interact with the law/constitution vary. Fortunately, however, the US is very clear on this: as has been pointed out again and again on this thread, a treaty signed and ratified has the same status as a law originating in, and passed by, the domestic legislature (Congress).

In short, if the US gov signs and ratifies a treaty, it is as binding on them as any Act passed by Congress. (of course, the judiciary can still strike it down if it conflicts with the constitution, yadda yadda).

Of course, they can drop out of the treaty later if they wish. Just as the legislature can repeal Acts and Laws. (But not the constitution itself, of course; changing that is rightly much harder.)

Or, to spell it out:

The US consitution says that the US government has to follow the treaties it signs and ratifies, or it is breaking the law.

If the US signs and ratifies a treaty saying they will not do X, then constitutionally, doing X is illegal. Note that this does not mean that the treaty is suddenly part of the constitution - as you seem to suggest - but it does mean that the treaty is part of the Law. Like an Act passed by Congress.

Therefore, ACCORDING TO THE US CONSTITUTION, to break the UN treaties on when war is allowed and when it isn't - treaties the US has signed and ratified - is illegal by domestic US law.

This is accepted by everyone, including the Bush admin.

The question, then, is whether Bush's actions in Iraq were illegal according to the relevent UN treaties (and hence domestic US law). The Bush admin claims that it was legal according to the UN treaties. Some other nations, notably France, claim it was not.

This depends on how you interpret those treaties and how you read various UNSC resolutions. This is the REAL point of contention - not the question of whether treaties are binding on the US (as demonstrated above, everyone, including Bush, agrees they are).

So then: For a war to be legal in the eyes of the UN, it has to be permitted by a UNSC resolution allowing the country starting the war to use "any means necessary" to solve a particular problem. (Those exact words: they are UN legal code for military action.)

Bush couldn't get the UNSC to give him such a resolution, despite much effort. So he had to argue that Saddam was in violation of the Iraq War 1 peace treaty (and associated UNSC resolutions) and that this made war legal. How good that argument is, is a question for the lawyers.

But note that even the Bush admin had to find *some* justification in the UNSC resolutions for the war being legal. They did not, at any point, declare that they were simply ignoring and going against the UN treaties that the US had signed and ratified. Indeed, they claimed to be *upholding those treaties* by their invasion of Iraq.

And remember that Bush tried his damnedest (mostly at Blair's urging, apparently) to get a new UNSC resolution authorising "any means necessary" against Saddam. So even he recognised that if he could get such a resolution, the case for legality would be watertight. As opposed to the somewhat leakier case he ended up using in the actual event.

Actually, the Iraq War was technically unconstitutional. We signed and ratified the UN charter, which means that, according to Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution, it became the "supreme law of the land." So when we violated the UN charter, we violated our own law.

Agreed.

This is one of the weakest arguments of the anti-war lobby. I cannot speak against whether it is immoral or unjust as that is not my place but on the legailty of the act there is a slightly more definite answer.

After the 1991 Gulf War, the allied force that defeated it was reserved with the legal right to take military action in Iraq if a) Iraq did not cease producing or stockpiling WMDs b) Iraq did not surrender all of its WMDs to the UN for destruction c) Iraq tried to revitalise its WMD programme d) prevented or tried to prevent the UN from searching for or destroying these weapons d) Iraq aggressively attacked any of its neighbours again.

Despite what the anti-war lobby say, the UN did not have to legally pass the notorious 2nd Motion to legalise war in Iraq.

The main debate on the legality of the war is of course on whether Iraq was doing any of these things, which it is not up to me to say. If it was doing any of these things though, the US and UK acted legally, if Iraq wasn't doing any of these then it was an illegal act.

In my opinion, on the information I have, war could be legally justified as Saddam was not co-operating fully with the UN (as Hans Blix himself said) and Saddam did previously have WMDs and could not account for the location of all of these and he did want WMDs back.

Again however, whether that makes the war just or moral, is not my place to say.
Your argument fails on the grounds of the wording of UN Resolution 1441. That Resolution mentions all previous Resolutions and is ultimately superior. Try reading Resolution 1441 and you will notice that the US justification for an invasion was non existent.

http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-08UNResolution1441.asp

Also the post by Chthonaiya is quite explicit in dealing with the domestic legalities.

There has not been a Congressional declaration of war since WWII.

Yes and therefore, the Korean War, Vietnam War, The Bay of Pigs invasion, Grenada, Operation Just (be)Cause, Desert Storm, Clinton's wars and whatever else I'm forgetting where all blatantly unconstitutional.

To answer your question, Sblargh, freedom is using the big gun to do what is right, instead of just waving it around.

Sounds to me like using the big gun to -make- your side right. So you're saying that if Hitler had more powerful weapon and a bigger army and such and crushed the Allies, he would be right? All 'the bigger gub' thing is is muscle flexing. Yeah, the US is powerful so they feel they can whatever they want.

As to the who whole thing about the US war being 'illegal', maybe it is, maybe it isn't. You can dance around legal terms and laws all you want, but laws and legalities are so full of loopholes and crud that just about anything can be rationalized by the 'law'. 'legal' and 'illegal' don't always represent right and wrong. The US entered into the UN agreeing to it's rules. Just as a person living in a country under it's laws agrees to obey them (Please don't go into laws and 'soverignty' and crud. Words and litigation mean noting to the moral point of it).

Then what? When the rules didn't suit them they back out and sat screw you guy! We're doing what we want anyway cause we're soverign? Riight. Were I to go murder someone and try to claim that laws have no hold on me cause my life is my own to live and answer to no one, I think the world would view it far different. And like I said, put legal stuff aside here like the soverginty bit and how a natin is viewed different then an individual in the law, and crud like that. I'm not adressing law. Just what's right and wrong.

Basically, the US made a deal and broke it. They do what they wish because they have the power to back it up (be it by force of arms or economically). Oh, except verses countries that would annilate them (Like I mentioned in a past post about China). Bullys always only pick on weaker people remember. They consider themselves "above the law" (saying that not in regard to actual law but in a holier then thou and more mighty way) and only offer the aid to other countries and such as they do to make them seem more pious. Someone mentioned the US funding a whole lot of humanitarian stuff? Means nothing. It's like a rich movie star giving a thousands of dollars to "starving kids in Africa" to boost their popularity. PR anyone?

The facts of Saddam's constant violations of the ceasefire and of UN Resolutions is grounds for the current war in Iraq. That is the facts of this case.

Well, thats true if you ignore that whole "UN resolution" thing...

Straight from 1441,

"REAFFIRMING the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighboring states..."

Sovereignty. That'd mean that, if the us was commited to the maintence of Iraqi sovereignty, Saddam would still be in power. You get a big F here.

Territorial Integrity. That'd mean that there is no US troops in Iraq right now. Again, you get the big fat F.

Consider "invasion", a "warlike or hostile entrance into the possessions or domains of another; the incursion of an army...". This is what the US has done to Iraq. Invaded, not "intervened". If you switch these words in the thread title, you find the reason why it is so illegal.

"For when fighting a monster, one must be careful not to become the monster. And when you look at the abyss, the abyss looks at you"
Off the topic a bit, but the original quote was:
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye too become a monster. And if you gaze into the Abyss, the Abyss also gazes into you."
Nietzsche (of course)
Notice it's gazes INTO, not at. Which changes the meaning somewhat.
Just being a pedantic prick, sorry.

Just a prick, sorry.

Ooh so said my chemist!

Off the topic a bit, but the original quote was:
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye too become a monster. And if you gaze into the Abyss, the Abyss also gazes into you."
Nietzsche (of course)
Notice it's gazes INTO, not at. Which changes the meaning somewhat.
Just being a pedantic prick, sorry.


They translated the book from german to portuguese. I had to recall the sentence, and translate it from Portuguese to English.

I got lost in translation. lol

Yes and therefore, the Korean War, Vietnam War, The Bay of Pigs invasion, Grenada, Operation Just (be)Cause, Desert Storm, Clinton's wars and whatever else I'm forgetting where all blatantly unconstitutional.

You do not need a formal declaration of war to use military forces - however, you do need authorization from Congress to use military forces. And in some cases, the use of the military is prohibited by Article VI, Clause II. The use of the military in many action is against the Geneva Convention and other international laws as signed into existence by the ratifcation of several treaties by the United States Congressional body. For example, putting the Executive Order banning the use of assasination against a political head of state aside, one cannot assasinate a political (or otherwise prominent figure) from another nation using the military, as it breaks international law (this is where the CIA and blackops comes in). The Bay of Pigs invasion did not involve the United States military, rather it involved the Central Intelligence Agency et al. Operation Just Cause, Desert Storm, the Balkans Conflicts et alii; these were all authorized by the appropriate Resolutions passed by the Congressional body and by the United Nations Security Council. The Korean and Vietnam "wars" are technically not wars, as we (the United States) did not declare a formal state of war between the nations of North Korea and North Vietnam (now unified, Republic of Vietnam). However, military aid was given to nations and governments who requested it (South Korea and the area which we will call "South Vietnam". This was simply aid, authorized by the Congressional body of the US Legislature as military and economic aid and not a declaration of war. The cease-fires that have been called were not necessarily between the US and Vietnam/North Korea, as they were between Souther Vietnamese forces and North Korea/South Korea individually. At least, to my knowledge this is the case - same for all of this, it is possible that I'm absolutely wrong but I don't believe I am.

Your argument fails on the grounds of the wording of UN Resolution 1441. That Resolution mentions all previous Resolutions and is ultimately superior. Try reading Resolution 1441 and you will notice that the US justification for an invasion was non existent.

http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-08UNResolution1441.asp

Also the post by Chthonaiya is quite explicit in dealing with the domestic legalities.

His arguement is based on the CEASE-FIRE!!! Hussein DID NOT comply in accordance with the cease-fire, thus we then legally could go in and take him out. This we did.

Yes and therefore, the Korean War, Vietnam War, The Bay of Pigs invasion, Grenada, Operation Just (be)Cause, Desert Storm, Clinton's wars and whatever else I'm forgetting where all blatantly unconstitutional.

WRONG!! Korea was a UN Sanctioned operation and the only reason why it was is because 1)Soviet Union boycotted the vote and 2) Taiwan (that island off of mainland China) was on the UN Security Council.

Vietnam was sanctioned by the US Congress and had support of other nations. I know little of the Bay of Pigs so I won't say one way or the other. Grenada, Authorized by the US Congress. What is Operation Just Cause? Desert Storm was approved by the US Congress AND The UN thus the Persian Gulf war was Legal and thus brings us to the crux of the current problem. Bosnia had the full backing of NATO and that China blocked so Bosnia was legal. Operation Desert Fox was approved by the US Congress. Both of these operations, I supported and I did not like Bill Clinton.

Well, thats true if you ignore that whole "UN resolution" thing...

Straight from 1441,

"REAFFIRMING the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighboring states..."

Sovereignty. That'd mean that, if the us was commited to the maintence of Iraqi sovereignty, Saddam would still be in power. You get a big F here.

Territorial Integrity. That'd mean that there is no US troops in Iraq right now. Again, you get the big fat F.

Consider "invasion", a "warlike or hostile entrance into the possessions or domains of another; the incursion of an army...". This is what the US has done to Iraq. Invaded, not "intervened". If you switch these words in the thread title, you find the reason why it is so illegal.

Look at international Law. Once a cease-fire is broken, Hostilities can legally begin. Hussein Violated the cease-fire and thus we are legally entitled to go in. This we did thus making the Second Gulf War or Operation Iraqi Freedom, Legal.

After wading through this morass I have the solution. Get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of the US.

After wading through this morass I have the solution. Get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of the US.

*Applauds*

After wading through this morass I have the solution. Get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of the US.

:o Best solution I've seen yet. Y'all wake me up when you find out who the winner of this argument is. Zzzzzzz

Look at international Law. Once a cease-fire is broken, Hostilities can legally begin. Hussein Violated the cease-fire and thus we are legally entitled to go in. This we did thus making the Second Gulf War or Operation Iraqi Freedom, Legal.
I will post it once again because I do believe that people will by and large choose to remain in denial of the facts if the preponderence of evidence is against them:

http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-08UNResolution1441.asp

Text of UN Resolution 1441:

2. DECIDES, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the council;

By invading Iraq, the US violated this section of the last UN Resolution (1441) against Iraq, as well as a violation of the UN Charter.

Even Richard Perle stated that it was illegal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1089042,00.html

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

Hey! China has nukes! Go piss them off and say they can't have em! Oh right! China has such a large army that unlike Iraq it'll crush the states. Forgot about that there for a sec.

Ok, sure they could! :rolleyes: But they have to be able to feed all of them and their population. Besides last time I checked the Chinese Navy and Army don't have the logistics required to fight the US other places besides Asia.

Why is the US "intervention" in Iraq Illegal?

Suppose, for the sake of arguement, that Canada had a stronger military than the US, and decided they did not like our "regieme". So, they send their military into the US to remove that regieme. Then, once they crushed our military, they were good enough to provide an "interim" government, and arrange for us to have elections that they would monitor for us.

Would that be legal?

They translated the book from german to portuguese. I had to recall the sentence, and translate it from Portuguese to English.

I got lost in translation. lolEver play "Baldurs Gate"? The Nietzsche quote is at the beginning of the game.

CanuckHeaven,

Let me be plain with you.

It does not matter what a resolution states if he is already found to be in violation of a cease-fire agreement. Once the Cease-fire agreement is violated, war can legally resume. Hussein has violated the cease-fire thus we can legally go into Iraq and remove Hussein.

1441 was the 17th Resolution on Iraq. 17 Resolutions that state that he was in violation of the cease-fire. If Hussein was NOT in vioation of it, then why did we have 17 resolutions? If he wasn't in violation of the Cease-fire, then why weren't the sanctions removed?

The UN found him in violation of the Cease-fire many times but did nothing about it. We've had enough of Hussein's violations and we finally did something about it. Us, the Brits, Australians, ect ect ect.

If Hussein was not in violation of the cease-fire, we would never have gone into Iraq.

CanuckHeaven,

Let me be plain with you.

It does not matter what a resolution states if he is already found to be in violation of a cease-fire agreement. Once the Cease-fire agreement is violated, war can legally resume. Hussein has violated the cease-fire thus we can legally go into Iraq and remove Hussein.

1441 was the 17th Resolution on Iraq. 17 Resolutions that state that he was in violation of the cease-fire. If Hussein was NOT in vioation of it, then why did we have 17 resolutions? If he wasn't in violation of the Cease-fire, then why weren't the sanctions removed?

The UN found him in violation of the Cease-fire many times but did nothing about it. We've had enough of Hussein's violations and we finally did something about it. Us, the Brits, Australians, ect ect ect.

If Hussein was not in violation of the cease-fire, we would never have gone into Iraq.
Let me be equally plain with you. Did you read Resolution 1441? Didn't think so, or else you would not have presented the argument that you just brought forward.

By the way, don't forget to read the preamble that cites ALL the previous resolutions. Pay particular attention to Articles 2, 4 (especially in relation to Articles 11 and 12), 10 (which the US, and UK violated), and finally 11, and 12.

It is clearly spelt out which part everyone must play in bringing Iraq into compliance. There are responsibilities laid out in that Resolution that were definitely violated by coalition countries.

Let me be equally plain with you. Did you read Resolution 1441? Didn't think so, or else you would not have presented the argument that you just brought forward.

Circular Arguement actually. As stated, a cease-fire trumps all other resolutions. Did you know that we used other resolutions and not 1441 to justify our actions? I believe one of them was the Cease-Fire resolution too.

By the way, don't forget to read the preamble that cites ALL the previous resolutions. Pay particular attention to Articles 2, 4 (especially in relation to Articles 11 and 12), 10 (which the US, and UK violated), and finally 11, and 12.

Your right it does, including the Cease-fire resolution. However, how many times have they quoted past resolutions and done nothing about it? All the time. The US had enough, quoted past resolutions, including the cease-fire resolution, and went in and took out Saddam Hussein.

It is clearly spelt out which part everyone must play in bringing Iraq into compliance. There are responsibilities laid out in that Resolution that were definitely violated by coalition countries.

The Cease-fire spelled out exactly what Saddam needed to do. Saddam did a couple but not the rest. He did not comply with the UN thus it violated the cease-fire. When he violated the cease-fire, we had the legal grounds to go into Iraq and remove him.

Circular Arguement actually. As stated, a cease-fire trumps all other resolutions. Did you know that we used other resolutions and not 1441 to justify our actions? I believe one of them was the Cease-Fire resolution too.



Your right it does, including the Cease-fire resolution. However, how many times have they quoted past resolutions and done nothing about it? All the time. The US had enough, quoted past resolutions, including the cease-fire resolution, and went in and took out Saddam Hussein.



The Cease-fire spelled out exactly what Saddam needed to do. Saddam did a couple but not the rest. He did not comply with the UN thus it violated the cease-fire. When he violated the cease-fire, we had the legal grounds to go into Iraq and remove him.
Where does it say that the cease fire "trumps" all other Resolutions. It doesn't say that at all. Resolution 1441 specifically mentions ALL previous Resolutions and Article 2 of Resolution 1441, Iraq is given a "a final opportunity to comply". It doesn't mention anything about superiority of Resolutions.

Resolution 1441 specifically states that any non compliance must be dealth with after a report by the inspection teams to the Security Council.

You so want to believe the BS that Bush and Blair offered for this war because otherwise you have no business being in Iraq. Guess what? Most of the world fully understands the deciet involved with Iraq and that is why US foreign policy has taken a hit. Add to that, the fact that the US is building bases in Iraq and has hijacked the Iraqi economy through Bremer's Orders and the reality is crystal clear. The US desired MORE than regime change and was going to go to any length to accomplish those goals.

So you can continue to live in denial if it gives you a fuzzy feel good feeling. :eek:

Where does it say that the cease fire "trumps" all other Resolutions. It doesn't say that at all. Resolution 1441 specifically mentions ALL previous Resolutions and Article 2 of Resolution 1441, Iraq is given a "a final opportunity to comply". It doesn't mention anything about superiority of Resolutions.

And he has had 17 resolutions to comply and Saddam Hussein never complied with any of them. Thus 1441 was a failure in that Saddam did not comply with it. He still stonewalled the inspection process. If you do not know that by now then you obviously only heard what you wanted to hear.

Resolution 1441 specifically states that any non compliance must be dealth with after a report by the inspection teams to the Security Council.

And Saddam did not comply hence why we were pushing for the 2nd resolution and that was what France and Russia blocked. So again tell me why we waited so long to oust Saddam when he was not complying with UN Resolutions?

You so want to believe the BS that Bush and Blair offered for this war because otherwise you have no business being in Iraq. Guess what? Most of the world fully understands the deciet involved with Iraq and that is why US foreign policy has taken a hit. Add to that, the fact that the US is building bases in Iraq and has hijacked the Iraqi economy through Bremer's Orders and the reality is crystal clear. The US desired MORE than regime change and was going to go to any length to accomplish those goals.

Wrong on so many counts I don't know where to begin! I always considered the WMD charge sketchy at best. But you know what? I did not care. Reason is that we should've done this years ago but no one had the guts to do it. Now on to the 2nd mark. If the rest of the world fully understood the deceit of Saddam Hussein, why didn't they do anything about it? Why did they let him continue to deceit the world even though it violated UN Resolutions? If Saddam came clean and revealed EVERYTHING as stated under your precious UN Resolutions, we never would've gone into Iraq. He didn't and we attacked and took him out, end of story. As for our foreign policy taking a hit, boo hoo. I would rather do something right and have it take a hit then doing nothing and letting it stay the way it is. Third remark. Yes we are building bases with the consent of Prime Minister Allawi. If he doesn't want us there, all he has to do is say the word and we're gone. That's all he has to do and he hasn't done so because he knows that we are instrumental in security until Iraq has an adequate National Guard. As for highjacking the Iraqi economy on Bremer's orders, do you have proof of this statement? Fourth Remark! Again do you have proof what our other motives are?

So you can continue to live in denial if it gives you a fuzzy feel good feeling. :eek:

Be advised that my father is going back over to the Gulf on rotation. I never deny anything when I know for a fact that it is truth.

The war was legal by all standards. I fully agree with American Republic.
By the way, I wish your father well and thank him for his service.

The war was legal by all standards. I fully agree with American Republic.
By the way, I wish your father well and thank him for his service.

I will pass along your wishes as soon as I hear from him. And thanks for backing me up.

So you can continue to live in denial if it gives you a fuzzy feel good feeling. :eek:

Ditto

And he has had 17 resolutions to comply and Saddam Hussein never complied with any of them. Thus 1441 was a failure in that Saddam did not comply with it. He still stonewalled the inspection process. If you do not know that by now then you obviously only heard what you wanted to hear.
The fact remains and which may have alluded you is that the UN inspectors were still in Iraq continuing with the inspections and Blix issued a report to that effect and he stated in the report:

Resolution 1441 (2002) was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active. The resolution contained many provisions, which we welcome as enhancing and strengthening the inspection regime. The unanimity by which it was adopted sent a powerful signal that the Council was of one mind in creating a last opportunity for peaceful disarmament in Iraq through inspection.

He also stated in his report:

Cooperation on process

It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.

Sooooo given this report what did the US state? Bush stated that the US was going to invade anyways and shortly thereafter the UN inspectors left Iraq.

Also you should consider that Kofi Annan (Secretary General of the UN) stated:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0916/dailyUpdate.html?s=ent2

In an interview with the BBC Wednesday, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said the decision to launch an invasion of Iraq should have been taken by the entire United Nations, and not taken unilaterally. When pressed for a third time by a BBC interviewer if that meant that the invasion was illegal, Mr. Annan said that "if you like" it was "not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

Kind of trumps your opinions and mine for that matter?

1)The government removed then installed a power, just because.
2)There were no weapons of mass destruction
3)The UN said, "no"