NationStates Jolt Archive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning%2C_initiating_and_waging_wars_of_aggression

Did the US invasion of Iraq constitute a breach of this convention and the UN Charter? Have the US committed crimes against the peace?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning%2C_initiating_and_waging_wars_of_aggression

Did the US invasion of Iraq constitute a breach of this convention and the UN Charter? Have the US committed crimes against the peace?

Yes

but this has been debated so often I will not argue the case anymore.

I hope eventually the people responsible face trial.

Yes. Duh.

The best part about being Hegemon is you can ignore international treaties whenever it's convenient.

Next question?

The USA invaded Iraq because Iraq tranferred its petrochemical exchanges from the US Dollar to the Euro, and threatened to overturn the OPEC consensus that had been established 30 years previously that all petrochemical exchanges should be conducted in US Dollars.

If Iraq had succeeded every nation on Earth would have been forced to sell their US Dollar reserves. Trillions of worthless US Dollars would have flooded into US banks and the American economy would have collapsed.

By invading Iraq the prospect of the USD being replaced as the petrochemical currency was removed, and the US economy was saved.

So yes. The invasion of Iraq was aggressive, and totally unjustifiable under any kind of international law. But if it hadn't've occured its possible that Iraq could have convinced OPEC to order the world to stop buying and selling oil in USD, and without that huge international demand for liquid currency, the US Federal Deficit actually means something! And America would have been royally screwed.

Swings and roundabouts.

What does it matter, as long as the US has the right to use its permanent veto on any UN sanction? Really, the UN is mostly about protecting the stomping grounds of the nuclear powers.

completely illegal and nothing anyone can do about it

SNIP

I bet Fass never thought so many people would be affected by that video :p

Yes.

I bet Fass never thought so many people would be affected by that video :p

Given the amount most people know about economics, it's no shock..

As for the U.N., it helps when both parties to a potential war engage eachother through a diplomatic institution, not one goading others to put pressure on a second, etc. Not exactly a recipe for success. As for the war itself, the U.N. rightly hasn't tried to "outlaw" war in the Kellogg-Briand sense.. the right to self defense is largely intact.

Have the US committed crimes against the peace?
I didn't know that 'the peace' was a person or party that could be damaged. What constitutes a crime against the peace? Rapid conflict resolution? Are the alternatives of a persistant conflict (cold war) or a slow and costly resolution (negotiation) preferable?

It is important to note that violence is not conflict, it is a method of conflict resolution by which one party uses force to end hostilities and impose harmony.

completely illegal and nothing anyone can do about it



I bet Fass never thought so many people would be affected by that video :p

I'd heard the theory before, and to me, it sounds like the only comprehensible rationale for the war.

But yes. It was a good video.

I didn't know that 'the peace' was a person or party that could be damaged. What constitutes a crime against the peace? Rapid conflict resolution? Are the alternatives of a persistant conflict (cold war) or a slow and costly resolution (negotiation) preferable?

It is important to note that violence is not conflict, it is a method of conflict resolution by which one party uses force to end hostilities and impose harmony.

Umm, read the article.

Umm, read the article.
I did. In the very first article it says:
"The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace"
Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power in 1990 as he was a 'threat to the peace' and committed the crime of initiating and waging a war of aggression. Or does international law only apply to the US? He ain't the only one either. The world is full of folks just like him, committing human rights violations and ignoring international law except when it sheilds them. International law, like any law must apply to all people all the time or not at all to anyone in which case it's existance is kind of pointless.

Yep. the whole thing has been a mess from the start.

One man's war of aggression is another man's pre-emptive strike. It's all a matter of perception - and only the victor's perception tends to matter when it's all said and done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning%2C_initiating_and_waging_wars_of_aggression

Did the US invasion of Iraq constitute a breach of this convention and the UN Charter? Have the US committed crimes against the peace?

No

because in spite of the fact that the war was ill advised, ill planned, and nobody in the Bush Administration seems to have made any plans once the invasion succeeded, the Bush Administration was correct in citing the numerous UN Resolutions calling for specific action by the Iraqi government, many of which that government either refused to verify where carried out, lied about carrying out, or simply failed to carry out. So Bush can indeed claim that all means short of war were attempted.

Not to mention that the Iraqi intelligence agency did indeed attempt to kill the elder ex President Bush, which is indeed an act of war.

Not saying the war was a good idea, but its not illegal under the UN Charter no matter how much those against the war want it to be

Incidently, for those of you blaming economics for why the war was carried out. You do know that another Great Depression would indeed be a bad thing right? You also hopefully know that conducting economic attacks against a nation is indeed a method of warfare and could also be considered an act of aggression and thus war?

Assuming of course that the sources and opinions you are basing your opinion on are correct.

The best part about being Hegemon is you can ignore international treaties whenever it's convenient.
That's a disgusting attitude.

That's a disgusting attitude.

Tell me it isn't true.

Lets just say that the U.N. isn't perfect and was meant to give the post-world war two victors a large advantage.

Tell me it isn't true.
There's a difference between recognizing something as the truth and reveling in it.

There's a difference between recognizing something as the truth and reveling in it.

I was recognizing it as truth. Ignoring international convention is wrong, but it's reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning%2C_initiating_and_waging_wars_of_aggression

Did the US invasion of Iraq constitute a breach of this convention and the UN Charter? Have the US committed crimes against the peace?

Yes.

No

because in spite of the fact that the war was ill advised, ill planned, and nobody in the Bush Administration seems to have made any plans once the invasion succeeded, the Bush Administration was correct in citing the numerous UN Resolutions calling for specific action by the Iraqi government, many of which that government either refused to verify where carried out, lied about carrying out, or simply failed to carry out. So Bush can indeed claim that all means short of war were attempted.

Not to mention that the Iraqi intelligence agency did indeed attempt to kill the elder ex President Bush, which is indeed an act of war.

Not saying the war was a good idea, but its not illegal under the UN Charter no matter how much those against the war want it to be

Incidently, for those of you blaming economics for why the war was carried out. You do know that another Great Depression would indeed be a bad thing right? You also hopefully know that conducting economic attacks against a nation is indeed a method of warfare and could also be considered an act of aggression and thus war?

Assuming of course that the sources and opinions you are basing your opinion on are correct.

According to the UN, the US acted outside the charter. What more do you want?

They sure did.

The U.S. committed what they themselves sentenced to death by hanging in the Nuremberg Trials. Looks like somewhere along the way they've really lost the standards of decent human behavior, I believe.

1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace? - Check.
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace? - Check.
3. War crimes? - Check.
4. Crimes against humanity? - Check.

And if I remember correctly, the Nuremberg Trial stated these as the main reasons to put those responsible to the gallows.

Interesting, is it not? Talk about a double standard, especially when you consider the following:



In the wording of the Nuremberg Tribunal, aggression is "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" — all the evil in the tortured land of Iraq that flowed from the US-UK invasion, for example. The concept of aggression was defined clearly enough by US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who was chief prosecutor for the United States at Nuremberg. The concept was restated in an authoritative General Assembly resolution. An "aggressor," Jackson proposed to the tribunal, is a state that is the first to commit such actions as "invasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State."

That applies to the invasion of Iraq. Also relevant are Justice Jackson’s eloquent words at Nuremberg: "If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us." And elsewhere: "We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."
Drink up, me 'earties, yo ho!

According to the UN, the US acted outside the charter. What more do you want?

For the UN to be consistant about their resolutions, and grow enough of a spine to actually do something about it when someone (ANYone) violates them.

The UN requirements for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait were enforced by the US and the UN applauded. The UN requirements for Iraq to eliminate all of it's WMDs, and prove that it had, were likewise enforced, and everybody screamed.

If the UN can't make itself clear, it should refrain from making decisions at all.

For the UN to be consistant about their resolutions, and grow enough of a spine to actually do something about it when someone (ANYone) violates them.

The UN requirements for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait were enforced by the US and the UN applauded. The UN requirements for Iraq to eliminate all of it's WMDs, and prove that it had, were likewise enforced, and everybody screamed.

If the UN can't make itself clear, it should refrain from making decisions at all.

I thought there were no WMD in Iraq. You can't prove something doesn't exist until you see it not existing - something the inspectors were hindered from doing both by the Iraqis and the Americans. It's an economic war and therefore a false economy. Members of the Taliban were invited to Texas to discuss a new pipeline through Afgan teritory - they refused - what happens - drop the daisy cutters, kill the taliban. Iraq tried to kill Bush senior and also tried to undermine the dollar - drop the bombs. How much has the war actually cost, not only in monetary terms?

No

<snip> the Bush Administration was correct in citing the numerous UN Resolutions calling for specific action by the Iraqi government, many of which that government either refused to verify where carried out, lied about carrying out, or simply failed to carry out. So Bush can indeed claim that all means short of war were attempted.

They were UN resolutions which the UN sec council alone had the right to determine whether they were being met and what consequences would follow from them not being met


Not saying the war was a good idea, but its not illegal under the UN Charter no matter how much those against the war want it to be


As the security council was bypassed and they were the only legitimate body to take the decision it was illegal under the UN charter no matter how much people want to think
the UN is obliged to take the same view the US has.




The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace


Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power in 1990 as he was a 'threat to the peace' and committed the crime of initiating and waging a war of aggression. Or does international law only apply to the US? He ain't the only one either. The world is full of folks just like him, committing human rights violations and ignoring international law except when it sheilds them. International law, like any law must apply to all people all the time or not at all to anyone in which case it's existance is kind of pointless.

The UN decision was that Saddam had to withdraw or be forced out of Kuwait.
That was achieved. The UN never required that Saddam be removed from power in Iraq and there was no reason that it should have.
The UN decision that Iraq must leave or be forced out of Kuwait was based on international law. The US was part of enforcing international law.
By your own argument the law must be applied to all so when the US
without authority invaded Iraq they committed the same crime that put Saddam in breach of international law and should be subject to the same consequences.

Unfortunately there is no country either able or willing to use the necessary violence required to achieve that goal.

For the UN to be consistant about their resolutions, and grow enough of a spine to actually do something about it when someone (ANYone) violates them.

The UN requirements for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait were enforced by the US and the UN applauded. The UN requirements for Iraq to eliminate all of it's WMDs, and prove that it had, were likewise enforced, and everybody screamed.

If the UN can't make itself clear, it should refrain from making decisions at all.

The UN requirements for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait were enforced by a coalition of countries acting under the UN mandate that gave them legal authority to do so.

The US screamed at the enforcement of inspections and called a halt to them
so they could invade Iraq without UN authorisation.
As the UN sec council was the only body with the authority and responsibility
to decide what should happen if they believed Iraq to be in breach of resolutions it was
at no point open to the US and its rag tag allies to take the decision for themselves.
So their invasion of Iraq was illegal and was exactly the same crime that Iraq committed in invading Kuwait although with greatly more catastrophic results and loss of life.

You feel the UN is inconsistent about its resolutions
but have somehow failed to notice that the US is very inconsistent in its
desire to enforce UN resolutions or Israel would currently be being occupied.

They were UN resolutions which the UN sec council alone had the right to determine whether they were being met and what consequences would follow from them not being met



As the security council was bypassed and they were the only legitimate body to take the decision it was illegal under the UN charter no matter how much people want to think
the UN is obliged to take the same view the US has.







The UN decision was that Saddam had to withdraw or be forced out of Kuwait.
That was achieved. The UN never required that Saddam be removed from power in Iraq and there was no reason that it should have.
The UN decision that Iraq must leave or be forced out of Kuwait was based on international law. The US was part of enforcing international law.
By your own argument the law must be applied to all so when the US
without authority invaded Iraq they committed the same crime that put Saddam in breach of international law and should be subject to the same consequences.

Unfortunately there is no country either able or willing to use the necessary violence required to achieve that goal.



The UN requirements for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait were enforced by a coalition of countries acting under the UN mandate that gave them legal authority to do so.

The US screamed at the enforcement of inspections and called a halt to them
so they could invade Iraq without UN authorisation.
As the UN sec council was the only body with the authority and responsibility
to decide what should happen if they believed Iraq to be in breach of resolutions it was
at no point open to the US and its rag tag allies to take the decision for themselves.
So their invasion of Iraq was illegal and was exactly the same crime that Iraq committed in invading Kuwait although with greatly more catastrophic results and loss of life.

You feel the UN is inconsistent about its resolutions
but have somehow failed to notice that the US is very inconsistent in its
desire to enforce UN resolutions or Israel would currently be being occupied.

You forget that the U.S courts stopped a recount of votes in order to arive at a proper conclusion. Justice and the Americans are strangers.

For the UN to be consistant about their resolutions, and grow enough of a spine to actually do something about it when someone (ANYone) violates them.

The UN requirements for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait were enforced by the US and the UN applauded. The UN requirements for Iraq to eliminate all of it's WMDs, and prove that it had, were likewise enforced, and everybody screamed.

If the UN can't make itself clear, it should refrain from making decisions at all.


The UN, as I thought was well known, can do nothing about enforcement without not only the consent, but the active participation of its members. There is no UN as an independent force, nor does it have independent finances. The people who work for it can speak independently, but risk annoying the nations who finance it. Should it rule by what law exists, it can be ignored or bypassed should a powerful enough state decide to do so. Thus all nations on the security council are 'immune' to the UN, as are their allies should they choose to protect them.

UN requirements re weapons were used as a ruse, btw and the documentation shows it to be such.

...

Incidently, for those of you blaming economics for why the war was carried out. You do know that another Great Depression would indeed be a bad thing right?
No. It's not all that obvious why recession should weigh mostly apon the poor. It's not obvious why anything less than 2% pa economic growth is a disaster comparable to the Great Depression. And it's not obvious that another Depression would turn out quite so well for the rich as it did eighty years ago.

Connect the dots for me. As I see it, the Great Depression was the rich trying to regain the wealth destroyed (blown up, squandered, nationalized, and misapplied in desperation) in the Great War. The wealth wasn't there any more, they were flogging a dead horse. The horse just died some more. As I see it, the Great Depression was a creature of the rich and their mindless, childish, spoiled optimism. They tried to make something out of nothing.

As we do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning%2C_initiating_and_waging_wars_of_aggression

Did the US invasion of Iraq constitute a breach of this convention and the UN Charter? Have the US committed crimes against the peace?

Yeah.

According to the UN, the US acted outside the charter. What more do you want?

not according to the Security Council, which has jurisdiction (and yes I know its because we would have vetoed it, but then so would the British)

and it doesn't matter what the General Assembly says, it doesn't have jurisdiction on this matter

neither does the Hague Court

You can say the US violated the charter, but the UN hasn't said so. The views of the Secretariet not withstanding.

No. It's not all that obvious why recession should weigh mostly apon the poor. It's not obvious why anything less than 2% pa economic growth is a disaster comparable to the Great Depression. And it's not obvious that another Depression would turn out quite so well for the rich as it did eighty years ago.

Connect the dots for me. As I see it, the Great Depression was the rich trying to regain the wealth destroyed (blown up, squandered, nationalized, and misapplied in desperation) in the Great War. The wealth wasn't there any more, they were flogging a dead horse. The horse just died some more. As I see it, the Great Depression was a creature of the rich and their mindless, childish, spoiled optimism. They tried to make something out of nothing.

As we do.

Actually, there are 8 different theories on why the Great Depression occured (a quick check on Wikipedia will show you that). The rich suffered lightly if at all from the Depression, while the poor and middle classes suffered terribly, especially the working poor. Hence the creation of things like unemployment insurance, Social Security and the like.

The immediate trigger was a bubble on Wall Street in which large numbers of middle class people were investing on margin (borrowing money) to buy overinflated stocks. Those stocks were overinflated because of market conditions, not because the rich conspired to crush the middle classes. When increasingly risky loans to nations like Germany that were made to enable the Germans (using them as example) to pay off their war debts and reparations payments began to fail, this triggered an instability that led to the Crash of 29.

Oil prices increasing by 25% or more and a major currency devalution of the US Dollar would trigger a nasty crash. Its also possible that the housing bubble in the US and its sharp downturn may do that as well.

If the US goes down, so is the rest of the world. The US economy and its market are crucial to the Asian Tigers, India, China, Japan, and a lot of Europe.

You better hope that the Depression doesn't come.

I thought there were no WMD in Iraq. You can't prove something doesn't exist until you see it not existing - something the inspectors were hindered from doing both by the Iraqis and the Americans. ?


That would be the ill advised part I mentioned earlier

Still doesn't make it illegal, just a really bad strategic move.

Incidently, the Iraqi government had such a history of false statements and non cooperation that it put itself in the position that no matter what it said it wouldn't be believed. Look over the history 1990 - 2002, and figure out a way to refute that.

Even Clinton bombed them a few times, and you can't really accuse Clinton of being a tool of the oil companies now can you.

If it actually came down to it, the Bush Administration would be able to successfully use the UN Charter and its statement that nations have the right to Self Defense to justify its mistaken war. The Iraqis did on numerous occasions fire on US aircraft enforcing UN sanctions, the Iraqis did attempt to kill a former US President, the Iraqis did claim to be a serious threat (by failing to clarify whether they still had weapons of mass destruction or not) to US allies and US military forces enforcing UN resolutions.

In short, you can't prove except by hyperpole that Bush violated the UN Charter as much as you want to and as satisfying as it would be to do so.

Better to attack the war on its merits (well, demerits) in this case.

The Truth is always a better argument then distortion.

not according to the Security Council, which has jurisdiction (and yes I know its because we would have vetoed it, but then so would the British)

and it doesn't matter what the General Assembly says, it doesn't have jurisdiction on this matter

neither does the Hague Court

You can say the US violated the charter, but the UN hasn't said so. The views of the Secretariet not withstanding.


So essentially you're saying that because the UN security council has said the US hasnt acted outside the charter, it hasnt acted outside the charter, legally speaking....?

So essentially you're saying that because the UN security council has said the US hasnt acted outside the charter, it hasnt acted outside the charter, legally speaking....?

afraid so... only the Security Council can enforce the UN Charter. The only thing the General Assembly can do is kick someone out of the UN... as kicking the US out of the UN would probably be fatal to the UN, I don't see that happening do you?

afraid so... only the Security Council can enforce the UN Charter. The only thing the General Assembly can do is kick someone out of the UN... as kicking the US out of the UN would probably be fatal to the UN, I don't see that happening do you?

Not this side of bizarre shift in the space-time continuum, no.

not according to the Security Council, which has jurisdiction (and yes I know its because we would have vetoed it, but then so would the British)

and it doesn't matter what the General Assembly says, it doesn't have jurisdiction on this matter

neither does the Hague Court

You can say the US violated the charter, but the UN hasn't said so. The views of the Secretariet not withstanding.


It can be said and it can be true, the fact that the UN sec council has not declared it so is purely for the reasons you point out
that does not mean that the law has not been broken, it just means that the bench that would pass judgement is corrupted
its as if in 1990/91 saddam hussein had had a veto in the security council
so we are in a situation where international law has been clearly broken by permanent members of the security council , on the pretence
of enforcing security council resolutions and which the UN can do nothing to stop.

This is why the UN is now a completely dead duck, it is why the UN was targetted in Iraq and is the undoing of decades of work.
The UN is a big organisation so it will take a good few years for it to fall over, but it is already dead, it just hasn't realised yet.

The ultimate consequences of the UNs inability to hold the US to its treaty obligations are likely to be disastrous for all the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning%2C_initiating_and_waging_wars_of_aggression

Did the US invasion of Iraq constitute a breach of this convention and the UN Charter? Have the US committed crimes against the peace?

No. And I'm not even going to bother to explain why is it will go over everyone's head that disagrees with the Iraq war.

What does it matter, as long as the US has the right to use its permanent veto on any UN sanction? Really, the UN is mostly about protecting the stomping grounds of the nuclear powers.

Now that last sentence is true.

I did. In the very first article it says:
"The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace"
Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power in 1990 as he was a 'threat to the peace' and committed the crime of initiating and waging a war of aggression. Or does international law only apply to the US? He ain't the only one either. The world is full of folks just like him, committing human rights violations and ignoring international law except when it sheilds them. International law, like any law must apply to all people all the time or not at all to anyone in which case it's existance is kind of pointless.

I agree with this post!

According to the UN, the US acted outside the charter. What more do you want?

Which to them is an opinion. In order for it to be true, it had to have been done in the UNSC. No such thing occured. By default, it wasn't.

You forget that the U.S courts stopped a recount of votes in order to arive at a proper conclusion. Justice and the Americans are strangers.

Tell that to the Florida Supreme Court that kept changing the way the votes were counted half through the recounts.

not according to the Security Council, which has jurisdiction (and yes I know its because we would have vetoed it, but then so would the British)

and it doesn't matter what the General Assembly says, it doesn't have jurisdiction on this matter

neither does the Hague Court

You can say the US violated the charter, but the UN hasn't said so. The views of the Secretariet not withstanding.

Indeed. The words of the General Secretary are his opinions as are those who spoke out against the war. For words to have any legitemacy it has to be approved by the UNSC. It wasn't.

So essentially you're saying that because the UN security council has said the US hasnt acted outside the charter, it hasnt acted outside the charter, legally speaking....?

Hey, someone actually got the puzzle pieces together. Well done.

Yes

No. And I'm not even going to bother to explain why is it will go over everyone's head that disagrees with the Iraq war.


The only way anything from you will go over my head, sunshine, is when you start picking up and throwing your own shit and and I duck. It was in fact illegal, but theres no court that has declared it such.

Corneliu, why not use the multi-quote option?

The only way anything from you will go over my head, sunshine, is when you start picking up and throwing your own shit and and I duck. It was in fact illegal, but theres no court that has declared it such.

Believe what you will Nodinia.

Corneliu, why not use the multi-quote option?

He can't explain himself to us, we wouldnt understand.