• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Do international laws about wars count?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bandana163

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2003
4,170
0
0
I'm no doomsday-prophet or politican, I just want to know if the international laws apply to every country (UN-member) or not.
As I see, they don't. It's not that I'm suprised, I just find it strange that one can get away with any war (oops, I've just bombed a country?) in case he is the president.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
CAD, After waging a most illegal war on Iraq, the filming of prisoners is nothing compared to the death and wounding of thousands of innocents who live in "the wrong country".
You assume the war was illegal. It was not.
Your emotion rhetoric doesn't play - using emotion to judge doesn't help your "case".

CkG
it was illegal under the pretext the US admin used, there is no doubt about that
In your mind yes. Funny that it seems that only the anti-war people seem to think your way. You or I aren't going to prove anything either way. My point is that you people throw around terms like LIE, and Illegal all the time when infact you have no proof to back up those allegations, just like I can't at the moment prove that WMDs were possesed by Saddam right before the war. We both can use deduction skills to form a conclusion but that doesn't make it so. You people take my questioning as arguing semantics, but the truth lies in those details.

CkG
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
CAD, After waging a most illegal war on Iraq, the filming of prisoners is nothing compared to the death and wounding of thousands of innocents who live in "the wrong country".
You assume the war was illegal. It was not.
Your emotion rhetoric doesn't play - using emotion to judge doesn't help your "case".

CkG
it was illegal under the pretext the US admin used, there is no doubt about that
In your mind yes. Funny that it seems that only the anti-war people seem to think your way. You or I aren't going to prove anything either way. My point is that you people throw around terms like LIE, and Illegal all the time when infact you have no proof to back up those allegations, just like I can't at the moment prove that WMDs were possesed by Saddam right before the war. We both can use deduction skills to form a conclusion but that doesn't make it so. You people take my questioning as arguing semantics, but the truth lies in those details.

CkG
then tell me, how was it legal under the pretext the us admin used?

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
CAD, After waging a most illegal war on Iraq, the filming of prisoners is nothing compared to the death and wounding of thousands of innocents who live in "the wrong country".
You assume the war was illegal. It was not.
Your emotion rhetoric doesn't play - using emotion to judge doesn't help your "case".

CkG
it was illegal under the pretext the US admin used, there is no doubt about that
In your mind yes. Funny that it seems that only the anti-war people seem to think your way. You or I aren't going to prove anything either way. My point is that you people throw around terms like LIE, and Illegal all the time when infact you have no proof to back up those allegations, just like I can't at the moment prove that WMDs were possesed by Saddam right before the war. We both can use deduction skills to form a conclusion but that doesn't make it so. You people take my questioning as arguing semantics, but the truth lies in those details.

CkG
then tell me, how was it legal under the pretext the us admin used?
Between resolution 1441 and resolution 681(ceasefire for gulf war), it would be impossible to prove that this war was illegal.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
CAD, After waging a most illegal war on Iraq, the filming of prisoners is nothing compared to the death and wounding of thousands of innocents who live in "the wrong country".
You assume the war was illegal. It was not.
Your emotion rhetoric doesn't play - using emotion to judge doesn't help your "case".

CkG
it was illegal under the pretext the US admin used, there is no doubt about that
In your mind yes. Funny that it seems that only the anti-war people seem to think your way. You or I aren't going to prove anything either way. My point is that you people throw around terms like LIE, and Illegal all the time when infact you have no proof to back up those allegations, just like I can't at the moment prove that WMDs were possesed by Saddam right before the war. We both can use deduction skills to form a conclusion but that doesn't make it so. You people take my questioning as arguing semantics, but the truth lies in those details.

CkG
then tell me, how was it legal under the pretext the us admin used?
Prove it was illegal.

See, you can't and I can't prove it either way. If you want to play the game again, we can - but you will dismiss what I say as "Bush loving" and I will dismiss what you say as "Bush bashing". I think we've beaten that horse to death. You have your opinions and I have mine. Someone will be vindicated in time.

CkG
 

Vadatajs

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2001
3,475
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
ROFL, OK I see. I watched Fox News 'fair and balanced' for a while, but I found out that it's an itty-bit biased. I watch EuroNews ever since. Plus, i think, too. I guess I wouldn't be a true American. I should be shot on sight.
Welcome to the Liberal Playground where everything is doom and gloom and it is all Bush's fault. :)

You'll soon see that you'll fit right into the whining and pouting sessions that frequently erupt here.:p

Good day.

CkG

Edit - sorry for being rude and not introducing myself;) Me=CkG The guy who people think is GWB, a warmonger, bush-apologist, oil loving facist, Clinton hater, etc, etc etc. Infact I am none of those.:)
I truely hope you don't fall into the category I implied you did above - but your posts here so far lead me to believe that you will or alread do. I'm sure we'll meet again along the trail.


Just shut the hell up for once.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
If you can't prove you're right, you start a war?
To me ;) this war started when we ousted Saddam from Kuwait - it was just put on hold(cease-fire) for ~12 years to see if Saddam would be a nice boy and follow the rules - he didn't - game back on. Like I said - do we need to play this game again?

CkG
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
ROFL, OK I see. I watched Fox News 'fair and balanced' for a while, but I found out that it's an itty-bit biased. I watch EuroNews ever since. Plus, i think, too. I guess I wouldn't be a true American. I should be shot on sight.
Welcome to the Liberal Playground where everything is doom and gloom and it is all Bush's fault. :)

You'll soon see that you'll fit right into the whining and pouting sessions that frequently erupt here.:p

Good day.

CkG

Edit - sorry for being rude and not introducing myself;) Me=CkG The guy who people think is GWB, a warmonger, bush-apologist, oil loving facist, Clinton hater, etc, etc etc. Infact I am none of those.:)
I truely hope you don't fall into the category I implied you did above - but your posts here so far lead me to believe that you will or alread do. I'm sure we'll meet again along the trail.


Just shut the hell up for once.
Bad cup of coffee this morning? :p

CkG
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
CAD, After waging a most illegal war on Iraq, the filming of prisoners is nothing compared to the death and wounding of thousands of innocents who live in "the wrong country".
You assume the war was illegal. It was not.
Your emotion rhetoric doesn't play - using emotion to judge doesn't help your "case".

CkG
it was illegal under the pretext the US admin used, there is no doubt about that
In your mind yes. Funny that it seems that only the anti-war people seem to think your way. You or I aren't going to prove anything either way. My point is that you people throw around terms like LIE, and Illegal all the time when infact you have no proof to back up those allegations, just like I can't at the moment prove that WMDs were possesed by Saddam right before the war. We both can use deduction skills to form a conclusion but that doesn't make it so. You people take my questioning as arguing semantics, but the truth lies in those details.

CkG
then tell me, how was it legal under the pretext the us admin used?
Prove it was illegal.

See, you can't and I can't prove it either way. If you want to play the game again, we can - but you will dismiss what I say as "Bush loving" and I will dismiss what you say as "Bush bashing". I think we've beaten that horse to death. You have your opinions and I have mine. Someone will be vindicated in time.

CkG
what? you are realy just, confusing
so this war wasnt illegal because you cant proove it was legal

the pretext for the war was the threat Saddam Hussain posed to the world, that is not a reason for law under any international laws, there was one legal way for the war but it was never realy presented by the US admin
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
But the UN didn't give the USA the right to attack in any resolution.
Actually you are incorrect. 681 was a ceasefire depending on conditions being meet. Those condition were not meet. 1441 promised severe consequences if conditions were not meet. Neither one of the resolutions and about 10 other resolutions were not meet. Therefore the ceasefire could easily be canceled.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
But the UN didn't give the USA the right to attack in any resolution.
Actually you are incorrect. 681 was a ceasefire depending on conditions being meet. Those condition were not meet. 1441 promised severe consequences if conditions were not meet. Neither one of the resolutions and about 10 other resolutions were not meet. Therefore the ceasefire could easily be canceled.
that is true, but that was not the case the US admin used as a pretext for war
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
But the UN didn't give the USA the right to attack in any resolution.
Actually you are incorrect. 681 was a ceasefire depending on conditions being meet. Those condition were not meet. 1441 promised severe consequences if conditions were not meet. Neither one of the resolutions and about 10 other resolutions were not meet. Therefore the ceasefire could easily be canceled.
that is true, but that was not the case the US admin used as a pretext for war

It was part of the reason and Iraqs non compliance was mentioned many times by the administration.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
But the UN didn't give the USA the right to attack in any resolution.
Actually you are incorrect. 681 was a ceasefire depending on conditions being meet. Those condition were not meet. 1441 promised severe consequences if conditions were not meet. Neither one of the resolutions and about 10 other resolutions were not meet. Therefore the ceasefire could easily be canceled.
that is true, but that was not the case the US admin used as a pretext for war

It was part of the reason and Iraqs non compliance was mentioned many times by the administration.
it should have been the main point, not some subtext in a secondary motive, how the world sees it and how Bush made the world see it was that Saddam was a threat to the world, not that he violated a ceasefire, which in the end should have been a decision taken by the UN security council based on what the weapon inspectors final report.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
But the UN didn't give the USA the right to attack in any resolution.
Actually you are incorrect. 681 was a ceasefire depending on conditions being meet. Those condition were not meet. 1441 promised severe consequences if conditions were not meet. Neither one of the resolutions and about 10 other resolutions were not meet. Therefore the ceasefire could easily be canceled.
that is true, but that was not the case the US admin used as a pretext for war

It was part of the reason and Iraqs non compliance was mentioned many times by the administration.
it should have been the main point, not some subtext in a secondary motive, how the world sees it and how Bush made the world see it was that Saddam was a threat to the world, not that he violated a ceasefire, which in the end should have been a decision taken by the UN security council based on what the weapon inspectors final report.
It was a reason, not a subtext. But I will agree that the breaking of 681 and 1441 was suffecient to have Saddam removed. I dont think the UN security council would have allowed that to pass either as several members of the council had economic interests in the status quo(this is an inherit problem with the security council).
 

bandana163

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2003
4,170
0
0
So, the WMDs were not found, and as I know, the cease-fire said that it would draw dire consequences if Iraq continued the bio-chem weapons projects and long-range-missile researches. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
So, the WMDs were not found, and as I know, the cease-fire said that it would draw dire consequences if Iraq continued the bio-chem weapons projects and long-range-missile researches. Correct me if I'm wrong.
And here you look from hindsite, hot forsite. Before the war started Saddam continued to not work with inspectors and all members of security council beleived Saddam had weapons. The security however disagreed on what to do about Saddam non compliance.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
But the UN didn't give the USA the right to attack in any resolution.
Actually you are incorrect. 681 was a ceasefire depending on conditions being meet. Those condition were not meet. 1441 promised severe consequences if conditions were not meet. Neither one of the resolutions and about 10 other resolutions were not meet. Therefore the ceasefire could easily be canceled.
that is true, but that was not the case the US admin used as a pretext for war

It was part of the reason and Iraqs non compliance was mentioned many times by the administration.
it should have been the main point, not some subtext in a secondary motive, how the world sees it and how Bush made the world see it was that Saddam was a threat to the world, not that he violated a ceasefire, which in the end should have been a decision taken by the UN security council based on what the weapon inspectors final report.
It was a reason, not a subtext. But I will agree that the breaking of 681 and 1441 was suffecient to have Saddam removed. I dont think the UN security council would have allowed that to pass either as several members of the council had economic interests in the status quo(this is an inherit problem with the security council).
but this is politics and you will find financial interests everywhere, also with the US admin, the problem with the council is the veto power, in my opinion, but hey everybody got one :p
 

bandana163

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2003
4,170
0
0
Blix and the others said before the start of the war that Iraq was becoming more cooperative, not?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
So, the WMDs were not found, and as I know, the cease-fire said that it would draw dire consequences if Iraq continued the bio-chem weapons projects and long-range-missile researches. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Read Resolution 687. Points 7-14 but while you are there keep reading - there is some good stuff about not selling things to Iraq;)

linky here

CkG
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
Blix and the others said before the start of the war that Iraq was becoming more cooperative, not?
Yes Iraq got more cooperate as more troops offloaded in Kuwait. Maybe the UN should have just paid to keep our troops their until the UN was confidant that Saddam had completely disarmed. But that offer was never made.
 

bandana163

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2003
4,170
0
0
Why disarm if there is no real army - according to the media, no real battles were fought.
Those SCUDs were really faulty: 30:1 hit ratio?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Vaerilis
Why disarm if there is no real army - according to the media, no real battles were fought.
Those SCUDs were really faulty: 30:1 hit ratio?
No real army against who? The US military or its neighbors? I think Iraqs neighbors would agree that Iraq still had a real army.
 

bandana163

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2003
4,170
0
0
Yes, even I agree, but where? They talked about millions and they just vanished in the desert?
I watched Iraqi TV, and I only saw old and very young males in the cities. No mid-aged man.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS