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

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Right, 1441 does seem to imply that the security council can decide if it's conditions are not being met, and what the the approptriate action would be. Unfortunately, we didn't let it get that far...
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I'm not gonna read that kind of stuff, it makes me dizzy. What I want to know is if the resolutions provide the US the authority to decide that they have been violated. And if so, if the US has the authority to decide on appropriate action.
If not, claiming these resolutions were violated is meaningless.
OK, ignore the facts then.
Here is my summary again since you don't want to read. US kicks Saddam out of Kuwait and starts to remove him from power but is told to hold off because of a ceasefire agreement. Ceasefire terms were broken(UN resolutions). Game on.

Care to tell me what a cease-fire agreement means?

CkG
It does not matter what it means. The question at hand is do we (the US) have the authority to decide that Iraq was in violation of the resolution, and do we have the authority to decide on the appropriate action to take if Iraq was not in violation. It does not matter if they were in violation or not, because we did not wait for the security council to do anything about it. So if we don't have the authority to unilaterally act on the resolution, then that is not a legal reason for war. The only other legal reason that I am aware of is self-defense.

Also, since I am hearing two conflicting views on the matter, I did attempt to read the resolutions. As far as I can tell, only 1441 counts since it appears to supercede all other resolutions (but I am hardly a lawyer). There is nothing in that resolution, or 687 that says "the US will decide if Iraq complied, and will wage war against Iraq if the US finds Iraq out of compliance". (again, not being a lawyer, I may be mistaken --but then again, so may you CkG).
Ah, but 1441 doesn't void 687 so it is relevant. "Recalling" doesn't mean it is null and void - it means that you need to recall it - like "Do you recall the conversation we had last week." That kind of "recall". The first time I read resolutions from the UN, I thought they mean the same thing as you must have, but that interpretation is wrong.

OK, so here we go:
<snip of 1441>
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore
international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as
a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international
peace and security in the area,...
</snip>

OK, so just using that we can say that the UN had authorized ALL neccesary force to remove Saddam from Kuwait (#660 +), to use all necessary force to keep him out of Kuwait, AND to use all neccesary force to restore peace and SECURITY in the area.
So now that we have permission if Iraq doesn't stay out of Iraq, or is a security threat to Kuwait and area, lets break down the reason he is a security threat in the region:
As the second part of my snip said Iraq had "obligations" which were "a necessary step for .....restoring international peace and security in the area," Now what were those "obligations"?
This is a summary and/or direct quotes of point 8+ of Resolution 687.

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

a -ALL chem and bio weapons and all RELATED subsystems and COMPONENTS and ALL RESEARCH, developement, support and manufacturing facilities.
**Woops:p guess the nuclear parts, and all the other documentation that has been found hasn't violated "a" ;)
b- ALL balistic missiles with a range greater than 150 Km, and MAJOR PARTS and repair and production facilities
**Guess those missiles we found just magically appeared just before we showed up ;)

9. Decides also, for the implementation of #8 the following:
a-submit declaration of weapons in violation and allow inspection immediately.
Guess he didn't do that since we found things during inspections;)
10. Decides further that Iraq shall UNCONDITIONALLY undertake not to use, develop, construct or ACQUIRE any of the items in 8&9....
12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree NOT to aquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapon-usable material or any subsystems or componenets or any research, development..... it goes on to say that the IAEA should secure and remove items these sorts of items from Iraq.
guess the IAEA missed those parts that were buried - I wonder why that is. What else is hidden?


OK so that goes over the ceasefire terms that he agreed to. So is anyone going to claim that he hasn't broken ANY of the ones that I pointed out?
Assuming no one is that ignorant - what does Saddam do by breaking these things that will bring international peace and security in the area? You think it might mean that since he isn't complying, he isn't bringing int'l peace and security to the area? So now with Int'l peace and area security in question(due to non-compliance) we go back to what was said above in that the UN authorized ALL neccesary force to .....and all ..... and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Doesn't take a lawyer to read plain english and connect the numbered dots.

I eagerly await rebuttals.

CkG
Here is the rebuttal you so eagaerly await. ;)

One can conclude that if no WMD were there, or if Iraq wasn't an 'imminent threat' that a war wasn't really neccesary? Without taking the time to read the pertinent resolutions, is the liberation of the Iraqis mentioned in there somewhere? If not, that shouldn't be part of the justification, should it? How about the fact that SH was a brutal dictator, was that part of the resolutions?

It does look like he violated terms, I don't recall anyone saying he didn't. But before the war he was complying. Would he have continued to comply if we hadn't attacked? Nobody knows.

Again, CkG, the resolution wording is: all neccesary means. Was a war neccesary?

It might not have been neccesary, but for quite a few of us it was painfully obvious that Bush was going to have his war long before it happened.

 

colonel

Golden Member
Apr 22, 2001
1,776
18
81
TextAin't going to happen. International rules and regs don't apply to us. Want a simple example? Remember the outcry when Iraqi media showed those American troops being interrogated? Remember the administration screaming that the Iraqis were violating the Geneva Conventions? Notice how nothing was said about footage of us strip searching hundreds of Iraqi soldiers, tieing them up and marching them off into the horizon. No one had qualms about showing footage of hundreds of dead Iraqi soldiers. No one cried foul then. But show an American and it's game over man. Rules are good only if they do not apply
this is true, damm at least someone got guts to speak this way.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: colonel
TextAin't going to happen. International rules and regs don't apply to us. Want a simple example? Remember the outcry when Iraqi media showed those American troops being interrogated? Remember the administration screaming that the Iraqis were violating the Geneva Conventions? Notice how nothing was said about footage of us strip searching hundreds of Iraqi soldiers, tieing them up and marching them off into the horizon. No one had qualms about showing footage of hundreds of dead Iraqi soldiers. No one cried foul then. But show an American and it's game over man. Rules are good only if they do not apply
this is true, damm at least someone got guts to speak this way.
If you would have read my rebuttal to this you would realize it is bullsh!t.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
The fact of the matter is that the UN gave permission to use all neccesary force to:
a) remove Saddam from Kuwait
b) keep Saddam out of Kuwait
c) provide international peace AND regional security.

Now, the UN laid out specific instructions for Saddam to comply with(ceasefire) in order to do 'c'. The UN has repeatedly said that Saddam was not in compliance with those measures. Therefore he has not done his part to bring security to the area and to secure int'l peace. And since that security was so important to be used in the "all neccesary force" portion, it is my conclusion that we *can* take action. If I had the time, I'd show you that the other resolutions take into account the "old" ones(ceasefire) and infact say that he is in violation of those terms.

If you want to debate if we needed to go to war we can do so, but to argue that it was illegal becuase there were more resolutions afterwords is rediculous. Infact I pointed out a few instances where his failure to comply with his agreements could bring insecurity to the area - namely the rockets that fly too far, the documentation that has been found, and the fact that he didn't account for his WMDs, documents about WMDs, and research about WMDs like he was supposed to.

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The fact of the matter is that the UN gave permission to use all neccesary force to:
a) remove Saddam from Kuwait
b) keep Saddam out of Kuwait
c) provide international peace AND regional security.

Now, the UN laid out specific instructions for Saddam to comply with(ceasefire) in order to do 'c'. The UN has repeatedly said that Saddam was not in compliance with those measures. Therefore he has not done his part to bring security to the area and to secure int'l peace. And since that security was so important to be used in the "all neccesary force" portion, it is my conclusion that we *can* take action. If I had the time, I'd show you that the other resolutions take into account the "old" ones(ceasefire) and infact say that he is in violation of those terms.

If you want to debate if we needed to go to war we can do so, but to argue that it was illegal becuase there were more resolutions afterwords is rediculous. Infact I pointed out a few instances where his failure to comply with his agreements could bring insecurity to the area - namely the rockets that fly too far, the documentation that has been found, and the fact that he didn't account for his WMDs, documents about WMDs, and research about WMDs like he was supposed to.

CkG
The UN Security Counsel, the lawyers who wrote the resolutions, the lawyers who deal with international treaties, Blix... and Moonbeam and I all agree that the invasion occurred only by virtue of Article 51... there was no implied authority to invade... it is why we used the Article 51 theory... we knew it was not inferred...

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The fact of the matter is that the UN gave permission to use all neccesary force to:
a) remove Saddam from Kuwait
b) keep Saddam out of Kuwait
c) provide international peace AND regional security.

Now, the UN laid out specific instructions for Saddam to comply with(ceasefire) in order to do 'c'. The UN has repeatedly said that Saddam was not in compliance with those measures. Therefore he has not done his part to bring security to the area and to secure int'l peace. And since that security was so important to be used in the "all neccesary force" portion, it is my conclusion that we *can* take action. If I had the time, I'd show you that the other resolutions take into account the "old" ones(ceasefire) and infact say that he is in violation of those terms.

If you want to debate if we needed to go to war we can do so, but to argue that it was illegal becuase there were more resolutions afterwords is rediculous. Infact I pointed out a few instances where his failure to comply with his agreements could bring insecurity to the area - namely the rockets that fly too far, the documentation that has been found, and the fact that he didn't account for his WMDs, documents about WMDs, and research about WMDs like he was supposed to.

CkG
The UN Security Counsel, the lawyers who wrote the resolutions, the lawyers who deal with international treaties, Blix... and Moonbeam and I all agree that the invasion occurred only by virtue of Article 51... there was no implied authority to invade... it is why we used the Article 51 theory... we knew it was not inferred...
right, and that self defense argument it strengthened by the the cease-fire articles and others. He didn't do what he needed to do to provide security in the area or int'l peace. The conclusion can be made that since the UN said that peace was determined by his compliance - that this was self defense since he his noncompliance means that security and peace hadn't been brought.

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Cad,

The UN Security Counsel, the lawyers who wrote the resolutions, the lawyers who deal with international treaties, Blix... and Moonbeam and I all agree that the invasion occurred only by virtue of Article 51... there was no implied authority to invade... it is why we used the Article 51 theory... we knew it was not inferred...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

right, and that self defense argument it strengthened by the the cease-fire articles and others. He didn't do what he needed to do to provide security in the area or int'l peace. The conclusion can be made that since the UN said that peace was determined by his compliance - that this was self defense since he his noncompliance means that security and peace hadn't been brought.

Whatever happened to the exigent circumstance that required immediate remedy... the WMD and all the stuff that supports the invasion... where is it... follow the trail of the stuff and then we can all yell... "Hail Bush"... as God causes hard rain to fall... or bunches of Bushes get their heads out of the clouds..
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Cad,

The UN Security Counsel, the lawyers who wrote the resolutions, the lawyers who deal with international treaties, Blix... and Moonbeam and I all agree that the invasion occurred only by virtue of Article 51... there was no implied authority to invade... it is why we used the Article 51 theory... we knew it was not inferred...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

right, and that self defense argument it strengthened by the the cease-fire articles and others. He didn't do what he needed to do to provide security in the area or int'l peace. The conclusion can be made that since the UN said that peace was determined by his compliance - that this was self defense since he his noncompliance means that security and peace hadn't been brought.
------------------------------
Whatever happened to the exigent circumstance that required immediate remedy... the WMD and all the stuff that supports the invasion... where is it... follow the trail of the stuff and then we can all yell... "Hail Bush"... as God causes hard rain to fall... or bunches of Bushes get their heads out of the clouds..
FIgures - can't refute the evidence presented so you go off on what he or she said before the war. The legality of the war doesn't lie with who said what when - the EVIDENCE matters. The EVIDENCE is that Saddam broke the conditions and in doing so was not bringing peace and security - both of which are grounds for "self-defense".
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
The measures taken did not maintain peace and security as dictated by the UN in Saddam's case.

Please confine you whiny rhetoric to threads were they may or may not be more approriate - this was about the legality of the war. You said that it HAD to be based on self-defense and I showed you how it could be.
 

Piano Man

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2000
3,370
0
76
International Laws never affect the US. The reason for this is pretty apparent, but ti doesn't matter.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Cad,

The UN Security Counsel, the lawyers who wrote the resolutions, the lawyers who deal with international treaties, Blix... and Moonbeam and I all agree that the invasion occurred only by virtue of Article 51... there was no implied authority to invade... it is why we used the Article 51 theory... we knew it was not inferred...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

right, and that self defense argument it strengthened by the the cease-fire articles and others. He didn't do what he needed to do to provide security in the area or int'l peace. The conclusion can be made that since the UN said that peace was determined by his compliance - that this was self defense since he his noncompliance means that security and peace hadn't been brought.
------------------------------
Whatever happened to the exigent circumstance that required immediate remedy... the WMD and all the stuff that supports the invasion... where is it... follow the trail of the stuff and then we can all yell... "Hail Bush"... as God causes hard rain to fall... or bunches of Bushes get their heads out of the clouds..
FIgures - can't refute the evidence presented so you go off on what he or she said before the war. The legality of the war doesn't lie with who said what when - the EVIDENCE matters. The EVIDENCE is that Saddam broke the conditions and in doing so was not bringing peace and security - both of which are grounds for "self-defense".
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
The measures taken did not maintain peace and security as dictated by the UN in Saddam's case.

Please confine you whiny rhetoric to threads were they may or may not be more approriate - this was about the legality of the war. You said that it HAD to be based on self-defense and I showed you how it could be.
Great googly-moogly!
I had thought I'd heard everything but this <<The EVIDENCE is that Saddam broke the conditions and in doing so was not bringing peace and security - both of which are grounds for "self-defense">> is such a load of crap, I can't help but think you regretted hitting the 'reply to topic' button as soon as you read what you posted.

CAD, why do you insist on justifying this war by any means possible instead of just using our president's justifications? If you e-mailed him and said "Don't worry big guy, this war was just an act of self-defense against SH's lack of bringing peace and security to the region", do you think he'd get a big grin on his face or do you think he'd bust out with laughter?

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Cad,

The UN Security Counsel, the lawyers who wrote the resolutions, the lawyers who deal with international treaties, Blix... and Moonbeam and I all agree that the invasion occurred only by virtue of Article 51... there was no implied authority to invade... it is why we used the Article 51 theory... we knew it was not inferred...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

right, and that self defense argument it strengthened by the the cease-fire articles and others. He didn't do what he needed to do to provide security in the area or int'l peace. The conclusion can be made that since the UN said that peace was determined by his compliance - that this was self defense since he his noncompliance means that security and peace hadn't been brought.
------------------------------
Whatever happened to the exigent circumstance that required immediate remedy... the WMD and all the stuff that supports the invasion... where is it... follow the trail of the stuff and then we can all yell... "Hail Bush"... as God causes hard rain to fall... or bunches of Bushes get their heads out of the clouds..
FIgures - can't refute the evidence presented so you go off on what he or she said before the war. The legality of the war doesn't lie with who said what when - the EVIDENCE matters. The EVIDENCE is that Saddam broke the conditions and in doing so was not bringing peace and security - both of which are grounds for "self-defense".
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
The measures taken did not maintain peace and security as dictated by the UN in Saddam's case.

Please confine you whiny rhetoric to threads were they may or may not be more approriate - this was about the legality of the war. You said that it HAD to be based on self-defense and I showed you how it could be.
Great googly-moogly!
I had thought I'd heard everything but this <<The EVIDENCE is that Saddam broke the conditions and in doing so was not bringing peace and security - both of which are grounds for "self-defense">> is such a load of crap, I can't help but think you regretted hitting the 'reply to topic' button as soon as you read what you posted.

CAD, why do you insist on justifying this war by any means possible instead of just using our president's justifications? If you e-mailed him and said "Don't worry big guy, this war was just an act of self-defense against SH's lack of bringing peace and security to the region", do you think he'd get a big grin on his face or do you think he'd bust out with laughter?
Are you saying that Saddam's repeatedly breaking of the conditions - didn't increase the security threat he may have been?

No- I don't regret replying or anything I said in that post. We are talking about the legality of the war - LunyRay made the claim that is was only based on self-defense. I presented a case in which self-defense could be feasable. I don't think it was based on self-defense and I'd argue differently but certain people want to pin this case into their narrow definition of self-defense. The UN clearly stated how the area would be secure - those conditions weren't met - therefore there was a security problem.


*note to all you panty bunchers - the following is NOT to prove that what Bush did was legal or right - it is only being said to show the ambiguity of the left's position. **
But IF you think that everything I said was a bunch of BS(which it isn't ;) ), why don't can't I accuse Clinton of these same things? Clinton didn't show "proof" of an immenant threat which was why he lobbed a couple hundred women and child killing bombs into Iraq. Where was the outcry and whining about pre-emptive strike back then? Bag Bush if you want to try but you are going to take Clinton down with you. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the Republicans don't have that at a contingency plan.
Should Congress also be held accountable for the War since it ultimately gave permission for it?

The case for self-defense stands, we can argue about who said what and when all day(as is the case in all the other threads) but LEGALLY there is NO case for calling this war illegal, IMO. Did Bush paint the picture differently than I would have liked? - yes. Did Bush start an illegal war? -No.

CkG
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Are you saying that Saddam's repeatedly breaking of the conditions - didn't increase the security threat he may have been?

No- I don't regret replying or anything I said in that post. We are talking about the legality of the war - LunyRay made the claim that is was only based on self-defense. I presented a case in which self-defense could be feasable. I don't think it was based on self-defense and I'd argue differently but certain people want to pin this case into their narrow definition of self-defense. The UN clearly stated how the area would be secure - those conditions weren't met - therefore there was a security problem.


*note to all you panty bunchers - the following is NOT to prove that what Bush did was legal or right - it is only being said to show the ambiguity of the left's position. **
But IF you think that everything I said was a bunch of BS(which it isn't ;) ), why don't can't I accuse Clinton of these same things? Clinton didn't show "proof" of an immenant threat which was why he lobbed a couple hundred women and child killing bombs into Iraq. Where was the outcry and whining about pre-emptive strike back then? Bag Bush if you want to try but you are going to take Clinton down with you. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the Republicans don't have that at a contingency plan.
Should Congress also be held accountable for the War since it ultimately gave permission for it?

The case for self-defense stands, we can argue about who said what and when all day(as is the case in all the other threads) but LEGALLY there is NO case for calling this war illegal, IMO. Did Bush paint the picture differently than I would have liked? - yes. Did Bush start an illegal war? -No.

CkG
You case for self-defense is laughable. You don't punish someone and call it self defense.

If you think I give a fig about Clinton you are badly mistaken. As to your "Where was the whining back then" comment...I dunno. Are you referring to these forums? I'm not sure they existed back then. If you're referring to an outcry in general...how should I know. If you're referring to an outcry by the D's, ask a D.





 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Are you saying that Saddam's repeatedly breaking of the conditions - didn't increase the security threat he may have been?

No- I don't regret replying or anything I said in that post. We are talking about the legality of the war - LunyRay made the claim that is was only based on self-defense. I presented a case in which self-defense could be feasable. I don't think it was based on self-defense and I'd argue differently but certain people want to pin this case into their narrow definition of self-defense. The UN clearly stated how the area would be secure - those conditions weren't met - therefore there was a security problem.


*note to all you panty bunchers - the following is NOT to prove that what Bush did was legal or right - it is only being said to show the ambiguity of the left's position. **
But IF you think that everything I said was a bunch of BS(which it isn't ;) ), why don't can't I accuse Clinton of these same things? Clinton didn't show "proof" of an immenant threat which was why he lobbed a couple hundred women and child killing bombs into Iraq. Where was the outcry and whining about pre-emptive strike back then? Bag Bush if you want to try but you are going to take Clinton down with you. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the Republicans don't have that at a contingency plan.
Should Congress also be held accountable for the War since it ultimately gave permission for it?

The case for self-defense stands, we can argue about who said what and when all day(as is the case in all the other threads) but LEGALLY there is NO case for calling this war illegal, IMO. Did Bush paint the picture differently than I would have liked? - yes. Did Bush start an illegal war? -No.

CkG
You case for self-defense is laughable. You don't punish someone and call it self defense.

If you think I give a fig about Clinton you are badly mistaken. As to your "Where was the whining back then" comment...I dunno. Are you referring to these forums? I'm not sure they existed back then. If you're referring to an outcry in general...how should I know. If you're referring to an outcry by the D's, ask a D.
Hello? Did you read my post?

I don't think this case needs to be a self-defense case I think the legality stands without using selfdefense. LunyRay made the self-defense claim and I showed how it could be legal even if self-defense was the only plausible legal reason.

I see your panties need adjusted after the Clinton comments. The reason I brough the Cliton thing up is because IF you are going to be consistant with legal accountability - you best be making similar accusations of Clinton. :) Sorry about the truth.

CkG
 

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,281
0
76
The US Congress authorized the use of force.

The President, as Commander-in-Chief, authorized the attack.

Seems as "legal" as a war can be.

There's nothing in the US Constitution or laws that requires a UN resolution.

The whole concept of "international laws about wars" is fuzzy at best. The closest is the Geneva Convention and that doesn't even have much teeth unless you're on the losing side and you violated it.

Michael

 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Are you saying that Saddam's repeatedly breaking of the conditions - didn't increase the security threat he may have been?

No- I don't regret replying or anything I said in that post. We are talking about the legality of the war - LunyRay made the claim that is was only based on self-defense. I presented a case in which self-defense could be feasable. I don't think it was based on self-defense and I'd argue differently but certain people want to pin this case into their narrow definition of self-defense. The UN clearly stated how the area would be secure - those conditions weren't met - therefore there was a security problem.


*note to all you panty bunchers - the following is NOT to prove that what Bush did was legal or right - it is only being said to show the ambiguity of the left's position. **
But IF you think that everything I said was a bunch of BS(which it isn't ;) ), why don't can't I accuse Clinton of these same things? Clinton didn't show "proof" of an immenant threat which was why he lobbed a couple hundred women and child killing bombs into Iraq. Where was the outcry and whining about pre-emptive strike back then? Bag Bush if you want to try but you are going to take Clinton down with you. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the Republicans don't have that at a contingency plan.
Should Congress also be held accountable for the War since it ultimately gave permission for it?

The case for self-defense stands, we can argue about who said what and when all day(as is the case in all the other threads) but LEGALLY there is NO case for calling this war illegal, IMO. Did Bush paint the picture differently than I would have liked? - yes. Did Bush start an illegal war? -No.

CkG
You case for self-defense is laughable. You don't punish someone and call it self defense.

If you think I give a fig about Clinton you are badly mistaken. As to your "Where was the whining back then" comment...I dunno. Are you referring to these forums? I'm not sure they existed back then. If you're referring to an outcry in general...how should I know. If you're referring to an outcry by the D's, ask a D.
Hello? Did you read my post?

I don't think this case needs to be a self-defense case I think the legality stands without using selfdefense. LunyRay made the self-defense claim and I showed how it could be legal even if self-defense was the only plausible legal reason.

I see your panties need adjusted after the Clinton comments. The reason I brough the Cliton thing up is because IF you are going to be consistant with legal accountability - you best be making similar accusations of Clinton. :) Sorry about the truth.

CkG
I read your post(s). I repeat...your case for self-defense is laughable.

Clinton...I believe the accusations at the time were along the lines of "he's just doing it to take the heat off his Lewinsky problems".

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Are you saying that Saddam's repeatedly breaking of the conditions - didn't increase the security threat he may have been?

No- I don't regret replying or anything I said in that post. We are talking about the legality of the war - LunyRay made the claim that is was only based on self-defense. I presented a case in which self-defense could be feasable. I don't think it was based on self-defense and I'd argue differently but certain people want to pin this case into their narrow definition of self-defense. The UN clearly stated how the area would be secure - those conditions weren't met - therefore there was a security problem.


*note to all you panty bunchers - the following is NOT to prove that what Bush did was legal or right - it is only being said to show the ambiguity of the left's position. **
But IF you think that everything I said was a bunch of BS(which it isn't ;) ), why don't can't I accuse Clinton of these same things? Clinton didn't show "proof" of an immenant threat which was why he lobbed a couple hundred women and child killing bombs into Iraq. Where was the outcry and whining about pre-emptive strike back then? Bag Bush if you want to try but you are going to take Clinton down with you. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the Republicans don't have that at a contingency plan.
Should Congress also be held accountable for the War since it ultimately gave permission for it?

The case for self-defense stands, we can argue about who said what and when all day(as is the case in all the other threads) but LEGALLY there is NO case for calling this war illegal, IMO. Did Bush paint the picture differently than I would have liked? - yes. Did Bush start an illegal war? -No.

CkG
You case for self-defense is laughable. You don't punish someone and call it self defense.

If you think I give a fig about Clinton you are badly mistaken. As to your "Where was the whining back then" comment...I dunno. Are you referring to these forums? I'm not sure they existed back then. If you're referring to an outcry in general...how should I know. If you're referring to an outcry by the D's, ask a D.
Hello? Did you read my post?

I don't think this case needs to be a self-defense case I think the legality stands without using selfdefense. LunyRay made the self-defense claim and I showed how it could be legal even if self-defense was the only plausible legal reason.

I see your panties need adjusted after the Clinton comments. The reason I brough the Cliton thing up is because IF you are going to be consistant with legal accountability - you best be making similar accusations of Clinton. :) Sorry about the truth.

CkG
I read your post(s). I repeat...your case for self-defense is laughable.

Clinton...I believe the accusations at the time were along the lines of "he's just doing it to take the heat off his Lewinsky problems".
You are entitled to your opinion. My case is hardly laughable.

So because Clinton took the heat off his personal problems, he still gets a pass on Bombing a "soveriegn nation"? You and I both know that the answer to that is "NO" So lets be asking Clinton the same questions we ask Bush.

CkG
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Ok, let's ask him.

"Hey Bill, what is this 'solid' evidence you said you had of the existence of WMD?"

"Hey Bill, what's up with this forged evidence you used as part of your reasoning for bombing Iraq?"

"Hey Bill, explain to me again what this imminent threat is that Iraq poses to the US."

"Hey Bill, what's all this about high-up officials not being convinced that an attack was neccesary?"

"Hey Bill, would you mind taking the time to explain to us what the difference is between a bombing raid and a war? I'm afraid there are people who don't realize there is a difference."


 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
Ok, let's ask him.

"Hey Bill, what is this 'solid' evidence you said you had of the existence of WMD?"

"Hey Bill, what's up with this forged evidence you used as part of your reasoning for bombing Iraq?"

"Hey Bill, explain to me again what this imminent threat is that Iraq poses to the US."

"Hey Bill, what's all this about high-up officials not being convinced that an attack was neccesary?"

"Hey Bill, would you mind taking the time to explain to us what the difference is between a bombing raid and a war? I'm afraid there are people who don't realize there is a difference."
Your first 4 would be decent questions to ask but the 5th isn't relevant. #5 is the HOW - not the WHY (reasons).

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Michael
The US Congress authorized the use of force.

The President, as Commander-in-Chief, authorized the attack.

Seems as "legal" as a war can be.

There's nothing in the US Constitution or laws that requires a UN resolution.

The whole concept of "international laws about wars" is fuzzy at best. The closest is the Geneva Convention and that doesn't even have much teeth unless you're on the losing side and you violated it.

Michael
The president, according to the War Powers Act, needs Congressional approval... he has it for the Iraqi thing ... he signed it in Oct '02... but, the notion of International Law about war being fuzzy... seems a bit fuzzy to me.. The authoritative body appears to be the UN. We are by treaty a member and by treaty agree to be bound by the Charter and Articles... and it seems to have worked (more or less) so far.. The US used the inferred argument contained in Res 1441 (since all prior Res are incorporated in 1441 it controls) but that seems not to hunt or what ever dogs do... so we've (the Admin) segued to the defense issue and Article 51.. seems clear to me... but perhaps your insight is more accurate... or less fuzzy..

 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: Michael
The US Congress authorized the use of force.

The President, as Commander-in-Chief, authorized the attack.

Seems as "legal" as a war can be.

There's nothing in the US Constitution or laws that requires a UN resolution.

The whole concept of "international laws about wars" is fuzzy at best. The closest is the Geneva Convention and that doesn't even have much teeth unless you're on the losing side and you violated it.

Michael
This is the most apt point so far. It may be that the UN is irrelevant and that we should not care about international law.

So it looks like there are three seperate arguments:
1)Whether the war was legal based on resolution 1441 and preceding resolutions.
2)Whether the war was legal based on provisions for self-defense.
3)Whether the war was legal because we said it was.

I have been trying to evaluate the first argument.
CAD, I feel a little cheated. I read the irritating resolutions that you asked me to, but when I came to a different conclusion than you, you blew off what I had to say.
  • Why would the security council pass a new resolution regarding the circumstances of all old resolutions, but with specific language regarding the evaluation of resolution compliance and further action to be taken(point 12: "Decides to convene immediately upon reciept of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;") unless the resolution is intended to supercede such authorities granted in previous resolutions? (In plainer English, why wouldn't a newer law about the exact same situation take precedence over an older one)
  • Why would resolution 678, which authorized the Gulf War, still legitimize war 12 years and several resolutions later? Can we use 678 as a legal basis for war against Iraq if the piss us off 100 years from now?
  • Why does one resolution contain the language, "and reaffirming", while others do not. Does this language imply anything?

Don't get me wrong, I am not automatically ruling out a legal basis for war, but as far as I can see, the UN resolutions only provide a legal basis for the Gulf War.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: Michael
The US Congress authorized the use of force.

The President, as Commander-in-Chief, authorized the attack.

Seems as "legal" as a war can be.

There's nothing in the US Constitution or laws that requires a UN resolution.

The whole concept of "international laws about wars" is fuzzy at best. The closest is the Geneva Convention and that doesn't even have much teeth unless you're on the losing side and you violated it.

Michael
This is the most apt point so far. It may be that the UN is irrelevant and that we should not care about international law.

So it looks like there are three seperate arguments:
1)Whether the war was legal based on resolution 1441 and preceding resolutions.
2)Whether the war was legal based on provisions for self-defense.
3)Whether the war was legal because we said it was.

I have been trying to evaluate the first argument.
CAD, I feel a little cheated. I read the irritating resolutions that you asked me to, but when I came to a different conclusion than you, you blew off what I had to say.
  • Why would the security council pass a new resolution regarding the circumstances of all old resolutions, but with specific language regarding the evaluation of resolution compliance and further action to be taken(point 12: "Decides to convene immediately upon reciept of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;") unless the resolution is intended to supercede such authorities granted in previous resolutions? (In plainer English, why wouldn't a newer law about the exact same situation take precedence over an older one)
  • Why would resolution 678, which authorized the Gulf War, still legitimize war 12 years and several resolutions later? Can we use 678 as a legal basis for war against Iraq if the piss us off 100 years from now?
  • Why does one resolution contain the language, "and reaffirming", while others do not. Does this language imply anything?

Don't get me wrong, I am not automatically ruling out a legal basis for war, but as far as I can see, the UN resolutions only provide a legal basis for the Gulf War.
The basic reason I believe that is does is because the cease-fire was a stoppage of the war using conditions - conditions Saddam accepted but didn't follow. Therefore - the war is "un-ceased" and the rules of engagement used previously are back in play unless specifically overruled(which they were not).

To each his own opinion though.

CkG
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
2)Whether the war was legal based on provisions for self-defense.
this reason is out of the question, the self-defense rule applies when you are attacked first, this was applied with Afghanistan. Iraq hasnt touched the US so no, doesnt work. If this rule could be applied to suspicion then just about any country can attack any country because of paranoia.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY