So, Iraq can attack US absolutely legally ?

[hergehen]

I don't get this thing at all ...

so, US wants to attack Iraq, because they are afraid that Iraq will attack them ...

but now, Iraq knows that US will most probably attack it ... so, as gov't of America says, Iraq can attack US absolutely legally....

isn't this true ?

or this rule only applies to "super-power" amerca :|



p.s.I'm against a war of any kind

 

[StageLeft]

Well it's not so easy. Apart from the obvious fact that Iraq has no ability whatsoever to illicit harm to the US mainland with its military I'm not sure how things would be defined "legally". Realistically the US would be the aggressor if it attacks Iraq, so I don't see why anybody should think that's legal but if Iraq sent over a ship to attack the US it would be illegal. Who's laws? US or iraq? If you're talking about UN laws if the US attacks iraq right now they'll not be doing it condoned by the UN so in that way it would be "illegal", but if they go endorsed by the UN then that would be legal in the UN's eyes - and Iraq would obviously never be given that ability to attack the US with the UN's blessing.

 

[BD2003]

Considering that these are two countries, and nothing is really "illegal" as far as international affairs go, I dont see why not. Bin laden "legally" attacked us.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: hergehen
I don't get this thing at all ...

so, US wants to attack Iraq, because they are afraid that Iraq will attack them ...

but now, Iraq knows that US will most probably attack it ... so, as gov't of America says, Iraq can attack US absolutely legally....

isn't this true ?

or this rule only applies to "super-power" amerca :|



p.s.I'm against a war of any kind

You're 100% correct, if Iraq came over here, kicked or asses, made us sign surrender, convinced the world they had to srtike first they'd be legal. Why? because in war the victors are always legal.

 

[Lucky]

p.s.I'm against a war of any kind

Gee, like we couldn't figure that out just from reading the title.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: CarbonylYou're 100% correct, if Iraq came over here, kicked or asses, made us sign surrender, convinced the world they had to srtike first they'd be legal. Why? because in war the victors are always legal.

You nailed it. Rules of any kind are silly in war. The only way you can enforce those rules is after the fact, by winning.

 

[glen]

The UN agreed to the "Gulf War."
Iraq agreed to certain terms in their surrender.
Iraq violated those terms and there-by is agreeing to war.

 

[badluck]

I don't get this thing at all ...

so, US wants to attack Iraq, because they are afraid that Iraq will attack them ...

but now, Iraq knows that US will most probably attack it ... so, as gov't of America says, Iraq can attack US absolutely legally....

isn't this true ?

or this rule only applies to "super-power" amerca

You don't have a clue...try again.......

 

[Gaard]

Why doesn't he have a clue? If, for some reason or other, a nation deems America a threat wouldn't that give them the right (the right...as in the same right we have to attack Iraq) to attack us? Isn't that what the suits are saying is the reason they want to attack Iraq?

 

[BD2003]

It depends on how you look at it.

If you see america as the sole superpower and the "leader of the world", then yes, it is illegal for iraq to attack us, and they will be punished for doing so.

Or if you see international affairs as basically anarchy, anything goes, then law does not exist, because there is no leader to enforce it.



For there to be law, there must be a leader, or a force in power. The UN can certainly be seen as such, although I have doubts about its effectiveness, since every country is only really looking out for itself.


But theoretically/technically, we can do whatever the hell we please, and its up to the rest of the world to want to stop us.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Or if you see international affairs as basically anarchy, anything goes, then law does not exist, because there is no leader to enforce it.

realist theory is nice stuff

 

[Gaard]

So there would/will be nothing legal or illegal about us attacking Irag, right?

But putting legalities aside, would it be a correct statement that if another nation deemed America a threat, they'd have the same right to attack us as we do to attack Iraq?

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: glen
The UN agreed to the "Gulf War."
Iraq agreed to certain terms in their surrender.
Iraq violated those terms and there-by is agreeing to war.

True. If Iraq agrees to certain terms for a cease-fire, then violates those terms, then the cease-fire agreement becomes void and a state of cease-fire no longer exists. The US, then, is well within its right to continue the conflict.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: glen
The UN agreed to the "Gulf War."
Iraq agreed to certain terms in their surrender.
Iraq violated those terms and there-by is agreeing to war.

true, although from what I understand from reading UN resolutions, the UN security council would need to authorize force.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Gaard
So there would/will be nothing legal or illegal about us attacking Irag, right?

But putting legalities aside, would it be a correct statement that if another nation deemed America a threat, they'd have the same right to attack us as we do to attack Iraq?

Well I suppose another nation could do that if they liked, but if the US goes in after getting UN approval then it is legal by the UN's standards. You have to define legality by one system - for instance what if NATO said it's illegal to attack the US and yet UN said to some other country "go ahead!" On the one hand it would be illegal and on the other legal.

The distinction has to be made though - if the US just picked a country like Canada and said they wanted to invade it it's different from picking Iraq. Although military force has not been authorized by the UN, Iraq has indeed broken UN resolutions, so the US then sending its own military has more of an air of legality to it than just arbitratily picking another nation to invade.

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: glen
The UN agreed to the "Gulf War."
Iraq agreed to certain terms in their surrender.
Iraq violated those terms and there-by is agreeing to war.

True. If Iraq agrees to certain terms for a cease-fire, then violates those terms, then the cease-fire agreement becomes void and a state of cease-fire no longer exists. The US, then, is well within its right to continue the conflict.

Technically, Iraq surrendered to the UN not the US as it was a coalition of forces acting under the aegis of a UN Security council resolution that went to war with Iraq. It would require a determination by the security council that Iraq was in violation of the cease fire to such an extent that new force would have to be authorized by the security council for the US to legally go to war against Iraq using the argument of a violation of the cease fire.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Gaard
So there would/will be nothing legal or illegal about us attacking Irag, right?

But putting legalities aside, would it be a correct statement that if another nation deemed America a threat, they'd have the same right to attack us as we do to attack Iraq?

Well I suppose another nation could do that if they liked, but if the US goes in after getting UN approval then it is legal by the UN's standards. You have to define legality by one system - for instance what if NATO said it's illegal to attack the US and yet UN said to some other country "go ahead!" On the one hand it would be illegal and on the other legal.

The distinction has to be made though - if the US just picked a country like Canada and said they wanted to invade it it's different from picking Iraq. Although military force has not been authorized by the UN, Iraq has indeed broken UN resolutions, so the US then sending its own military has more of an air of legality to it than just arbitratily picking another nation to invade.

But we don't. We have no authority - it's the UN's prerogative and responsibility to enforce its resolutions.

That is akin to a teacher saying, well, I'll discipline your child for you because they're misbehaving, because you won't.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Gaard
So there would/will be nothing legal or illegal about us attacking Irag, right?

But putting legalities aside, would it be a correct statement that if another nation deemed America a threat, they'd have the same right to attack us as we do to attack Iraq?

Well I suppose another nation could do that if they liked, but if the US goes in after getting UN approval then it is legal by the UN's standards. You have to define legality by one system - for instance what if NATO said it's illegal to attack the US and yet UN said to some other country "go ahead!" On the one hand it would be illegal and on the other legal.

The distinction has to be made though - if the US just picked a country like Canada and said they wanted to invade it it's different from picking Iraq. Although military force has not been authorized by the UN, Iraq has indeed broken UN resolutions, so the US then sending its own military has more of an air of legality to it than just arbitratily picking another nation to invade.

That sounds logical. I know it's highly unlikely that anyone will ever attack us...other than as cowardly terrorist attacks. But, whether you agree or not to attacking Irag, I think we might be setting a dangerous precedent. I think (and I wouldn't be surprised if I were wrong) that throughout history when one nation was the first to attack another it was for conquest reasons. Now we have the USA attacking another nation (right or wrong...that's not what I'm questioning) under the reasoning of prevention. Don't you think that's a dangerous message to send to the world?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: glen
The UN agreed to the "Gulf War."
Iraq agreed to certain terms in their surrender.
Iraq violated those terms and there-by is agreeing to war.

true, although from what I understand from reading UN resolutions, the UN security council would need to authorize force.

but they won't because as Bush said (paraphrased) they lack balls

 

[Czar]

If the UN doesnt agree to the war and the US still goes to war it will be 100% illegal under international law since the US would be the agressor.

 

[ReiAyanami]

if we ignore saddam like we ignored osama, there will be another september 11th, but with bio-chemical-nuclear weapons

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Czar
If the UN doesnt agree to the war and the US still goes to war it will be 100% illegal under international law since the US would be the agressor.

That is true but it's not hard to argue that it would, at this point, be breaking a law set in place by a now useless (in the eyes of the US) group. So the US could say "Who cares if we broke your laws; you have proven your uselessness anyway by your own inability to enforce your resolutions.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Czar
If the UN doesnt agree to the war and the US still goes to war it will be 100% illegal under international law since the US would be the agressor.

That will be sort of like Iraq wiping it's tail with the last UN cease-fire resolution...

works for me.

It's about time the UK and the USA pulled out of the UN anyways

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Czar
If the UN doesnt agree to the war and the US still goes to war it will be 100% illegal under international law since the US would be the agressor.

That will be sort of like Iraq wiping it's tail with the last UN cease-fire resolution...

works for me.

It's about time the UK and the USA pulled out of the UN anyways

Nah, it's about time the UN started getting a back bone. That's all!

 

[LH]

All we need is either France or Russia to agree. We can convince Russia, theres alittle thing called Chechneya that they dont want talked about. The UN will pass a resolution this year. With war starting in Feb/March. The US wanted more than a slim majority, but thats what its going to be.