Who cares about International Laws, we don't!

[Yax]

...President Bush the First was justifying Gulf War I primarily on the basis that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was a violation of international law. Grandiose talk from the previous decade about how petty considerations such as international borders should not be allowed to impede the spread of democracy and the flowering of human rights were put aside for the duration. Kuwait is not a democracy. So, our justification for driving the invaders out was that international law honors borders no matter what kind of government they protect. We even got United Nations approval for our efforts. How quaint.

At the beginning of Gulf War II, we forgot ? we forgot ? we forgot ? oh, yes: international law. We forgot international law once again. When the U.N. Security Council would not play ball, we declared that our own invasion of Iraq was justified as a sovereign act of long-term self-defense against potential weapons of mass destruction, by the human rights situation within Iraq, and by the hope that removing Saddam Hussein will start a chain reaction of democracy and freedom in the Middle East. Don't bother us with your petty i-dotting and t-crossing: We're thinking big here.

But that kind of talk is so very last week. Come to think of it, it was just last week. But today our head's in a very different space and we're extremely concerned about violations of international law. Concerned, alarmed, and outraged. Specifically, we're deeply offended by Iraq's violations of the Geneva Conventions by showing U.S. prisoners of war on television. We're also angry that some Iraqi soldiers are waving the white flag in fake surrenders and violating the rules of war in other ways...

-------
The above is an excerpt from an article on MSN

 

[Feldenak]

UN Resolution 1441

Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometers, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and location, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

 

[Tates]

Please provide the specific reference in International Law that is being violated.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Tates
Please provide the specific reference in International Law that is being violated.

Me? My point is that the US & UK are within the realm of 1441 and I don't see any law being violated by attacking Iraq.

 

[Tates]

My request was directed at the author of this thread.

 

[Judgement]

Faldenak, thank you for pointing out that the U.S./UK are not breaking any laws, they are enfact just enforcing ones the UN has all previously agreed on and refused to enforce because it is not beneficial to their wallets.

 

[Stark]

decided to crawl out from under your rock tonight, eh?

 

[KenGr]

The original quote was from a Michael Kinsey article on MSN/Slate Magazine.

Although I don't always agree with Kinsey, I find him usually worth reading. This particular article, however, just didn't make any sense. He somehow seemed to say that if Iraq was in violation of International law with an unprovoked invasion of Kuwait, we were in violation of International Law to invade becuase of the non-compliance with the truce conditions, resolutions and sanctions. The whole article seems to be an exercise in comparing apples and oranges.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: KenGr
The original quote was from a Michael Kinsey article on MSN/Slate Magazine.

Although I don't always agree with Kinsey, I find him usually worth reading. This particular article, however, just didn't make any sense. He somehow seemed to say that if Iraq was in violation of International law with an unprovoked invasion of Kuwait, we were in violation of International Law to invade becuase of the non-compliance with the truce conditions, resolutions and sanctions. The whole article seems to be an exercise in comparing apples and oranges.

Don't you see though? The anti-war fools don't worry about facts or logical argument. They merely attempt to evoke the emotion response against violent conflict since that's so in vogue since Vietnam. These people, had they been living in the 1940s, would have felt that the Germans and the Japanese were merely misunderstood, and that we should use diplomacy to "stop the war". We'd all grow up speaking German right now (because they would have nuked Japan, too).

 

[Queasy]

As someone else said, what is with all the newbie posters trying to stir the pot with questionable to poor arguments and information?

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Queasy
As someone else said, what is with all the newbie posters trying to stir the pot with questionable to poor arguments and information?

My guess is that they (or at least a good portion) are current members with other S/N's that dont want to get flamed in other threads

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Queasy
As someone else said, what is with all the newbie posters trying to stir the pot with questionable to poor arguments and information?

My guess is that they (or at least a good portion) are current members with other S/N's that dont want to get flamed in other threads

Couldn't agree more!

 

[Nitemare]

UN Resolution 1441

Non compliance will result in severe consequences

 

[Yax]

Originally posted by: Queasy
As someone else said, what is with all the newbie posters trying to stir the pot with questionable to poor arguments and information?

Original Author responding:
You're right, I posted this quote to see what kind of response I would get. Its as expected. All you idiots are justifying the war, the invasion of Iraq, by saying we're the good guys so we can do what we want. Did you stop to think that if we were soooo right, all the other nations would jump in line and follow us into battle? We would have the UN support on this one all the way.

That aside, my beef isn't with the war. I'm all for it. I think it should have been done long ago. Back when the first Bush was in power. We're a superpower, we don't have to be the good guys. We shouldn't need any excuse to invade other nations. Any nation that disagrees with us should be occupied and made to agree with us. In the end, the rest of the world would see it our way. Its that simple.

But, to say we're only doing this because we're the good guys? Why are you fooling yourselves. We just need to feel secured, safe, rich and powerful. We just need our nation to grow and become prosperous. Tell it like it is and stop lying to yourselves. The world shouldn't be America and the other nations, it should be America everywhere. Who's more patriotic? You for being a good guy or me for wanting our nation to be the best ever?

Summary:
I'd rather be rich and bad than poor and good. If you disagree, please give me all your money and i'll say you were a good guy.

 

[Tates]

Original Author responding:
.....All you idiots are justifying the war......Who's more patriotic? You for being a good guy or me for wanting our nation to be the best ever?

Since the premise of this thread is based on following the rules

3. Please respect your fellow members. PERSONAL ATTACKS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

Lighten up.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: cheapbidder01

Originally posted by: Queasy
As someone else said, what is with all the newbie posters trying to stir the pot with questionable to poor arguments and information?

Original Author responding:
You're right, I posted this quote to see what kind of response I would get. Its as expected. All you idiots are justifying the war, the invasion of Iraq, by saying we're the good guys so we can do what we want. Did you stop to think that if we were soooo right, all the other nations would jump in line and follow us into battle? We would have the UN support on this one all the way.

Most of the responses *I* see are quoting the UN Resolution 1441 and not any rhetoric. Not sure what *you're* reading....

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: cheapbidder01

Originally posted by: Queasy
As someone else said, what is with all the newbie posters trying to stir the pot with questionable to poor arguments and information?

Original Author responding:
You're right, I posted this quote to see what kind of response I would get. Its as expected. All you idiots are justifying the war, the invasion of Iraq, by saying we're the good guys so we can do what we want. Did you stop to think that if we were soooo right, all the other nations would jump in line and follow us into battle? We would have the UN support on this one all the way.

Most of the responses *I* see are quoting the UN Resolution 1441 and not any rhetoric. Not sure what *you're* reading....

Reminds me of an interview the BBC had recently with an American lawyer about the Geneva Conventions and the Al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The lawyer and the host were sparring back and forth with the lawyer winning most points. Finally, the lawyer asked the host if he had even read any of the Geneva convention. The host said he had not. End of segment.

Cheapbidder, your argument will go over a lot better if you provide specific examples with factual links backing up your accusations that the USA regularly breaks international law.

 

[SickBeast]

I agree that 1441 promised "severe consequences", but the US jumped the gun...Hans Blix said he needed a few more months to determine whether or not Iraq was in material breach.

I'm sure there are some minor technicalities that could potentially put them in material breach, but the fact remains that no weapons of mass destructino were found in Iraq. They've probably already given them all to the terrorists

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I agree that 1441 promised "severe consequences", but the US jumped the gun...Hans Blix said he needed a few more months to determine whether or not Iraq was in material breach.

I'm sure there are some minor technicalities that could potentially put them in material breach, but the fact remains that no weapons of mass destructino were found in Iraq. They've probably already given them all to the terrorists

Again, it was not the job of the inspectors to find the actual weapons. Their job was to find proof that the known quantities of Anthrax, VX, Scuds, etc. were destroyed. That documentation was never provided and Blix, himself, admitted to Saddam pulling the wool over the inspectors' eyes and being quite evasive.

 

[Phuz]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
UN Resolution 1441

Non compliance will result in severe consequences

That resolution doesn't mention military force. And who was that resolution passed by? THE UN. So wouldn't you need to go through the UN for it to be legit? This IS against international law, whether you're for war, or against war... doesn't make a difference..

Rumsfield blasting Russian/Iran for providing iraq with conventional weapons is a little ironic, too. I agree with him, surely Saddam doesn't need any more toys... but he has to acknowledge that the US has equipped many countries in the past, too... and as we've seen the consequences when those countries stopped seeing eye to eye with the US.

 

[Tates]

This IS against international law

Will somebody p l e a s e site the International Statute in question?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: Nitemare
UN Resolution 1441

Non compliance will result in severe consequences

That resolution doesn't mention military force. And who was that resolution passed by? THE UN. So wouldn't you need to go through the UN for it to be legit? This IS against international law, whether you're for war, or against war... doesn't make a difference..

Iraq was already under economic sanctions. The phrase 'serious consequences' was watered down to appease France who was still holding out on voting for 1441 (due, in part, to its lucrative business contracts with Iraq.) War is a serious consequence. Besides, 1441 has been made moot.

Rumsfield blasting Russian/Iran for providing iraq with conventional weapons is a little ironic, too. I agree with him, surely Saddam doesn't need any more toys... but he has to acknowledge that the US has equipped many countries in the past, too... and as we've seen the consequences when those countries stopped seeing eye to eye with the US.

Russia/Iran/Syria providing military assistance to be used against an ally would be considered to be an act of aggression in my book!

 

[Phuz]

Iraq was already under economic sanctions. The phrase 'serious consequences' was watered down to appease France who was still holding out on voting for 1441 (due, in part, to its lucrative business contracts with Iraq.) War is a serious consequence.

So? That still doesn't change anything. You guys sanction any country you have a disagreements with.. geeze, you've done it to us over the softwood lumber crisis. The bill was dubbed with 'serious consequences', not because France was holding out... it was written to vaguely so the Bill could be munipulated.

Besides, 1441 has been made moot.

You're making it too easy....

Russia/Iran/Syria providing military assistance to be used against an ally would be considered to be an act of aggression in my book!

It certainly is! And I want it to stop just as much as you do.
But the US has provided arms for more countries than Iran/Syria ever could.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Phuz

So? That still doesn't change anything. You guys sanction any country you have a disagreements with.. geeze, you've done it to us over the softwood lumber crisis. The bill was dubbed with 'serious consequences', not because France was holding out... it was written to vaguely so the Bill could be munipulated.

I wish I had the link to an article discussing the wording of 1441 but it discussed how it was watered down to appease France.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Phuz

So? That still doesn't change anything. You guys sanction any country you have a disagreements with.. geeze, you've done it to us over the softwood lumber crisis. The bill was dubbed with 'serious consequences', not because France was holding out... it was written to vaguely so the Bill could be munipulated.

I wish I had the link to an article discussing the wording of 1441 but it discussed how it was watered down to appease France.

FYI - the UN Resolution authorizing the U.S. to use force against Iraq in 1991 is still in effect. It never died. We signed a cease-fire at the end of the Gulf War, not a peace agreement. No international laws have been broken.