quote:

Originally posted by zig If the war is illegal then how can it be argued either way....its either legal or illegal.....there are no suspended sentences handed down.

again, i said it could be argued either way..however, IN MY OPINION it was illegal. but that doesnt mean it was. depends on how you interpret the UN resolutions

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The thing with laws (and this is especially the case with international law) is that a law is only a law when it can be enforced! So technically, the UN is the 'ultimate authority' but in reality only those countries where that law can be enforced counts (ie the weak states). As for Israel, that obviously means no-one can invade to enforce them, whether it would give them a right to is another matter. I have a little experience with the main resolutions against Israel (242 & 388) and none of them say force can be used to enforce them so I would say not. The resolutions passed against Iraq in 1991 do (I think altho not sure) grant the use of force to uphold them (in fact we've been bombing Iraq for 15 years now! Not just since 2003!) UN Resolutions have to grant the use of force, I dont think the rule is anyone with an outstanding resoltuion can be invaded!

Well I sort of addressed to Sven that the last resolution passed against Iraq, which was unanimously agreed upon, required a 2nd vote after the inspections if force were to be taken.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 I know your thoughts

Thats quite a skill cos I haven't even made my mind up about this war yet!!

I was against the war because it was (from the Americans) portrayed as the next phase of TWAT. I knew that there was no link between al-Qaida and Saddam, the CIA knew that, everyone in the world knew that (even the British government didn't try and pull that one!) but the neo-cons did...so I opposed it as the next phase of the war against terror. I'm not opposed to military action on humanitarian grounds (ie I'm not opposed to war full stop) as long as military action is neccessary. The reasons for war went through several stages - first terrorism, then WMDs, then when both of those excuses were found to be false, we went in for humanitarian reasons!

Now I had no idea whether Saddam was making WMDs but even if he was, I didn't think we would be the target, nor did I think it would be in the best interests of Saddam to give WMDs to a terrorist group who's aim was the downfall of Muslim governments!! Basically, before the war I was convinced Saddam was no threat to our national security and that is why I opposed the war.

However, it gets a bit blurred when you add the "democratisation/human rights" factor into it cos the sanctions were killing thousands, Saddam was obviously a bastard so was the war justified to achieve those aims (even if these were just a by product of the real aim of securing oil)? Well my university lecturer wrote an article where he said we (the British government) had three options (Tony Blair wanted an end to the sanctions as too many Iraqis were suffereing, but the sanctions were containing Saddam as intended)...first, just keep the sanctions (Iraqis die), second, lift sanctions (Saddam uncontained and proven to want WMDs and proven to want to invade countries, Saudi Arabia probably top of his list), third, regime change (invade)

Obviously we chose option 3. Its a bit of a lose lose situation as the sanctions had to go, but with Saddam's record he couldn't be left unchecked, so the only option was regime change. However, after discussing this point on another board, one other option was to take the Qaddafi route and negotiate a settlement. Not saying that would work with Saddam but it was an option that was not exhausted...but that is cos the neo-cons had their heart set on toppling Saddam since 1991!!

So as you can see, its a tricky one for me to say this way or that whether I think this war was justified or even if there were alternatives

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Well I sort of addressed to Sven that the last resolution passed against Iraq, which was unanimously agreed upon, required a 2nd vote after the inspections if force were to be taken.

Well that resolution (hypocritically vetoed by the French) was America's way of pandering to the British. They had already decided they were gonna invade and that the 1991 resolutions gave them the right to do so, but the British weren't so sure, so as a favour, to put their concerns behind them, they went for a resoltuion that made it exactly clear they could use force, obviously that failed so they reverted back to their original position that the 1991 resolutions would suffice

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The thing with laws (and this is especially the case with international law) is that a law is only a law when it can be enforced! So technically, the UN is the 'ultimate authority' but in reality only those countries where that law can be enforced counts (ie the weak states). As for Israel, that obviously means no-one can invade to enforce them, whether it would give them a right to is another matter. I have a little experience with the main resolutions against Israel (242 & 388) and none of them say force can be used to enforce them so I would say not. The resolutions passed against Iraq in 1991 do (I think altho not sure) grant the use of force to uphold them (in fact we've been bombing Iraq for 15 years now! Not just since 2003!) UN Resolutions have to grant the use of force, I dont think the rule is anyone with an outstanding resoltuion can be invaded!

This is the last paragraph printed in resolution 687 of april 1991 at the end of the first Gulf War, and i would take it, that another resolution would have to be passed in order for force to be used.

quote:

34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area

Resolution 687........Link

___________________
*** Sig edited -> see rule #5
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y142/dublin6/100-percent-liberal.gif

Countdown in Iraq:
Timeline of Events



August 2, 1990 - Iraq invades Kuwait. The United Nations Security Council adopts Resolution 660 in a 14-0 vote (with Yemen abstaining) which calls for Iraqi troops to retreat to positions of August 1, 1990.

August 6, 1990 - In a 13-0 vote (with Cuba and Yemen abstaining), the United Nations Security Council adopts Resolution 661 which imposes economic sanctions on Iraq.

August 8, 1990 - Iraq announces the annexation of Kuwait. The United Nations Security Council adopts Resolution 662 in response.

September 16, 1990 - The United Nations Security Council adopts Resolution 667 which condemns the violation by Iraq of diplomatic compounds in Kuwait. Furthermore, the resolution demands the immediate release of foreign nationals removed from Kuwait.

November 29, 1990 - The United Nations Security Council adopts Resolution 678 which authorizes nations cooperating with Kuwait to use "all necessary means" to uphold Resolution 660. The resolution also imposes a January 15, 1991 deadline for Iraqi forces to withdraw from Kuwait.

January 12, 1991 - Congress authorizes the use of military force against Iraq.

January 16, 1991 - At 2:38am Baghdad time, "Operation Desert Storm" commences when coalition forces comprised of 34 countries begin aerial bombing of Iraq.

February 24, 1991 - Coalition forces commence ground operations in Iraq and Kuwait which results in the liberation of Kuwait four days later.

March 2, 1991 - The United Nations Security Council adopts Resolution 686 which orders a cessation of hostilities. Iraq accepts the terms of Resolution 686 on March 3.

April 6, 1991 - Saddam Hussein accepts the United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 of April 3 which calls for on Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction and allow UN inspectors to monitor the disarmament process.

April 10, 1991 - A no-fly zone is established in northern Iraq to protect the Kurd population from Hussein's regime.

April 19, 1991 - UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) is created to carry out United Nations Security Council Resolution 687.

August 26, 1992 - A no-fly zone is established in southern Iraq to protect the Shite population from Hussein's regime.

June 27, 1993 - US forces launch a cruise missile attack on Iraqi intelligence headquarters in Al-Mansur district, Baghdad in retaliation for the attempted assassination of US President, George Bush, in Kuwait in April.

April 14, 1995 - United Nations Security Council Resolution 986 allows the partial resumption of Iraq's oil exports to buy food and medicine. Iraq does not accept the resolution until May 1996.

August 31, 1996 - Iraqi forces launch an offensive into the northern no-fly zone.

September 3, 1996 - The US extends the northern limit of the southern no-fly zone to just south of Baghdad.

October 23, 1997 - A UN disarmament commission concludes that Iraq continues to conceal information on biological and chemical weapons..

November 13, 1997 - The American members of the U.N. inspection team are expelled by Iraq.

October 31, 1998 - Iraq ends all forms of cooperation with UNSCOM, but then agrees on November 14 to unconditional cooperation with the UN inspectors.

December 15, 1998 - Chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler reports that Iraq has not met promises made in November to fully cooperate with U.N. inspectors.

December 16, 1998 - The U.S. and Britain launch "Operation Desert Fox," a four-day bombing campaign that targets areas where it is believed that Iraq would hide weapons of mass destruction.

December 17, 1999 - United Nations Security Council Resolution 1284 creates the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace UNSCOM. Iraq rejects the resolution.

September 11, 2001 - Terrorists kill thousands on United States soil. There is no evidence of Iraqi involvement, but President Bush says the United States ``will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbored them.''

January 29, 2002 - In his annual State of the Union address, President Bush lists Iraq, Iran and North Korea and says, ``States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.''

September 12, 2002 - U.S. President George W. Bush addresses the United Nations, challenging the UN to enforce its own resolutions against Iraq.

October 7, 2002 - In an address in Cincinnati, President Bush provides his assessment of the Iraqi threat.

October 10-11, 2002 - Congress votes to give President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq. The House of Representatives vote was 296-133; the vote in the Senate was 77-23.

November 8, 2002 - The United Nations Security Council unanimously approves Resolution 1441 which imposes new arms inspections on Iraq. Iraq accepts Resolution 1441 on November 13. On November 18, UN inspectors return to Iraq.

December 7, 2002 - Iraq submits a 12,000-page declaration on its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and claims it has no banned weapons.

December 21, 2002 - President Bush approves the deployment of U.S. troops to the Gulf region.

January 16, 2003 - United Nations inspectors discover 11 undeclared empty chemical warheads in Iraq.

January 27, 2003 - U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, in a report to the UN, says that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it."

January 28, 2003 - President Bush announces in his State of the Union address that he is ready to attack Iraq with or without without UN support.

February 5, 2003 - Secretary of State Colin Powell presents evidence to the U.N. Security Council that he says shows that Iraq is concealing weapons of mass destruction. Opponents of a U.S.-led war are unconvinced.

February 14, 2003 - In his second report to the Security Council, Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix gives Iraq's response to weapons inspections mixed reviews but says the country has taken some positive steps.

February 22, 2003 - Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix orders Iraq to destroy its Al Samoud missiles by March 1, which are determined by inspectors to have an illegal range limit.

February 24, 2003 - The United States, Britain and Spain draft a United Nations resolution that states that "Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441," and that it is time to authorize use of military force against Iraq. France, Germany, and Russia submit a counter-resolution to the United Nations Security Council that states that inspections should be extended to ensure that there is "a real chance to the peaceful settlement of this crisis.”

March 1, 2003 - Iraq begins destroying banned Al Samoud 2 missiles. The Turkish parliament votes not to allow U.S. troops to use Turkey to open a northern front against Iraq.

March 6, 2003 - In a rare prime-time news conference, President Bush says that weapons inspections have become a ``willful charade'' and makes clear the United States would act to disarm Iraq even if the U.N. Security Council votes against a resolution authorizing force. Still, Bush said he would seek a council vote to put countries on record to ``let the world know where they stand'' on Saddam.

March 7, 2003 - Deep divisions at the Security Council hardened following a Hans Blix report that Iraq is improving its cooperation. Blix says disarmament could be done in months.

March 16, 2003 - President Bush meets with allies from Britain, Spain and Portugal in Azores, Portugal to finalize the endgame on democracy in Iraq. President Bush announces that “a moment of truth for the world” is at hand.

March 17, 2003 - President Bush addresses the nation and warns Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq within 48 hours or face war. The president’s prime-time speech comes hours after the administration withdraws proposed Security Council resolution seeking war authority, following persistent promises from France to veto any use-of-force authorization. Bush tells Americans, journalists, weapons inspectors, and foreigners in Iraq to leave immediately.

March 19, 2003 - U.S. initiates hostilities with a missile strike against Iraqi leadership. Minutes later President Bush addresses the nation to announce the beginning of the "disarmament of Iraq."


http://www.news10.net/news-special/...aq-timeline.htm

___________________
*** Sig edited -> see rule #5
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y142/dublin6/100-percent-liberal.gif

wolverine>>

im shite at quoting so ill just refernce each of your points..keeps it smaller too

ok, about the guy who phoned up..i honoestly dont know if he was said author he didnt say. so i cant answer that, but as i said the guy who hosts the show, an American, has connections with us intelligence, and details have been passed on.
however, as illegal as going to war on the basis of "if you cant find.." i personally think that there was still weapons there, and this is based on my own gut feeling. i dont think it should be used as a justifiation by governments to go to war, and i would reject that argument for legality

as to the legal arguments for the war, one of them was r678 which included the phrase "all necessary means" to to enforce and uphold r660, which i think was the one ordering withdrawal from Kuwait, but mentions something along the lines of needing to maintain and restore the international security. it has been argued that this allowed individual states to enforce conditions by force, if it was breached, and that this principle was the backdrop to r1441 and was well understood to be so in the apporach to that resolution, which gave iraq "one final opportunity" to comply with UN condiditions.

this is just one of the arguments ive got written down, and i dont have time to go into a legal/illegal debate fully today, but all im pointing out is that they could argue a case for the legality of the war, which could be taken as convincing by some. ie. the issue is not 100% agreed on in international law.

as for humanitarian intervention...well its a tricky subject. personally i think it was justified in the case of Iraq. perhaps also in the countries you mention.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Thats quite a skill cos I haven't even made my mind up about this war yet!! I was against the war because it was (from the Americans) portrayed as the next phase of TWAT. I knew that there was no link between al-Qaida and Saddam, the CIA knew that, everyone in the world knew that (even the British government didn't try and pull that one!) but the neo-cons did...so I opposed it as the next phase of the war against terror. I'm not opposed to military action on humanitarian grounds (ie I'm not opposed to war full stop) as long as military action is neccessary. The reasons for war went through several stages - first terrorism, then WMDs, then when both of those excuses were found to be false, we went in for humanitarian reasons! Now I had no idea whether Saddam was making WMDs but even if he was, I didn't think we would be the target, nor did I think it would be in the best interests of Saddam to give WMDs to a terrorist group who's aim was the downfall of Muslim governments!! Basically, before the war I was convinced Saddam was no threat to our national security and that is why I opposed the war. However, it gets a bit blurred when you add the "democratisation/human rights" factor into it cos the sanctions were killing thousands, Saddam was obviously a bastard so was the war justified to achieve those aims (even if these were just a by product of the real aim of securing oil)? Well my university lecturer wrote an article where he said we (the British government) had three options (Tony Blair wanted an end to the sanctions as too many Iraqis were suffereing, but the sanctions were containing Saddam as intended)...first, just keep the sanctions (Iraqis die), second, lift sanctions (Saddam uncontained and proven to want WMDs and proven to want to invade countries, Saudi Arabia probably top of his list), third, regime change (invade) Obviously we chose option 3. Its a bit of a lose lose situation as the sanctions had to go, but with Saddam's record he couldn't be left unchecked, so the only option was regime change. However, after discussing this point on another board, one other option was to take the Qaddafi route and negotiate a settlement. Not saying that would work with Saddam but it was an option that was not exhausted...but that is cos the neo-cons had their heart set on toppling Saddam since 1991!! So as you can see, its a tricky one for me to say this way or that whether I think this war was justified or even if there were alternatives

Sorry, I had remembered you as being very against the war.

I certainly disagreed with the sanctions long ago and obviously Saddam was a bad guy, but human rights & freedom was not the case made before the U.N. in seeking justification nor was it why Americans backed the war. Certainly much more needs to be done to enforce international laws and human rights, but that argument for why the war occurred runs a little thin considering the Geneva conventions are being skirted in how people are being treated in the aftermath. If liberation and human rights really were to justify this war, again, why specifically Iraq wehn so many other countries had and still have worse human rights abuses and ruthless dictators in charge? Regardless of the lack of consistency in the justification of this particular war, the balance between sovreignty and international law is a major dilemma.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

this thread has proper gone off the rails now.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 the balance between sovreignty and international law is a major dilemma.

it is arguably THE dilemma in international law, and perhaps threatens the existance of the current World Order.

quote:

Originally posted by svens_bath this thread has proper gone off the rails now.

___________________
*** Sig edited -> see rule #5
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y142/dublin6/100-percent-liberal.gif

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Sorry, I had remembered you as being very against the war. I certainly disagreed with the sanctions long ago and obviously Saddam was a bad guy, but human rights & freedom was not the case made before the U.N. in seeking justification nor was it why Americans backed the war. Certainly much more needs to be done to enforce international laws and human rights, but that argument for why the war occurred runs a little thin considering the Geneva conventions are being skirted in how people are being treated in the aftermath. If liberation and human rights really were to justify this war, again, why specifically Iraq wehn so many other countries had and still have worse human rights abuses and ruthless dictators in charge? Regardless of the lack of consistency in the justification of this particular war, the balance between sovreignty and international law is a major dilemma.

Yea I totally agree with all of that but at the same time there are other factors to take into account (which was my post above)

It is a dilemma and one that is actually enshrined into the UN charter! The UN says sovereignty must be respected, but also the determination of peoples is the other fundamental belief, which are contradictory