When is too far, too far?

[Durzel]

*sigh*

There is no Law that exists that says a country can't attack another country.

Your argument is so full of holes it beggars belief. What about countries not part of the UN that wage war on each other. Are they breaking laws? Are those wars illegal?

Thus, it is impossible for it to be illegal. Illegal means unlawful, and something cannot be unlawful where no law has been broken. The UN does not enforce or make Laws.

The whole question of whether or not the US has broken its own Laws, when its own Government (the same Government that authorised Operation Iraqi Freedom) makes the Laws is a little silly non? I made a personal Law at Christmas that I was going to stop drinking more than 3 coffees a day. I rescinded that Law today because I'd already had 3 cups and fancied another. By your reasoning this act was illegal.

 

[xane]

nath: keep insisting it is "legal" and it just might be so, the old "Iraqi Information Minister" tactic.

US Consitution:

Article 1 Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To ...

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Bush _did_ consult, and gain approval, for the military action in Iraq, which was not actually technically "war", but covered by the "captures on land and water" bit.

Your point gets mixed up with:

Article I Section 10
...
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay

(my italics) this concerns the actions of an individual state, and again, Bush did seek and gain Congression approval.

 

[nath]

Fair enough Xane.

As for the UN though. Surely if you AGREE to be a part of the UN, then you agree to abide by those rules, when I say illegal, I mean under UN rules of course. Iraq is part of the UN so agrees to abide by the resolutions that were set upon him. You can't say "he was in breach of 1441 so we can go to war", and then say "actually the UN doesn't allow/deny wars at all". So then what the hell was was the whole resolution business about.

The point I'm trying to get across (poorly) is that *under the UN* that resolution did not give them grounds for war.

Now if you think that doesn't matter, that's fine. I disagree. I disagree with the war as a whole. It just happens that a bad regime got taken out in the process.. that's good..I'm happy he's gone.. I still don't think it was justified.

 

[xane]

Okay, UN Resolutions then ...

"In breach of 1441" has no meaning, Resolution 1441 was itself a declaration that Iraq was in breach of Resolution 687. Here are some excerpts, again my italics for emphasis:

UN Resolution 1441 (2002)

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,

Deploring ... (several paragraphs relating to the non-compliance of Iraq to the requirements of Resolution 687, biological weapons, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, balistic missiles, terrorist threats, etc, etc, etc)

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,

...

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991) ...

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the council; ...

...

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;

Resolution 678 (1990) provided the authorization of use of force by member states, initially to eject Iraq from Kuwait, and to ensure "peace and security", thus:

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

References are made to Resolution 687 (1991), which outlined the verdict that Iraq had threatened to use WMD, threatened to use terrorism, and threatened to hold hostages and was developing nuclear weapons outside the non-proliferation treaty.

Resolution 687 was also the conditions for a ceasefire, which Iraq never met, so the authorization of force still remained.

The legality is how far the US/UK caolition should have gone to "ensure peace and security", their argument is a regime change, that will need to be established as a correct course of action or not later on, as of now it is far from clear cut as to whether it was "illegal".

Resolution 1441 was only a reaffirmation that the ceasefire of 687 was not being compied due to Iraq's uncooperative attitude, the argument about 1441 being a "trigger" is not one that will be presented when and if the US/UK gets hauled before a UN commission on the point.

 

[*Exor*]

Shutup Nath you fucking poncey twat.

 

[nath]

So basically 1441 didn't give the authorisation for war, even if the previous resolutions may have. Either way, Saddam did not (in my opinion) pose a threat to his neighbouring nations, or any other country for that matter. I don't believe for a minute that the US felt he was a threat, nor do I think they went in to free the Iraqis. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is obviously just a name to appease the conscience of the public. I honestly thing bad bad things will come from this war, and it was unecessarily rushed in to without all other avenues being fully explored. Saddam is no longer in power, a good few hundred Iraqi people are happy (yes it may well be millions, but to suggest that would be nothing more than conjecture) but we'll have to wait and see what develops from it. I hope you're all right and that everything turns out hunky dory. I just don't think it will, I think the US will continue it's "peace process" in the middle east and continue to stir up even more hatred for the west.

Time will tell.

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

Originally posted by *Exor*
Shutup Nath you fucking poncey twat.

To the point, I see.

 

[*Exor*]

Either way, Saddam did not (in my opinion) pose a threat to his neighbouring nations, or any other country for that matter

Yes, you're right. I forgot, he didn't fire missiles into Kuwait because someone ELSE attacked him at all.

 

[nath]

You think with weapons inspections going on, every country in the UN talking about him he'd suddenly go and attack a neighbouring nation? I know he's capable of it, he just wouldn't have done it then. Christ, get a clue Buckley :\

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by DBs
Eh?

it is a known fact he gasses the iraqi people be they Kurds or anyone else.

So what about all the Iraqi exiles who also claim the bloke is an evil person? They been watching too much tv as well?

Don't worry about maxi, he is da original retard....in one of his reply's he said it was protesters that stopped the Vietnam War

 

[Durzel]

Originally posted by *Exor*
Yes, you're right. I forgot, he didn't fire missiles into Kuwait because someone ELSE attacked him at all.

Or gas the Kurds.

 

[bodhi]

I love how the anti-war lot are making Dubya out to be worse than Saddam. Which, I'm sure, even the biggest windowlicker in Stoke can see, is complete and utter shite. But hey, if it helps the Daily Mirror sell papers and Michael Moore sell books, go with it. Just don't be surprised when no-one listens to a fucking word you say.

 

[*Exor*]

Originally posted by nath
You think with weapons inspections going on, every country in the UN talking about him he'd suddenly go and attack a neighbouring nation? I know he's capable of it, he just wouldn't have done it then. Christ, get a clue Buckley :\

Oh yeah, because that's more of a deterrent that having the worlds most powerful army on your doorstep

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by Durzel
Or gas the Kurds.

UK killed Kurds too. Noone gives a flying FUCK About the kurds.
Least of all US/UK.


http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=2592&lang=en


the article itself is scaremongering, and generally a bit lame, but the website (iraqwar.ru) is very good indeed, overall

But if you care, and your probably dont, s'long as the bad guys get the smack down, you might want to read up on some of those conflicts and the end result of them.

Prime example of course being Afghanistan, which most of you will have forgotten about by now, what with it not being on CNN Or Sky News for a bit.


as for the Bush being worse than saddam, cant compare them, bush has been in power a few years, document the history of both countries, and well it speaks for itself, even if you read very little on both.

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by Embattle
Don't worry about maxi, he is da original retard....in one of his reply's he said it was protesters that stopped the Vietnam War

You're a fucking idiot if you believe they'd have pulled out had noone been protesting.


and you can all you like, twat.

 

[Xtro]

Can someone please explain why the Turks are so fucked off about the Kurds? I'd ask at work but get bollocked for not knowing. Why should the Turks worry about Kurds moving into Kirkuk (to live there, not to occupy btw).

 

[Gumbo]

The Turks are concerned that the Kurds once well established will want an entirely Kurdish state, this would probably include a large chunk of what is currently Turkish land... I even have some figures.

There are 30 million Kurds, 13.5 million in Turkey, 6 million in Iraq, 5 million in Iran, and 300,000 in Syria.

The Turks don't want the Kurds to have Kirkuk as it is the traditional capital, and would inevitably be the seat of the Kurdish government. The Turks would much rather that the Kurds just sort of floated around without really having a proper seat with which to organise a Greater Kurdish Republic.

To be quite honest I think the Turks are screwed, and will have to hive off some land, or otherwise fight a Balkans type war over it, but there you go, we live in interesting times...

 

[Xtro]

Thanks a lot gumbo I was aware that there were some Kurds in Turkey and that Turkey was worried the Kurds wanted their own state but didn't realise that that would include some of Turkey itself possibly.

Cheers

 

[Gumbo]

Interesting thing of course is that Turkey is a NATO member, so if they are attacked we are required to defend them, lets hope we can all be sensible about this

 

[PR.]

Good luck to the Kurds, in my opinion, they have behaved more sensibly over this situation than the Turkish government has.

A warning though Kurds don't let them walk you to your new state/country as they're more likely to open a can of genocide on you

 

[Wij]

Aye, to the best of my knowledge the Kurds are in a very similar situation to the Palestinians but since in this case it's Arabs fucking over Arabs rather than Jews fucking over Arabs nobody really cares.

Correct me if I'm wrong

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by maxi--
You're a fucking idiot if you believe they'd have pulled out had noone been protesting.


and you can all you like, twat.

They pulled out, master retard, because of the death toll.....sticks and stones may break my bones but teenagers with small brains, lack of knowledge, silly beliefs and bad excuses will never hurt me


BTW

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Xtro
Thanks a lot gumbo I was aware that there were some Kurds in Turkey and that Turkey was worried the Kurds wanted their own state but didn't realise that that would include some of Turkey itself possibly.

Cheers

It would sort of be stuck right in the middle and be hated by all those that surround it, like Israel I guess

 

[mr.Blacky]

Originally posted by Wij
Aye, to the best of my knowledge the Kurds are in a very similar situation to the Palestinians but since in this case it's Arabs fucking over Arabs rather than Jews fucking over Arabs nobody really cares.

Correct me if I'm wrong

Turks aint Arabs

 

[Wij]

Iraqis are tho