Iraq: Brit Soldiers Dressed As Arabs In car Packed With Explosives Captured

Originally posted by ArchAngel
You must not ever have checked.....

www.un.org...
Article 3
The original Members of the United Nations shall be the states which, having participated in the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San Francisco, or having previously signed the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, sign the present Charter and ratify it in accordance with Article 110.
Article 4
1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

Only STATES can be UN Members.

The wording is over 60 years ago and IMO means citizens too, you and I both knnow that a state IS the people, or are you trying to imply the people and the state are 2 diffrent things?

AMERICA broke UN Law when it Invaded, not Iraq.

So? I'm not american, this does not bother me. Whether or not the UK broke the law does.
Also what law say's that we can't fight anyone who we see as a threat?

Why don't you show it to us. I'm sure it only applies to within the UK, not other nations....

I will.

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large

www.cps.gov.uk...
Also..

The legal status of self defense varies between jurisdictions. It has been generally held by most courts, as well as prescribed by statute law, that the degree of violence used in self defense must be comparable to the threat faced, so that deadly force should only be used in situations of "extreme" danger. For instance, in most jurisdictions, it is illegal to deliberately kill a petty thief that does not appear to be a physical threat.

Many have ruled that self defense is only acceptable as a legal defense when the user doesn't have sufficient chance to flee. However, the castle exception (see: Edward Coke) argues that one cannot be expected to retreat from one's own home.

The concept of "pre-emptive" self defense is considered dubious due to common misconception of the act as murdering a person believed to someday attack with lethal force. Realistic "pre-emptive" self defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape. Many self defense instructors and experts believe that if the situation is so clear-cut as to feel certain violence is unavoidable, the defender has a much better chance of surviving by landing the first blow and gaining the immediate upper hand to quickly stop the risk to their person.

en.wikipedia.org...

The UN does not govern within nations. International relations is their arena. Nothing Saddam did inside Iraq to his civilians was a violation of UN Law, for good, or bad.

The UN doesnt govern within nations but it does demmand that they repect human rights.

4. We are determined to establish a just and lasting peace all over the world in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter..... respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms,....

www.un.org...
Last time I checked iraq had been a member since..21 dec 1945..

I am an American, and I love my country at least as much as you do.

Then why do you continue to post solely about the US?
BTW, why did Resolution 1441 not give them the authority?

How does admitting the truth make you anti-American?

As I said, who's truth?

I am not so blind, nor in such denial that I refuse to tell what is the obvious truth. Facts are facts, and you seem to ignore them when it does not serve your agenda. the UN did not authorize the invasion of Iraq. That is the TRUTH!

Facts what facts? Truths? The truth is not some wonderful weapon against injustice in the world you know, the truth is simply the persons interpretation and opinion.
THAT is a fact.
The UN didnt authorise it and the countries of the world DONT need the UN to authorise any forign action. THAT is a fact.

The US, and the other members of the 'Coalition of the bought and paid for' all violated UN Law when they invaded Iraq.

Thanks for the insult

Article 2
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

This was what Saddam violated when he invaded Kuwait.

That being said is true but there is one thing in the UN charter that still has legality, article 51, it states that any attack on a member , so that therefore entitles every member to defend themselves, I am correct in assumeing this, yes?

The US Constitution says that all treaties, and international agreements that are ratified are US Law.

America is bound by the UN Charter through Constitution LAW.

You liking it, or not notwithstanding.....

[edit on 27-9-2005 by ArchAngel]

I never knew about US law, that is news to me.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Look at my previous post, and you will see it for the first time.

Article two of the UN Charter denies states that right to do what America did, and the UN Charter was ratified making it SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

US CONSTITUTION
Article VI
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;....

A) I looked at your last post and you have shown me articles of the charter but answer me the question, does article 51 allow the use of force under self defence purposes?

America is but a single member of the UN among five that have Security Council Vetoes.

Yet again , stop focussing on the US and look at the Coalition.

The Security Council Alone may authorize the use of force.

Article 53
1. The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.
2. The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.

This is simply security council , we did not go in AS the security council. That is a fact.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Unlike America, and England they were not getting 'bad intelligence' in all of the media, around the clock.

I take it NI, scotland and wales didnt take part in the war.

I take it NI, scotland and wales didnt take part in the war.

Don't worry devilwasp, Archangel is an American, they don't know about any other countries outside their own!!!

The amount of times i've seen England instead of UK on here is a joke.

Map:

Originally posted by Snoopdopey
Don't worry devilwasp, Archangel is an American, they don't know about any other countries outside their own!!!

I'm an American and I've heard tell of this "Scotland" place before. I seen it on the TV once when I was cleaning my cowboy hat and getting ready to go for a drive in my giant SUV.

"If it ain't Scottish it's crap!"

Devilwasp:
A) I looked at your last post and you have shown me articles of the charter but answer me the question, does article 51 allow the use of force under self defence purposes?

Lets have a look....

Article 51
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. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Iraq did not attack America, or UK, or any of the coalition.

Article 51 does not apply in this case to any state other than Iraq which has the right to defend itself due to the Armed Attack by the Coalition.

This is simply security council , we did not go in AS the security council. That is a fact.

If you went in without Security Council Authorization then you went in without UN approval.

The Invasion of Iraq was not authorized by the UN as I stated several posts back.

The wording is over 60 years ago and IMO means citizens too, you and I both knnow that a state IS the people, or are you trying to imply the people and the state are 2 diffrent things?

Lets go to a dictionary rather than accept your opinion.

state
n.
often attrib

1.
A. A politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; esp One that is sovereign
B. The political organization that has supreme civil authority and political power and serves as the basis of government see also compelling state interest at interest separation of church and state
C. A government or politically organized society having a particular character (a police state)
2. The operations or concerns of the government of a country The sphere of administration and supreme political power of a country (as in international relations) (secrets of state) (affairs of state)
3.
A. One of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government; specif One of the fifty such units comprising the great part of the U.S. see also state law
B. The territory of a state

Nope, you were wrong....

So? I'm not american, this does not bother me. Whether or not the UK broke the law does.
Also what law say's that we can't fight anyone who we see as a threat?

America, UK, and all of the coalition members violated international law when Iraq was invaded....

Article 2 of the charter says that you cannot. I thought we went over that.

If everyone went and attacked who they saw as a threat it would be WWIII.

www.cps.gov.uk...

You are confused. This applies to persons, not states.

'Reasonable Force'
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:
self-defence; or
defence of another; or
defence of property; or
prevention of crime; or
lawful arrest.
In assessing the reasonableness of the force ......blah blah blah.....

The UN doesnt govern within nations but it does demmand that they repect human rights.

It is up to the Security Council alone to authorize the use of force.

Human rights are being violated all over the world, but that does not mean anyone can invade any nation that does.

Article 2 of the charter precludes that.

BTW, why did Resolution 1441 not give them the authority?

Maybe you should read it for yourself. I assume you know the words 'Severe COnsequences' as there, but it is simply an affirmation, not authorization to invade.....

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;

Iraq made their declaration, and allowed the inspectors full access as demanded.

They were in compliance with 1441.

Even if they were not it would be up to the Security Council to decide, not America, and the Coalition.

The UN didnt authorise it and the countries of the world DONT need the UN to authorise any forign action. THAT is a fact.

So now you admit that I am right in that the UN did not authorize the invasion of Iraq.

THANK YOU!

That being said is true but there is one thing in the UN charter that still has legality, article 51, it states that any attack on a member , so that therefore entitles every member to defend themselves, I am correct in assumeing this, yes?

Iraq did not attack America, or the Coalition so Article 51 does not apply.

I never knew about US law, that is news to me.

I must assume there is a similar law in your own constitution...

[edit on 28-9-2005 by ArchAngel]

[edit on 28-9-2005 by ArchAngel]

Don't worry devilwasp, Archangel is an American, they don't know about any other countries outside their own!!!

I am not a typical America.

I have a great knowledge of Geography, and History.

Iraq did not attack America, or UK, or any of the coalition.

Well, hmmm

#1
It is thought that Iraq could be behind the first World Trade Center bombing for a number of reasons
1.)A terrorist involved came from Baghdad and returned to Baghdad after the attack
2.)Kuwaiti documents were tampered with that helped the plot and it is thought that Iraq was the only one able to do this
3.)One involved had Iraqi pass-port
4.)Occurred on the anniversary of the cease-fire agreement between Coalition and Iraq in Gulf War I.
5.)Happened a few years after the Gulf War only

#2
Saddam Hussein attempted to Assassinate a sitting U.S. president (George W. Bush) after Gulf War I.

#3
Iraq invaded Kuwait which helped in basing for the recent Iraq invasion. They are in the coalition. Since then, the U.S. based in Middle East countries has been in a state of continued conflict with the Iraqi government. No end of the War has been officially declared as only a cease-fire agreement has been reached. Furthermore, Iraq did not abide by the weapons inspector component of the cease-fire agreement making the contract null and void. This lead to Operation Desert Strike in 1996 and Operation Desert Fox in 1998 which were both bombings campaigns. The U.S. has ran more sorties after the Gulf War in Iraq Territory (No fly Zones) than in the Gulf War itself. This period between 1991 and 2003 has been called the No Fly Zone War and was largely ignored although it was an active conflict.

Since the beginning of 1999 through August 1999, Allied pilots launched over 1,100 missiles against 359 Iraqi targets

By all accounts, Iraqi forces continue to target their radar and fire missiles at Allied warplanes despite the punishment inflicted from the air. The estimated, unofficial cost of this war to U.S. and British taxpayers is around $1 billion per year. As of August 1999, over 200 military planes, 19 naval ships and 22,000 American military personnel are committed to enforcing the "no-fly zones" and to fighting Iraq.

link

#4
Although Israel was not a coalition member, Saddam provided cash incentives for terrorist attacks against Israel. They are a UN member though.

America, UK, and all of the coalition members violated international law when Iraq was invaded....

Article 2 of the charter says that you cannot. I thought we went over that.

Hmm, what chapter? Anyway, whatever you are talking about here, it says in that charter:

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.

So, you can have self defense no matter what this ‘Article 2‘ is you talk of. Iraq and the U.S. were legally at war albeit a under-reported war. This war was an extension of a war in which Iraq attacked a UN member, and a collective defense was applied.

There was no violation of UN law by “Operation Iraqi Freedom” in my opinion. Whether it was moral or smart is another issue that is much more debatable.

Even if there was a legal violation, it would just go to show that the UN is not willing to protect member nations from illegal invasions and that it can not be relied upon in security related situations. If the Gulf War was illegal, it didn’t do anything about the U.S. invasion so why should they be the enforcer of international law if they didn’t enforce it? It just looses legal legitimacy in the case where the U.S. violated its laws. If they don’t do anything about illegal invasions, are you sure they are doing things about illegal weapons proliferation?

What could it of done you ask?
-economic sanctions
-revoke member status
-military basing in Iraq pre-war as a peace keeping body.

#1
It is thought that Iraq could be behind the first World Trade Center bombing for a number of reasons
1.)A terrorist involved came from Baghdad and returned to Baghdad after the attack
2.)Kuwaiti documents were tampered with that helped the plot and it is thought that Iraq was the only one able to do this
3.)One involved had Iraqi pass-port
4.)Occurred on the anniversary of the cease-fire agreement between Coalition and Iraq in Gulf War I.
5.)Happened a few years after the Gulf War only

Source for #1&2 please....
The Iraqi was not an Iraqi soldier, nor was he in uniform. Therefore he did not represent the state.
And what difference does it make when it happened.

America did not report the attack declaring article 51 anyway, so it is all moot.

#2
Saddam Hussein attempted to Assassinate a sitting U.S. president (George W. Bush) after Gulf War I.

This has been disproven, but that does not stop it from being spread as truth.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of references, but here is a few.
www.rense.com...
www.commondreams.org...

#3
Iraq invaded Kuwait which helped in basing for the recent Iraq invasion. They are in the coalition. Since then, the U.S. based in Middle East countries has been in a state of continued conflict with the Iraqi government. No end of the War has been officially declared as only a cease-fire agreement has been reached. Furthermore, Iraq did not abide by the weapons inspector component of the cease-fire agreement making the contract null and void. This lead to Operation Desert Strike in 1996 and Operation Desert Fox in 1998 which were both bombings campaigns. The U.S. has ran more sorties after the Gulf War in Iraq Territory (No fly Zones) than in the Gulf War itself. This period between 1991 and 2003 has been called the No Fly Zone War and was largely ignored although it was an active conflict.

Iraq allowed the inspectors full access from 1441 to the invasion. You are mistaken on this part. Please provide a UN reference for this claim.

A ceasefire does not mean you can invade. It was between the UN, and Iraq, not America and Iraq.

The UN did not decide to change the condition, or authorize force.

Iraq did not attack anyone in any manner other than what is allowed, against the illegal overflights.

The No-Fly-Zones were not authorized by the UN. If you feel different please show us the Resolution.

#4
Although Israel was not a coalition member, Saddam provided cash incentives for terrorist attacks against Israel. They are a UN member though.

Saddam did not give a single penny to any Palestinian supposed terrorists.

He gave to the FAMILIES of the MARTYRS which includes everyone Israel killed.

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.


So, you can have self defense no matter what this ‘Article 2‘ is you talk of. Iraq and the U.S. were legally at war albeit a under-reported war. This war was an extension of a war in which Iraq attacked a UN member, and a collective defense was applied.

PLEASE read it slowly, noting the bold parts.

IF an Armed Attack occurs.......which did not.....

America was never legally at war with Iraq. If you feel different please show the congressional war declaration.

The 1991 war was a UN police action that the US participated in.

Even if there was a legal violation, it would just go to show that the UN is not willing to protect member nations from illegal invasions and that it can not be relied upon in security related situations. If the Gulf War was illegal, it didn’t do anything about the U.S. invasion so why should they be the enforcer of international law if they didn’t enforce it? It just looses legal legitimacy in the case where the U.S. violated its laws. If they don’t do anything about illegal invasions, are you sure they are doing things about illegal weapons proliferation?

The answer to your question is simple.

The UN did nothing about the American invasion of Iraq because America has a Security Council Veto.

The UN can do nothing that America does not want....

Hmm, what chapter?

Chapter One
Article Two
Lines 3&4
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Ok, did some reading, wrote up a large post with lots of quotes. Microsoft Works crashed. Then did more reading.

What I found is that the no fly zones are not authorized by the UN. The Southern no-fly-zone was created by the U.S., U.K. and France in the mid 1990's on their whim. The Northern one has more continuity with the Gulf War conflict although I find nothing that makes Iraq accept it as a term for cease-fire. This is indeed a violation of the Charter. On the other hand, Iraq is in violation of U.N. resolutions and so on also.

If we want to get legal. Iraq was never authorized to attack U.S. planes until they attack first. To actually attack first, you need U.N. resolution saying no fly zones were not allowed, and that force is authorized. Just like how even though Iraq was in breach of UN resolutions, the U.S. has no right until the resolution is declared breached and force is authorized. Even If the U.S was in breach of soveriengty, and used a threat, the threat of force does not constitute military action and survelliance does not consititute military action so it doesn't warrant defense.

So, who attacked first?

Operation Desert Strike

On August 31, 1996, elements of the Iraqi Army attacked and captured the PUK-held town of Irbil in the Kurdish autonomous region of northern Iraq. This renewed Iraqi aggression, led by a Republican Guard mechanized division with the support of regular army troops, alarmed the United States and coalition forces in the region. Rhetoric from Baghdad threatened GCC partners if they assisted the United States in retaliation, while Iraqi air defense forces launched surface to air missiles against USAF fighter aircraft patrolling the northern and southern "no-fly" zones. In response to the seizure of Irbil, USCENTCOM assessed an increased threat to America's interests and moved quickly to bolster its ability to protect those vital national interests on the Arabian peninsula. In close consultation with the National Command Authority, the Command began to develop appropriate military responses to deter further aggression.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Iraq in one sense attacked first. Now, whether flying armed planes around in Iraqi air-space is an act of aggression warrenting defense is the question. Also, does attacking planes in your air-space mean you attacked someone or were acting in self-defense.

Who attacked first? Iraq fired the first shot that can kill someone. U.S. were in their airspace first.

:: in true lawyer fashion twisting things to suit perspective::
...I sort of have a case don't I?

As for the other issues that would have been better addressed had programs worked better

-source is PBS(frontline side of website)...no link yet.
-You don't have to wear a uniform to represent a state. CIA, DIA clandestine operations etc. If you are paid by a state to do something, that action is an action by that state itself.

-I am not sure on the assassination attempt on Bush Senior. I heard of it a few times in mainstream media and nothing countering it tell now. Who to believe? Rense? I am leaning one way. Weather Modification and E.S.P. Pills...hmmm, I don't think so. You gave me another source, yet I know nothing about it. I will retract the claim of assassination attempts for now. If these sources/stories get discredited later on in farther looking at things, I think that it will make the case for an Iraqi unauthorized attack on U.S. a lot less shady.

edit:

Iraq did not attack anyone in any manner other than what is allowed, against the illegal overflights.

Well, throwing out weapons inspectors was illegal too, and so was attack the Kurds which was happening before Operation Desert Strike. Does illegality without warrent of force by UN neccessarily constitute legality of military action? No, you need a resolution saying they are in breach etc, even though it is clear they are in breach, or action has to be taken in direct self defense. Also, there has to be a recommendation of how to deal with it which is not always military force in a breach. There usually should be some kind of warning as well.

On the comment saying that only the Families got money(still illegal under UN resolution regarding Iraq), my comment shouldn't have lead you to believe that what I said was contradicting the fact that the terrorist who died in the attack didn't get the money but the family. Also, you have to prove to me that no brother(or other family member) of a martyr who recieved money in these transactions was not a Palestinian terrorist himself. Your statement on no Palestinian terrorist recieving money would be false if a family with two martyrs(the first one was paid) existed.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by kilendrial]

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Don't worry devilwasp, Archangel is an American, they don't know about any other countries outside their own!!!

I am not a typical America.

I have a great knowledge of Geography, and History.

LMAO, yeah mate pull the other one. If you have this knowledge, you haven't prooved it. BLAH.

If your judging the Invasion by the UN Charter that has been in existence since the 2nd World war, then this war is undisputabley ILLEGIAL, REGARDLESS of how obvious its becoming it was based on nothing but lies and forged evidence.

But because the americans didnt get the backing they WANTED from the UN, they dont really care of there opinions or rules, thus why they are accusing the UN of being CURROPT, the undermine there authority.... There for they consider the WAR legal.

It doesnt matter the rest of the world feels the UN is still the world delegate for peace, because the US is the superpower, and if they dont want to follow the UN's rules.. who's gunna stop them?

So in effect, George Bush now controls the world. He is in charge of the world superpower, and he's just proven to the world he can invade and occupy a country of his choice, without world backing, and no one is prepared to stop him.

I laugh at you supid Americans whom still stand up for this man and his actions, your just so blinded you havent figured out what's going on yet have you? Im glad he's your leader and not mine.. Atleast I have a chance to escape spilling my bloody on the battlefield, where as chances are your going to be conscripted, cause this war, is getting real bad, real quick with no answer.. But its ok, because you still trust bush and he's still telling you they are winning the war on terror.



[edit on 29-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 29-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
But because the americans didnt get the backing they WANTED from the UN, they dont really care of there opinions or rules, thus why they are accusing the UN of being CURROPT, the undermine there authority.... There for they consider the WAR legal.

The UN is corrupt just lok at the oil for food scandal with Iraq. Kofi Annan's son was even implicated in it

It doesnt matter the rest of the world feels the UN is still the world delegate for peace, because the US is the superpower, and if they dont want to follow the UN's rules.. who's gunna stop them?

Countries really only abide by UN rules as long as it benefits them, when it doesn't .....
Hell, France, Germnay and Russia ignored UN sanctions on Iraq, because they could make a quick buck.

I laugh at you supid Americans whom still stand up for this man and his actions, your just so blinded you havent figured out what's going on yet have you? Im glad he's your leader and not mine.. Atleast I have a chance to escape spilling my bloody on the battlefield, where as chances are your going to be conscripted, cause this war, is getting real bad, real quick with no answer.. But its ok, because you still trust bush and he's still telling you they are winning the war on terror.

You don't sound like the sharpest tool in the shed either. Your constant ranting and bitching doesn't really display much intelligence, does it ?

You just seem to make wild allegations without any proof, you obviously have something against the US and its people - as you constantly call them stupid.

I dont come to this site to convince people of my intellegence I come here to voice my opinion.. I recall you being the one needing a confidence boost regardign your employment?..

Thats right the oil for food scandal..
You obviously beleive that the US has no scandal what so ever? squeeky clean?

I mean I recall Jeb Bush's daughter getting arrested the other day?.. dear god should we dismiss him too?

I admit, Koffi's son isnt looking good being he pocketed money, but if you use that to dismiss the UN, the world body for peace, wouldnt that really be taking a big step backwards?

I dont understand why your so for this damn war and G Bush, your an australian.. I dont have it against all Americans, some of them are smart enough to see this war for what it is, but then some of them are still gullabel enough to believe everything bush is telling them.
Sorry if you dont like me having an opinion, but thats tought dela with it.
I consider people stupid If I want to.. and I feel like its my right of free speach to display my opinion. I cant really give a hoot if you agree or dont.

You obvioulsy fall into that catergory, your still trying to defend bush and this war, and thats your opinion.. Just as long as your prepared for me to have my opinion, then the worlds still a good place isnt it.


And you'd better be careful, the new nanny watchers on this site wont take it well you calling me a blunt tool shed...
There pretty strick on debates turning heated, Id take that back before you lose your precious points and get a warning.

Wild allegations?
Where in my lasty post did I make wild allegations. I thought i stuck pretty well to the line.

I mean, the US went against UN LAq did it not? Thus making this an illegial war..

I apprecaite if you kept this debate to the DEBATE, and not turn it into a personal attack thanks.... I didnt attack you, I attacked the gullable americans..

which you are not..

.. actually are you a American Delegate in Australia? Could that by why your willing to sacrifice your dignity for a Yank war?

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Lets have a look....

Article 51
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. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Iraq did not attack America, or UK, or any of the coalition.

Article 51 does not apply in this case to any state other than Iraq which has the right to defend itself due to the Armed Attack by the Coalition.

That my friend is technically wrong,
attack:

an offensive against an enemy

State:

a politically organized body of people under a single government

So when it attacked UK and US pilots patroling the no fly zones, (I would like to know why they had no right to do this) it did not commit an act of agression?

If you went in without Security Council Authorization then you went in without UN approval.

We do not need approval.

The Invasion of Iraq was not authorized by the UN as I stated several posts back.

Yes and we do not need approval.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Lets go to a dictionary rather than accept your opinion.

state
n.
often attrib

1.
A. A politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; esp One that is sovereign
B. The political organization that has supreme civil authority and political power and serves as the basis of government see also compelling state interest at interest separation of church and state
C. A government or politically organized society having a particular character (a police state)
2. The operations or concerns of the government of a country The sphere of administration and supreme political power of a country (as in international relations) (secrets of state) (affairs of state)
3.
A. One of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government; specif One of the fifty such units comprising the great part of the U.S. see also state law
B. The territory of a state

Nope, you were wrong....

Yes It appears I am wrong, badly written charter IMO.

America, UK, and all of the coalition members violated international law when Iraq was invaded....

Article 2 of the charter says that you cannot. I thought we went over that.

If everyone went and attacked who they saw as a threat it would be WWIII.

IOO we seen iraq as a threat to world peace, with or without UN approval we went and done it because we thought it was right.
We broke the law, as you have proved we did, but frankly IMO we done it for the right reasons.

You are confused. This applies to persons, not states.

I am? Wow you know me better than myself.
The point still remains.

It is up to the Security Council alone to authorize the use of force.

Yes and when the security council debates and allows hundreds to die does that mean its legal and right?
Will continue later.

Yes is appears we did break the law to go to iraq, whether it was right ofcourse is another mater.
Man sure helps you understand the difference between justice and the law.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yes is appears we did break the law to go to iraq, whether it was right ofcourse is another mater.
Man sure helps you understand the difference between justice and the law.

At least we can finally agree on one thing.

I believe that it was wrong. We are not liberating Iraq.

The foreign Judges on the Special Court will be a stick, along with the US Soldiers stationed at the 14+ Bases we are building all around Iraq forcing the Iraqis to submit to our will....