Legality an issue, but why?

Originally posted by Nygdan
Sovereignty is irrelevant in war.

No,it is relevant. You just prefer to say it isnt, you believe that makes this attrocity less reality.

Whether the government attacked is recognized or not is irrelevant.

Completely irrelevant.

Irrelevant. Nations don't have to wait to be attacked before a war is legal.

That would be a poor arguement, and is irrelevant to whether or not the war was legal.

Im just curious,

How many Iraqi's do you beleive look at the USA and says'

'' its irrelevant, that they found NO WMDS, its irrelevant IRAQ didnt attack them, its irrelevant SADDAM IS DEAD, but osama is alive, Its irrelevant War ended in 2003, yet hundereds of thousands continue to die, its irrelevant that the 'evidence' presented AGAINST Iraq has since been proven as LIES ''

tell me, the poor mother lying on the ground, holding pieces of her son.. screaming, moaning and crying with a pile of rubble that was her house in the background...

do you believe she's happy, that people such as yourself still look at her suffering, her loss and go '' well, its irrelevant they had nothing to do with it.. she deserved it... she's iraqi... and iraq was not a threat.. iraq had no wmds.. iraq did nothing toward 911.. but .. i still believe we had to cause her agony..

like I said, it takes a cold human to be able to look at the reality and still claim Iraq was a nessecary target.

I believe, every american that still BACKS this government should be the ones fighting , instead of the 20,000 extra troops.

They dont have a choice, yet they dont want to be there.
You have a choice, and you believe we should be there, yet you sit back and watch them die.
what a pathetic excuse for a human, and a patriot.

so how about you stop sending your men to their deaths, and start spilling your blood if you believe in it so badly.

Your the perfect reason as to why the world hates you know.
You still cant see what your 'irrelevant' choices have led to.


[edit on 22-1-2007 by Agit8dChop]

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
I dont mean to seem rude, but your an American and you write in broken English. I have such a difficult time reading your posts marg that they dont even seem coherent. This is one of the problems in our country, not the war in Iraq. I dont think you should be able to obtain citizenship unless you can write something in English that isn't broken nearly to the point of an incoherant childish rant.

Well thanks for the grammar lesson but . . . if that is all you got against my post I guess . . . the only childish post is yours then.

You don't have to read my posts if they offend you so much X, you can ignore me, It doesn't hurt me a bit.

It just baffles me,
Its like the whole Condi being offended by a statement said during debate.


Innocent people are dying, because of one governments illegial acts.

Yet, you want to overlook at very decent, and intellegent post debating that argument and focus on her english skills?

Doesnt matter Condi is in the loop with bush and chenney.. but it mattes when someone says ssomething that could offend her..

THOSE are the things that are IRELLEVANT.

Im lost for words..
Some of you, really.. just dont care about innocent people being murdered for no damn reason do you?

I have seen this happening in this boards all the time. . . when threads become arguments that can not be debated by the opposition . . . is better to target what the opposition see as an easy target.

Well so far I have been around long enough to no let littler things like this bother me at all.

I laugh at the intentions.:Lil:

Anyway, Back on the thread.

I am very upset with what politicians has done with our nation and in our names.

They have turned us American citizes against each other that even Grammar is an issue in a discussion.

They have used our proud resources . . . our troops for the pursue of private agendas to serve private interest and control of resources.

They care not how many are killed in pursue of those agendas as long as the goals are meet.

But the most incredible think is how people support this type of political leaders that has been allowed to take reign of our nation.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I haven't read through your entire post yet.
But a thought does come to mind. Why should we be bound by the UN and its international law? Many feel the UN is a useless dinosaur that ever really lived up to its potential. Many feel it serves no purpose at all.

Playing devils advocate here. If that is true that the UN is useless and we shouldn't be bound by their decisions. Then why did we seek out the Security Councils approval prior to the war?

Why is part of the argument of the need for war based on the non-compliance of Iraq with UN sanctions?

If the UN is useless it is partially for reasons like this. We can't selectively participate in a United Nations concept and cherry pick whether we think the world opinion is right or wrong. We can't enforce a UN sanction with US troops and then start a war for UN violations that the UN doesn't want enforced.

Either the US is committed to the concept of the UN and it's goals or they should pull out of it completely. If we want the UN to change or "improve" then we need to seek out reform and collaboration of the other nation members. The charter of the UN is to figure out what is best collectively and not for one single country member.

THere are many issues with the war and how and why it was started. Maybe the administration has information that we aren't privy to that led them to have good cause to go there. But I remember during the build up the war rotated between they are sponsoring terrorists to they have (not night have .. but HAVE) weapons of mass destructions. When both those facts were disproved it became we're freeing the people, nothing like a little forced democracy to bring freedom to the world!

That said, I do believe we have an obligation to stay and provide security until the government is stable. We set into motion an event that has thrust the country into a civil war and to just pull out and leave would be horribly wrong.

My question for those who believe that since the UN is powerless America should just ignore it and go it alone is why did we help build the friggin thing?

The answer we want to believe of course is that it would serve to promote peace and keep these kinds of things from coming up. It's obviously not doing that so it's in need of reform.

But what kind of reform?

That's where the real reason we built it comes in. The victorious powers in WWII decided to divie up the world and run it together. The goal was not so much peace itself as undisturbed dominance. It worked, more or less, in Korea, if only because the Soviets weren't entirely on the Chinese side and thus walked out in protest without vetoing the intervention, but once the Soviets got serious and the PRC replaced the ROC, it was game over. The organization was stalemated because it was built to serve the whims of the security council, but the security council was no longer an alliance. Objectivity and principle had not been built into it.

As I explained earlier, the thing to do is not just to ignore the UN but to start making it what we want it to be. It needs real guidelines- things that absolutely will not be allowed to happen and things that absolutely will not be interfered with- a constitution and bill of rights if you will.

When the UN can no longer be used as a rubber stamp for elitist agendas or as an obstructionist PR tool for the corrupt, we'll finally be able to really measure ourselves by its standards without all of this squabbling over which side of a stalemate has more blood on its hands.

It's time for the Security Council to show some leadership, sit down, agree to the basic limits of continued peace between us all- things that neither side will allow from the other and which the UN shall be used to prevent, without the possibility of obstruction by the guilty party, and then go to the general assembly to sell a reform agenda that will provide the members with real protection under law.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
How many Iraqi's do you beleive look at the USA and says'

'' its irrelevant, that they found NO WMDS, its irrelevant IRAQ didnt attack them, its irrelevant SADDAM IS DEAD, but osama is alive, Its irrelevant War ended in 2003, yet hundereds of thousands continue to die, its irrelevant that the 'evidence' presented AGAINST Iraq has since been proven as LIES ''

Irrelevant.

I would like to put it to someone to come here and have a logical debate about the legality of war.

Avoid the immature response Nydgen has used, and simply branded it 'irrelevant'

come here, with facts, links and everything and prove that the IRAQ war is LEGAL under international agreements.

Its something that still looms,

people declare its Legal,
I declare its not.

so please, a friendly debate here.
I want someone to come and put there entire case forward as to WHY they believe the IRAQ War is legal.

Im about to finish a 12hour night shift, ill spend tommrow sleeping and drinking, but on sunday I have a 12 hour shift of nothing.

so please, i urge someone who honestly beleives this war to be legal, to mount a case for their side, post it, and let me place a rebuttal on sunday.

I want to get to the core of the issue.




[edit on 5-4-2007 by Agit8dChop]

Here is why the "war" in Iraq is illegal, by standards of the United States Constitution:

Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have the Power...To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Capture on Land and Water.

Congress did NO such thing. They issued a meaningless "resolution" supporting the war and granting the President "authority". But, they have NO authority under the Constitution to do such a thing. They are bound to issue a Declaration of War.

Therefore, the United States has violated it's own charter document in allowing such a state of affairs to continue. Hence it is illegal by our own law.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by passenger]

The term illegal war is too cut and dry. Is this war justified? Why are we at war? Can we mantain the present state of affairs? The answers to these questions are better descriptions of war as opposed to the fantastical idea of legality in war. Legality will only exist when it is decided by the victorious.