Legality of IraqInvasion

The invasion was not illegal. The reason is simple there is no government, organisation, or group which has authority over the US. Since there is no higher authority the only organisaton which can determine if the US's actions were illegal is the US itself. In other words its not illegal becuase we say its not illegal. Ths is not arrognce it s fact. No one not the UN, not the ICC, no one has authority over the US. Did the invason violate the laws of other countries? Maybe but it doesnt matter becuase the US is not governed by those laws. Put it this way if I, an American citizen, smoke marijuana in the US I am comitting an illegal act, however if I smoke marijuana in Holland I am not comiiting an illegal act even though the act is Illegal in the US. Why? Becuase the US has no jurisdction over what acts I commit in Holland. Just as no one has jurisdiction over the US's actions.

Originally posted by snoopy
What if Saddam said that he felt Kuwait was a threat? Would that then make his actions perfectly acceptable?

illegal and acceptable aren't the same thing.

somewhereinbetween
It is illegal if viewed under the charter of the UN

vincere
I guess the UN Charter doesn't count as law as signed by the united states

Where in the UN charter does it make war illegal? Unilateral War is not illegal.

thepresidentsbrain
Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950

The Nuremberg Trial is not international law.

"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"

That does not make unilateral law illegal.

vincere
There was a book that everyone agreed to sign.

That book in no way makes unilateral war illegal. It would not have been signed if it did.

It's great how everyone wants to flip flop words around to justify your stance but here is the bottomline - there was no anticipatory self defense which article 51 as we signed agrees to.

You can argue there was imminence but even the voice of the war college suggests otherwise based on the evidence. It's a dead deal folks and has already been dealt with. The problem now lies in defining imminence, not arguing what we already know, as other countries of the world are sure to follow our footsteps.

Originally posted by soulforge
Can anyone argue that we should have left Saddam in power?

What I'd like to argue is that dictatorships sometimes - not always but in the case of Iraq, yes - have the involuntary effect of being the glue which holds a country together and prevents it from falling into civil war. It may not be pretty, but it's realpolitik.

When a dictator dies or is forcibly removed, historical factions tend to clash because they all want to occupy the stage. That's what happened in Yugoslavia - Marshal Tito was a strongman who kept the country from falling apart until his death in 1980. After he was gone, it took merely a decade before Yugoslavia reverted to its internal divisions and imploded in the ugliest possible way, as we saw.

Same thing, I believe, happened in Congo-RD. While Mobutu Sese Seko was in power (and he was in power for a long time), the country then known as Zaire may have been his personal estate and the people may have been poor, but the international community - including the U.S. - wouldn't touch him. I believe it was because Mobutu's rule provided stability. Before he came to power in 1966, the country was aflame - a part had seceded as the free republic of Katanga. After he died, Congo-RD was once more aflame, in the fight between the Hutu and the Tutsi.

Do I support dictatorship? Definitely not. I'm simply explaining why sometimes the international community will see dictatorship as the lesser of two evils - again, it's realpolitik. When you remove a dictator who has ruled over a multiethnic country like Iraq for decades, you have to expect that the different interest groups - the Kurds, the shiites, etc. - are going to see this as a time of opportunity and, since there's a power void, everyone will try to wrest some benefits from the situation.

So the U.S. - and by extention the international community - has its work cut out. Iraq is far from becoming peaceful and democratic. Tensions between groups, interests and power plays have been held at bay for too many years, and now that the genie is out of the bottle, it's going to take a lot of work to get him not to go on a rampage.

Legal or Illegal should not be the point the point in Iraq is one bully was bigger than the other and one lost and thats what this war was about the bully reference being George SR was the first bully and he couldnt get rid of Saddam so Bully 2 George Jr took a swipe at it and low and behold here we are thousands dying and it all makes no sense at all the only true to heart effects that are resulting here are that people are dying going to dye or have already died because the bigger bully syndrome has run rampet yet again and as it wa left unchecked has damaged the future of the American respectability for many many years to come


Also to lend fact to my claim of bigger bully syndrome look at the fact Bush has 2 fights going now and is looking to bloody someone elses nose in Iran he needs to back off and let someone else deal with it and quit being a stormtrooper to the world or we are going to see our destruction at the hands of a larger bully comprised of all these little guys we keep stomping on all joined together to stomp on us

Originally posted by soulforge
Can anyone argue that we should have left Saddam in power?

Occurs not, now bushy and cheney got all the oil in the world, now how about saudi?

Dictatorships has been part of history and part of the world, Sadam was a bad apple but looking at was is happening now in Iraq, I wonder.

Originally posted by vincere7
Thats the problem keholmes, your mental ascertation of the Iraqi invasion being legal, is merely based on your OPINION or how you FEEL about interpretations and manipulations of those avoiding criminal prosecution. Are you a lawyer? How then can you voice anyone being a DIMWIT as you yourself are not a lawyer and unable to interpret law? So the worldwide dimwits you refer to are educated lawyers, what does that make you who base judgments off what you see on tv and newspaper ads?
����������

Actually that mental assertion would be based on the indisputable FACT that not only has the US not been charged�.there is currently no one even suggesting it, except for a few politicians�.whoops Freudian slip I meant lawyers. And again I point out that you seem to be limiting the conversation to lawyers�..and again I ask, more clear this time as you seem not to be able to get it�..are you a lawyer�.if not then shut up, by your own logic you would not be qualified to speak to the matter. I on the other hand do not believe that to be the case so please continue. I think to imply that only lawyers are qualified to speak to this is more than a little simple minded.

You may not like, you may not even agree with the war�.which is a little obvious from your ranting�.but your disliking something doesn�t make it illegal�.no matter how often you stomp you feet and say �no one but lawyers that agree with me can say anything.� It doesn�t make it right�..if you have some proof of this illegality other than some twirling spinning�.I don�t like it and I�ve found two lawyers who agree with me argument. Feel free to post it�if you feel that the UN somehow does then, please by all means show me in the resolutions (not the charter) the portions that back up your assertion. I won�t be holding my breath.

Originally posted by sturod84
saddam wasnt going to hurt anyone, we could systematically strike down any and all military infrastructure for the next 100 years with our prescicion weaponry, we could have insured his crippled military status with out ever having a ground invasion.

so would striking down any and all military infrastructure with our precision weaponry, include our own commercial airliners? Because, if we didn�t do at least that and a whole lot more; than your whole theorem kind of flies like the old proverbial lead balloon. try a google on "planes world trade center boom" things you find might explain a little to you. and no i'm not saying they partook....just that a sequel probably wouldn't be out of the realm of imagination.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Kindly explain for me. Was there a ceasefire, and what part of; "decides to remain seized of the matter" is unclear?

Actually the whole statement�.I�m not even sure what your trying to say?


[edit on 15-10-2004 by keholmes]

[edit on 15-10-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by keholmes
You may not like, you may not even agree with the war�.which is a little obvious from your ranting�.but your disliking something doesn�t make it illegal�.no matter how often you stomp you feet and say

So all treaties, international laws, and conventions are meaningless. Why did we stop Saddam from invading Kuwait? There's nothing illegal about it. There's nothing illegal about what he does to his own citizens.

BTW, with the no weapons of mass destruction, and no Al Quaeda ties, do you think maybe Bush meant Iran?

I suppose Bush "Fairly" picks and choose the brutal dictators to overthrow. Godforbid he touch Saudi Arabia. THAT would be illegal since there is money to be lost.

One more thing.

If the UN made the resolution that was violated, isn't it up to the UN as a whole to determine action?

According to articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force. This is what the Security Council did in November 1990 with Resolution 678 in response to Iraq�s ongoing occupation of Kuwait in violation of a series of resolutions passed that August. The UN has not done so for any subsequent violations involving Iraq or any other government.

Isreal has violated UN resolutions, would that make it right for Russia to invade Isreal?

Originally posted by snoopy
One more thing.

If the UN made the resolution that was violated, isn't it up to the UN as a whole to determine action?

According to articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, ....................

go back and read the resolutions before you start to argue things that are not within them. 1483 for instance, recognizes the US and Britian as "the authority" so if it was illegal then that would have been a good time to have said so....

1441 - recalling that its resolution 678 authorized member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 and all relevant resolutions to restore international peace and security in the area.

that kind of explains why it isn't up to the UN right there....and the UN agrees. and did you notice they are refering to the same document i have been......makes you wonder how a non-lawyer could have ever figured out anything

1441 - Recalling that in its resolution 687 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

wow, that seems to be exactly what i've been saying....i wonder where i got it from

1441 - DETERMINED to secure full compliance with its decisions.

1441- Decides that iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions��

whoops, that is exactly what I�ve been saying all along�.gee how did I read that without being a lawyer

enough with the spoon feeding, its all there. read it yourself, it's fairly plain......even though your not a lawyer i give you permission to read it....i also give you permission to understand it.....your non-lawyerness aside. although how you can pretend to understand english, being a non-lawyer that is, i'm not sure.

as for your all treaties non-sense....did i say that somewhere, if so could you provide the link as i don't remember the context.

as i said to vin, your not liking something, as much as the left might like to think, doesn't make it illegal....just unpopular

[edit on 16-10-2004 by keholmes]

Hey Keholmes you remind me of these young guys I used to train for house clearing. We show them the proper way of doing a dynamic entry in a stick. They go in and just F$$k it all up. Miss the terrorists kill the hostages. Every time we tell them no it's done like this. They go back in and do it again the same way and F$%k it all up. No matter what we said to these guys they just couldn't understand for some reason and had their own way of thinking on a stick - and it sure was F%#ked up.

Originally posted by vincere7
Hey Keholmes ...........

I understand, I�m just not that interested. When I was trained in urban combat I never understood the bust the door down theory, I always felt that the blow the house up theory was little more appropriate. that is what i believe C4, tanks...etc...are for�however you also remind me of folks who say 2+2=4 and 5+5=10, therefore 2+2=10...... were doing math aren't we.


although i've noticed that you don't try to understand or even converse about the resolutions....and only select that which underscores your argument and other people saying the same thing. regarding the last post i made it underscores everything i have said....you of course, can only point to news interviews of people who share your opinion.

[edit on 16-10-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by keholmes
although i've noticed that you don't try to understand or even converse about the resolutions....and only select that which underscores your argument and other people saying the same thing. regarding the last post i made it underscores everything i have said....you of course, can only point to news interviews of people who share your opinion.
[edit on 16-10-2004 by keholmes]

thats because you don't have an argument keholmes. You want to point out resolutions and use the term 'cease fire' to argue your opinion when they do not apply.

Originally posted by keholmes
When I was trained in urban combat I never understood the bust the door down theory, I always felt that the blow the house up theory was little more appropriate. [edit on 16-10-2004 by keholmes]

Well the blow the house up theory doesn't work well when there are hostages inside nor does it work well in an urban setting where other people live. Further evidence of your f#%ked up thinking.

Originally posted by vincere7
thats because you don't have an argument keholmes. You want to point out resolutions and use the term 'cease fire' to argue your opinion when they do not apply.

that�s rich....lets see your argument so far is, you are the only non-lawyer allowed to read or understand resolutions...you point to interviews of biased power hungry bribed officials, as your 'proof'.....I show the resolutions that dispute the claims made in the interview of your 'in the pocket' official....and your reply is; although you were in a teaching position that your students consistently couldn't understand what you were saying....again rich, you consistently fail to communicate and it's every one else that has the problem...I�m going to stand up now before a fall out of my chair�.man don�t make me laugh so hard, I�ve heard of people hurting their backs when they laugh like that.

maybe you should consider for the good of those you are instructing of taking a non-teaching position.

the most interesting thing is that you consistently ignore what you have pointed to as the basis for your (baseless) claim....the resolutions represent the interpretation of the governing bodies of the UN charter....ie the law....just like in our court system the previous rulings of the court are relied upon to define a law...the resolutions provide the same purpose...but, i understand that having no basis to your argument other than the charter how you would like to limit the discussion to only that document. therefore i admit it if we allow you to interpret things how you would like and ignore all documentation but what you want and only a lawyer that you agree with can overrule you....then your right...geez i can't believe i dared to quote fact against a news interview based on opinion.

[edit on 16-10-2004 by keholmes]

Legal/illegal, what�s the difference?
What happened to the good ol�days?

Lets go over it again as you are a difficult person to teach. A soverign nation was attacked by America. This was the first nation we have attacked to install OUR form of democracy when this nation has not attacked us or when this nation was not assaulted by other nations to interdict it's form of government. We went against the policies we signed along with our FORMER partners in waging war against a nation that did not attack us and we did not receive approval nor did we care of approval in the endeavor. The argument of whether we need approval has nothing to do with the deed.

The evidence used to wage war on this nation was LIES, and FICTICIOUS material of which our President and vice president concede to the excuse of we have received faulty intelligence - again lies.

You wish to PRETEND to play the part of an attorney I do not. In the course of a legal dispute it has been overwhelmingly agreed that the war is illegal. There is nothing more to say except you are wrong. And as much as you don't want to be wrong thats the way it is.

Hellmut people tend to forget or their mind get fuzy through the years.

This thread is about the legality of the invasion, these links give a lawyers view:

www.the-rule-of-law.com...

traprockpeace.org...

www.fpif.org...

Someone said the US does not need to abide by international law, in that case, why did you invoke article 5 of NATO treaty under U.N. Charter's Article 51 immediately after the 9/11 attacks?

You mean the US only abides by international law when it benefits from it?

edit:sp

[edit on 16-10-2004 by Chris McGee]

vincere,

I probably seem like a hard person to teach simply because I refuse to take lessons on history from those who obviously slept through history class. If you think this is the first country we have attacked to install our form government man have you been sleeping��I�ve noticed that you have resorted to the stamping of your feet and the whiny I�m right voice�again you want to steer the argument away from the actual written policy and start an emotional rant worthy of a person in the middle of a full emotional breakdown.

As for the attorney, my references to that were in response to your repeated assertions that only you and the three attorneys on record agreeing with you are qualified to discuss the issue�..why I can only guess because the rest of us want to see that actual law that has been violated�it�s not available so instead we get feet stamping. The only thing that you have shown is the UN charter�.resolution 1441 is more than enough show that 4-year olds logic as lacking�so as much as you like to stamp your feet declare you might take you ball and go home if I don�t say your right�.you couldn�t be more wrong if your last name was Hussein.

and going back to your overwhelmingly agreed�.who gives a crap if you�ve got four people in agreement�.if it was soooooooo overwhelmingly agreed to then the US would be facing charges�..maybe you can link to that story as I haven�t seen it yet�.if it is sooooooo overwhelmingly agreed to when does the trial start�..whoops, most probably your going to stamp your feet take your ball and go home. Oh well, I guess your as good at teaching me as you were your previous charges. I�m sure your thinking right now it�s my fault.


[edit on 16-10-2004 by keholmes]