No :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
Printable View
No :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
UN resolution 1441Quote:
What other documents does it contradict?
Now you've got me really confused. Exactly what part do you think it contradicts.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
And PLEASE. Don't use the 'serious consequences' clause. This was modified particulary to rule out an invasion should Saddam not comply. The UK, and the US could not get the resolution unless they specifically softened that stance.
I don't recall any other clause in that resolution mentioning the change of regime, either.
that's something I've asked before more than a year ago:
If state abuse was a reason then why not half Africa?
If internation terrorism and his support then why not Saudi Arabia or half the middle east?
If international terrorism, wmd's and dictatorship was a reason then why not Pakistan?
Never had a satisfying answer. Never will have probably.
I don't remember a second resolution authorising force, do you?Quote:
Joint Statement from UN Security Council, 9th November 2002
Resolution 1441 (2002) adopted today by the Security Council excludes any automaticity in the use of force. In this regard, we register with satisfaction the declarations of the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom confirming this understanding in their explanations of vote, and assuring that the goal of the resolution is the full implementation of the existing Security Council resolutions on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction disarmament. All Security Council members share this goal.
In case of failure by Iraq to comply with its obligations, the provisions of paragraphs 4, 11 and 12 will apply. Such failure will be reported to the Security Council by the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC or the Director General of the IAEA. It will be then for the Council to take position on the basis of that report.
Therefore, this resolution fully respects the competences of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.
This is a valid point.Quote:
Can someone then please try to explain the months of hammering home the WMD issue? In the build-up that was the primary reason, the reason of reasons. Those who didn't believe it were ridiculed or worse, deemed a lower form of life.
If it was a regime change then why didn't you hammer that point home instead of focussing on his "alleged weaponry"? Perhaps because the other argument wouldn't win you the backing of the allies?
When Bush started talking about going into Iraq, he mentioned many points including regime change. It was clear that he wanted to go into Iraq to clean up the Middle East, but the fear of WMDs was of immediate concern.
Now that they haven't been found, everyone seems to forget all the other reasons he presented.
I do wish that he hadn't emphasized them as much as he did, but then you are probably right that the allies and some here would not have backed him.
Why not North Korea, why not Iran?Quote:
that's something I've asked before more than a year ago:
If state abuse was a reason then why not half Africa?
If internation terrorism and his support then why not Saudi Arabia or half the middle east?
If international terrorism, wmd's and dictatorship was a reason then why not Pakistan?
You can see now that the job in Iraq is as much as the US can handle without having to pull its troops out of Europe and Japan.
What about supposedly contradicting UN documents?Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
OK, look at this term 'serious consequences'.
One reason lawyers would not put that into a document is because it is so vague that it could be interpreted as a spanking or an invasion of your country.
I think that most people believed it meant invasion.
Not according to the US ambassador at the time:
John NegroponteQuote:
. . .This resolution contains no 'hidden triggers' and no 'automaticity' with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a Member State, the matter will return to the council for discussion . . .
Where did you get this quote?
I think that at the time that everyone on the security council knew they would be meeting again if Saddam did not comply.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
The phrase you have to look for in these things is The use of all necessary means
You and I both know that it simply wasn't present in 1441.
So, please show me the legal argument for a preemptive invasion of a politically independant state in order to change the regime. After all you've already stated that it "was clearly legal"
I seem to lack your clarity, obviously.
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
You personally think the war is wrong, I'm of the opposite opinion.
You will read a statement and think it says the war is illegal, I'll read it and not see that. Since neither of us is a lawyer we can't argue the legality of the war only our personal opinions.
I do trust that when my President and his staff say there is clear a legal reasoning for the invasion there is one. If, on the other hand, if a legitimate legal entity without political motives came to the conclusion that the white house was mistaken then I will entertain those arguments. So far this has not happened and I doubt that it ever will.
It will however be studies for decades to come and maybe fifty years from now the political climate will have cooled enough for people to look at it objectively.
Thankyou for that reference, it is interesting reading.
Here is a qoute from the writingObvioulsy the Self-defense clause is the reason this war is not illegal.Quote:
The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).
I haven't said, here, that the war is wrong. I've made a point of saying I am not arguing for the morality of the war one way or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
The whole idea being that we can keep opinion out of it (no matter how hard) and try to be a little objective about it.
I am arguing only for the fact the war is illegal.
There will come a time when the illegality is recognised. If the war, although illegal, is deemed to be justified and is found to be morally right, then the law will have to change to incorporate preemptive selfdefence and regime change.
Thankyou yrwyddfa for the discussion
Right - and you've read the article? If so, you may have missed this bit:Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Quote:
the notion of pre-emptive self-defense is not mentioned in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and is therefore illegal under international law. Moreover, some have noted, Article 51 allows for self-defense "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." This suggests that the right to self-defense exists only when there is no time to take the issue before the Security Council, and that if there is time for deliberation, the use of force is not justified. In the case at hand, the threat posed by Iraq has neither occurred nor is imminent, and time clearly exists to take the case to the Security Council.
No problem. :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
How was the invasion of Iraq self-defence?Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
More like Self-Interest
The argument is essentially that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the security of the allies and thus we needed to defend ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadEyes
"Offense is the best defense"
Seems just plain offensive.
Well I think I've done enough to show that the Iraq war was illegal. What do you people think?
I would agree the war in Iraq was illegal. Funny how the UN hasn't done a thing about it though, shows how useless they are
So we're back to WMD's, the 45 minutes and the dodgy dossier... in other words, they needed that argument to make the resolution legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
"The wheels on the bus go round and round..."
:)
Yes, I agree. I was being devil's advocate, me. The Iraq war was illegal, in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
Let the backpedalling and spindoctoring once again commence. :)
Sorry for repeating myself - but I just could not resist...Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
and we're on 50 bpm. Who does better? :)
I give up. As someone else here said it's like developing hiking boots for sharksQuote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
:(
Like a broken pencil . . . . .
. . . . pointless.
:sick:
I think the second two questions have extremely obvious answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
Saudi Arabia is a "stablizing" force in the middle east. Not 100% thrustworthy - not a Kuwait - but not a Syria either. That's a political choice that has to be made to insure potential and furthering the western interests in the area.
Pakistan and India are a huge problem for the global arena. Any military action taken by the west in Pakistan would give an inround for India to move against them, which would throw off the entire China/India balancing act.
Have pro-western governments in Iraq and Afghanistan are the steps being made right now - first steps in a long, long struggle to bring that whole region into the US/UK light of freedom.
Is this 120 BPM enough for you?
Becausing trying to get the UN to agree to anything - all those countries with all the different agendas or lack of agendas (most have no agenda). The UN is a political body - of course you use political arguments to bolster positions. Reality does [edit] not enter the picture in that arena. Not like I agree with that or even like it, but that's my take on it anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
You answered you own question there - rhetorical was it?Quote:
If it was a regime change then why didn't you hammer that point home instead of focussing on his "alleged weaponry"? Perhaps because the other argument wouldn't win you the backing of the allies?
I'm not backpedaling - I've always thought it was a regime change - I always felt it had the US national interest in mind. I don't believe that restricting regime changes in dictatorships is reasonable.Quote:
I've never ever seen so many people backpedal so hard, never seen so many people jump from one reason to another, picking out the reason du jour and believing it so firmly that there could possibly no other reason whatsoever
No, I didn't miss that bit. The part I quoted was directly from the UN charter. It is fact. This quote is an interpretation of the charter by an editor; his opinion. I don't agree with his opinion and neither does the US of the UK administration.Quote:
Right - and you've read the article? If so, you may have missed this bit:
Quote:
the notion of pre-emptive self-defense is not mentioned in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and is therefore illegal under international law. Moreover, some have noted, Article 51 allows for self-defense "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." This suggests that the right to self-defense exists only when there is no time to take the issue before the Security Council, and that if there is time for deliberation, the use of force is not justified. In the case at hand, the threat posed by Iraq has neither occurred nor is imminent, and time clearly exists to take the case to the Security Council.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Doesn't seem like a direct extract to me. It looks rather like an interpretation of what is contained in certain clauses. So actually IT IS NOT A FACT.Quote:
The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).
I'll say it again: IT IS NOT A FACT
The war was illegal. Get over it.
Good morning, BTW :)
Quote:
How was the invasion of Iraq self-defence?
I can't argue that self-defense is not in our own self interest.Quote:
More like Self-Interest
We are under threat by terrorists. They have been free to base their operations out of several Middle East countries. We went into the Middle East to try to effect changes that will make it harder for these people to operate. This effort is not a short term thing and we will be over there for several generations.
Nicely said.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Exactly my feelings as well...
Well it's getting a little vague, now.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
First it was WMD. Saddam had 'em - even worse: he was on the road to getting nukes. But wait. Where are they?
Next we have regime change. Now we can perhaps argue that we can get away with it, although it's illegal - we know no-one will act on this. As we all the UN is useless. Hey - we can blame their inefficiency so we can execute an illegal preemptive strike against another nation state.
But that's getting tricky, now, too. Now every commitment the US has given on the international stage is void! or is that just selective commitments - or just a lot of tosh?
Now, in the midst of more terrorist attacks - it was all about the terrorists after all. We, in the UK, sacked senior servants for taking advantage of terrorism in politics. I wonder why you feel this is an 'OK thing to do' Maybe politics in the US are significantly different from the rest of the world.
I am not arguing that the war was wrong. I'd just like to hear a good well reasoned explanation.
If you can't give it to me then I can only assume that good old Uncle Sam doesn't inform his citizens very well at all.
After all we all know, really, why Americans had to die for GWB. If you don't then I feel sorry for you - I understand that it's a bad bad taste for the pallette.
. . . v2: The wipers on the bus go swish swish swish . . .
Earlier on in this thread this was not 'your feelings'Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
:confused:
Well I just re-read each of my posts in this thread and they all seem pretty consistent (very painful to re-read this thread ;) )Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
What post are you referring to?
Well your stance was that it was an act of self defence.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Now self defence (under UN mandates) states that you can defend a third party, or yourself once you've been attacked.
I didn't realise Iraq had attacked America. Now you say it's terrorists
(BTW when I say America - I mean the coalition, allies etc etc. I am not anti-American at all. I include my own country in this mess too. I feel that America has so much more too give the world than the Iraq thingy)
Managing the middle east - all the countries - from Egypt, to Saudi Arabia, Syria, all the way through the rest of the region - Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan - Pakistan - India - they are all related. Terrorists are produced, trained and sanctioned in pretty much every one of these countries.
25 years ago Russia had to have Afghanistan - had to have a northern interest in the region.
It is a huge game of "Risk" - and the payout is decades away.
I'm in no way saying that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. But if Iraq was left to it's own devices, who knows what Saddam and his buddies would be up to right now. 9/11 changed the urgency to deal with the middle east to one of "it would be nice if the ladies didn't have to wear shirkas (sp?) and get stoned to death when their hubbies had an affair" to "let's get this mess dealt with so we can go on with living without fear of two buildings (that I watched as a child be built :cry: :mad: ) being taken down by an extremist nut case!".
So - I can agree with people feeling that all our efforts in the middle east are self-defense...
self-preservation...
selfish to some I'm sure...
Let me explain again.
There were several reason given for going into Iraq including the perceived WMD threat and to begin the transformation of the entire Middle East into a region that is not friendlty to terrorists. These are both self-defense agendas.
The intelligence communities throughout the world believed there were WMDs in Iraq and we would have neglegent to not act. Now you could get into the talk about giving the inspectors more time, but in the opinion of the Bush Administration, Saddam was never going to let the inspectors find what he had. Just because we now don't find WMDs in Iraq does not change the fact that we had good reason to believe they were there.
Saddam could have stopped this himself if he would have not violated the UN resolutions and the terms of his surrender from the previous war.
He was commiting acts of war against the US on a regular basis including an attempted assassination on a US president, and firing on US war plane patrolling the no-fly zones. Both of these give sufficient reason to invoke the self-defense clause.
Perhaps the reason you and many in your country see the motives behind Iraq as changing is your source of information. Bush has never waivered on his reasonings he has televised speeches several times a week since the beginning with always the same message. Iraq has always been a part of the war on terror, you just may not have been informed of that over there.
People are not dying for GWB, they are dying for there country and for a better world. What possible conspiracy are you thinking of that says GWB would want to start a war for reasons other than this.
I'll reply tomorrow - it's getting late here :thumb:
Technically, it's a continuation of the Gulf War in '91. The UN authorized force then, and no formal surrender was ever offered, just a cease fire. In that situation, we're still authorized to use force and we did (which is the purpose of a cease fire as opposed to formal surrender). Legal mumbo jumbo? Yes, but that's the way it is.
No it's not! 1441 superceded previous resolutions. Try reading itQuote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
Right after you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Quote:
The Bush administration argued that the UN Security Council Resolutions authorizing the 1991 invasion, in addition to Resolution 1441, gave legal authority to use "all necessary means," which is diplomatic code for going to war. This war ended with a cease fire instead of a permanent peace treaty. Their view was that Iraq had violated the terms of the cease-fire by breaching two key conditions and thus made the invasion of Iraq a legal continuation of the earlier war. If a war can be reactivated ten years after the fact, it would imply that any nation that has ever been at war that ended in a cease-fire (such as Korea) could face war for failing to meet the conditions of the cease-fire. Such is the purpose of using a cease-fire agreement in place of a peace treaty; the resumption of war is the penalty for, and thus deterrent of, engaging in the prohibited action(s). For instance, in WWII, the state of war with Germany did not end until 19 October 1951) and with Japan, not until 28 April 1952[55]
in the meantime we have registered 150 BPM. :thumb:
Yeah like anyone can understand this mobo jumbo. :rolleyes:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm
"Mobo jumbo"? Try "mumbo jumbo". :rolleyes:
Yes, it's perfectly readable. It however requires basic reading skills and knowledge of the English language.
Don't tell me that's an excuse. Or should we start each document with a hearty "Yeeeehaaw"?
Who said anything about excuses? Removed by Mr. Woka.Quote:
Posted by Wally Pipp
Yes, it's perfectly readable. It however requires basic reading skills and knowledge of the English language.
Don't tell me that's an excuse. Or should we start each document with a hearty "Yeeeehaaw"?
Oh and another thing i am from New York not Alabama.
Oh how I wish I was as witty as you are. :(
You should try reading what you post, mate. The bush regime argued Not fact. No Statute. No Nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
It was an argument nothing more nothing less. And a very poor one at that.
If you read it you will see that 1441 takes into account the previous resolutions and is the security council's decision to act upon the non-compliance.
That,of course, being the US agreement that 1441 is the way forward.
But wait! we want to wage war. So we'll change our mind and pretend that 1441 doesn't exist.
:rolleyes:
I think you blokes should worry less about bush and more about your countries security.
I am worried about my country's security and that's why Bush's foreign policy, and Blair's support of the same, concerns me a great deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilenger4
I don't know about you but i respect Blair actions.Quote:
Posted by yrwyddfa
I am worried about my country's security and that's why Bush's foreign policy, and Blair's support of the same, concerns me a great deal.
I believe he has the best of intentions . . .