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...