Because the world was so safe before we invaded Iraq. I think people crashing airplanes into buildings and shooting children is safe.

The "lawless invasion" of Iraq was actually quite legal. I suggest you read through the online archives of the UN Security Council, specifically the 117 resolutions dealing with Iraqi sanctions and inspections. This invasion wasnt just overdue, it couldnt be anymore legal.

BTW, Im not certain what fibbible material is, but different US administrations have been having trouble keeping FISSILE material in check for over 50 years now. If you are only now concerned about the nuclear genie, you're a bit late in the game. Richard Feynman has understand the disaster that awaits mankind for decades now. And if you havent heard warnings since the 50's, then perhaps you were sleeping through the 90's as well, when unpaid ex-Soviet officers were selling off nuclear materials and weapons to the highest bidder to make a quick ruble?

I could poke holes in your arguement all night, but I think I'll go watch a bad b-movie instead. One last word: research is your friend.

Bahu, I think you make a valid point that the Iraq war has made the world less safe and has given other countries an incentive to secure or produce nuclear weapons. Granted that there were enough incentives out there already, but adding to the list of reasons for wanting a nuclear bomb doesn't help to resolve the problem.

D3adzOmbie, you are not correct when you say that the Iraqi invasion was legal and I HAVE looked at all the Security Council resolutions plus many other materials on the subject. I too, could sit here all night and poke holes through YOUR arguments (and your grammar: "...Richard Feynman has understand...") but I have better things to do than argue with someone who is not open to other people's point of view. I also have no interest in debating with someone who seeks to ridicule others with petty insults about grammar/spelling for sake of being a bully.

Who determines whether something is "legal" or not btw?

The only law the US President has to recognize is the constitution and congress gave him the authority to act.

But that aside, if you want to believe in some sort of imaginary "international" law things were safe there too.

1) Iraq had violated the 1991 cease fire agreement. It was a cease fire, not an end of the conflict.

2) Resolution 1441 promised serious consequences if Iraq failed to comply. Serious consequences is diplo-speak for "War" btw. If you disagree, ask Serbia who found out what "serious consequences were" years before.

Droginol, I think you got your facts about the US constitution absolutely wrong. The Congress did not formally declare war on Iraq, and only the Senate is empowered to authorize a state of war. US invaded Iraq on patently false grounds and Congress only approved the use of troops in Iraq. This is not what the constitution makers had in mind when they framed the document.. In fact the {resident as Cin C cannot act on his own by frdulently claiming WMD in Iraq and bushwacking the Congress is a fraud. Serious consequences only meant a threat to use force, but the UN did not authorize the use of force and hence the invasion of IRAQ is illegal, and a Quisling regime of ALLawi and his band cannot provide retrospective legitimacy, which is badly lacking.

Reply #4 By: Bahu Virupaksha - 10/14/2004 12:39:19 AM Droginol, I think you got your facts about the US constitution absolutely wrong. The Congress did not formally declare war on Iraq, and only the Senate is empowered to authorize a state of war. US invaded Iraq on patently false grounds and Congress only approved the use of troops in Iraq. This is not what the constitution makers had in mind when they framed the document.. In fact the {resident as Cin C cannot act on his own by frdulently claiming WMD in Iraq and bushwacking the Congress is a fraud. Serious consequences only meant a threat to use force, but the UN did not authorize the use of force and hence the invasion of IRAQ is illegal, and a Quisling regime of ALLawi and his band cannot provide retrospective legitimacy, which is badly lacking.

Your opinion. We (the US) don't need permission from the lackey's at the UN for anything concerning this country! And President Bush WAS athorized to use force in Iraq by the senate! A state of war is not the same as use of force. Semantics, but true.

We (the US) don't need permission from the lackey's at the UN for anything concerning this country

Yes, but Saddam was authorised by his country to use force to conquer Kuwait. Surely that is as legal as the US senate authorising the US president to invade another country?



Paul

The only law the US President has to recognize is the constitution and congress gave him the authority to act.

Draginol: Is it?

Yes, but Saddam was authorised by his country to use force to conquer Kuwait. Surely that is as legal as the US senate authorising the US president to invade another country?

Paul: Excellent Answer.

Draginol: Tomorrow the Chinese Parliament authorises the Red Army to invade Taiwan and reunify it to the mainland. Do you think that the US will sit tight and do nothing about it? Tomorrow the Arab league authorises the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria to invade Israel. Do you think that the US will sit tight and do nothing about it? It did not happen in 1967, it will not happen now.

The fact is that this war did not have the unanimous approval that the Gulf war-I (or the war agains the Taliban after 911) had. The main premise of this war was that Saddam was facilitating the making of WMD and helping Al-Qaeda. We still do not have any WMD to show for in Iraq and thanks to this invasion we now HAVE Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Olikara

I'm cool with a monopoly, frankly. Why the hell would I want a "balance"?

Next week, if we come up with something much more destructive and "unbalancing" than nukes, I'll all for keeping it to ourselves, too. Since when do nations have an obligation to share their weapons technology. I thought the point was technical superiority. All the "dirty bombs" and fear of rogue nukes just proves that these other nations don't deserve it. It is in our best interest to prevent proliferation and make ourselves as strong as possible. I don't understand this "weaken yourself to gain legitimacy" garbage. So what if these nations can't afford a competitive military. That should provide them incentive to live peacefully, huh?

Your opinion.

My Opinion.

We (the US) don't need permission from the lackey's at the UN for anything concerning this country!

drmiler: Lackey's!! Come on. Why then is the US making use of these 'lackeys' to try to save it's skin in North Korea(by talking to them through the Chinese) and in Iran(talking to them through the Europeans). The fact is that the US knows that any attempt to do an 'Iraq' with N.Korea will mean the the anhiliation of the first 'lackey' of the US -Japan and an attempt to strike Iran's nuclear facilities will mean WMD's landing on Israeli and Saudi cities. Let's be realistic, please.

International Law recognizes use of force only inself defence: preventive strike, presuptive attacks are not just illegal, they are a challenge to the international order in the same manner as the terrorists are bent on challenging it.. The USA went to the UN asking permission to launch an attack on Iraq, and only when it was denied lauched what it calls "a coalition of the willing " which is fraying at the edges with Spain out and Japan having a rethink. War and Peace are issues that need to be debated threadbare, and Bush went to Iraq without the slightest preparation, bombed civillian targets, committed ground trioops with air support in Fallujah and imposed untold suffering on a long suffering Iraqi people. Yes, USA needs the support of the International community to disengage itself from Iraq
and this is exactly what Kery is proposing. Remember Powell in the Securitu Council with his photos and vials: all turned out to be so much hype over nothing. The bottomline is the world is less safe today that it was when Bush and the Bushmen attacked Iraq. Admit that it was wrong, rather that defend a war that cannot be won and ought not to have been faught.

mmm, yes, international law...

Nope, doesn't really bother me. When you consider millions dead around the world. China dehumanizing and tortuing hundreds of thousands, Hussein killing hundreds of thousands, almost a million dead in Rwanda, and on, and on...

...doesn't seem like international law is good for much... oh, except suing as a cudgel in a biased, overly-emotional debate during a US election. Sorry, but when International Law is applied to real villians, then maybe it will seem legitimate enough to give consideration to. As long as it ties the hands of some, and leaves the worst to do as they will, it doesn't count for much...

Draginol - 10/13/2004 4:54:28 PM

“Who determines whether something is "legal" or not btw?”

There are many sources: Federal statutes, the Constitution, and International law (i.e. treaties, which have the same legal authority as federal law and international customary law which is also legally binding.

“The only law the US President has to recognize is the constitution and congress gave him the authority to act.”

Wrong. The Constitution is only ONE source of recognized law when it comes to war and military action. Congress did not formally declare war, but they did authorize the President to use force. However, that is not the end of the analysis. Pre-emptive war falls under the category known as customary law but there are specific rules as to when it is legal and when it is illegal.

At the end of WWII, the U.S. and our allies established the Nuremberg Trails and Charter (1945), establishing individual criminal responsibility for war crimes. It also distinguished legal war for self-defense from aggressive war. Prior to Nuremberg, The Hague Convention of 1907 and the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 (named after U.S. secretary of state Kellogg), had already established rules prohibiting certain conduct during war and made aggressive war illegal and both of these are legally binding. The Supreme Court has actually ruled that this is true. It is not imaginary. The chief offense, the U.S. insisted, was Nazi Germany's crime of aggressive war.

So, what constitutes aggressive war? In order for military action to be deemed: "self-defense," the threat cannot be speculative or tenuous (i.e. grave and gathering danger doesn't cut it). The threat must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." Additionally, the use of military force must be necessary and proportional to the threat posed. The U.S. accepted this criterion and the Supreme Court confirmed their legitimacy in the "Caroline Case." What most people don't realize is there is a legal distinction between "pre-emptive" self-defense (which is legal) and "anticipatory" self-defense (which is illegal). Anticipatory self-defense is pre-emptive military action based upon a FEAR that an attack MIGHT occur at some unforeseen time in the future---again, this is illegal. Pre-emptive self-defense (which is legal) also requires clear and convincing evidence that a threat is about to occur. There was no clear and convincing evidence that Iraq was about to attack the U.S., in fact, most of what we knew before and especially after the war pretty clearly shows just the opposite. There was also no evidence that Iraq fit any of the criteria mentioned above that would have justified a pre-emptive strike. Conclusion = Iraq war was illegal.

Please note that there is no mention here of the U.S. needing the approval of another country or the U.N. Everything I mentioned above is law that has been accepted and followed by the U.S. Also note that there is nothing mentioned here about having to be attacked first nor does it say that the U.S. needs evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt” that they are about to be attacked. That is not the standard, however, you DO have to have MORE than just mere speculation and conjecture, which is all we basically had on Iraq and the National Intelligence Assessment (NIA) regarding Iraq confirms that. The NIA was full of speculation and qualifiers regarding Iraq’s WMD. Whether you agree with the law or whether you like it is irrelevant. What is relevant is adhering to what the law IS.).

“But that aside, if you want to believe in some sort of imaginary "international" law things were safe there too.”

I refer you to my comments above.

“1) Iraq had violated the 1991 cease fire agreement. It was a cease fire, not an end of the conflict.”

The cease-fire agreement that you are referring to authorized nations to “use all means necessary” to enforce a prior U.N. resolution which had declared Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait a “breach of international peace and security” and authorized nations to use force to “restore peace and security” to the region resulting from IRAQ’S INVASION OF KUWAIT. It does NOT mention anything regarding “regime change.” In fact, one of the reasons President George H. W. Bush (the father) did not allow U.S. military forces to storm onto Baghdad in 1991 was because he KNEW that such measures exceeded the authority of the U.N. resolution that authorized the invasion in the first place. These are his words, not mine. Look at: David G. Savage, et. al, “Law Experts question legal basis of conflict,” Gulf News, March 1, 2003.)

“2) Resolution 1441 promised serious consequences if Iraq failed to comply. Serious consequences is diplo-speak for "War" btw. If you disagree, ask Serbia who found out what "serious consequences were" years before.”

Wrong. Although 1441 threatened “serious consequences” if Iraq did not comply with 1441’s mandates, “serious consequences” is not “diplo-speak” for war. “Serious consequences” means exactly that but it does not rise to the level of the very specific verbiage employed by the Security Council when it authorizes the use of force. The specific verbiage authorizing the use of military force is “all necessary means” and 1441 did not say that. I know that sounds like a bunch of legal hair-splitting and I concede that it is. However, there really is a difference between the two and there is a reason why 1441 was drafted using “serious consequences” language and did not use “all necessary means.” First, there was much debate within the Security Council over the drafting of this specific language because the U.S. wanted to send Iraq the strongest message possible by getting unanimous support for 1441. In order to get unanimous support, the U.S. compromised on this specific language because other Security Council members wanted the U.S. to come back for a 2nd resolution specifically authorizing the use of force. No, it wasn’t just the French! Sorry, but I had to throw that in there because the British wanted a second resolution specifically authorizing the use of force to give Blair political cover for his skeptical public at home. Other members of the Security Council said they never would have voted for 1441 had they known that the U.S. was going to say 1441 authorized the use of force and not come back for the second resolution. So, when you put all that together I think it’s a hard case to make that 1441 was enough. When you interpret law or resolutions to determine precisely what they mean, Courts will look at what the document actually says and if there is an ambiguity, they will look at authors’ debates and their INTENTIONS. This is the same methodology used by the Supreme Court when they are trying to determine the “Founders’ intent” in the Constitution. It’s pretty standard stuff.

BakerStreet,

We have done some pretty shitty things around the world ourselves and one of the reasons international law has been weakened is because of the Security Council "veto" system which the U.S. insisted upon. It's pretty hard to get nations to play by the rules when you aren't really willing to play by them yourself or when you are constantly turning a "blind-eye" when it's your friends who are violating the law. It is this "selective" applicaition of the law that makes it weaker than it needs to be. Can you imagine how many people at home would obey the law if it was only selectively applied based on "do as I say, not as I do" and "oh, by the way..law 'A' will only be applied and enforced against people in group 'B' meanwhile your neighbor can do whatever the hell he wants." I can't imagine that you or anyone else would follow that law for very long because of it's hypocracy. You would say, "Hell, screw this...this is ridiculous" would you not? Well, try to imagine what other countries think when we always try to tell them what rules they have to play by when we aren't willing to play by those same rules ourselves, and oh, by the way...Israel is going to get a free-pass too. Did you know that Israel is presently in violation of 67 UN resolutions yet the U.S. was crying and screaming about Iraq being in violation of 17? What do you suppose other countries think when we allow Israel to have a not-so-well kept secret nuclear weapons program while at the same time we are telling their neighbors they can't have them? Do you know what that looks like to the rest of the world and in particular to Arab nations? Wouldn't it make more sense to tell ALL of them they can't have nuclear weapons?

Now I am not saying that Arab nations are saints and I am certainly not saying that the U.S. and Israel are always wrong. To the contrary, what I am saying is that no nation can claim sainthood status so what we need is a fair system with a fair enforcement mechanism. And the U.S. running around and invading Iraq is not going to resolve the terrorist issue. It is not an issue that can be resolved by military means alone, although military force certainly is one component. Just look at Israel for god's sake! They have been using military action against terrorists for decades and do you think they are any closer to resolving their terrorist problems? Is that what we are aspiring to?

Reply #10 By: Bahu Virupaksha - 10/14/2004 3:58:07 AM International Law recognizes use of force only inself defence: preventive strike, presuptive attacks are not just illegal, they are a challenge to the international order in the same manner as the terrorists are bent on challenging it.. The USA went to the UN asking permission to launch an attack on Iraq, and only when it was denied lauched what it calls "a coalition of the willing " which is fraying at the edges with Spain out and Japan having a rethink. War and Peace are issues that need to be debated threadbare, and Bush went to Iraq without the slightest preparation, bombed civillian targets, committed ground trioops with air support in Fallujah and imposed untold suffering on a long suffering Iraqi people. Yes, USA needs the support of the International community to disengage itself from Iraq and this is exactly what Kery is proposing. Remember Powell in the Securitu Council with his photos and vials: all turned out to be so much hype over nothing. The bottomline is the world is less safe today that it was when Bush and the Bushmen attacked Iraq. Admit that it was wrong, rather that defend a war that cannot be won and ought not to have been faught.

Again how much you don't know. There is NO WAY the US can "disengage" from Iraq. To do so would cause MORE damage than has already been done. We are commited now and we will have to stay the course.

T_Bone4Justice ,
excellent response. I would debate the point

It does NOT mention anything regarding “regime change

though. While the original article did not mention regime change, it did grant the authority to take what ever action was necessary to stabilise the region. The US could therefore have argued that removing Saddam was required to stabilise the region.

I personally don't accept that the original article was still valid though as 1441 preceded it. You cant legally set conditions and then invade using an older article when those conditions were met.

I should also state that despite the lack of legality I belive the US should indeed have acted. Sooner would have been much better for legal reasons.

Paul.