If the War in Iraq is Illegal does that make Saddam the Legitimate Leader?

Liberal.. take a break.. step away from the computer.. go get a beer and relax! Good reporting.. to many link, bold words and long paragraphs for me to read.

I do have a question..

What makes a war "illegal"?

To be illegal there must be an institution in place that can

A. Make the law

B. Support and define the law

C. Enforce the laws

There is no institution that defines international law, there is no group powerful enough to use force to support the law that would be passed.

As barbaric and primitive as it sounds, the big man with the big stick gets his way, untill enough people can do something about it.

In other words, America can invade who ever they feels deserves to be invaded, now whether or not you agree with it, there is no argument against it because: Look above ^^

No laws, it is anarchy on the global scale.. small factions with there own thought processes doing what ever they wish answering to no one...... Because there is no one to answer to..


Was Iraq better under Saddam? Oh yeah, especially if you where a Suni. For the Kurds this is the best thing that could happen, though they have it better because they are seperated mostly from the rest, they act more civil, are better at governing. Its funny.. Sunis and Shiites go to Kurdistan as a "retreat" from the violence, yet for decades they wished only to murder them.

We did however level the playing field for all parties, which resulted in war .. Iraq is in a civil war you cannot deny .. well.. more like a Revolutionary war of sorts, as there really is not a government because no one supports the one inplace except a foriegn power.

Was our war ilegal? .. noo.. it was stupid.. it was plain stupid. World super power and we get into a hole and now we scramble to get out because politics mixed with war = not actually being able to conduct an open war.

Iraq was not better under Saddam, it was more organizd, a system of fear and opression kept the masses civil, mostly, with eachother.

What we should do is allow them to vote on splitting into 3 different countries, which is what SHOULD happen. A Kurdistan, a Suni state and a Shiite state. IMHO anyways.

Originally posted by Liberal1984
The U.N isn’t in a position to force the United States to do anything.

Then its laws aren't laws. If it can't even get an official statement saying that the war was illegal, then its meaningless.

If the UN is too scared to do this, then the UN itself is illegitimate.

Sane, rational or pragmatic would be my choice of words.
Regardleses, its 'laws' then are illegitimate. Any law that no-one is willing to back up, or even to charge someone with, doesn't exist.


The only way for the US invasion of Iraq to be considered illegal is for some body, like the UN, to have a metting/court to decide if the war was infact illegal, and their only basis for deciding it if was illegal is 'did the UN authorize it' (and notice that the UN can't even emphatically state that it didn't authorize it), or that it wasn't in the self-defense interests of the US.

While many of us can have our opinions of whether or not it was justifiable as pre-emptive self defense (which is a recognized and fully legal justification for war), those opinions are irrelevant. The UN has never made any official decision on this, has never charged the US, and has never said that the war was illegal.
Indeed, its questionable if the UN even has the authority, on paper even, to determine what are in another state's self-defense interests.

This is just like the Kellogg-Briand Pact. It was agreed upon international law that people would renounce war, all-together. No one would actually argue today that that Pact is binding international law. It was absolutely ignored from the moment it was signed, only people interested in building a new basis for so called 'international law' upon it paid attention to it.

There is no such thing as an 'illegal war'. THe notion itself is absurd. War is a state in which one side is so profoundly antagonized or feels antoagonized by another that they choose to send men over to them and to kill them. THe idea that law applies to war is insane, its a hold over from 18th century european genteel ideas of 'proper chivalric/manly behaviour'. International Law stops at War. After war, the victors may decide to punish people or hold 'trials'. The loosers never hold trial, that in itself should clue people in to there not being any 'law'.

So under all the so call expertise on the so call technicalities of war and illegality or legality of taking out soverign countries leaders

Then do not feel so bad when another nation will raise above our and decided to take out our government and liberate our nation.

So what you all think about that.

Under much of your definitions it will be quite legal you know.

Saddam Insane and his captured crew are heading for a rope around their neck or the ol' axe treatment soon I would think.

If the war was illegal I would think the only way Saddam's neck may be spared is if the Court Judge declares that or something like it to be the case and dis-charges the hole-monger. Could be a provisional discharge such as, he must reside north in Kurd Country. I'm sure they'd be happy to greet him.

I had thought an illegal war of one Country against another could be determined and prosecuted by the World Court. I suppose if there were to be World Court formal action, Saddam and Crew would long before be dealt with.

Dallas

Originally posted by marg6043
Then do not feel so bad when another nation will raise above our and decided to take out our government and liberate our nation

I certainly wouldn't say it would be 'illegal'. The only way to stop it would be to kill the people doing the invading, not sue in some court.

Dallas
I had thought an illegal war of one Country against another could be determined and prosecuted by the World Court.

The UN could, but it doesn't. That indicates that the UN itself doesn't really beleive that the war was infact illegal.

Originally posted by Nygdan

I certainly wouldn't say it would be 'illegal'. The only way to stop it would be to kill the people doing the invading, not sue in some court.

Nydgan you rock

Originally posted by marg6043
So under all the so call expertise on the so call technicalities of war and illegality or legality of taking out soverign countries leaders

Then do not feel so bad when another nation will raise above our and decided to take out our government and liberate our nation.

So what you all think about that.

Under much of your definitions it will be quite legal you know.

Well Marge, I except that one day it will happen.. we will be over thrown, in our history there has never been one single nation throughout history as the sole leader.... nations come and go as time passes.. eventually America will fall, we will split, the union crumble.. and a new sense of reason will descend on the world in the next dark age. Happy thought for the day. All things come to an end, good or bad.

Originally posted by Rockpuck

eventually America will fall, we will split, the union crumble.. and a new sense of reason will descend on the world in the next dark age.

You know I was just joking . . . the only way our nation will fall is . . . if we keep allowing the corrupted politicians keep ruining our nation with their private interest agendas.

Our constitution was made in a way that ensure that we the people will be the protectors of our nation's well being.

Originally posted by Liberal1984

However (unless someone is specially trained) it is quite possible to determine whether they believe what they say with a passion. So if a new Saddam wants to explain his ideas to the camera, and if the Pentagon wants to get an experts opinion on their body language, wants to put it into context with what we know about them; then that’s a big help. Next stage is finance-assistance.

I guess it is a question of psychology.
But I will put it this way have you heard of a dictator who is honest or has the right frame of mind to lead a countrie ?

Well because he is from a political movement someone from within it should take over. However like with any assassination of anyone it’s hard to speculate who you’ll be getting next at least until the day the assassination happens.

Fair call.
But who exactlly will these other people be ?
Where will these people come from ?

Well Saudi Arabia works out quite well. Iran was a disaster but it only happened because the king in charge was an oppressive idiot, as opposed to someone who is open to listening to his peoples concerns, as well as the measures needed to deal with his enemies.

Saudi Arabia worked out well for who ?
Werent the 9-11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia ?
Saudi Arabia is another topic so I cant go into much detail on this thread.

Saddam was dumb enough to go against American interests in the end it proved his undoing.

Even if you found the moderates you seek they would end up being just another insurgent group that is trying to mould Iraq in its image.

Well security is everything. I know many of the people who used to be in Saddam’s intelligence service are now dead-abroad but any willing to help out would probably be on the pay roll.

Good call I suspect that some of them are working for other governments in the region or have shown there support for the weak Iraqi government in order to avoid the dock.

How can you have freedom of culture if you cant criticize the government ?

Other factors…
1. Not really giving a stuff about Israel: Firstly this is rare in Middle East (but that’s a fact that applies across all options) (least of all my own mine). Secondly (in the Arab world) it’s probably more likely to be symptomatic of someone lacking morals than an unusual opinion.

Chances are that your Saddam clone will take a less then moderate stance against Israel in order to appease the likes of Iran. Even if you manage to get your Saddam clone into power you still dont have the people required for running Iraq.

For example if the current mayor of Baghdad dosnt support the new regime who will be the new mayor ?
Financial aid dosnt help to create a stable state. Once a countrie is secure and with a very low rate of corrupation financial aid will onlty then be of benfit. Chances are your Saddam clone would put in place the means of ruling and nothing else. This would drive the general population into the hands of extremist groups.

[edit on 29-10-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 30-10-2006 by xpert11]

But First…
This law group thinks this war is illeagle…
www.commondreams.org... (referring to un charter)
Kofi Annan Says was war illegal: news.bbc.co.uk...
www.globalpolicy.org...

Rockpuck and Nygdan Your argument seems to be that the law only exists if its enforceable. Though to all practical purposes that may be right; its not accurately correct. It’s like saying you and I can go out and murder someone and afterwards say we’re not murders because we haven’t been court (yet).
Also whose to say what future leaders of the U.N will make of the leaders of today? I doubt very much Bush and Blair are heading down the right way in history. And sometimes the impossible does happen; just look at General Pinachia. (It was sad because he only tortured-executed Communists; I'm quite glad Argentina isn’t another North Korea, not just for our sake but humanities).
The point is regardless of whether or not the law will be enforced; the fact it ether could and perhaps should be is the point.

marg6043
Why do you think under what I'm saying it would be quite legal to takeout our government and replace it with another?
I thought I was saying quite the opposite, and that other people were indirectly arguing the counter. Just to clear that up.

On Saddam…

Xpert11 I still don’t understand why you think its so important that our enemies should be democratically elected; especially when they will in time destroy that democracy anyway. However…

Chances are that your Saddam clone will take a less then moderate stance against Israel in order to appease the likes of Iran.

The same is ten times more true of democratically elected Arab leaders. Don’t know about you but I don’t know of many places in the Middle East were saying you love Israelis will get you elected? And in Iraq taking anything but an extremist line is in the eyes of many just another good reason why you should be assonated.

Even if you manage to get your Saddam clone into power you still dont have the people required for running Iraq.

There are two types of people in politics: Believers and career ladder climbers. There is no shortage of the latter anywhere in the world. If the mayor of Baghdad wouldn’t support a secular government, then replace him with a non-believer (an infidel in fact). Then you’ll have someone who will follow his instructions like businessman follows his money. My vision of an Iraqi government only needs a small amount of ideology and that is secularism. Everybody else can meet up with Allah to see what he really thinks about Muslim totalitarianism.

ATS READ…
The Good Days of Saddam…

How can you have freedom of culture if you cant criticize the government ?

Well look at Saddam’s Iraq in the 70’s and 80’s. Economically it was a miniature China with people getting richer all the time. Socially Saddam had financed massive education programmes with new schools, universities and colleges being near endlessly constructed-improved. Crime was like it is in any Western country, medical care was free and good (better than for many-most Americans).
This accumulates to pre 1991 where Iraqis had 92% literacy and 93% access to free healthcare.
Religiously the fundamentalist were free to practice their religion however they choosed providing they did not steer rebellion, or try to force their beliefs on others (e.g. the banning of alcohol, thick clothing of women and other practices are now being forced upon Iraqis by other “Iraqis” I want nowhere but in mass graves).
Christians were not persecuted just look to Tariq Aziz for that. This is in contrast to recently where (in America’s Iraq) the Popes comments caused many Christians to be executed by fundamentalists. Nobody can stop it; because the government is a mix mash of fundamentalists, career politicians and idiots.
marg6043
Nygdan
Dallas
Remember that if Saddam was still in power, if the sanctions had been lifted because he had got rid of his weapons of mass destruction the type of Iraq we saw pre-1991 would be on the rise again. In fact though the U.N sanctions, Gulf War and no-fly zones had done much damage it was only 12 years worth; probably almost all of it would be repaired in the 3 plus years our invasion and idiotic governance has taken so far.

Almost any Iraqi be them Shiite or Sunni would rather be in this Iraq than the genocidal, out of control, paradise of manics they find themselves in today. It is America and Britiains doing; and our doing because we removed Saddam, forget the lessons of history and how to be just (with respect to sanctions).
The only place that has benefit is the Kurdish bits. We did not need full blown regime change to achieve their liberation, and anyway the bright times of the Kurds can still be cut short by a multitude of events. They are almost entirely dependant in both our support and our continued interest.

Liberal1984 there are two reasons to hold elections in a partitoned Iraq.
The first is to allow the chance for more moderate leaders to come to power the Kurds could be an example of this. This would also begin the process of rebuilding the US governments credibility in the eyes of the world.

The second reason is that the people should be able to elect there leaders the only other option is to impose leaders upon the differnt tribes but that isnt a very smart idea given how clueless the US government is.

Liberal1984 your plan would have had a good chance of working in the 1990s if the CIA had manged to overthrow Saddam but now that the lid has been taken off the Hornets nest its to late for your plan to work.