The war in Iraq should be illegal!

On November 8, 2002, the members of the UN met to discuss how they want to disarm Iraq. No one in the UN counsel, not even the US representative, said that force should be used. They all said that only means of defense should be used.
www.un.org...
Whowas the one with the bright idea to break international law and breakresolution 1241 (or is it 1441) and ? Iraq may have broken resolution687, but, that other resolution, only gives the IAEA and the UNMICOVright to fly airplanes over Iraq. The meeting does not authorize theuse of force within Iraq.

it is illegal, old news

Actually it is not. Let me gather my info and I'll be back.

Definately illegal under international law. Furthermore, the US was not attacked by Iraq and there was no imminent threat. (Even if the WMD's did exist.) The US invaded a soverign nation without cause.

reply to post by Maverickhunter

---

The war in Iraq should be illegal!

Mav,

should be and Is are entirely matters of perspective. Individual, being the determining factor.

That the US has been "at war" for years apparently "steered" that perspective... at the time. Post 9-11 were some tumultuous times. Public approval retaliation was quite high, regardless of the target put forth as the "figure head", so to speak. Afghanistan first, near immediate. Odd, that. Iraq being secondary, with the so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction.

While few if any were "found", and said assertions have since been recanted somewhat, "they" certainly allowed for That which is and has been in dispute ever since. Why are we [the US] in Iraq!?

Osama?   No.
9-11?   No.

Hmmm... perhaps more a move to increase posture in, control of, and or to establish one's self in said region [i.e. the middle east].
To dictate from within "safe" bounds. (?)

That, or at least a means by which to steer, guide, or yank Iran's chain around a bit... seems to be working well, too.

Odd what the MSM can "make" appealing. no?

 


It's tired and I'm late... $.02

 

war itself is illigal

killing people is illigal

according to america:

war is ligal

killing people is ligal

reply to post by 12m8keall2c

---

ah, but this war is objectively illegal under the UN charter (that thing the US kind of was one of the architects of)

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

Agreed. I guess it's just another case of one who only lies when the truth doesn't suit. Better yet, one who applies the definition that best fits their purpose or desired outcome. (?)

 

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

Objectively illegal in what way? The ceasefire at the end of Desert Storm was conditional(which in layman's terms means that military action could be resumed if Iraq didn't fulfill it's obligations). UN Resolution 1441 (passed 15-0) gave Saddam his final warning to comply(i.e. provide proof that he didn't have WMD which was commonly excepted as being the case). The fact that Russia, France, China disagree with US foreign policy at times doesn't mean that something is illegal. They were upset at their oil for food kickbacks and weapons sales to Saddam would be interfered with, if the US took him out of power.

War is wrong! Why can’t we all get along? In the end, we all have the same beating heart! The same blood that goes through our veins!
I love my planet, I love my race (even though its messed up

The invasion of iraq is illegal - It is a CRIME AGAINST THE PEACE


"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

en.wikipedia.org...




Those who are interested in this subject might wish to follow these links:

War on Iraq was Illegal, Say Top Lawyers
www.commondreams.org...

PM could be prosecuted over Iraq war
www.smh.com.au...

Our troops alone risk prosecution
politics.guardian.co.uk...

No Safe Haven (or Statute of Limitations) for War Crimes
osdir.com...

US War Crimes, An International Vow of Silence
globalresearch.ca...


[edit on 10-12-2007 by thepresidentsbrain]

GET OVER IT!!!

The war is not illegal. Go back and review the facts.

Sadamm was in violation of the cease-fire which was signed after he 90-91 gulf war.

There were 17 UN resolutions which Saddam continiuosly violated.

Why can't we get along? Because there are bad people that only understand violence. You can talk with them until you're blue in the face, and they'll still be bad guys. Why are some people violent criminals? Are they just misunderstood, and if we'd just talk out our differences they'd see the error in their ways? The sad truth is that there are some people that need to be removed from the gene pool for the betterment of humanity. It's an ugly truth, but a necessary one.

reply to post by BlueRaja

---

...you know, it would've been impossible for those violations of oil for food to occur without the knowledge of the USA, right?

i mean, the scale of them...

anyway, oil for food was punitive to the people of iraq and an idiotic idea to begin with. read some stuff by hans von spronick (i may have butchered his name there) on it, he was in charge of it for a while but resigned for those reasons.

i can list various laws we've broken...
attacking hospitals that are still operating as civilian institutions taking care of patients (it doesn't matter if any combatants are being treated)
depriving civilian areas of food and water to cause the populace to flee (fallujah)
use of poisonous weapons (depleted uranium)
violations of prisoner's rights...

list could go on.

Let me guess, are we gonna quote Mr. Chomsky again? I was there when it went down. The Fallujah hospital attack was within prior military precedent and the laws of land warfare(i.e. protected sites lose their protected status when used for military/combatant purposes- which I posted about a few days ago).
Depleted Uranium isn't an illegal munition, so why even bring it up. Smoke from burning oil wells was far more environmentally damaging.
Please tell us what the rights are of irregular combatants, not serving in a uniform/national military? They don't have the same rights as soldiers in uniform. The self-loathing is tiresome. I prefer to root for the home team.

reply to post by Maverickhunter

---

I just have one question..

How is it illegal exactly?

Is there a section of the constitution that says "America may not engage in wars" or "America may not engage in unpopular wars" ......

Is there any law on the books that says "War is illegal"

"war" is a rational move made for either public or secretive objectives. Whether or not we attacked Iraq for oil, to save currency (they changed to Euro) or because we actually thought they had WMD's .. it does not matter. There is no provision any where that limits the United States from engaging in ANY war, even a true imperialistic war.

What the UN says is an international agreement that everyone will do this or that, and agree on such and such.

How many nations follow UN guide lines? Almost none.

The UN never said "America you cannot go to war with Iraq" It said "The UN will not help America" .. because there was some monetary raping going on from America to the French and Germans, ticked off the Chinese and Russians to boot.

What the UN says is NOT LAW. No nation is bound by the mythical "international law" as a law is only a law so long as the law can be upheld by an institutionalized security force to enforce REPROCUTIONS.

What was the international punishment for invading Iraq? Nothing. What COULD the UN physically do? Nothing. Nor did it want to.

I think the war is a farce, a mistake and a pathetic testament to how politics playing with the military can blow up in your face.

But it is not "illegal". Unless someone says it is, kicks our ass and we admit it. Only losers in war are responsible for their actions, victors write the history you see.

My $0.02

And no me not believing the same political ideologies as you does not make me a "neocon" I'm not even Republican.

reply to post by BlueRaja

---

sorry, i prefer to not take the whole "i was there" argument. it's not a valid one.
show me evidence to support that this hospital was some sort of combatant stronghold...

depleted uranium may not be classified as such yet, but it seems to be heading that way... looks like the US is going to be in some deep doo-doo when that happens. hell, the USA is the only reason that the material hasn't been classified as poisonous. it's not an issue of environmental damage as much as human damage. it taints water supplies

um...why didn't you bother to attack my point on depriving civilians of food and water to make them flee?

oh, last thing:
THEY'RE STILL HUMAN
it doesn't matter if they wear a uniform or not, they're human and are entitled to the same rights as any human on the battlefield. isn't that what makes us superior to our enemy? we're supposed to be respecting human rights...
also, torture is a highly inefficient method of gathering information on top of the barbarity.
those who fight monsters and whatnot

yes, let's root for the home team...
we're number 1 and whatnot...stop thinking and let the tube show you the next ad for the pimple cream your teen needs and the new dishwasher that's
a bit more efficient...
you do that, i'd rather be out there trying to make the home team something worth rooting for.

reply to post by Rockpuck

---

Thats the problem.
Your basing the idea of legality on AMERICA'S system.

This war is OUTSIDE of America..
just because you CAN inside the states, doesnt mean you can outside.

this war is illegial. There's no 2 ways about it.
Its against International law.
Just because the United states congress and government declare '' its legal '' doesnt mean that over-rules international Law


Hitlers government declared the invasions of France, Poland, Holland to be legal, and for the holocaust to be declared ' right '

If your giving yourself the power to deem iraq legal, then your saying the germans were justified in their ' legal ' habbbits.

reply to post by Agit8dChop

---

Yes there is a "larger world". However, in regards to that larger world, there is no way to prosecute America or hold us accountable. Don't like it? Complain to the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Oh darn, yeah...the US isn't a signatory of that treaty so it can't be applied.

So...is it "illegal" if the nation is outside the bounds of the treaties that bind it? Let me put it another way, if you live in New York, should you be subject to the laws of the state of Kansas? That answer is "no". Same situation here.

Now the question is-
* Do you want to force the US to accept laws that it is not bound by?
If your answer is "yes" than you need to reevaluate your values, because thats exactly what many are accusing the US of. Do 2 two wrongs make a right? Why do you wish to subject the US to illegal laws? Does that make you the same sort of monster that Bush is? Who is more evil- the one makes it so, or the one who wants to make it so?

Food for thought...

Agit8dChop




Welll .... ya? Who else's "standard" should we use? ... Australia's? England's? They went in with us and made benefits off of it.

Every country has there own opinion. If America invades a country, and a country stronger then us attacks us for doing it, and we loose, then we would have broken the law. The law of the victor.

Only strong nations are allowed to make international laws. Only strong nations can enforce said laws.



Then there would never be a war? Ever? .. Amazing... it seems these more moral laws you think of are easily broken huh?

I am sure Iraq does not have a law on the books that says "America is not allowed to attack us" And if they did, they can sue us .. Understand, there is no such thing as international law, nor even international standards because they morph to every nations needs and desires.



War cannot be illegal unless lost. Japan lost, so its imperialism was illegal. Germany lost, it paid the price dearly because it was illegal. Russia won, so they could pillage and capture and imperialise what ever they could, the same with America. See where I am going?



Who enforces International Law? .... The UN? .. Not without America .. NATO? ... Not without America... The Warsaw Pact may have kept us inline in a few areas, the Soviet Union could influence against us, we invade Vietnam, they make sure we loose, they invade Afgahnistan, we make sure they loose. If it was against the law......

Where is the reprocution?



Just because you political ideologies are against war, does not make it illegal.

It makes it morally wrong. That is the difference. But we are speaking legality.



There is no New World Order.

There is no One Law.

There is no Standard of Law.

There is no Standard of Ideology.

There is no Standard of Political Action.

There is no International Law.

On the Internatioanl Scene there is only one thing -

Anarchy.

All the worlds nations look for them selves, and for them selves only. In the event they look after another, it is only for some kind of gain, no matter how small or big. There is no world wide regulation on actions .. IE: America breaks the International Law... who gives us the ticket? Who arrest us? Who brings us to court? ........... The World is Anarchy ..

There is no Central government to direct all the worlds governments.



And they where legal.

Until he lost. Then they where illegal.



Yes... that is EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING.... you may just begin to understand yet...