It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is america attacking iraq going against un law?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I dont know much about the policy of when it is ok and not ok to attack so dont get mad at me if i am way off. shouldnt the un be doing something about us now that we attacked without their ok. I am not saying i support suddom husane and iraq, because i dont, but it seems to me like the same thing when germany invaded poland in ww2. Except we are attacking for different reasons.

I know America is sometimes considered the law, but isnt that what the un is supposed to stop and prevent from a country becoming the law.




posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 07:31 PM
link   
In the 91' gulf war the UN passed resolutions (not sur what numbers someone will back me up) that states something aling the lines that a country can forcefully disarm Iraq if they posses weapons of mass destruction or are in breach of the resolution that provides other restrictions, i think anways not 100% sure but someone will know.



posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Main opinion among lawyers seems to be that resolution 1441 supercedes prior resolutions on iraq and is therefore stipulating the terms under which an attack might occur. Since it doesnt contain an automatism, the decision was left to the security council.



posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 08:37 PM
link   
And Bush and Blair and be tried in a UN World Court for this war, said an internation attorney.



posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illmatic67
And Bush and Blair and be tried in a UN World Court for this war, said an internation attorney.


Seems they're getting nervous


A case that's difficult to make ...

Why did they vote 1441 ?

Why did they help the weapons inspectors by providing them with evidence ?

Why this psychodrama about a second resolution ?






posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 08:56 PM
link   
No, the war against Hussein is not illegal. It wouldn't be illegal even if it weren't for Res. 1441. We have the right, as any other nation, to defend our citizenry, and it is not against international law to attack before you are harmed.



posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
it is not against international law to attack before you are harmed.


It is illegal else you'd have the right of attacking anything, anywhere.



posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 09:11 PM
link   
and here's a link to the UN charter where such questions are adressed :
www.un.org...

but for war crimes trials, it's different, since at least one of the warring parties must have subscribed to the ICC agreement. US and Iraq didnt, therefore US and Iraqi soldiers probably wont be judged on war crimes.



[Edited on 21-3-2003 by Rascar Capac]



posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 09:29 PM
link   
so what you are saying is america looked for a loop hole in the law. They never found any weapons of mass destruction, so wouldnt that not put the law that they could attack in affect.

I just thouhgt of a perfect quote to sum up what america is doing, "do as we say not as we do" lol.
I support the troops in iraq, but it is times like this i am not soo proud to be an american.

The government has somehow brainwashed the people into thinking any anti-war protesters are also anti-american. I do not see how someone could think that expressing your own opinion, which is a right, is being non patriotic.

Isnt there any thing we can do that will expose bush and the government for the low down dirty shameful people they are and stop the war.

One more thing i dont understand. How did war on terroism, changed to war on afganistan, changed to war on osama binladen, changed to war on iraq and sudam husaine?



posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 09:36 PM
link   


Isnt there any thing we can do that will expose bush and the government for the low down dirty shameful people they are and stop the war.

One more thing i dont understand. How did war on terroism, changed to war on afganistan, changed to war on osama binladen, changed to war on iraq and sudam husaine?


sounds like going to the middle east and stomp a little bit around



posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ilovepizza
One more thing i dont understand. How did war on terroism, changed to war on afganistan, changed to war on osama binladen, changed to war on iraq and sudam husaine?


Are you serious???? The war on terrorism includes Afghanistan, BinLaden, and Iraq. I'm sorry you don't see the threat that these people pose to us, but believe me, if you are from the US, they want you dead, to them you are an "infidel". It's a shame you're not proud to be an American because these people are over there making sure 9/11 doesn't happen to your wife and children.



posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 10:29 PM
link   
9/11 was done by osama bin ladens guys, not iraq, nor sadam husane. So i did support going into afganistan, because the terroists and government there destroyed the world trade centers and pose a threat. I do not see how sudam husane is a threat to us. We already went in once and it has been 12 or 13 years i think since we went in to iraq. Has he done any thing since we invaded that posed a threat to us no. He may not like us and may wish he had the strength and power to attack us and win, but he dosent. Sudam husaine has already seen what we can do once; he dosent want to see the same thing happen again.

Sudam husaine learned what not to do after we(USA) attacked them. So since sudam husaine isnt dumb enough to attack us he dosent pose a threat.



posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Also as a sovereign nation we have the right to defend ourselves from any country posing a threat to us. Not to mention if the UN does not have the support of the US it will fail horribly just as the League of Nations did.



posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Well pizza, I think that when this war is over you will see the weapons that this lunatic possesses, but since we dont have concrete evidence we'll just have to wait and see. Isn't the fact that Saddam has murdered thousands and thousands of his own people enough reason to remove him? Do you think that the Iraqi people deserve do live a better life and not constantly look over their shoulder for fear of an inhumane dictator? Dont they deserve to have some kind of say of what goes on in their country? Saddam is an evil tyrant, his way or the highway, murderer. Isn't that reason enough for this war, to liberate Iraq??



posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I believe that sudam husiane is a horable man. The iraq people do deserve better lives and freedom from this tyrant, but we do not have the right to do it our self. Revolutions happen, but they take time. It dosent help if we go ever there and kill one tyrant, because another one will just come into power. It has to come from the people so another tyrant can not gain control.



posted on Mar, 20 2003 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ilovepizza
9/11 was done by osama bin ladens guys, not iraq, nor sadam husane. So i did support going into afganistan, because the terroists and government there destroyed the world trade centers and pose a threat.


Did YOU see how al qaeda was a threat before 9/11? That's the point, take care of it BEFORE it happens this time. By what you are saying, we shouldn't respond to a terrorist group until after they have done their damage and killed who knows how many people. We aren't just in a battle against al qaeda, but ALL terrorists whether they have directly attacked us yet or not. The idea is to stop terrorism.

[Edited on 21-3-2003 by Shady]



posted on Mar, 21 2003 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Iraq committed Genocide against people within it own boarders

www.phrusa.org...

This is justification to attack her as if Saddam Hussein does not respect people in it own country (the third Reich) why should the US presume they respect
anyone else.

Beyond that there is this issue, next time a person even thinks about hijacking a plane and using it as a weapon. He will have a clear record in history in respect to what happens next.



posted on Mar, 21 2003 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Rather a grey area is this: there isnt actually any UN Law, rather there is International Law which tends to take the UN Charter as a starting point but it is not wholly based on UN resolutions, and ignoring the distinctions can lead to great confusion.
What makes it all rather silly at times is the issue of sovereignty: when all else fails the law depends upon somebody having a big stick. The UN doesnt and can therefore only be effective against smaller weaker nations which makes it, if anything, a travesty of legality.
However, in this case, there have been some interesting developments. Speaking broadly (other than with specific UN authorization) war is possible if it is in self-defence (UN Article 51).
Originally, international law suggested that you actually had to be punched on the nose before you could legally hit back; this changed to giving the right to fight if there was imminent danger: the stick was in the air, as it were. It was so close that there was no time to think or deliberate.
Plainly, Iraq has not actually attacked the US nor could anyone demonstrate that an attack is imminent.
However, in an age of WMD it is not unreasonable to suggest that these categories are no longer of much use: if the nukes are already in the air, attacking will not help very much.
So the Bush administration has been developing the idea of pre-emptive self-defence. This is largely the basis for the US claim to legality: they insist that Saddam would have attacked, given time, and that the weapons would have been such that America would have been gravely threatened if it had waited until the attack was imminent.
Im not sure that that is entirely unreasonable; however, it certainly does not square with Article 51 as it stands. ( let us skip over whether or not there are WMDs or whether or not Saddam was going to attack the US).
Consequently, the US has also found itself pursuing another avenue: the authorisation of force to protect international peace and security. With regard to Iraq, one resolution may be relevant: Resolution 678, which was passed on Nov. 29, 1990, and which authorised member states to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 (1990) that demanded Iraqs withdrawal from Kuwait - and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." A later resolution (687) also included full co-operation with weapons inspectors, destruction of WMDs etc.
The Bush administration has claimed that Iraq has not done this and that all necessary means are, therefore justified.
This incidentally is essentially the thinking behind the no fly zones.
Again, its difficult: one could argue that it is not for individual states but for the UN Council to make such decisions. The UN itself appears to have been unable to make up its mind on this one.
The US (last November) tried to get this issue resolved (given that it already claimed authority under previous resolutions and International Law, this was probably unwise) in Res. 1441 which established the weapons inspections and sought to clarify consequences of non-compliance. The French, notoriously, said theyd veto anything but a process which left it to the UN not individual nations to decide what non-compliance was.
And thats about where we now are.
On balance, it probably is illegal but then, as Dickens told us, it may well be that the law is an ass.
A more fruitful question would be whether or not the war is constitutional: do Bush and Blair have the authority under their own constitutions/domestic law? Blair I think does, after the recent vote. Some would suggest that its not quite so clear-cut for Bush2.
Thus spake Estragon apologies for the length



posted on Mar, 21 2003 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Dickens of course wrote "a ass" in Oliver Twist; but let us address one issue at a time.



posted on Mar, 21 2003 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudAmericanSaddam is an evil tyrant, his way or the highway, murderer. Isn't that reason enough for this war, to liberate Iraq??

This is one of the reasons that the UN didn't want US to go into Iraq...It's not the way that he *rules* over his people, it's tha fact that the UN Charter couldn't authorize the US to invade like this...At present, Sodamn Insane doesn't pose a *legally verifiiable* problem that spills over the border. As far as the first Gulf War goes, the UN Charter *could* authorize NATO troops to *stop his invasion of Kuwait*. But in this case, Bush's Bully Boy Gang even presented forged evidence that would indicate Iraq's danger to the US. If the UN were to authorize the US to invade under the current circumstances, they'd be breaking the terms of their own Charter.
It's the "Right to Soveriegnty" terms of the UN Charter that prolonged the Cold War...The atrocities that Sodamn Insane perpetrated upon his own people was *not crossing Iraq's borders*. I think the only reason that the countrys that are inopposition to the US now don't actually mobilize their militarys against us is because Sodamn Insane *publicly announced* his support for terrorists (Pay for suicide bombers, etc)...Which *is* a problem that crosses *all* borders. This, I think, is the only reason that no one (as yet anyway) is trying to actively stop us now.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join