Is america attacking iraq going against un law?

So since it is "illegal" or going against the un charter why dosent the un do its job. It is there to solve problems like this.

Is it possible to get this accross the news that what we are doing is illegal. Once everyone who dosent already know that hears what we are doing is illegal bush and his dirty, liening, secrative, manipulative, bit*hy, mother foking, helpers could be shown for who they really are and be stoped. I say we get one of the many news stations to air an article on this.

If any one works for a news station or knows any way to get an articale about this on tv please please please do it.

How illegal is it going to be when we find large quantities of weapons of mass destruction? If you don't believe that these weapons are in Iraq, then stay tuned, it's only a matter of time. I would hope you would admit that when these weapons are found, that this military action is not illegal, but rather justified. You wait and see, stay tuned, and in the meantime go eat some pizza.

You can be pretty damn sure something is currently being done.
There's a link to the UN charter in an above posting ...

Originally posted by ProudAmerican
How illegal is it going to be when we find large quantities of weapons of mass destruction? If you don't believe that these weapons are in Iraq, then stay tuned, it's only a matter of time.

Even though Blix & the inspection team has not found any? Granted, their job was not to *look* for them in the first place...Their job was only to see that Sodamn Insane has accounted for the destruction of his WMD's...Which is *not* done to anyone's satisfaction yet.
Yet, by invading *before* the UN made it legal, that still makes the invasion illegal regardless of whether or not we find any stashes of WMD's. It would be the same as if you decided to shoot somebody dead the day *before* murder became legalized...It was still illegal yesterday, therefore you can't justify it because it's legal today.
See the difference?

And yet, if they *do* find some clause of the UN Charter that would allow them to change their minds about the legality of the situation, then *that's* what would make the difference.

Originally posted by Rascar Capac

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.

Your lack of understanding is overwhelming. Go forth and learn, do, don't waste the bandwidth, as you are so keen on saying.

As a matter of fact, why not cite the international law, section and paragraph, and explain how we have without just cause attacked another nation. Also, this is IAW U.N. resolution 1441, to which there was no need for another resolution. In any event, we have and retain the right to act in defense of our citizenry and that is not in viooplation of international law.

[Edited on 23-3-2003 by Thomas Crowne]

1441 un text that is a link to the 1441 resolution. It was not the easiest reading so i may not have fully understood it, but from what i read we did not have the right to attack iraq. You can not attack iraq off of speculation that he has weapons he is not supposed to have. You need proof in order for it to be legal. Since we had no proof we attacked him illegaly.

Lets' see...1441 was ratified Nov. 8, 2002.
Then within 30 days, Iraq should've submitted a document of full disclosure (Obligation #3).
Inspectors go in within 45 days (from the adoption of the resolution) & provide an update report within 60 days of inspections (Obligation #5).

At any rate, Iraq had up until the ultimate deadline of Feb. 21, 2003 to comply with Obligation #3 & Obligation #5 in the manner as described in the other Obligations. Considering that the US & allies did not officially start the conflict until Mar. 19, 2003, this means that Sodamn Insane had nearly an extra *month* to fully comply with the described disarmament procedures & provide the appropriate disclosures to that effect.

Obligation #8 states that "Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or of any member state taking action to uphold any council resolution". Hmmm...I wonder if his open advertisement for paying the families of suicide bombers could be interpreted as non-compliance with this Resolution?

And Obligation #13 states that "serious consequences" will be faced by Iraq for non-compliance. You can't get much more "serious consequences" than to have the world's most powerful military forces comming in to nab your @$$...

Yep, Sodamn Insane blew it & the US did not "jump the gun" (to coin a phrase) too early. He had more than a *decade* to comply even *before* 1441 was enacted...And still could not provide sufficient disclosure of disarmament to the inspection team within the alloted time frame. So it looks to me like it's the UN at fault here for not (to coin another phrase) "sticking to its guns"...
Except for one thing that I'm not sure about...What does #14 mean when it says, "Decides to remain seized of the matter"?

The proof was not on the world, but on him. It wasn't to be an easter egg hunt, he was supposed to hand over material and definite proof of disposal for the world's inspection. He, as usual, was in defiance.



[Edited on 24-3-2003 by Thomas Crowne]

However, it was still up to the UN to actually decide *what course* of "serious consequences" were to be used to get Iraq's compliance...

...Bush jumped the gun as far as that goes, because he subsumed the authority of the UN to "continue" the Gulf War on Iraqi territories. The UN dropped the ball, but that did not give Bush the authority to pick it up again.

But it became obvious that Russia, France, Germany, and whatever other countries supplying weapons to Iraq would never let any action be taken. Sorry, I'm just being closed minded for a second.

Noone,

It's true that France Russia and China have future oil contracts with Iraq, and it is true that Iraq refused to pass contracts with the USA.

Both have economical motivations.

But the difference is that the USA is willing to commit mass murder for that, while peaceful disarmament was almost complete.

A significant, moral difference.