Iraq war illegal

news.bbc.co.uk...

i think its kinda late for that, don't you think?

Already posted twice.

From Korea to Israel to Saddam's Iraq there is ample historical precedent to show that the UN has no binding authority. The UN is little more than the worlds largest charity (with unjustified political aspirations) and America is the contributor who keeps the whole thing running. Tell them to come back once they've raised an army of their own- or at the very least found their own soil to put the building on.

The UN has absolutley no authority unless the US is using it as a reason to declare war. So there.

So because the US does something the UN disagrees with it creates charges of illegality? Since when do UN member nations have to get security council approval to go to war? Maybe the US should just drop the UN altogether. I know thats idiotically radical btu sometimes ya just gotta say it.

Persian, you agree with General-Secretary Anan? Why? I mean, I don't understand it, honestly. Since when do member nations of the UN have to get security council permission to go to war? The US would've never entered it if that was an actual stipulation, nor should any sane country. What wars has the UN Security council ever approved, besides the Korean War? And why should the Security Council have that kind of authority, when you consider that particular war. The only reason it was passed was because the communists had been boycotting the council at the time and it was sprung on them. Obviously they opposed it; so how can the Security Council have any say in these matters?

And (this is not specifically directed to you Mr. P, but discuss if you are intersted) why is Anan wasting his and everyone else's time on this silly matter? The Iraq war occured, no one could stop it, if the US wanted to do it again no one could, certainly not the UN, and the postion that its illegal is tenuous at best, but, meanwhile, genocide is occuring all around Darfur, and the UN won't do anything other than ship some foodstuffs to people who are being murdered and attacked in their own refugee camps. Honestly, are these Mr Anan's priorities? Of course, I don't think much effort was actually spent in stating 'yes, i still think the war was illegal' but wouldn't that've been a good time to say, 'we're send a brigade of bluehelmets to the sudan and more will follow'?


Thi is off topic perhaps, but it reminds me of a dave chapelle skit; he's the president, the UN is telling not to do this or that, and he;s liek 'If the UN doesn't agree with me, then they should sanction me. Thats right sanction me biatches!" silly, but to the point.

Kofi is simply trying to deflect attention away from the "Oil for Bribes" scandal that is rocking the UN which his own son is ears deep in. I expect Daddy is going to be implicated as well when the washing up is all done....

Wow, UN is just realizing that invading a sovereign secular nation without due cause is illegal? Thank God we have international laws, they are so useful.

Dave Chappele, Yeah, now thats funny.

Talking of comedy, I remember a great skit. It started of with this guy wanting to invade Iraq and protesting all these decrees by….. get this… The UN! It was all to do with Iraq. It was so funny. I mean it was genius. He slated Iraq’s UN record while completely ignoring Israel which had three times as many, at least lol, it was great. Then, wooo, he socked us all! He said the UNs weapons inspections were a waste of time and we had to go in now, when he knew there wasn’t any there to begin with! Laugh? I nearly cried! I thought he’d exhausted himself there, surely he couldn’t top that, but no! He badgered and badgered till he got a 1441! A 1441! Can you believe it? He wanted them to give them their weapons or that’d be enough to attack them whateverthe legallatilitywahatimacalit! And all along he knew they didn’t have any! Pure Genius!

God, It was great.

Admittedly he kinda ruined the punchline. He keeps saying the UN’s a piece of ****, and yeah, it would have been funny if the WMD reason had stood up, and he hadn’t kept using the UN so much in the buildup. But hey, he’s new to the circuit. I suppose we’ve gotta give him the breaks.

We did however sign the UN charter to respect and support international law. Or does our word and signature mean nothing?
The UN (for all its short-sightedness) was designed as an aspiration for a better humanity. A way to move away from a nationalistic perspective that had caused so much damage in the 20th century. Especially now that weapons had reached such destructive force. It's philosophical purpose was for all humanity to strive together as ONE world. Does it have problems? Of course...its a HUMAN endeavor. But its purpose was to grant all countries a voice regarless of military or economic might, a way to resolve disputes without violence and most importantly, to prevent one country from pushing its agenda and value system on the rest. It was created for balance.
...and lets not forget the what happens when nationalism goes unchecked in this world.
Since we believe in democracy so fervently here, why should we be afraid of the UN and its attempt to bring democracy to the world.
"All men are created equal"...that includes the brown men,black men, yellow men, red men...even those who think differently and want different things.

Its not a easy path.

There is no enemy anywhere - Lao Tse

I agree with him because he is right. Saddam was a bad man. He attacked Iran and Kuwait. He used chemical weapons on Iranians and his people. He jailed and murdered many Iraqis, and this list goes on and on but this did not give US the right to attack Iraq.

One thing that you have to know is that after the Vietnam War which about 50,000 US troops dies and then many people went on streets and demonstrated against the war, US government learned that in order to go to full scale war; they need American’s people support. That’s why US government started its propaganda against Iraq and Saddam and building its case, saying stuff like: ah saddam is connected to Al-ghadeh or Iraq is pursuing with nuclear weapon and we don’t want to see a mushroom cloud in NY. US government specially tried to connect saddam with al-ghade because they knew how American people are still in shock by Sep 11 attacks.


Whether you are pro Bush administration or against it, the fact is, even due US lost about 1000 soldiers and few billion dollars, she is currently sitting on the third or fourth largest oil field in the world and you can’t tell me that, even slightly this wasn’t US intention

how about gulf war I or kosovo??

Agreed, and what part of international law states that war is illegal?


I thought it was to work as one people in a multitude of nations, not to denationalize and globalize?


There's nothing inherently evil about nationalism


Afraid?

No. It includes brown american, black american, yellow americans, etc etc, but US Constiutional Protections can't plausibly be extended to foreign citizens.

Now, having said that, I'd consider supporting some sort of US congressional resolution that says something to that effect, and even supporting a UN resolution that tries to address the violations of that principle, but, ironically (and not the funny kind of irony), while everyone talks about equality, there are arab militias supported by an invasive arab government executing black muslim citizens in and around the Darfur area and the UN is doing nothing more than to send food to the people who are starving, and they're only starving because they've been forced off their land and into camps. When everything hit the fan in liberia, yes, the UN sent some troops, but, and this is just how I took it, nothing really happened until a brigade of US Marines was steaming on its way.


Lao Tse is the enemy. Ok, just kidding.


How? Every country has a right to go to war for whatever reason it chooses. War is not illegal.


When the buildup was going on the only al-qaida connection I recall the govenrment pushing was a meeting between one of the suicide bombers and an iraqi governement official in europe. And hussein did allow terrorists to train in iraq. And, more importantly, Hussein was clearly an enemy of the US. Why shouldn't the Us attack an enemy, especially one that was still an enemy after a disarming war and years of sanctions? Or would you say that Hussein was neutral or friendly to the US?


I don't think that there were UN in the gulf war, nor in the Kosovo War. Obviously, I could be wrong tho. There were and are Nato and UN troops in Kosovo now tho. But was that a peacekeeping resolution no? Not war resolutions?

Agression against Serbia was approved post factum by a compliant UN.

I think that indeed UN should be disbanded. It doesn't serve anybody's interest anymore. It's resolutions aren't fulfilled. Israel has been in violation of such for the longest time, and nothing has been done. On the other hand, wars have been started by the US w/o getting authorization. What's the point.

the Iraq war is no more Illegal than, say, genocide in Bosnia or Sudan. BUT, you don't hear about the other two from Mr Annan, do you?

The Iraq war is no more illegal than Hitlers war, either. However, Bush's decision to attack Iraq also insured that there would be no effective war on terrorism. The bottom line is; We think we were attacked by an organization in Afghanistan, so we attacked Iraq. That has to be one of the most irrational reactions I've ever witnessed.

yeah he should have told that at the beginning of the war
now it's too late
no matter what, he has the speed

I am sorry to tell all the miseducated republican cowboys here that international laws DO exist and they are binding. Failure to do will result in trials before the international war crimes tribunal. Bush attacked another country without agreement from the security council and without acting in self-defense. Bush has therefore commited a war crime and is therefore, in the eyes of the international community, a lowly war criminal.

Ok, Ok, so who ENFORCES international law? If an international law is broken in the woods, does anybody enforce it?

It's all semantics unless there are countries willing to use force to enforce international law...

But, then again, that's why we went to Iraq....Ironic, isn't it?

Where was US when Saddam did those horrible things:

Iraq rebuilds, with a little US help

The Iraq war was legal. Why, because I said so.