The war in Iraq should be illegal!

Originally posted by ferretman2
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.

Nah. The war is illegal. In fact, it wasn't even a declared war. We called it a War on Terror and 'the war on Iraq' because the media told us to. The truth is, Congress did not send us to war, Bush and his cronies in the U.N. are responsible for the endless excuses for war.


'Saddam has been avoiding U.N. resolution for _____.'

Doesn't matter. The U.N. is not America. It cannot send us to war.


'There are weapons of mass destruction. We guarantee it.'

No weapons.

'If you're still against the war you want America to lose.'

America has been losing since we toppled the Iraqi government...



All excuses are futile - this war is immoral AND illegal and the only reason we are not out is because there are people unfortunate/uneducated enough to still believe that we are doing a 'good thing' for Iraqis. No offense to people who believe this war is doing some good for the Iraqi people.... but it's absolutely the worst thing that's ever happened to them. And we are ignorant for being so stubborn for so long.

I hate talking about the war in Iraq because I just ramble on and on. There are so many ways in which this war is absolute bull**** that I could go on for days.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
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, because the US cant be held accountable, it should forgo any moral value and do as it pleases?

Is that really what yours saying?
that because no one can prosecute the United states, they should be allowed to do as they please?

The stench from American society must run deeper than I thought.

I'm just speaking from a legal stand point. It is outside of international law in this topic. You could always try to force your will upon the US, but then you are as bad as this administration is.

Good luck w/ that.

Cute w/ the "Stench" thing too. Not to worry though, we've heard worse from better.

Ok so we have posters here that are against all wars at any cost. Great, we respect your opinions, but your opinion doesn’t make war illegal. The cause for the war was actually simple in that Saddam for ten years constantly broke the UN resolutions which legally allowed his removal.

Now here is the big question, why are you all complaining about a war that was over in 2003? Since then we have been in a never ending, expensive and very painful nation building process. We are not at war with the Iraqis in anyway, and we work hand in hand everyday with their elected government.

Now the fact that their government and people seem to not want to stand on their own two feet and build a new life for all is a major miscalculation for the US that is costing us dearly.

So I ask, just what war that the US is in right now and why is it illegal?

Originally posted by "Xtrozero":
So I ask, just what war that the US is in right now and why is it illegal?

I suppose you could say the war is over, I'll give you that. Now the US just occupies a nation which it invaded illegally, under international law set forth by the findings of Nuremburg trials. The US is breaking the very laws it helped to create.

Originally posted by "ferretman2":
There were 17 UN resolutions which Saddam continiuosly violated.

This was not sufficient grounds to achieve the required UN resolution required under international law that would have legitimized the invasion of Iraq. Don't forget that the cease-fire was declared when Iraq was at war with an international coalition.

The united states and allies created the UN, in effect to create international LAW.
They used the UN ( that they just created ) to prosecute Nazi's
Its a worrying day and age, when the nation that used its tremendous power and world standing to create such an agency, turns face and destroys it when it feels its goals are more important than the goals set forth after world war 2.


The UN Charter did not authorize a military strike.
The UN didnt even agree that Saddam was building weapons.
The USA activley used FAKE evidence, evidence it KNEW to be fake, to justify its claims.
International law states that a country can strike militarily if it is struck itself.
Technically, every country in the world could be deemed to be a 'possible threat' thus requirering pre-emtpive action.
You could argue or create a case for any nation on earth.

The USA Lied about its reasons, they invaded Iraq, without first being attacked by Iraq, and setup occupation.

This is illegial, no matter what BS you use to justify it.

Simply because US Branches state its justified, does not mean it is so out side of the USA's border.

Im glad my stench line made some smile.
Because its that ignorant sentiment that runs through US Citizens minds, that is creating such a rampant ANTI-WESTERN mentality throughout the world

'' No one can stop us, no one can prosecute us. We deem wats legal, we say who's illegial. there fore WE ARE THE LAW ''

Sounds like a dictatorship to me!

Originally posted by Agit8dChop



So, because the US cant be held accountable, it should forgo any moral value and do as it pleases?

Is that really what yours saying?
that because no one can prosecute the United states, they should be allowed to do as they please?

The stench from American society must run deeper than I thought.

It's true. We have become so drenched in materialism and passive-aggressive apathy that we can sit around and justify the death of innocent people. I am not very proud to share this country with such people but it's not their fault they were raised to be petty and selfish. It's part of the beasts machinations.

reply to post by Rockpuck


You are trying to compare apples to oranges with your argument.

You argue on behalf of the "law of the jungle," which is animalistic, and stinks of "do what thou wilt" complacency. I have no argument with you that this is indeed the way of the word it seems. But this does not mean that international law simply does not exist. After all, the US were the architechts of the ideal of international justice at the close of WWII. The Nuremburg trials were instrumental in determining the scope of international law and more specifically its content. America's duplicity has now been revealed though. This is a credibility loss that can never be regained, to the peril of US citizens. Thanks to Bush's war, the world will once again lose its humanity and revert back to the law of the jungle. Let there be animals on the stage where once the US was a beacon of justice and humanity.

More to the point, if a cop goes speeding through a red light on his way to get a donut, there is no one to give him a ticket. Law of the jungle right? This does not mean that there is no law from prohibiting him from doing this, it just means that there is no one to enforce the law. No harm no foul I suppose. But what if that cop happened to broadside a minivan full of girlscouts and killed everyone in it? There would be a public outrage, and if justice was not served, the authority of the entire police department would be undermined. Even if it was Saddam Hussein driving that minivan, there are going to be negative reprecussions.

Adolf Hitler and his Nazi followers chose to ignore international law and arrogantly walked out of the League of Nations. Look where it got them. Keep in mind too, that at that time, Germany was the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

So I ask, just what war that the US is in right now and why is it illegal?

Absolutely ludicrous.

This is the self-imposed ignorance that I speak of. We had asbolutely no right to go after Saddham because of that NONSENSE which you mentioned. I didn't bother quoting it. It was a pathetic excuse when Bush offered it, and it is still a pathetic excuse when other people try to use it.

As far as the 'war' we are in ... it is with Iraqis. We are lied to constantly and told that it's Saudi terrorists moving into Iraq who are fighting with us.

No. We are fighting and killing men and in some cases, young boys, because they want us out of their country. Plain and simple. They saw us march in years ago, blow up little children and their homes on accident, then patrol their streets for years more. They are sick of it.

We are fighting a war against 'insurgents' who are nothing more than the battle-worn, sickened civillians of an occupied nation.

It makes me SICK that Americans can still justify this. That we can sit around and say 'war? what war?'

reply to post by Agit8dChop


Moral and Legal are two different subjects.. these CANNOT be mixed together.

Is the Iraq war "morally" wrong? Yes, most wars are morally wrong. Is the war in Iraq unethical? I would say so, yes.

Is that really what yours saying?
that because no one can prosecute the United states, they should be allowed to do as they please?

Put it this way...

If the Speed limit was 85kmh and everyone went 90-200kmh on a regular basis and no one ever gave a single ticket to curb speeding..... is it really a law? No.. because it cannot be enforced.

A LAW is only as good as its ENFORCER -- That is what a law is.

No enforcer. No law. No reprocution.

The stench from American society must run deeper than I thought.

*sigh* ... or your understanding on international relations....

jackinthebox

I suppose you could say the war is over, I'll give you that. Now the US just occupies a nation which it invaded illegally, under international law set forth by the findings of Nuremburg trials. The US is breaking the very laws it helped to create.

Ah.. understand that TREATIES are NOT LAWS. They are just that, treaties .. they are broken on a regular basis.. I cannot think of a single nation that has obeyed ever treaty it has signed.

Just because we write or sign a treaty, does NOT mean we are obliged to follow the treaty.

It is NOT a contract. It is a sign of good will that we will follow the suggested guide lines... This is where the problem with the Administration and legal representatives for detainee rights are having problems - was the Geneva Convention a LAW passed in the United States for its own purposes, or was it an international treaty that has NO legal binding what so ever? That is what the Supreme Court has been puting off.

This was not sufficient grounds to achieve the required UN resolution required under international law that would have legitimized the invasion of Iraq. Don't forget that the cease-fire was declared when Iraq was at war with an international coalition.

There is no such thing as International Law, and America being the largest supporter of the UN is not going to have the UN tell it what to do.

Also.... if you think words in writing from OTHER sovereign nations will defer ANY nation to act of its own free will and accord..... you sadly mistaken reality.

Again .. Moral and Ehtical Are not the same as Legal Not sure how many times this needs to be said.

The united states and allies created the UN, in effect to create international LAW.

Wrong.

The UN was created to give the world a centralized COMMUNICATION NET WORK that could be utilized to solve world conflicts without resorting to war. The UN was also intended to give standardized legislation across the world, mostly in regards to another nations actions. The UK, US, Russia, China and France are the leading world powers that have final say over all other nations in regards to anything passed in the UN. These are the five contending nations out of nearly 200 that have the ability to sway others actions. Some say that may be out dated, it is a process and structure built for the 1950-1980's and is currently obsolete.

However it is important to note, what they pass is not International Law.

They used the UN ( that they just created ) to prosecute Nazi's

The Nazi's where prosecuted primarily by Ally powers, be them members of the UN or not. The point being the VICTORS called the LOSERS criminals.

The UN Charter did not authorize a military strike.

The UN Charter has no right to dictate conflict. It can offer a source to mediate conflicts.. using it to attack is a mis-use of force.

The UN didnt even agree that Saddam was building weapons.

The UN did not go to war, the US did, and the US never asked for permition. WE never said "can we go to war".....

It was a tool used to get those who wanted to be on our side ready.. and prepare those who where not.. the socialist regime in France opted not to.. and they took the hardest hit then if they went along with the game.

The USA activley used FAKE evidence, evidence it KNEW to be fake, to justify its claims.

Technically the US violated many international treaties, but there is not mandate in America that the government needs evidence for war.

We had no evidence for the Spanish American war.. it was just a war.. we had no evidence for WWI except ours and the UK's faked attack... we had no evidence that we didnt have evidence for pearl harbor.. same with Vietnam..

We use methods such as faking evidence to get the people to go along with it.. it has been done in every American war, just as it has been in EVERY WAR IN HISTORY -- governments invent enemies.

International law states that a country can strike militarily if it is struck itself.

Mind quoting your international law? What are your sources? Who is to stop us?

You could argue or create a case for any nation on earth.

Exactly.... its like you understand part of it, but not all of it..

The USA Lied about its reasons, they invaded Iraq, without first being attacked by Iraq, and setup occupation.

This is illegial, no matter what BS you use to justify it.

No .. its ethically wrong. Its not illegal...

Simply because US Branches state its justified, does not mean it is so out side of the USA's border.

.. listen carefully... there... is... no... international ... law.... ok?

Im glad my stench line made some smile.

And proved your own ignorance..

'' No one can stop us, no one can prosecute us. We deem wats legal, we say who's illegial. there fore WE ARE THE LAW ''

Sounds like a dictatorship to me!

That is actually rational. Every nation on earth abides by said statement. The Strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.

jackinthebox:

You argue on behalf of the "law of the jungle," which is animalistic, and stinks of "do what thou wilt" complacency

Ironically we are animals. However I see what you mean, but you over simplified it.

There is no one world government. Therefore there is no head of all nations .. therefore the international scene IS anarchy.. every nation has its own government, what ever they may be, but no government overseas all 189 governments in the world.. conspiracy theorist would call that the NWO .. it does not exist, cannot exist and will not exist. All laws are based on each nations instinct and desire.... only victors create justice for the conquered.

But this does not mean that international law simply does not exist.

Because of what is said above.. there cannot nor will there ever be International Law.

The war is wrong. I admit that.. its ethically morally and strategically stupid..... but it is not illegal.

Unless someone overthrows the government be it the people or an outside source and declares it illegal.

The Nuremburg trials were instrumental in determining the scope of international law and more specifically its content.

Ah yes.. Nuremburg.. it was a trial to exploit the losers of the Second World War.

For those who don't know, America never considered Germany's actions illegal until they attacked Russia. When they attacked Russia the Untied States military realized Hitler would lose to the Russians any ways.. regardless if we joined the war or not. So we joined, as the freshest and most able nation on the Allies we could take the Western front down rather fast compared to WWI. By doing so we replace all former European powers, we become the world dominating force.. and our economy because it couldn't be attacked at the main land, would be used to prop up the rest of Europe...

This had to be justified..

This is why independent studies of consecration camps, of German military methods, weapons used, strategies are so hard to find.. because the US Army did most of the investigating.

Did America care about the moral implications of what Germany did? No. We turned Jews away at our shores, we could give a damn.. we cared about power. So saying Nuremberg was International Law.. it was International Exploitation at its best.

More to the point, if a cop goes speeding through a red light on his way to get a donut, there is no one to give him a ticket. Law of the jungle right?

No because technically another cop can give him a ticket, or write him up. If all cops did it however... Law of the Jungle. Sure.

it just means that there is no one to enforce the law.

A law can be written down. Its illegal to hunt whales on Sunday in my state. But in this case, international wise.. neither is there a law written down, or someone to enforce it if it where.

Adolf Hitler and his Nazi followers chose to ignore international law and arrogantly walked out of the League of Nations. Look where it got them. Keep in mind too, that at that time, Germany was the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth.

Adolf broke no law.. and he acted within rational means. He would have helped his people had he won. I don't like Hitler.. but its the truth, his people above all others would benefit. We won, and our people benefited while theres where torn apart through political savagery.

Hitler Broke the law....

Because he lost.

^ I'm sorry, but nobody has the time or energy to deal with hokum like that. You manage to come off as completely arrogant and argument-intensive, picking out quote by quote whatever you can disagree with... and none of it is really interesting or relevant.

I'll never understand how some people can sit down and argue with quotes without realizing the futility of it. In the end, as far as threads go, one-sided arguments like that tend to kill the conversation. You over-did it.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]

reply to post by NewWorldOver


I think you and I see the world from a similar angle, but I do have to correct you on one point if I may.

The US is not fighting Iraqis alone. My brother who did two tours with the 4th ID put it like this: "Half the Iraqis who pick up a gun don't know what the hell they're doing. Sure they can be dangerous, but you'd probably be out there running around with a rifle too if the Iraqis had invaded America. But the Mujahadeen is another story. They come in across the border and these guys are holy warriors, all dressed in black. You don't f**k with those guys." My brother was a jail guard for a while. He told me they used to mess around with the Iraqi prisoners. (Nothing like the horror stories everyone has heard about though. He told one prisoner he was going to eat the guy's goat. Of course a goat to an impoverished Iraqi means a lot, so he got the guy all worked up. But of course my brother didn't kill the guy's goat.) They did not mess with the Mujahadeen prisoners though. My brother wouldn't really talk about them, except to say that they did not speak at all.

Anyway, point being that there are some foreign fighters there, but that still does not legalize the invasion.

reply to post by Rockpuck



I am of the exact opposite opinion as you are. I say there may be justification for the invasion, but it was never proven.

Wether or not it is enforceable has no bearing on the existence of international law. A cop giving another cop a ticket, would be the same as another country placing sanctions on the US because of the invasion of Iraq. This is indeed possible.

Perhaps you should study the basis of law. I learned in my first day of criminal justice class that all western laws are based on "folkways" and "mores." Until you can define their meaning, you will lack the basic comprehension of law by its very definition.

Local laws exist because the people agree that they should be laws based on the moral values of the community. Federal laws are only laws because each state agrees to abide by them. The same goes for international law.

I honestly think people will strain themselves, beyond moral or ethical capacity, to justify the actions of their government. Why? I have no idea. I like to say so often that some people have a mommy-daddy complex with the government, that they are either too loyal/brainwashed/afraid to consider that their government might do the wrong thing... or they are simply incapable of critical thinking.

In any case, it staggers me sometimes to see the length to which people will twist and skew facts and information to justify something like the war in Iraq. There is simply no good reason for America to go along with this war because a handful of people are too stubborn/apathetic to admit that it's wrong.

WE... the country... know that Iraq is a mess. The majority of us want out. So why do we even TOLERATE the lapdogs anymore?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
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

You didn't, nor will you ever have access to the intel used, but let's just say that a variety of means(i.e. HUMINT, SIGINT, ELINT, IMINT, etc...) verified and corroborated what was going on at the hospital. It WAS being used as a base for Zarqawi's folks(i.e. HQ, quarters, weapon's storage, etc...)- you do realize that it IS a war crime to use protected sites in this manner.

As for the Depleted Uranium- you do realize that lead is a toxic substance, as are most weapons, as well. The simple fact is that there is no better substance for punching through armor. I'm not gonna hamstring our forces by saying "you can only fight with environmentally friendly weapons- good luck."

As for getting civilians to flee- the knowledge that coalition forces were going to be taking the city down was a pretty effective facilitator to get civilians out of the danger area. Between radio, TV, leaflet drops, loudspeaker broadcasts, etc.. there was no uncertainty of what was getting ready to happen. If you'd care to show me an example of any civilian starving to death, I'd love to see it. I think keeping them alive is a more noble goal, than keeping them comfy.

As for rights granted to unlawful combatants. I suggest you refer to what the law of land warfare has to say about that, as it differs significantly to what rights lawful combatants have.

reply to post by NewWorldOver


Because wars aren't fought by opinion polls, and you don't start or quit things based on whatever the prevailing sentiments are at the time. Nobody wants war, but once you're at war, a divided country only prolongs the war. This is something that anti-war types have never been able to grasp. Their efforts do far more to improve the morale of the foe, than to stop the war, increasing the suffering of all involved.

reply to post by jackinthebox


One thing you're leaving out is that the Iraqi government(which has been accepted as legitimate by the international community), has invited us to remain to help stabilize the country. If you want opine as to the legitimacy of their government, that's on you, but it doesn't strengthen your arguments as to US occupation. If the Iraqi government asked us to leave, then we would, but they know that they can't just yet.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
This is illegial, no matter what BS you use to justify it.

Says you. Prove it, smart guy. Just because you want it to be true, doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
'' No one can stop us, no one can prosecute us. We deem wats legal, we say who's illegial. there fore WE ARE THE LAW ''

Sounds like a dictatorship to me!

It would only be described as a dictatorship if the US's scope of control was complete and global. Does the US rule the world? Are you subject to the laws of the US?

Seriously, I don't know where you're getting this delusion. I understand that you don't like the US policies and that you are against the war. But you are making irrational leaps of assumption that have no basis in reality. Does the rest of the non-American world do that? If so, it could explain why we are becoming more isolated...

reply to post by Reality Hurts


It puzzles me why some folks seem to think that the notion of spreading democracy is a bad thing. The truth is, that democracy helps promote not only peace(democratic nations typically don't war with one another), and economic improvement/business. Who are we to impose personal freedom- that's just arrogant I suppose. I can see how terrible these things must seem to some though.

reply to post by BlueRaja

I guess I haven't been very clear here.

I am not an advocate of the war in Iraq, as it is currently run. The "spreading democracy" line is a talking point, and doesn't reflect the real reason why we are there. It was an economic play- the plan was to quickly remove a persistent pain, stabilize, and get out. Mismanagement, policy wise, and bad advice led to where it is now.

That having been said, the problem I have in this thread is how people like Agit8dChop allow their wants and emotions to trump law and reality. Calling the war illegal has no basis in fact. Sure some lawyers (who are opposed to the war) might have drawn up some papers expressing their opinion. However, the reality of it is that it is not illegal. The UN approved the use of force. Even earlier, the treaty after the 1st Gulf War stated that force could be used if Iraq acted militarily against the multinational forces enforcing resolutions, which he did every time he fired a missile at planes patrolling the no fly zones. Beyond even that, the US is not party to any treaty that would hold them accountable.

Those ^^^ are facts.

Agit8dChop gives opinions and feelings.

I may even agree with Agit8dChop'd feelings and opinions, but thats not the point. The point is that yelling "The war is illegal!!!" to every Tom, Dick, and Harry doesn't make it real.