Sayonara Posted March 14, 2003 Posted March 14, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward where are you heading with this conjecture? We may well also ask "and this justifies unsanctioned military action how....?"
the GardenGnome Posted March 14, 2003 Posted March 14, 2003 Originally posted by blike question or two Assuming we go to war (big assumption eh), if Iraq uses chemical/biological weapons against our troops, will you say that we were right? War does'nt solve anything. So if we go to war and win. What happens when someone else takes his place?
blike Posted March 14, 2003 Author Posted March 14, 2003 where are you heading with this conjecture? Pointing out that its not a lame accusation, but a valid threat to national security. "and this justifies unsanctioned military action how....?" If the UN isn't going to sanction it, the US should not have to keep sitting on its hands while Saddam is funding or supplying chemical or biological agents to terrorist projects against us. This is, of course, assuming this was going on. In this case, the only people the American government is responsible to are the American people. If the US government does nothing because of international formalities while Saddam continues to be a threat to our country, directly or indirectly, it will have failed the sole purpose of its existence.
Sayonara Posted March 14, 2003 Posted March 14, 2003 If the US invades Iraq without UN sanctioning they will be committing an illegal act. This will make you terrorists. Furthermore, it will create a state of war legitimising any of Hussein's counterattacks. For America to lay aside the ideals it has subscribed to for so long simply because it is impatient for the UN to come to a decision is ludicrous. The message Bush is sending out is "We are Amercia. We can attack anyone, at any time, for any reason".
fafalone Posted March 14, 2003 Posted March 14, 2003 It's only illegal if they pass a resolution explicitly stating that it's illegal. And no, this is not sarcasm, it's the reality of UN diplomacy. This is why Iraq is allowed to continually attack coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone without the UN saying they're not supposed to, because no resolution explicitly said they couldn't. This explanation comes from a politcal science professor who studies middle-east politics.
Sayonara Posted March 14, 2003 Posted March 14, 2003 Is he aware that Iraq aren't on the Security Council?
fafalone Posted March 14, 2003 Posted March 14, 2003 doesn't matter if they're on the security council or not
Sayonara Posted March 14, 2003 Posted March 14, 2003 O.....kay... Have you read that article LuTze linked to yet?
LuTze Posted March 14, 2003 Posted March 14, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone It's only illegal if they pass a resolution explicitly stating that it's illegal. No, what you (and us, unfortunately) are doing is ignoring the UN completely. The charter is quite clear. Chapter VII (Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of agression), article 39 states: - "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." With article 42 saying: - "Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations." So, you're breaking the UN charter, which America has signed up to. Bush can't just 'decide' this sort of thing doesn't apply. Oh, and article 51 states: - "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations" But that doesn't apply, seeing as Saddam hasn't attacked you. Read the charter at http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ This is why Iraq is allowed to continually attack coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone without the UN saying they're not supposed toThat isn't the reason at all. The no-fly zones have never been sanctioned by the UN. They are enforced by the USA and UK without a UN mandate. Iraq has a perfect right to try and defend it's soverign territory.
atinymonkey Posted March 14, 2003 Posted March 14, 2003 All of which lead us back to the same point. A war against Iraq with the UN vetoing the action is against international law. It's just that simple. A more interesting developement has emerged now. As the US, UK and Spain can not get the UN support the new plan is to bring peace to Palestinian (!) as a part of a plan to bring peace to the middle east. Happily this includes Iraq, so the plan for war now has a humanitarian slant. End of Palestinian violence against Israelis Israel to begin withdrawal from Palestinian areas re-occupied since September 2000 Reform of Palestinian institutions including leadership Freeze in Jewish settlement building Proposed peace monitors "Provisional" Palestinian state in 2003 Peace treaty by 2005 To my mind this is childish and just the sort of interference which will unite the middle east against the UK and US. I've gone over my concerns in another thread, but this is getting close to a religious war. A religious war with the middle east is just about the most dangerous thing to get started. It's on the same level as setting off random nuclear wepons in every other US state.
blike Posted March 14, 2003 Author Posted March 14, 2003 A war against Iraq with the UN vetoing the action is against international law. Yes. The issue I am making is that if we are prohibited from taking action we feel is necessary to ensure national security, the law be damned. A religious war with the middle east is just about the most dangerous thing to get started. It's on the same level as setting off random nuclear wepons in every other US state. Definatly. Muslims are not ones to enter religious wars with
LuTze Posted March 15, 2003 Posted March 15, 2003 Originally posted by blike Yes. The issue I am making is that if we are prohibited from taking action we feel is necessary to ensure national security, the law be damned. That just brings us back to the point that Iraq hasn't threatened your 'national security' in any way. There is no proven link between them and Al-Queda (In fact, British intelligence has effectively disproved any link). This is an illegal, pre-emptive strike, whichever way you look at it.
Sayonara Posted March 15, 2003 Posted March 15, 2003 We're going off-topic in a major thread again. We're discussing faf's comments instead of the questions asked in the first post. This is probably worthy of two threads imo, as both discussions are very interesting.
Deslaar Posted March 15, 2003 Posted March 15, 2003 Originally posted by blike Yes. The issue I am making is that if we are prohibited from taking action we feel is necessary to ensure national security, the law be damned. The problem with that policy is that you can do anything with it. Look at North Korea. Their national security has been directly threatened by the U.S. You are saying that they are justified in taking any action that they feel necessary to protect themselves. So can Iran and Iraq and a good number of other countries who consider America a significant danger. So if North Korea launched a few nukes at an American Fleet massed in the Sea of Japan, would you be saying "Well, that's ok, they're justified in doing that"?
fafalone Posted March 15, 2003 Posted March 15, 2003 NK violated the NPT... they were NOT justified in doing this... so our response so far has been less than what it ought to be
Deslaar Posted March 15, 2003 Posted March 15, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone NK violated the NPT... they were NOT justified in doing this... so our response so far has been less than what it ought to be So what?? The U.S. exited the ABM treaty.....THEY WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DOING THIS!!!!:lame:
PogoC7 Posted March 15, 2003 Posted March 15, 2003 Clinton opposed the UN council when the United States did the bombing campaign in Bosnia. After that America did not get more involved and let UN troops "handle the situation". NO GOOD. I like to see people actually doing something such as protesting, compared to eating Taco Bell and McDonalds, in America now. But what surprises me more then Bush's pressure towards Iraq is when people (IN AMERICA) protest Bush; sometimes to the point of being a war Mongol. These people are those who just do not like Bush (Election Night) and it's become an International issue and joke. Are these people supporting Saddam? They never protest Saddam's Lack of co-operation with the UN council, Inspectors and crimes to humanity. Soldiers in Iraq are told the war may begin ANY SECOND. They are scared to the point of walking to the border and surrendering already. Once America smothers Iraq in an orderly fashion, it will make up the money it has lost through oil. GOOD ECONMOY. For other countries also. . France is just greedy because of their relations with $Iraq$ (France opposed the new U.K. Resolution before the Iraqis did). Russia is along for the ride behind France, but Russia knows they cannot expect too much. America is not ALONE on Iraq. Britain has stressed many times that they will have a significant part in a war with Iraq. What will happen to Iraq when the United States and Britain take power? GOOD THINGS. I doubt we'll see a regime similar to Saddams'. Public opinion on the war is still for REMOVING SADDAM. He has just won the "election" for another seven year term, so I understand inspectors visiting for the next $seven years$, but THINK OF THE PEOPLE. WOMEN AND CHILDREN. <<<<<:Cry:Tears of Pain:Cry:>>>>>
Sayonara Posted March 15, 2003 Posted March 15, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone NK violated the NPT... they were NOT justified in doing this... so our response so far has been less than what it ought to be NO they did not violate the NPT. They announced they were bowing out from the treaty in the same week that they turned on a nuclear power station. This is perfectly legal and up to them. Pogo, some thoughts: * Attacking Bush's policy on Iraq does not mean that one supports Hussein. You can't just cry "If you're not with us you're against us" in a situation as complex as this and hope that sorts things out. * France jumped on Russia's bandwagon, not the other way around. * Don't assume Tony Blair's promises to be analagous with the support of Britain. Polls show 70% of Britons oppose going to war, and Blair only has 11% support in his own cabinet.
blike Posted March 15, 2003 Author Posted March 15, 2003 These people are those who just do not like Bush (Election Night) and it's become an International issue and joke. This is what I see all over the place. On an international level, sometimes I wonder who is really against war, and who is on the bandwagon against america. Polls show 70% of Britons oppose going to war 45% of britons against war without UN mandate edit: could be dated
Radical Edward Posted March 15, 2003 Posted March 15, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone NK violated the NPT... they were NOT justified in doing this... so our response so far has been less than what it ought to be they are a sovereign nation. they can do what they please. What gives the US the right to bully everyone else about, and do what it pleases?
aman Posted March 15, 2003 Posted March 15, 2003 Since Scud missiles are prohibited and Saddam doesn't have any, the Israelis shouldn't mind that he's moving launchers into striking range. Doesn't anybody get the irony of his lies. We have to go in and secure all these things he doesn't have. And common sense says we'll find plenty. Just aman
Radical Edward Posted March 15, 2003 Posted March 15, 2003 you can't attack someone just because you think they have something, just like you can't stick someone in jail just because you think they commited a crime.
Deslaar Posted March 15, 2003 Posted March 15, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward you can't attack someone just because you think they have something, just like you can't stick someone in jail just because you think they commited a crime. At least the U.S. is consistent, they do that too.....
Radical Edward Posted March 15, 2003 Posted March 15, 2003 yeap... camp x-ray. a fine example of lawful detention and human rights if I ever saw one. incidentally, It is not americans I have a problem with, it is the government and its foreign policy.... heh.
fafalone Posted March 15, 2003 Posted March 15, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward they are a sovereign nation. they can do what they please. What gives the US the right to bully everyone else about, and do what it pleases? Well, we're a sovereign nation who can do what it pleases too, and right now it pleases us to attack.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now