ISG find no evidence of Saddam moving WMD to Syria.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by GScholz
Personal attack

Translation: I don't know, or there is no basis for my claim so I'll just end the debate with a personal attack.

Very typical of you.

[Holden McGroin]

So by your count, Poland + France + UK = 2 countries?

I aways thought that ... never mind, math can be difficult.

And the UK brought in Austrailia, Canada, and the rest of the commonwealth.

Here's another place you're wrong...

Article 39
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.

Article 97
The Secretariat shall comprise a Secretary-General and such staff as the Organization may require. The Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. He shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organization.

Article 98
The Secretary-General shall act in that capacity in all meetings of the General Assembly, of the Security Council, of the Economic and Social Council, and of the Trusteeship Council, and shall perform such other functions as are entrusted to him by these organs. The Secretary-General shall make an annual report to the General Assembly on the work of the Organization.

Article 99
The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.

Kofi saying it is illegal is a personal, not a legally binding opinion.  He has no more legal basis in the matter than you or I.  The SC decides what is aggressive war.

[Holden McGroin]

Legal precedence only gives a basis for any decision.  

Decisions can be made against precedence.

[Holden McGroin]

I 'm sorry I am upsetting you, but it is only an agressive war if the UNSC says so.

A legal argument can be made that because Iraq did not comply with the cease fire agreement of GW1, GW2 is authorised by the UNSC.  This is the arguement that the US, UK, Italy, Spain, Poland, Ukraine, etc. acted upon.

That arguement is just as valid as yours and until decided by the UNSC, this arguement remains valid.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by GScholz
No. The UN only gave the coalition a mandate to liberate Kuwait in GW1. A "continuation" of GW1 would still not have a mandate to invade Iraq and depose its government. The invasion was illegal, and with any luck (ok, a lot of luck) it will actually be deemed illegal in the UK.

No?  The arguement cannot be made?

According to the UN Charter, the UNSC decides what is an agressive war, not a court in the UK.

[Bodhi]

GS,

You obviously are a very angry person.  Personally, I think you are delusional.

Your whole defend Hitler idea is fraught with ignorance and misconceptions.  Your claims that the US violated the UN charter are both baseless, and personal attacks by a US hater on people from the US.

If you're of the opinion that the US is such an evil power, and that we launch wars of aggresion, why do you bother to associate with us criminals?  Wouldn't you be better off supporting a nazi bbs (you obviously like them or you wouldn't defend their policies) or better yet, if you are so set against the US's actions you could go join the insurgency in Iraq and help to expel our nation of criminals.

Seeings that you are unable to back up you're arguments with anything resembling fact, I suspect, you will either make a personal attack, cite some abscure unsubstantiated reason as to why we are criminals, or, just ignore the obvious fact that you are wrong and continue in your dreamland sense of reality.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by WMLute
And according to whom?

Well according to the government of Canada at least.  As well as 31 international law professors from 15 law faculties up here and 315 from 87 law falculties in the down there to start with.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/lawy-m22.shtml

I've as of yet to anything saying that the United States, after resuming hostilities from the 1st gulf war due to non-compliance of the UN mandate, acted illegally. Actually, the U.S.'s actions were 100% legit per. the U.N. resolutions.

It's hard to see something if you don't look for it.

SHOW me where it was illegal. It was simply a continuation of the 1st gulf war. We waited 10yrs for Iraq to comply, they didn't, and we went in and changed the regime. Just because there was a 10yr gap, there was never a cessation of THAT war. We just put it on hold, showing mercy after slaughtering them in the 1st gulf war.

The ceasefire agreement was between the Security Council and Iraq, not the US/UK and Iraq.  Under the US brokered and written Security Council resolution 1441 the US and UK didn't have the authority to unilaterally resume hositilities.  

"12.     Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;"

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm


Resumption of hostilities was to be determined by the Security Council as a whole.

For futher reading...

http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/


Mavrick,

Please specify the article in the charter that delinieates the signatory nation has surrendered it's soveriegnty to the UN and is now subject to the whims of that organization?

Sovereignty is having ultimate authority within your own borders.

AFAIK the US Government as the elected representatives of the citizens of said country has the sole authority to declare war against another nation beligerant to the US or not.

Sure they might have the sole authority within the US to declare a war, but that doesn't mean thay by doing so they aren't violating international law.  Besides, the US government didn't declare war on Iraq.

[Thrawn]

PS:  The original reason why I started this thread was to refute and inform the people on this BBS who made the claim that Iraq moved their WMD to Syria.  There is no evidence to support this.  I probably sould have said that at the beginning.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by GScholz
Inflammatory

Within your own post is the downfall of your argument:

The UNSC is to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression".  In reference to the coalition attacking Iraq, it has not determined agression has taken place.

As both the UK and USA have veto power, it is unlikely to.

Without that determination your cry of "war criminals" is hollow.

[Holden McGroin]

You are guilty of speeding through a school zone here in Oregon.

Convicted or not.

[Holden McGroin]

No, I'm saying that without a legal judgement an accusation is just that.  I carries no weight, no recourse.  It is just you howling in the wind. You stand on no legal footing whatsoever.  

And saying that the invasion of Iraq is on par with the the crimes of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, or your hero is a bit of a stretch.

However, congrats! Your Afgan argument may be your first cogent thought in this thread.

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Well according to the government of Canada at least.  As well as 31 international law professors from 15 law faculties up here and 315 from 87 law falculties in the down there to start with.

get your facts straight.  You pulled the 315 from 87 from this quote of "...250 professors from 73 law schools across the nation signed..."

 http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1P1%3A68646718&refid=ink_tptd_np

and just because a bunch of law professors signed some statement does not make it illegal...

Originally posted by Thrawn
It's hard to see something if you don't look for it.[/B]

Exactly, you guys are not looking at the whole picture.  You are using after quotes and ignoring the obvious.  How is the war illegal over a year and a half after it started, and not when it started?  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

Annan is full of double speak.  Why didn't he say it was illegal before it started?  Or, when it started?

http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=292

This whole argument can go back and forth all you like.  Annan, and the UN are a worthless body that do nothing unless it is to snub the US in the face.  If they were such a wonderful body, the BS in Sudan wouyld be over, the suffering in Chechneya, the death toll in Angola... the list goes on ad finitum of failures of the UN to act decisively.

At that point, I believe it can (and will if it ever comes to international court) be argued that the basis to go to war was the decisive inaction by the UN on Iraq which led tot he war to begin with.

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Well according to the government of Canada at least.  

Show me a link to Canada's official statement that the war in Iraq is illegal.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Silat
Elf based on your statements on this issue since the beginning of the war in Iraq I dont see how you can  have it both ways.

Back then my Pres says: Imminent danger. WMD's are located.
And you and others supported and believed this statement.

By the way this isnt a problem as that was then and this is now:)
If Iraq stabilizes then yahooo and whooopeee. We will have a stable and marginally free country in the ME ,besides Israel.

And this is damn good news and about time.


Now my Pres says: Oops we made a mistake but Sadam baaaaad. Sadaam gone. So all is good.

All evidence supports the Presidents statements now, that there are NO WMD's.

So you disagree with the President now?
You think there are WMD's hiding somewhere even though the administration says this isnt so? So you are now saying the Pres is lying?

I think the right needs to get over it. There were never any significant amounts of wmd's. Hence they( significant amounts) wont be found:)

Let us all move on.

Let us hope that Iraq becomes a stable country in the ME.

I was just commenting on this particular article, nothing more.

[WMLute]

Originally posted by Thrawn
It's hard to see something if you don't look for it.

I'm hard pressed to understand how the opinion of some legal prof's equate to the war in Iraq being illegal.  Opinions are like... well...  you know how that saying goes.


Here's another opinion from the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith.

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, has set out his view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq:

Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:

1. In resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

2. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.

3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.

4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

7. It is plain that Iraq has failed to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.

9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.

Seems fairly straight forward to me.  EXACTLY my take on the situation.  Granted, i'm smart, so I can see how some of you are having a hard time with it.

Originally posted by GScholz
Inflammatory

No, you said if I defend the war on Iraq, I was defending facism.  I was merely pointing out that you have not the slightest clue as to the meaning of the word facism.  

In THIS post, I show how no UN charter was violated.  Let's see, we had legal basis for GW2, no international law was broken, no U.S. law was broken, (hmmm...  am I forgetting anything?  Oh yeah!)  Further more, the opinion of a corrupt UN Sec. Gen is not law, it's just an opinion.  Like mine.  I think that SG Annan is a scum bag, with questionable ethics, who I would love to see prosecuted and jailed, and THAT said, who really gives a flip what he "thinks".  There that's my opinion.  Is it LAW?  (sigh)

You have no argument.  There IS no factual basis for your argument.  You can cite many "opinions" that mirror yours, but heck, so could Jim Jones, David Koresh, AND your much loved Hitler.  I can probably go through the O'Club and find dozens of guys that think G.S. is a moron.  I could then cite them, and with my mighty power of quoting peoples opinions make it Law.  That way, G.S., according to his line of arguing, would be a proven idiot, and it would be 100% correct.