Do we care about world opinion?

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Well, it's right there RAM.

If you choose to ignore that, fine by me... but it's legal, and there have been no releases to the contrary.

You don't need UN backing for a war to be legal, if their own resolutions make the war legal.

1441 is only _ONE_ resolution, there are previous resolutions and a breaking of the cease-fire agreement by Iraq that make this war legal.
-SW

[RRAM]

Gunthr, IIRC, Nuremberg trials declared agression war as illegal. I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it is that way.

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
You don't need UN backing for a war to be legal, if their own resolutions make the war legal.

1441 is only _ONE_ resolution, there are previous resolutions and a breaking of the cease-fire agreement by Iraq that make this war legal.
-SW

That's where I (and the legal report sent to Mr. Aznar and published in the press after it was filtrated) disagree, the breaking of the cease-fire happened years ago, but AT THIS SAME MOMENT, the cease-fire agreement is being respected by Irak as it is allowing the UN inspectors to do their job and is complying with the cease-fire demands.
 
So starting a war at this moment is illegal. That is what Aznar's legal counsellors told him, and they also know about law .

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Errr... uh... they've been firing at aircraft for quite some time. Where have you been RAM?

As to the rest... whatever, you know international law like you understand how a computer program computes flight data. Not at all, so you saying it's illegal doesn't matter one bit.

I'll believe an Attorney General over legal counselors anyday.
-SW

[RRAM]

not a good way to finish a perfectly constructive discussion, SW, resorting to personal attacks .

Regarding British attorney general, I dont know how does that role work in UK, is it dependant from the government in any way?.

if it is, do you think that a government member will admit in public that his prime minister is supporting an illegal measure? . I insist that the legal report published in spain was a SECRET report directed to the spanish president ONLY. Not a public declaration .


if it isn't then I don't know enough about international laws, I'm not a lawyer (far from it). All I know is that a report done by the spanish president's legal assessors said that war is illegal. And I assume they know enough about international laws to send that report to the president of the spanish government.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

You were complaining about the 190A5's sea level speed. Computer programs aren't exact.

You say that the attack is illegal, and that someone's legal counselors say the attack agrees with you.

I'm pointing out you know neither, so those legal counselors couldn't possibly be in agreement with you. In fact, you are simply in agreement with them.

Now, I have not seen anything about these legal counselors at all, anywhere. You have, or atleast that's what the media is telling you. The Attorney General is the highest lawyer in the land, and really knows his toejam. Despite what you may think, Britain isn't communist and the government officials are free to disagree with the PM, and many did- by leaving office.

I see mention of TWO other resolutions in that link I provided above (again, actual proof) that Iraq is in violation of, and thusly makes the attack on Iraq quite legal. Just in case you didn't know, 1441 does not overwrite previous resolutions- ALL of them are still in effect.

Now if you can provide me of a link or some real substance showing me these "legal counselors" statements, I'd be happy to translate it for myself.

If they are saying this attack is illegal, but do not offer up any evidence as to why.. or if they say it's illegal based upon 1441, then that doesn't mean it's illegal, it just does not mean it is in agreement with 1441.

For the attack to be legal, all that is needed are those two previous resolutions to be violated by Iraq. Which they have been, 1441 would of just been "icing on the cake" as it were.

And the UN does _NOT_ need to back a war to make it legal, it would be nice if they did because that means that an entire UN coalition will be there.. but it does not mean the war is illegal.
-SW

[Rasker]

Would the US, the allies and the UN have been justified in ousting Saddam for his attack on Kuwait in 1990 and his failure to evacuate in 1991?  Obviously yes.  You can not only defend against an aggressor, you can take the offensive and defeat him with superior force.  Otherwise there would be no risk in aggression, if you find yourself losing, you call "allee-allee-in-free" and go back to the status quo.

Did the US, the allies and the UN stop the counterattack against Saddam only upon certain conditions? Also yes.  Did Saddam violate those conditions. Over and over and over.  Is the US, the allies and/or the UN, entitled to resume the offensive against the branded aggressor for those violations. Of course.  Do we need the French government's permission for this? *Not bloody likely*  They are welcome to stand aside and help with the reconstruction of Iraq if they want, but lots of luck getting the free Iraqi government to honor Saddam's contracts with the countries that tried to keep him in power.

[RRAM]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe

You say that the attack is illegal, and that someone's legal counselors say the attack agrees with you.

I'm pointing out you know neither, so those legal counselors couldn't possibly be in agreement with you. In fact, you are simply in agreement with them.

Humm?. I don't see the difference, but ok, I'll agree with this .


Now, I have not seen anything about these legal counselors at all, anywhere. You have, or atleast that's what the media is telling you. The Attorney General is the highest lawyer in the land, and really knows his toejam. Despite what you may think, Britain isn't communist and the government officials are free to disagree with the PM, and many did- by leaving office.


But if he doesn't want to leave office? .

Spain isn't communist either, and is well known that there are inner dissensions in the PP (Popular Party, the party of Aznar and teh government) about the war in Irak. Yet there has been no public manifestation against the war by ANY member of the government, or the party in power.

I see mention of TWO other resolutions in that link I provided above (again, actual proof) that Iraq is in violation of, and thusly makes the attack on Iraq quite legal. Just in case you didn't know, 1441 does not overwrite previous resolutions- ALL of them are still in effect.

I'm well aware that the resolutions are all in effect. I'm also well aware that Irak AT THIS MOMENT is complying all of them according to the UN inspectors . That it hasn't done it in hte past is irrelevant, since 1441 was put in effect and Saddam forced to comply with it because the US military presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, Irak has complied with ALL those resolutions.


There are several nations in the world that have breached many UN resolutions in the past. Are you going to declare war on them all? .


Now if you can provide me of a link or some real substance showing me these "legal counselors" statements, I'd be happy to translate it for myself.

I'm happy to make your wish true:

link to one of the many URLs reporting the new:

http://www.diariodirecto.com/int/int030317informe.html

The document itself ,signed by the lawyer services of the foreign ministry of spain, and directed to the spanish foreign minister and spanish president (in pdf format):

http://www.diariodirecto.com/nac/informemae.pdf

it's about 6.5 Megas.


And the UN does _NOT_ need to back a war to make it legal, it would be nice if they did because that means that an entire UN coalition will be there.. but it does not mean the war is illegal.
-SW

I repeat that IIRC Nuremberg trials declared waging agression wars as Illegal. And this is an agression war.

[Jack55]

Think he cares?

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Originally posted by RRAM
Humm?. I don't see the difference, but ok, I'll agree with this .

Attorney General= THE highest.

Legal counselors as you are saying it= people who just report to the person in charge, but aren't the highest legal authority.


But if he doesn't want to leave office? .

He doesn't have to. Those other people who agreed with Blair, they didn't have to leave... but for whatever reason they decided their actions spoke louder than their continued public opposition.

Blair's popular opinion is also very low, opposition to Blair would more than likely lead to good public opinion which would be beneficial to the Attorney General later down the road.

I'm well aware that the resolutions are all in effect. I'm also well aware that Irak AT THIS MOMENT is complying all of them according to the UN inspectors . That it hasn't done it in hte past is irrelevant, since 1441 was put in effect and Saddam forced to comply with it because the US military presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, Irak has complied with ALL those resolutions.

At this moment doesn't over write 12 years of non-compliance.

Hell, if Saddam would of just said, "Here's my weapons, watch me destroy them." 1441 would of been resolved. The UN inspectors are _NOT_ there for an easter egg hunt. He is still not fully complying, as HE IS SUPPOSED TO DO THE DISARMING NOT THE INSPECTORS!

There are several nations in the world that have breached many UN resolutions in the past. Are you going to declare war on them all? .

Ah, yes... typical diversion. Why can't we deal with them as we see fit?


I'll deal with translating those articles tommorrow, I have stuff I need to get on doing after this. But atleast I got something.

I repeat that IIRC Nuremberg trials declared waging agression wars as Illegal. And this is an agression war.

I repeat, Saddam's violation of past UN resolutions makes this a legal war. "War of aggression" is a semantics play, Saddam's invading Kuwait just to take those oil wells is a war of aggression.

The US going into Iraq to take out Saddam for 12 years of non-compliance is justifiable.

These past, and lets be honest, 3 months of Saddam "complying" (which he hasn't fully) has been his way of buying more time. He doesn't intend to comply, the UN inspectors and Blix are only saying what they think and believe. Aside from the few facilities they've been given admittance to over the past 3 months, Saddam hasn't been saying "Here are my weapons, watch me destroy them."

The latter is full compliance, UN inspectors going on an easter egg hunt isn't fully compliance.


In any event, past violations are violations... and you don't have to go very far into the past for the violations.
-SW

[Thorns]

Geez, just pull his finger.......

Thorns

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

I just did a quick scan of that article, my spanish is not very good but from what I can tell- it only covers Resolution 1441.

The previous resolutions require Saddam to account for his WMDs, show them to the inspectors, and have the inspectors oversee the destruction of said weapons.

Without that, he is not in compliance with the previous resolutions.
-SW

[RRAM]

read the PDF, it's dated in October 2002, that is, BEFORE resolution 1441 was passed.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Let me put it this way RAM, regardless of what the PDF says (6.5MB... I'm still on 28.8k here): Saddam has been up to this date in time in violation of previous resolutions.

Unless HE invites the weapons inspectors into Iraq, shows them all of the weapons unaccounted for, and destroys them under the supervision of the inspectors then he IS in violation of those resolutions.

To date he has not done that, and therefore is not in compliance with those resolutions.

Cooperation is not in those resolutions, compliance is- and this compliance means HE has to do those things I mentioned above.

It's as simple as that.
-SW

[Torque]

Why does Bush need inspectors? why doesn't he just ask his dad what WMD he and Reagan gave Saddam?

[Kweassa]

The real question is, would US have hesitated to attack if it was really illegal?

 ...

 Nope.

 That never bothered US in any occasion be it 'Nam or Panama.

 ...
 
 Kind of funny seeing people 'pray' for safety of soldiers engaging in full-fledged military attack which their own government so enthusiastically planned. You send your own young men to go kill someone else, with your own hands, and now praying for their safety? Hypocrisy at its prime, if you ask me. (But I guess no one's asking me. Hey, you don't care if whole mess of countries are against you, so why should you care for the opinion of a single individual?)

 Who are they praying to, god?

 "Thou shall not kill" is an absolute commandment existing in every religion in every world. It is when a certain group think they have the sole right to translate that in relative terms, that people become immune and numb in face of destruction.

 The Al Queda bozos thought the same. Now, the US is also thinking the same. I pity the US for that.

 What goes around comes around, and those that rise by guns and knives fall by guns and knives. The world rubbed in the face of the US its whole 'justification' attempt. Clearly, the world does not agree with the US. So now they're saying "fu*k you, we'll do whatever we want".

 ....

 One thing for sure, as predicted by many, the world is changing, and the former rules and deceptive masks which covered and justified so many things, are now going out of effect. The hood is off, shroud is unveiled, and its gonna be a nasty future lying ahead all of us.

 If there is one thing I really pray, I hope your governement don't pull off the same stunt against other countries, too. A war ever breaks out where I live, unlike you guys, the chances are very high I'm gonna be dead here in Korea.  

 But would something like that bother the concscience of Americans? I hope so, respected friends, I hope so.