# "Go" to war with Iraq? "Go"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 25, 2002, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-to-war-with-iraq-go/120671 "2002-07-25T01:03:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-to-war-with-iraq-go/120671/1 "2002-07-25T01:03:04Z")
US fighter planes fly over Iraq. Sometimes they drop bombs on targets. Sometimes the Iraqis fire at them. In what since are we not at war? Why do people talk about Bush “starting” a war with Iraq when we’ve had low grade hostilities for a decade now? Seems to me that invading Iraq wouldn’t be starting a war; it would be ending it. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-to-war-with-iraq-go/120671/2 "2002-07-25T01:06:26Z")
I have to say Saddam has been hoping to down an allied plane and so far has been unlucky but if he got lucky and shot one down it would give him a huge boost at home. He’d love it. The allies would love it too as it would give them the excuase they need to go and bust his ass. Everybody would be happy. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-to-war-with-iraq-go/120671/3 "2002-07-25T01:10:58Z")
'Cept maybe the pilot, but otherwise I agree. ---
**Author:** ![Sparc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Sparc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparc)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-to-war-with-iraq-go/120671/4 "2002-07-25T11:26:25Z")
Spin it as you like, but technically speaking the current situation is not war. Under UN mandate the allies are enforcing the restrictions and duty to comply with monitoring efforts as provided under Security Council resolutions on the situation between Iraq and Kuwait under resolutions 687 [(1991)](http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1991/scres91.htm), 699 (1991), 707 (1991), 715 (1991), 1051 [(1996)](http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1996/scres96.htm), (1996), 1154 [(1998)](http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1998/scres98.htm), and [1284](http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1999/99sc1284.htm) from [1999](http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1999/scres99.htm),. These provide legal grounds for enforcement of monitoring efforts and forceful destruction of suspected weapons of mass destruction, production facilities of the same, anti aircraft strike capacity, flights in violation of no fly zones etc. Further they provide the framework for embargo and stress the need and define guidelines for humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people. So if you like you could call the current situation policing. The Security Council resolutions tacitly admit the need to use force, but again within very specific boundaries and has in no way paved the way for a general attack, surgical attacks outside of noncompliance with the UNMOVIC mandate, or a coup against Saddam. It is doubtful that they could even do the latter since this has international legal repercussions that are to say the least somewhat entangled. Hence attacking Iraq would be the initiation of hostilities and not just an escalation. By international law it would require a declaration of war with due warnings provided. Does that answer the OP? Sparc ---
**Author:** ![SmackFu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/53a042/32.png) [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-to-war-with-iraq-go/120671/5 "2002-07-25T14:43:05Z")
In your opinion, are India and Pakistan at war? They have low-grade hostilities almost constantly in the Kashmir region. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-to-war-with-iraq-go/120671/6 "2002-07-25T18:33:09Z")
Wasn’t the Korean war considered a police action as well? ---
**Author:** ![Sparc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Sparc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparc)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-to-war-with-iraq-go/120671/7 "2002-07-25T19:24:39Z")
> [@](#): > > In your opinion, are India and Pakistan at war? In my opinion? My opinion is hardly relevant here. The fact is that they are not at war formally speaking. > [@](#): > > Wasn’t the Korean war considered a police action as well? Korea was a UN intervention headed by the US on S Koreas behalf against N Korea who had invaded S Korea without formal declaration of war. Later on in 1950 China avoided a formal declaration of war against S Korea by calling their combatants volunteers on the N Korean side. The Soviet Union called it a civil war and protested the UN intervention to the point of boycotting the Security Council. Very messy. Sparc ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2002, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-to-war-with-iraq-go/120671/8 "2002-07-26T00:46:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Hence attacking Iraq would be the initiation of hostilities Although it could be argued (and will be) that one of the grounds for attacking Iraq is their non-compliance with the new weapons inspection team (they could either refuse to let them in or hamper them while they are there). One of the conditions of their surrender after the Gulf war was to comply with weapons inspections. Bottom line is: if you don’t comply with the terms of a surrender, war is back on. So attacking Iraq could be (and will be) couched in the language of not so much _initiating_ hostilities as _a continuation of_ previous hostilities. By doing this they will also bypass the need to declare war. They can simply claim they are enforcing UN mandate. They will need Security Council support for this but they’ll probably get it (in the end). ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2002, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-to-war-with-iraq-go/120671/9 "2002-07-26T00:59:33Z")
Be fair to Bush, now. His stated goal isn’t to go to war with, or defeat, all of Iraq, charter member of the Axis of Evil though it may be, but only to get Saddam out of power somehow. There aren’t many options available, though. ---
**Author:** ![Sparc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Sparc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparc)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2002, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-to-war-with-iraq-go/120671/10 "2002-07-26T01:11:06Z")
> [@](#): > > By doing this they will also bypass the need to declare war. They can simply claim they are enforcing UN mandate. They will need Security Council support for this but they’ll probably get it (in the end). Can you show us how this would work? I see no provisions for such a proceeding in the current resolutions, but I might be wrong. Under what provision and in response to what breach? It’s not that I doubt that the Security Council would eventually give in if the allies feel like smacking a big one on Iraq, I just fail in understanding how the current mandate of UNMOVIC provides for it. In any case, it might not even come to that - there is a whole long chain of events that have to happen before anything like this is on the table of the SC. Failing to get Saddam out some other way being the first. Sparc ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2002, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-to-war-with-iraq-go/120671/11 "2002-07-26T02:12:47Z")
**sparc** I agree that it would require a somewhat “liberal” take on the current UN mandate to remove Saddam from power. But if the UN determines that main obstacle towards achieving the goals set out in the various resolutions is Saddam himself and his regime, then the UN is capable of ok-ing action against that regime. This can be done either by using a “liberal” interpretation of an old resolution or by passing a new resolution. Either way, it will still be done in accordance with current UN policy on Iraq - whatever that may be come January next year (when the proposed attack is supposed to take place). ---
**Author:** ![Sparc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Sparc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparc)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2002, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-to-war-with-iraq-go/120671/12 "2002-07-26T03:43:29Z")
> [@](#): > > This can be done either by using a “liberal” interpretation of an old resolution or by passing a new resolution. > > Either way, it will still be done in accordance with current UN policy on Iraq I don’t see your point. First of all I don’t think the UN can mandate a coup. Second of all I still don’t understand on what grounds in the current resolutions a full blown attack would be made under. You’ll have to come up with something better than ‘liberal interpretation’ to convince me of the practicality of your proposal. BTW, this is not trivial stuff, Bush whole strategy hinges on the feasibility of what you are saying is easy, while I see a myriad of problems with it. (I also happen to think that it is good so, but that’s another issue) Sparc ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2002, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-to-war-with-iraq-go/120671/13 "2002-07-26T23:29:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sparc \* > Hence attacking Iraq would be the initiation of hostilities and not just an escalation. By international law it would require a declaration of war with due warnings provided. I can see how it would be considered an initiation of war, but initiation of hostilities? Or are you using the term in a technical manner? > [@](#): > > Can you show us how this would work? I see no provisions for such a proceeding in the current resolutions, but I might be wrong. Under what provision and in response to what breach? It seems to me that if Saddam continues to ignore the inspection requirements, it would be a simple matter of forcing his hand. How can Saddam prevent inspections without force? If the inspectors just drive to the plant and walk in, what choice does Saddam have but to either let them in or attack them? ---
**Author:** ![Sparc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Sparc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparc)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2002, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-to-war-with-iraq-go/120671/14 "2002-07-27T01:58:37Z")
> [@](#): > > _The Ryan_ > I can see how it would be considered an initiation of war, but initiation of hostilities? Or are you using the term in a technical manner? What considering that I used the term ‘by international law’ do you think that I meant? Or should I better not ask? > [@](#): > > It seems to me that if Saddam continues to ignore the inspection requirements, it would be a simple matter of forcing his hand. How can Saddam prevent inspections without force? If the inspectors just drive to the plant and walk in, what choice does Saddam have but to either let them in or attack them? Seems like a pretty solid plan. Yeah! Why not actually? The more I think about it, it’s great! Let’s bait him with a few pesky UN inspectors. We have too many of those anyway, what would a dozen less matter? I think we should call up the UN right now and suggest it. Do you have the number? Otherwise it’s on the net. You might want to note that the refusal to let inspections be carried out is mostly what we have been knocking him for so far. Whatever. Sparc ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-to-war-with-iraq-go/120671/15 "2002-07-28T02:17:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sparc \* > What considering that I used the term ‘by international law’ do you think that I meant? You also used to the phrase “it is doubtful”. I tend not to take phrases used in one sentence and insert them into another one, and I don’t think there’s much point in trying to have a discussion with someone who not only thinks that’s okay, but expects people to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart\_v3.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart\_v3.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart_v3.0)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2002, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/go-to-war-with-iraq-go/120671/16 "2002-07-28T05:35:06Z")
Isn’t it a given that since no country has declared war since World War 2 (over 60 years ago) that the international legal norm is that war no longer needs to be formally declared?