This American hawk says to Bush: Get a UN mandate NOW!!!

[RedFury]

The definition of “self-defense” means defending oneself against an attack, not after an attack, not against an attack with approval, not an attack that a certain percentage of world opinion is against…really, I’d love to see your working definition.

And I’d love to see you explain what the hell this particular jumbled mess you wrote has to do with invading Iraq.

**This conflicts the UN Charter if it were against another state which was following the UN Charter, and if that were the case its Head of State wouldn’t be publicly involved in jihad, for one, so I guess the point is moot.

**

Try as I might, I can’t parse this into anything remotely sensical. Although throwing the “jihad” bit in there appears to be a nice rethorical flourish. But I can’t be sure.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Tee:

• The definition of “self-defense” means defending oneself against an attack…*

Oh, I see.

And when, exactly, was the United States “attacked” by Iraq, may I ask?

By the way, if you want to see my working definition of self defense, try the UN Charter.

Finally, let it be noted for the record that, once again, Tee has chosen to avoid the meat of my argument in favor of sniping at details. Come with a real argument or stop wasting my time.

[Yookeroo]

It’s only counts as “self-defense” before you’re attacked? I think Tee needs a dictionary.

[Tee]

*Originally posted by Mr. Svinlesha *
**Finally, let it be noted for the record that, once again, Tee has chosen to avoid the meat of my argument in favor of sniping at details. Come with a real argument or stop wasting my time. **

Geez. Sorry to keep you.

Originally posted by RedFury
And I’d love to see you explain what the hell this particular jumbled mess you wrote has to do with invading Iraq.

Referring to the UN charter. Using force against a state after an attack by that state is fine. Using force against a state to a perceived threat, pre-emptively, is not, thus the US is supposedly in “violation.” But if you look at the Congressional Resolution of last year authorizing force against Iraq, it claims the positions are pretty much the reverse, that Iraq is in “direct violation” and the US is going to ensure compliance with all relevant UN resolutions, using force if necessary. Dueling legalisms, including those concerning self-defense. That’s pretty much it.

and no, I don’t need a dictionary, thanks. There’s a difference between self-defense and retaliation. Self-defense is supposed to prevent an attack, but the UN Charter only allows for retaliation.

[tomndebb]

and no, I don’t need a dictionary, thanks. There’s a difference between self-defense and retaliation. Self-defense is supposed to prevent an attack, but the UN Charter only allows for retaliation.

I’d say that you do need a dictionary. Self-defense and retaliation are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Self-defense generally describes the thwarting of an attack, not the prevention of one. One may also retaliate with no thought of defense–for vengeance, for example. One may fight a defensive battle without retaliating, or one may retaliate as a method of defending oneself.

It is simply wrong to declare that the U.N. allows only retaliation. What the U.N. charter does not permit is speculative pre-emptive attacks while pretending to defend oneself.

Had the resolution been legitimate, it would have authorized the U.S. to act with the U.N. to enforce the U.N. resolutions. Instead, the U.S. acted unilaterally, not to enforce U.N. directives, but for a whole host of shifting claims (from WoMD to regime change) that have little to no connection to the first Gulf War and had absolutely nothing to do with defending the U.S. against a third rate power on the far side of the Earth.

[NotfooledbyW]

Quote: Technically we didn’t need a Security Council mandate, since the invasion was about removing a threat.

@tomndebb

A threat that was declared imminent by the president, but for which no evidence has been produced–further refuted by the fact that the military did not even take steps to secure sites where WoMD might have been stored, thus allowing them to be pillaged and redistributed to real terrorists (if there had actually been any).

We were told we had to go to war to defend ourselves, but we have not demonstrated any such need and have taken steps that indicate that we did not believe our own rhetoric.

Lacking a genuine (to say nothing of imminent) threat, our invasion was not legal.

Why was the war not legal T&D?

[XT]

Because zombies don’t use legal tender and simply want brains, which, sadly…er, never mind. They don’t use money though…

[Marley23]

I see no point in reviving this thread. I’m wishing it a happy 10th birthday and closing it.