The french, german and russian diplomats in the UN have just said that any military action against Iraq is illegal.
My question is, what are they going to do? Write us a ticket?
If they are not willing to enforce their own resolutions, why should anyone care if they think an action is illegal?
This is not to be a thread about the legality of the looming war. I am wondering how anyone in the UN can think anyone cares what they say.
Uh, because people do care what the UN says. Most heads of state care a lot what the UN says. I don’t believe even Bush has gone so far as to say that he doesn’t care what the UN thinks about his actions. Maybe he really doesn’t care, but I doubt he’ll say so openly because as an organization, the UN has a lot of respect from both the governments and people of many states.
I think Lamia and I are on the same wavelength as far as the influence of the UN goes.
Regarding enforcement, the UN members who are saying this could try to impose the same sorts of sanctions against the U.S. that have historically been imposed against other nations, including Iraq. Whether they could get those sanctions passed is another matter entirely, but that would be the most likely first step of enforcement.
Bear in mind that the World Court did find the United States guilty of waging an illegal war against the democratically elected government of Nicaragua, and the United States did pay restitutions. From the reaction of the United Nations, I expect the same thing to happen with this war against Iraq.
UnuMondo
This boils down to might makes right. Yes, the USA is powerful enough to “get away” with starting a war. There is really nothing the UN can do about short of starting world war 3, but that’s not something any sane person would want.
It’s up to the population of the USA to show the government that it overstepped its competences. People in Iraq can’t be blamed for doing the things the government tells them to, because it is an oppresive regime. People in the USA still have the option to inform themselves from non-propagandistic sources and to protest if their government screws up.
Cite? I believe you are referring to the mining of Managua harbor. My recollection is that the Reagan Administration ignored the ruling of the World Court, and paid no restitution.
Sua
The UN told Saddam what to do 17 times and he ignored them. Nothing was done.
Now no one is going to listen when the UN speaks. If the UN can’t tell Iraq what to do, then it certainly can’t tell the US what to do.
That doesn’t mean the US is justified in doing whatever it wants. If there were any justice in the world, GWB would be arrested and tried like a nazi in a world court for war crimes. Too bad there’s no justice.
The weapons inspectors were overseeing the disarmament of Iraq. If the disarmament is indeed “nothing”, then maybe Bush was right to prevent the weapons inspectors from doing their work and starting a war. Then again, maybe not 
And I suppose that the Tamil Tigers and the Zimbabwean, Rwandan, Ethiopian and Eretrian armies were also powerful enough to “get away” with starting wars, and the UN couldn’t do anything to stop them short of starting world war 3.
Attacking the French troops involved in the ongoing unsanctioned incursion into the Ivory Coast is also, apparently, outside of the UN’s ability.
Self-evidently, the UN had the ability to stop just about every war that has occurred in the last decade, but chose not to - in about the only war the UN did get involved in recently, in Sierra Leone, it took just a brigade of British troops to impose peace.
What really happens is that the UN chooses not to act. And that is exactly what happened here as well.
Sua
And I suppose that the Tamil Tigers and the Zimbabwean, Rwandan, Ethiopian and Eretrian armies were also powerful enough to “get away” with starting wars, and the UN couldn’t do anything to stop them short of starting world war 3.
Attacking the French troops involved in the ongoing unsanctioned incursion into the Ivory Coast is also, apparently, outside of the UN’s ability.
Self-evidently, the UN had the ability to stop just about every war that has occurred in the last decade, but chose not to - in about the only war the UN did get involved in recently, in Sierra Leone, it took just a brigade of British troops to impose peace.
What really happens is that the UN chooses not to act. And that is exactly what happened here as well.
Sua
Or maybe not, Gallup
For 12 years. Without success.
I will clarify. “Nothing” was done in response to his continued refusal to abide by the UN resolutions.
He ignored them, no action was taken by the UN in response.
Now, there is no reason for the next dictator to respect the wishes of the UN.
Oh, and can somebody explain to me why the US action in Iraq is “illegal”.
I’m not being a wise-ass, I really want to hear it spelled out.
I’ve seen people on the SDMB claiming “illegal” for a while now. Now the OP (without a cite) is claiming that the French, Russian, and German goverments are calling the war “illegal”.
Illegal under which law or agreement? Where did the US agree to something stating we don’t have the right to invade a country to protect our interests?
Even if we did, I would still argue that it doesn’t matter because the Iraqi regime is in violation of the cease fire among other things.
However, I want to see the evidence that this war is “illegal.” Show me the law that the US is breaking.
Debaser, your continued revisionist attempts at recent history doesn’t pass the straight faced test.
Do you at least acknowledge the destruction of some al-Samoud missles?
And is your comment about “no reason for the next dictator to respect the wishes of the UN” a veiled reference to the puppet likely to be installed by the US in Iraq? Like father, like son?
And with regards to illegality, it is being discussed here.
Well, there’s always a chance France, Germany, Russia, China and a few others will, with the U.N.'s backing, form a Coalition force to remove the democratically elected government of the U.S. and replace it with a U.N.-friendly puppet government. Turnabout being fair play, and all.
Still, I wouldn’t put money on it.
Well, “legal” and “illegal” are wishy washy terms. Some of the most heineous crimes of humanity in history have been done under the guise of legality, so it’s really unimportant whether something is “legal” or “illegal”.
The question rather is, whether it’s the right (not in a “legal” right, but rather in the connotation of “morally right”) thing to do. Is it the right thing to get rid of Saddam? I’d say yes.
Is it the right thing for Bush to start a war without the UN’s consent? That’s where we drift apart, my answer is no. He should have been more patient. But I guess patience isn’t really a virtue when the elections are near by and the economy is hurting right now.
The UN wasn’t requiring him to destroy some of his al-Samoud missles. It required him to not have any missles of a range greater than 150 miles, IIRC.
Since he didn’t destoy them all, the disarmament of Iraq was unsuccessful. For 12 years.
I’m not revising anything. Are you in disagreement that Saddam was not in violation of the UN resolutions?
Err, drop that “not” from the last sentance there.
Oh, and thanks for the link, AZ, don’t know how I missed that one.
Debaser, I hesitate to start this dialog, since it has been debated ad nausem on this board over the past few months.
Iraq was in the process of destroying all known al-Samoud’s when the UN recalled the weapons inspectors (due to impending US military action). Whether these were a material breach is a reasonable question - experts agree that with warheads and guidance systems, these missles (as weapons systems) may not have been able to exceed the allowed range. If it was a violation, it was marginal, at best.
As to this example, the fact that Iraq was destroying them, under the direction of the UN, refutes your earlier statement.
I suspect that Iraq is in continued violation of the UN resolutions. I have yet to see compelling proof, however. And apparently, the UNSC has not either.