So, Iraq was trying real hard to destroy all the missles, but 12 years just wasn’t long enough to get the job done?
Sheesh.
As Sua said, maybe you are thinking of this:
CASE CONCERNING THE MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES IN AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
You should note, "The Court recalls that subsequent to the delivery of its Judgment of 26 November 1984 on the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of Nicaragua’s Application, the United States decided not to take part in the present phase of the proceedings. "
Debaser, I am thankful that George W. Bush pressured Saddam to the point that Blix and the weapons inspectors made actual progress in disarming Iraq, despite disarmament lying dormant for the past 12 years.
However, now that they did make a progress, Bush declared war. To me that proves that Bush isn’t interested in disarmament at all. He wanted a war no matter what, that’s why he started it. And that’s something I cannot support with a clean conscience. I for one am going to breathe a sigh of relieve when he finally leaves the oval office.
Debaser, just to note a few things about “12 years”.
There is no proof of any WoMD development over that 12 year period. The UN inspectors, between '91 and '98, destroyed 90% to 95% of all WoMD that had been thought to exist, and all of that was produced prior to '91. The question remains about what happened to the remainder.
The Cuba Missle Crisis occurred 12 years into the Cold War. As you might recall, the Cold War was won without a single shot fired, even if it took more than 30 years to do so.
Patience is a virtue. Imminent threat is a fantasy.
[bDebaser**,
Here is the relevant illegality:
We are attacking with the legal justifications defined above, and we intend to profit by acquiring oilfields.
Any questions?
odd, exactly the same arguments used by the Nazis in the Nuremberg Trials. We strung them up anyway…
I mean without the legal justifications. without, not with.
:smack:
You mean the US isn’t going to listen when the UN speaks. Other nations that previously listened to the UN don’t seem to have changed their minds.
And if the UN doesn’t have the right to tell us what to do, it didn’t have the right to tell Iraq what to do. So Iraq didn’t have to listen to them and has done nothing wrong by ignoring UN orders. And that leaves the US with what legal justification for this war?
on the nicaragua question . When the new Nicuraguan government came in in 1991, they dropped the Sandanistas compensation claim to curry favour with the US. The US had steadfastly ignored the international courts ruling, which of course is wonderfully hypocritical, expecting Iraq to follow the SC resoltion to the letter.
“On June 5, 1991, Nicaragua’s National Assembly approved a law repealing another law that had required Nicaragua to seek compensation. In mid-September, the Chamorro government announced that it had withdrawn the suit from the Court”
I don’t think it’s that cut-and-dried, but I guess we’ll see. I agree with what London Times columnist Anatole Karletsly wrote about this topic today:
I think the scenario above is much more likely to take place than a bout of naked American profiteering. But like I said … we’ll see.
I have one. You quoted from a U.N. General Assembly Resolution, but it’s not clear to me that these resolutions have the same force of law as treaties the U.S. (or any other country) explictly ratifies. Your assumption seems to be that it does; can you support that a bit?
Folks, would it be possible to direct questions regarding whether this action is “legal” under international law be addressed in this other thread, specifically about that topic?
This OP here clearly states, “This is not to be a thread about the legality of the looming war”. The arguments have already been laid out in the other thread. Rehashing it here would simply be redundant.
Thanks in advance for any understanding (or better, compliance).
Hi Goodwin!
It at the same time makes me laugh, and feel frustrated by those anti-war folks who really can’t tell the difference between GWB and Hitler.
Your crystal ball tells you this? Well, mine tells me that the UN saying to the next tin-pot dictator who is butchering his own people and developing WMD’s:
“Stop it, or else we will remove you from power like we did with Saddam”.
Has a better ring to it than saying:
“Stop it, or else we will pass 17 more resolutions condemning your actions and then do nothing when they are all ignored.”
No, because Iraq was allowed to ignore the UN, the next time around the same thing will happen. And, because the US got nothing out of the UN except for headaches, the US will be less likely to go to the UN in the future.
Wouldn’t it be a lot cheaper to ignore UN sanctions and just buy however much oil from Iraq we want to buy?
Marc
Thanks for the link, Diogenes. I will try to respect AZ’s wishes and not get into the legality issues.
After reading the other thread: Suffice it to say, the legal question is complecated.
Your notion of the US “acquiring” the oil fields is laughable, however. Bush said in his speech the other night, that they are a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Was he lying? We are already buying the oil in Iraq anyway. Do you seriously think that we are going to steal the oil after the hostilities are over?
There is no proof that he didn’t either. There is also no proof that he destroyed the many weapons and chemicals that we know he had when the inspectors were kicked out in 98.
That’s not good enough.
This question has an obvious answer. Saddam still has it. Either that, or he destroyed it in secret without telling anyone and has been refusing to show proof despite all that’s been happening.
Cold war != Iraq
They aren’t even similar.
Sure, if we waited long enough Saddam would die of old age and one of his sons would take over. From what I’ve seen, they are worse than he is.
It is my understanding that the UN resolution has the same weight of law in the US as the US constitution, but I don’t know how to confirm this or really how to search for it,. maybe someone else can help.
Debaser, my accusation about American designs on Iraqi oilfields was reall just a personal suspicion and it was unfounded. I retract it…for now…
I don’t need a crystal ball to see the present. To quote myself:
I’m not predicting anything here, just describing the way things are in the world right now. Current events don’t seem to have made any nation, other than the US, change its mind about listening to the UN. The nations that listened to the UN before still do, and the ones that didn’t still don’t. If you can prove me wrong on that point then have at it, but as things are you’re the one making wild speculations about the future.
So we’re above the UN. Fine and dandy. Kind of makes it seem hypocritical for us to expect other nations to comply with UN orders, though.
Let’s review.
Now, this is clearly in error, as 1441, the return of the inspectors, and even the destruction of the al-Samoud’s clearly exceed the threshold of “nothing”. But, nonetheless, it continues:
Now, clearly there cannot be proof that he didn’t - you can’t prove the negative. And Debaser’s use of “either” indicates that he accepts that there is no proof of Iraq’s WoMD since 1991.
So please put forth the evidence that the UN has been unsuccessful for the last 12 years. Please show the proof that Iraq is in violation of UN resolutions.
Don’t ask me if I believe they are in violation - I do. But my belief, and your belief, to use your phrase, “That’s not good enough”.
And btw, Iraq did provide evidence of unilateral destruction of WoMD to the UN weapons inspectors. It was a remaining task on Blix’ list of “to do’s” to verify it, when the UN recall the inspectors due to the US’ impending violation of UNSC resolution 687.