Was the war in Iraq Illegal

Great Debates
61

Look, smart guy - the war violated the UN Charter. If you care to pony up some evidence, or even any sort of reasoning at all as to how this section does not apply:

then please do so. Your continued whining about how “nobody’s brought charges” proves nothing and serves only to annoy at this point. Sailor and I (and others) have explained in excruciating detail now how the war violates the UN Charter. So either explain to us your theory as to how it DOESN’T violate that section, or, as Sailor likes to say, STFU.

And please spare us the “self-defense” angle, because that is complete bullshit. You don’t even believe it YOURSELF, and you have admitted as much.

This debate would be a lot less annoying if you would deal with the real facts. We can spout “what if’s” all day; I don’t see the point.

Well get over it.:rolleyes: Even if “bringing us up on charges” were the way it worked, who exactly is it that you want to do that? You’re making no sense.

Bush presented his case; he been presenting his goddam case for over a year. Where were you? Let’s see, Bush is under fire for starting a war without justification, and it’s an issue that might conceivably cost him his re-election, but he’s sitting on the very evidence that might vindicate him? Yeah, that makes sense.:rolleyes:

Because you won’t let it drop. I keep hoping you are actually going to read something we right, and desist with your fallacious arguments that have been refuted over and over.

Again, Sailor and I have shown in great detail which sections of the UN Charter have been violated and why, whereas all you are offering is the illogical argument that a crime doesn’t exist if you get away with it. If you commit a crime and get away with it, it’s still a crime. It does not retroactively become a crime only when you are punished. That’s my position, so we seem to be at an impasse. At this point you are just making the same faulty argument over and over. You seem really hung up on this idea; I don’t understand why.

Bullshit. It’s not speculation, it’s a conclusion based on the facts of the matter that I (and presumably you) am well aware of. Iraq did not attack us, nor were they behind any terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, and they did not possess WMDs, much less any that were capable of reaching the United States. I mean, do you understand what “self defense” means?

Well I’m not looking at it the way a Bush Administration spokesman would, no. I’m sure a high-priced lawyer could make some sort of contrived argument for the legality of the war, but it would just be sophistry.

And a lot of people believe he was guilty. But by your reasoning, they are all guilty of “bullshit and speculation”, since he was found innocent. I just don’t understand the line of reasoning that says a crime is not a crime if you get away with it.

You already said this.

Well you’re right about one thing: I AM sick of you saying that. That’s at least the 3rd time in this post alone that you have made the exact same argument. Are you thinking it will somehow become valid by sheer repetition?

If you have information to the contrary, by all means share it with us. Otherwise, all your bluster amounts to a big fat goose egg.

Don’t just repeat the same argument that I already refuted, without addressing my criticism. That’s just annoying. You’re talking past me again.

Of course. Start a thread about one if you want.

Totally irrelevant to the point. It’s circular reasoning anyway. You’re saying nations don’t have to obey the UN Charter because nations don’t obey the UN Charter.

Bullshit. We WEREN’T TALKING ABOUT other countries. This thread is about the U.S. - if you want to talk about other countries, start another thread.

62

I think you’re missing my point. Let’s say, Congress passes a law saying, “No more freedom of speech; sedition is punishable by five years in prison” on January 20, 2004. The Justice Department takes a look at the SDMB on March 1, 2004, sees what I write, and charges me with sedition for saying the war in Iraq was “illegal.” I’m convicted after a lengthy trial, find a lawyer, make a few appeals, and on December 20, 2004, the Supreme Court strikes down that act.

If I understand your view correctly, you would say that the act became unconstitutional on 12/20/04. I think that’s silly, because the act did not change at all after Congress passed it. I think the act was unconstitutional from 1/20/04, was the law of the land fom 1/21 to 12/19, and was no longer the law of the land on 12/20.

All I’m saying is that the instrinsic characteristic of the legality of legislation or an action can be plainly apparent to all well before a court takes sanctions on that act or action. That instrinsic characteristic is not the same as whether a piece of legislation has the force of law.

After all, isn’t that why people sue to protect civil rights? Because it is evident to them that a wrong has been done before a court acknowledges the same? If that were not true, Congress could pass any legislation it wanted, and people would just throw up their hands and groan: “Can’t do anything now. It’s the law of the land.”

63

The argument that you have only broken a law or treaty if some court declares it is just plain silly. I happen to have a brain and some reasoning skills and I can deduce that a country who signed a treaty saying it would not do X and then goes and does X has broken the treaty. There is no question that the USA has not abided by the UN charter to which it is a signatory.

The couple of sharpshooters who terrorized DC about a year ago will not be charged with most of the murders they committed. Does that mean those acts were not murder? Do we really need a court to tell us that those acts were murder?

The notion that this invasion is made legitimate because other countries also may violate the UN charter in minor ways is silly. First you will have to prove that other nations do, in fact, routinely do violate the charter of the UN. And then you would have to prove the breaches are just as serious. Because I do not think people breaking the speed limit is a justification for murder. Suppose the Premier of Portugal is in the habit of spitting olive pits at the premier of Zimbabwe when they dine together at the UN cafeteria and that happens to be in violation of the charter of the UN. Are you really saying that would be proof that the UN charter is worthless and can be disregarded? And, in that case,
Other nations also do not abide by the UN charter. Really? How many nations have invaded other countries like this? Very few I would guess but I will let you give me the list. Now give me a list of nations which invaded other countries and were not roundly condemned by the world community. The list shrinks to zero. For what it has done the USA has received the least official condemnation and the only reason is that it bribed and coerced other countries every which way it could.
Shouldn’t the USA just withdraw from the UN if it has no intention of respecting the charter? The USA proposed the UN charter because it believed it would serve their ends. It supports compliance by everybody when it suits them. And then breaks its obligations when it suits them.

64

I found this site…petains to the legality of the war.
I found the following excerpt rather interesting. If you have the time, the link provides some interesting points which have not been covered in the thread so far - mainly because it deviates from the “UN Charter” form the thread is on.
*"There is very little question that the largest single immediate beneficiary of shutting down the terrorist-potential of Saddam Hussein’s regime are the Israelis. In the same way that “defense of another” is a perfectly justifiable reason for using deadly force against an attack or the immediate (and justifiable) apprehension of such, “states” may act cooperatively for the exact same purposes. Thus, if there is exists a governmental or commercial or military necessity to engage in “pre-emptive” self-defense on the part of the Israelis, then those who act on their behalf as allies are fully justified in their acts of war. In the event common sense isn’t adequate on this pont, this specific idea is set forth in Chapter 25 of Hugo Grotius’ discussion, which is quoted in full below.

That perspective clearly begs the question as to whether the so-called “suicide bombers” that have been glorified by all the propagandized coverage of them are truly extraterritorial attacks, or inside jobs along the lines of the mentality of the Oklahoma City Bombing, TWA Flight 800 and S-11. There’s also the question as to whether acts by the Iraqi’s against the Zionist-controlled Israelis would be considered acts of aggression or of self-defense.

However, regardless of the truthful answers to these inquiries, there can be no competent analysis of the matter that denies the conditions of perpetual war in the region, and that one of the largest single motivators and line-dividers is the topic of religion. In short, the fact of long-standing conditions of war between the Israelis and the Iraqis, the Zionists and the Muslims, cannot be disputed. Therefore, regardless of whether or not we agree with the reasons and bases for those perpetual conditions of war in that region, it is a stretch to assert that this war is not legal.

If we presume the formalites of public war, then the questions of legality cannot be avoided, and the answer is precisely as asserted by this highly qualified and internationally respected legal expert. But, in view of who the real parties in interest are, and, thus, in view of a private wer, as well as in light of the view of “defense of another,” as this applies to, for and between nations, the “legality” jumps off the page at us. Further, how can a condition of war that’s been extant for centuries become illegal, simply because non-Middle Eastern “states” are now involved?"*

65

Generally, yes. IANAL, but I would say that there is prima facie case that the US violated international law. (prima facie = “1. true, valid, or sufficient at first impression 2. self-evident 3. legally sufficient to establish a fact or case unless disproved”)

Please don’t move the goalposts on me! The question at hand is, “Did the US violate international law in attacking Iraq?” Based on the facts that are readily available, I have argued that yes, there is very little doubt that that was the case.

But when you start bringing up the rights of the accused, and the need for a judicial process, the question of the debate changes to, “Has the US been found guilty of violating international law?” The answer is no, of course.

The other implicit question there is, “Should the US be taken before the UNSC or the World Court to be sanctioned for its violation of international law?” Frankly, I don’t see any reason to do that. The case is pretty darn clear cut to folks who work in foreign policy circles, and as I said before, the main sanction in such a case would be a blow to international opinion of the accused country. That has already happened. There is no chance that the UNSC would bring economic or military sanctions against the US. I have more fear that a trial before the World Court would just reinforce an anti-UN, anti-international law stance by this Administration, which would just end up threatening the viability of two important institutions (UN & int’l law). I just do not see what good would come out of bringing formal charges of aggression against the US.

If tomorrow the President showed secret evidence that showed Saddam to be mobilizing for an attack on the US, my opinions on this matter would change instantly (like that old saying, the facts may change, but the fact that I am right does not :wink: ) But making the idle hypothesis that there COULD be secret evidence is an “appeal to ignorance.” It’s just not a rational and logical way to deal with a question.

I think I know where you’re coming from. It is very easy to criticize, and it is rather annoying to have folks make very serious charges against one’s country as a matter of politics. But that doesn’t change what has been done. I think the facts pretty much speak for themselves.

66

That is called collective security. Chapter VIII of the Charter has something to say about that: “Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.”

Credibility, SHOT. TWA 800 - an “inside job?” Uh, a spark in a fuel tank is an “inside job?”

This is really nonsense. It has been well-established that Iraq gave rewards to the families of suicide bombers, but the actual support for the suicide bombers themselves seems to come from occupied territories, Syria, Iran, and probably Lebanon. There needs to be a much fuller case made that Iraq was the source of an imminent threat against Israel.

In any case, what still lacks is the requirement under customary international law for proportionality. The response to an imminent threat must be in proportion to the threat itself. It is pretty bizarre to argue that the premeditated conquest of a country with 25 million people is proportionate to suicide bombers killing dozens at a time by blowing up buses and restaurants.

BTW, found a nice explaination – written before the war – of international law in this area. The conclusion on the legality of the war is more or less left open (because it had not been determined at the time of writing whether force would be undertaken with UNSC approval or if an imminent threat would emerge).
PDF

67

whuckfistle, I do not buy any of that. All smoke, no substance. “Terrorist-potential”? Hah! The country with the greatest “terrorist potential” is the USA. The notion that the USA had any right under the UN charter to attack Iraq is just NOT there. The only exception in the UN charter is that a country may defend itself when itself is under armed attack. The USA was not under armed attack from Iraq or anywhere near. The rest is a smokescreen. The excuse that Iraq was supporting terrorism because it gave money to the widows of suicide bombers is just ludicrous in its face. Does anyone really believe the suicide bombers committed their acts encouraged by this? They probably never even knew their widows would get something. In any case, it is just ridiculous. Israel is under attacks which come from the Palestinian territories and which, as has been widely proven already, have not stopped or diminished because Saddam Hussein was deposed. If the USA wanted to protect Israel, why did it not occupy the Palestinian territories? The argument is so ludicrous and so unsupportable that even the US government has not used it and it’s not like the would not use doubtful arguments. I find it amazing that people come out in defense of the policies of the US government with arguments which are so incredibly ridiculous that even the US government would not use them. You cannot invent justifications for the actions of the government. They gave their own justifications and they have to be judged by those. They said the USA was under the threat of an imminent attack by Iraq. That was the justification and it was a lie. The rest now is trying to cover up the indefensible.

68

Slow down sailor.

The US didnt engage in the act of war with Iraq with the pretense that it would have to defend its "Legality". So, to say that they havent used these or similar arguments to defend the legal aspects of the war is plain silly on your part. Frankly, the US gov. could care less about the legality of the war and the only intellectual discussions of it are probably taking place in forums such as this.
I havent heard any prominent politicians of any party bring this issue up. You do have great points and a good argument on your behalf and I dont intend to take that away from you or to argue the other side. I brought attention to the site as a fodder for further discussion and as you note I did not attempt to debate you in that post. I think your reaction to the post was a little too defensive for someone who is dead sure of his position. Maybe your a little too sure of yourself.

FWIW- I think that for the US to ponder the legality of her actions and weigh them against whether they are just or moral is a reach on your part. Sometimes the right thing isn`t the legal thing.

69

From Ravenman

Thats fair enough. :slight_smile: I can understand that everyone can look at data and make their own judgements. Not being a lawyer, I tend to be cautious, as what appears to be a slam dunk case to a lay man, often turns out to be nothing of the kind to someone versed in being able to manipulate the data in such a way as to totally alter the ruling. Maybe the government really doesn’t have a case, and willfully disobeyed the Charter not caring if they had real evidence to back up its actions. For my part, I simply don’t know enough to make an informed judgement. I’m not in denial…I just know my own limitations. Looking at the evidence as you guys are, it certainly SEEMS that way.

Ya, Sailor, other nations have done similar things…but if you set ‘world condemnation’ as the bar, no…no one gets busted on like the US IMO with Iraq. Personally, I see a lot of similarity between NATO’s invertervantion in Kosovo and the US in Iraq from a violations perspective…but you are right, they didn’t get massive condemnation…mostly because those countries most condemning us were involved I suppose, but also because, unlike Iraq, it was seen as ‘the right thing to do’. I’ll let you look it up yourself and judge for yourself…at a guess you wouldn’t agree with me on this anyway so there isn’t really a point from my perspective.

My point about the speeding thing was not to compare it to murder. Talk about willfully misunderstanding something. The point was, its a law that everyone chooses to disobey or stretch to one degree or another…so there for, though officially the law is set at X, in actual real life practice, Y is what is actually enforced…and there for Y is the standard everyone goes by. I think a good case could be made that the same has happened with the charter, with various countries (including the US several times) using legal tricks to circumvent it for their own needs…just like breaking the speed limit. My main point wasn’t that its ok for the US to do something if other countries do anyway…though to just dismiss this out of hand, to me, is to hold the US to a standard that other nations don’t follow themselves (except when its convient).

Maybe, like Ravenman has been saying, its unrealistic to think that the UN would actually bring forth charges of violating the Charter to the US…but then, if its so obvious and so clearly wrong (prima facia thing he went into), so beyond the pale of what other nations do, why not? And if not…well, what good is the UN counsel and the Charter? If they won’t even do a symbolic slap on the wrist of the US over this thing, won’t even bother to bring out CHARGES of wrong doing…what good are they? Why SHOULD powerful soveriegn nations follow such if there are no consequences for their actions…not even the slap on the wrist thing?

You seem enamored of murder so, lets use that. Why don’t you go out and murder people Sailor? Is it just because you are more moral than the average killer? Sure, you probably are for the most part…you seem like a good guy when you aren’t insulting people. You are a human though, so the seeds of such acts are in you…just like in the rest of us. Part of the reason you and the majority of us don’t murder someone every time we get pissed at them is…we know, if caught, we will be punished for our crime, and since we don’t want those consequences, we generally DON’T go around murdering people. We’ll go to jail, lose our jobs…and maybe lose our lives. Its not even a matter of ‘getting away with it’…if there IS no punishment at all, not even censure, we will do as we want, and with only our own code as the guide.

Anyway, this is getting far afield. You guys have proved your point afaiac…in your opinions the evidence that the US’s acts were illegal is obvious. In my own mind, the evidence SEEMS to support your opinions, though I think that a slick lawyer type could get the client off…if there were ever any charges. Not being a lawyer myself though, I’ve kind of let this aspect slide and others who do have a clue argue those points, as I don’t really understand the legal parts…they are beyond me frankly. I tend to think I’m a smart enough guy, but when the talk turns to cases and such my eyes tend to glaze over. It doesnt help that, though my english is pretty good, they speak in all kinds of stilted language and lawyer technical terms I dont really understand (like the prima facia thing).

I’ve concentrated on the fact that the UN has not seen fit to censure the US or file charges on violation of the Charter to the US. Appearently I’m the only one that thinks this is either a valid arguement or important though, so I’ll withdraw at this point and simply lurk in the thread from now on, unless there is something later for me to add.

I appreciate the participation in my thread, even if we have done this over and over in the past. I especially appreciate Sailors participation, as I made this thread to give him another forum to express his views and lay out his arguements. I know he didn’t really want to do this AGAIN (and a lot of the folks that came back probably felt the same way about it :)), but am glad he and ya’ll did anyway.

Reguards,
XT

70

You must not have read my post and this necessarily results in repetition. However, I would be happy to oblige you with more repetition.

*D.W. Bowett noted in this regard: It is, therefore, fallacious to assume that members have only those rights which the Charter accords to them; on the contrary they have those rights which general international law accords to them except and in so far as they have surrendered them under the Charter…As we have seen, the view of Committee I at San Francisco was that this prohibition left the right of self-defense unimparied; in the words of the rapporteur ‘the use of arms in legitimate self-defence remains admitted and unimpaired’…The history of Article 51 suggests nothing of an additional obligation; the travaux preparatoires, to which we may legitimately resort in the case of ambiguity, suggest only that the article safeguard the right of self-defence, not restrict it." D.W. Bowett, Self-Defense in International Law 185, 188 (1958). See also Oscar Schachter, The Right of States to Use Armed Force, 81 Michigan Law Review 1620, 1634. (It is therefore not implausible to interpret Article 51 as leaving unimpaired the right of self-defense as it existed prior to the Charter). *

So Mr. Bowett is arguing the member nations have not only those rights given to it by the Charter but the same rights that existed prior to the formation of the Charter. A doctrine regarding “self-defense” was established under international law prior to the formation of the Charter and unless the Charter expressly abrogates it, which it apparently does not since the Charter does not define “self-defense,” then the UN Charter safeguards the right of self-defense as it existed prior to the UN Charter and not restrict it. As Oscar Schacter concluded, It is therefore not implausible to interpret Article 51 as leaving unimpaired the right of self-defense as it existed prior to the Charter.

Now the right of “self-defense” as it existed prior to the formation of the UN Charter most likely would have permitted the type of military intervention Bush and the United States have engaged in. Now this is the legal argument several scholars have made in an attempt to widen the UN’s interpretation of “self-defense”. However, if the UN Charter did not specifically abrogate or alter the meaning of “self-defense” as it existed in international law then why wouldn’t its meaning persist after the UN Charter?

71

It’s not quite that simple. Firstly, your act was illegal during the time in question-- ie, you were arrested, tried and convicted. Secondly, consider a slightly different scenario. Congress not only suspends freedom of speech, but empowers employers to fire anyone who violates the new “no free speech” law. Your boss fires you, according to the law, but then the law is struck down. What your boss did was perfectly legal, and he cannot be prosecuted for it after the law is struck down. By your reconning, what your boss did was illegal. You seem to be arguing in favor of ex post facto law, saying that there is some “intrinsic” legality.

But what I’m really saying is that until and unless the courts rule on a law, we (as citizens) cannot decide whether or not it is constitutional or not. Of course we may have opinions, but those opinions don’t mean anything. We simply do not know what the court will rule.

And yet we have posters on this board, DtC being one, who still claim the war was illegal as measured against US law. And that’s my point. It clearly is not “apparent to all”.

No argument there, and if I have ever posted that I thought people should not challenge laws, please point that out. I have explicitly said, several times, that courts can and do strike down laws. But keep in mind, that the courts often rule against these challenges, keeping the law intact. If, as you say, it is “apparent to all” what is legal and not, then we could just dispense with the court action and just have everyone obey only the laws they think are legal.

72

No, I think you missed the point of my example. I was trying to illustrate that the essential nature of the LAW was unjust from day one, regardless of whether it is, or is not, the law of the land. My acts are not at the heart of the question in this little scenario, they were just mentioned to add some fidelity to the passage of time.

Uh, I’m no expert on torts and the like, but if the law was struck down, wouldn’t I be able to get my job back? I don’t know… but my boss doesn’t like this whole Iraq business either, so I think my employment is safe for the time being. :wink:

I just don’t buy it. That, to me, is like saying that citizens have no way of knowing whether a person is qualified to be elected to a particular office. Certainly, in a free society, people can hold opinions about “good” and 'bad," “right” and “wrong,” even if those opinions have not been declared binding by a government organ.

It can be plainly apparent to all that an action may be wrong before judged illegal by a court. Like, we can all agree - hopefully - that repealing the First Amendment would be wrong before the SCOTUS says its wrong. We can debate this Iraq stuff, but just because a court hasn’t ruled, doesn’t mean that we can’t make well-informed judgments for ourselves. I’ve tried to be pretty clear in this debate that I’ve been presenting my opinion, not fictionalizing a ruling from the UN or the Supreme Court.

I’d never try to put words in your mouth. I think we’re on common ground on the principles of this point, at least.

No, I said it can be apparent to all. Or apparent to some. Or apparent to few. Just because a court hasn’t ruled doesn’t make informed opinions less accurate or truthful.

73

Do you have anything at all to support that assertion? A cite? Linky? Anything? From your posts I honestly believe you have just taken rhetoric and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, and have no clue to what you are talking about.

And the govrnment has made the case that it would, if need be, point to resolution 1441 and all other previous resolutions against Iraq as justification, and UN leave for the war if anyone wanted to get all legal on them.

So everyone blathering that there is no way this could be legal and no one ever proposed a defense that this war was legal under the UN charter, is making statements as ingnorant, and foolish, as the one I quoted.

74

Raveman:
I think we’re down to arguing semantics-- ie, the meaning of the term “legal”, so I think I’ll call a truce. I understand what you’re saying, and don’t really disagree with you on a practical level.

Don’t be too sure about the “apparent to all”, though, even wrt the 1st amendment. There are enough nuts in this country that it wouldn’t be too hard to find a few who would support its repeal.:slight_smile:

75

Dude, there have been at least four posts that have thoroughly gone over this territory. There is some of that in the OP. There’s sailor’s post halfway down on the first page. There’s my post, second on page two. Others as well, scattered around. If you disagree, go back, read those explanations, and provide your own cites for why you think those arguments are wrong.

Funny, the US Ambassador to the UN stated that 1441 did not authorize the use of force. I quote: “As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12…” Cite.

I am awaiting a substantive response that will relieve me from my ignorance and foolishness.

76

Can’t brush me off that easily… these are very, very important semantics!
:wink:

77

Sean, be careful here.

If you want to back up your point please do so with fact, like you`ve requested those in opposition to do. Not by attacking your opposition.

I`ll help you in this case.

After Desert storm in 1991, the Security Council imposed demands on Iraq. Those demands included among others to dispose of WMD (UNSCR 687). Iraq refused. They either refused to comply or refused to document the compliance, you choose.

The UN cited 17 instances where inspectors found facts that directly contradicted the resolution.

In 1995 Iraq declared existence of its bio weapons program.

In 1997 Iraq admitted to possessing additional equipment to produce chemical and bio weapons.

In 2003 Iraq disclosed an additional 6,500 bombs and 1,000 tons of mustard gas. Making a mockery of the earlier admissions.

Because Iraq had, in these and similar fashions, ingnored UNSC resolutions, the SC voted UNANIMOUSLY for UNSCR 1441. Giving Iraq one final chance to comply with the UNSC mandates.
It took seven weeks of SC debate to pass 1441, and there was no question at the time what the SC members were voting for (that Iraq had failed in its obligations to destroy and document the destroyal of its WMDs).

In 1441 all 15 members of the UNSC declared that Iraq was a threat to the international community. Serious actions against Iraq were threatened by the SC at the time if Iraq did not disarm immediately. Also, if Iraq failed to co-operate fully and completely with the resolution that it would be a further breach. Iraq was then given 30 days to present evidence that it had disarmed, or show where the stuff was.

Iraq failed.

Since the breach of 687 revived the use of force under UNSCR 678 to disarm Iraq of its WMD the use of force is in compliance with previous UN resolutions.

Now, despite the SCs mandate to use force under existing UNSCRs, the US and coalition partners tried to convince all members of the SC to adopt an additional resolution to demonstrate the resolve of the international community and send a further signal that Iraq declare its WMD and begin a peaceful resolve.

Colin Powel explained that another resolution was, indeed, not needed but the US wanted to take the extra step. Nothing in 1441 required that the SC adopt any further resolutions, or for that matter, any other form of SC approval to establish that Iraq remained in material breach which is the predicate for the use of force under UNSCRs.
The US engaged Iraq with the aid of the following countries;

**
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan.**

Hardly unilaterally.

78

You misunderstand; I have not argued that the UN Charter narrows the definition of self-defense; I have argued that there is no possible way a rational person, looking at the evidence, could interpret the U.S. invasion of Iraq as “self-defense” under any definition of self-defense.

If you care to offer some evidence as to any aspect of the war that would qualify it as self-defense, I’m all ears. But even the Bush Administration seems to have ditched the self-defense angle in favor of the “ousting a brutal dictator” argument. What you hear all the time now is “The Iraqi people are better off”, as if that justifies the war. But that argument ignores the fact that “helping” the Iraqi people has nothing to do with U.S. self-defense. Ousting a brutal dictator may be a laudable goal, but we went about it the wrong way.

And this is the big problem I have with the pro-war pundits; the target keeps shifting depending on what is convenient to the argument at the time. If we say the war was illegal, the pro-war people say Saddam was a threat to the United States. But then when we point out that the evidence contradicts this, they quickly shift tack and say the war was about ousting a brutal tyrant. It’s like playing checkers and having your opponent move his checker out of turn every time you are about to jump him.

79

Dude
Where were you in '91? When did Iraq ever attack the US, UK, Canada, France, Australia, or every other nation in the coalition accept for Kuwait? in '92 the UN authorized the use of Force in Somalia because the deemed the humaitarian crisis “constituted a threat to international peace”. In neither of those cases was the US itslef ever attacked.

Did you intintionally ignore the “and all other previous resolutions against Iraq” part? I never said they would use 1441 in and of itself. You seem to be asserting that the US, or someone else in authority proclaimed that another new resolution was needed or the war would be illegal. That is your assertion my friend, not mine, so it is something you have to prove rather than me disprove it.
whuckfistle

It’s called attacking an argument. Wich happens to be my knee-jerk reactions to what i find a specious arguments at best I would never resort to attacking the characters of esteemed SDMB posters, well most posters anyways.

And I appreciate the help.

80

Nonsense. Iraq supplied all the documentation asked for, and was cooperating with the inspectors.

That’s an interesting angle; I guess you’re arguing that we went back to the “all necessary means” clause in 687, even though the recent Resolution 1441 contains no such clause. Kind of a stretch, don’t you think?

So you’re arguing that the US didn’t need UN authorization to invade Iraq, but just asked presumably for the hell of it, but then was justified in ignoring the fact that such authorization was not forthcoming? Wow, man.

Even if this were not simply ludicrous, the fact is that Iraq was still in compliance with 1441; we needed to wait until a determination was made. There was no imminent threat; the only reason we went ahead was because of the weather, of all things.

But 1441 didn’t authorize the use of force.

Thanks for the laugh.:smiley: