# Why can't the US 'legally' attack Iraq today? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 23, 2003, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494 "2003-01-23T18:32:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/1 "2003-01-23T18:32:50Z")
This should maybe be in Great Debates but i am actually hoping for a factual answer to this question. The ethical and practical implications should be ignored for the sake of this thread (there are plenty of other threads around here getting into just that anyway). By ‘legally’ attack Iraq I mean within the bounds of international law. Obviously the US can hang the law and do as it pleases but I hear on the radio frequently that other countries (e.g. Germany and France) feel a UN resolution to attack Iraq is necessary to stay within the bounds of international law. From my perspective it would seem the US already has all the legal justification it could want to attack Iraq. [ul] [li] Iraq takes regular potshots at US/Allied aircraft and has been for years. So far they’ve only managed to nail a few unmanned drones. Nevertheless doesn’t shooting at another country’s aircraft that are legally where they are supposed to be constitute an act of war?[/li] [li] Saddam Hussein is in breach of his initial surrender agreement from the Gulf War. Technically doesn’t that allow the US to say the war is on again?[/li] [li] Today on NPR someone mentioned that Saddam Hussein offers $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers and the person speaking mentioned that essentially constitutes an act of piracy which throughout history has been justification enough to go to war.[/li][/ul] There may be other items (feel free to list any if you like). Those alone however would seem to me to be enough justification for the US to say to the UN that we are going to war and we are NOT in violation of anything. The UN may not like it but that’s a different issue. Any scholars on international law around here who can say just what international agreements have to say about all of this? ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/2 "2003-01-23T18:56:15Z")
1. We can leave, then he won’t be able to shoot down our drones. 2. Not familiar with the agreement, exactly. How do the other signatories of the agreement feel about it? Was the war declared by the U.S., or the U.N.? If the U.N., we could urge the U.N. to declare war, but for us to do it ourselves would be outside the box. 3. Cite? Long story short: We can’t do it because he hasn’t done anything worth that level of reprisal. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/3 "2003-01-23T19:26:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ethilrist \* > > 1. We can leave, then he won’t be able to shoot down our drones. This doesn’t work. By that thinking any plane flying anywhere can be shot down and the shooter merely needs to say, “Hey, don’t fly there and you won’t get shot at.” > [@](#): > > 1. Not familiar with the agreement, exactly. How do the other signatories of the agreement feel about it? Was the war declared by the U.S., or the U.N.? If the U.N., we could urge the U.N. to declare war, but for us to do it ourselves would be outside the box. Good point…I don’t know what entity declared war and what mechanisms are there to re-start it. > [@](#): > > 1. Cite? Sure… > [@](#): > > In addition, the Arab Liberation Front, a Palestinian group loyal to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, pays generous bounties to the injured and the families of the dead according to the following sliding scale: $500 for a wound; $1,000 for disability; $10,000 to the family of each martyr; and $25,000 to the family of every martyr suicide bomber – lavish sums, given the chronic unemployment and poverty of the majority of the Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. > > SOURCE: > [HonestReporting.Com](http://honestreporting.com/articles/reports/Children_Under_Fire_.asp) > [@](#): > > As after his invasion of Kuwait in 1990, for example, he is milking his pose as the Palestinians’ champion for all its worth. Iraq pays a bounty of $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers and $10,000 to the families of other Palestinian intifada casualties. > > SOURCE: [The Economist: Phoney War (August 1, 2002)](http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1259229) (NOTE: I think this can only be accessed if you pay for it or have a subscription) > [@](#): > > Then as now, great honour attaches to killing Jews: your face on posters all over town, a revered place in society for your family, 25,000 bucks from Saddam Hussein. > > SOURCE: [Watch](http://medlem.spray.se/watch/best_2002_04.htm) (NOTE: This site is a collection of news stories from other sources…the quote above is attributed to Mark Steyn, National Post, 2002/04/04, but the link to the actual article seems broken) ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/4 "2003-01-23T19:28:10Z")
In the 25 July 2002 issue of London Review of Books there was an article by Michael Byers, who teaches international law at Duke University in North Carolina, titled Jumping the Gun. In it he discussed the international law behind the current situation, at least in regards to the pre-emptive military action idea. It all goes back to an 1837 incident involving a Canadian revolt against the British, and a U.S. militia using a steamboat called the _Caroline_ to transport arms and men across the Niagara River. I can’t do Mr. Byers’s article justice, please read it in the link provided above. It should help shed some light on the subject. However, if I may give my two cents, in light of _Caroline_, none of the actions you described in your OP would seem to constitute a military attack on the U.S. I think that’s why the administration is so desperate to connect Saddam w/ bin Laden. Now, regarding the U.N. resolution about inspectors and disclosure and whatnot, that’s a whole other ball game as far as I know. But I get the impression that the U.N. has to give the green light before action may be taken on that front. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/5 "2003-01-23T19:34:45Z")
International law is incredibly complex, because it largely depends on what treaties each nation involved has _ratified_… there are several major treaties the United States signed but never ratified. Being a democracy, that’s as good as a pinky swear. I’ll leave my opinions on some of those treaties out of this coughICcough. As for your 3 points, they are all also complex. On the one hand, they are enforcing the no-fly zone put in place by the (asinine) treaty signed to end the Gulf War. On the other hand, I don’t have a text of that treaty, so I don’t know if _we_ have violated, when it ends, etc… Also, there are points such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iraq signed and broke. In any case, treaty law isn’t exactly courtroom law… for one, treaties are broken in their details by pretty much everyone. I don’t recall the UN charter forbidding military action by its members (which makes sense, since most UN member nations have taken part in non-UN sanctioned battles/wars at one time or another). At most, anyway, the UN would only be able to condemn the US and boot us out of more committees. CHAPTER VI PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES [http://www.un.org/Overview/Charter/chapter6.html](http://www.un.org/Overview/Charter/chapter6.html) CHAPTER VII ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION [http://www.un.org/Overview/Charter/chapter7.html](http://www.un.org/Overview/Charter/chapter7.html) I think this is most relevant: > [@](#): > > Article 51 (Chapter VII) > > Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. For justification of terrorism charges, see UN sources: [http://untreaty.un.org/English/Terrorism.asp](http://untreaty.un.org/English/Terrorism.asp) [http://untreaty.un.org/English/tersumen.htm](http://untreaty.un.org/English/tersumen.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/6 "2003-01-23T19:57:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by js\_africanus \* > \*\*It all goes back to an 1837 incident involving a Canadian revolt against the British, and a U.S. militia using a steamboat called the _Caroline_ to transport arms and men across the Niagara River. > \*\* Interesting read but I don’t think the _Caroline_ incident is completely applicable. > [@](#): > > The Caroline case did nothing to prevent aggression, but it did draw a legal distinction between war and self-defence. **As long as the act being defended against was not itself an act of war** , peace would be maintained - a matter of considerable importance to relatively weak countries, as the United States then was. > > SOURCE: > [Jumping the Gun](http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n14/byer01_.html) (Bolding is mine) I am maintaining that what I cited in my OP do, in fact, constitute acts of war. Further, the _Caroline_ was made up of a private militia and not technically an act of the US government. Splitting hairs maybe but many (maybe even most) countries support armed actions ‘behind the scenes’ so they themselves don’t get embroiled in the conflict themselves. Generally those don’t seem to constitute acts of war. Iraq, on the other hand, is directly taking action. They are firing in US planes, they are paying suicide bombers (which are effectively smart bombs) to attack their perceived enemies and so on. Is war only truly ‘justified’ when an opposing country lands 50,000 troops on one of your beaches? What does it take? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/7 "2003-01-23T20:20:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*Iraq, on the other hand, is directly taking action. They are firing in US planes, they are paying suicide bombers (which are effectively smart bombs) to attack their perceived enemies and so on. > > Is war only truly ‘justified’ when an opposing country lands 50,000 troops on one of your beaches? What does it take? \*\* To follow modern international “law,” an attack on national territory or citizens, but a war isn’t a war until one of the parties declares it so. England and France declared war on Germany because of aggression against neighboring nations, much like we did with Kuwait - but they just kinda sat there for a year or so before Germany decided to invade France. On the other hand, America and the USSR did not declare war until they were attacked in turn. Going back to WWI, America didn’t declare war and later declared war for a hazy variety pack of reasons largely having to do with national politics and popular sentiment and very little to do with Germany doing anything different. There is no black and white definition for war being justified, triggered, or decalred, including invasion, these days. Whether ANY war is _justified_ will always be a debate, but war can be entered into at will, the only restraints being treaties and reputation. Keep in mind that America has been sitting around taking part in unofficial shooting wars around the globe for the past 50 years. This is public when we do something stupid like shoot down an Iranian passenger jet or screw up invading island nations to our south or drop a few choppers into a city or the like. In fact, we’ve gotten quite good and unleashing a can of whoop ass and making the end result look like we didn’t (witness: Afghanistan). ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/8 "2003-01-23T20:42:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zagadka \* > \*\*To follow modern international “law,” an attack on national territory or citizens, but a war isn’t a war until one of the parties declares it so. \*\* I understand that the reality is different from the theory. International law is all well and good but doesn’t amount to much as it lacks in enforcement. Bottom line is countries will likely do what is in their own interest and screw the ‘law’. If they can claim the ‘right’ under international law then great…it’s worth something to say you are justified…but it isn’t likely to stop anyone. Still, the US, at least for now, is trying hard to abide by international law (ok…skirting the edge for now and that may change). Nevertheless the effort is being made and other countries will hoot and holler that the US is not abiding by international law and gain whatever political juice they can from that. By the definition above I’d say the US already has the ‘right’ to go to war but obviously it is dicier than that. I just don’t see why the US, in nice diplomatic terms, doesn’t tell the world that frankly we already have all the provokation we need to go to war. Anything else we do to avoid war (UN speechifying, sanctions and such) is merely because we’re being nice about it. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/9 "2003-01-23T20:54:30Z")
They won’t hollar about international law. They’ll hollar about it being unjust and imperialistic. The only people who would really complain about the law are the UN, Amnesty International, and the City of Berkeley. :-p What we are looking for is justification, mostly domestic and regional. Your average American doesn’t like war, and has to be convinced that there is a reason - and this extends to a little thing called “Congress” we have which has something or other to say about it. If we find proof of the violations (of which the US has also been guilty, but shhh) we can say that we are going to war to do _this_ and _that_, to protect the people of the United States. Similarly, we need at least grudging apathy from the regional nations. The Saudis are hardly stable as is, but they’ll go along. Kuwait didn’t even support invading Iraq. They have some fairly legitimate concerns for what the US will leave _in place_ of Saddam, and we can’t just walk into a hostile area and start knocking off leaders, or _no one_ will work with us or value our treaties. We need a reason to do so, at least superficially, a reason that no other country can ignore. Diplomacy is often a very subtle and silly game, but a necessary one. If we just walk in and drop a bomb onto Saddam’s lap a la “Hot Shots,” we’ll make more problems for ourselves than we could solve with it… this is what we did to piss everyone off and start the terrorism in the first place. :-p ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/10 "2003-01-23T20:55:48Z")
By definition, International Law is an oxymoron. Something that makes a nation a nation is the laws contained _within it._ There can be treaties and agreements etc. between nations, but not laws. The power to enforce a law stops at the border, and the only real way to extend that power across the border is to remove the border (i.e. make them one nation). So saying whether its ‘legal’ or not for the US to attack Iraq today or anytime is completely meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/11 "2003-01-23T20:57:05Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* **[li] Iraq takes regular potshots at US/Allied aircraft and has been for years. So far they’ve only managed to nail a few unmanned drones. Nevertheless doesn’t shooting at another country’s aircraft that are legally where they are supposed to be constitute an act of war?**[/li][/Quote] The no-fly zones were never approved by the UN security council so technically under international law, that air space is Iraqi and they can shoot at intruders as they like. I’m not saying that I don’t think the no fly zones were not justified, but you did ask for the international law aspect… [QUOTE] \*\* [li] Saddam Hussein is in breach of his initial surrender agreement from the Gulf War. Technically doesn’t that allow the US to say the war is on again?\*\*[/li][/quote] I think his agreement to end hostilities was with the UN and so only the UN can legally re-start the war. [QUOTE] \*\* [li] Today on NPR someone mentioned that Saddam Hussein offers $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers and the person speaking mentioned that essentially constitutes an act of piracy which throughout history has been justification enough to go to war.\*\*[/li][/QUOTE] That’s an interesting interpretation of an act of piracy. But I do believe that Israel could invoke the right to self-defense against Iraq. I’m not sure how that pertains to allies like the US, I guess we could use that pretense. That just doesn’t happen to be the one we are using. Things could get diplomatically difficult considering many of the anti-Israeli funding comes from supposed US allies in the region. ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/12 "2003-01-23T21:04:40Z")
**Whack-a-Mole** , you asked a question in GQ and I provided a link to a credible answer from a professor of int’l. law at a respectable university. Nothing mentioned in the OP has come about since 25 July 2002, I’m sure he was aware of them when he wrote the piece on the _Caroline_ incident. With all due respect, if the professor of int’l. law doesn’t consider those to be acts of war, then maybe you should reconsider your position. Otherwise, ask a mod. to move this to GD. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/13 "2003-01-23T21:13:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blackclaw \* > \*\*The no-fly zones were never approved by the UN security council so technically under international law, that air space is Iraqi and they can shoot at intruders as they like. \*\* > [@](#): > > On the wider issue of air operations in Iraq, both fixed -wing and rotary, Iraq will guarantee the safety of > air operations in its air space outside the no -fly zones. With regard to air operations in the no -fly zones, Iraq will > take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations. > > SOURCE: [United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002)](http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement) (PDF File) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/14 "2003-01-23T21:19:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by js\_africanus \* > \*\*With all due respect, if the professor of int’l. law doesn’t consider those to be acts of war, then maybe you should reconsider your position. Otherwise, ask a mod. to move this to GD. \*\* Professors can have agendas too. I don’t think his article answered all of my questions and I gave one reason why I disagreed (I had other bones of contention as well). Even us poor, illiterate goobs are allowed our opinions. You’re free attach your opinions to those of others without insepction…I won’t. If a Mod feels this needs to go to GD they are welcome (not that they need my permission). It may have been too broad and difficult a question to ask in GQ. ---
**Author:** ![greco\_loco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a5b964/32.png) [@greco\_loco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greco_loco)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/15 "2003-01-23T21:47:34Z")
Some quick points here: There is no “treaty” ending Desert Storm: the only document put in place was a “ceasefire”, officially known as UNSCR 687. Ceasefires are temporary, unlike treaties and armistices, so this weakens the US position considerably. In addition, nowhere in the document are the overflights specified - they are not a condition of the ceasefire, so they can be considered (and are considered by many) to be without legal authority. If you want support of Palestinian suicide bombers to be one of the conditions justifying a war, then why pick the Iraqis out of the bunch? They aren’t the only ones - the Saudis have contributed, as have people in Qatar and the UAE. Want to widen the scope of this war even further? No matter how you cut it, it would still be up to the UN, as the deciding body and signatory to the ceasefire (the primary document terminating hostilities) to make any determinations of war, not the US. Unless, of course, us or one of our allies was under direct attack, which is not currently the case. Thanks - Greco ---
**Author:** ![greco\_loco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a5b964/32.png) [@greco\_loco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greco_loco)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/16 "2003-01-23T21:51:42Z")
BTW here is a link to the document, if interested. [http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/peace/docs/scres687.html](http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/peace/docs/scres687.html) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/17 "2003-01-23T22:08:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by greco\_loco \* > There is no “treaty” ending Desert Storm: the only document put in place was a “ceasefire”, officially known as UNSCR 687. Ceasefires are temporary, unlike treaties and armistices, so this weakens the US position considerably. I do not know the legal implications of a ceasefire vs. an armistice. To my mind it would seem a ceasefire would be an even simpler thing to undo. E.G. “We’ll stop shooting for now IF you do X, Y and Z. Don’t do those things and the shooting starts again.” Maybe too simplistic but any clarification would be nice. > [@](#): > > In addition, nowhere in the document are the overflights specified - they are not a condition of the ceasefire, so they can be considered (and are considered by many) to be without legal authority. They are specified now. Unfortunately my previous link to the relevant document above seems to have a time limit and it expired so I’ll provide the text again and a link one step back. Since this was passed I know a few unmanned spy planes have been shot down. I’m unsure if regular aircraft (with pilots) have taken fire or not. > [@](#): > > On the wider issue of air operations in Iraq, both fixed -wing and rotary, Iraq will guarantee the safety of air operations in its air space outside the no -fly zones. With regard to air operations in the no -fly zones, Iraq will take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations. > > SOURCE: [United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002)](http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm) > [@](#): > > If you want support of Palestinian suicide bombers to be one of the conditions justifying a war, then why pick the Iraqis out of the bunch? They aren’t the only ones - the Saudis have contributed, as have people in Qatar and the UAE. Want to widen the scope of this war even further? Because Saddam has taken it from behind the curtain and placed it centerstage. His payments are well known and well advertised. Giving $25,000 to a given group could ostensibly be for humanitarian purposes (food and such even if everyone knows that isn’t really the case). Giving $25,000 (which I read is equivalent to a Palestinian family of around $600,000 if they lived in the US) to someone specifically if the blow themselves up AND take out Americans and/or Israelis is something else entirely. How does that differ from buying a $25,000 bomb and dropping it on a bus stop? I imagine most would find that an overtly aggressive act. ---
**Author:** ![greco\_loco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a5b964/32.png) [@greco\_loco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greco_loco)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/18 "2003-01-23T22:48:04Z")
Regarding the cease-fire agreement: once again, whether temporary or not, it was not between the US and Iraq, but the UN and Iraq. Though we are a member of the UN, we are not the signatory party to the agreement. UNSCR 1441 does indeed try to give some validation to the no-fly zones; I don’t know what a court would hold if such a “modification” were done in domestic civil or criminal law, but it probably wouldn’t be pretty. In this case, I think it would be safe to say that the UN was simply appeasing us by admitting the status quo. Once again - Saddam is one of crowd on this last accusation: Saudi publicly set aside over $50 Million for this express purpose, and has done so publicly since at least 2000. Though the administration (and many others, obviously) refuse to admit it, it is absolutely no different from what Saddam has done. He has set an amount (so much for wounds, so much for dying in combat, the highest for a suicide), but the Saudis definitely pay out to individuals, not just organizations. A telethon last year raised $110 Million in support of “organizations” such as Hamas and Al Aqsa Brigades; however, the individual payments are documented. Like I have said before: I live here, and I see it - shows on television showing Saudis handing money to families of Palestinians killed by Israelis, and those that have blown themselves up as well. If you need the cites, no problem, but about 2 minutes on Google will tell you I am right. And, once again, you would have to classify them as “overtly aggressive” as Saddam; so where are the war drums, then? ---
**Author:** ![greco\_loco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a5b964/32.png) [@greco\_loco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greco_loco)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/19 "2003-01-23T22:49:28Z")
Here is a quick link: it’s last year’s but it makes the point pretty clearly. [http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/09042002-050314-4015r.htm](http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/09042002-050314-4015r.htm) Thanks ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2003, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/20 "2003-01-23T23:00:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > **Even us poor, illiterate goobs are allowed our opinions.** Not on points of fact. Your argument that Iraq has engaged in acts of war against the U.S. and its allies boils down to this statement: “I am maintaining that what I cited in my OP do, in fact, constitute acts of war.” If they did, then by the quote from the _Caroline_ article you offered, the U.S. would be justified. However, it doesn’t seem that firing on a third party who is taking sides in a civil war, breaking a treaty, and compensating the families of those who die fighting against apartheid and ethnic cleansing under the guise of “settlement” building by a gov’t. headed by a known war criminal and a state which hasn’t seriously sought peace for quite some time evidently don’t qualify as acts of war. If they did, you wouldn’t be asking the question. Sorry the _Caroline_ article didn’t hit your question on the head, but it did seem relevant. The “acts of war” argument seem to have been completely absent from the public debate, which has (from what I have seen) revolved around the pre-emptive defense issue, with the apparently sole exception of the Iraq-bin Laden link, as I mentioned before. Whether one agrees with the Bush=war slogans of the peace demonstrators, the fact remains that any legal justification the administration has to go to war makes the threat that much more powerful. At this point the theory that Bush is a hard-core peacenik who plays a mean game of brinkmanship is just as credible as the Bush loves killing theory. Surely, Bush would not weaken his hand by throwing away an ace! Why the admistration doesn’t consider those to qualify as acts of war is a question I can’t answer. But if they did, wouldn’t the administration utilize them to full effect? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494.md?page=2)