Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blike

To those against war on Iraq

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Radical Edward

where are you heading with this conjecture?

We may well also ask "and this justifies unsanctioned military action how....?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by blike

question or two

 

Assuming we go to war (big assumption eh), if Iraq uses chemical/biological weapons against our troops, will you say that we were right?

 

War does'nt solve anything. So if we go to war and win. What happens when someone else takes his place?:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
where are you heading with this conjecture?

 

Pointing out that its not a lame accusation, but a valid threat to national security.

 

"and this justifies unsanctioned military action how....?"

 

If the UN isn't going to sanction it, the US should not have to keep sitting on its hands while Saddam is funding or supplying chemical or biological agents to terrorist projects against us. This is, of course, assuming this was going on. In this case, the only people the American government is responsible to are the American people. If the US government does nothing because of international formalities while Saddam continues to be a threat to our country, directly or indirectly, it will have failed the sole purpose of its existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the US invades Iraq without UN sanctioning they will be committing an illegal act.

 

This will make you terrorists.

 

Furthermore, it will create a state of war legitimising any of Hussein's counterattacks.

 

 

For America to lay aside the ideals it has subscribed to for so long simply because it is impatient for the UN to come to a decision is ludicrous. The message Bush is sending out is "We are Amercia. We can attack anyone, at any time, for any reason".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only illegal if they pass a resolution explicitly stating that it's illegal.

 

And no, this is not sarcasm, it's the reality of UN diplomacy. This is why Iraq is allowed to continually attack coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone without the UN saying they're not supposed to, because no resolution explicitly said they couldn't.

This explanation comes from a politcal science professor who studies middle-east politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doesn't matter if they're on the security council or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.....kay...

 

Have you read that article LuTze linked to yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by fafalone

It's only illegal if they pass a resolution explicitly stating that it's illegal.

No, what you (and us, unfortunately) are doing is ignoring the UN completely. The charter is quite clear. Chapter VII (Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of agression), article 39 states: -

 

"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."

 

With article 42 saying: -

 

"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."

 

So, you're breaking the UN charter, which America has signed up to. Bush can't just 'decide' this sort of thing doesn't apply.

 

Oh, and article 51 states: -

 

"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"

 

But that doesn't apply, seeing as Saddam hasn't attacked you.

 

Read the charter at http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

 

This is why Iraq is allowed to continually attack coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone without the UN saying they're not supposed to
That isn't the reason at all. The no-fly zones have never been sanctioned by the UN. They are enforced by the USA and UK without a UN mandate. Iraq has a perfect right to try and defend it's soverign territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of which lead us back to the same point. A war against Iraq with the UN vetoing the action is against international law.

 

It's just that simple.

 

A more interesting developement has emerged now. As the US, UK and Spain can not get the UN support the new plan is to bring peace to Palestinian (!) as a part of a plan to bring peace to the middle east. Happily this includes Iraq, so the plan for war now has a humanitarian ;) slant.

 

End of Palestinian violence against Israelis

Israel to begin withdrawal from Palestinian areas re-occupied since September 2000

Reform of Palestinian institutions including leadership

Freeze in Jewish settlement building

Proposed peace monitors

"Provisional" Palestinian state in 2003

Peace treaty by 2005

 

To my mind this is childish and just the sort of interference which will unite the middle east against the UK and US. I've gone over my concerns in another thread, but this is getting close to a religious war.

 

A religious war with the middle east is just about the most dangerous thing to get started. It's on the same level as setting off random nuclear wepons in every other US state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A war against Iraq with the UN vetoing the action is against international law.

 

Yes. The issue I am making is that if we are prohibited from taking action we feel is necessary to ensure national security, the law be damned.

 

A religious war with the middle east is just about the most dangerous thing to get started. It's on the same level as setting off random nuclear wepons in every other US state.

 

Definatly. Muslims are not ones to enter religious wars with :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by blike

Yes. The issue I am making is that if we are prohibited from taking action we feel is necessary to ensure national security, the law be damned.

That just brings us back to the point that Iraq hasn't threatened your 'national security' in any way. There is no proven link between them and Al-Queda (In fact, British intelligence has effectively disproved any link).

 

This is an illegal, pre-emptive strike, whichever way you look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're going off-topic in a major thread again.

 

We're discussing faf's comments instead of the questions asked in the first post.

 

This is probably worthy of two threads imo, as both discussions are very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by blike

Yes. The issue I am making is that if we are prohibited from taking action we feel is necessary to ensure national security, the law be damned.

 

The problem with that policy is that you can do anything with it. Look at North Korea. Their national security has been directly threatened by the U.S. You are saying that they are justified in taking any action that they feel necessary to protect themselves. So can Iran and Iraq and a good number of other countries who consider America a significant danger.

 

So if North Korea launched a few nukes at an American Fleet massed in the Sea of Japan, would you be saying "Well, that's ok, they're justified in doing that"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NK violated the NPT... they were NOT justified in doing this... so our response so far has been less than what it ought to be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by fafalone

NK violated the NPT... they were NOT justified in doing this... so our response so far has been less than what it ought to be

 

So what?? The U.S. exited the ABM treaty.....THEY WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DOING THIS!!!!:lame:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton opposed the UN council when the United States did the bombing campaign in Bosnia. After that America did not get more involved and let UN troops "handle the situation". NO GOOD.

I like to see people actually doing something such as protesting, compared to eating Taco Bell and McDonalds, in America now. But what surprises me more then Bush's pressure towards Iraq is when people (IN AMERICA) protest Bush; sometimes to the point of being a war Mongol. These people are those who just do not like Bush (Election Night) and it's become an International issue and joke. Are these people supporting Saddam? They never protest Saddam's Lack of co-operation with the UN council, Inspectors and crimes to humanity. Soldiers in Iraq are told the war may begin ANY SECOND. They are scared to the point of walking to the border and surrendering already. Once America smothers Iraq in an orderly fashion, it will make up the money it has lost through oil. GOOD ECONMOY. For other countries also. :).

France is just greedy because of their relations with $Iraq$ (France opposed the new U.K. Resolution before the Iraqis did). Russia is along for the ride behind France, but Russia knows they cannot expect too much.

America is not ALONE on Iraq. Britain has stressed many times that they will have a significant part in a war with Iraq. What will happen to Iraq when the United States and Britain take power? GOOD THINGS. I doubt we'll see a regime similar to Saddams'.

Public opinion on the war is still for REMOVING SADDAM. He has just won the "election" for another seven year term, so I understand inspectors visiting for the next $seven years$, but THINK OF THE PEOPLE. WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

<<<<<:Cry:Tears of Pain:Cry:>>>>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by fafalone

NK violated the NPT... they were NOT justified in doing this... so our response so far has been less than what it ought to be

NO they did not violate the NPT.

 

They announced they were bowing out from the treaty in the same week that they turned on a nuclear power station. This is perfectly legal and up to them.

 

Pogo, some thoughts:

 

* Attacking Bush's policy on Iraq does not mean that one supports Hussein. You can't just cry "If you're not with us you're against us" in a situation as complex as this and hope that sorts things out.

 

* France jumped on Russia's bandwagon, not the other way around.

 

* Don't assume Tony Blair's promises to be analagous with the support of Britain. Polls show 70% of Britons oppose going to war, and Blair only has 11% support in his own cabinet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These people are those who just do not like Bush (Election Night) and it's become an International issue and joke.

 

This is what I see all over the place. On an international level, sometimes I wonder who is really against war, and who is on the bandwagon against america.

 

Polls show 70% of Britons oppose going to war

 

45% of britons against war without UN mandate

 

 

edit: could be dated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by fafalone

NK violated the NPT... they were NOT justified in doing this... so our response so far has been less than what it ought to be

 

they are a sovereign nation. they can do what they please. What gives the US the right to bully everyone else about, and do what it pleases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Scud missiles are prohibited and Saddam doesn't have any, the Israelis shouldn't mind that he's moving launchers into striking range.

Doesn't anybody get the irony of his lies. We have to go in and secure all these things he doesn't have. And common sense says we'll find plenty.

Just aman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can't attack someone just because you think they have something, just like you can't stick someone in jail just because you think they commited a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Radical Edward

you can't attack someone just because you think they have something, just like you can't stick someone in jail just because you think they commited a crime.

 

At least the U.S. is consistent, they do that too.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeap... camp x-ray. a fine example of lawful detention and human rights if I ever saw one.

 

 

incidentally, It is not americans I have a problem with, it is the government and its foreign policy.... heh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Radical Edward

they are a sovereign nation. they can do what they please. What gives the US the right to bully everyone else about, and do what it pleases?

 

Well, we're a sovereign nation who can do what it pleases too, and right now it pleases us to attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.