Why is the U.S. not facing economic sanctions from its illegal war?

Dis · June 14, 2003, 03:57

Of course that all depends on if you agree the war was illegal or not.

What is an illegal war? I hear the term thrown around a lot. I myself have been using the word illegal quite a bit the last 2 days. It just sounds more dramatic

. But seriously, why is it this war was considered illegal, while others are not?

As for the sanctions, well I know the answer to that already, I just had to put the question for the thread title.

Now in march I wouldn't have said this war was illegal, and I didn't. I had no problem with the war in Iraq. But you have to admit, the lack of weapons of mass destruction has to change the legality of it doesn't it? After all, that is what the war was about. If none are found, the war has to be illegal, doesn't it?

Nubclear · June 14, 2003, 05:38

Wars not santioned by the UN are illegal.

This war was not sanctioned by the UN.

Therefore this war was illegal.

Lancer · June 14, 2003, 05:48

No nation in their right mind would sanction the country whose consumers fuel the world economy, whether we're right or wrong.

Bereta_Eder · June 14, 2003, 05:53

If only terrorists were affected by global economics.

Bereta_Eder · June 14, 2003, 05:55

Eu is a larger market than the US BTW which explained ampty the bending backwards of dybua to Mr. Chirac after the war.

Lancer · June 14, 2003, 05:57

"Eu is a larger market than the US BTW which explained ampty the bending backwards of dybua to Mr. Chirac after the war."

Sure, but the US is the engine of the world. Actually US consumer debt is.

Bereta_Eder · June 14, 2003, 06:01

Just an engine amongst many others. And not the biggest market at that. It is dynamic though even if that means codnemning its people to no welfare and massive arms spending. but hey big corporations need to protect their interests

Sarxis · June 14, 2003, 06:53

Hey, I, and probably the majority of low-middle and lower class Americans, would LOVE for world sanctions against us.

It'd allow us to get our jobs back from overseas.

Proteus_MST · June 14, 2003, 07:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Wars not santioned by the UN are illegal.

This war was not sanctioned by the UN.

Therefore this war was illegal.

Q Classic · June 14, 2003, 07:26

why is war not sanctioned by the un illegal?

nations in the un have not given up their soverignty to the un...

Imran Siddiqui · June 14, 2003, 13:14

QCubed:

Exactly. To say wars not sanctioned by the UN are illegal is being dense. No country has given up their military or decision making power to the UN.

Which wars are illegal? No wars are illegal... except if you lose.

Ming · June 14, 2003, 13:19

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
BTW which explained ampty the bending backwards of dybua to Mr. Chirac after the war.

Gee... I remember it the other way around... Chirac has been trying to kiss Bush's butt ever since the war ended. Bush being nice back just means he's allowing Chirac to shove his nose even farther in.

Shi Huangdi · June 14, 2003, 13:31

Legal, because we had the force to win and get away with it. Simple.

Giancarlo · June 14, 2003, 13:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
why is war not sanctioned by the un illegal?

nations in the un have not given up their soverignty to the un...

I concur.

The UN is not the ruler of the world, they do not set the guidelines nor should they.

By the way, the war was backed by resolution 1441. Saddam violated the resolution therefore the serious consquences outlined by the resolution occurred. War. So it was backed by the UN whether you like to admit it or not. A second resolution was not necessary.

The war was legal. To say otherwise is inaccurate. The lack of weapons of mass destruction does not change the legality of the war nor will it. The fact is clearly this: Saddam didn't comply with resolution 1441. What stunned me the most is if he didn't have weapons of mass destruction why oh why didn't he come clean in the first place? That is the question I give to those people who claim Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

Therefore the war was justified in all counts and was backed by a multilateral coalition of 52 nations.

oedo · June 14, 2003, 13:42

yep, one even should say not going to war against Iraq would have been illegal and should have caused economic sanctions against the US.

Sava · June 14, 2003, 13:53

Quote:

Why is the U.S. not facing economic sanctions from its illegal war?

Because foreign countries are smart enough to know that economic sanctions, in a global economy, hurt everyone. And quite frankly, the European objections to US policy (or anti-Americanism if you want to play the name game) is based upon the US's own actions and not ignorant stereotypes (i.e. French bashing).

Giancarlo · June 14, 2003, 13:56

Quote:

the European objections to US policy

Not to be a nitpicker, but not all do.

Proteus_MST · June 14, 2003, 13:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
why is war not sanctioned by the un illegal?

nations in the un have not given up their soverignty to the un...

Quote:

Experts on international law have conflicting views about the rights and wrongs of any military conflict.

Some believe that the use of force would be justified under existing UN resolutions, so another vote is not needed.

...

A group of 16 academic lawyers have questioned the validity of an attack on Iraq under UN resolution 1441.

The letter, published in The Guardian newspaper, said use of force would only be justified in self-defence to armed attack or if a new resolution on force was passed.

A British academic, Professor Nicholas Grief, says this is not as far fetched as it may seem. He cites the Nuremberg charter of 1945, which established the concept of a crime against peace.

"There is a school of thought that going to war without the express authority of the Security Council would violate the UN charter," says Professor Grief.

"That could raise serious questions about the personal responsibility of President Bush and Mr Blair, and they could have a case to answer.

"They could be held to account in years to come. It is something they ought to be concerned about."

...

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2826331.stm

Imran Siddiqui · June 14, 2003, 13:57

Quote:

And quite frankly, the European objections to US policy (or anti-Americanism if you want to play the name game) is based upon the US's own actions and not ignorant stereotypes (i.e. French bashing).

Actually Sava, French bashing is also based upon France's own actions (actively trying to get the US's proposal to fail, instead of simply just saying they disagreed... something that allies shouldn't normally do).

Grandpa Troll · June 14, 2003, 14:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Wars not santioned by the UN are illegal.

This war was not sanctioned by the UN.

Therefore this war was illegal.

Is terrorism not a War? One would think people would understand that in order to slow down terrorism, you have to strike at all fronts, those that train terrorists, finance terrorists, harbor terrorists and condone terrorist activities should be shown what happens when you continually attack countries. Innocent civilians or Military forces being attacked, same deal, :

You Play

You Pay

If the United Nations doesnt have the stomach for this, well, we the US of A do and we dont mind carrying the Torch of Freedom..AGAIN!

Yes, Torch of Freedom means doing what is necessary to get the job done!

Peace

Grandpa Troll

St Leo · June 14, 2003, 14:07

Actually Sava, French bashing is also based upon France's own actions (actively trying to get the US's proposal to fail, instead of simply just saying they disagreed... something that allies shouldn't normally do).

Similarly, South Korean US bashing is based upon America's own actions (actively trying to sabotage the peace process... something that allies shouldn't normally do).

Grandpa Troll · June 14, 2003, 14:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

Gee... I remember it the other way around... Chirac has been trying to kiss Bush's butt ever since the war ended. Bush being nice back just means he's allowing Chirac to shove his nose even farther in.

Nothing like a good French Kiss..eh?

Peace

Grandpa Troll

Solly · June 14, 2003, 14:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Wars not santioned by the UN are illegal.

This war was not sanctioned by the UN.

Therefore this war was illegal.

The war was part of the serious consequences outlined in a resolution you ought to be aware of.

Proteus_MST · June 14, 2003, 14:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's

The war was part of the serious consequences outlined in a resolution you ought to be aware of.

That´s the difficult question where also many Professors of Law (who should know it better than we do) are divided

Quote:

Professor Warbrick agrees. Not only is there no imminent threat from Iraq, he says, but the UK Government has not demonstrated a link between the regime in Baghdad and any terrorist group who might pose such a threat.

Without a second resolution, he says, it would be unlawful for the UK to use military force against Iraq.

Quote:

"Authorisation by the Security Council for action needs to be explicit," he says.

"The draft resolution does not contain the authority to use force, neither does Resolution 1441.

"Resolution 1441 does talk about 'serious consequences' for Iraq, but the decision on what that means should be reserved for the Security Council.

"It should set precise mandates, time limits, and a mechanism for accountability."

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2826331.stm

Sava · June 14, 2003, 14:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

And quite frankly, the European objections to US policy (or anti-Americanism if you want to play the name game) is based upon the US's own actions and not ignorant stereotypes (i.e. French bashing).

Actually Sava, French bashing is also based upon France's own actions (actively trying to get the US's proposal to fail, instead of simply just saying they disagreed... something that allies shouldn't normally do).

Maybe for the intelligent French detractors, which represents about 0.1% of the French bashing movement.

PLATO · June 14, 2003, 14:24

The war was clearly legal. Despite what a small group of lawyers who may have The Guardians ear may wish to believe. The vast majority of international law experts have repeatedly said it was legal.

Tassadar: Your question is really weather or not it was moral. That is a subject for debate.

Dissident: The US is not in violation of security council resolutions and therefore cannot be subject to sanction by that body.

Ming: Right on with Chirac comment!

Panag · June 14, 2003, 14:25

hi ,

if one believes this war was "illegal" , ......

well then so was the fight against the british when the US was born , ....

why would the us have to face sanctions for doing something the whole world is afraid off , ...

they all ready have some "sanctions" from the eu who has lifted some tax on certain goods like steel , .....

lets hope the us of a liberates the eu really fast

have a nice day

Sava · June 14, 2003, 14:42

There are no recognized laws regarding the legality of war. It's a question of morality, not law.

Solly · June 14, 2003, 14:46

It would have been immoral not to free the Iraqi people.

Panag · June 14, 2003, 14:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's
It would have been immoral not to free the Iraqi people.

hi ,

darn right , the U do Nothing was not going to do it , .....

lets hope the US gets a bit involved in africa also to stop the genocides there , ....

where would we be today without the US of A , ......

have a nice day