Why is the U.S. not facing economic sanctions from its illegal war? - Page 2

Imran Siddiqui · June 14, 2003, 14:59

Quote:

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

I don't think so. This flare up was in direct response to the French actions... it happened right afterwards.

Giancarlo · June 14, 2003, 15:37

Finding myself in agreement with boddington and panag is an odd occurrance. I think too, it would of been completely immoral not to liberate the Iraqi people. I am very angry at the peaceniks who protested against the liberation of the Iraqi people. I also think something should be done about Africa... not sure what. First things first, Charles Taylor must be arrested and tried.

DinoDoc · June 14, 2003, 15:57

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
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).

What peace process?

Q Classic · June 14, 2003, 18:35

actually, it's more based on apparent bush-being-idiot-ruining-everything bit.

Cyclotron · June 14, 2003, 18:47

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.

You're hilarious, you know that?

Dis · June 15, 2003, 02:34

how is america sabataging the peace process in Korea?

You lefties are nuts.

If by not giving in to extortion consitutes sabatage- well then we may be guilty of that.

Unlike certain presidents who shall remain nameless, Bush will not cave in to N. Korean extortion.

Dis · June 15, 2003, 02:36

as for the legality of it.

Well as far as I know international law isn't that specific about war.

The war is not illegal, therefore it must be legal

While I don't like going to war except in self defense, I do believe this war had some good outcomes. Like we aren't dependant on Saudi bases or oil anymore

The Mad Monk · June 15, 2003, 03:58

Ah yes, the Saudis.

Their time is coming.

Spiffor · June 15, 2003, 04:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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.

International wars that are not sanctioned by the UN are illegal in regard of the international law, which has been written by the UN (i.e by the US, USSR and Britain back in 1945).
The only exception is self defense. A nation is in its whole right to defend itself, UN blessing or not. Pre-emptive wars do not count, and like any other agressive war, it has to be mandated by the UN to be legal.

Gulf War 1 was an agressive war (it wasn't Kuweit defending itself, nor the US honoring some defensive alliance à la NATO), which was justified by the UN. It was legal, just like the Korea war. That didn't make it right or wrong, just legal.

Gulf War 2 was technically an agressive war, no matter if you think it was justified for security reasons or not : the US haven't been actually attacked by the Iraqi State and have declared them war nonetheless.
The US failed to have their war rubberstamped by the UN, making it technically illegal.

The argument that Saddam didn't meet the requirements of past resolutions is wrong, since these past resolutions called for a decision to be made by the UN Security Council. It's not like it was written in the resolutions "the US may declare war to Iraq if the latter doesn't comply".
The only clearly stated consequence of Saddam not giving up his WMD program was the sanction regime. No matter how murderous the sanctions were, these were legal. Again, legality didn't make them right.

For a simple comparison, you may hate the Patriot Act, but it is a perfectly legal text, adopted by the Congress, enforced by judges and such. OTOH, if you go to kill a neighbour you feel strongly threatening to your life and the life of your family, it is illegal.

But it's no wonder that this poll has turned into a "are you for or against the war ?" poll.

Spiffor · June 15, 2003, 04:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
By the way, the war was backed by resolution 1441. Saddam violated the resolution therefore the serious consquences outlined by the resolution occurred. War.

Wrong. 1441 "serious consequences" mean that the UNSC had to meet again to decide on the specifics : war, further economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, whatever... The "2nd resolution" Bush and Blair have wanted to pass were exactly in the spirit of 1441 : Now that Saddam has shown he didn't cooperate, it is time to decide what the serious consequence will be.

The UN didn't back a resolution calling to a second war in Iraq. Maybe because of France's obstruction (you can tell that if it helps you feeling good). But it means the war had no legality behind it. "Serious consequences" isn't the literal equivalent of "being attacked by American and British troops".

Dis · June 15, 2003, 04:53

But what about the UN resolution past last fall?

I don't know the exact wording, but I thought it called for use of force if Iraq did not comply with weapons inspections.

Spiffor · June 15, 2003, 04:58

Quote:

I think too, it would of been completely immoral not to liberate the Iraqi people.

This has nothing to do with the law. What is legal isn't necessarily moral, and vice-versa.

PLATO :
I am absolutely sure that every lawyer who hold a position on the issue had an agenda, whether pro-war or anti war. Or ha has been bought by a group with an agenda to strengthen it.

Let's just say that I wonder why the US went to such lengths to have UN approval, if the war was already legal by the old 1991 (or 1992 ?) resolution, like some people pretended at the beginning of the war.

You seem to know the UN well. Is there any resolution post Gulf War 1 which explicitely mandates the US to attack Iraq ?

Spiffor · June 15, 2003, 05:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
But what about the UN resolution past last fall?

I don't know the exact wording, but I thought it called for use of force if Iraq did not comply with weapons inspections.

Resolution 1441 (the one you mention) says :
"13.Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"

"Serious Consequences" could be anything you want. The half-assed wording was a result of consensus between France and the US. At that time, France was undecided about the war in general, but demanded to do it with the proper process.