<strong>You can argue about the wisdom of war under current circumstances but legally you have no case here!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
you haven't really followed this discussion to closely, have you? We went through this argumentation pages ago. There is not even agreement within the SC on Saddams compliance.
[quote]<strong>The two are intertwined - one part cannot happen without the other part taking place, so, in effect what we have here is a SC resolution that all involved parties are in breach of - that's it - nothing to do with the legality or the absence of legality of the continued Israeli occupation - note that the resolution doesn't even call for the FULL withdrawal of Israeli forces from ALL territories occupied - clearly the SC meant for boundaries to be established as a result of peace treaties and negotiations such as those that have taken place between Israel and Egypt (the only case where res 242 was actually implemented) </strong><hr></blockquote>
FYI: The French version actually has the term "the territories". You can of-course fantasize all you want about the motives behind the resolution. There is no doubt about the true intention of the resolution, and mark that the US abstained from voting at the time.
[quote]<strong>You may not realize or mean to but in effect you are supporting Sadam!</strong><hr></blockquote>
You may not realize it, but in effect you are supporting the breach of international law. The fact that I think there are other ways to deal with Saddam , does not make me a supporter of him.
[quote]Originally posted by Goldstein:
<strong>We are talking about the intent to settle the score with Iraq, a country with which the U.S.A. is still in a state of war (unless they signed a peace treaty while I was asleep). Those things have happened before:I recall one fine sunny morning in October 1973, and nobody said Egypt or Syria were committing a "crime against peace", "illegal use of force", or any other grandiloquent phrasings.
While there are many reasonable critiques which can be leveled at the planned attack of the U.S. , ?illegality? not being one of them.
Whatever the faults of the U.S.' planned war against Iraq, it is more legitimate than the ongoing existence of the Saddam Hussain regime. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The war of 1973 is hardly comparable. What part of the US is Iraq occupying?
Jimmy Carter one of many reasonable people highly qualified to have an opinion on this, who thinks there is a question of breach of international law here.
I really don't see you backing up you claims with any qualified expertise, other than your own opinion.
[quote]<strong>"Illegal occupation" means the act of occupying in itself is illegal as such. One can address the unlawful nature of the unilateral annexation form the POV of international law, that's another thing; otherwise violations, crimes, excesses, misdemeanors, occuring since the conquest of 1967, are other things yet. Yet these don't make the act of military occupation illegal, therefore, they don't make the occupation illegal. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So if the americans started settling Hamburg after world war two, this wouldn't be a misuse of their right to occupy Germany? The Israeli Government(s) and the same armed forces that are occupying an area, use this right to knowingly and repeatedly break international law. The occupation didn't just happen in 67, its an ongoing event. And its current form is dire breach of international law.
[quote]<strong>The overwhelming majority of the settlements were built in uninhabited areas, which have been on state lands since Ottoman times. </strong><hr></blockquote>Are you saying no palestinians have been forcefully removed?
And study the map. It can't be that overwhelming. And it is illegal, even in uninhabited areas.
[quote]<strong>In comparison with Putin's and Chirac's records they certainly seems lofty and laudable. These two make Bush II look like a boy scout. </strong><hr></blockquote>He is a boy scout compared to those two. But he is making rapid progress. Guess who will be remembered most by history?
[quote]<strong>t's not so much about Saddam's arse, as it is about preserving the interests invested in his presidential posterior. A Saddam-less Iraq opens too many undertainties for them.
</strong><hr></blockquote>Saying that Russia and France is working to keep Sadam in power is naive. Everybody knows that Saddam will never make a comeback as one of the "good guys". Clearly this is about the US dictating the actions of the UN.
Personally I don't think Saddam wouldn't have lasted very long even without a war. But thats purely hypothetical, since war is just days away.
[quote]<strong>yet you wouldn't find there any reflections of views of such AI pundits and experts as New or Mika. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Yeah, let's kill them off quicker!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or we could oust the guy that keeps so much international pressure on them and by removing him remove the economic sanctions that kill them, giving them a chance at self-determination, peace (which they haven't had for over a decade) and economic/social success!
Or we could oust the guy that keeps so much international pressure on them and by removing him remove the economic sanctions that kill them, giving them a chance at self-determination, peace (which they haven't had for over a decade) and economic/social success! </strong><hr></blockquote>
And you can just oust him like that? You're going to ask him to leave and he'll leave? Wow...you're good groverat.
Oh wait, you mean go to war? Oh. Speaking of which...
<strong>And you can just oust him like that? You're going to ask him to leave and he'll leave? Wow...you're good groverat.
Oh wait, you mean go to war? Oh. Speaking of which...
Why isn't going to war illegal?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kofi Annan doesn't seem to mind <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2472652,00.html"; target="_blank">discussing ousting</a> Saddam Hussein. He even got an assistant of his to draw up plans for a post-war Iraq. Last I checked that's not in the spirit of the UN Charter either.
Hmmm, who *is* doing things by this law you mention?
If the Security Council goes with us then it's fine. If we go without the Security Council then that's our decision for self-defense, us being involved with the UN takes no sovreignty from us.
If the head of the UN doesn't respect its rules what does that say? Perhaps the US is the only entity you will chastise for bucking UN rules?
Kofi Annan doesn't seem to mind <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2472652,00.html"; target="_blank">discussing ousting</a> Saddam Hussein. He even got an assistant of his to draw up plans for a post-war Iraq. Last I checked that's not in the spirit of the UN Charter either. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Last you checked? How so? Go for it, show us.
Groverat: "Well Billy hit Susie so that means it's OK if I hit Johnny!" Take your child-like playground arguments back to the playground.
So we have Kofi Annan, secretary-general of the UN drawing up plans for a post-war Iraq and hinting that Saddam could be removed through international courts. Discussing the removal of the leader of a current UN member state seems to go against the spirit of "promoting international peace" does it not. You have spent quite a bit of energy saying that Saddam is dangerous if he is threatened (but not necessarily dangerous if we leave him alone). So I ask you, bunge, why is this belief you hold suspended for Kofi Annan?
So we have Kofi Annan, secretary-general of the UN drawing up plans for a post-war Iraq and hinting that Saddam could be removed through international courts. Discussing the removal of the leader of a current UN member state seems to go against the spirit of "promoting international peace" does it not.</strong><hr></blockquote>This post is just dumb, groverat. Just think about this for a minute.
You said that Coffee is blocking rules by discussing, uh, the rules by which action could be taken. I'll let others evaluate whether that's dumb or not.
Again, how is this against what the U.N. believes? At the very least if there is an attack, there will be a huge humanitarian crisis to take care of. Why on earth wouldn't they discuss it?
[quote]<strong>Again, how is this against what the U.N. believes? At the very least if there is an attack, there will be a huge humanitarian crisis to take care of. Why on earth wouldn't they discuss it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well first off there's a huge humanitarian crisis there that UN inaction is causing, but aside from that you ignore the part about Annan discussing overthrowing Hussein through the international court.
I guess if you want to ignore it you can, that's the way you've operated until now, no reason for that to change.
<strong>...you ignore the part about Annan discussing overthrowing Hussein through the international court. </strong><hr></blockquote>
From groverat's link:
[quote]
Eighteen judges took their seats Tuesday at the world's first permanent war crimes court, a long-awaited body that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said - without specifically mentioning Iraq - could help ``dismantle tyrannies'' and replace them with democratic regimes.<hr></blockquote>
"If the US and others were to go outside the Council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the Charter."
"now face a momentous choice" (on Iraq)"If they fail to agree on a common position, and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action will be seriously impaired."
you haven't really followed this discussion to closely, have you? We went through this argumentation pages ago. There is not even agreement within the SC on Saddams compliance. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't try to fob me off the argument like this New, resolution 1441 clearly states:
2.Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Decides , while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
3.Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
...............and this is the most pertinent bit - enabling the use of force as a remedy for noncompliance
13.Â*Â*Â*Â* 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;
I don't know about you but to me this is obvious and direct stuff.
Has Iraq supplied a full complete declaration? No!
Has it revealed all its WOMD and laid these down and destroyed in open daylight with the inspectors verification? No!
Its well known that Iraq has tons of Chemical and Bio agents it has not mentioned in its reports to the UN and to the Inspectors, that's noncompliance,
Iraq has failed to explain what has happened to these substances that the UN knows it had in 98, that's noncompliance!
Iraq has tried to hide numerous different weapon systems such as the Al-Samud missiles, the recently discovered unmaned aircraft Blix mentioned last friday in his report, various shells capable of delivering chemical and bio agents - all of these were not mentioned by the original Iraqi reports, nor were they revealed by the Iraqis willingly and swiftly that's noncompliance!
Iraq is still not providing full interview access to its scientists and engineers and generally it is trying its best to slow the inspectors work and is not in the least bit acting as 1441 demands it to act. the following quote form the resolution comes to mind:
4.Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq?s obligations
that's noncompliance!
Legaly the case against Iraq based on 1441 is loaded with legitimacy for war already! again I say you can argue about the WISDOM or POSSIBLE NEGATIVE RAMIFICATIONS of attacking Iraq NOW, but legally based on 1441 UN members are totally entitled to attack already. the anti-war camp's frankly pathetic attempts to cry "illegal" every time something they don't like happens is sooooooooo tiresome, argue your point based on values and reasoning instead of resorting to this lame pseudo-international-legal wrangling!
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
The fact that I think there are other ways to deal with Saddam, does not make me a supporter of him.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK, I'm listening, being one that would hate to see war again in the middle east I would love it if you could come up with a peaceful solution to this mess:
Whats your ideas then?
How do we remove Sadam?
How do we disarm Iraq from its WOMD?
How do we free the Iraqi people from the despotism of the Baath party?
<strong>"If the US and others were to go outside the Council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the Charter."
"now face a momentous choice" (on Iraq)"If they fail to agree on a common position, and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action will be seriously impaired."
Kofi Annan, Yesterday (from his own homepage)</strong><hr></blockquote>I saw this and I was going to post it in this thread, but I didn't want to get back into the silly debate over whether "war is illegal."
New, I'm curious - do you think that any military action that is not sanctioned by the UN is wrong? I'm thinking of Kosovo among others. My view is that international law is different from the laws governing democratic/republican nations like those in Europe and the US and Israel. If those national laws are wrong, they can be challenged in courts, or changed through direct voting. They are evaluated (in the US and many other countries) vis-a-vis a Constitution. You also have a right to a trial by jury and an attorney etc. if you are accused by your gov't of breaking those laws. You get my point.
If the UN doesn't act in a situation like Rwanda, it may be strictly speaking illegal for a nation to use military force, but what other recourse is there? In my view, international law just doesn't hold the same weight or credibility as national law, and if it's broken in the process of doing something that is right by reference to other standards, so be it.
rashumon, I think a good argument can be made that you're right. But here's the relevant paragraph in 1441:
[quote]12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security; <hr></blockquote>I think it's clear that those who voted for 1441 did so because it was understood that war was not automatic, and that further security council resolutions were necessary. Even Bush and Blair appear to believe this, given their push for further resolutions.
But just to go back to my previous post, the problem is that there is no judicial review and no enforcement of something like this. Who knows what it means? Who is going to be the one to judge what it means? Who is going to enforce it?
My view is that international law is different from the laws governing democratic/republican nations like those in Europe and the US and Israel. If those national laws are wrong, they can be challenged in courts, or changed through direct voting. They are evaluated (in the US and many other countries) vis-a-vis a Constitution. You also have a right to a trial by jury and an attorney etc. if you are accused by your gov't of breaking those laws. You get my point.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Very good point BRussell - I coulden't agree more! even though I still think that the legal case for war against Iraq is Solid! you highlight a much more important point.
I'm not trying to "fob you off". You're "fobing" yourself up b y echoing posts from page 4 of this thread and making us repeat things said before. It ruins any progress in the discussion. If you want answers to your post, you can go back to page 4 and 5, where they are already posted, sorry.
What is being debated is the right of the US to go at it alone. When the Security Council put the words "Serious consequences" down on paper they never gave anyone a mandate to define those words. These consequences are, according to the UN charter, up to the Security Council to decide.
Edit:Like BRussell points out is written in paragraph 12 of 1441.
Comments
<strong>You can argue about the wisdom of war under current circumstances but legally you have no case here!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
you haven't really followed this discussion to closely, have you? We went through this argumentation pages ago. There is not even agreement within the SC on Saddams compliance.
[quote]<strong>The two are intertwined - one part cannot happen without the other part taking place, so, in effect what we have here is a SC resolution that all involved parties are in breach of - that's it - nothing to do with the legality or the absence of legality of the continued Israeli occupation - note that the resolution doesn't even call for the FULL withdrawal of Israeli forces from ALL territories occupied - clearly the SC meant for boundaries to be established as a result of peace treaties and negotiations such as those that have taken place between Israel and Egypt (the only case where res 242 was actually implemented) </strong><hr></blockquote>
FYI: The French version actually has the term "the territories". You can of-course fantasize all you want about the motives behind the resolution. There is no doubt about the true intention of the resolution, and mark that the US abstained from voting at the time.
[quote]<strong>You may not realize or mean to but in effect you are supporting Sadam!</strong><hr></blockquote>
You may not realize it, but in effect you are supporting the breach of international law. The fact that I think there are other ways to deal with Saddam , does not make me a supporter of him.
[quote]Originally posted by Goldstein:
<strong>We are talking about the intent to settle the score with Iraq, a country with which the U.S.A. is still in a state of war (unless they signed a peace treaty while I was asleep). Those things have happened before:I recall one fine sunny morning in October 1973, and nobody said Egypt or Syria were committing a "crime against peace", "illegal use of force", or any other grandiloquent phrasings.
While there are many reasonable critiques which can be leveled at the planned attack of the U.S. , ?illegality? not being one of them.
Whatever the faults of the U.S.' planned war against Iraq, it is more legitimate than the ongoing existence of the Saddam Hussain regime. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The war of 1973 is hardly comparable. What part of the US is Iraq occupying?
Jimmy Carter one of many reasonable people highly qualified to have an opinion on this, who thinks there is a question of breach of international law here.
I really don't see you backing up you claims with any qualified expertise, other than your own opinion.
[quote]<strong>"Illegal occupation" means the act of occupying in itself is illegal as such. One can address the unlawful nature of the unilateral annexation form the POV of international law, that's another thing; otherwise violations, crimes, excesses, misdemeanors, occuring since the conquest of 1967, are other things yet. Yet these don't make the act of military occupation illegal, therefore, they don't make the occupation illegal. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So if the americans started settling Hamburg after world war two, this wouldn't be a misuse of their right to occupy Germany? The Israeli Government(s) and the same armed forces that are occupying an area, use this right to knowingly and repeatedly break international law. The occupation didn't just happen in 67, its an ongoing event. And its current form is dire breach of international law.
[quote]<strong>The overwhelming majority of the settlements were built in uninhabited areas, which have been on state lands since Ottoman times. </strong><hr></blockquote>Are you saying no palestinians have been forcefully removed?
And study the map. It can't be that overwhelming. And it is illegal, even in uninhabited areas.
[quote]<strong>In comparison with Putin's and Chirac's records they certainly seems lofty and laudable. These two make Bush II look like a boy scout. </strong><hr></blockquote>He is a boy scout compared to those two. But he is making rapid progress. Guess who will be remembered most by history?
[quote]<strong>t's not so much about Saddam's arse, as it is about preserving the interests invested in his presidential posterior. A Saddam-less Iraq opens too many undertainties for them.
</strong><hr></blockquote>Saying that Russia and France is working to keep Sadam in power is naive. Everybody knows that Saddam will never make a comeback as one of the "good guys". Clearly this is about the US dictating the actions of the UN.
Personally I don't think Saddam wouldn't have lasted very long even without a war. But thats purely hypothetical, since war is just days away.
[quote]<strong>yet you wouldn't find there any reflections of views of such AI pundits and experts as New or Mika. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Gee, thanks for the confidence man.
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>Yeah, let's kill them off quicker!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or we could oust the guy that keeps so much international pressure on them and by removing him remove the economic sanctions that kill them, giving them a chance at self-determination, peace (which they haven't had for over a decade) and economic/social success!
I choose that option.
<strong>
Or we could oust the guy that keeps so much international pressure on them and by removing him remove the economic sanctions that kill them, giving them a chance at self-determination, peace (which they haven't had for over a decade) and economic/social success! </strong><hr></blockquote>
And you can just oust him like that? You're going to ask him to leave and he'll leave? Wow...you're good groverat.
Oh wait, you mean go to war? Oh. Speaking of which...
Why isn't going to war illegal?
<strong>And you can just oust him like that? You're going to ask him to leave and he'll leave? Wow...you're good groverat.
Oh wait, you mean go to war? Oh. Speaking of which...
Why isn't going to war illegal?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kofi Annan doesn't seem to mind <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2472652,00.html"; target="_blank">discussing ousting</a> Saddam Hussein. He even got an assistant of his to draw up plans for a post-war Iraq. Last I checked that's not in the spirit of the UN Charter either.
Hmmm, who *is* doing things by this law you mention?
If the Security Council goes with us then it's fine. If we go without the Security Council then that's our decision for self-defense, us being involved with the UN takes no sovreignty from us.
If the head of the UN doesn't respect its rules what does that say? Perhaps the US is the only entity you will chastise for bucking UN rules?
<strong>
Kofi Annan doesn't seem to mind <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2472652,00.html"; target="_blank">discussing ousting</a> Saddam Hussein. He even got an assistant of his to draw up plans for a post-war Iraq. Last I checked that's not in the spirit of the UN Charter either. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Last you checked? How so? Go for it, show us.
Groverat: "Well Billy hit Susie so that means it's OK if I hit Johnny!" Take your child-like playground arguments back to the playground.
Kofi Annan <a href="http://www.riyadhdaily.com.sa/cgi-bin/display_assay.pl?issue=Thursday+-+06+March+2003§ion=Europe/The+Americas&id=30249"; target="_blank">draws up</a> plans for post-war Iraq.
So we have Kofi Annan, secretary-general of the UN drawing up plans for a post-war Iraq and hinting that Saddam could be removed through international courts. Discussing the removal of the leader of a current UN member state seems to go against the spirit of "promoting international peace" does it not. You have spent quite a bit of energy saying that Saddam is dangerous if he is threatened (but not necessarily dangerous if we leave him alone). So I ask you, bunge, why is this belief you hold suspended for Kofi Annan?
<strong>Kofi Annan <a href="http://www.riyadhdaily.com.sa/cgi-bin/display_assay.pl?issue=Thursday+-+06+March+2003§ion=Europe/The+Americas&id=30249"; target="_blank">draws up</a> plans for post-war Iraq.
So we have Kofi Annan, secretary-general of the UN drawing up plans for a post-war Iraq and hinting that Saddam could be removed through international courts. Discussing the removal of the leader of a current UN member state seems to go against the spirit of "promoting international peace" does it not.</strong><hr></blockquote>This post is just dumb, groverat. Just think about this for a minute.
My my my, how quickly we shift gears.
Why do you think he's so guarded about his comments to that effect, they can't be innocuous if they are so controversial, now can they?
<strong>You retreat more than the French, I like it. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
You make no sense.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Kofi Annan <a href="http://www.riyadhdaily.com.sa/cgi-bin/display_assay.pl?issue=Thursday+-+06+March+2003§ion=Europe/The+Americas&id=30249"; target="_blank">draws up</a> plans for post-war Iraq. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, how is this against what the U.N. believes? At the very least if there is an attack, there will be a huge humanitarian crisis to take care of. Why on earth wouldn't they discuss it?
You make no sense.
Well first off there's a huge humanitarian crisis there that UN inaction is causing, but aside from that you ignore the part about Annan discussing overthrowing Hussein through the international court.
I guess if you want to ignore it you can, that's the way you've operated until now, no reason for that to change.
<strong>...you ignore the part about Annan discussing overthrowing Hussein through the international court. </strong><hr></blockquote>
From groverat's link:
[quote]
Eighteen judges took their seats Tuesday at the world's first permanent war crimes court, a long-awaited body that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said - without specifically mentioning Iraq - could help ``dismantle tyrannies'' and replace them with democratic regimes.<hr></blockquote>
"now face a momentous choice" (on Iraq)"If they fail to agree on a common position, and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action will be seriously impaired."
Kofi Annan, Yesterday (from his own homepage)
heh
heheh
heheheheheheh
--
bunge:
Iraq says it is democratic now, so what is Annan saying? Not very nice of him.
<strong>
you haven't really followed this discussion to closely, have you? We went through this argumentation pages ago. There is not even agreement within the SC on Saddams compliance. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't try to fob me off the argument like this New, resolution 1441 clearly states:
2.Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Decides , while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
3.Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
...............and this is the most pertinent bit - enabling the use of force as a remedy for noncompliance
13.Â*Â*Â*Â* 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;
I don't know about you but to me this is obvious and direct stuff.
Has Iraq supplied a full complete declaration? No!
Has it revealed all its WOMD and laid these down and destroyed in open daylight with the inspectors verification? No!
Its well known that Iraq has tons of Chemical and Bio agents it has not mentioned in its reports to the UN and to the Inspectors, that's noncompliance,
Iraq has failed to explain what has happened to these substances that the UN knows it had in 98, that's noncompliance!
Iraq has tried to hide numerous different weapon systems such as the Al-Samud missiles, the recently discovered unmaned aircraft Blix mentioned last friday in his report, various shells capable of delivering chemical and bio agents - all of these were not mentioned by the original Iraqi reports, nor were they revealed by the Iraqis willingly and swiftly that's noncompliance!
Iraq is still not providing full interview access to its scientists and engineers and generally it is trying its best to slow the inspectors work and is not in the least bit acting as 1441 demands it to act. the following quote form the resolution comes to mind:
4.Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq?s obligations
that's noncompliance!
Legaly the case against Iraq based on 1441 is loaded with legitimacy for war already! again I say you can argue about the WISDOM or POSSIBLE NEGATIVE RAMIFICATIONS of attacking Iraq NOW, but legally based on 1441 UN members are totally entitled to attack already. the anti-war camp's frankly pathetic attempts to cry "illegal" every time something they don't like happens is sooooooooo tiresome, argue your point based on values and reasoning instead of resorting to this lame pseudo-international-legal wrangling!
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
The fact that I think there are other ways to deal with Saddam, does not make me a supporter of him.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK, I'm listening, being one that would hate to see war again in the middle east I would love it if you could come up with a peaceful solution to this mess:
Whats your ideas then?
How do we remove Sadam?
How do we disarm Iraq from its WOMD?
How do we free the Iraqi people from the despotism of the Baath party?
Without resorting to the use of force...
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
<strong>"If the US and others were to go outside the Council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the Charter."
"now face a momentous choice" (on Iraq)"If they fail to agree on a common position, and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action will be seriously impaired."
Kofi Annan, Yesterday (from his own homepage)</strong><hr></blockquote>I saw this and I was going to post it in this thread, but I didn't want to get back into the silly debate over whether "war is illegal."
New, I'm curious - do you think that any military action that is not sanctioned by the UN is wrong? I'm thinking of Kosovo among others. My view is that international law is different from the laws governing democratic/republican nations like those in Europe and the US and Israel. If those national laws are wrong, they can be challenged in courts, or changed through direct voting. They are evaluated (in the US and many other countries) vis-a-vis a Constitution. You also have a right to a trial by jury and an attorney etc. if you are accused by your gov't of breaking those laws. You get my point.
If the UN doesn't act in a situation like Rwanda, it may be strictly speaking illegal for a nation to use military force, but what other recourse is there? In my view, international law just doesn't hold the same weight or credibility as national law, and if it's broken in the process of doing something that is right by reference to other standards, so be it.
[quote]12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security; <hr></blockquote>I think it's clear that those who voted for 1441 did so because it was understood that war was not automatic, and that further security council resolutions were necessary. Even Bush and Blair appear to believe this, given their push for further resolutions.
But just to go back to my previous post, the problem is that there is no judicial review and no enforcement of something like this. Who knows what it means? Who is going to be the one to judge what it means? Who is going to enforce it?
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
<strong>
My view is that international law is different from the laws governing democratic/republican nations like those in Europe and the US and Israel. If those national laws are wrong, they can be challenged in courts, or changed through direct voting. They are evaluated (in the US and many other countries) vis-a-vis a Constitution. You also have a right to a trial by jury and an attorney etc. if you are accused by your gov't of breaking those laws. You get my point.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Very good point BRussell - I coulden't agree more! even though I still think that the legal case for war against Iraq is Solid! you highlight a much more important point.
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
What is being debated is the right of the US to go at it alone. When the Security Council put the words "Serious consequences" down on paper they never gave anyone a mandate to define those words. These consequences are, according to the UN charter, up to the Security Council to decide.
Edit:Like BRussell points out is written in paragraph 12 of 1441.