Punishment for violating 1441 is up to the Security Council. Doing what is necessary to protect the United States of America is up to the President of the United States and Congress.
The reason 1441 exists is because the United States is threatened and it is an attempt to handle the problem with other nations. If those other nations do not share our fears then we will do what is necessary to protect ourselves.
Our president and our Congress are above the UN when it comes to making decisions about the welfare of our nation. We will not and should not be kept from defending ourselves because the UN decides not to act.
If we go in with a coalition of the willing the aim will not be to enforce 1441, it will be to defend ourselves by disarming Saddam Hussein. It's very simple.
The United Nations is not the supreme authority in the world, contrary to what you might think.
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your question is very good. And complex. It's very late over here, and I have to get up early tomorrow.
The short answer would be; Yes, By international law the use of force is legitimate in certain cases. The obvious being defense.
Another example would be violent uprising against a dictator. Since the principle of peoples right to govern themselves is central in international law this would be legal use of force. Outside countries aid to such a process is a more delicate matter, since it is so easily abused. A good example of foreign aid would be the french aid in the US war of liberation. A bad example would be US aid to the contras.
I believe that people are able to solve their problems best themselves, if given the opportunity. My part and your part of the world being good examples. The process takes much longer time, yes. But the end result is much better.
The meddling of foreign powers, steered by their own self-interests, has always made things worse. Like it was the case in Yugoslavia.
I see no conflict of national and international law. With constitutions like the american (and the norwegian) these laws back up and strengthen each other.
International law was pioneered by our part of the world to guarantee us our rights and our sovereignty, and stop us from repeating our own catastrophic wars. So what has happened? We deny the rest of the world the same standards and export our wars there. Look how fast the US government used international law to label the taliban "unjust combatants" but how basic human rights are not applied to their captivity.
The weakness of international law is evident. One should have thought that things would get better with only one superpower left. But right now it's worse. Yet, on a whole, the institutions of the UN and Public International law are evolving.
I think they are our only hope of a stable world order and the future abolishment of poverty, hunger, disease and so on. But the effort to make them work has to be increased enormously.
The "Pax Americana" is a horrible alternative. Not at least for the americans themselves, who are losing their hard earned rights as we speak. All in the name of security.
Concerning Rwanda: A just as important question as what to do with situations like Rwanda, is how to avoid more Rwandas. What factors set of a situation like that in the first place?
Instead of running around extinguishing fires, we have to look at the how they these fires get started. This is were the efforts of the UN and international law is important. Guaranteeing people their basic human rights is the first step to avoiding further Rwandas.
<strong>The United Nations is not the supreme authority in the world, contrary to what you might think.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The US isn't either, contrary to what you might think. If you'd rather have the law of the jungle than the fragile institutions of international law, then I can't help you.
[quote]<strong>The US isn't either, contrary to what you might think. If you'd rather have the law of the jungle than the fragile institutions of international law, then I can't help you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>So you admit then the the US doesn't have the right to cross over the borders of a sovereign nation. Good.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What a childish set of inferences you draw.
If we're threatened by a nation we should neutralize the threat if it's cost-effective to do so. Iraq fits beautifully.
Go in, drop some bombs, scare the Iraqi soldiers. Oust Saddam, lift the sanctions off the backs of the people, let them set up their own government, help them get back on their feet and off international welfare. Make sure we do it all in a very nice way so we can have a strong democratic ally in the middle east (like Afghanistan but powerful).
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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>The war of 1973 is hardly comparable. What part of the US is Iraq occupying?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The war of 1973 is an example of a clear violation of a treaty of cease-fire. Yet since Syria and Egypt were already in a state of war with Israel, there were no claims of their attack being a "crime against peace" of any other such big words.
The U.S. is already in a state of war with Iraq, qhich it sees as failing to comply to its conditions of surrender of twelve years ago, that is certainly as much a Casus Belli as having been defeated in the last war, and lost some territory, fair and square, in the course of it.
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mr. Carter is not an authority on international law. He has a right to his opinion.
An attack against a country with which one is still at war, on the claim that it fails to comply to its terms of surrender to one's own country, is certainly neither unprecedented, nor so much unjust. That's my opinion.
[quote]<strong>I really don't see you backing up you claims with any qualified expertise, other than your own opinion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I generally avoid making what is called an appeal to authority. Not being an authority myself, I make the effort to illustrate my opinion with widely known details.
[quote]"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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>So if the americans started settling Hamburg after world war two, this wouldn't be a misuse of their right to occupy Germany?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Had U.S. some civilians willingly moved to somewhere the U.S. occupation zone in Germany, say Frankfurt, (Hamburg being in the British-occupied territories), it would have hardly been unlawful. Had the U.S. had n organised policy of helping them moving there and living there as if on U.S. national soil (something similar to settlement policies of several Israeli governments), it would have been unlwaful it itself, but it wouldn't have made the act of occupation itself illegal.
Loke every period of occupation, that of Germany by the Allies also had its shares of irregularities (of other kinds of course) but it never undermined their right to occupy their enemy till it signed a peace treaty.
[quote]The overwhelming majority of the settlements were built in uninhabited areas, which have been on state lands since Ottoman times.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The act of building a lodging in an uninhabitaed place and having an Israeli Jew live there is not in itself illegal. There may be irregularities, form both the perspectives of Israeli and intenrational law, in the fact of a government policy to that effect and of that Israeli Jew living there as if under Israeli civil rule.
The land on which settlementswere built, save exceptional cases, is either state land (since Ottoman times) or land legally purchased by the settlers themselves.
My own opinion is one of opposition to the settlemtns polcies since their inception, but my case is hardly served by an inaccurate description of it.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>He is a boy scout compared to those two. But he is making rapid progress. Guess who will be remembered most by history?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't make such wild guesses.
[quote]It'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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As stated previously, this isn't about "good guys", its about influencial countries preserving regimes in which they have a substantial stake. Russia and France, like many others, have done this before. They have such stake in the current Iraqi regime beyond the actual contracts signed with, due to the long years of partnership and cooperation.
[quote]?yet you wouldn't find there (on the "proche-orient.info" site) any reflections of views of such AI pundits and experts as New or Mika.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Gee, thanks for the confidence man. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I wouldn't place in you the same confidence I would in Mika, happy?
Anyway, I was describing a certain French-language information website about the Middle-East, whose editorials, as a matter of fact, while diverse in the opinions expressed, are more moderate than the views expressed by either of you on this board.
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
The long partnership between the current Iraqi regime and the two permanent SC power most opposed to the U.S. initiative, France and Russia, has many built-in advantages for them, which would be lost should this regime be removed.
That, as well as a fear from U.S. assertive interventionism around the world, and a will to assert their own role as world players, is motivating the current stance of these two countries, if you ask me.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>I think the latter point is the more important of the two.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's likely, yet it doesn't constradict the existence of the other points, nor that at the edn of the day, Saddam Hussain owes much to his ongoing remining in power to his formerly formal partners.
[quote]While the Bush administration, far form being unilateralist, does makes great efforts to engage a dialogue with the other world players, it's doing it very badly, and I disagree with the linked editorial that it is Powell who is mostly to blame.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I am not expert in the US admin, but i think that Powell is not unilateralist. However what you call great effort but badly made, looks rather for me like unilateral behavioring hidden behind official multilateral discussions where US has already made his opinion (we discuss alltogether but we have already our opinion but we will not change it, only smoothe some minor issues to make you please *).</strong><hr></blockquote>
When I say I find this U.S. administration far from unilateralist, it's when compared the precedent administration which moves were much swifter, notably in the attack against Serbia in 2000.
As I said before, I do have my own reservations about this administration's planned war, but the alternative proposed either by Moscow and Paris is far worse.
More inpections and more inspectors won't make Saddam comply, but it will gain him the commodity he requires most dearly: time.
[quote]<strong>An another point of this debate is the future of Iraq. Who will be in charge after Saddam. There is a great risk in the mid long term (not in the short, US and UN troops will prevent this) that the muslims extremists took power like in Iran. The good-hearted Carter wanted to remove a dictature the shah and at the place we see Khomeiny (great move), the French thinked that Khomeiny will thanks France for his exile (an another great move).
The action of occident in these aera is a long list of failure, but that's an another story, i just wish that there would not be an another add to this huge list.
*excuse me for this atrocious english , in french, comme des reunions de soi-disant concertation ou toutes les decisions ont ete prises Ã* l'avance)</strong><hr></blockquote>
The uncertainties of a post-Saddam Iraq present numerous perils, yet I find that option, while risky, preferrable to the known peril that is Saddam Hussain, even in its currently diminished condition.
If we're threatened by a nation we should neutralize the threat if it's cost-effective to do so. Iraq fits beautifully. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I can't believe you say "cost-effective" and you say I'm childish. Wow.
If we're threatened by a nation then I do think we should do something. Still waiting on that threat from Iraq though. And no, a 12 year old attack on Kuwait doesn't constitute a threat of the United States.
<strong>I can't believe you say "cost-effective" and you say I'm childish. Wow.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What word would you use to describe the result of risk analysis?
[quote]<strong>If we're threatened by a nation then I do think we should do something. Still waiting on that threat from Iraq though. And no, a 12 year old attack on Kuwait doesn't constitute a threat of the United States.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course you're not convinced, you've chosen your side and you'll stick to it until the end, or until the UN gives its stamp of approval.
Of course you're not convinced, you've chosen your side and you'll stick to it until the end, or until the UN gives its stamp of approval.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Personally I don't believe in "risk analysis." If the cause is just you fight, regardless. "Risk analysys" means your cause isn't just, so you have to question if it's worth the cost. That's why I'm not upset with the fact that we went into Afghanistan, but I am upset with our incredibly poor civilian to servicemen death ratio. The "risk analysis" should favor civilians over our troops at every stage because when the cause is just, our troops are willing and eager to die.
As for not being convinced, it could have something to do with the constant stream of lies the Bush administration spews. I do know/believe that Saddam will be a threat in the long run, but the timeframe I see is beyond the need for immediate action.
A U.N. sponsored real solution would end the threat before it could metastasize. I have yet to hear an argument that refutes this point.
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. <hr></blockquote></strong>
This is simply not true - "Serious consequences" in diplomatic speak means use of force! show me one UN resolution that used any other terms to authorize military action. there is very little room for interpretation here - nothing like you try and make it out to look like.
This added to the mountain of directive and operative SC resolutions already passed about Iraq in the past 12 years totally legitimizes the use of force against Iraq - hell even 1441 was not really necessary to give the use of force legal credence and anyway, legally as IG pointed out the US is still in a state of war with Iraq which has failed to fulfill its disarmament duties.
But to move on from the silly issue of legal wrangling as you so eloquently demand of me why would you not answer my very pertinent (I think) question?
[quote]<strong>
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... <hr></blockquote></strong>
Still waiting..................</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N. is solving the problem as we speak/type. You can pretend that since sanctions up until didn't do enough good, anything that falls under the term 'sanctions' is a failure. It's not true of course, but that's the only argument I see out of the 'let's go to war' side.
<strong>Go in, drop some bombs, scare the Iraqi soldiers. Oust Saddam, lift the sanctions off the backs of the people, let them set up their own government, help them get back on their feet and off international welfare. Make sure we do it all in a very nice way so we can have a strong democratic ally in the middle east (like Afghanistan but powerful). </strong><hr></blockquote>
You forgot the part about "living happily Ever after"
[quote]<strong>The U.S. is already in a state of war with Iraq, qhich it sees as failing to comply to its conditions of surrender of twelve years ago, that is certainly as much a Casus Belli as having been defeated in the last war, and lost some territory, fair and square, in the course of it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the US was acting as a part of a multinational force with a UN mandate in the Gulf War, and is not by its own in a "state of war" with Iraq.
[quote]<strong>Mr. Carter is not an authority on international law. He has a right to his opinion. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well,he does have some first hand experience with it.
[quote]<strong>I generally avoid making what is called an appeal to authority. Not being an authority myself, I make the effort to illustrate my opinion with widely known details. </strong><hr></blockquote> Fair enough, I appreciate your straightforwardness.
[quote]<strong>The act of building a lodging in an uninhabitaed place and having an Israeli Jew live there is not in itself illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote> According to international law, it is illegal. The area in question being outside the sovereign state of Israel, being claimed others, being in a state of "occupation", being subject to multiple UN resolutions and so on...
[quote]He is a boy scout compared to those two. But he is making rapid progress. Guess who will be remembered most by history? <hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I don't make such wild guesses. </strong><hr></blockquote>
A guess, yes. Wild? Hardly.
[quote]<strong>I wouldn't place in you the same confidence I would in Mika, happy?
</strong><hr></blockquote> Your forgiven.
Being moderate is not always what its cracked up to be. I prefer choosing my arguments after studying the facts. Not the other way around. Sometimes the facts are not moderate. Hence my signature.
[quote]<strong>The uncertainties of a post-Saddam Iraq present numerous perils, yet I find that option, while risky, preferrable to the known peril that is Saddam Hussain, even in its currently diminished condition. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you considered that another approach might have given a clear answer to what post-Saddam Iraq would be like? Like there was never the same doubt about the nature of post-english america or India.
[quote]By Rashumon:
<strong>
This is simply not true - "Serious consequences" in diplomatic speak means use of force! show me one UN resolution that used any other terms to authorize military action. there is very little room for interpretation here - nothing like you try and make it out to look like.
This added to the mountain of directive and operative SC resolutions already passed about Iraq in the past 12 years totally legitimizes the use of force against Iraq - hell even 1441 was not really necessary to give the use of force legal credence and anyway, legally as IG pointed out the US is still in a state of war with Iraq which has failed to fulfill its disarmament duties.
But to move on from the silly issue of legal wrangling as you so eloquently demand of me why would you not answer my very pertinent (I think) question? </strong><hr></blockquote>The Security Council gets to decide the "if", "when" and "how" concerning the use of force. Not the US, not You. Get it?
[quote]<strong>
Whats your ideas then?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Scroll up to read some ideas.
[quote]<strong>
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><hr></blockquote> Who are "we"?
[quote]<strong>Personally I don't believe in "risk analysis." If the cause is just you fight, regardless. "Risk analysys" means your cause isn't just, so you have to question if it's worth the cost.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's part of determining whether or not it is a just cause. Is disarming NK worth nuclear war? Is disarming Iraq worth a short conventional war?
Two drastically different questions.
[quote]<strong>That's why I'm not upset with the fact that we went into Afghanistan, but I am upset with our incredibly poor civilian to servicemen death ratio. The "risk analysis" should favor civilians over our troops at every stage because when the cause is just, our troops are willing and eager to die.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And by being there they have shown that they are willing to die. We have done a great thing in Afghanistan and many of the same people who protested going in there are protesting this war.
It's a shame the search function on this board doesn't work. But even without that I remember the protests on my campus.
[quote]<strong>As for not being convinced, it could have something to do with the constant stream of lies the Bush administration spews. I do know/believe that Saddam will be a threat in the long run, but the timeframe I see is beyond the need for immediate action.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah so we wait for him to be a huge threat? And in the meantime we slaughter his people with economic sanctions and have him destroy 2 or 3 missiles a week through inspections.?
[quote]<strong>A U.N. sponsored real solution would end the threat before it could metastasize. I have yet to hear an argument that refutes this point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have yet to see this alternative "solution". Hard to argue against something that doesn't exist.
--
New:
[quote]<strong>You forgot the part about "living happily Ever after"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Certainly better off. People don't want to acknowledge that, it seems.
I have yet to see this alternative "solution". Hard to argue against something that doesn't exist.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You say it doesn't exist because you don't want it to exist. You want war. There's a whole thread dedicated to intelligent sanctions and non-war actions that can be taken. Yes, a credible threat of force will have to remain. It doesn't have to be 300,000 troops, but a threat has to remain to enforce a solution.
Mr. Carter is not an authority on international law. He has a right to his opinion.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Well,he does have some first hand experience with it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
(So does Augusto Pinochet)
That hardly makes him an authority, despite my generally favourable opinion of Mr. Carter as a person.
[quote]The act of building a lodging in an uninhabitaed place and having an Israeli Jew live there is not in itself illegal.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>According to international law, it is illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While a state policy of settling civlians in occupied territory might be illegal under international law, the individual act of moving into a house legally purchased is not.
Cf. my analogy with a hypothetical U.S. civilian moving to Frankfurt in the post-war years.
[quote]<strong>The area in question being outside the sovereign state of Israel, being claimed others, being in a state of "occupation", being subject to multiple UN resolutions and so on...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are binding resolutions (referred to as ?Chapter Seven? ones, if I recall correctly), and there are non-binding ones. There's no binding resolution regarding these settlements, that I know of.
[quote]<strong>He is a boy scout compared to those two. But he is making rapid progress. Guess who will be remembered most by history?</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]I don't make such wild guesses.<hr></blockquote>
Would you be some kind of a Scandinavian Uri Geller?
I was told the long winters are inhibiting propehtic talents. Obviously I'm misinformed on that specific detail.
[quote]<strong>Being moderate is not always what its cracked up to be. I prefer choosing my arguments after studying the facts. Not the other way around. Sometimes the facts are not moderate. Hence my signature.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Facts don't have opinions, so they are neither moderate nor extremist.
Moderation and extremism, as opinions as well as political approachs have both their records, as facts show.
The earlier's is more positive than the latter's if you ask me.
[quote]The uncertainties of a post-Saddam Iraq present numerous perils, yet I find that option, while risky, preferrable to the known peril that is Saddam Hussain, even in its currently diminished condition. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Have you considered that another approach might have given a clear answer to what post-Saddam Iraq would be like? Like there was never the same doubt about the nature of post-english america or India.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Would you care to rephrase that question? I don't understand it as it is.
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
[quote]<strong>Come on, it's hardly great yet, no-matter how you look at it. It's just to early to tell.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not too early to tell that there has been great progress and there is a bright future for them. There is always uncertainty, yes, but it can't be denied that their chances for prosperity are now much much greater despite the very regrettable civilian casualties involved in ousting the Taliban. To me that is a great thing. I am happy for those people (and sad for those who lost friends and family on the path).
Sometimes we lose the forest for the trees. I think it is important for us to recognize how much progress has been and can be made in Afghanistan, I (along with Karzai) hope Bush and future presidential administrations remember our commitment to those people.
bunge:
[quote]<strong>You say it doesn't exist because you don't want it to exist. You want war. There's a whole thread dedicated to intelligent sanctions and non-war actions that can be taken. Yes, a credible threat of force will have to remain. It doesn't have to be 300,000 troops, but a threat has to remain to enforce a solution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've asked this before but you've never answered it (and I don't expect you to now): How can we maintain a credible threat of force over an indefinite period of time?
I've asked this before but you've never answered it (and I don't expect you to now): How can we maintain a credible threat of force over an indefinite period of time?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's been done before. It was a mistake to move 200,000 plus troops there because it might be nearly impossible to keep that many there as a credible threat. 50,000 would have been much easier than the expected 300,000. Of course, if our goal from the onset had been a credible threat, we wouldn't have moved that many in. But our goal was war because yes, some hawks in the government want war.
So it'll look like we're weakening if we pull out.
But, it could still be done. It's been done in North Korea. It worked against the USSR. Why don't you tell me how it COULDN'T work in Iraq? You said something about how "North Korea plays along but Saddam doesn't." That doesn't make sense to me. A credible threat right now is forcing Saddam to play along. So in the long term, how would it not work in Iraq?
Comments
The reason 1441 exists is because the United States is threatened and it is an attempt to handle the problem with other nations. If those other nations do not share our fears then we will do what is necessary to protect ourselves.
Our president and our Congress are above the UN when it comes to making decisions about the welfare of our nation. We will not and should not be kept from defending ourselves because the UN decides not to act.
If we go in with a coalition of the willing the aim will not be to enforce 1441, it will be to defend ourselves by disarming Saddam Hussein. It's very simple.
The United Nations is not the supreme authority in the world, contrary to what you might think.
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your question is very good. And complex. It's very late over here, and I have to get up early tomorrow.
The short answer would be; Yes, By international law the use of force is legitimate in certain cases. The obvious being defense.
Another example would be violent uprising against a dictator. Since the principle of peoples right to govern themselves is central in international law this would be legal use of force. Outside countries aid to such a process is a more delicate matter, since it is so easily abused. A good example of foreign aid would be the french aid in the US war of liberation. A bad example would be US aid to the contras.
I believe that people are able to solve their problems best themselves, if given the opportunity. My part and your part of the world being good examples. The process takes much longer time, yes. But the end result is much better.
The meddling of foreign powers, steered by their own self-interests, has always made things worse. Like it was the case in Yugoslavia.
I see no conflict of national and international law. With constitutions like the american (and the norwegian) these laws back up and strengthen each other.
International law was pioneered by our part of the world to guarantee us our rights and our sovereignty, and stop us from repeating our own catastrophic wars. So what has happened? We deny the rest of the world the same standards and export our wars there. Look how fast the US government used international law to label the taliban "unjust combatants" but how basic human rights are not applied to their captivity.
The weakness of international law is evident. One should have thought that things would get better with only one superpower left. But right now it's worse. Yet, on a whole, the institutions of the UN and Public International law are evolving.
I think they are our only hope of a stable world order and the future abolishment of poverty, hunger, disease and so on. But the effort to make them work has to be increased enormously.
The "Pax Americana" is a horrible alternative. Not at least for the americans themselves, who are losing their hard earned rights as we speak. All in the name of security.
Concerning Rwanda: A just as important question as what to do with situations like Rwanda, is how to avoid more Rwandas. What factors set of a situation like that in the first place?
Instead of running around extinguishing fires, we have to look at the how they these fires get started. This is were the efforts of the UN and international law is important. Guaranteeing people their basic human rights is the first step to avoiding further Rwandas.
The long version will have to wait.
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>The United Nations is not the supreme authority in the world, contrary to what you might think.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The US isn't either, contrary to what you might think. If you'd rather have the law of the jungle than the fragile institutions of international law, then I can't help you.
[quote]<strong>The US isn't either, contrary to what you might think. If you'd rather have the law of the jungle than the fragile institutions of international law, then I can't help you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never said the US was.
<strong>
I never said the US was. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So you admit then the the US doesn't have the right to cross over the borders of a sovereign nation. Good.
<strong>So you admit then the the US doesn't have the right to cross over the borders of a sovereign nation. Good.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What a childish set of inferences you draw.
If we're threatened by a nation we should neutralize the threat if it's cost-effective to do so. Iraq fits beautifully.
Go in, drop some bombs, scare the Iraqi soldiers. Oust Saddam, lift the sanctions off the backs of the people, let them set up their own government, help them get back on their feet and off international welfare. Make sure we do it all in a very nice way so we can have a strong democratic ally in the middle east (like Afghanistan but powerful).
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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>The war of 1973 is hardly comparable. What part of the US is Iraq occupying?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The war of 1973 is an example of a clear violation of a treaty of cease-fire. Yet since Syria and Egypt were already in a state of war with Israel, there were no claims of their attack being a "crime against peace" of any other such big words.
The U.S. is already in a state of war with Iraq, qhich it sees as failing to comply to its conditions of surrender of twelve years ago, that is certainly as much a Casus Belli as having been defeated in the last war, and lost some territory, fair and square, in the course of it.
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mr. Carter is not an authority on international law. He has a right to his opinion.
An attack against a country with which one is still at war, on the claim that it fails to comply to its terms of surrender to one's own country, is certainly neither unprecedented, nor so much unjust. That's my opinion.
[quote]<strong>I really don't see you backing up you claims with any qualified expertise, other than your own opinion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I generally avoid making what is called an appeal to authority. Not being an authority myself, I make the effort to illustrate my opinion with widely known details.
[quote]"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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>So if the americans started settling Hamburg after world war two, this wouldn't be a misuse of their right to occupy Germany?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Had U.S. some civilians willingly moved to somewhere the U.S. occupation zone in Germany, say Frankfurt, (Hamburg being in the British-occupied territories), it would have hardly been unlawful. Had the U.S. had n organised policy of helping them moving there and living there as if on U.S. national soil (something similar to settlement policies of several Israeli governments), it would have been unlwaful it itself, but it wouldn't have made the act of occupation itself illegal.
Loke every period of occupation, that of Germany by the Allies also had its shares of irregularities (of other kinds of course) but it never undermined their right to occupy their enemy till it signed a peace treaty.
[quote]The overwhelming majority of the settlements were built in uninhabited areas, which have been on state lands since Ottoman times.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The act of building a lodging in an uninhabitaed place and having an Israeli Jew live there is not in itself illegal. There may be irregularities, form both the perspectives of Israeli and intenrational law, in the fact of a government policy to that effect and of that Israeli Jew living there as if under Israeli civil rule.
The land on which settlementswere built, save exceptional cases, is either state land (since Ottoman times) or land legally purchased by the settlers themselves.
My own opinion is one of opposition to the settlemtns polcies since their inception, but my case is hardly served by an inaccurate description of it.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>He is a boy scout compared to those two. But he is making rapid progress. Guess who will be remembered most by history?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't make such wild guesses.
[quote]It'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.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As stated previously, this isn't about "good guys", its about influencial countries preserving regimes in which they have a substantial stake. Russia and France, like many others, have done this before. They have such stake in the current Iraqi regime beyond the actual contracts signed with, due to the long years of partnership and cooperation.
[quote]?yet you wouldn't find there (on the "proche-orient.info" site) any reflections of views of such AI pundits and experts as New or Mika.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Gee, thanks for the confidence man.
I wouldn't place in you the same confidence I would in Mika, happy?
Anyway, I was describing a certain French-language information website about the Middle-East, whose editorials, as a matter of fact, while diverse in the opinions expressed, are more moderate than the views expressed by either of you on this board.
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
The long partnership between the current Iraqi regime and the two permanent SC power most opposed to the U.S. initiative, France and Russia, has many built-in advantages for them, which would be lost should this regime be removed.
That, as well as a fear from U.S. assertive interventionism around the world, and a will to assert their own role as world players, is motivating the current stance of these two countries, if you ask me.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>I think the latter point is the more important of the two.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's likely, yet it doesn't constradict the existence of the other points, nor that at the edn of the day, Saddam Hussain owes much to his ongoing remining in power to his formerly formal partners.
[quote]While the Bush administration, far form being unilateralist, does makes great efforts to engage a dialogue with the other world players, it's doing it very badly, and I disagree with the linked editorial that it is Powell who is mostly to blame.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I am not expert in the US admin, but i think that Powell is not unilateralist. However what you call great effort but badly made, looks rather for me like unilateral behavioring hidden behind official multilateral discussions where US has already made his opinion (we discuss alltogether but we have already our opinion but we will not change it, only smoothe some minor issues to make you please *).</strong><hr></blockquote>
When I say I find this U.S. administration far from unilateralist, it's when compared the precedent administration which moves were much swifter, notably in the attack against Serbia in 2000.
As I said before, I do have my own reservations about this administration's planned war, but the alternative proposed either by Moscow and Paris is far worse.
More inpections and more inspectors won't make Saddam comply, but it will gain him the commodity he requires most dearly: time.
[quote]<strong>An another point of this debate is the future of Iraq. Who will be in charge after Saddam. There is a great risk in the mid long term (not in the short, US and UN troops will prevent this) that the muslims extremists took power like in Iran. The good-hearted Carter wanted to remove a dictature the shah and at the place we see Khomeiny (great move), the French thinked that Khomeiny will thanks France for his exile (an another great move).
The action of occident in these aera is a long list of failure, but that's an another story, i just wish that there would not be an another add to this huge list.
*excuse me for this atrocious english , in french, comme des reunions de soi-disant concertation ou toutes les decisions ont ete prises Ã* l'avance)</strong><hr></blockquote>
The uncertainties of a post-Saddam Iraq present numerous perils, yet I find that option, while risky, preferrable to the known peril that is Saddam Hussain, even in its currently diminished condition.
<strong>
If we're threatened by a nation we should neutralize the threat if it's cost-effective to do so. Iraq fits beautifully. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I can't believe you say "cost-effective" and you say I'm childish. Wow.
If we're threatened by a nation then I do think we should do something. Still waiting on that threat from Iraq though. And no, a 12 year old attack on Kuwait doesn't constitute a threat of the United States.
<strong>I can't believe you say "cost-effective" and you say I'm childish. Wow.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What word would you use to describe the result of risk analysis?
[quote]<strong>If we're threatened by a nation then I do think we should do something. Still waiting on that threat from Iraq though. And no, a 12 year old attack on Kuwait doesn't constitute a threat of the United States.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course you're not convinced, you've chosen your side and you'll stick to it until the end, or until the UN gives its stamp of approval.
<strong>
Of course you're not convinced, you've chosen your side and you'll stick to it until the end, or until the UN gives its stamp of approval.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Personally I don't believe in "risk analysis." If the cause is just you fight, regardless. "Risk analysys" means your cause isn't just, so you have to question if it's worth the cost. That's why I'm not upset with the fact that we went into Afghanistan, but I am upset with our incredibly poor civilian to servicemen death ratio. The "risk analysis" should favor civilians over our troops at every stage because when the cause is just, our troops are willing and eager to die.
As for not being convinced, it could have something to do with the constant stream of lies the Bush administration spews. I do know/believe that Saddam will be a threat in the long run, but the timeframe I see is beyond the need for immediate action.
A U.N. sponsored real solution would end the threat before it could metastasize. I have yet to hear an argument that refutes this point.
<strong>
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. <hr></blockquote></strong>
This is simply not true - "Serious consequences" in diplomatic speak means use of force! show me one UN resolution that used any other terms to authorize military action. there is very little room for interpretation here - nothing like you try and make it out to look like.
This added to the mountain of directive and operative SC resolutions already passed about Iraq in the past 12 years totally legitimizes the use of force against Iraq - hell even 1441 was not really necessary to give the use of force legal credence and anyway, legally as IG pointed out the US is still in a state of war with Iraq which has failed to fulfill its disarmament duties.
But to move on from the silly issue of legal wrangling as you so eloquently demand of me why would you not answer my very pertinent (I think) question?
[quote]<strong>
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... <hr></blockquote></strong>
Still waiting..................
<strong>[/qb]
Still waiting..................</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N. is solving the problem as we speak/type. You can pretend that since sanctions up until didn't do enough good, anything that falls under the term 'sanctions' is a failure. It's not true of course, but that's the only argument I see out of the 'let's go to war' side.
<strong>Go in, drop some bombs, scare the Iraqi soldiers. Oust Saddam, lift the sanctions off the backs of the people, let them set up their own government, help them get back on their feet and off international welfare. Make sure we do it all in a very nice way so we can have a strong democratic ally in the middle east (like Afghanistan but powerful). </strong><hr></blockquote>
You forgot the part about "living happily Ever after"
[quote]<strong>The U.S. is already in a state of war with Iraq, qhich it sees as failing to comply to its conditions of surrender of twelve years ago, that is certainly as much a Casus Belli as having been defeated in the last war, and lost some territory, fair and square, in the course of it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the US was acting as a part of a multinational force with a UN mandate in the Gulf War, and is not by its own in a "state of war" with Iraq.
[quote]<strong>Mr. Carter is not an authority on international law. He has a right to his opinion. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well,he does have some first hand experience with it.
[quote]<strong>I generally avoid making what is called an appeal to authority. Not being an authority myself, I make the effort to illustrate my opinion with widely known details. </strong><hr></blockquote> Fair enough, I appreciate your straightforwardness.
[quote]<strong>The act of building a lodging in an uninhabitaed place and having an Israeli Jew live there is not in itself illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote> According to international law, it is illegal. The area in question being outside the sovereign state of Israel, being claimed others, being in a state of "occupation", being subject to multiple UN resolutions and so on...
[quote]He is a boy scout compared to those two. But he is making rapid progress. Guess who will be remembered most by history? <hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>I don't make such wild guesses. </strong><hr></blockquote>
A guess, yes. Wild? Hardly.
[quote]<strong>I wouldn't place in you the same confidence I would in Mika, happy?
</strong><hr></blockquote> Your forgiven.
Being moderate is not always what its cracked up to be. I prefer choosing my arguments after studying the facts. Not the other way around. Sometimes the facts are not moderate. Hence my signature.
[quote]<strong>The uncertainties of a post-Saddam Iraq present numerous perils, yet I find that option, while risky, preferrable to the known peril that is Saddam Hussain, even in its currently diminished condition. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you considered that another approach might have given a clear answer to what post-Saddam Iraq would be like? Like there was never the same doubt about the nature of post-english america or India.
[quote]By Rashumon:
<strong>
This is simply not true - "Serious consequences" in diplomatic speak means use of force! show me one UN resolution that used any other terms to authorize military action. there is very little room for interpretation here - nothing like you try and make it out to look like.
This added to the mountain of directive and operative SC resolutions already passed about Iraq in the past 12 years totally legitimizes the use of force against Iraq - hell even 1441 was not really necessary to give the use of force legal credence and anyway, legally as IG pointed out the US is still in a state of war with Iraq which has failed to fulfill its disarmament duties.
But to move on from the silly issue of legal wrangling as you so eloquently demand of me why would you not answer my very pertinent (I think) question? </strong><hr></blockquote>The Security Council gets to decide the "if", "when" and "how" concerning the use of force. Not the US, not You. Get it?
[quote]<strong>
Whats your ideas then?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Scroll up to read some ideas.
[quote]<strong>
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><hr></blockquote> Who are "we"?
[quote]<strong>Personally I don't believe in "risk analysis." If the cause is just you fight, regardless. "Risk analysys" means your cause isn't just, so you have to question if it's worth the cost.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's part of determining whether or not it is a just cause. Is disarming NK worth nuclear war? Is disarming Iraq worth a short conventional war?
Two drastically different questions.
[quote]<strong>That's why I'm not upset with the fact that we went into Afghanistan, but I am upset with our incredibly poor civilian to servicemen death ratio. The "risk analysis" should favor civilians over our troops at every stage because when the cause is just, our troops are willing and eager to die.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And by being there they have shown that they are willing to die. We have done a great thing in Afghanistan and many of the same people who protested going in there are protesting this war.
It's a shame the search function on this board doesn't work. But even without that I remember the protests on my campus.
[quote]<strong>As for not being convinced, it could have something to do with the constant stream of lies the Bush administration spews. I do know/believe that Saddam will be a threat in the long run, but the timeframe I see is beyond the need for immediate action.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah so we wait for him to be a huge threat? And in the meantime we slaughter his people with economic sanctions and have him destroy 2 or 3 missiles a week through inspections.?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]<strong>A U.N. sponsored real solution would end the threat before it could metastasize. I have yet to hear an argument that refutes this point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have yet to see this alternative "solution". Hard to argue against something that doesn't exist.
--
New:
[quote]<strong>You forgot the part about "living happily Ever after"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Certainly better off. People don't want to acknowledge that, it seems.
<strong>We have done a great thing in Afghanistan</strong><hr></blockquote>
Come on, it's hardly great yet, no-matter how you look at it. It's just to early to tell.
<strong>
I have yet to see this alternative "solution". Hard to argue against something that doesn't exist.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You say it doesn't exist because you don't want it to exist. You want war. There's a whole thread dedicated to intelligent sanctions and non-war actions that can be taken. Yes, a credible threat of force will have to remain. It doesn't have to be 300,000 troops, but a threat has to remain to enforce a solution.
Mr. Carter is not an authority on international law. He has a right to his opinion.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Well,he does have some first hand experience with it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
(So does Augusto Pinochet)
That hardly makes him an authority, despite my generally favourable opinion of Mr. Carter as a person.
[quote]The act of building a lodging in an uninhabitaed place and having an Israeli Jew live there is not in itself illegal.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>According to international law, it is illegal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While a state policy of settling civlians in occupied territory might be illegal under international law, the individual act of moving into a house legally purchased is not.
Cf. my analogy with a hypothetical U.S. civilian moving to Frankfurt in the post-war years.
[quote]<strong>The area in question being outside the sovereign state of Israel, being claimed others, being in a state of "occupation", being subject to multiple UN resolutions and so on...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are binding resolutions (referred to as ?Chapter Seven? ones, if I recall correctly), and there are non-binding ones. There's no binding resolution regarding these settlements, that I know of.
[quote]<strong>He is a boy scout compared to those two. But he is making rapid progress. Guess who will be remembered most by history?</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]I don't make such wild guesses.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>A guess, yes. Wild? Hardly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Would you be some kind of a Scandinavian Uri Geller?
I was told the long winters are inhibiting propehtic talents. Obviously I'm misinformed on that specific detail.
[quote]<strong>Being moderate is not always what its cracked up to be. I prefer choosing my arguments after studying the facts. Not the other way around. Sometimes the facts are not moderate. Hence my signature.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Facts don't have opinions, so they are neither moderate nor extremist.
Moderation and extremism, as opinions as well as political approachs have both their records, as facts show.
The earlier's is more positive than the latter's if you ask me.
[quote]The uncertainties of a post-Saddam Iraq present numerous perils, yet I find that option, while risky, preferrable to the known peril that is Saddam Hussain, even in its currently diminished condition. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Have you considered that another approach might have given a clear answer to what post-Saddam Iraq would be like? Like there was never the same doubt about the nature of post-english america or India.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Would you care to rephrase that question? I don't understand it as it is.
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
[quote]<strong>Come on, it's hardly great yet, no-matter how you look at it. It's just to early to tell.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not too early to tell that there has been great progress and there is a bright future for them. There is always uncertainty, yes, but it can't be denied that their chances for prosperity are now much much greater despite the very regrettable civilian casualties involved in ousting the Taliban. To me that is a great thing. I am happy for those people (and sad for those who lost friends and family on the path).
Sometimes we lose the forest for the trees. I think it is important for us to recognize how much progress has been and can be made in Afghanistan, I (along with Karzai) hope Bush and future presidential administrations remember our commitment to those people.
bunge:
[quote]<strong>You say it doesn't exist because you don't want it to exist. You want war. There's a whole thread dedicated to intelligent sanctions and non-war actions that can be taken. Yes, a credible threat of force will have to remain. It doesn't have to be 300,000 troops, but a threat has to remain to enforce a solution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've asked this before but you've never answered it (and I don't expect you to now): How can we maintain a credible threat of force over an indefinite period of time?
<strong>
I've asked this before but you've never answered it (and I don't expect you to now): How can we maintain a credible threat of force over an indefinite period of time?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's been done before. It was a mistake to move 200,000 plus troops there because it might be nearly impossible to keep that many there as a credible threat. 50,000 would have been much easier than the expected 300,000. Of course, if our goal from the onset had been a credible threat, we wouldn't have moved that many in. But our goal was war because yes, some hawks in the government want war.
So it'll look like we're weakening if we pull out.
But, it could still be done. It's been done in North Korea. It worked against the USSR. Why don't you tell me how it COULDN'T work in Iraq? You said something about how "North Korea plays along but Saddam doesn't." That doesn't make sense to me. A credible threat right now is forcing Saddam to play along. So in the long term, how would it not work in Iraq?