I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Please identify the law we broke (and the relevant portion or portions) by invading Iraq.

My argument can be found here. To quote in relevant part:

In the case of the present conflict, the US was never attacked by Iraq. As such, the US had no claim to a right of self defense, under article 51 of the UN Charter, as a pretext to attack Iraq. It was, therefore, obligated to seek peaceful means to resolve the dispute, and, if necessary, to refer the dispute to the UN for resolution. The US submitted the dispute to the UN, but the UN Security Council never authorized the use of force (pursuant to article 42 of the Charter) for resolving the dispute. Indeed, the US never sought UN authorization for its use of force, despite Bush's promise to the contrary. The US is obligated, both by international law and the US constitution, to abide by the terms of its treaties. The UN Charter is such a treaty. The attack on Iraq, therefore, violated the terms of the UN Charter.In short, the UN Charter (or, to be more precise, the Treaty of San Francisco, which was the instrument of the US's adhesion to the UN Charter) is the law that the US broke

0 Replies

If the High Court passes judgement on a man, that he should hang, then am I justified in lynching that man, if I can get my hands on him?
No, because I am not an agent of the court.

So how was it legally permissible for the US and the UK to invade Iraq on a UN resolution (or an interpretation or understanding of the meaning of one or more resolutions) which did not specifically request them to do so? The US is not the executive arm of the UN.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Why don't you enlighten us, Walter

You don't suggest seriously that I sum up the discussion from so many months Laughing

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

If the High Court passes judgement on a man, that he should hang, then am I justified in lynching that man, if I can get my hands on him?
No, because I am not an agent of the court.

So how was it legally permissible for the US and the UK to invade Iraq on a UN resolution (or an interpretation or understanding of the meaning of one or more resolutions) which did not specifically request them to do so?

It wasn't.

This is merely one of the many rationalizations these good folks are offering since the reasons given before the war have been shown to be bullshyt!

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Bush, and any president, would be wise to keep the US national interests above those of any other nations or group of nations. When the UN works with the US that is great. It serves our purpose. When it doesn't work with the US then we must see to our own interests and defense.

So you purport to defend the UN decisions when in fact you are perfectly willing to break 'em yourself whenever they're inconvenient? Why the hypocrisy of pretending to be holding up the UN's authority when you have no intention of respecting it yourself?

McGentrix wrote:

The UN resolutions previously given gave the US legal right to invade Iraq and dethrone Saddam.

No, they did not. Not according to most people outside the US, anyway. (We went in detail through the text of those resolutions here on A2K). And who else would be the authority on what a UN resolution means but the UN?

McGentrix wrote:

That's why we stopped short of bringing a new resolution before the security council, especially if we knew it would be vetoed.

Thats the only reason you didn't bring a new resolution - because you knew it wasn't going to make it through. Not just would it be vetoed by France or Russia or China, it wouldn't even achieve the symbolic victory of getting a majority of votes.

We've went through this before - here, let me quote the same Newsmax article I quoted to you in September, 2003:

Germany had declared it would not support the US/UK resolution, Russia had said it did not support it - might have been convinced to abstain rather than vote against, at best - same for China. Syria opposed it as well, obviously.

As Newsmax (a source you'll trust) wrote: "The draft resolution would have authorized war if Saddam did not disarm by March 17. It required nine votes in the Security Council to be approved but had only the support of the United States, Spain, Britain and Bulgaria."

That meant that the US would have had to garner the votes of five of the six remaining SC members - Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan. The spokesman of Pakistan's ruling party had already made it clear on 11 March that the country would abstain, with its Prime Minister appealing for Baghdad to be given more time to disarm ("We do not want to see the destruction of the Iraqi people, the destruction of the country"). And as I already reminded you in the post just above, several of just those countries allied into an "axis of the small" to present a last-minute compromise alternative to the US/UK resolution.

Their proposal involved a delay of authorising military intervention - just a delay shorter than what "Old Europe" was suggesting - making it clear they would not be able to accept the US/UK proposal. Their proposal's rejection of a pre-determined ultimatum, that would automatically trigger war if Saddam failed to comply with the disarmament demands, also made that clear. (See for info, for example, this AP story - or hell, do a Google on "angola chile guinea mexico pakistan iraq saddam compromise").

The Americans dismissed the proposal it out of hand, and then withdrew its plans to even field its own resolution, at all.

If they thought they couldve gotten at least a majority, even against a French veto, they wouldve gone there, because they wouldve at least gotten a 'moral' UN authorisation - it wouldve been their PR coup. As it was, they didnt stand a chance, and that was why they preferred not to even bother.

McGentrix wrote:

A new resolution would no longer allow us to invade, thus the US did not approach the security council.

That's not even logical anymore. The new resolution the US was trying to recruit support for, the one it dropped when it turned out it would not get even a symbolic majority, was about explicitly granting you the right to invade - see the Newsmax quote above. That the US, once it turned out its draft resolution found no support even among habitual allies like Chile or Mexico, reverted to a somewhat tortured interpretation that derived such a right from the extremely vague texts of existing resolutions, was for lack of alternatives. And it was an interpretation that's never found much acknowledgement outside the States or the UK.

McGentrix wrote:

We had the authority we needed.

Says you. But to return to the same question again, who would be the jury on what a UN resolution does or does not authorize? Any of its individual members, no matter what the majority of other members think? Really? So if China decides that an existing resolution can clearly be read to justify it invading Taiwan, it has the right to, regardless of whether the US, the UK and/or France object?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Bush, and any president, would be wise to keep the US national interests above those of any other nations or group of nations. When the UN works with the US that is great. It serves our purpose. When it doesn't work with the US then we must see to our own interests and defense.

So you purport to defend the UN decisions when in fact you are perfectly willing to break 'em yourself whenever they're inconvenient? Why the hypocrisy of pretending to be holding up the UN's authority when you have no intention of respecting it yourself?

Which UN resolution did we break?

Quote:

McGentrix wrote:
The UN resolutions previously given gave the US legal right to invade Iraq and dethrone Saddam.

No, they did not. Not according to most people outside the US, anyway. (We went in detail through the text of those resolutions here on A2K). And who else would be the authority on what a UN resolution means but the UN?

The US makes its own law. It does not matter what people outside the US think when it comes to the defense and security of our nation. Do you have so much faith in the UN you would allow them to decide your national defense?

Quote:

McGentrix wrote:
That's why we stopped short of bringing a new resolution before the security council, especially if we knew it would be vetoed.

Thats the only reason you didn't bring a new resolution - because you knew it wasn't going to make it through. Not just would it be vetoed by France or Russia or China, it wouldn't even achieve the symbolic victory of getting a majority of votes.

We've went through this before - here, let me quote the same Newsmax article I quoted to you in September, 2003:

Germany had declared it would not support the US/UK resolution, Russia had said it did not support it - might have been convinced to abstain rather than vote against, at best - same for China. Syria opposed it as well, obviously.

As Newsmax (a source you'll trust) wrote: "The draft resolution would have authorized war if Saddam did not disarm by March 17. It required nine votes in the Security Council to be approved but had only the support of the United States, Spain, Britain and Bulgaria."

That meant that the US would have had to garner the votes of five of the six remaining SC members - Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan. The spokesman of Pakistan's ruling party had already made it clear on 11 March that the country would abstain, with its Prime Minister appealing for Baghdad to be given more time to disarm ("We do not want to see the destruction of the Iraqi people, the destruction of the country"). And as I already reminded you in the post just above, several of just those countries allied into an "axis of the small" to present a last-minute compromise alternative to the US/UK resolution.

Their proposal involved a delay of authorising military intervention - just a delay shorter than what "Old Europe" was suggesting - making it clear they would not be able to accept the US/UK proposal. Their proposal's rejection of a pre-determined ultimatum, that would automatically trigger war if Saddam failed to comply with the disarmament demands, also made that clear. (See for info, for example, this AP story - or hell, do a Google on "angola chile guinea mexico pakistan iraq saddam compromise").

The Americans dismissed the proposal it out of hand, and then withdrew its plans to even field its own resolution, at all.

If they thought they couldve gotten at least a majority, even against a French veto, they wouldve gone there, because they wouldve at least gotten a 'moral' UN authorisation - it wouldve been their PR coup. As it was, they didnt stand a chance, and that was why they preferred not to even bother.

So we are in agreement on this issue.

Quote:

McGentrix wrote:
A new resolution would no longer allow us to invade, thus the US did not approach the security council.

That's not even logical anymore. The new resolution the US was trying to recruit support for, the one it dropped when it turned out it would not get even a symbolic majority, was about explicitly granting you the right to invade - see the Newsmax quote above. That the US, once it turned out its draft resolution found no support even among habitual allies like Chile or Mexico, reverted to a somewhat tortured interpretation that derived such a right from the extremely vague texts of existing resolutions, was for lack of alternatives. And it was an interpretation that's never found much acknowledgement outside the States or the UK.

So, if a new resolution would not be successful, why bother trying?

Quote:

McGentrix wrote:
We had the authority we needed.

Says you. But to return to the same question again, who would be the jury on what a UN resolution does or does not authorize? Any of its individual members, no matter what the majority of other members think? Really? So if China decides that an existing resolution can clearly be read to justify it invading Taiwan, it has the right to, regardless of whether the US, the UK and/or France object?

[/quote]

Says the US government.

China invading Taiwan is not the same as The US freeing Iraq. That;s a ridiculous comparison.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Please identify the portion or portions of those resolutions that gave the US the legal right to invade Iraq.

See JustWonders post above.

Thank you JustWonders!

OK, so now the UK Attorney-General is the appropriate jury to judge what a UN resolution does or does not allow? As, what, the attorney-general of one of somewhat over a dozen Security Council member states?

Do each of the other member states also have the right to have their attorney-general declare their preferred interpretation of whatever UN resolution seems of convenient use to them at the moment the true and final one, and would that be enough legitimation for you likewise? So what if, say - well, China, Taiwan, see hypothetical example above? Or does it only work with the Attorney-General of a country that agrees with yours?

We can all come up with someone important on our side who said that the war was or was not legal. Doesn't mean a toss as long as we haven't answered the question of who gets to be the "jury" of such a thing. I'd say that when it comes to the question of what a UN resolution does or does not warrant, if its wording is ambiguous, the UN would be a logical place to ask. They wrote it, no? Rather than, you know, taking any lone, dissident opinion on the matter as the end-all on it, as long as it justifies what the heck you were wanting to do in any case ...

Well, you can do that, too, of course. But then please stop the sanctimonious sermons about upholding the UN's authority, because apparently, you don't give a whit about it.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

In the case of the present conflict, the US was never attacked by Iraq. As such, the US had no claim to a right of self defense, under article 51 of the UN Charter, as a pretext to attack Iraq.

Earlier, OCCOM BILL wrote:

"Unprovoked attack" is the reason the "invasion was illegal", right? 2 rhetorical questions should put that matter to rest.
1. Were our planes legally flying in the Iraqi No-Fly-Zone.
2. Was it an act of aggression when the Iraqis routinely fired on them?
Case closed.

I guess that wasn't a non sequitur after all, eh? :wink:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Stay with me here Joe. I didn't say the attacks on our planes were the justification for the invasion. I only said they were proof of provocation, there by neutralizing any argument that our response was unprovoked.

Then you were responding to an argument that wasn't made by inserting a point that wasn't relevant.
That's a reasonable opinion, Joe. Mine is that it pre-empted the argument before it was presented... and a cursory glance at other threads today should tell you my opinion is reasonable too.

Nor was it irrelevant. :wink:

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
Why don't you enlighten us, Walter

You don't suggest seriously that I sum up the discussion from so many months

Walter, you're such a tease :wink:

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

China invading Taiwan is not the same as The US freeing Iraq. That;s a ridiculous comparison.

Well that's a really meaty argument, he said sarcastically.

Did you have help with that...or did you come up with it on your own?

In any case, Nimh presented a hypothetical based on your rationalizations about our rights to invade Iraq. You really should deal with the hypothetical.

Quote:

...if China decides that an existing resolution can clearly be read to justify it invading Taiwan, it has the right to, regardless of whether the US, the UK and/or France object?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:
McGentrix wrote:
The UN resolutions previously given gave the US legal right to invade Iraq and dethrone Saddam.

No, they did not. Not according to most people outside the US, anyway. (We went in detail through the text of those resolutions here on A2K). And who else would be the authority on what a UN resolution means but the UN?

The US makes its own law. It does not matter what people outside the US think when it comes to the defense and security of our nation.

But you weren't talking about America's own law. Please at least try to stick with your own argument, 'k? You were claiming that "The UN resolutions previously given gave the US legal right to invade Iraq". So? Is the US now the world arbiter on the valid interpretation of UN resolutions? Even if, like, most all of the other authors of the resolution in question disagree?

That would make the US, at best, a vigilante, right?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I guess that wasn't a non sequitur after all, eh? :wink:

Mr. Bob, meet Mr. Weave.

First, you say that the no-fly zone violations made the invasion "legal." Then, you amended your position by saying that it wasn't about "legality," it was about "provocation." Now you say that they were "justification." Which is it?

0 Replies

What were the words you used earlier, nimh? "Deal with it"? Is that an acceptable response?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Please identify the portion or portions of those resolutions that gave the US the legal right to invade Iraq.

See JustWonders post above.

Thank you JustWonders!

Geez, McG, I know that you're tired, but I didn't realize that you were that tired! Even when I give you links to the resolutions that you've cited as legal justification for the invasion, you prefer to rely on someone else's argument (which, by the way, also doesn't rely upon any direct knowledge of the relevant resolutions).

It appears that these resolutions have much the same effect on the supporters of the war as garlic has on vampires: one whiff and they run for cover.

0 Replies

Quote:

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deesm it necessary for such purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't."

Abraham Lincoln

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Well that's a really meaty argument, he said sarcastically. [..]

In any case, Nimh presented a hypothetical based on your rationalizations about our rights to invade Iraq. You really should deal with the hypothetical.

With McG, I never know whether he's actually obtuse or just pretends to be. I'm still leaning to thinking he just makes himself out to be as obtuse as he appears to be, in order to always have a decent out -- you know, to always be able to with a straight face back out of some logical dead-end he finds himself stuck in by reverting to some good ol' down-home sabre-rattling non-sequitor.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
China invading Taiwan is not the same as The US freeing Iraq. That;s a ridiculous comparison.

Well that's a really meaty argument, he said sarcastically.

Did you have help with that...or did you come up with it on your own?

In any case, Nimh presented a hypothetical based on your rationalizations about our rights to invade Iraq. You really should deal with the hypothetical.

Quote:
...if China decides that an existing resolution can clearly be read to justify it invading Taiwan, it has the right to, regardless of whether the US, the UK and/or France object?

McGentrix never lets something as minor as answering a question disrupt his spew of propaganda. He simply ignores inconvenient facts or arguments; it helps him sleep better at night.

For example, he still has not replied to this: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1102859#1102859

McG: You cannot simultaneously use the UN sanctions to excuse US actions and then turn around and say that the UN has no place in US decision making. What a load of BS.

You're views on the UN (cherry pick those UN goals that you agree with and ignore the rest) remind me a of a child who takes his ball and goes home when he isn't winning the game anymore. Grow UP!

Edit: edited to correct misspelling.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

What were the words you used earlier, nimh? "Deal with it"? Is that an acceptable response?

Oh yes. I think the world is indeed, in varying ways, getting to deal with an America turned vigilante. Some, say France, peacefully - by building up stronger alternative power bases, giving the EU its first hint of a military or foreign policy strategy. Others, like say Iran or North Korea, by trying to get their hands on some effective nukes of their own to make sure the US wont be trying to do no Iraq on them. And yet others more violently still, by hauling in eager grassroots recruits to some holy war against American domination. Historical roots and parallel motives for all of that too, obviously, but nothing better to acutely mobilise the drive than seeing a hegemonic power behaving like a vigilante.

Pity, though.

And I was just curious whether, you know, a year or two after now, you have yet come up with a consistent argument on this appeal-to-UN-resolutions thing, or are still contenting yourselves with mere rhetorics.

0 Replies

I'm content right now, and imagine I will be in two year's time.

0 Replies

And then there's this Iranian student. He's a "real" vigilante Smile

http://www.nysun.com/article/7065

0 Replies

I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know