2000 DEAD

Good luck with that Deb. Your saying the war was unlawful does not make it so. There has been no international law broken. If there has been, perhaps you can post the laws, and show precedent to defend your claim?

McGentrix: No need to reinvent the wheel--it has already been done on this forum and elsewhere. Go ahead and google: Iraq "war of aggression" "international law"

You will find THOUSANDS of links to papers and opinions written by international legal scholars and statesmen setting forth all relevant facts, law, and information necessary to conclude that the invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression in violation of international law.

Will you take the time to educate yourself? I doubt it.

You can call an egg a brick too, but that doesn't mean it is. The opinion that it is a "war of aggression" is just that. An opinion. There is no doubt the internet is jam packed with anti-American, anti-Bush propaganda. I don't need to search it out.

*********

Military conflict in Iraq will have the full legitimacy of international law. I make this statement as someone who is a multilateralist by nature. I believe in international law and was a strong advocate for Australian participation in the International Criminal Court. I have worked for the United Nations in Geneva chronicling the abuses that occurred during the Bosnian conflict and I was Australia's chief electoral observer in Cambodia during the 1998 elections.


In each case I saw the tragic human consequences of a failure to uphold international law and the decisions of the UN. Now, in Iraq, we are witness to the same violation of international law and Security Council decisions.

There are three requirements if Security Council members the United States, Britain and Spain are to lead an international coalition to enforce the council's resolutions on Iraq.

First, there must be a clear and unequivocal duty on Iraq to comply with council resolutions. Second, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of that duty. Third, there must be a legitimate and continuing authority for enforcing those actions. All are present.

The first element, Iraq's duty to comply with international law, has been reaffirmed through 17 Security Council resolutions over 12 years. This duty began with resolution 678 of November 29, 1990, which authorised use of "all necessary means" to force Iraq to quit Kuwait and importantly "to restore international peace and security in the area".

After operation Desert Storm forced Iraq from Kuwait, the Security Council authorised a ceasefire under resolution 687 on April 3, 1991. The ceasefire was conditional on Iraq destroying or removing all its chemical and biological weapons. This condition was reaffirmed in resolution 1441 of November 8, 2002.

Critically, resolution 1441 declares Iraq "in material breach" of its obligations, offers "one final opportunity" to comply fully - not partially - and threatens "serious consequences" if it continued to violate its obligations. The term "serious consequences" is the same enforcement provision that underpinned Desert Storm.

So, Iraq's duty to disarm is continuing and absolute.

The second element is the question of breach. Again, the Security Council has repeatedly found Iraq in breach of its obligations to disarm and has authorised the use of force on many occasions.

Since November, UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has noted some co-operation, but he has repeatedly affirmed that Iraq has chemical and biological stores, missing anthrax and VX nerve gas supplies, and active development programs. So the Security Council itself has concluded that Iraq remains in fundamental breach of its obligations.

This breach has been compounded by Saddam Hussein's clear and unchallenged support for at least three active terrorist groups: the Abu Nidal Organisation, the Mujahideen e-Kharq and the PLF.

The third and most difficult question is who can legitimately enforce resolution 1441. Previous enforcement has followed a declaration of material breach, but has not specified the means. On all occasions it has been led by the US acting in accordance with Security Council resolutions.

In this particular case it has been asserted there may be duty and material breach but that US-led action would be unilateral and therefore illegitimate. This is false. In February, US Under-Secretary of State Marc Grossman identified 26 countries that had already given access, basing and over-flight rights for action against Iraq. A further 18 had given contingent approval for such co-operation. So a minimum of 44 countries have provisionally agreed to participate in an enforcement operation.

Of course, it would be preferable to have a further resolution for purposes of unanimity. Such a resolution would be the best way of avoiding conflict. But Australia, Britain, Spain and the US have exhausted every avenue to achieve the moral support of an 18th resolution. However, France, while calling for UN solidarity, has at the same time categorically ruled out any further resolution authorising force. It has blocked the very avenue down which it wants the world to travel.

Make no mistake though, full authority to enforce resolution 1441 already exists.

Saddam has been under an express UN Security Council duty for more than a decade to terminate his chemical and biological programs. He has been found to be in material breach of that duty by maintaining an active chemical and biological weapons program. Moreover, his regime's active support for terrorism remains in breach of Security Council demands.

Above all else, moral legitimacy is stripped away by the fact that Saddam runs perhaps the most oppressive remaining regime in the world.

In all those circumstances, there is clear legitimacy for enforcement of Security Council resolutions by a coalition comprising more than 40 countries and that is led by three members of the Security Council.

link

Given the circumstances, the terrain our troops are doing a fantastic job and leadership has done well to keep US casualties at a small number. Given the lack of a clear mission statement at this time, I am surprised at the relatively small number of US casualties.

Legal scholars and self-appointed "statesmen" writing papers do not make or enforce international law. Nations do that. We didn't hear much from that tribe during the years after WWII while the Soviet Union swallowed up most of Eastern and central Europe, or later in reference to the innumerable insurgencies they financed and directed.

In the final analysis international law consists of what sovereign nations accept and enforce - nothing more.

So, if a sovereign nation does not sign on to any international treaty, does not accept and enforce any international agreement, it can never break international law. We should keep that in mind.

Not quite. There is a substantial body of near universally accepted law governing things such as territorial seas, international straits, the right of innocent maratime passage, and many other such things. Even here there are holdouts and exceptions. For example, Indonesia claims the Lomboc Straits near Bali as territorial waters, in defiance of generally accepted maratime law. Most maratime nations (The U.S. Britain, Austrailia, Japan, and many others do not recognize the Indonesian claim and routinely use this rather critical international strait for the passage of their commercial and Naval forces, without regard to the Indonesian claim. The claim is not generally recognized and it is not enforced, so it does not constitute International law.

As I stated previously, there is no need for me to post the laws and show precedent to establish that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression in violation of international law. It has already been done countless times.

If you were interested in educating yourself on this issue, you would seek out the information. But you're not interested. You've already decided without the benefit of any information at all on the subject, that no international law has been broken. You're not interested in learning about international law if doing so could possibly undermine the uninformed opinion that you already have. See:



For future reference, don't waste my time asking me to post information when you're not interested in educating yourself on the subject matter.

To assume that international or universally accepted law would govern international water seems to be reasonable.

I would wonder about the significance of international law when it comes to national matters, though. For example: could a country that has not signed on to any international treaty, technically, do whatever it felt like within its territory without breaking internationl law?


Edit: post was meant to answer georgeob1's post.

Iraq poswed no threat to our national security. Amazing that there are still a few diehards drinking the kool-aid.

Interesting point. The fact is there is no international court of compulsory jurisdiction that can summon sovwereign nations against their will to be judged against standards not voluntarily accepted by themselves. Indeed treaties can be broken - as they very often are - generally without any recourse except that of relieving the other parties to the treaty of their reciprocal obligations. (Even that is sometimes arguable).

Legal "scholars" write endlessly about such things - but that is what they do. Their theories of law do not govern the actions of sovereign states.

Even a very superficial review of the history of the modern era (since the 15th century) - or beyond for that matter - quickly reveals the truth of these statements.

Didn't the US create the UN after WWII to prevent the pre-emptive war engaged by our dear Fuehrer Adolf Hitler? Now GWB wants to use that pre-emptive war model to thrash what FDR created both at home and abroad.

During the same period of time, some 100,000 Americans lost their lives on American highways.

Are these deaths so apparently inconsequential because of their lack of connection to a political theme?

There are a rather large number of Americans who believe the 2,000 who have died in Iraq, did so for a noble cause. Is there anyone who feels the same can be said for those who have died in automobile accidents during the same period of time?

The dead are the dead no matter what, and the families of those who have died in Iraq are no more devastated than those of loved ones who have died on American highways.

There is a difference though.

The families of those who have died in Iraq can, at least, console themselves with the notion that their loved one died in service of a greater good. Clearly, this cannot be said for those who have lost loved ones to too many beers and a sharp curve.

It does not, necessarily, make one un-patriotic to expound upon the futility of the death of 2,000 Americans in Iraq, but it does, inadvertently or otherwise, move to erode a source of solace for the loved ones of the casualties of the War in Iraq.

This, by no means, suggests that those who are against the War should trim their sails because of a zero tolerance for human suffering. It does suggest (strongly) that those who cannot support the War should not feel so smug as to belive that they are encapsulated in a broad and individual moral interpretation of events

Ironically, this is a lesson one would most readily expect Liberals to impart to Conservatives.

Alas, Liberals are 95% a -holes, while Conservatives are only 40%. And this is why I vote Conservative.

Deleted by me.

The traffic deaths are of their own decisions while many of the 2,000 dead and 10,000 disabled are there not of their own decisions to fight a war of gain. They joined in as National Guardsmen or lured by the prospect of a career absent at home.

Liberals let Communists like Finns into the United States.

They joined up voluntarily. They knew the risks when they signed up. If not, then they are just plain too stupid to read the paperwork they signed when they joined. So quite frankly, it was their own decision also.

Well the military is moaning that they are the only one sacrificing. I'm sure that your comments will warm their hearts.