U.S. Vows "Revenge"?

bonkey

Already replied to it above.

And now, I'm off home.

jc

Villain

Originally posted by bonkey
Do you believe that if an Iraqi had his hands on a fusion bomb, he/she would be perfectly justified to set it off in the centre of a US city ?

GOD NO

They have a right to defend themselves on their own land.

Johnmb

Originally posted by bonkey
Yup. And I would then show you the countless statements made by the US government etc. about how Hussein posed a clear and immediate threat to them.

While we may know in hindsight that these allegations are false, the simple fact is that we have not yet proven that they were known to be false at the time that their veracity is relevant to the discussion at hand.
All of which would be totally irrelevant. If you want to continue to debate the legallity of the invasion I suggest you read the International laws involved, especially the UN Charter. Nowhere does it say that pre-emptive strikes are legal. It clearly states that self-defence is the only legal reason, and the invasion of Iraq was not self defence by any stretch of the imagination, regardless as to what weapons Saddam had or didn't have.

So, in actual fact, you are supplying the very UN article which legitimises the US attack. They publically stated that he had WMDs, that every reasonable effort had been tried and failed, that he posed a clear and present threat to the well-being of the United States.....therefore legalising their act as precipitative self-defence, even in the absence of a UN resolution.
And, in actual fact, you show a clear misunderstanding of the law. Pre-emptive strikes are not given legal status, and I defy you to show otherwise with a reference. In fact, I'll go one better and reference Article 51, which clearly states that a member can individually, or collectively, defend itself "... if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations..." which clearly means that the aggressor must actually attack, and not might someday attack.

Now, morally, or with hindsight, I'm the first to object to how shallow the US argument was. Indeed, the fact that it was quickly abandoned after the fact for the more media-friendly humanitarian argument is telling. However, the simple fact remains that the US did everything required of it to meet the requirements for your allegations regarding the UN charter not to work.
No it didn't. The charter does not make allowances for pre-emptive strikes.

Certainly. The UN has repeatedly asked the US to allow it to have a greater hand in affairs. One most recent example of this was when the UN sent in a team to do its own fact-finding mission regarding election plausibility, the results of which they shared with the US.
And where does that show support for the US? To me, that shows that the UN is finally trying to do something for the Iraqi people. Any help this provides for the US is coincidental.

If you look at the UN's dealings with the US since the invasion, you will find nothing but requests for more involvement, more co-operation, and suggestions of ways in which it can help. That is what I meant by support.
Well, that is a strange definition. If a Garda gets attacked by a mob, and I try to break things up and tend to the Garda while trying to pacify the mob so that they'll let me, I wouldn't consider that supporting the mob. In the same way, when the UN steps in and tries to break things up between the US and Iraqi people, while trying to pacify the US so that they'll let them, I don't see that as the UN supporting the US.

If you want to look at it as no more than "supporting it to bring it to an end as quickly as possible", then go right ahead, but if you take a support/oppose balance, and put the UN's position on it....they most certainly do not oppose the US occupation.
Yes they do, they have said as much several times. They realise that they can't do anything about it, so they get on with trying to help Iraqi people get on with their lives, but that in no way means they support the occupation. If they did, the US would have gotten the resolution it sought, or at least would have gotten a majority of the Security Council.

Yup. I haven't seen a single call from him that the US should leave the nation, nor that they have no right to do anything there.
He has said that they shouldn't have invaded the way they did, and he has said that it should be the role of the UN to help the Iraqis set up their own government, not the US.

I have seen him encourage them to involve more international parties (so Annan wants more illegal occupiers, using your logic!).
No, Annan wants the UN to take over the political process to allow the Iraqis to get back their country as soon as possible. If military force is needed, he wants a UN Security Council Resolution to authorise it, thereby making it legal.

What oppression?
Banning of political parties, censorship of news papers and TV, internment without trial, curfews, etc.

Rubbish. They do not have a right to do anything "by any means necessary". No-one does.
Well we'll just have to disagree on that point, because I would not only consider it my right, I would consider it my duty, to defend Ireland from an occupying power by any means necessary, and if the occupying power wasn't happy about that, they should leave.

vorbis

johnmb, I'm sure you probably argue that we supported the Americans through allowing them use Shannon. How is that support different to the current UN support? They are helping the US therefore supporting them.

AmenToThat

Originally posted by pork99

1) Al Qaeda terrorists from all over the Moslem world

2) Criminal elements who were favoured by Saddams regime - which was a criminal regime (how can it be illegal to invade and overthrow an illegal regime?*)

3) Religious fanatic elements from among the Shi'tes

According to the latest opinions poles in Iraq done for the coalition, god knows how they are conducted?
I think this pole was taken just before the Shai rebellion!
Only one in ten in Shai areas supports attacks on coaltion soldiars, BUT in some Sunni areas 7 out of 10 supported attacks on coalition forces!

People will eventually have to start realising that in the Sunni triangle the majority are apposed to the forces of occupation!

It may be only a minority carry out the attcks but the majority of the population support these actions and there for I think the Sunni can rightly claim that they are just trying to protect there own people.
The beleif that these insurgents do not represent the wishes of the majority in these areas as the US would have us beleive simply isnt valid.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by daveirl
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3012847.stm


The Secetary General isn't the UN, the UN consists of nations states, one of whom is the US, so I think you'll find it'll be very hard to show us where the UN has opposed the occupation. Certain member states may have, but the UN hasn't.

The U.N. did not support the invasion of Iraq.
The majority of permanent member states of the Security Council opposed the invasion of Iraq (China, France, and Russia)
Most of the other member states also objected or asked to allow more time for the weapons inspectors to do their jobs (America didn't want this because they knew nothing would be found)
America sought a U.N. resolution backing the use the force.
This attempt was abaondoned by GWB.
America & Britain invaded anyway.

The U.N. accepts that the Americans cannot now leave Iraq as is.
The U.N. are simply ensuring that America does not abandon the Iraqi people to civil war.

But that doesn't mean the U.N. think it was the right thing to do in first place.
It also doesn't mean that the U.N. believes that surrounding/storming entire cities to catch 50-100 people is the right way to do things.

Johnmb

Originally posted by vorbis
johnmb, I'm sure you probably argue that we supported the Americans through allowing them use Shannon. How is that support different to the current UN support? They are helping the US therefore supporting them.

No, they are trying to help the Iraqi people. Any help that provided the US is secondary.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Johnmb
No, they are trying to help the Iraqi people. Any help that provided the US is secondary.

Thats seems lame to me, what could they do for the people of chechyna or are the Iraqi people more important?
This is the same UN that supported sending mainly U.S troops into Haiti?
If they regard the U.S as being imperial in Iraq what did they support that for?
The U.N is a very imperfect outfit, albeit the closest thing we've got to an international outfit.
But when it's relying on China and Russia to be the main stay of it's moral decisions on the world then it's hardly the outfit to take as an example of how things should be done.

We all know the history or how Iraq war 2 was brought about and how the U.S went down that road but just look at the intentions of the other countries who had to pass any motion to go to war with Saddam...
They all had as much financial and material motives to keep Saddam in power as Bush wanted him out.
Russia and China would have garnered more favourable deals with Saddam than with a U.S friendly Iraqi government.
They couldn't care less about the Iraqi people and given their appalling human rights record , who would expect anything else.

So really, you should hold the U.N up to the light and see who the decision makers are before you pick them out as a knight in shining armour for the Iraqi people...

Johnmb

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Thats seems lame to me, what could they do for the people of chechyna or are the Iraqi people more important?
I think you have the wrong thread. Where did that come from?

This is the same UN that supported sending mainly U.S troops into Haiti?
If they regard the U.S as being imperial in Iraq what did they support that for?
Who else would go?

The U.N is a very imperfect outfit, albeit the closest thing we've got to an international outfit.
Yep, and as long as they allow five countries to be above international law, it will never improve.

But when it's relying on China and Russia to be the main stay of it's moral decisions on the world then it's hardly the outfit to take as an example of how things should be done.
Again, what point are you trying to make regarding the subject being discussed? I seem to have missed it.

We all know the history or how Iraq war 2 was brought about and how the U.S went down that road but just look at the intentions of the other countries who had to pass any motion to go to war with Saddam...
They all had as much financial and material motives to keep Saddam in power as Bush wanted him out.
Russia and China would have garnered more favourable deals with Saddam than with a U.S friendly Iraqi government.
They couldn't care less about the Iraqi people and given their appalling human rights record , who would expect anything else.
So? That still doesn't change the illegality of what the US did.

So really, you should hold the U.N up to the light and see who the decision makers are before you pick them out as a knight in shining armour for the Iraqi people...
Who ever said they were that? If they were, they would have come to the aid of the Iraqi people long before now. The are doing the best they can, and that means they are doing as much as the US will allow them to do, hence the need to work with the US on occasions, even if the US did break international law, and the UN Charter.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Johnmb
Originally posted by Rock Climber
Thats seems lame to me, what could they do for the people of chechyna or are the Iraqi people more important?
I think you have the wrong thread. Where did that come from?

It's a valid point,you hold the UN up as and I quote " no they are trying to help the Iraqi people"
It's reasonable to ask why they allow the Russians to get away with murder... Oh wait they are on the security council....

Who else would go?

Well they asked a country who in your definition are doing some illegal occupying in Iraq to enter another country?
They don't seem too worried about it do they?
After all the purpose of the troops presence in Haiti is to restore order...
Similar to their continued presence in Iraq...
has the UN double standards and in relation to chechyna does it care more according to you about the Iraqi people than it does about the chechnyans?

Again, what point are you trying to make regarding the subject being discussed? I seem to have missed it.

Indeed it appears you have.
In the post of yours that I replied to above, you were justifying the UN involvement in Iraq as it being "helping the Iraqi people"
I'm posing the question, whats so special about them all of a sudden vis a vis the chechynans?
also if as you allude to the UN is so disdainfull of the U.S presence in Iraq, why are they asking them to enter Haiti?
It doesn't add up-can you shed some light on that?
If it is as it looks, (when taking your angle on it) and it is a double standard, why make such a fuss over the illegality as you put it in terms of UN law of what the U.S did?
They're not quite the shining light really are they...

Johnmb

Originally posted by Rock Climber
It's a valid point,you hold the UN up as and I quote " no they are trying to help the Iraqi people"
It's reasonable to ask why they allow the Russians to get away with murder... Oh wait they are on the security council....
And that changes what exactly about the quote you give?

Well they asked a country who in your definition are doing some illegal occupying in Iraq to enter another country?
They don't seem too worried about it do they?
After all the purpose of the troops presence in Haiti is to restore order...
Similar to their continued presence in Iraq...
has the UN double standards and in relation to chechyna does it care more according to you about the Iraqi people than it does about the chechnyans?
Who knows? What has that got to do with what the UN are doing in Iraq?

Indeed it appears you have.
In the post of yours that I replied to above, you were justifying the UN involvement in Iraq as it being "helping the Iraqi people"
I'm posing the question, whats so special about them all of a sudden vis a vis the chechynans?
Well, what's so special about the Iraqis over the Chechynans is that this thread was set up to discuss the Iraqis. What the UN is or isn't doing anywhere else has no relevance to what they are or aren't doing in Iraq.

also if as you allude to the UN is so disdainfull of the U.S presence in Iraq, why are they asking them to enter Haiti?
Because the last I checked, the two were completely different countries, involving completely different circumstances. Why should the UN make the people of Haiti suffer over something that happened somewhere else?

It doesn't add up-can you shed some light on that?
If it is as it looks, (when taking your angle on it) and it is a double standard, why make such a fuss over the illegality as you put it in terms of UN law of what the U.S did?
They're not quite the shining light really are they...
Whether or not they are a shining light doesn't change the fact that they are trying to do something useful in Iraq, and getting back on topic, whether or not they are doing something useful in Iraq does not mean that they supported the US, it just means that they are trying to make the most from a bad situation.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Johnmb
Originally posted by Rock Climber
It's a valid point,you hold the UN up as and I quote " no they are trying to help the Iraqi people"
It's reasonable to ask why they allow the Russians to get away with murder... Oh wait they are on the security council....
And that changes what exactly about the quote you give?

Can you address my point rather than avoid it by asking an irelevant question please.
You initially stated that the UN weren't assisting the U.S.
Bonkey said they were and I am saying they are.
You pointed out that it was out of assisting the Iraqi people that they were doing that and any assistance to the US is incidental.
I countered by pointing out that , the UN are no shining light and therefore couldn't be shown as such by you as they havent helped the chechynans.
Thats very on topic as it challenges your assertions about both the U.S and the U.N and their motives/modus operandi and their worth.

Of course, you can say that its off topic, but then, it's only such if you wish to avoid points that shake the foundations of what you in particular are saying.

Well, what's so special about the Iraqis over the Chechynans is that this thread was set up to discuss the Iraqis. What the UN is or isn't doing anywhere else has no relevance to what they are or aren't doing in Iraq.

It most certainly is relevant if you are presenting the UN at all in the argument, you must be prepared to have their worth analyised too.
It's a bit rich to pick and choose where they are to be taken as the law and where they are not, just because it's open season on the U.S

Because the last I checked, the two were completely different countries, involving completely different circumstances. Why should the UN make the people of Haiti suffer over something that happened somewhere else?

Again see my last point.
They are prepared to let the U.S do their bidding in Haiti-ergo they are not too displeased with them.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Can you address my point rather than avoid it by asking an irelevant question please.
Kepp your point to the subject being discussed, and I'll address it.

You initially stated that the UN weren't assisting the U.S.
No, I said that they weren't supporting the US occupation. A different thing altogether.

Bonkey said they were and I am saying they are.
No, Bonkey said they were supporting the US. I don't know what you were saying, and I doubt you do either.

You pointed out that it was out of assisting the Iraqi people that they were doing that and any assistance to the US is incidental.
Correct, and therefore such assistence does not equate to support of what the US has done, or is doing.

I countered by pointing out that , the UN are no shining light and therefore couldn't be shown as such by you as they havent helped the chechynans.
You didn't counter anything that was said, you changed the subject.

Thats very on topic as it challenges your assertions about both the U.S and the U.N and their motives/modus operandi and their worth.
No it doesn't. What I said about the UN in Iraq doesn't change, regardless as to what they do or don't do in other situations.

Of course, you can say that its off topic, but then, it's only such if you wish to avoid points that shake the foundations of what you in particular are saying.
"Shake the foundations"? You don't even address what I have said, so no foundations are under threat. Nothing about the UN in Haiti or Chechyna changes what I have said about the UN in Iraq.

It most certainly is relevant if you are presenting the UN at all in the argument, you must be prepared to have their worth analyised too.
Why? We are not assessing their worth, we are assessing whether or not their activity in Iraq can be deemed as support for what the US did regarding Iraq, nothing more. If you want to discuss the UN more generally, you should start a thread about the UN.

It's a bit rich to pick and choose where they are to be taken as the law and where they are not, just because it's open season on the U.S
Where have I picked and chosen?

Again see my last point.
They are prepared to let the U.S do their bidding in Haiti-ergo they are not too displeased with them.
No, they are willing to let the US do their bidding in many other countries because the US are the only country capable of doing it. If the UN stopped the US from doing this, who else would? Why should all the people who benefit from UN operations involving US troops be made to suffer because of one incident involving Iraq?

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Johnmb
Originally posted by Rock Climber
Can you address my point rather than avoid it by asking an irelevant question please.
Kepp your point to the subject being discussed, and I'll address it.

The broad topic here is law enforcement in Iraq.
You are discussing the UN's role in Iraq as part of this discussion-that is a fact and not off topic, it's part of the overall discussion.
If you have no answer to my points then you should say so.
Now on the whole support the occupation or not issue, I merely countered your assertion that the UN were there merely helping the Iraqi people.
Their involvement is an involvement, it is support.
Total withdrawal of tacit support would be a total withdrawal of all involvement or attempts at involvement.

You didn't counter anything that was said, you changed the subject.

As I said it's all part of the same subject, if you want to discuss the UN's role, all I've been happy to do is discuss it with you.
I certainly haven't changed the subject.

"Shake the foundations"? You don't even address what I have said, so no foundations are under threat. Nothing about the UN in Haiti or Chechyna changes what I have said about the UN in Iraq.

It does, as you have shown yourself, the UN is willing to use the US when it wants to...
Or should I say that Russia and China , those bastions of freedom and human rights ( :rolleyes: ) who in common with the US and the UK run the UN security council agree to it...
So you see I have a problem with the veracity of UN law when its cherry picked and applied here and there in special cases to lambast one agressor and not another, regardless of whether the agression is internal or external
Do you now see where I am coming from?

Why? We are not assessing their worth, we are assessing whether or not their activity in Iraq can be deemed as support for what the US did regarding Iraq, nothing more. If you want to discuss the UN more generally, you should start a thread about the UN.

Again, I didn't bring the UN into this, I questioned their worth in terms of the cherry picking of the use of their laws... after you had already brought them into the equasion.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Rock Climber
The broad topic here is law enforcement in Iraq.
You are discussing the UN's role in Iraq as part of this discussion-that is a fact and not off topic, it's part of the overall discussion.
The UN has no role in the law enforcement of Iraq.

If you have no answer to my points then you should say so.
I have answered all your points that were relevant to the discussion, and quite a few that weren't.

Now on the whole support the occupation or not issue, I merely countered your assertion that the UN were there merely helping the Iraqi people.
No you didn't. You changed the subject to Haiti and Chechyna. What the UN do there has nothing to do with Iraq.

Their involvement is an involvement, it is support.
No it is not. The UN are involved in many places, that does not equate to support for any of the factions in those places.

Total withdrawal of tacit support would be a total withdrawal of all involvement or attempts at involvement.
No it wouldn't, as that would cause others to suffer whom the UN are trying to help.

As I said it's all part of the same subject, if you want to discuss the UN's role, all I've been happy to do is discuss it with you.
I certainly haven't changed the subject.
Yes you have. In the middle of a discussion about the UN in Iraq, you have brought up Chechyna, which has nothing to do with the UN or Iraq.

It does, as you have shown yourself, the UN is willing to use the US when it wants to...
No, I've shown the UN is willing to use the US when it needs to and the option arises.

Or should I say that Russia and China , those bastions of freedom and human rights ( :rolleyes: ) who in common with the US and the UK run the UN security council agree to it...
And France can be added in there. Your point?

So you see I have a problem with the veracity of UN law when its cherry picked and applied here and there in special cases to lambast one agressor and not another, regardless of whether the agression is internal or external
Do you now see where I am coming from?
No. Who has done this? I have not said international law should only apply to one group and not another. Who has said that? And before you answer, you should check up on international law, Chechyna is not covered by it (at least not by the UN Charter). If that upsets you, then start a thread to debate it, but here it is irrelevant to the subject being discussed as Iraq is covered by it as it currently stands.

Again, I didn't bring the UN into this, I questioned their worth in terms of the cherry picking of the use of their laws...
And you have yet to provide an example of how this occured.

after you had already brought them into the equasion.
I commented on the fact that the invasion was illegal under international law. That is fact, and nothing you have presented shows otherwise.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Johnmb
Originally posted by Rock Climber

The UN has no role in the law enforcement of Iraq.

They do in that they recognise the Coalition as the occupying power in Iraq in order to encourage the coalition to obey an occupiers mandate to enforce the law in Iraq.
They are in effect by doing so trying to enforce UN law via the US in Iraq.

No you didn't. You changed the subject to Haiti and Chechyna. What the UN do there has nothing to do with Iraq.

What the UN do their dilutes their worth in that it's not a consistant approach as a result of the security council comprising such self interested and i use this term loosely hypocrites.

No it wouldn't, as that would cause others to suffer whom the UN are trying to help.

It's actually impossible to quantiufy that as , the UN authorised the misery that were sanctions prior to the US invasion as you know and even if they hadn't we have no way of quantifying what Saddam would have done to many more thousands of his people if he had remained in power.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Rock Climber
They do in that they recognise the Coalition as the occupying power in Iraq in order to encourage the coalition to obey an occupiers mandate to enforce the law in Iraq.
They are in effect by doing so trying to enforce UN law via the US in Iraq.
Trying, but they are not responsible. It is an attempt to exercise some kind of control over the US, but it doesn't amount to support of the US for what it did, it amounts to making the best of a bad situation.

What the UN do their dilutes their worth in that it's not a consistant approach as a result of the security council comprising such self interested and i use this term loosely hypocrites.
Regardless, as that doesn't impact anything that has been discussed on this thread. Like I said, if you want to debate the UN's general effectiveness, start a new thread, this one is specific to Iraq, and the UN is as effective as it can be there.

It's actually impossible to quantiufy that as , the UN authorised the misery that were sanctions prior to the US invasion as you know and even if they hadn't we have no way of quantifying what Saddam would have done to many more thousands of his people if he had remained in power.
Which is completely irrelevant to the subject being discussed, which is whether or the the UN's current actions in Iraq equate to support for the US' actions in Iraq.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Johnmb

Trying, but they are not responsible. It is an attempt to exercise some kind of control over the US, but it doesn't amount to support of the US for what it did, it amounts to making the best of a bad situation.

But you see this appears to be the crux of where we have a disagreement here.
On the one hand you say the UN doesn't support what the US has done in Iraq ( you brought it up not me) and on the other you are in no position to say that the UN disagreed with what the U.S did in Iraq as there is no UNSC motion condemning them.

It's actually impossible to quantiufy that as , the UN authorised the misery that were sanctions prior to the US invasion as you know and even if they hadn't we have no way of quantifying what Saddam would have done to many more thousands of his people if he had remained in power.
Which is completely irrelevant to the subject being discussed, which is whether or the the UN's current actions in Iraq equate to support for the US' actions in Iraq.

And again it was you who was talking with others on this thread about the legality issue, before I ever entered the thread, so don't go looking at me, if I want to add to that discusion in the over all context of the topic of this thread.
I'm only doing it thae same as yourself and making what I feel are relevant on-topic points.
We can of course now with hindsight place judgement on whether or not the Bush administration had genuine grounds to feel that Iraq was a threat to the U.S
Of course most if not all of it with this perfect 20:20 hindsight seems to have been mistaken
But their fears that Saddam harboured people willing to attack the us with chemical/biological weapons is there as a get out clause, for anyone that wants to go down the road of questioning the legality of the war.

For the record by the way,I wasn't in favour of the War personally. We live in a very troubled and complicated world, with many, many injustices and I don't see a clear way out of it.
Certainly I don't see the UN as being the saviour of all when it is powerless in many cases by its very structure.
And the irony is of course that some of the elements fighting alongside those being lauded by some posters here as freedom fighters, blew up UN buildings in Iraq and deliberately killed UN personell.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Rock Climber
But you see this appears to be the crux of where we have a disagreement here.
On the one hand you say the UN doesn't support what the US has done in Iraq ( you brought it up not me) and on the other you are in no position to say that the UN disagreed with what the U.S did in Iraq as there is no UNSC motion condemning them.
Well, I think it is fair to assume that the UN wouldn't support the breaking of its own Charter, plus while no resolution condemning them exists, there was an attempt to get a resolution supporting them, and it failed. If the UN supported the US in this matter, why did that resolution fail? And also bear in mind that the US and UK had said that they would ignore any vetoes, so when they withdrew the draft it wasn't because of the threat of a veto, it was because they couldn't get majority support.

And again it was you who was talking with others on this thread about the legality issue, before I ever entered the thread, so don't go looking at me, if I want to add to that discusion in the over all context of the topic of this thread.
You haven't added to that discussion. What have you said about the legality of the invasion?

I'm only doing it thae same as yourself and making what I feel are relevant on-topic points.
You are not doing the same thing as myself, I haven't tried to take the discussion away from Iraq, which is what the thread was set up for, to discuss the US' current actions in Iraq.

We can of course now with hindsight place judgement on whether or not the Bush administration had genuine grounds to feel that Iraq was a threat to the U.S
We can, but that won't change the legallity or otherwise of the invasion.

Of course most if not all of it with this perfect 20:20 hindsight seems to have been mistaken
But their fears that Saddam harboured people willing to attack the us with chemical/biological weapons is there as a get out clause, for anyone that wants to go down the road of questioning the legality of the war.
No it's not. Not unless you can show a reference to a clause in international law that allows for pre-emptive strikes. The UN Charter certainly doesn't, unless a UN Resolution is passed specifically for that purpose.

For the record by the way,I wasn't in favour of the War personally. We live in a very troubled and complicated world, with many, many injustices and I don't see a clear way out of it.
Certainly I don't see the UN as being the saviour of all when it is powerless in many cases by its very structure.
And the irony is of course that some of the elements fighting alongside those being lauded by some posters here as freedom fighters, blew up UN buildings in Iraq and deliberately killed UN personell.
Yep. And I can understand why too. The UN itself wouldn't be too popular there either, however that still doesn't equate to support of the US.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Johnmb

Well, I think it is fair to assume that the UN wouldn't support the breaking of its own Charter, plus while no resolution condemning them exists, there was an attempt to get a resolution supporting them, and it failed. If the UN supported the US in this matter, why did that resolution fail?

and was there an attempt to get one to condemn them?
No why? structure of the UN,theres always a vested interest in certain cases to serve itself in the way that council does its business, which is essentially why using them to argue the legality of a war is questionable.

You haven't added to that discussion. What have you said about the legality of the invasion?

I've said several times that , it's legality cannot be defined as theres no adequate procedure to define it, the UNSC cannot be used as at the time and probably still in relation to Iraq, it's members vested interests are more important than a good solution for the people of Iraq.

No it's not. Not unless you can show a reference to a clause in international law that allows for pre-emptive strikes.

But you see I have already, in that Bush can argue, that at the time, he had grounds to fear that those responsible for 9/11 were in bed with Saddam.
Ergo, he was making a case at the time that Saddam was attacking the US or tacitly harbouring thos that did.
The fact that he didn't wait and see could either be seen as being sneaky or being decisive or both or neither depending on your viewpoint.
However, if they were brought to court on that, one would have to prove the sneakyness beyond all reasonable doubt to get what they did declared illegal or get a conviction.
Now theres a quagmire for ya, but still nothing conclusive, and therefore no certainty on the illegality question.

The UN itself wouldn't be too popular there either, however that still doesn't equate to support of the US.

Well at the very least, it equates to, those responsible thinking the the UN presence was/is helping the US.
What more proof do ya need of that when theres proof that some of the insurgents wanted the UN out too.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Rock Climber
and was there an attempt to get one to condemn them?
No why? structure of the UN,theres always a vested interest in certain cases to serve itself in the way that council does its business, which is essentially why using them to argue the legality of a war is questionable.
I'm not using the Council to argue the illegality of the war, I'm using the Charter, which the vast majority of nations on this planet have signed up to and recognise as the basis for international law, including those nations that broke it by invading Iraq.

I've said several times that , it's legality cannot be defined as theres no adequate procedure to define it,
Yes there is. The UN Charter, various conventions, etc.

the UNSC cannot be used as at the time and probably still in relation to Iraq, it's members vested interests are more important than a good solution for the people of Iraq.
Who is using the UNSC?

But you see I have already, in that Bush can argue, that at the time, he had grounds to fear that those responsible for 9/11 were in bed with Saddam.
Irrelevant, as that would still require that pre-emptive strikes are allowed, and they are not.

Ergo, he was making a case at the time that Saddam was attacking the US or tacitly harbouring thos that did.
No he wasn't. He was making a case that Saddam may at some future point in time do those things.

The fact that he didn't wait and see could either be seen as being sneaky or being decisive or both or neither depending on your viewpoint.
And regardless as to what description you give that decision, it was illegal under the UN Charter.

However, if they were brought to court on that, one would have to prove the sneakyness beyond all reasonable doubt to get what they did declared illegal or get a conviction.
No you wouldn't. You'd just have to show that Iraq didn't attack the US or its allies, and therefore the invasion was not "self-defence".

Now theres a quagmire for ya, but still nothing conclusive, and therefore no certainty on the illegality question.
No quagmire above. Have you even read the relevant sections of the UN Charter?

Well at the very least, it equates to, those responsible thinking the the UN presence was/is helping the US.
No, it's more than likely proof that those responsible do not appreciate that the UN stood by and did nothing when one of its member states was invaded.

What more proof do ya need of that when theres proof that some of the insurgents wanted the UN out too.
People wanting the UN out as well as the US does not equate to the UN supporting the US.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Johnmb
Originally posted by Rock Climber

I'm not using the Council to argue the illegality of the war, I'm using the Charter, which the vast majority of nations on this planet have signed up to and recognise as the basis for international law, including those nations that broke it by invading Iraq.

But it is the unsc that get to police the charter, now have they said the war was in contravention of the charter - yes or no?
Your or my opinion isn't good enough to declare on the illegality or otherwise, there is no certainty about it untill it is done.

No he wasn't. He was making a case that Saddam may at some future point in time do those things.

Eh? Did powell not use that famous UK dossier ( now shown up for what it was...) as an imminent threat amongst references to AlQueda being in Iraq?
If and it seems black and white that he can,plead that the US believed they were attacked on 9-11 by people who at the time of going to War were in Iraq and sheltered by Saddam then he has a case.
Moot though as it may be as the UNSC is powerless to do anything to judge that case.

People wanting the UN out as well as the US does not equate to the UN supporting the US.

Of course it does, as these insurgents are clever people, they should know that the UN being present lends a helping hand to the US, its less work for them to do.

No quagmire above. Have you even read the relevant sections of the UN Charter?

It is a quagmire for you in proving the illegality with certainty and conclusiveness of the invasion as there is no effective mechanism to pass judgement on it, and therefore, other than your opinion or mine and everybody else without the official tools of law, any judgement is subjectiverather than of any legal standing.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Rock Climber
But it is the unsc that get to police the charter, now have they said the war was in contravention of the charter - yes or no?
The UNSC enforce the Charter, they do not decide when it is and isn't applied. You seriously need to read the Charter before you continue.

Your or my opinion isn't good enough to declare on the illegality or otherwise, there is no certainty about it untill it is done.
It's not an opinion, it is written in black and white in the Charter.

Eh? Did powell not use that famous UK dossier ( now shown up for what it was...) as an imminent threat amongst references to AlQueda being in Iraq?
Yes he did, and an imminent threat would require a pre-emptive strike, which is not allowed for in the Charter without the explicit go-ahead from the UNSC, which didn't happen.

If and it seems black and white that he can,plead that the US believed they were attacked on 9-11 by people who at the time of going to War were in Iraq and sheltered by Saddam then he has a case.
No he doesn't, number one because he didn't plead that case, and number two, it still wouldn't equate to Iraq carrying out the 9/11 attacks.

Of course it does, as these insurgents are clever people, they should know that the UN being present lends a helping hand to the US, its less work for them to do.
And that still doesn't equate to the UN supporting the US in its actions regarding Iraq, no matter how many times you repeat it.

It is a quagmire for you in proving the illegality with certainty and conclusiveness of the invasion as there is no effective mechanism to pass judgement on it,
Yes there is. Just because you don't seem to want to read the Charter doesn't mean that it ceases to exist.

and therefore, other than your opinion or mine and everybody else without the official tools of law, any judgement is subjectiverather than of any legal standing.
It doesn't require opinion, it is written down in black and white. In the same way as the US broke the convention on human rights regarding camp x-ray, the law is stated in very straightforward language. There are two occasions when attacking a sovereign contry is legal, one is with the prior approval of the UNSC (which didn't happen), and the other is in self defence after you have been attacked (which also didn't happen).

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Johnmb

Originally posted by daveirl
Ergo the UN support the status quo.

No, the UN want changes made to the status quo, but they can't force the US to make them. If they supported the status quo, they wouldn't want changes made, would they.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Johnmb
Originally posted by Rock Climber
But it is the unsc that get to police the charter, now have they said the war was in contravention of the charter - yes or no?
The UNSC enforce the Charter, they do not decide when it is and isn't applied. You seriously need to read the Charter before you continue.

Erm, but do they enforce the charter in all cases ?
Have they declared the US action illegal and what use is a charter if , it's principals are policed selectively?
I've provided you with a possible defence thats as clear as day for Bush to argue that he complied with the charter in the invasion.
the mechanism to incontravertibly declare that he hasn't is so flawed that it is incapable of declaring otherwise.
therefore it is just down to opinions as there is no legal declaration on the matter.
It has not been judged.
You will say he has contravened it, he has the means to say that he hasn't.
That might cause one to choke on ones food, but it is the case none the less.
As I say, thats law for ya, when it's being implimented and created by a flawed outfit, we have a quagmire.

No he doesn't, number one because he didn't plead that case, and number two, it still wouldn't equate to Iraq carrying out the 9/11 attacks.

Well we know he's not before a court, and we know the UNSC is structured such that it cannot determine in the matter, so it's more than obvious that he hasnt presented a defence such as this as he hasn't had to.
But even I can see what is available to him should he have to argue his case.
And again as much as that might cause one to choke on ones food it is the case none the less.

and the other is in self defence after you have been attacked (which also didn't happen).

Again but he can argue the case that as far as they were aware at the time, all his information suggested that the people who were behind 9-11 were being harboured by Saddam and therefore Iraq's WMD programme which he'll say he thought was there at the time was a direct threat to the US and indeed that Saddam was culpable.
Indeed if there was a court of law looking into this, I'm sure, all the high powered attorney's in the US could put up a much more cast iron version of what I am saying.

Yes there is. Just because you don't seem to want to read the Charter doesn't mean that it ceases to exist.

What international court has jusridiction over US actions anyways, see-ing as they don't like to sign up to such things?
Barring that we are back to the ineffectiveness of the other tool, the UNSC.

Johnmb

Originally posted by daveirl
So why did the Security Council back the most recent resolution on Iraq.

Because it was better than the situation as it stood previously. It is still not what the UN wanted, and the UN still want more changes.

Have they declared the US action illegal and what use is a charter if , it's principals are policed selectively?

What would be the point? Everyone knows that the only reason the UN had any power over its member states was when the US backed them with their armed forces. Now that its the US and Britain that are defying UN charter, there's no nation willing to step up and force the issue with their own Military behind them. Its a lost cause. The UN is dead.

International law, UN charters etc are nice and all, but if there's no Military and Political force to back them up, then they're not worth the paper they're recorded on.

therefore Iraq's WMD programme which he'll say he thought was there at the time was a direct threat to the US and indeed that Saddam was culpable.

Just to point out that most wars are started by some nation claiming that the target was going to attack them, so they attacked first. Germany-Poland, Iraq-Iran, Israel-Arab States. Its never been accepted as being allowable, so why is it allowable now?

Johnmb

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Erm, but do they enforce the charter in all cases ?
Have they declared the US action illegal and what use is a charter if , it's principals are policed selectively?
You seem to once again be straying from the point. Just because someone cannot be punished for doing an illegal act doesn't mean that the act wasn't illegal. The US cannot be punished by the UN, nor can the UK, France, Russia, and China. That doesn't mean that they never do illegal acts, it just means they get away with it.

I've provided you with a possible defence thats as clear as day for Bush to argue that he complied with the charter in the invasion.
No you haven't, you've created a strwman argument. Coulda, woulda, shoulda, but the fact remains that he didn't.

the mechanism to incontravertibly declare that he hasn't is so flawed that it is incapable of declaring otherwise.
therefore it is just down to opinions as there is no legal declaration on the matter.
It has not been judged.
What's to judge? The law says you can't attack another country, they attacked another country. They broke the law. The fact that they can't be punished for it doesn't change that.

You will say he has contravened it, he has the means to say that he hasn't.
No he doesn't, which is why he is not even contesting the charge anymore, instead he is saying that they broke the law on humanitarian grounds.

That might cause one to choke on ones food, but it is the case none the less.
As I say, thats law for ya, when it's being implimented and created by a flawed outfit, we have a quagmire.
The law is not a quagmire, the enforcing agency is. You seem to have problems differentiating the two.

Well we know he's not before a court, and we know the UNSC is structured such that it cannot determine in the matter, so it's more than obvious that he hasnt presented a defence such as this as he hasn't had to.
But even I can see what is available to him should he have to argue his case.
And again as much as that might cause one to choke on ones food it is the case none the less.
It's not a case he can present, as you would know if you bothered to read the laws being discussed. That case is not allowed by the laws.


Again but he can argue the case that as far as they were aware at the time, all his information suggested that the people who were behind 9-11 were being harboured by Saddam and therefore Iraq's WMD programme which he'll say he thought was there at the time was a direct threat to the US and indeed that Saddam was culpable.
No he can't, for the simple reason that they didn't make that claim at the time, and because it still wouldn't equate to an attack by Iraq, no more so than an ETA attack could equate to an attack by Spain.

Indeed if there was a court of law looking into this, I'm sure, all the high powered attorney's in the US could put up a much more cast iron version of what I am saying.
Not really, considering all your arguments have already been disallowed by the law.

What international court has jusridiction over US actions anyways, see-ing as they don't like to sign up to such things?
Barring that we are back to the ineffectiveness of the other tool, the UNSC.
I don't see what relevance this has. Not being punished because nobody can doesn't mean you didn't break the law.