BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 08:09 PM

Yes.

BTW, France and Germany know that Saddam has WMD. They have the receipts.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 08:24 PM

The question in this thread is, is this scheduled war legitimate, which I take it means the same thing as legal. There are other threads focus sing on whether it's a good idea, or right or wrong.

Given that the United States and the United Kingdom have bound themselves to abide by the United Nations Treaty, there is no way in which this war can be legal, unless and until there has been a resolution, carried by a majority on the Security Council, with no permanent members voting against it, which specifically authorises the use of military force.>/I>

There hasn't been one, and there appears to be no immediate prospect of one. The war which is due to start within the next few days will therefore undoubtedly be illegal, no question about it, so far as I can see. And I wouldn't see it any different if I was in favour of it happening.

That resolution people keep quoting, 1441, just talks about "serious consequences" - it doesn't even mention military action - here is a link to it. If you go for a walk on a rainy day without wrapping up properly, that can have "serious consequences", you might get a really bad cold. It's a meaningless term in itself.

And the new resolution that's supposed to make all the difference if enough countries can be bribed bullied or cajoled it voting for it or abstaining, that is even more vacuous. And don't believe me, - it goes on at length about how Saddam has failed to cooperate - but when it come to the crunch, what does it say should be gone? It says that in the light of all this the Security Council ""Decides to remain seized of the matter."

Which means, in the normal sense of language, it will keep paying attention to what is going on, and decide at a later date what to do about it. And it won't make any difference at all to the illegality of this war, at this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 08:28 PM

The question in this thread is, is this scheduled war legitimate, which I take it means the same thing as legal. There are other threads focusing on whether it's a good idea, or right or wrong.

Given that the United States and the United Kingdom have bound themselves to abide by the United Nations Treaty, there is no way in which this war can be legal, unless and until there has been a resolution, carried by a majority on the Security Council, with no permanent members voting against it, which specifically authorises the use of military force.

There hasn't been one, and there appears to be no immediate prospect of one. The war which is due to start within the next few days will therefore undoubtedly be illegal, no question about it, so far as I can see. And I wouldn't see it any different if I was in favour of it happening.

That resolution people keep quoting, 1441, just talks about "serious consequences" - it doesn't even mention military action - here is a link to it. If you go for a walk on a rainy day without wrapping up properly, that can have "serious consequences", you might get a really bad cold. It's a meaningless term in itself.

And the new resolution that's supposed to make all the difference if enough countries can be bribed bullied or cajoled it voting for it or abstaining, that is even more vacuous. And don't believe me, here is a link to the text. It goes on at length about how Saddam has failed to cooperate - but when it come to the crunch, what does it say should be gone? It says that in the light of all this the Security Council "Decides to remain seized of the matter."

Which means, in the normal sense of language, it will keep paying attention to what is going on, and decide at a later date what to do about it. And it won't make any difference at all to the illegality of this war, at this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 09:23 PM

Mark,

Ya' missed *one* country on your list of countries that participates in "torture" and "human rights" violations...

And it's a biggie...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 09:06 AM

Not strictly true MGoH:

No member state in the United Nations has relinquished it's right to act independently and take what ever action it deems necessary in its own defence.

Forum Lurker:

<<"...no problem was apparent until Bush started talking about regime change.">>

The current regime in Iraq has been in power under the present leadership since 1979. It has consistantly ignored its obligations under the terms on UNSC resolutions directed at its activities. Iraq has been afforded opportunity after opportunity to comply with those resolutions - Iraq has refused to co-operate and comply on every occasion.

With that as the back-ground I would have though it no great bound of logic to link that non-co-operation to the people in power in Iraq, or, to the obvious conclusion that if the international community wants Iraq to disarm, then regime change is essential - because the guys that are there at the moment show absolutely no sign, or intention of doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:23 AM

The United Nations Treaty specifically allows for the situation where states are acting in their own defence in face of an invasion or similar hostile acts, and conditions for that defence are prescribed. The scheduled war doesn't fall within those conditions, and so far as I know, nobody has claimed that it would.

(In the unlikely - because suicidal - event that Iraq were to launch a war, in response to bombing raids, I think it is likely that this would in fact fall within the definition of legitimate self-defence.)

Just saying you believe you are acting in self-defence isn't sufficient. After all Nazi Germany claimed that when it attacked Poland.

Here's a quote which sums up the legal situation as I understand it:

"Since the signing of the UN Charter in June 1945, the only body with the authority to initiate military action is the United Nations Security Council, except in the case of self-defence when an armed attack has actually occurred against a sovereign state. Even then, the exception of self-defence, like all exceptions, is to be strictly construed.

All signatories are bound by Article 2.4 of the Charter which says that 'all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force …' Today, in the light of the UN Charter, especially Articles 2 and 51, it is plain that the only circumstance under which a sovereign state might invoke the authority to go to war is when an armed attack occurs; even in self-defence, it may do so only 'until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security' (Article 51)."

That comes from the Pax Christi site"./a>, which is obviously a source which has a more rigorous view about what might constitute a legal or a just war than some other sites. But I'd be surprised to find an authoritative site that would disagree essentially with that interpretation of the legal position.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:30 AM

The United Nations Treaty specifically allows for the situation where states are acting in their own defence in face of an invasion or similar hostile acts, and conditions for that defence are prescribed. The scheduled war doesn't fall within those conditions, and so far as I know, nobody has claimed that it would.

(In the unlikely - because suicidal - event that Iraq were to launch a war, in response to bombing raids, I think it is likely that this would in fact fall within the definition of legitimate self-defence.)

Just saying you believe you are acting in self-defence isn't sufficient. After all Nazi Germany claimed that when it attacked Poland.

Here's a quote which sums up the legal situation, as I understand it:

"Since the signing of the UN Charter in June 1945, the only body with the authority to initiate military action is the United Nations Security Council, except in the case of self-defence when an armed attack has actually occurred against a sovereign state. Even then, the exception of self-defence, like all exceptions, is to be strictly construed.

All signatories are bound by Article 2.4 of the Charter which says that 'all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force …' Today, in the light of the UN Charter, especially Articles 2 and 51, it is plain that the only circumstance under which a sovereign state might invoke the authority to go to war is when an armed attack occurs; even in self-defence, it may do so only 'until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security' (Article 51)."

That comes from the Pax Christi site , which is obviously a source which could be expected to favour a more rigorous view about what might constitute a legal or a just war than some other sites. But I'd be surprised to find an authoritative site that would disagree essentially with that interpretation of the legal position.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:49 AM

Hi Kevin does your computer have a built in echo???

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 07:22 PM

No, but sometimes it has a hair trigger, so it blasts off a thread before it's in proper shape. In which case it seems good manners to fellow Mudcatters to post the intended one, and trust to a Joe clone to remove the first, unintended, one.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Olguy
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 01:23 PM

Do you think the war on the US in the form of the 9/11 attacks is legitimate?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 03:34 PM

Of course not, it was a criminal act, carried out using equipment purchased in the USA. But what on earth has that that got to do with Iraq, any more than the Oklahoma bombing did?

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 05:37 PM

"Purchased in the U.S.A.," Kevin? How about highjacked? The administration believes that Iraq had some connection with 9/11. No proof has been presented as yet, but who knows what will turn up after the war.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Beccy
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 05:44 PM

McGofH-
You wanted to know how it had more to do with Iraq than Oklahoma City? It's quite simple. Tim McVeigh did not have any nebulous government or independently wealthy militaristic and nihilistic sponsors (read: Iran, Iraq and any other state-sponsors of terrorism) and the 9/11 hijackers did.

Both attacks were horrific and unjustifiable. One occured with the promise of more attacks (9/11) and one occured as a single occasion (Oklahoma City). That's not to say homegrown murderous bastards are less frightening than foreign-born ones. It's just that McVeigh didn't have a nation-state behind his quest.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 11:30 PM

Right on, Beccy! Kevin?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Mar 03 - 08:49 AM

But what's any of that that got to do with Iraq? I didn't say Septemnber 11th or Oklahoma had everything in common, just that one thing they shared was that neither of them was an Iraqi operation.

My point about "purchased in the USA" was that the equipment used was all local - plane tickets and box-cutter knives. No need for multi-million dollar backing and all that stuff. And the essential ingrediant was a bunch of people who felt fanatical about wanting to hit the USA, and were ready to die to do it. And one certain way to produce more supplies of that particular essential ingredient is likely to be this war.

Pastoral letter from our Bishop at Mass this morning. He outlined the rules for a "Just War", and indicated that he didn't think this one qualified as such. First time I can remember that happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 03 - 11:34 PM

Oh yeah, sure...

It's about as legit as:

1. Hitler's attack on Poland in '39

2. Mussolini's attack on Ethiopia a few years earlier

3. O.J.'s attack(s) on his battered wife, Nicole

I hope that Bush, unlike O.J., does not get away with committing murder. Mass murder, in Bush's case. He's already killed more than enough people as it is.

That's it for me for tonight. Sleep well, y'all...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 08:32 AM

MGOH:

"My point about "purchased in the USA" was that the equipment used was all local - plane tickets and box-cutter knives. No need for multi-million dollar backing and all that stuff. And the essential ingrediant was a bunch of people who felt fanatical about wanting to hit the USA, and were ready to die to do it."

Kevin, the operation was 24 to 18 months in the planning. Those responsible did not do this as an "off-the-cuff" operation.

1. Initial training

2. Their move to countries away from their home countries

3. Establishing their cover within those countries

4. They had to do a recon - to establish security routines (sadly lacking on American domestic flights) - to determine just what they could get onboard the aircraft - to identify which were the best airports and flights to board to achieve their objectives.

5. Pilot training because they knew that they would have to fly the aircraft.

All of the above took time and it took money, it involved extensive travel, it required co-ordination. All of which they got from others. I do not believe there was any link between the September 11th attack and Iraq - the current American administration is on record as having stated exactly that.

The September 11th attack groups, Quarter-master was recently tried and found guilty in Hamburg - he was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, recently captured in Pakistan was thought to have been the behind the attack - his interrogation should fill in more of the gaps - might not be multi-million dollar backing Kevin - but the money has to come from somewhere - and that can be found and traced.

The threat, and this IS where countries and regimes such as those that exist in Iraq come into the picture, is that an international terrorist group (not necessarily Al-Qaeda) gets aid from Iraq. What before took 24 to 18 months to plan, would now take less time - the resources behind the planning are that much more extensive. With the focus of effort of intelligence services of 90-odd countries directed at terrorist organisations, these organisations need places where they are not subject to that sort of scrutiny. September 11th, could not have happened without the existance of the Al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan - that was where the plan was originated - that was where the initial training was done. If you doubt the importance of Afghanistan - consider this - without his secure base - Al-Qaeda's second in command only remained at liberty for approximately 18 months in an area of a country largely sympathetic to his cause - he still got captured.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 08:48 AM

Teribus-Unfortunately, the most likely cause of this scenario is U.S. aggression against Iraq. The CIA director is on record as having stated that any usage of Iraqi biological or chemical weapons against the U.S. is very unlikely, UNLESS Saddam is attacked, in which case the probability is almost 100% shoud he possess any at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Beccy
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 09:05 AM

McGrath of Harlow- To my mind, here is what it has to do with Iraq.

1.) Saddam Hussein's regime is proven to have little compunction about murdering their own people.

2.) It would follow that he has little compunction about killing other nations' people, as well.

3.) It is established that he seeks weapons (if not already possesses) weapons of mass destruction without a signature.

4.) If he has these weapons, he will either
            a.) use them himself, or
            b.) give them to someone who will use them.

5.) His financial and physical support of terrorism is not deniable. He has allowed Al Qaeda training camps in his country. That provides a verifiable link between his government and the people who attacked us on 9/11 and perpetrate attacks worldwide.

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 10:08 AM

Still no connection there Beecy - and as Teribus says "I do not believe there was any link between the September 11th attack and Iraq - the current American administration is on record as having stated exactly that." The fact that there might be Taliban or Al Qaeda camps the Iraqi side of the border with Afghanistan (albeit in a part of Iraq of controlleed by Gaghdada) does not add up to anything.

Regimes that are quite willing to kill their own citizens, and which have acquired or sought to acquire weapons of mass destruction are hardly. You don't even have to go to Bush's "Axis of Evil" to find them. Israel, Columbia, Russia, just for a start.

I take the point Teribus makes about September 11th presumably having involved a fair bit of preparation. But nothing in his list really requires very significant resources.

A handful of airline tickets and cars, money to pay for a safe house or two, and for basic pilot training from commerical flying schools, and some forged documents. Food and keep for a small bunch of mean for a few months. It doesn't add up to much really.

It's very comparable to the level of preparation and resources needed for an IRA bombing campaign in England. The assumption that there was any need for a great deal of coordination and support from outside is just an assumption. The whole essence of this type of operation is that it becomes autonomous - even self-financing. I think there is very little likelihood that eliminating external sources of support will make any difference for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 11:21 AM

Beccy-the director of the CIA stated that Saddam would not use weapons of mass destruction unless attacked, and that he would not give or sell them to terrorist organizations. The presence of terrorist training camps in Iraq no more proves Saddam's complicity in the WTC attack than McVeigh's state of residence makes Oklahoma responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Beccy
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 11:35 AM

Not exactly, Lurker. According the the link below:

George Tenet's statements vis a vis Iraq



CIA director George Tenet, for his part, insists there is "no inconsistency" between his letter and the president's policy.
In a statement released on Tuesday, he said Baghdad's links to Islamic militants was likely to increase even absent US military action. "There is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or our allies grows as his arsenal continues to build," he said in the statement.

He DID say Iraq was likely to use their WMDs if provoked... but he also said the statement that I pasted above.

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 12:40 PM

MGOH:

"It's very comparable to the level of preparation and resources needed for an IRA bombing campaign in England. The assumption that there was any need for a great deal of coordination and support from outside is just an assumption. The whole essence of this type of operation is that it becomes autonomous - even self-financing. I think there is very little likelihood that eliminating external sources of support will make any difference for a long time."

OK lets take a closer look at this:

1. Does this organisation have a safe operational base - Yes, the Republic of Ireland. This is used to protect it's stores of munitions, explosives and detonators. The command structure of the organisation is based in the Republic, as are it's training facilities, Quarter-master functions and it's planning staff.

2. Is this organisation self financing - to a certain degree for both sides of paramilitaries in the North - mainly through drugs, extorsion and robbery. These activities are used to maintain the operations locally, However, the main source of funding for the Republicans comes from the USA - still does.

Operations are well planned and co-ordinated - for that you need an organisation and discipline - nothing autonomous about it Kevin - nothing gets done that isn't sanctioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 02:38 PM

"Nothing get done that isn't sanctioned" - so if the "command HQ" far away is destroyed everyone packs up and goes home for tea? Assuming it happens like that is a bit like imagining that somewhere there is an Internet Central Office, and if that ceased to operate the whole Internet would shut off.

The Irish Republic was never "a safe operational base" for the IRA, in the sense that they could operate there in the open or without difficulty. It's fairly clear that arms dumps were sited, and training carried on in Northern Ireland, or for that matter in England, when that was felt to be appropriate.

For terrorist activities in the USA it seems pretty plausible that the best place to stock (and purchase) arms, and to carry on training, would be in North America itself, rather than in some far off country. The value of "a safe operational base" would seem to be primarily for morale purposes, as a place for "rest and recuperation", and it could be dispensed with if necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 04:12 AM

MGOH,

""Nothing get done that isn't sanctioned" - so if the "command HQ" far away is destroyed everyone packs up and goes home for tea?"

No it doesn't happen like that Kevin. What does happen is that things go quiet until until the command structure re-groups and reforms.

"The Irish Republic was never "a safe operational base" for the IRA, in the sense that they could operate there in the open or without difficulty."

LOL at that one Kevin - you are of course joking!!! I included the last part, because, the IRA was declared an illegal organisation in South long before it was declared an illegal organisation by the British. Having said that, you tell me Kevin - for arguements sake, hypothetically, you as a member of that organisation want to establish an arsenal, train your people to use it, and create a command structure - you have the choice of setting it up on one side of the border where you have an extremely active internal security presence, well equipped, well trained, with assets capable of aerial reconnaisance, air-mobility and the potential to put into the field men in their thousands. On the other hand you could set up on the other side of that border where you have a much reduced, minimal, active internal security effort - a place where the resources available to the Government are a fraction of what you would face across the border - a place where emotionally "a-blind-eye" is more than likely to be turned to your efforts and activities - a place where it is much easier to run in the weapons and explosives you need - a place where the population density is less so that your activities stand a better chance of going on unreported if not unnoticed. And you say that the IRA opted for the former!!!

"It's fairly clear that arms dumps were sited, and training carried on in Northern Ireland, or for that matter in England, when that was felt to be appropriate."

I have no doubt you are correct to a limited extent - but arms finds in the North have always been tiny compared to those arms caches discovered in the South. The arms dumps and training you refer to above can be accurately described as extremely local "ready-use" stores - their main dumps and training areas have always been in the South - and you know that as well as I do Kevin.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 05:52 AM

So more arms caches have been discovered or disclosed in the South? What does that prove? Insofar as it was easier doing things on one side of the border and one side of the water rather than the other, that's presumably where they'd be done, but that's just operational details.

The point is, it's perfectly possible to carry on illegal and terrorist activity within the territory of the enemy and without a safe base elsewhere. And it reduces the problems involved in bringing explosives or personnel across borders, or across oceans.

One of the main points of having a cell structure in a terrorist organisation is that it makes it possible to carry on autonomously if need be. And that can have disastrous consequences for the victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 09:03 AM

Kevin,

"So more arms caches have been discovered or disclosed in the South? What does that prove?"

Exactly what I said in the first place - In the Repulic of Ireland the IRA had, established and maintained it base of operations. Note when the IRA offered to show the authorities the grave sites of those they abducted, tortured and murdered - they took them South.

"Insofar as it was easier doing things on one side of the border and one side of the water rather than the other, that's presumably where they'd be done, but that's just operational details."

Again it supports precisely what I said.

"The point is, it's perfectly possible to carry on illegal and terrorist activity within the territory of the enemy and without a safe base elsewhere. And it reduces the problems involved in bringing explosives or personnel across borders, or across oceans."

Of course it is perfectly possible Kevin, but the risks that have to be run in operating that way increases the chances of being detected and caught.

"One of the main points of having a cell structure in a terrorist organisation is that it makes it possible to carry on autonomously if need be."

Yes Kevin but divorced from their command structure and the support it provides, any operations are severely limited. Activities by that cell to replace equipment or finance becomes more noticeable - i.e. attention gets drawn to certain activities occuring in a certain pattern.

"And that can have disastrous consequences for the victims."

The activities of "these hero's" nearly always has disasterous consequences for their victims - but to operate as you suggest fortunately also can result in disasterous consequences for the terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 07:30 PM

The world is changing and things that were impossible become possible and the other way round. September 11th demonstrated that.

Just as "conventional" war changes unrecognisably every few years, so do other types of war, or whatever we call it. The assumption that the factors that have shaped events in the past necessarily apply in the future is as naive as the thinking of those who envisaged the Great War in terms of cavalry charges.

That's what I mean when I say that thinking in terms of bases of operations in distant countries, and sophisticated weaponry and so forth could be a very serious mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 05:23 AM

Kevin,

I sincerely hope that any existing or budding international terrorist organisations subscribe to you train of thought - it will make them that much more easy to detect and neutralise.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 06:53 AM

And I hope they'll accept your asumoptions, Teribus, because I think that could greatly reduce their effectiveness.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,The O'Meara
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 01:41 PM

First, thank you all for this discussion. As a Vietnam combat veteran (medic) I can assure you that war is horrible and tragic and should never be entered into with anything less than the best of reasons and the most serious thought behind it. That is what I see in much of this discussion thans to McGrath and beccy and Mark Clark and Oldguy and the rest. (Is that THE Mark Clark?)

But there are a lot of exceptions. Some of you seem to hate anyone who is politically conservative, as represented by George W. Bush, and presume anything they do or say is inherently not just wrong, but actually evil, and there is no point listening to arguments. Others seem to hate the liberals as represented by Bill Clinton, and presume they live in a dreamworld of wishful thinking are also automatically wrong and not worth listening to. Many of the so-called arguments seem to say "Not only are you automatically wrong, but your dog is ugly, too!"

That may be ok for arguments over taxation and internet control, but this issue involves the immediate loss of human life, that's people just like us, and no honest, reasonable opinion should be automatically dismissed.

The Mudcat forum may not be the place for it, but there are some things I want to know.

Why are we going to war with Iraq? I reject the notion that "The evil Bush clan wants to take over the oilfields." Even if they did, the world and the U.S people would never let that happen, and the whole bunch would be tossed out at the next election. Same with starting an
unnecessary war to get re-elected. I don't think anyone could get away with that anymore, just like I don't think anyone could hijack an American passenger jet after 9/11. (Too many cowboy passengers willing to say "Lets Roll!")

The arguments seem to be: (1.) Since 9/11 we are at war with terrorists and terrorist regimes, that Saddam has or is actively developing really bad chem, bio, and nuke weapons, and will give them to terrorists to use on us or will do so himself. (2.) One of the reasons we didn't march to Bagdhad during the gulf war was that Hussein agreed to the terms we gave him prohibiting thosw weapons. But in the decade since he has not abided by any of them. (3) Ignoring that will surely result in massive and tragic loss of innocent lives in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Does the government have "cards they ain't showing?" In a speech awhile back President Bush referred to an "Axis of Evil" consisting of Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Liberal folks said North Korea was included just for diversity to avoid singling out Iraq. Given recent developments, that doesn't seem to hold water. (And Yesterday there was an article in the NY Times about Iran being closer to having nukes than Iraq.) If that's the case, why doesn't the government, (both Dems and Reps) say "We have cards we ain't showin!"

Is this too heavy for the mudcat?

O'Meara

ps I already know my dog is ugly.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,The O'Meara
Date: 13 Mar 03 - 10:44 AM

Was it something I said?

O'Meara

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 10:03 AM

Here's an most informative article from yesterday's Guardian
claiming a war on Iraq is anything BUT legit. To quote it:

"The prohibition of the use of force is a foundational rule of international law. Only two exceptions are permitted: the use of force in self-defence, or with the express authorisation of the UN security council exercising its powers under chapter VII of the UN charter.

Iraq has not attacked the US, the UK or their allies, nor is there any evidence that it is about to do so. Force may only be used in self-defence in response to an actual or (according to some commentators) an imminent armed attack. Therefore any arguments based on self-defence fail. What the US national security strategy has advocated are pre-emptive attacks on countries which may threaten the US. The use of armed force in such circumstances is contrary to international law."

But will this deter the US? Not likely, as they continue to make every effort to ensure their own immunity from international law. See the thread "Congratulations to Canada" re the creation of the new International Criminal Court and US plans to use "all means necessary" - in UN language that means FORCE - to protect Americans from being charged with war crimes. (Sorry, I haven't mastered 'internal links' yet!)

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 10:27 AM

Seems to me that arguing over whether it is legal, or legit is a pointless exercise unless there are some real consequences for breaking international law in this way. Blair is still trying to justify himself legally - mainly I think because he has signed up to the international court, but Bush obviously doesn't care a hoot about the legality. So what should be done?

I think since it is the UN charter that will be broken, the UN should lay down the consequences. Veto holding members who break the UN charter in this way should lose their veto. When you look at the huge number of resolutions about Israel and Palestine that have failed solely because of the US veto (and occasionally Britain joining them), might this make a real difference to US policy? And might it free the UN to have a real impact on the Palestinian situation?

What do others think?

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 11:19 AM

I don't think that the UN could have a beneficial impact on the Middle East situation simply with the removal of America's veto power. The current situation in the UN is that the Arab states, convinced that Israel is evil, pass resolutions which include condemnations of Zionism as racist and other anti-Semitic crap, and the U.S., convinced that Israel is good, vetos any resolution that is viewed as condemning Israel, even when such condemnation is warranted.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 01:26 PM

Hi Bagpuss,

You say:

"I think since it is the UN charter that will be broken, the UN should lay down the consequences."

They wouldn't be "serious consequences" would they? If so given current UN interpretation cheered on by Saddam's apologists, they would amount to absolutely nothing. Without active American support the United Nations is nothing - others might disagree - but I bet that Kofi Annan, Chirac, Schroeder and Putin aren't among them.

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 06:19 PM

March 15! March!

Charley Noble, who's not satisified to weigh body bags to determine which side was more legit.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you think that a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 07:39 PM

"Seems to me that arguing over whether it is legal, or legit is a pointless exercise unless there are some real consequences for breaking international law in this way."

Well, for Blair it could make a difference, since he hasn't managed to get an opt out from the International War Crimes Tribunal for himself and for those following his orders. He could get arrested. And the same would apply particularly to his friend the Prime Minister of Italy, Berlusconi - the courts in Italy are already after him for financial shenanigans, because there are Italian lawyers and judges with guts.

And, in principle, it could make a difference for Bush, if the US courts and legal system do their job. He might have got out from under international courts - but, if this war is illegal under international law, it's illegal under US law, since the United Nations Treaty was formally adopted by the USA, and therefore surely has legal status in the USA.

If it's an illegal war, that means that a crime is being committed, and it must be someone's duty to prosecute those who appear responsible for this crime. After all, one reason given for the USA excluding itself from the International War Crimes Tribunal was that US law could be relied on to deal with cases of war crimes alleged to have been committed by US citizens.

Mind, I wouldn't hold my breath. I imagine it's about as likely that the US courts will see such a prosecution as it is that anything like that will happen in an Iraqi court to Saddam right now. And even when there's been a regime change in Washington (touch wood), I imagine it'll be a question of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours".

Subject: RE: BS: Do u think the a war on Iraq is legit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 07:18 AM

And here is a letter lifted from today's Guardian which sums the legal position up pretty well. Whatever justifications might be made for it, there is no legal authority for this war. It is literally a criminal act for which the people responsible could face trial.

The letter is by Corelli Barnett CBE, a very distinguished military historian and academic - and by no means a lefty or a liberal:

We must not let ourselves be deceived by Downing Street's false argument that UN resolution 1441 justifies an Anglo-American attack on Iraq without the need for a further resolution (War Analysis, March 14).

Last October, Washington originally put forward a resolution specifying that failure by Saddam Hussein to fulfil UN demands for his disarmament should be dealt with "by all possible means" - code for automatic use of armed force. This was totally rejected by France, Russia and China. In November, after six weeks of haggling, the present resolution 1441 was passed, stating that a material breach by Iraq would entail "serious consequences" - not code for automatic war. Moreover, France, Russia and China, in accepting resolution 1441, formally stated that they did so only on the clear understanding that it did not carry with it any automatic recourse to war without a further security council decision.

Therefore, Bush and Blair's war will be contrary to resolution 1441. It will also breach the UN charter itself, which reserves decisions over peace and war to the security council except in cases of self-defence against attack. But neither America nor Britain has been attacked, or even threatened with attack, by Iraq.

Of course, the cold-eyed warmongers of Bush's Washington don't give a damn about any of this. But we might have hoped that Tony Blair would have felt some scruples about embarking on a war which will be illegal, as well as opposed by a majority of the British nation.
Correlli Barnett
East Carleton, Norwich