Can America take down Iran in a war?

**Officer of Engineers** · 15 Jun 08,, 04:57

All 5 P5 members have used the veto. Therefore, it takes someone extremely stupid to PO all 5 members not to use their veto.

**zraver** · 15 Jun 08,, 06:26

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I remain unconvinced that the US and the UK had broken any international law, not when they had no responsibility and therefore no authority on how Saddam treat his people.

Since they imposed the sanctions, and kept them going even when they knew they had failed and only acted to inflict harm on the Iraqi people.

I will use an example- lets say I am an absolute scoundrel and you'v ehad to get a restraining order against me. But I continue to ignore it, you cannot then go after my children. Thats what the sanctions did, they went after normal Iraqis who by law cannot be held accountable for Saddam's actions. The Iraqi's were not Germans in post Hilterite Germany, many had rebelled on numerous occasions. they tried to free themselves of him and failed in large part because of us.

From prevent genocide.org

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.
Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide. "

It is a crime to plan or incite genocide, even before killing starts, and to aid or abet genocide: Criminal acts include conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempts to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide.

Punishable Acts The following are genocidal acts when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence:

Killing members of the group includes direct killing and actions causing death.

Causing serious bodily or mental harm includes inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced use of drugs, and mutilation.

Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.

Prevention of births includes involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, prohibition of marriage, and long-term separation of men and women intended to prevent procreation.

Forcible transfer of children may be imposed by direct force or by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons under the age of 18 years.

Genocidal acts need not kill or cause the death of members of a group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, prevention of births and transfer of children are acts of genocide when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence.

The law protects four groups - national, ethnical, racial or religious groups.

A national group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by a common country of nationality or national origin.

An ethnical group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common cultural traditions, language or heritage.

A racial group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by physical characteristics.

A religious group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common religious creeds, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals.

Key Terms

The crime of genocide has two elements: intent and action. “Intentional” means purposeful. Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts.
(zraver- Albright's confession of complicity)

Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorrial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.

The phrase "in whole or in part" is important. Perpetrators need not intend to destroy the entire group. Destruction of only part of a group (such as its educated members, or members living in one region) is also genocide. Most authorities require intent to destroy a substantial number of group members – mass murder. But an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group.

Sir, from the article I asked you to read, a profesional law opinion.

The Belgian international law expert Marc Bossuyt is unambiguously clear on this. In his report to the Commission on Human Rights (Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights -E/CN.4/SUB.2/2000/33) of 21 June 2000 he says (Paragraph 72):

"The sanctions regime against Iraq has as its clear purpose the deliberate infliction on the Iraqi people of conditions of life (lack of adequate food, medicines etc.) calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. It does not matter that this deliberate physical destruction has as its ostensible objective the security of the region. Once clear evidence was available that thousands of civilians were dying and that hundreds of thousands would die in future as the Security Council continued the sanctions, the deaths were no longer an unintended side effect * the Security Council was responsible for all known consequences of its actions. The sanctioning bodies cannot be absolved from having the 'intent to destroy' the Iraqi people. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations in fact admitted this; when questioned whether the half million deaths were 'worth it', she replied: 'we think the price is worth it'. The states imposing the sanctions could raise questions under the genocide Convention."

His credentials- Marc Bossuyt (b. Ghent, 9 January 1944) obtained a PhD in law at the University of Ghent in 1968, and a Certificate of international relations at Johns Hopkins University Bologna in 1969. He is a judge in the Constitutional Court of Belgium, professor of international law at the University of Antwerp, and member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. Since October 9, 2007 Bossuyt is the President of the Dutch linguistic group of the Constitutional Court of Belgium.

He was appointed to the Constitutional Court by Royal Order on 28 January 1997.

**Fatih1989** · 15 Jun 08,, 10:12

i think a war with Iran would not be a very good idea even if they have options, i think for USA that Iraq and Afghanistan where actually a very cheap war to fight but like wise to a war with Iran can seriously put USA in the Category of Zimbabwe.

**Parihaka** · 15 Jun 08,, 11:44

Really? You seriously want to come on this forum and say America is going to turn out like Zimbabwe?

S2 · 15 Jun 08,, 11:53

"i think for USA that Iraq and Afghanistan where actually a very cheap war to fight but like wise to a war with Iran can seriously put USA in the Category of Zimbabwe."

I've never read a sentence with which I so agree and disagree. Wow!

**snc128** · 15 Jun 08,, 12:59

the time of the war is very important!
a war in near futute with Iran can seriously damage America's economy and reliability amongst muslims (this is not because of Iran's influence over the muslims but the wars currently being held on muslims' soil.).

since America's power is directly proportional with the economy, the consequences of a war would not be good for Washington(because of the natural resources' scarcity in terms of petrolleum products and so on. ).

furthermore, America's foreign policy would suffer from the bad fame that can be result from a series of wars throughout 40 years. and the most important consequence would be the China's and Russia's response!

definetely, US would not turn out Zimbabwe or any other less powerful country but he would definetely lose the current status in the world politics. but almost all of the consequences of a possible war would not result from because Iran is very powerful but because of the back stage actors!

**Fatih1989** · 15 Jun 08,, 13:17

Parihaka

i did not say turn ,i said Category

**Officer of Engineers** · 15 Jun 08,, 14:18

Originally Posted by zraver

Since they imposed the sanctions, and kept them going even when they knew they had failed and only acted to inflict harm on the Iraqi people.

Z,

I hope you know that all these justifications were used in the only one acknowledged enforcement against genocide - invasion.

**zraver** · 15 Jun 08,, 21:12

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Z,

I hope you know that all these justifications were used in the only one acknowledged enforcement against genocide - invasion.

The US/UK invasion does not remove them from thier complicity in what happened before the invasion. And at least so far as the US is concerned-our legal occupation as brief as it was did not follow the LOAC either. We did not provide order, security, or basic services as required, we executed without trial, often on nothing more than suspicion. We even celebrated some of the events.

YouTube - IRAQ FARMERS

No visible arms, a farm tractor, a farm type truck, furrowed feilds- common sense says they are farmers. Then we make it worse, a wounded man is seen writhing on the ground- obviously he was out of the fight.

Article III 3rd Geneva Convention

ARTICLE 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. (not shot by Apache helicopter)

Whats saddest, is that video is not some enlisted marine with nothing more than a high school diploma. It is at least a warrent officer if not a commissioned officer ordering a war crime he must know is a crime by his very military and other professional education.

**Officer of Engineers** · 15 Jun 08,, 23:28

Originally Posted by zraver

The US/UK invasion does not remove them from thier complicity in what happened before the invasion.

Again, there is no legal precedence of permitting a half rule no matter how much you hate the ruler. Saddam was Iraq. That was the legal reality. To do anything else required his permission unless we remove him.

**zraver** · 16 Jun 08,, 01:27

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Again, there is no legal precedence of permitting a half rule no matter how much you hate the ruler. Saddam was Iraq. That was the legal reality. To do anything else required his permission unless we remove him.

Sir, Saddam's crimes do not excuse the crimes of the US/UK. We do not permit the police to break the law to enforce it. When it became evident that the sanctions as used were not working it was up to the UNSC to adopt a different policy that would work and not penalize the Iraqi people for the actions of a leader they did not choose.

**Officer of Engineers** · 16 Jun 08,, 02:39

Originally Posted by zraver

Sir, Saddam's crimes do not excuse the crimes of the US/UK. We do not permit the police to break the law to enforce it. When it became evident that the sanctions as used were not working it was up to the UNSC to adopt a different policy that would work and not penalize the Iraqi people for the actions of a leader they did not choose.

But that's the point. In order to do what you want, we have to break another law - the law of sovereignty. Like it or not, Saddam was Iraq. There was no way around this issue. If sanctions was not working, it was because Saddam worked around it. Lifting those sanctions by whatever means mean freeing Saddam (and therefore Iraq) to do more against our interests.

We have committed no crimes. The Iraqi population remained the responsibility of Saddam. There is no way around this issue. There is no such thing as a half rule. Saddam cannot be a half ruler.

Your analogy of bad parents is absolutely correct. The state removed the kids from bad parents' care. In short, the state replaced the bad parents. We replaced Saddam.

If we are guilty of a crime, then the only thing we are guilty of is not removing Saddam sooner. Not that we have not lifted sanctions.

**zraver** · 16 Jun 08,, 06:40

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

But that's the point. In order to do what you want, we have to break another law - the law of sovereignty. Like it or not, Saddam was Iraq. There was no way around this issue. If sanctions was not working, it was because Saddam worked around it. Lifting those sanctions by whatever means mean freeing Saddam (and therefore Iraq) to do more against our interests.

To points, in the UN Charter, people have the right to freely choose thier government. We know Saddam did not allow this, thus legally he could be denied the rights as Sovereign. Secondly- the UN already had claimed supremacy and thus sovereignty over any weilded by Saddam when it seized control of Iraq's oil and made Iraq subject to its will.

We have committed no crimes. The Iraqi population remained the responsibility of Saddam. There is no way around this issue. There is no such thing as a half rule. Saddam cannot be a half ruler.

We put the blockade in place,we knew the effects it was having, an we refused to modify it to place the pain where it belonged on Saddam, not on the Iraqi people. Those are actions taken by the west, not Saddam.

Your analogy of bad parents is absolutely correct. The state removed the kids from bad parents' care. In short, the state replaced the bad parents. We replaced Saddam.

Only after most of the kids died, and only after we knowingly let him rape and murder his country and prevented his ouster in a public uprising in 1991.

If we are guilty of a crime, then the only thing we are guilty of is not removing Saddam sooner. Not that we have not lifted sanctions.

We are effectively guilty of genocide. We put the sanctions in place. Then when we knew the sanctions had failed we refused to modify them with the full knowledge of what they had been doing and would continue to the Iraqi people. I have already posted what an International law expert thinks. Here is another quote

was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide"

**Officer of Engineers** · 16 Jun 08,, 07:12

Originally Posted by zraver

To points, in the UN Charter, people have the right to freely choose thier government. We know Saddam did not allow this, thus legally he could be denied the rights as Sovereign. Secondly- the UN already had claimed supremacy and thus sovereignty over any weilded by Saddam when it seized control of Iraq's oil and made Iraq subject to its will.

There are no definitions as to what constitute a free choice. Civil War is a legitimate right to choose in this case. No, we have not claimed supremacy nor sovereignty over Saddam. He still drilled and sold oil - just he cannot do it outside of Iraq which he had no sovereignty claims whatsoever. And again, Saddam signed those terms of surrender.

Originally Posted by zraver

We put the blockade in place,we knew the effects it was having, an we refused to modify it to place the pain where it belonged on Saddam, not on the Iraqi people. Those are actions taken by the west, not Saddam.

Only after most of the kids died, and only after we knowingly let him rape and murder his country and prevented his ouster in a public uprising in 1991.

And again, there are no legal definitions that would separate Iraq from Saddam. Unlike Family Law, there are no legal boundaries that would require a foreign nation to act on behalf of a local populace.

Originally Posted by zraver

We are effectively guilty of genocide. We put the sanctions in place. Then when we knew the sanctions had failed we refused to modify them with the full knowledge of what they had been doing and would continue to the Iraqi people. I have already posted what an International law expert thinks. Here is another quote

was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide"

That we are effectively guilty does not make us legally guilty.

**zraver** · 16 Jun 08,, 07:35

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

That we are effectively guilty does not make us legally guilty.

We can disagree about that point, but thank you. For the rest of the world where the US/NATO might end up in conflict. The only judge is the perception of our actions. They have seen us act in a way that would get a third world tin pot hanged. They know we will not respect the laws, so why should they? If they end up in a war with us, they have already lost everything anyway, so why not go all the way?