Thread: War in Iraq illegal?

Originally Posted by Ike99

From a legal point of view, the invasion was illegal anyway you slice it.

From a LEGAL PoV, you have to have a Court of Law declare ANYTHING illegal. That Court of Law for the Iraq War was, is, and always will be the United Nations Security Council and since the UNSC did not, is not, and will not decide the issue, your entire arguement is moot.

And get off the sh!t about Kofi Annan. He was the bastard who allowed the Rwandan genocide to start. His only authority to declare the Iraq War illegal is Moral and he certainly lost all credibility when he countermanded LGen Dallaire's raid against the genocide instigators. Take Koffi's OPINION and you two can blow each other.

UN Secretary-Genaral Kofi Annan-

"I have indicated that it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, and from the charter point of view it was illegal"

A weak man, who is better at standing up for dictators than the principles that the organization he is head of was founded for.

Article 1
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace....(Broken)

Did we not do just that? Take collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace? Prior to Iraqi Freedom, the United States built up one of the larger coalitions in history to support this war. Perhaps not as large as the first Gulf War, but still far larger than any other nation has assembled.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
(Broken)

Is not promoting freedom consistent "with the Purposes of the United Nations?" Is not enforcing UN resolutions (17 as I recall) also consistent with the purposes of the United Nations? As the United States neither wants to annex Iraq, nor set up a proxy government (the success of Islamist parties in Iraq clearly shows that we aren't doing that), it would seem that we were not using force against either the territorial integrity or the political independence of Iraq. Hence this "law" was not broken.

CHAPTER VI
Article 37
2. If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it
shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such
terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.
(Broken)

The UN clearly outlined the consequences for non-compliance. It simply chose not to enforce them. However, as the consequences were already outlined, why would it not be perfectly legal to enforce the rules laid down by the United Nations?

CHAPTER VII
Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
(Broken)

This applies to Peacekeeping missions (and often not even those), nothing more. The first Gulf War was American run all the way, yet nobody ever made any noises about "illegality" because the US ran the planning and the UN didn't.

Some people can argue on other points if the invasion of Iraq was illegal or not but the ones above are definate infrengments upon international law.

Laws are only as good as the enforcement mechanism. Even if the UN charter was broken (which, as I demonstrated above is nowhere near as clear cut as you seem to think), since neither the UN nor it's members have the willpower to enforce their interpretation of the law, why should it apply?

UPDATE-

Some of you are saying the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 gave the US Legal authorization to invade Iraq. It did not.

Without going through all the documents word for word (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284), they pretty much say...

Iraq, get out of Kuwait.

Your WMD's & Ballistic missiles must be accounted for and destroyed.

If not, we'll kick your butt.

The burden of proof was on them. They did not fully account for all the weapons that they had been sold, much less any that they had produced since the 1980's. Since they did not account for all of their weapons, then we had every right to "kick their butt."

From a legal point of view, the invasion was illegal anyway you slice it.

No, it really wasn't. You can choose to interpret the law in a way that makes the invasion illegal, but you can also interpret it in a way that makes the invasion perfectly legal. My question to you is who has the will (or the ability) to enforce their view that the war was illegal upon the United States? Since the answer is no one, I don't even really see why debating this is relevent.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

CHAPTER VII
Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
(Broken)

This applies to Peacekeeping missions (and often not even those), nothing more. The first Gulf War was American run all the way, yet nobody ever made any noises about "illegality" because the US ran the planning and the UN didn't.

Also, this does NOT say that the UNSC is the ONLY power to make plans for the use of armed force.

If the Iraqi War was illegal, should I be read my rights?

Guess not; that's a US right, and since we're talking international law here, I'm not sure if I even get defense counsel.

But I tell you what, Ike: since you've already decided about the guilt of all of us, we'll go ahead and decide that you've denied us our rights by not bothering to go through with the trial before pronouncing your verdict.

In the spirit of YOUR unilateralism, on my own authority, I'll just declare a mistrial.

Okay, that's all done with. Anything else you'd care to bring up?

Ike,
Here are some threads that deal directly or tangentially to the topic that you want to argue. Your ilk has been soundly thrashed everytime this topic has come up. Maybe you'll have better luck if you bring some facts that haven't been exposed. However, as I stated before, you really need to go to www.un.org, and then go read the UNSCRs about Iraq-Kuwait. You'll find the specific authorization that allows member nations to enforce the cease fire (not peace treaty, meaning the war was over, but cease fire, meaning that hostilities were suspended pending full compliance by Iraq) without an accompanying modification, revocation, or rescinsion. However, feel free to bash your head against a brick wall instead if you choose not to look at the primary source documents.

Was the war in Iraq LEGAL??

Failure Isn't An Option

25,000 civilians KilledIn Iraq

So Its All bush's Fault HUH?

Personally,
I could care less it was the rite thing to do irregardless of who questions it.
The man was a brutal murderer and his killing regime knew absolutely no moral limits. He got exactly what he deserved. Well not yet that has still to come!


Ike judging by that avitar you seem to hold a bad opinion of democracy?

As it is forced upon anybody?

Those who dont wish democracy do have that very right. But when a country that dont want it continues to screw with the rest of the free world over certain elements (nuclear inspections) as well as many other point of interest (mass murder) ect. guess who looses that right to rule that country irregardless of wether they want to be a democracy or not.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Ike judging by that avitar you seem to hold a bad opinion of democracy.

It looks like cases of MREs being dropped. Maybe it's a picture of our post-hurricane relief efforts in Pakistan.

Originally Posted by shek

It looks like cases of MREs being dropped. Maybe it's a picture of our post-hurricane relief efforts in Pakistan.

Thought is kind of resembled carpet bombing.

If Im wrong my apologies. I just equated you avitar with the view expressed.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Thought is kind of resembled carpet bombing.

If Im wrong my apologies. I just equated you avitar with the view expressed.

If you look real carefully, the dimesions of the payload being dropped look awfully similar to MRE boxes.