[zen jihad]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3661134.stm

Most of us knew this already, but it's good to hear Annan keep up the pressure by stating this. It's srtange to think how the war apologists will use the UN mandates as reasons for he US-led invasion, yet don't mind ignoring the UN when it suits them. That is no way to conduct oneself.

This reminds me of the catch-22 for Saddam. On one hand he was told he can stay in power if he told where his WMD were, he said they were all destroyed, but the US goes in anyway saying he did have them. Now as it turns out, and as Colin Powerll admitted this week, there probably are no WMD, so he premise of the war was false from the start.

If the US demanded that Iraq abide by the UN charter, then the US should have abided by it themselves rather than invading it illegally. Can't have it both ways.


Also today, New Zealand has pulled its troops out of Iraq. Another kick in the teeth for the coalitoin of the willing.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3035130a10,00.html

[Spoogepieces]

Well let's not forget that the original UN mandate for the original Gulf War was not fulfilled by Iraq, thus, the current situation could hardly be considered "illegal." But it's nice to see the pro-Saddam forces trying their best to spin this the best they possibly can.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Well let's not forget that the original UN mandate for the original Gulf War was not fulfilled by Iraq, thus, the current situation could hardly be considered "illegal." But it's nice to see the pro-Saddam forces trying their best to spin this the best they possibly can.

Really!?

You've found WMD?

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
But it's nice to see the pro-Saddam forces trying their best to spin this the best they possibly can.

Anti War != Pro Saddam.

I get so sick of this shit.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Really!?

You've found WMD?

I wasn't aware that Saddam cooperated fully, completely, and without ever hindering inspectors at any time during the 10 years following the cease fire and had met every term of the original resolution authorizing force against Iraq.

[PacHead]

Seriously, who gives a crap what mr. incompetant leader of the UN thinks ?

Let 'em kick us out, do us a huge favor.

[SimeyTheLimey]

It's debateable as was the Kosovo war, which had the same legal defect.

However, if UN blessing is so important to you, don't forget that the Security Council has given its blessing to the occupation, the provisional government of Iraq, and now the post-handoever provisional government of Iraq.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
I wasn't aware that Saddam cooperated fully, completely, and without ever hindering inspectors at any time during the 10 years following the cease fire and had met every term of the original resolution authorizing force against Iraq.

Ah, so you've found them?

[Troll]

This isn't news really. We all knew the war was illegal. No threat to the security of the US or to international peace and no UNSC resolution authorising force means it was illegal. Regime change has never been a valid reason to invade a country, in fact, it's one of the principle reasons why the use of force was banned in the first place.

As Pachead so ineloquently points out, the question is what to do about this criminal country, the United States of America. The rest of the world and the UN have already decided to take a pragmatic approach, putting a stamp of approval on the occupation and, in the UN's case, getting involved in rebuilding Iraq. What will be more interesting is to see whether Bush and his generals ever get brought before a war crimes tribunal since an illegal war necessarily leads to war crimes. Pragmatism works from a diplomatic perspective but there are enough individuals and groups out there with a bone to pick in jurisdictions that would allow them to bring a case against these people without their government's assistance. Bush and his mates may have to start lying low the way Ariel Sharon currently does. Certainly, they'll want to think twice about going on holiday to Belgium!

I think it's good that Annan repeats his condemnation of the war every so often. It reminds the rest of the world not to let the US drag us down to their standard. It reinforces the principles that arose out of centuries of conflict; namely that war must always be a last resort to be used to defend oneself not a policy tool to mould the globe so it better serves your interests.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's debateable as was the Kosovo war, which had the same legal defect.

Oh rubbish. If the Kosovo invasion establishes any principle its that there is an additional exception to the prohibition on the use of force, that being the ongoing commission of genocide. Iraq doesn't fit under that exception even if it does exist. Iraq was about regime change because the US didn't like the erstwhile regime. It was about securing American interests in the region to prolong US hegemony. The use of force has always been and remains illegal to achieve those aims.

As you say, it's not really important though because the US isn't facing direct consequences because the UN isn't a global policeman. The UN will feel the repurcussions of breaking the rules of the game in other areas. It already is. Increased risk of terrorism, less cooperation from other states, a global increase in military spending and the rush by rogues to develop nuclear weapons to counter the aggressive US.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Oh rubbish. If the Kosovo invasion establishes any principle its that there is an additional exception to the prohibition on the use of force, that being the ongoing commission of genocide. Iraq doesn't fit under that exception even if it does exist. Iraq was about regime change because the US didn't like the erstwhile regime. It was about securing American interests in the region to prolong US hegemony. The use of force has always been and remains illegal to achieve those aims.

As you say, it's not really important though because the US isn't facing direct consequences because the UN isn't a global policeman. The UN will feel the repurcussions of breaking the rules of the game in other areas. It already is. Increased risk of terrorism, less cooperation from other states, a global increase in military spending and the rush by rogues to develop nuclear weapons to counter the aggressive US.

Ah, this is the "if I support it, there must be an exception" theory to international law.

Kosovo was legally identical under the same principles touted by Annan as the Iraq war. The UN Security Council couldn't agree, and there was no imminent threat. But a group of the great powers felt it was necessary to go to war anyway, so they did, even though some other great powers opposed the use of force. The great powers who went to war ignored the UN and the dissident great powers, and gave their justifications. I happen to think that their justifications were persuasive. But not under the UN Charter, or any existing recognized principle of international law.

The fact that entities like the UN can't cope with situations like Kosovo or Iraq shows the futility of relying on collective security. But there is no moral higher ground here. If you are willing to ignore the UN Charter in one war, you cannot say it is sacrosanct in another without exposing your hypocrisy.

The UN is merely a convenient tool, to be used when available. NOTHING MORE. It certainly doesn't provide us with any security, and pusillanimous pseudo allies in Europe may just have to face reality one day -- and when you do, you may just be on your own.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Let's get something straight. America is not the policeman of the world. The policeman of the world is drunk, fat, corrupt, and ineffective. America is the neighbor who got mugged going to work one morning and is now trying to organize a neighborhood watch. And Europe is the timid, naive, slightly senile little old lady down the street who really thinks if she bakes cookies for the drug gang everyone will get along.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Let's get something straight. America is not the policeman of the world. The policeman of the world is drunk, fat, corrupt, and ineffective. America is the neighbor who got mugged going to work one morning and is now trying to organize a neighborhood watch. And Europe is the timid, naive, slightly senile little old lady down the street who really thinks if she bakes cookies for the drug gang everyone will get along.

How fitting for your new stars.............

So if we chose to turn this into a police matter and enhance our security at home and adapt our police and security apparatus we are "timid, naive, slightly senile little old lady"? Well guess what. We(we as in Europe not Iceland <---- pre-emption) have fought this war on terrorism for a long time and we figured out that it doesn't do any good to invade foreign countries and occupy them, or to bomb some smaller nations into the stone age. What worked was to create more security, better police force, and trying to take away the incentive to attack.

How has it worked? Well you can just look at what nations have been attacked in Europe and by whom. I'll let you figure out the rest.

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's debateable as was the Kosovo war, which had the same legal defect.

However, if UN blessing is so important to you, don't forget that the Security Council has given its blessing to the occupation, the provisional government of Iraq, and now the post-handoever provisional government of Iraq.

The UN's blessings didn't seem to matter to the US. So because the UN is handling the aftermath of the invasion,. therefore the invasion was legal in the first place, and justified? Doubtful.

As to your policeman comment earlier, I think the US' foreign policy speaks for itself. You might be convinced its benign and just, but others don't.

Let's look at it this way. Saddam was being told he had WMD, now it looks like he didn't. He was also told he could stay in power if he handed those weapins over, yet this was impossible since hew had none. Some people like to argue this was about removing a dictator, if so, them why was he allowed to bargain with his rulership, and thus be allowed to stay in power if he complied?

It's all quite fanciful hypocrasy, and I think many of us can se the direction in which US foreign policy is going on.


Your Kosovo analogy is woefully simplistic, since you forget to mention the Bosnian genocide prior to that, and the UN mandates and resolutions. Which in turm had a major impact on the NATO decision on Kosovo. The difference between those reasons and Iraq are painfully clear to me.

Kosovo was in need of urgent intervention
based on events happening as they did, combined with the back history of the Bosnian crisis. Now, Saddam was pacified after the first Gulf War, the only damage that was being done, was to the children of Iraq, nearly a milion dead through sanctions. Now, we were lied to about the WMD, and thus the premis of war was a lie.

If it was about removing Saddam. Then why was he offered to be allowed to stay i npower? If it was about WMD. Then why wasn't more time given for him to discuss this, and why was the inteligence agencies totally clueless as to his capabilities? They basically told us he had them, it was strong evidence, but now it's been shown to be lies. So were the US lying all along? Why then? What was the real reasdon for going after Iraq, now Iran and Syra? To prevent terrorism? Well, if the US can build up lie based stories for wars like in Iraq, then why the hell sholdwe ever believe the US again about any oher country? Bush tells us Iran has nukes, they say thjey have them for non-military use. Who am I to believe now? the US? No chance in hell, they proved to be liars.

In any case, if you want to go the unilateral way, then how about we apply it to all nations, Simey? How about Iran be allowed to pre-emptively strike a country it deems to be a danger to its national sewcurity? You wouldn't suuport that now, wold you? Or how about Israel and its Nuclear capoabilities. Isn't Israel a threat to its neighbours, or is Israel just a convenient nation for the US to use in its interference in the Mid-East?

Hypocrasy dude, it's all over the side you support.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
Your Kosovo analogy is woefully simplistic, since you forget to mention the Bosnian genocide prior to that, and the UN mandates and resolutions. Which in turm had a major impact on the NATO decision on Kosovo. The difference between those reasons and Iraq are painfully clear to me.

The Kosovo parallel isn't "simplistic," but it is legalistic. The argument that Iraq wasn't legal is also legalistic.

I didn't forget the background of war in Bosnia or elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia, or the ethnic cleansing (which is distinct from genocide) in Kosovo that precipitated the intervention. It is just that legally, all of those things are irrelevant if you want to take a strict legally conservative approach to international intervention under the UN Charter.

Because you seem to want to take that approach with respect to Iraq -- ignoring the background of UN sanctions and violated resolutions, and the grotesque human rights violations of the Ba'athist regime -- you can't justify other interventions on extra-legalistic grounds just because you happened to think that they were a good idea at the time. Either the justifications have to be ones that conservative principles of international law endorse, or they are not. There is no "if liberal Europeans like it, it is OK, but not if they don't" principle. Or as one of my international law professors put it: "Just because Belgium says it is so, doesn't make it international law."

Now, if you want to abandon this nonsense, and be pragmatic, then I am with you. I thought that Kosovo was pragmatically justified, and moral under humanitarian principles. Indeed, I thought it would have been immoral to have stood by legalisms and refused to stop the ethnic cleansing. The same principles, and some others, drive my to acknowledge that the Iraq intervention was right no matter what the anachronistic legalisms of the UN Charter says.

[Spliffdaddy]

Since the UN claims we illegally invaded Iraq - can we expect dire consequences such as a 'UN resolution'??

lol lmao

I say we liberate the UN.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Kosovo was legally identical under the same principles touted by Annan as the Iraq war.

Of course there are similarities between all concepts if you look hard enough. To say that Kosovo and Iraq are identical legally is to take the argument rather far. Consider the following points:

1) Annan never said that the Kosovo wasn't also illegal.

2) From a policy rather than a legal perspective, there are clear differences. I don't have time to get into it really but since you're an IR scholar, the Kosovo intervention and the US's involvement therein might best be desribed as unilateral globalism whereas Iraq is a case of the US engaging in global unilateralism. In Iraq the vast majority of countries disagreed with the value being pursued. A further small group were conned into thinking that the value was disarmament of a dangerous tyrant but when they realised that the value was in fact regime change and the creation of a more US-friendly ME, they too balked. Global unilateralism is effectively just unilateralism and it has all of the dangers inherent in unilateral action.

If you ask me the different approach to these two problems comes down to personality. Bush lacks the subtlety, intelligence and charisma that Clinton had and that is required to persuade the world that what's good for you is good for them (unilateral globalism). Although Bush 4 years ago, took a leaf out of Clinton's book and promised to exercise American power "humbly" (a reference to unilateral globalism), he didn't have the goods to deliver. When he pulled out of treaties and defended local industries, he did it in such a way as to squander global consensus to US leadership. And Iraq was the cherry on top. His approach put the US in one camp and the vast majority of the rest of the world in the other. It cast the US starkly as a unilateral hegemon. Which is I think what he intended. He just doesn't know why unilateralism is a bad thing. Persoanlly I think that if he's given another 4 years, the decline of the American empire will be entrenched. It will take a lot to persuade the rest of the world now not to organise themselves to counter US power. Everyone is increasingly arming and manoeuvring to balance the US and make its life more difficult, which is a natural reaction to a realisation that there is an imbalance in any system.

3) If we accept that the reason for the invasion of Iraq was that it constituted a threat to international peace, then there is a similarity between that invasion and Kosovo. You don't need Security Council consent to invade when there is a security threat. The big difference between Kosovo and Iraq though is that when the troops went into Kosovo, it was clear that it did indeed represent a threat. It represented a current threat to the security of the states in the region directly involved in the conflict and it represented a current and imminent threat to the security of the region as a whole. The gamble paid off because it was less of a gamble. There was ample evidence of what was going on in Kosovo. In Iraq the gamble didn't pay off because it soon became clear that Iraq neither represented an imminent or current threat to the US, its neighbours, regional or international peace. The only way that the US's legal argument could be sustained was if UNSC authorisation wasn't required and the only way that could happen was if WMD were found to have been ready to be launched against Iraq's neighbours or put in the hands of enemies of other countries. The crucial difference between Kosovo and Iraq is that Kosovo really did actually represent a threat to peace and security.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Now, if you want to abandon this nonsense, and be pragmatic, then I am with you. I thought that Kosovo was pragmatically justified, and moral under humanitarian principles. Indeed, I thought it would have been immoral to have stood by legalisms and refused to stop the ethnic cleansing. The same principles, and some others, drive my to acknowledge that the Iraq intervention was right no matter what the anachronistic legalisms of the UN Charter says.

I don't think you're clear on what the legal justification for Kosovo was!

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Since the UN claims we illegally invaded Iraq - can we expect dire consequences such as a 'UN resolution'??

lol lmao

I say we liberate the UN.

The UN doesn't claim that, the Secretary General of the UN claims that. Understanding the difference and knowing what the words "united" and "nations" mean is a trouble a lot of you conservative Americans seem to have. Some difficulty in conceptualising that there are actors other than states with armies in the international system.

[Spliffdaddy]

The USA doesn't claim anything, then.

Bush does.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Troll:
The UN doesn't claim that, the Secretary General of the UN claims that. Understanding the difference and knowing what the words "united" and "nations" mean is a trouble a lot of you conservative Americans seem to have. Some difficulty in conceptualising that there are actors other than states with armies in the international system.

Oh, we know, we just think it's laughable and don't care.

[dcolton]

Entertainment at its Best

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Of course there are similarities between all concepts if you look hard enough. To say that Kosovo and Iraq are identical legally is to take the argument rather far. Consider the following points:

1) Annan never said that the Kosovo wasn't also illegal.

2) From a policy rather than a legal perspective, there are clear differences. I don't have time to get into it really but since you're an IR scholar, the Kosovo intervention and the US's involvement therein might best be desribed as unilateral globalism whereas Iraq is a case of the US engaging in global unilateralism. In Iraq the vast majority of countries disagreed with the value being pursued. A further small group were conned into thinking that the value was disarmament of a dangerous tyrant but when they realised that the value was in fact regime change and the creation of a more US-friendly ME, they too balked. Global unilateralism is effectively just unilateralism and it has all of the dangers inherent in unilateral action.

If you ask me the different approach to these two problems comes down to personality. Bush lacks the subtlety, intelligence and charisma that Clinton had and that is required to persuade the world that what's good for you is good for them (unilateral globalism). Although Bush 4 years ago, took a leaf out of Clinton's book and promised to exercise American power "humbly" (a reference to unilateral globalism), he didn't have the goods to deliver. When he pulled out of treaties and defended local industries, he did it in such a way as to squander global consensus to US leadership. And Iraq was the cherry on top. His approach put the US in one camp and the vast majority of the rest of the world in the other. It cast the US starkly as a unilateral hegemon. Which is I think what he intended. He just doesn't know why unilateralism is a bad thing. Persoanlly I think that if he's given another 4 years, the decline of the American empire will be entrenched. It will take a lot to persuade the rest of the world now not to organise themselves to counter US power. Everyone is increasingly arming and manoeuvring to balance the US and make its life more difficult, which is a natural reaction to a realisation that there is an imbalance in any system.

3) If we accept that the reason for the invasion of Iraq was that it constituted a threat to international peace, then there is a similarity between that invasion and Kosovo. You don't need Security Council consent to invade when there is a security threat. The big difference between Kosovo and Iraq though is that when the troops went into Kosovo, it was clear that it did indeed represent a threat. It represented a current threat to the security of the states in the region directly involved in the conflict and it represented a current and imminent threat to the security of the region as a whole. The gamble paid off because it was less of a gamble. There was ample evidence of what was going on in Kosovo. In Iraq the gamble didn't pay off because it soon became clear that Iraq neither represented an imminent or current threat to the US, its neighbours, regional or international peace. The only way that the US's legal argument could be sustained was if UNSC authorisation wasn't required and the only way that could happen was if WMD were found to have been ready to be launched against Iraq's neighbours or put in the hands of enemies of other countries. The crucial difference between Kosovo and Iraq is that Kosovo really did actually represent a threat to peace and security.

This all boils down to what I have been suggesting it all boils down to: in your view, international intervention without UN Security council explicit Chapter VII approval is alright, PROVIDED Western Europeans think it is alright. Otherwise it is not.

That doesn't seem to me to be a very consistent position, or one that deserves to be wrapped in the cloth of any great moral standing. It is just wrapping Europe's selfish concerns in a transparently thin veneer.

My mother once observed that a sweater is something that a child wears when the mother is cold. You seem to regard international threats the same way. If you feel cold, a sweater is called for. If not, the child can suffer in silence. Sorry, this child grew up a long time ago.


As for Kosovo, now you are suggesting that it posed an imminent threat to its neighbors? How come no European government argued that at the time? How come its closest neighbors, like Greece, were opposed to the attack on Serbia and its province, Kosovo. This sounds like post-hoc rationalization to me. Article 51 collective self defense was not invoked. What was invoked was a (justifiable, imho) concern to stop a developing humanitarian disaster. But that isn't something that is found in Article 51. That is why the Clinton Administration officially justified the intervention as justified under "instant customary internatiotional law" -- after most of the legal advisors in the State Department refused to justify the intervention. (Source: a former State Department legal advisor).

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Troll:
It reminds the rest of the world not to let the US drag us down to their standard. It reinforces the principles that arose out of centuries of conflict; namely that war must always be a last resort to be used to defend oneself not a policy tool to mould the globe so it better serves your interests.

All it does is let us know who our friends are and who our enemies are in the future. If England were attacked I would go help them but never would I spill a drop of blood to help a German or a Frenchman.

We won't forget who stood with us and who opposed us.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Troll:
I don't think you're clear on what the legal justification for Kosovo was!

The only legality that matters to the United States of America is whether or not the action was legal under our Constitution. The UN isn't our mother, our government, and we are not slaves to that squabbling institution of ineffective windbags.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
All it does is let us know who our friends are and who our enemies are in the future. If England were attacked I would go help them but never would I spill a drop of blood to help a German or a Frenchman.

We won't forget who stood with us and who opposed us.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
Ah, so you've found them?

Why should I answer your question? I wasn't aware that Saddam cooperated fully, completely, and without ever hindering inspectors at any time during the 10 years following the cease fire and had met every term of the original resolution authorizing force against Iraq.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This all boils down to what I have been suggesting it all boils down to: in your view, international intervention without UN Security council explicit Chapter VII approval is alright, PROVIDED Western Europeans think it is alright. Otherwise it is not.

Putting words in my mouth again aren't you. Nations on every continent on the planet opposed the Iraq invasion Simey, despite conservative America's insistent focus on "Old Europe" specifically France. As I've told you many times before, I'm not a European and I don't think the sun shines out of European butt. I don't give a damn what they think is right. On Iraq, the US is completely isolated. It's not just Europe that disagreed!

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As for Kosovo, now you are suggesting that it posed an imminent threat to its neighbors? How come no European government argued that at the time? How come its closest neighbors, like Greece, were opposed to the attack on Serbia and its province, Kosovo. This sounds like post-hoc rationalization to me. Article 51 collective self defense was not invoked..

No, I'm not saying it posed an imminent threat to its neighbours. International peace had already been compromised and the entire planet, including Russia had already recognised that in UN resolution!

I only raised the discussion about the first exception because you said the two cases were identical. I said they were only similar in one narrow respect. Since you want to have this debate, I�ll say that it is completely and utterly ludicrous to argue that the two cases are legally identical. In Kosovo, the justification given by NATO relied principally on the customary law rule of humanitarian intervention. In Iraq the only threat that had been identified was that from Iraq�s possession of WMD. That was the threat that was being addressed and so the only justification for using force to address the threat was one that the WMD represented a threat to peace and security. That justification came apart when the WMD turned out not to be sitting under Powell�s proverbial palm trees in Western Iraq.

You say none of the European governments raised the first exception in the context of Kosovo, but I don�t know where you get your information from! It is true that European governments and NATO weren�t big fans of that argument because they weren�t prepared to be as liberal with their interpretation of international law as George Bush and you are. NATO and European lawyers believed that they didn't have a case under the first exception because none of NATO's members had already been attacked. But they did raise the argument nevertheless. They raised the argument OVER AND OVER again before the UN in the hopes that they would get a UNSC resolution authorising force to address the threat. There is a whole bulk of UN resolutions that prove that Europe raised the argument! Where are the resolutions that identify a threat to peace through Iraq's massive violation of humanitarian standards, Mr. �Kosovo and Iraq are identical�? As it turns out, NATO rejected the imminent threat, pre-emptive action argument under customary law that your president has now turned into an American "Doctrine" of foreign policy.

NATO was at pains to set out precisely what the requirements for humanitarian intervention were. For interest sake, I�ll paste some of my notes on this in here. NATO referred to the works of scholars like Harhoff and Scheurer who said humanitarian intervention under customary law required: �massive or large scale violations of international humanitarian standards committed against civilians�, �the international community has run short of legal, diplomatic or political means to bring these violations to an end�, and �positive law is morally unsuitable to deal with a situation of extreme urgency and gravity where the observance of the procedures prescribed by law lead to evident injustice and humanitarian hardship�. NATO then set out to prove that all of those elements existed.

The Bush Administration NEVER raised a humanitarian intervention argument and they never made a case for the requirements set out above. Before you can engage in an humanitarian intervention you need to have exhausted the international process. The US never even started that process!

It�s entirely revisionist to come back now and say that the US invaded Iraq under the humanitarian intervention principle but even if you did argue that, the invasion would STILL be illegal because there was no massive violation of humanitarian standards in Iraq just as there were no WMD! Similarly if NATO had invaded Kosovo and it had turned out that their humanitarian intervention wasn't justified by humanitarian violations on the ground, it too would have been illegal.

The fact is that the US acted contrary to international law in invading Iraq. Actually, let me clarify that. If it had turned out that Iraq was indeed an imminent threat to the US, then the invasion wouldn't have been illegal but since it wasn't an imminent threat to anyone, the invasion offended international law. Most honest people recognise that. The issues is not whether what the US did was illegal. The issues is so whether there are consequences for international criminals. Spliffdaddy and the others are far more honest about recognising that than you are.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Why should I answer your question? I wasn't aware that Saddam cooperated fully, completely, and without ever hindering inspectors at any time during the 10 years following the cease fire and had met every term of the original resolution authorizing force against Iraq.

Ah, no WMD where found. I guess the UN inspections worked.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
All it does is let us know who our friends are and who our enemies are in the future. If England were attacked I would go help them but never would I spill a drop of blood to help a German or a Frenchman.

We won't forget who stood with us and who opposed us.

That's the kind of mindless, simplistic tribalism that is so prevalent in the US at the moment. It reminds me of my primary school days on the playground when the bully would walk around saying that if you didn't help him beat up the small kids then you'd be the next to be beaten up. Frankly I don't care if you only stand up for those that participate in your illegal, immoral wars. There is absolutely no value in having an ally that only helps you when you're being his lapdog.

PS Why would you spill blood for England considering 80% of the English population was against the war, considering millions (literally millions) of English people went into the streets to protest their country's involvement in the war?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
Ah, no WMD where found. I guess the UN inspections worked.

Yeah that is the funny/ironic thing. Despite Saddam's reluctance the inspections worked

He was contained and could be dealt with accordingly.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
The only legality that matters to the United States of America is whether or not the action was legal under our Constitution. The UN isn't our mother, our government, and we are not slaves to that squabbling institution of ineffective windbags.

Ineffective windbags? Colin Powell is an ineffective, squabbling windbag is he?

How does international law interface with US law? Do you know? Because quite possibly international law isn't as irrelevant as you think!

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Troll:
That's the kind of mindless, simplistic tribalism that is so prevalent in the US at the moment. It reminds me of my primary school days on the playground when the bully would walk around saying that if you didn't help him beat up the small kids then you'd be the next to be beaten up. Frankly I don't care if you only stand up for those that participate in your illegal, immoral wars. There is absolutely no value in having an ally that only helps you when you're being his lapdog.

PS Why would you spill blood for England considering 80% of the English population was against the war, considering millions (literally millions) of English people went into the streets to protest their country's involvement in the war?

This is what I am talking about, voodoo

[voodoo]

Originally posted by dcolton:
This is what I am talking about, voodoo

Roger that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
[B]Putting words in my mouth again aren't you. Nations on every continent on the planet opposed the Iraq invasion Simey, despite conservative America's insistent focus on "Old Europe" specifically France. As I've told you many times before, I'm not a European and I don't think the sun shines out of European butt. I don't give a damn what they think is right. On Iraq, the US is completely isolated. It's not just Europe that disagreed!
No, I'm not saying it posed an imminent threat to its neighbours. International peace had already been compromised and the entire planet, including Russia had already recognised that in UN resolution!

I only raised the discussion about the first exception because you said the two cases were identical. I said they were only similar in one narrow respect. Since you want to have this debate, I�ll say that it is completely and utterly ludicrous to argue that the two cases are legally identical. In Kosovo, the justification given by NATO relied principally on the customary law rule of humanitarian intervention that they argued existed when there was an identified threat to international peace. In Iraq the only threat that had been identified was that from Iraq�s possession of WMD. That was the threat that was being addressed and so the only justification for using force to address the threat was one that the WMD represented a threat to peace and security. That justification came apart when the WMD turned out not to be sitting under Powell�s proverbial palm trees in Western Iraq.

You say none of the European governments raised the first exception in the context of Kosovo, but I don�t know where you get your information from! It is true that European governments and NATO weren�t big fans of that argument because they weren�t prepared to be as liberal with their interpretation of international law as George Bush and you are. NATO and European lawyers believed that they didn't have a case under the first exception because none of NATO's members had already been attacked. But they did raise the argument nevertheless. They raised the argument OVER AND OVER again before the UN in the hopes that they would get a UNSC resolution authorising force to address the threat. There is a whole bulk of UN resolutions that prove that Europe raised the argument! Those resolutions also prove that the issue in the Balkans was always massive violation of huimanitarian standards. Where are the resolutions that do that identify a threat to peace through Iraq's massive violation of humanitarian standards, Mr. �Kosovo and Iraq are identical�? As it turns out, NATO rejected the imminent threat, pre-emptive action argument under customary law that your president has now turned into an American "Doctrine" of foreign policy.

NATO was at pains to set out precisely what the requirements for humanitarian intervention were. For interest sake, I�ll paste some of my notes on this in here. NATO referred to the works of scholars like Harhoff and Scheurer who said humanitarian intervention under customary law required: �[b]massive or large scale violations of international humanitarian standards committed against civilians�, �the international community has run short of legal, diplomatic or political means to bring these violations to an end�, and �positive law is morally unsuitable to deal with a situation of extreme urgency and gravity where the observance of the procedures prescribed by law lead to evident injustice and humanitarian hardship�. NATO then set out to prove that all of those elements existed.

The Bush Administration NEVER raised a humanitarian intervention argument and they never made a case for the requirements set out above. How come Bush never went to the UN and said we need to address the massive violations of humanitarian standards being committed in Iraq against civilians because they represent a threat to peace? Maybe because he know that he would have looked ridiculous arguing that, even if he had turned up with a Kuwaiti princess with an incubator story! Before you can engage in an humanitarian intervention you need to have exhausted the international process. The US never even started that process!

It�s entirely revisionist to come back now and say that the US invaded Iraq under the humanitarian intervention principle but even if you did argue that, the invasion would STILL be illegal because there was no massive violation of humanitarian standards in Iraq just as there were no WMD! Similarly if NATO had invaded Kosovo and it had turned out that their humanitarian intervention wasn't justified by humanitarian violations on the ground, it too would have been illegal. By the way, I'm not saying that I think this customary international law rule exists, I'm just saying that even if it does, it's considerably narrower than you are arguing. It doesn't allow a state to make oblique references to acts committed decades previously as an excuse to invade another state.

The legal arguments around Kosovo and Iraq are certainly not identical. Only in the limited context of the argument that the Europeans actually dropped and that I noted in passing are they even remotely similar. The fact is that the US acted contrary to international law in invading Iraq. Actually, let me clarify that. If it had turned out that Iraq was indeed an imminent threat to the US, then the invasion wouldn't have been illegal but since it wasn't an imminent threat to anyone, the invasion offended international law. Most honest people recognise that. The issues is not whether what the US did was illegal. The issues is so whether there are consequences for international criminals. Spliffdaddy and the others are far more honest about recognising that than you are.

Any two legal situations can be distinguished on factual grounds. You could just say that Kosovo was factually distinct from Iraq because refugees were starting to show up in Frankfurt. That's probably the closest thing to a genuine difference.

However, legally they were the same. The UN Security Council was deadlocked because of threatened vetoes. Notwithstanding that fact, major powers decided to go to war anyway, citing various authorities. In the case of Kosovo, the major veto powers in favor were the US, France, and Britain, with Russia and China threatening veto. In Iraq, the major powers in favor were the US and Britain, with France, Russia, and China threatening vetoes. Apparently, France's opinion makes one war moral and legal, and another illegal. Russia and China apparently don't count, nor do the US and Britain.

This is why I suggest that you want to bend international law to suit western Europe. Let's be honest here. That is primarily who is upset here. That is who is screaming. Nobody gives a fig about Russia's opinion, or South Africa's. But you, my friend, channel Western European sentiment on the issue quite well. The anger isn't that the invasion of Iraq happened, it is that it happened when many Europeans disagreed. It's the rage of impotance. And yes, you are right, we are dismissing you.

Now, back to the legal justifications used for Kosovo. Part of the hypocracy that surrounds the UN is that its charter is an antique relic from the mid 1940s. From the very beginning it has been applied pragmatically, it has never been taken seriously, nor will it be. Nevertheless, we are stuck with its quaint language.

Consequently, when nations find it necessary to bypass its language, they use various legal arguments of greater or lesser persuasiveness. I am well aware that the counties that make up the NATO alliance (why do you keep referring to international organizations as if they make decisions?) cited international humanitarian law. I'm quite receptive to their argument that there ought to be a recognized exception to state sovereignty in such situations. But there isn't one at present.

Kosovo's situation was legally as defective (or as strong) as Iraq's. If you are going to peddle international law as some neutral determinant for the rightness or wrogness of an international intervention, you would be more convincing if you would admit that you are willing to look the other way at a violation of international law when you agree with the results.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
How does international law interface with US law? Do you know? Because quite possibly international law isn't as irrelevant as you think!

Constitutionally, international law is subordinate to the U.S. Constitution. There are some doctrines such as the Charming Betsy doctrine where the courts will try to construe US law consistent with international law . But if there is a direct conflict with the Constitution, or if the political branches directly act contrary to international law, the Constitution and actions based on it, wins over international law.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Since the UN claims we illegally invaded Iraq - can we expect dire consequences such as a 'UN resolution'??

And this is the primary reason why everyone NOT in the US is concerned about the US conducting illegal wars. We must all trust that the US isn't going to become more imperialistic.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Seriously, who gives a crap what mr. incompetant leader of the UN thinks ?

Let 'em kick us out, do us a huge favor.

I've no doubt that the US would like to be kicked out of Iraq now ... give you the perfect excuse to not clean up after yourselves.

[Zimphire]

Funny, no one complained when Clinton attacked Iraq and didn't EVEN TRY to get UN approval.

NO ONE. Well cept Iraq.

Reacting to Clinton's speech, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz denounced the threat of military action.

"The United States doesn't have authorization by the Security Council to attack Iraq by military means," he told CNN in a telephone interview from Baghdad.

Washington insists U.N. resolutions in effect since the Gulf War provide all the authorization needed for an attack

Aziz also rejected the U.S. assertion that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are a threat to neighboring countries.

"Among all our neighbors, only Kuwait has joined the American plan to attack Iraq," he said. "So if all our neighbors are really threatened by us, why didn't they join the (U.S.-led) coalition."

But the leftist Americans were all being HUSH HUSH.

Notice the Right never made a big deal out of it either.

Funny how things change.

The UN is just trying to get some decency back in it's name.

It's a bit too late for that. The UN and redundancy.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
However, legally they were the same. The UN Security Council was deadlocked because of threatened vetoes. Notwithstanding that fact, major powers decided to go to war anyway, citing various authorities.

Simey, that is not a LEGAL similarity! That is a circumstantial similarity! The circumstances within the UNSC may have been similar but the legal and factual situations have virtually nothing in common.

1) Legally
Kosovo was principally justified under customary international law on the basis of a principle known as humanitarian intervention. That principle holds that when the international community has identified massive violations of humanitarian standards and all international avenues for resolving the problem have been exhausted without resolution of the problem, then you can invade.

Iraq was principally justified under customary international law on the basis of a principle know as pre-emptive self-defense. That principle holds that when your security may, in the immediate future, be threatened by another state, you can pre-emptively invade that country to head the threat to your security off at the pass. Obliquely one might argue that the US also justified its invasion to "free Iraqi people". One might I suppose consider this an oblique reference to humanitarian intervention.

It is true that neither of these actions were principally justified by reference to the Charter. Annan's comments are restricted to the Charter but he knows, just as any international lawyer does that the UN Charter is not the be-all-and-end-all.

2) Factually
The UN had passed a number of resolutions recognising massive violations of humanitarian standards in Iraq. The process for dealing with the threat had been exhausted and was blocked by Russia's refusal to authorise force. A dead end had been reached because the killing would continue unless force was used and force couldn't be used if Russia vetoed.

UN resolutions in Iraq related exclusively to WMD. No resolutions identified humanitarian violations in Iraq. The process for dealing with the threat that Iraq posed had NOT been exhausted. An inspection process was in place and continuing. There was no ongoing harm, and there were other options for dealing with the threat other than using force. France, Germany, Russia and China's threat to veto didn't prevent the problem from being dealt with because the problem was already being dealt with through inspections. Force was not required to solve the problem ... as is now painfully obvious!

When NATO troops got into Kosovo, it turned out that there really was a massive humanitarian crisis that did indeed represent a threat to peace.

When US troops got into Iraq, it turned out that there was no threat to US security or to regional or international peace. There was also no massive violation of humanitarian standards, no genocide or the like.

The application of the above facts to the law made the Kosovo intervention justified under the legal argument made. The application of the facts to the legal argument made in Iraq (to the extent that one was made) made the intervention illegal. There were no WMD, there was no genocide, and there were no other valid reasons to invade.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The anger isn't that the invasion of Iraq happened, it is that it happened when many Europeans disagreed.

I disagree with you and I have spoken to people who disagree with the invasion. I went to the protests, you didn't. The millions of people that lined the streets in Paris were pissed off that they weren't getting to kill some towelheads. They were pissed off that innocent people were going to be killed, they were pissed off because their sense of justice was being offended.

That's essentially my objection too. It's a moral objection but I believe that the law when followed leads to moral results. I do object to the way Iraq turned out. I object to the fact that tens of thousands of innocent people were killed for no valid reason. There were no WMD, there was no humanitarian crisis on a scale that justified a war and all it brings. I don't see that there's anything wrong with objecting on the basis of the outcome when the outcome is massive death and destruction. But my principle objection is that the war was unjust. The principle of fairness was offended by this war and that creates a dangerous precedent. It makes the world more dangerous. The US did not play an open hand. When you have a problem with someone, you explain what your problem is and you try to solve the problem in a civilised fashion. If you agree on a conflict resolution process, you follow it to the end before you take action. The US did not do that. It talked about WMD when they were irrelevant because what it wanted was regime change and to reshape the ME. It killed tens of thousands of innocent people under false pretences, it plunged a country into crisis, it weakened collective security, it acted immorally.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm quite receptive to their argument that there ought to be a recognized exception to state sovereignty in such situations. But there isn't one at present.

Kosovo's situation was legally as defective (or as strong) as Iraq's.

That's like saying that a murderer is as much a criminal as a jay walker. Of course it's true in a strictly legal sense. Both are criminals

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If you are going to peddle international law as some neutral determinant for the rightness or wrogness of an international intervention, you would be more convincing if you would admit that you are willing to look the other way at a violation of international law when you agree with the results.

That's not an indictment of my personality so much as it is one of the international system. You're very hung up on not having US action suffer the label of illegality. International law allows us to say that certain action is legal or illegal. It's up to the international community to decide what to do about it thereafter. A jaywalker and a murderer are strictly speaking both criminals, but the community doesn't punish them equally. In the same way, the international community recognises many acts as criminal but doesn't punish them equally. It's not about to punish the US for its action in Iraq even though most of the members of the community find the action abhorrent. And it's even less likely to do anything about Kosovo considering most of the members of the community don't find the intervention illegal in the first place.

Annan's comments were restricted to the UN Charter. I suppose that if you asked him whether the Kosovo intervention was illegal under the UN Charter, he'd have to agree.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Troll:
How does international law interface with US law? Do you know? Because quite possibly international law isn't as irrelevant as you think!

The U.S. Constitution, as Simey points out, is the supreme law of this nation.

Who is going to enforce this "international law" that you point out? What government has higher authority over our own matters than our own?

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
Ah, no WMD where found. I guess the UN inspections worked.

Well, hey, if the police search my house and can't find my hidden meth lab I suppose it means I don't have one

I ask one final time: did Saddam or didn't Saddam comply fully, completely, and without hesitation on every condition ending the Gulf War?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
I ask one final time: did Saddam or didn't Saddam comply fully, completely, and without hesitation on every condition ending the Gulf War?

I'll answer for him. NO. Not in any way shape or form.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Troll:


PS Why would you spill blood for England considering 80% of the English population was against the war, considering millions (literally millions) of English people went into the streets to protest their country's involvement in the war?

Because England fought for democracy and freedom in the past century unlike the French or Germans.

And what about the vast millions who didn't protest? If we govern on the basis of what's popular and what's not then we have denegrated to a mob mentality. I wonder if the same millions would have protested to invade Europe when it would have been beneficial to stop Hilter long before he conquered Europe. I suppose some people would just rather wait until it's too late to contain and deal with a menace.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Troll:
They were pissed off that innocent people were going to be killed, they were pissed off because their sense of justice was being offended.

So where were the protests to protest the innocents who were being killed by Saddam's regime?

You people just come off looking like such hypocrites and Saddam supporters it's not even funny any longer.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:


I ask one final time: did Saddam or didn't Saddam comply fully, completely, and without hesitation on every condition ending the Gulf War?

AFAIK no he didn't but apparently he complied enough for the weapons inspections to have their desired effect.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
So where were the protests to protest the innocents who were being killed by Saddam's regime?

You people just come off looking like such hypocrites and Saddam supporters it's not even funny any longer.

Where were yours?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
I ask one final time: did Saddam or didn't Saddam comply fully, completely, and without hesitation on every condition ending the Gulf War?

By way of answering your question, here's an analogy. Tomorrow we hold a 100m race between all of the top female sprinters in the world. Nesterenko in Lane 1, Williams in lane 2, Campbell in 3. They all set off and its neck and neck. As they reach the 50m mark, we put a rope across the track and call the race off. Now the question is: who won the race?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Who is going to enforce this "international law" that you point out?

Your own courts!

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by voodoo:

Where were yours?

Our protest went in Iraq last year and removed the person responsible for doing all those things. We took action to deal with the problem. What did you do to stop the killings under Saddam?

I just think a person or people that only protests our actions without also protesting the deaths of those under Saddam's rule is the worst kind of hypocrite imaginable.