Is the US a force for good in the world?

[Billo_Really]

We were before. We are not now. But we will be again.

 

[tecoyah]

Spin it all you want fact of the matter is that you were for the interventionalist war on Kosovo where we had absolutely no national interests what so ever and your support came only on the basis of the genocide, yet when confronted with the attrocities of the Saddam regime which dwarf that of the crimes perpetrated by Milosovich, it's a non-issue. :roll:

Can you say hypocricy kids? I knew that you could.

I suppose you could definately see my stance as hypocritical.....but then again, timing is important here. If I remember correctly part of the reasoning which pushed me toward support in Bosnia was the immediacy of the death occuring. Whereas in Iraq I simply did not have the information compelling me to make a like descision. There was no genocide/ethnic cleansing taking place when we invaded Iraq....that I can remember. I thought , at the time we were going to war to remove WMD's from a madman.....hmmm...yeah...thats what I remember all right. There may have been a mention at some point of Humanitarian aims...but I dont remember the Administration saying much about it.
Now....once the initial reasons were found to be based on "Bad Intellegence" we decided it was humanitarian, primarily....and a removal of tyranny. You can spin it anyway you choose, as I am sure you will....but that does not change the history.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I suppose you could definately see my stance as hypocritical.....but then again, timing is important here. If I remember correctly part of the reasoning which pushed me toward support in Bosnia was the immediacy of the death occuring. Whereas in Iraq I simply did not have the information compelling me to make a like descision. There was no genocide/ethnic cleansing taking place when we invaded Iraq....that I can remember. I thought , at the time we were going to war to remove WMD's from a madman.....hmmm...yeah...thats what I remember all right. There may have been a mention at some point of Humanitarian aims...but I dont remember the Administration saying much about it.
Now....once the initial reasons were found to be based on "Bad Intellegence" we decided it was humanitarian, primarily....and a removal of tyranny. You can spin it anyway you choose, as I am sure you will....but that does not change the history.

Saddam Hussein's genocide pretty much went on consistently throughout his entire reign.

And you're just ignorant of the reasons of why we went to war in the first place:

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
Oct. 16, 2002
(H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq
(1) Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

(2) Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

(3) Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

(4) Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

(5) Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

(6) Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

(7) Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

(8) Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

(9) Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

(10) Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

(11) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

(12) Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

(13) Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

(14) Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

(15) Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;

(16) Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

(17) Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

(18) Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

<<<Continued Below>>>

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

<<<CONITNUED>>>

(19)Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

(20) Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

(21) Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

(22) Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,

(23) Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Now therefore be it,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
50 USC 1541 note.

 

[Vandeervecken]

I'll assume the previously posted backing you did not argue with is sufficient and not repeat it.

Wait....
Because the administration used 'humanitatian intervention' as one of the three basic arguments for invading Iraq, the humanitarian argument was not enough to justify the invasion?

We invaded Iraq supposedly because of the threat the WMD's they possessed posed to the USA, despite all evidence to the contrary. That was the Bush administration's excuse. They have sense changed a number of times what the reason was as facts proved them wrong.

In 1999, we went to war to oust Slobodon Milosovic of Serbia.
If that war was a jusitfied "humanitarian intervention", then how could Iraq not be also justified as same?

We did not go to war in Serbia. We invaded Kosovo. We have not, "gone to war," since 1941. So the fact there was a previously stupid use of troops using that fig leaf makes it a good excuse now? I opposed Clinton's adventures in the Balkan's, and I oppose the nonsense Bush has sent us on too. If you are interested I can send you an Op-Ed I wrote for the local paper concerning Kosovo.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Actually, I do pay attention to the news.

However, I have seen nothing to make me think that the US is a "stinking torture state"

You aren't paying much attention then are you? Did you miss that our Attorney Gene4ral has approved torture by redefining it? The world's press hasn't missed what we have ben doing.

http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us0405/

http://hrw.org/reports/2004/un0404/

http://download.repubblica.it/pdf/rapporto_crocerossa.pdf

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=3865

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511452004

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article6106.htm

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8280

http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/tort-f23.shtml

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060118/pl_afp/usrightsreport

 

[M14 Shooter]

We invaded Iraq supposedly because of the threat the WMD's they possessed posed to the USA, despite all evidence to the contrary. That was the Bush administration's excuse. They have sense changed a number of times what the reason was as facts proved them wrong.

Several reason were given for our action against Iraq - WMDs were among them, as was the humanitarian argument.

From Trajan's post:
(7) Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

(8) Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

There has been no change in the reason, as all the reasons given were the reasons originally given.

So, I ask again:
Because the administration used 'humanitatian intervention' as one of the three basic arguments for invading Iraq, the humanitarian argument was not enough to justify the invasion?

We did not go to war in Serbia. We invaded Kosovo. We have not, "gone to war," since 1941. So the fact there was a previously stupid use of troops using that fig leaf makes it a good excuse now?

Read what I said.
If that war was a jusitfied "humanitarian intervention", then how could Iraq not be also justified as same?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

For most of the last century we were a force for good. This administration, however, has turned us into a stinking torture state that invades other nations for no good reason. Meanwhile the true sources of evil are left untouched because of their close ties to our ruling dynasty.

LMAO.... we have been in multiple conflicts and wars. in all that time we were attacked by 1 nation on 1 day. Your beef is obviously not with what we do in the world, your a bush hater plain and simple. And no matter what happens or is done you will color everything with the same pen. A torture state? Please expand on this. And let me know exactly what military conflict in history that torture has not been used.

 

[Crispy]

For most of the last century we were a force for good. This administration, however, has turned us into a stinking torture state that invades other nations for no good reason.

I don't agree with you here. We're not a country that condones torture or has invaded countries for no good reason.

What we have certainly done is "re-evaluate" what is necessary given present circumstances.

Addressing your torture comments:
What limitations "should" we express to terror organizations, realizing that this policy "is" exclusive to them, with regards to the limits we're willing to set on interrogation methods?

When CIA operatives investigated the 80s US Embassy and marine barracks bombings in Lebanon they interrogated a number of suspects who were well aware of US policy on the treatment of detainees. In a report I saw about this, a prime suspect, who happened to be an inside agent working at the embassy, effectively challenged the CIA's authority in the matter until they employed un-orthodox techniques to extract information that lead them to the perpetrators of the plot. Ultimately the agents got "called" on the treatment of the detainee, even though the information they got was accurate and valuable to the investigation, and were subsequently removed from the assignment and relieved of their jobs at the CIA. No follow up to the intelligence they gathered was persued.

We know how terrorists exploit our own laws to attack us, and we also know that CIA operatives (as well as other law enforcement personell) know effective methods of interrogating prisoners that don't neatly fit into the more extreme liberal view of what's appropriate. Now, because of the circumstances, its more important to allow for those agents to get the information they need un-impeded. If we put electrodes to a suspects genitals or rape their wife in front of them then I'll say "yea, we've crossed the line." Until then we're just treating extremists in extreme ways. Speculating on our torture policy without compelling evidence of widespread abuses is only that, speculation. Although it may be fair to question the administrations stance on anti-torture legislation I think its one sided to dis-regard their arguments for their stance.

On Reasons to Go to war:
We did have reasons to go to war. There were more reasons than were even laid out in the case the US made to the UN and the world at the time. In the wake of 9/11 we all knew that all bets were off. Iraq being named along with Iran and North Korea before the case for Iraq was made I think was quite clear. And the administration, who obviously sought to reverse US policy of re-active responses to world crisis in favor of pro-active (pre-emptive) policy, built what amounted to an "acceptable" case for pre-emptive military action in Iraq.

There's no question that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, whether they were directly involved in 9/11 or not. Removing a state sponsoring regime that has a history of attrocities against its neigbors and its own people, had ambitions of WMD programs for the express purpose of shifting the balance of power in the ME is certainly "reason" enough to go to remove that regime from power by force don't you think?

The terrorist organizations (al-qaeda, etc.), the state sponsors of terrorism (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), and the states "prone" to create terrorists in their population due to poor political, socio-economic and cultural factors etc..(Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Egypt etc..) are three separate problems that have to be combatted in separate ways.

Meanwhile the true sources of evil are left untouched because of their close ties to our ruling dynasty.

Choosing Iraq over Saudi Arabia for military action doesn't mean other regimes aren't being addressed. It means that military action was deemed as the method to deal with Iraq. Don't be so quick to write off the "other" sources of evil as being un-affected by our current actions. Having set the precedent set in Afghanistan and Iraq has deeply affected all of the leaders of the ME which is evident in much of the rhetoric coming out of the region regarding civil rights reform, woman's rights and cooperation with counter-terrorism.

I believe we always have, and always will be a force for good in the world, not because we've engaged in endeavors that always turned out right (obviously we haven't), and not because all of our leaders have acted appropriately (also obviously not) but, because our impluse for acting has always derived from our belief in our principles and as a "country" (as opposed to the evil Bush so many point to) we always move forward in line with those principles.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Several reason were given for our action against Iraq - WMDs were among them, as was the humanitarian argument.

you ar emxing the legal document we gave to the UN ,a dn the justification the Bush Junta gave to the people of the US.

There has been no change in the reason, as all the reasons given were the reasons originally given.

At the very least you have to admit what was last and now being cited as the primary. A form of lie.

So, I ask again:
Because the administration used 'humanitatian intervention' as one of the three basic arguments for invading Iraq, the humanitarian argument was not enough to justify the invasion?

No. It was not.

Read what I said.
If that war was a jusitfied "humanitarian intervention", then how could Iraq not be also justified as same?

I do not believe EITHER was a justified use of US force. One major difference though. We went into Kosovo as a part of our treaty obligation to NATO, not unilaterally. Only after the NATO council ruled it so. A major difference there as well.

However both were unjustified IMHO. As I clearly stated. Should I post my op-ed about Kosovo here to show you what I said then?

 

[Vandeervecken]

LMAO.... we have been in multiple conflicts and wars. in all that time we were attacked by 1 nation on 1 day. Your beef is obviously not with what we do in the world, your a bush hater plain and simple. And no matter what happens or is done you will color everything with the same pen. A torture state? Please expand on this. And let me know exactly what military conflict in history that torture has not been used.

I've already posted a long list of links in this room. Did you bother to go see? Nope.

Name me one conflict since the start of the 20th century where torture was the policy if our government before the Bush administration. Calling me a Bush hater will not change the fact that they have engaged in a willful policy if illegal torture, Gonzalez our AG even wrote a justification of it. Bush opposed, publically the McCain amendment to make it illegal to continue torture.

Calling me a Bush hater will not make the fact that the Bush administration has made torture an integral part of our national policy. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Red Cross all list us as a torture state now. That has never happened before in our history.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you ar emxing the legal document we gave to the UN ,a dn the justification the Bush Junta gave to the people of the US.

If you take an intellectually honest look, you'll find each of the reasons listed by the former in the latter.

At the very least you have to admit what was last and now being cited as the primary. A form of lie.

Listing one of the reaons you always listed is a form of a lie?

No. It was not.

Ok.... why?
What level of humanitarian depravity justifies an invasion of another country?

I do not believe EITHER was a justified use of US force. One major difference though. We went into Kosovo as a part of our treaty obligation to NATO, not unilaterally.

1: NATO is a defensive treaty. We have an obligation to act with our NATO partners only if a NATO member is attacked. As we were the aggressors in Kosovo, there was no NATO obligation.
2: At least 3 other nations went with us when we invaded Iraq, and 40+ are there now. We did not invade Iraq unilaterally.

 

[Crispy]

However both were unjustified IMHO. As I clearly stated. Should I post my op-ed about Kosovo here to show you what I said then?

Yes, I'm interested in your assessment of that conflict. I thought military intervention was justified and would've have been justified in Bosnia as well.

 

[DeeJayH]

the USofA is the greatest and best country to ever be established on this earth
even under the man-whore Clinton it was the best

do we have our problems/faults/mistakes and just plain wrong moves
but as a whole, it is definitely the Best

 

[SixStringHero]

Guess I will use my degree in Hyperbolistics as well then.

Several years ago...after Bosnia, I was asked this question at a get together I attended. After some serious debate I came to the conclusion that we were, indeed primarily a force for relative good, as we acted only when dire need created a situation which warranted intervention. Sadly....today I had to say...."Depends", as things have changed dramatically in our foreign policy.
In the past the United States acted as a world police force in effect. Partially as a shadow hanging over the heads of those who would commit atrocity, and partially as a country willing to protect its interests. This was the perception I had for decades, and has changed over the last few years. World opinion of us has been soured, and to an extent my own in the process. Though I understand many do not care what the rest of the world thinks of our country, I see this as extremely shortsighted...and dangerous.We seem to have abandoned even the illusion of a diplomatic foreign policy, and instead decided on military intimidation as our primary means of international communication. Many of my friends from overseas have stated as much....and it is a pity.
As of right now.....I am unsure of our position in this world....and I find it....upsetting.

I in turn believe that letting global opinion dictate our actions is a dangerous thought process.

How many of these countries who have a low disposition towards us were on the U.N Security Council and were found out to be corrupt? Underhanded dealings with Saddam was the tip of the iceberg. And were supposed to care what they think?

Someone mentioned Rwanda. Well, where was the UN on that one? Or more currently, Darfur. Where is the global outcry and unilateral action?
I guess the question begs, should we be the world's police force and actually care what the rest of the world thinks while they sit back shaking their fingers?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by DeeJayH
the USofA is the greatest and best country to ever be established on this earth
even under the man-whore Clinton it was the best

do we have our problems/faults/mistakes and just plain wrong moves
but as a whole, it is definitely the Best

By who's standards?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I've already posted a long list of links in this room. Did you bother to go see? Nope.

Name me one conflict since the start of the 20th century where torture was the policy if our government before the Bush administration. Calling me a Bush hater will not change the fact that they have engaged in a willful policy if illegal torture, Gonzalez our AG even wrote a justification of it. Bush opposed, publically the McCain amendment to make it illegal to continue torture.

Calling me a Bush hater will not make the fact that the Bush administration has made torture an integral part of our national policy. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Red Cross all list us as a torture state now. That has never happened before in our history.

Well since the people you talk about do not and are not covered under standard policy and or the Geneva Convention. There was definetly a need for expanded definition. The people your speaking of DO NOT fall under the definitions within the GC

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

As far as torturing goes. I am all for whatever it takes to get the information needed to keep us safe. I could give a rats ass what AI has us listed as. These animals do not in any way follow the GC. So I see no reason to take a knife to a gun fight and handicap our soldiers and military anymore then they already are. I see know reason for handing terrorist the same rights as we give the citizens of our country. Far as I am concerned in todays day and age. When you fly planes into buildings, you give up your right to be human let alone treated in a specific matter

I haven't read the policy paper produced by the government that promotes the torture of terrorist. Could you please give me the link so I can read it?

 

[The Mark]

By who's standards?

Not by yours obviously.
I think he was using his personal standards, as you are.


I think this country IS a force for good.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by The Mark
Not by yours obviously.
I think he was using his personal standards, as you are.

I think this country IS a force for good.

That's why we attacked a country that did nothing to us against all International Laws? Is that what you call good?

 

[The Mark]

That's why we attacked a country that did nothing to us against all International Laws? Is that what you call good?

I never said that the US was a force for good because we went into Iraq.

And I will not say that the US is no longer a force for good because we went into Iraq.

And besides, I was under the impression that we were attacking the leaders of Iraq, not the country itself.

And I'd like to know what International Laws. A list with refrences to the ones relevent would be helpfull.

If they prove something to me I MIGHT agree with you.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by The Mark
I never said that the US was a force for good because we went into Iraq.

And I will not say that the US is no longer a force for good because we went into Iraq.

And besides, I was under the impression that we were attacking the leaders of Iraq, not the country itself.

And I'd like to know what International Laws. A list with refrences to the ones relevent would be helpfull.

If they prove something to me I MIGHT agree with you.

Article 51 of the UN Charter.

 

[The Mark]

Article 51 of the UN Charter.

From the UN Charter:

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


Heh, that sounds like something that could be used AGAINST the arguement that the US was violating international law.

If you assume that Saddam Hussein was in some way allied with terrorists, namely Al Quada, then I am sure that some lawyer could argue that we were acting in self-defense against an attack.

But I do not see how this article was in any way violated by the US when it attacked Iraq.

Maybe I'm just dense, but could you please explain it?

At the very least, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by The Mark
From the UN Charter:

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


Heh, that sounds like something that could be used AGAINST the arguement that the US was violating international law.

If you assume that Saddam Hussein was in some way allied with terrorists, namely Al Quada, then I am sure that some lawyer could argue that we were acting in self-defense against an attack.

But I do not see how this article was in any way violated by the US when it attacked Iraq.

Maybe I'm just dense, but could you please explain it?

At the very least, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

First off, Hussein and Bin Laden hated each others guts. They wanted to kill each other. One is a Secular Dictator. The other is an Islamic Fundamentalist. They were not in cahoots. Secondly, Article 51 provides only two legal ways a country may attack another country. 1) If your country was attacked first by a significant standing army or force and 2) if you receive permission from the UNSC. We had neither.

 

[The Mark]

First off, Hussein and Bin Laden hated each others guts. They wanted to kill each other. One is a Secular Dictator. The other is an Islamic Fundamentalist. They were not in cahoots.

This does not prove that they would not work together to fight against a common enemy.

I'm not sure they did, mind you, but you must admit that there is a possiblity.

Secondly, Article 51 provides only two legal ways a country may attack another country. 1) If your country was attacked first by a significant standing army or force and 2) if you receive permission from the UNSC. We had neither.

Actually, article 51 says that (and I quote):

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations"

This does not mean (and I quote you): "If your country was attacked first by a significant standing army or force"

 

[The Mark]

Link to the UN charter if anyone needs ammo.

www.un.org/aboutun/charter/