Legal murder

[Winston Smith]

The Iraq war was technically illegal, apparently... I skimmed the document, but could not find where it stated that no country was not allowed to go to war twith Iraq, could you point it out. I have heard that it is Illegal for a long time now and that is the generally accepted notion on which all America Bashing originates.

But, what other wars have been illegal. You said all the wars after WWII, didn't you?

I'm not sure I understand your question about Iraq. Could you rephrase?

I didn't say all wars after WWII were illegal, but most of them were in some way or another. Vietnam, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq (the second time) were all invaded without authorization from the UN. No war since WWII has been declared by Congress, which is a constitutional problem under Article I. The first Iraq invasion was a particularly egregious usurpation of power by the executive because the president stated he would act even in the face of disapproval by the legislature. In effect this was an open defiance of Congress and an assertion of dictatorial power. When you count a multitude of covert operations, which are acts of war even though the military itself may not be involved, I would say the majority of our conflicts are legally unjustified.

 

[Winston Smith]

Also, my statement that it's murder if the war is illegal was in response to Goshin's comment about killing in war generally. The OP asks about the killing of innocents, which except in cases of true collateral damage is always murder, even if the war itself is legal.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

You're the ill one... The only legal war is retaliation when we're attacked by a COUNTRY, not individuals who may or may not be connected to a country.

We were not attacked by Afghanistan, Iraq, nor any of the others excursions since Pearl Harbor, and since the UN is ran by us, any decision the UN makes is orchestrated by us, all because we're caught in the middle of partisan survival politics.

ricksfolly

We're not waging war on an entire nation.

That type of warfare we're quite good and thorough at - if we wanted to just kill everyone in the Middle East and rebuild the entire region we'd be done by now, smokin stoagies and rocking out to a job well done.

But that's not our goal or our focus and if you were truly concerned with understanding the entire situation from a calm and collect perspective you'd realize that.

 

[ricksfolly]

The Iraq war was technically illegal, apparently... I skimmed the document, but could not find where it stated that no country was not allowed to go to war twith Iraq, could you point it out. I have heard that it is Illegal for a long time now and that is the generally accepted notion on which all America Bashing originates.

But, what other wars have been illegal. You said all the wars after WWII, didn't you?

Attacking any country on fuzzy speculation is morally illegal, and that's exactly what we've been doing since WWII, all because of gotcha survival politics where weakness loses elections.

ricksfolly

 

[Bodi]

Attacking any country on fuzzy speculation is morally illegal, and that's exactly what we've been doing since WWII, all because of gotcha survival politics where weakness loses elections.

ricksfolly

I agree that attacking Iraq was the wrong thing to do, and the US population was lied to by Bush... no arguments there. But, can a person be convicted or something "morally illegal"? I'm not even sure what that means... not the appropriate course of action? Morally inappropriate?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

"lied to by Bush"

While I understand *where* that sentiment comes from - it's not quite accurate. There was NO effort what so ever to comply with his end of the bargain which broke down into our ensuing Iraq-issue.

Bush just didn't wake up one day, shake the snake and then say "By GAWD I feel like attackin me a country!"

 

[Bodi]

I'm not sure I understand your question about Iraq. Could you rephrase?

I didn't say all wars after WWII were illegal, but most of them were in some way or another. Vietnam, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq (the second time) were all invaded without authorization from the UN. No war since WWII has been declared by Congress, which is a constitutional problem under Article I. The first Iraq invasion was a particularly egregious usurpation of power by the executive because the president stated he would act even in the face of disapproval by the legislature. In effect this was an open defiance of Congress and an assertion of dictatorial power. When you count a multitude of covert operations, which are acts of war even though the military itself may not be involved, I would say the majority of our conflicts are legally unjustified.

You said that the UN Resolution meant that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal. Where in the resolution does it state that no country is allowed to attack Iraq? That is the only way that it would be "illegal".

 

[Bodi]

"lied to by Bush"

While I understand *where* that sentiment comes from - it's not quite accurate. There was NO effort what so ever to comply with his end of the bargain which broke down into our ensuing Iraq-issue.

Bush just didn't wake up one day, shake the snake and then say "By GAWD I feel like attackin me a country!"

Really? I should say to clarify then... By the "Bush Administration". And it is extremely accurate. I don't want to get into the whole Wolfowitz Doctrine stuff or WMD disinformation though...

 

[Winston Smith]

You said that the UN Resolution meant that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal. Where in the resolution does it state that no country is allowed to attack Iraq? That is the only way that it would be "illegal".

It's illegal by default unless it's in defense against armed attack or the UN authorizes it, which it didn't do. It was also illegal under Paragraph 12 of Resolution 1441, which requires that the UNSC "convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security." All members of the Council, including the US and the UK, agreed that Paragraph 12 required further explicit action by the UN before the use of force would be authorized:

Statements of UN Security Council members voting in favor of Resolution 1441:

United States: As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

To the Governments and peoples of the Arab world, including the people of Iraq: the purpose of this resolution is to open the way to a peaceful solution of this issue. That is the intention and wish of my Government.

United Kingdom: We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” — the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have just adopted. There is no “automaticity” in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/1441Speeches.pdf

 

[Bodi]

It's illegal by default unless it's in defense against armed attack or the UN authorizes it, which it didn't do. It was also illegal under Paragraph 12 of Resolution 1441, which requires that the UNSC "convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security." All members of the Council, including the US and the UK, agreed that Paragraph 12 required further explicit action by the UN before the use of force would be authorized:

Illegal by default? I am not sure that is how it works... Did the US and UK rush in? Perhaps.

 

[Winston Smith]

Illegal by default? I am not sure that is how it works... Did the US and UK rush in? Perhaps.

Meaning just that it's always illegal except under the conditions specified in the Charter. There doesn't have to be a separate resolution to make it illegal in each case.

 

[jamesrage]

It is murder if the war is illegal, as our wars usually are. It's considered heroic because we apply a double standard.

Here, this is for you.

 

[Bodi]

Meaning just that it's always illegal except under the conditions specified in the Charter. There doesn't have to be a separate resolution to make it illegal in each case.

I don't see where it makes it illegal in any case.

 

[Winston Smith]

I don't see where it makes it illegal in any case.

You don't see the Charter language, or you don't think it has any authority?

 

[Bodi]

You don't see the Charter language, or you don't think it has any authority?

Neither of those. If the Charter does not state that it is illegal to invade Iraq, then the resolution can not be used to state that invading Iraw is illegal, right? If there is another source stating that it is illegal, then that would or could make it illegal.

 

[Winston Smith]

Neither of those. If the Charter does not state that it is illegal to invade Iraq, then the resolution can not be used to state that invading Iraw is illegal, right? If there is another source stating that it is illegal, then that would or could make it illegal.

From Article 2:

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.

The Charter prohibits crimes against peace as to any state, including Iraq.

 

[Bodi]

From Article 2:



The Charter prohibits crimes against peace as to any state, including Iraq.

Yeah, I have trouble with that. It is a good idea and should be followed at all reasonable times, but if a nations interests are threatened, and the UN does not take appropriate actions, the nation has the right to take matters into their own hands.

Like I have always said though, attacking Afganistan was fine, attacking Iraq was not.

 

[ricksfolly]

Neither of those. If the Charter does not state that it is illegal to invade Iraq, then the resolution can not be used to state that invading Iraw is illegal, right? If there is another source stating that it is illegal, then that would or could make it illegal.

Before the Iraq issue we pretty much went along with how the UN voted, but when it became a political life and death situation at home, we were forced to invade without approval. Never mind that millions would die or or be displaced, keeping the party in power was more important.

Now the other party is caught in the same quagmire of survival politics and can't get out of it either.

Solution... Pack up, get out, and hope that there are more dove votes than hawk votes.

ricksfolly

 

[Chuz Life]

Why is murdering one person a crime and murdering thousands of innocent men, women and children in a war heroic? ricksfolly

And then there's abortion and the millions killed by that industry.

 

[Bodi]

Before the Iraq issue we pretty much went along with how the UN voted, but when it became a political life and death situation at home, we were forced to invade without approval. Never mind that millions would die or or be displaced, keeping the party in power was more important.

Now the other party is caught in the same quagmire of survival politics and can't get out of it either.

Solution... Pack up, get out, and hope that there are more dove votes than hawk votes.

ricksfolly

But now that we are there, we need to make sure that the whole mess is properly fixed. Just leaving is more irresponsible than the initial invasion, especially in Afganistan.

 

[ricksfolly]

But now that we are there, we need to make sure that the whole mess is properly fixed. Just leaving is more irresponsible than the initial invasion, especially in Afganistan.

Problem is there are no set military objectives, just Afghanistan who reveal themselves when they feel like it and disappear just as fast, towns where drugs is their only existence, and crooked leaders and US contractors who steal our money... Billions.

A tape on TV showed one soldier in a raised watching post looking down at moving traffic, trying to figure out who the bad guys were. I could see how cheaply built his small compartment was... No insulation in the walls, no air conditioning, furniture or cabinets of any kind, just bare, unpainted wood and fixed glass panels so he could see out.

The US contractor probably charged us $2 hundred thousand.

ricksfolly

 

[Bodi]

Problem is there are no set military objectives, just Afghanistan who reveal themselves when they feel like it and disappear just as fast, towns where drugs is their only existence, and crooked leaders and US contractors who steal our money... Billions.

A tape on TV showed one soldier in a raised watching post looking down at moving traffic, trying to figure out who the bad guys were. I could see how cheaply built his small compartment was... No insulation in the walls, no air conditioning, furniture or cabinets of any kind, just bare, unpainted wood and fixed glass panels so he could see out.

The US contractor probably charged us $2 hundred thousand.

ricksfolly

I agree that the situation is almost a roberry. So you are saying that since the situation is F-upped, then we should bail? Not a bad assertion, I guess that I just hope/wish that we were doing or would do a better job rebuilding the nation and its ability to defend itself. What looks like will happen now is Vietnam. We will leave and the locals will get blasted and lose.

 

[ricksfolly]

I agree that the situation is almost a roberry. So you are saying that since the situation is F-upped, then we should bail? Not a bad assertion, I guess that I just hope/wish that we were doing or would do a better job rebuilding the nation and its ability to defend itself. What looks like will happen now is Vietnam. We will leave and the locals will get blasted and lose.

That's their problem, not ours, and we can't make them change from who and what they are or force them to do anything, no matter what approach we use. Not surprising, really. After all we are the invaders, and what we call insurgents or al qaeda, are actually heroes to many.

ricksfolly

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, or even get their attention if they don't want to cooperate...

 

[Bodi]

That's their problem, not ours, and we can't make them change from who and what they are or force them to do anything, no matter what approach we use. Not surprising, really. After all we are the invaders, and what we call insurgents or al qaeda, are actually heroes to many.

ricksfolly

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, or even get their attention if they don't want to cooperate...

Heroes? Subjective... if we go by the general society and what they consider good and bad, the Taliban and AQ are most assuredly not heroes by any standard. And, it is our problem as much as as theirs. Without fixing the problem, it could grow much worse and affect us even more in the long run.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

"lied to by Bush"

While I understand *where* that sentiment comes from - it's not quite accurate. There was NO effort what so ever to comply with his end of the bargain which broke down into our ensuing Iraq-issue.

Bush just didn't wake up one day, shake the snake and then say "By GAWD I feel like attackin me a country!"

Read "War of Necessity, War of Choice." he kind of did. It was a legacy war of his father's and some hair brained project to allow a jeffersonian democracy to root and bloom in the middle East.