Top-Ten Reasons to Get Out of Iraq. Now!

[RetiredGySgt]

Here is an applicable section of your cherished UN Charter. You keep claiming the US violated it and specifcally has waged an illegal Aggression.

http://uncharter.org/chapter/7

This article starts the section of..

Article: 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Be so kind as to show me where the Security council has even met to discuss the matter of illegal US and allied nations Aggression on Iraq.

The next Article states the Security Council doesn't even have to vote to make demands and recommendation if a violation has occurred.

Article: 40

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Be so kind as to provide me with the text of any demands or recommendations from the Security Council to the US or her Allies concerning the Invasion of and so called occupation of Iraq.

Please be so kind as to reference me to any meeting, any demands, any findings, any requirements or recommendations from the Security Council regarding the US and her Allies in regards to Iraq, the Invasion or so called occupation.

 

[Ruby]

LOL, you are such a tool.

The UN wouldnt vote to give the US authorization to attack and therefore deny it a legal basis...thats the only power the UN is going to have against a security council member, especially one of the most powerful ones that like to throw its power around.

Just because a nation or an organization dosent have the power to get justice dosent validate or give a "just" basis to the more powerful player. It just means that the more powerful player has decided to abandon principals, morals, justice and the rule of law in favor of the "law of the jungle". Not exactly a moment of pride for the US.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL, you are such a tool.

The UN wouldnt vote to give the US authorization to attack and therefore deny it a legal basis...thats the only power the UN is going to have against a security council member, especially one of the most powerful ones that like to throw its power around.

Just because a nation or an organization dosent have the power to get justice dosent validate or give a "just" basis to the more powerful player. It just means that the more powerful player has decided to abandon principals, morals, justice and the rule of law in favor of the "law of the jungle". Not exactly a moment of pride for the US.

In other words none of your claims can be proven or even reasoned with, no proof is your proof. You keep making a false claim. I have provided you with the relevant portion of the UN Charter. You have nothing except your delusions.

 

[Ruby]

In other words none of your claims can be proven or even reasoned with, no proof is your proof. You keep making a false claim. I have provided you with the relevant portion of the UN Charter. You have nothing except your delusions.

I cant figure out if you are obtuse as a defense to information you cant handle or it you truly lack the brain power to absorb the fact that the US couldnt get the go ahead from the UN to invade Iraq which would have given the US a legal basis...without it we have to rely on the self defense criteria and we cant meet that criteria either.

I really dont know how to make it any more simple for ya...

Here is another freebie for ya...the UN have also tried to intervene with Israel and Palestine but are powerless because the US makes sure that the UN can do nothing in that regard either. What is right and what you have the POWER to rectify are two very different things.

The UN did the only thing they have the power to do, with-hold providing the US with a legal basis, somthing that very well may come back to haunt the US.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I cant figure out if you are obtuse as a defense to information you cant handle or it you truly lack the brain power to absorb the fact that the US couldnt get the go ahead from the UN to invade Iraq which would have given the US a legal basis...without it we have to rely on the self defense criteria and we cant meet that criteria either.

I really dont know how to make it any more simple for ya...

Here is another freebie for ya...the UN have also tried to intervene with Israel and Palestine but are powerless because the US makes sure that the UN can do nothing in that regard either. What is right and what you have the POWER to rectify are two very different things.

The UN did the only thing they have the power to do, with-hold providing the US with a legal basis, somthing that very well may come back to haunt the US.

You are the one that can't seem to grasp reality or facts. The UN Security Council decides who has violated UN Charter, not you. Given 6 years they have yet to even bring it up in the council. I suggest you reread my link to the APPROPRIATE UN Article of the UN Charter. It is crystal clear. ONLY the Security Council can determine if one has waged an Aggressive war. And have they done so?

 

[Ruby]

You are the one that can't seem to grasp reality or facts. The UN Security Council decides who has violated UN Charter, not you. Given 6 years they have yet to even bring it up in the council. I suggest you reread my link to the APPROPRIATE UN Article of the UN Charter. It is crystal clear. ONLY the Security Council can determine if one has waged an Aggressive war. And have they done so?

So then tell me, which of the conditions has the US met to give legal basis to the war. Is it self defense or is it by UN resolution? If we can pick one of those, its illegal. Is that dumbed down enough for ya....I just cant dumb it down any further.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So then tell me, which of the conditions has the US met to give legal basis to the war. Is it self defense or is it by UN resolution? If we can pick one of those, its illegal. Is that dumbed down enough for ya....I just cant dumb it down any further.

Wrong. it is only an "illegal" war if the UN says it is. As is stated in the UN Charter. Until and unless the Security Council makes that statement, it simply is not true. You can huff and puff all you want, doesn't change the facts. I suggest you read the relevant articles.

 

[Gunny]

LOL, you are such a tool.

The UN wouldnt vote to give the US authorization to attack and therefore deny it a legal basis...thats the only power the UN is going to have against a security council member, especially one of the most powerful ones that like to throw its power around.

Just because a nation or an organization dosent have the power to get justice dosent validate or give a "just" basis to the more powerful player. It just means that the more powerful player has decided to abandon principals, morals, justice and the rule of law in favor of the "law of the jungle". Not exactly a moment of pride for the US.

The UN doesn't even have THAT power. You have no argument. A UN decisions is not the basis of a legal argument, and if it was, I have to then ask how legtimate is that when France openly PURCHASED votes against the US trying to protect its under-the-table deals with Saddam. How legitimate is THAT?

Anytime the US defies a corrupt, bureaucratic clusterfuck like the UN is DEFINITELY a moment of pride. Too bad we don't ignore the peanut gallery more often.

 

[Ruby]

The UN doesn't even have THAT power. You have no argument. A UN decisions is not the basis of a legal argument, and if it was, I have to then ask how legtimate is that when France openly PURCHASED votes against the US trying to protect its under-the-table deals with Saddam. How legitimate is THAT?

Anytime the US defies a corrupt, bureaucratic clusterfuck like the UN is DEFINITELY a moment of pride. Too bad we don't ignore the peanut gallery more often.

Yea the UN does have the power to authorize an invasion, the US just faced the problem of not getting enough votes in its favor.

The US defies corruption? Is that a joke? The US embraces corruption, it wallows it in like a pig in shit! The entire security council are certainly corrupt which is the reason the UN is so slow, inefficient and undemocratic...the corrupt powers (with the US as one of the worst) make up the security council and use it as to further their own agendas instead of using it for its intended purposes.

I do believe the US would be doing the world a favor if it just withdrew from the UN altogether, I really wish it would. Its one of the largest contributors of corruption.

 

[ReillyT]

Wrong. it is only an "illegal" war if the UN says it is. As is stated in the UN Charter. Until and unless the Security Council makes that statement, it simply is not true. You can huff and puff all you want, doesn't change the facts. I suggest you read the relevant articles.

I think you are confusing a finding of illegality with illegality itself. Throughout most of the last two centuries, crimes against black people occurred in the South (and North) that went unpunished. Even cases brought to trial generally failed to yield convictions. This doesn't mean that the lynchings that occurred weren't illegal. They were illegal whether justice was ever obtained or not. Legality is the measure of the act itself, not any subsequent resolution.

I think that the same thing applies here. If you believe that there is an international law, with international norms and rules, then a state may violate international law even if the Security Counsel, for political reasons, never makes such a finding. These are two different questions - apples and oranges if you will.

 

[ReillyT]

I have to modify what I wrote above. I think that it holds true when the rules in question are relatively clear (or even arguably clear - although then the question of illegality relates more to the clarity of the rules). When the rules aren't clear, then the decision of the legal tribunal may actually determine the legality of classes of actions. That is my caveat.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have to modify what I wrote above. I think that it holds true when the rules in question are relatively clear (or even arguably clear - although then the question of illegality relates more to the clarity of the rules). When the rules aren't clear, then the decision of the legal tribunal may actually determine the legality of classes of actions. That is my caveat.

The Article is clear as a bell. Unless and until the Security Council takes it up, It is not a violation of the Charter as specified in said charter. It even States the Council can act with NO vote. Last I checked there are 15 members of that Council.

More to the point, NO ONE has even suggested a resolution should occur. Not only do we have no resolution we have no one even suggesting it be brought up for vote.

 

[ReillyT]

The Article is clear as a bell. Unless and until the Security Council takes it up, It is not a violation of the Charter as specified in said charter. It even States the Council can act with NO vote. Last I checked there are 15 members of that Council.

More to the point, NO ONE has even suggested a resolution should occur. Not only do we have no resolution we have no one even suggesting it be brought up for vote.

First, let us not forget the obvious practical signficance of the UN Security Council. The US has a vote and can veto any measure. Now, lets get to the more nitty gritty.

Two things stand out about Art. 39. First, it establishes a duty that the Security Council must undertake. Granted. However, please show me where Article 39 states that a failure to make a finding equates with legality on the facts. I'll wait a while, because it doesn't say that. Statutes creating the US courts also establish duties and state what cases the courts shall hear. Nonetheless, that doesn't change the fact that individual acts can be illegal, even if they are not brought before a court. Think back to the lynching example. Courts were required to hear those cases. However, just because no one was ever convicted doesn't mean that lynching wasn't an illegal act.

Also, take a close moment to think about what else Article 39 says. It says the Security Council "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." This clearly implies that only the UN may either recommend or decide on a course of action, presumably to be carried out by member states or the UN itself, to maintain/restore peace. The UN neither recommended that an invasion of Iraq take place, nor did it decide that the organization or member states should take this action. In fact, it could have made such a recommendation and pointedly did not do so. Therefore, wouldn't this suggest that the war was illegal (which I think is a pointless question to begin with)?

Article: 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article: 40

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

First, let us not forget the obvious practical signficance of the UN Security Council. The US has a vote and can veto any measure. Now, lets get to the more nitty gritty.

Two things stand out about Art. 39. First, it establishes a duty that the Security Council must undertake. Granted. However, please show me where Article 39 states that a failure to make a finding equates with legality on the facts. I'll wait a while, because it doesn't say that. Statutes creating the US courts also establish duties and state what cases the courts shall hear. Nonetheless, that doesn't change the fact that individual acts can be illegal, even if they are not brought before a court. Think back to the lynching example. Courts were required to hear those cases. However, just because no one was ever convicted doesn't mean that lynching wasn't an illegal act.

Also, take a close moment to think about what else Article 39 says. It says the Security Council "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." This clearly implies that only the UN may either recommend or decide on a course of action, presumably to be carried out by member states or the UN itself, to maintain/restore peace. The UN neither recommended that an invasion of Iraq take place, nor did it decide that the organization or member states should take this action. In fact, it could have made such a recommendation and pointedly did not do so. Therefore, wouldn't this suggest that the war was illegal (which I think is a pointless question to begin with)?

Reread them .... then apply them to accusation that the US conducted an illegal aggression under the charter. Not only hasn't the Council passed any resolution, they haven't even talked about it, they haven't considered it, it is a non issue. The US made a case for self defense, you don't get to dismiss it cause you don't agree with it ( you being anyone that makes the claim not necassarly you in particular) IF the Un Security Council disagrees with that claim then they have a duty to act, failure to act implies acceptance of the claim the US made under the appropriate article. Not oly does it imply it, it states in the Article ONLY the Security Council can rule otherwise. They have done no such thing, they haven't even brought it up, so they argument the US would Veto is moot.

You do not get to decide your neighbor broke a law and claim loudly he is a criminal, UNLESS you press for charges and even then, failure to bring said charges means if you continue to make the claim your open for action for Liable.

 

[ReillyT]

Reread them .... then apply them to accusation that the US conducted an illegal aggression under the charter. Not only hasn't the Council passed any resolution, they haven't even talked about it, they haven't considered it, it is a non issue.

That would mean something if we could just ignore the real world facts relating to the workings of the Security Council. It is ultimately a political institution, not legal.

The US made a case for self defense, you don't get to dismiss it cause you don't agree with it ( you being anyone that makes the claim not necassarly you in particular) IF the Un Security Council disagrees with that claim then they have a duty to act, failure to act implies acceptance of the claim the US made under the appropriate article.

Once again, this only means something if we ignore how the UN works in the real world.

Also, anyone can dismiss (or adopt) the argument that the US acted in self-defence. As you pointed out with respect to French efforts to trade votes in the UN, the UN is not a very good forum for detached decision-making. Acknowledging this, it is perfectly reasonable to argue (on any side) about what rulings a more neutral, rule-based, international organization would make - were such an organization to exist (which it doesn't).

Not oly does it imply it, it states in the Article ONLY the Security Council can rule otherwise. They have done no such thing, they haven't even brought it up, so they argument the US would Veto is moot.

It isn't moot. Once again, the UN is a political institution. The fact that an issue has not been raised at the UN deals more with the political dynamics than the legal dynamics.

You do not get to decide your neighbor broke a law and claim loudly he is a criminal, UNLESS you press for charges and even then, failure to bring said charges means if you continue to make the claim your open for action for Liable.

I (or anyone else) can definitely decide and claim that my neighbor has broken the law. My neighbor may very well have broken the law, even if he is never arrested or prosecuted (which might not occur for a variety of reasons - including prosecutorial discretion). The question of whether my neighbor broke the law is a separate question from whether my neighbor can sue me for lible or slander (under which however, I would get to try to prove that my neighbor did what I say he did).

There are two separate issues: what my neighbor (or the US) did, and what a tribunal might acknowledge that my neighbor (or the US) did. These issues may align, or they may not.

As a practical matter, no body (in the near future, at least) is likely to state that the US went to war illegally. That is because (in my opinion) most international law is a joke, and there is no mechanism to hold powerful countries accountable.

The question as to what an impartial judicial body might hold were one to exist to hear such a claim is clearly open to argument. There are respected jurists who feel that the US acted illegally. I am sure that there are respected jurists who would argue otherwise. In the real world, no tribunal is ever going to answer this question (at least during this decade). Nonetheless, as an intellectual pursuit, we can always debate this question - there just will be no final answer.

It is sort of along the lines of debating whether dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was justified. People have opinions and arguments, but there is no authoritative body to ever make a determination one way or the other.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That would mean something if we could just ignore the real world facts relating to the workings of the Security Council. It is ultimately a political institution, not legal.



Once again, this only means something if we ignore how the UN works in the real world.

Also, anyone can dismiss (or adopt) the argument that the US acted in self-defence. As you pointed out with respect to French efforts to trade votes in the UN, the UN is not a very good forum for detached decision-making. Acknowledging this, it is perfectly reasonable to argue (on any side) about what rulings a more neutral, rule-based, international organization would make - were such an organization to exist (which it doesn't).



It isn't moot. Once again, the UN is a political institution. The fact that an issue has not been raised at the UN deals more with the political dynamics than the legal dynamics.



I (or anyone else) can definitely decide and claim that my neighbor has broken the law. My neighbor may very well have broken the law, even if he is never arrested or prosecuted (which might not occur for a variety of reasons - including prosecutorial discretion). The question of whether my neighbor broke the law is a separate question from whether my neighbor can sue me for lible or slander (under which however, I would get to try to prove that my neighbor did what I say he did).

There are two separate issues: what my neighbor (or the US) did, and what a tribunal might acknowledge that my neighbor (or the US) did. These issues may align, or they may not.

As a practical matter, no body (in the near future, at least) is likely to state that the US went to war illegally. That is because (in my opinion) most international law is a joke, and there is no mechanism to hold powerful countries accountable.

The question as to what an impartial judicial body might hold were one to exist to hear such a claim is clearly open to argument. There are respected jurists who feel that the US acted illegally. I am sure that there are respected jurists who would argue otherwise. In the real world, no tribunal is ever going to answer this question (at least during this decade). Nonetheless, as an intellectual pursuit, we can always debate this question - there just will be no final answer.

It is sort of along the lines of debating whether dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was justified. People have opinions and arguments, but there is no authoritative body to ever make a determination one way or the other.

Citing the UN as proof of a violation won't fly. The UN Charter is clear. Have any opinion you want. I do not care. But do not proclaim it is fact or true using as proof a charter that clearly indicates it is NOT fact or true.

Do not cite the UN Charter on supposed illegal war as proof while ignoring the rest detailing who decides it is aggression and the actions necassary to make it so.

 

[maineman]

what a renaissance man.... D&D game geek AND international legal scholar!