So it WAS Illegal After All!

[Mr Manifesto]

Reprint of Guardian article (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5259.htm)

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".

Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.


I remember Tricky and other forum members endlessly arguing that the war was illegal, while others insisted otherwise. Well, now that Perle has finally come out in the open and admitted that international law just didn't suit the Bush administration, will these people finally concede the point? Or is it time to shift the goal posts?

[Aoidoi]

I don't know if it was illegal or not, but why is Mr. Perle the definitive source of international legal knowledge?

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
I don't know if it was illegal or not, but why is Mr. Perle the definitive source of international legal knowledge?

He's not, but he has a vested interest in the opposite being true, which makes him a fairly reliable source.

[BillyTK]

The war might have been illegal, but we'll find a way to blame the French for it (I almost get run over the other day. The car was a Peugeot-need I say more?)!

But what the heck was the event at the ICA? US hegemony–a retrospective? Spin Masterclass? Damien Hirst is a short fat talentless goit? What exactly? Oh, here we go: The ICA Economist Debate. Is the War on Terror on Track? (http://www.ica.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=12798) (and if not, how do we pin it on the French?).

[Tony]

I still contend that it wasn't illegal. Just because "international law" says something is "illegal" doesn’t make it so. The law has to have force and power behind it to make it relevant and applicable, international "law" has neither.

[Attrayant]

So should all international law be scrapped since none of it has force or power behind it?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Attrayant
So should all international law be scrapped since none of it has force or power behind it?

Pretty much.


Or set up a mechanism by which it does have force. Im not even sure that would work, when Bush made the move to enforce international "law" people piss and moan saying it's "illegal".


If international "law" is so important, how come the idiots of the world were willing to let Hussien continue to break it? How come they let him break it for 12 years? Or does international "law" only matter when it applies to the US or Isreal?

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Tony
I still contend that it wasn't illegal. Just because "international law" says something is "illegal" doesn’t make it so. The law has to have force and power behind it to make it relevant and applicable, international "law" has neither.

Also known as "the jungle law"

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony


Pretty much.


Or set up a mechanism by which it does have force. Im not even sure that would work, when Bush made the move to enforce international "law" people piss and moan saying it's "illegal".

Bush's actions are not a good example of enforcing international law. He had no body that sets "international law", i.e. the UN, behind him.

The only way to give International law much more force than a strong suggestion (which is what it has now) would be to grant some sort of enforcement powers to the UN and give the UN some teeth in a military sense. This would not set well with a lot of people in a lot of countries for a lot of reasons.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

The only way to give International law much more force than a strong suggestion (which is what it has now) would be to grant some sort of enforcement powers to the UN and give the UN some teeth in a military sense. This would not set well with a lot of people in a lot of countries for a lot of reasons.

Exactly. Because of this fact, it's dumb to think of international "law" as anything more than a polite request.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Tony


Exactly. Because of this fact, it's dumb to think of international "law" as anything more than a polite request.

So, if the mighty can escape the law then I guess they are not considered illegal ?

"Illegal" is one thing and "Inapplicable" is another.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony


Exactly. Because of this fact, it's dumb to think of international "law" as anything more than a polite request.

In certain sense you are right. A lot of "international law" consists of countries agreeing among themselves to do or not do certain things. While this is purely voluntary if ones country has entered into such an agreement, it is very bad for relations if one welches on the agreement. It really is no different than telling a lie on an individual level, people tend not to trust you.

Whether any agreements of this nature were violated in the instance of our invading Iraq, I couldn't say, though.

[Tony]

Originally posted by El Greco


So, if the mighty can escape the law then I guess they are not considered illegal ?


If there is no law to escape, how can it be illegal?

"Illegal" is one thing and "Inapplicable" is another.


But illegal without applicable is irrelevant.

In Texas it is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing, but such a law is unenforceable and inapplicable pretty much making it's "illegality" irrelevant.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by El Greco

So, if the mighty can escape the law then I guess they are not considered illegal ?

"Illegal" is one thing and "Inapplicable" is another.

There's an eroneous assumption here that only the mighty can ignore international law. Saddam was doing precisely that for a pretty damned long time, and the French and Russians were content to help him continue. There are sometimes repercussions for violations of international law, but there is never a mechanism to actually force compliance (in other words, you might suffer sanctions, but nobody is going to actually make you do anything). International "law" simply is not comparable to domestic laws. Had there been an organization with both the power AND the will to force Saddam to comply with international law in the first place, the question probably wouldn't ever need to come up about whether or not we should break international law to bring him to justice. But no such body exists, nor is one likely to exist within our lifetimes.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Nasarius
He's not, but he has a vested interest in the opposite being true, which makes him a fairly reliable source. Is this generally true? People confess to crimes they didn't commit all the time. People are incorrect all the time. He could well have bad info and be trying to minimize it's impact even though it's not correct.

I dunno, I'm not quite sure how one would go about determining anything in international law with any certainty. US law has the Supreme Court as the last stop in interpretation, somehow I don't think the Hague has that kind of authority in international law.

Does make international law a bit difficult to pin down. :)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


In certain sense you are right. A lot of "international law" consists of countries agreeing among themselves to do or not do certain things. While this is purely voluntary if ones country has entered into such an agreement, it is very bad for relations if one welches on the agreement. It really is no different than telling a lie on an individual level, people tend not to trust you.



Precisely why our country is no longer a Confederation, which is what the U.N. is.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Reprint of Guardian article (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5259.htm)



I remember Tricky and other forum members endlessly arguing that the war was illegal, while others insisted otherwise. Well, now that Perle has finally come out in the open and admitted that international law just didn't suit the Bush administration, will these people finally concede the point? Or is it time to shift the goal posts?

I am one of those people. Still waiting for the official condemnation from the UN.......

[ssibal]

Another thing, there seems to be a double-standard here. If Perle had claimed that Iraq had WMD you would be calling him a liar. But now that he is claiming something that you agree with there are no cries about him being a liar or demands for him to prove his claim. Wonderful.

[peptoabysmal]

Mr Perle, meet Mr. Manifesto. I think you two will get along fabulously.

From the posted story:
The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defence policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory board.


Can anyone give me a pointer to an international legal document that clearly states that is it illegal for any country to declare war on another country for any reason whatsoever?

Mr. Perle might think himself brave for expressing his opinion so boldly, but he is just plain wrong.

There are international agreements that are very specific about military conduct during a war, many of which were broken by the Iraqi army such as posing as civilians and so on, but there is no law that makes it illegal for any nation to declare war on another for whatever reason it deems necessary.

To suggest such a stupid law would deny any nation of it's right to defend itself as it sees fit, and this is the point that will be driven home by laywers representing the US and UK.

Cry all you want Mr. Perle, but you lose. bzzzzt!, next contestant please...

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by ssibal


I am one of those people. Still waiting for the official condemnation from the UN.......


As long as the US and UK have veto power in the security council no-one will even try.

[Ion]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

...
Can anyone give me a pointer to an international legal document that clearly states that is it illegal for any country to declare war on another country for any reason whatsoever?
...

What is legal and illegal in declaring war according to U.N. is shown below.

The U.N. Chart in Chapter 1, Article 2, states:

"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."

which in Iraq's case forbids U.S. the "...use of force against the territorial integrity..." of Iraq, except in case of self-defense as shown in 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 the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

So:

.) the Article 51 would apply to U.S. attacking Iraq in self defense, if (and only if) Iraq was attacking U.S. first, which didn't happen,

therefore

.) the U.N. Chart Chapter 1, Article 2 applies in forbidding U.S. "...the use of force against the territorial integrity..." of Iraq.

Q.E.D..

pepty,

.) this is the second time that I feed you the answer;

.) what happened since the first time when I fed you this answer, three months ago?

.) is your brain hibernating for long periods of time?

Regarding Tony's assertion that an international law has value only when there is capability of enforcing it, I counter with:

.) why did U.S. sign into the U.N. Chart, if U.S. is not self-enforcing the U.S. signature?

.) I tell you why;

.) U.S. is dishonest under Bush.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by ssibal
Another thing, there seems to be a double-standard here. If Perle had claimed that Iraq had WMD you would be calling him a liar. But now that he is claiming something that you agree with there are no cries about him being a liar or demands for him to prove his claim. Wonderful. People don't usually tend to decry views they agree with.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Attrayant
So should all international law be scrapped since none of it has force or power behind it?
(Caution: posted before reading the whole thread)
Chairman Mao say: Political power comes out of the end of a gun.

subgenius say: much truth in that since.for example, the US Supreme Court doesn't have police to enforce its orders. Constitutional crises have been avoided since Marbury v Madison and through Clinton (who should have told them to shove their subpoenas, and instead, through a wish to avoid a constitutional crises, allowed an encroachment on the seperation of powers)

Ultimate lesson: ....you only have the power if you're able to FORCE, or otherwise BS, others to do your will.... and yet the true proof of power is in the restraint in its use.....

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


There's an eroneous assumption here that only the mighty can ignore international law.

Sorry, but the only erroneous assumption I see is your assumption that I made an erroneous assumption.

I never said that only the mighty can ignore law. What I said is that some people seem to think that if the mighty ignore law then they are not illegal just because they are mighty.

During the war I have had numerous discussions on its legality on another forum. One of the main arguments of the war proponents (the only argument for many of them) was that Saddam has MDW. A few days ago I checked back that forum and sure enough they were still talking about it. I checked the posts of some people who were talking about MDW back then. They seemed completely unaffected by the fact that their main argument had collapsed. They just shifted the goal posts like Mr. Manifesto said, and continued with the same stubborness. I then realized that no further discussion was meaningful, it would be like trying to convince the pope that there is no god. They can be moving the goal posts all around the field till kingdom come, and even if someone manages to score they will claim it was an offside.

And I'm getting really tired of all this...

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Ion

What is legal and illegal in declaring war according to U.N. is shown below.

The U.N. Chart in Chapter 1, Article 2, states:

"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."

which in Iraq's case forbids U.S. the "...use of force against the territorial integrity..." of Iraq, except in case of self-defense as shown in 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 the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

So:

.) the Article 51 would apply to U.S. attacking Iraq in self defense, if (and only if) Iraq was attacking U.S. first, which didn't happen,

therefore

.) the U.N. Chart Chapter 1, Article 2 applies in forbidding U.S. "...the use of force against the territorial integrity..." of Iraq.

Q.E.D..

pepty,

.) this is the second time that I feed you the answer;

.) what happened since the first time when I fed you this answer, three months ago?

.) is your brain hibernating for long periods of time?

Regarding Tony's assertion that an international law has value only when there is capability of enforcing it, I counter with:

.) why did U.S. sign into the U.N. Chart, if U.S. is not self-enforcing the U.S. signature?

.) I tell you why;

.) U.S. is dishonest under Bush.

Laws can only be enacted by governments, and only by the consent or coercion of those governed. In order for there to be "international law", there must be an "international government". The UN is not an international government, period.
The UN charter is simply the rules of conduct to be a member of club UN. The punishment for disobeying the rules is that you can be kicked out of the club. But not the US, because the US is a founding member with veto power.

If you tell me one more time you are going to "feed me the answer", I will feed you to my ignore list.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Laws can only be enacted by governments, and only by the consent or coercion of those governed. In order for there to be "international law", there must be an "international government". The UN is not an international government, period.
The UN charter is simply the rules of conduct to be a member of club UN. The punishment for disobeying the rules is that you can be kicked out of the club. But not the US, because the US is a founding member with veto power.

*snip*

So you say yourself that the USA may ignore the rules, while others may not. How´s that for a double standard?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Laws can only be enacted by governments, and only by the consent or coercion of those governed. In order for there to be "international law", there must be an "international government". The UN is not an international government, period.
The UN charter is simply the rules of conduct to be a member of club UN. The punishment for disobeying the rules is that you can be kicked out of the club. But not the US, because the US is a founding member with veto power.

If you tell me one more time you are going to "feed me the answer", I will feed you to my ignore list.

Read: I will flee like a coward when someone challenges my pre-conceived notions.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Laws can only be enacted by governments, and only by the consent or coercion of those governed. In order for there to be "international law", there must be an "international government".

Governments are the representative of the constituents. Governments can take many forms, from the Libertarian minimalist model to the all pervasive USSR model.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Read: I will flee like a coward when someone challenges my pre-conceived notions.


You have to sink pretty damn low to call Ion's babbling a "challenge".

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Laws can only be enacted by governments, and only by the consent or coercion of those governed. In order for there to be "international law", there must be an "international government".
Why? Your conclusion here doesn't automatically follow from your supporting claim.
The UN is not an international government, period.
Very true, and neither was it intended to be (is there anyone other than conspiracy theorists and cultists who believe it is?).
The UN charter is simply the rules of conduct to be a member of club UN. The punishment for disobeying the rules is that you can be kicked out of the club. But not the US, because the US is a founding member with veto power.
Also true, except that the rules of conduct were established because it was understood that settling international disputes via law is much more preferable to settling disputes via force. It may be expedient for the US to ignore the UN now, but what happens when the next big guys come along? Or when the US overstretches in attempting to enforce the Pax Americana?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Mr Perle, meet Mr. Manifesto. I think you two will get along fabulously.

From the posted story:


Can anyone give me a pointer to an international legal document that clearly states that is it illegal for any country to declare war on another country for any reason whatsoever?

Mr. Perle might think himself brave for expressing his opinion so boldly, but he is just plain wrong.

There are international agreements that are very specific about military conduct during a war, many of which were broken by the Iraqi army such as posing as civilians and so on, but there is no law that makes it illegal for any nation to declare war on another for whatever reason it deems necessary.

To suggest such a stupid law would deny any nation of it's right to defend itself as it sees fit, and this is the point that will be driven home by laywers representing the US and UK.

Cry all you want Mr. Perle, but you lose. bzzzzt!, next contestant please...

Unfortunately, there are many who would willingly sacrifice their sovereignty in exchange for peace.

Believe it or not, there are people in this world who are not willing to fight for anything...

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kodiak

Believe it or not, there are people in this world who are not willing to fight for anything...

Arent those people called Europeans? :p

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Unfortunately, there are many who would willingly sacrifice their sovereignty in exchange for peace.

Believe it or not, there are people in this world who are not willing to fight for anything...
You've got to fight for your right to party.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius

You've got to fight for your right to party.

Praise Rev. Bob!!

[Ion]

What gives you this idea?
Originally posted by Tony

Arent those people called Europeans?...
Take my example, me being an European.

I see instances where I fight more than you do.

Like speaking foreign languages better than you do speak your native language.

So that I teach you that "Aren't those people...", that's how you need to learn your native language.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion

Like speaking foreign languages better than you do speak your native language.

So that I teach you that "Aren't those people...", that's how you need to learn your native language.

Ion, you're an idiot. I don't criticise your poor English skills (and yes, it's pretty damned obvious you're not a native speaker) because, frankly, that doesn't matter. Your idiotic political positions matter far more than your bad grammar. But when YOU make language an issue (in this case, chances are Tony didn't hit the ' key hard enough, and didn't check what he wrote carefully), you're really setting yourself up for a smackdown. You, of all people, shouldn't be trying to make this an issue of language skills, because you'll lose. I can tell Tony is fluent in English, and I can tell you're not. But I guess this isn't the first time you made an ass out of yourself - maybe you should try for a repeat, and start claiming people don't know math or physics?

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Ion
What gives you this idea?I believe this should be "What gave you that idea?"

Take my example, me being an European.I believe this should be "Take me for example. I am a European." Depending on what exactly you mean, of course.

I see instances where I fight more than you do.

Like speaking foreign languages better than you do[sic] speak your native language.I'm not quite sure how speaking equates to fighting. Perhaps you fight more for bilingual education, but as written it doesn't really mean that. I suspect this is more a language issue than a thought process one.

So that I teach you that "Aren't those people...", that's how you need to learn your native language. [/B]Not sure exactly what you're trying to say. I believe "So I need to teach you that "Aren't those people..." is the correct punctuation. You need to learn your native language."

Sorry, just being a bit silly. I was wondering why your grammar seemed odd since your location is listed as in the US, but wasn't going to comment until you brought up his typo (not that we don't all need to improve our language skills). :)

[Ion]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
I believe this should be "What gave you that idea?"
...

I believe you should talk only after you learn that "What gives you this idea?" that's correct English.

And so on, until the last point of your post.

For you to make any of the points that you try to make in your post, please open a dedicated thread, where I will teach you.

Good luck.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

...
I can tell Tony is fluent in English, and I can tell you're not.
...

I can tell Tony is sloppy in English, like an uneducated native speaker.

You can tell that English is not my first language, but this shows more education than a sloppy native speaker.

That's where "...willing to fight for anything..." comes into the picture, with this example of fighting for more education.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion
I can tell Tony is sloppy in English, like an uneducated native speaker.


So you ARE trying for a repeat. Sloppiness has nothing to do with education level. You don't know anything about Tony's education level (and I don't either - Tony can fill us all in if he cares). But it's presumptuous to claim you do, and you could easily end up looking like as big an ass as you did when you accused me of not having any math or physics education. And, just like that case, it's also rather irrelevant. You're at a loss on issues of substance, so you've decided to criticise cosmetic issues instead.

BTW, it should more properly be "I can tell Tony's English is sloppy..." (though I appreciate the irony of your version).

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

...
Sloppiness has nothing to do with education level.
...

I think sloppiness has lots to do with education.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Tony

You have to sink pretty damn low to call Ion's babbling a "challenge".
You have I.Q. problems in understanding what was posted, Baloney.

[Chaos]

May I add that there are many things, the grammar being the least obvious, that indicate that Tony is uneducated?

May I also add that I guess Ion is better in English than Tony is in any foreign language - and that he probably is better in his native language (Romanian, wasn´t it?) than Tony is in English?

And may I, at last, remind everybody that this topic is about the "War against Iraq - legal or illegal?" issue?

Thank you.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ion

I think sloppiness has lots to do with education.

Aside from that fact that your opinion does not equal fact, you are forgoing a very important historical point. Sloppiness is why we have Penicillin today, unless of course you think it's a bad thing.

[Ion]

Gramma is awake now, and he is available to talk with anybody about Penicillin.

Meanwhile, the latest points that were made and are directly related to the thread, are here:
Originally posted by Chaos


So you say yourself that the USA may ignore the rules, while others may not. How´s that for a double standard?
and
Originally posted by BillyTK

...
Also true, except that the rules of conduct were established because it was understood that settling international disputes via law is much more preferable to settling disputes via force. It may be expedient for the US to ignore the UN now, but what happens when the next big guys come along? Or when the US overstretches in attempting to enforce the Pax Americana?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by armageddonman



As long as the US and UK have veto power in the security council no-one will even try.

Well, then international law is meaningless so why would it manner if the U.S. broke these meaningless laws? You forget the General Assembly. What about Kofi Annan making some sort of statement? What about other member nations AT LEAST discussing the alleged illegality of the action in Iraq. None of this has happened, and I do not think it is because the whole world is so afraid of the big bad U.S..

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

Well, then international law is meaningless so why would it manner if the U.S. broke these meaningless laws?
...

U.S. signed into the U.N. Chart.

Why?

1.) Because the "...international law is meaningless..."?

or is it

2.) because the "...international law..." should be meaningful and enforced by the most powerful member of the U.N. so that less powerful countries can see the example?

When U.S. signed with U.N., it was for 2.).

Not for 1.).

In Iraq however, U.S. acts like in 1.) and reneging 2.).

I would guess that if there is no mechanism to penalize U.S. reneging its signature because U.S. is in the Security Council, then there is a code of honor that U.S. is not living up to when it is reneging its own signature.
Originally posted by ssibal

...
You forget the General Assembly. What about Kofi Annan making some sort of statement? What about other member nations AT LEAST discussing the alleged illegality of the action in Iraq. None of this has happened, and I do not think it is because the whole world is so afraid of the big bad U.S..
There are three possibilities:

A.) "...the whole world is so afraid of the big bad U.S..", indeed;
it doesn't give money and armies when Bush comes to U.N. for help like he did last month, but it "...is so afraid of the big bad U.S.." nonetheless;

B.) I posted a link in another thread ('So, France was RIGHT...?') yesterday, where it seems that the world is somewhat content that the oil from Iraq will get on the market in bigger quantities than Hussein (Iraq) was producing, even though countries that were getting deals on oil from Hussein got beat to it by Bush forcing the U.S. way into Iraq thru war;

C.) a combination of A.) and B.).

I vote for C.).

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Chaos


So you say yourself that the USA may ignore the rules, while others may not. How´s that for a double standard?

It is a standard that was agreed to by the founding members which include the UK and the USSR as well as the US and I think China and some others. I did not make up the rules.

Here is the statement of jurisdiction from the International Court (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htm)

The jurisdiction of the Court in contentious proceedings is based on the consent of the States to which it is open. The form in which this consent is expressed determines the manner in which a case may be brought before the Court.
Link (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasic_basisjurisdiction.html)


Despite being a founding member of the UN, the US has retracted from any membership in the International Court. I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand it makes the US look like it just goes along with the rules that serve it's interests and ignore the rest. On the other hand, this international court implies a global governmental structure and is very Socialist in that regard. We all know how well Socialist experiments turn out.

[Ion]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

...
Despite being a founding member of the UN, the US has retracted from any membership in the International Court.
...

U.S. didn't retract from the U.N. Chart.

The U.S. signature there, is valid.

But reneged by U.S. under Bush.

That signature can be enforced by two means:

.) signing into the International Court, which U.S. under Bush avoided (but was accepted before Bush, by Clinton);

.) short of International Court, a code of honor in respecting its own signature.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Reprint of Guardian article (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5259.htm)



I remember Tricky and other forum members endlessly arguing that the war was illegal, while others insisted otherwise. Well, now that Perle has finally come out in the open and admitted that international law just didn't suit the Bush administration, will these people finally concede the point? Or is it time to shift the goal posts?
I'm just getting back in here after a busy time, but I notice that I was cited as one who said the war was illegal. Hmmm... Maybe I did. I don't always remember what I said. However, I don't think that the illegality of the war was ever a big issue in my opposition to it. Being a realist, I know that "international law" is a very iffy thing, and carries little weight in any specific situation. International opinion, though, is quite important, and that was one very big reason why the war was a bad idea. Whether it was legal or not, the invasion has hurt the US badly and made enemies (or at least annoyees) of what had been our greatest allies. It has decimated the goodwill we had from 9-11 and drained our treasury. It has united the Arab world against us and sparked worldwide terrorism.

No, I don't really care that it was "illegal". It was stupid.

Stupid stupid stupid.

[sorgoth]

Tricky, I agree completely. Most of the world was on the US's good side after 9/11. Then, Bush attacked Iraq, and lost it all.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Ion

U.S. didn't retract from the U.N. Chart.

The U.S. signature there, is valid.

But reneged by U.S. under Bush.

That signature can be enforced by two means:

.) signing into the International Court, which U.S. under Bush avoided (but was accepted before Bush, by Clinton);

.) short of International Court, a code of honor in respecting its own signature.

The UN Charter is a good thing IMO. It is an amendable treaty, which provides a forum for international debate and cooperative action.

I remain unconvinced that the International Court is a good thing. It appears to me to have become a play for an international Socialist governing structure - a bad, bad thing.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky

I'm just getting back in here after a busy time, but I notice that I was cited as one who said the war was illegal. Hmmm... Maybe I did. I don't always remember what I said. However, I don't think that the illegality of the war was ever a big issue in my opposition to it. Being a realist, I know that "international law" is a very iffy thing, and carries little weight in any specific situation. International opinion, though, is quite important, and that was one very big reason why the war was a bad idea. Whether it was legal or not, the invasion has hurt the US badly and made enemies (or at least annoyees) of what had been our greatest allies. It has decimated the goodwill we had from 9-11 and drained our treasury. It has united the Arab world against us and sparked worldwide terrorism.

No, I don't really care that it was "illegal". It was stupid.

Stupid stupid stupid.

Something is lacking in the reasoning of why the war supposedly turned world opinion against the US. This seems to be motivated more by a hatred of Bush than a disagreement with the need to remove Saddam from power. Does any reasonable person want Saddam back in power?

I am convinced that what many in the media are representing as "world opinion" is just a vocal minority of socialist rabble-rousers who push each other out of the way to get on TV. The vocal minority needs to shut the hell up.

When was this that the Arab world was on our side? Must have been before my time. :p

[Tricky]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Something is lacking in the reasoning of why the war supposedly turned world opinion against the US. This seems to be motivated more by a hatred of Bush than a disagreement with the need to remove Saddam from power. Does any reasonable person want Saddam back in power?
There might have been a fairly large number of anti-Bush people out there, especially those who favored the Kyoto accords, but I dont think there is any doubt that the Iraq invasion turned the majority of the world against the US. It is not that they thought Saddam was a great guy, but that the cure was worse than the disease. I'll bet that few outside of America would agree that the world is a better place now that Saddam is... well... missing.
Originally posted by peptoabysmal

I am convinced that what many in the media are representing as "world opinion" is just a vocal minority of socialist rabble-rousers who push each other out of the way to get on TV. The vocal minority needs to shut the hell up.
LOL. Yeah, I'll bet you are convinced of that. They're all just America haters who are out to get us. Got news for you, Pepe. The "minority of socialist rabble-rousers" are not a minority outside of your little gated community. The USA cannot behave like the 18th century monarchs in France and ignore the "rabble". Not if we want to keep our heads.

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
When was this that the Arab world was on our side? Must have been before my time.
It was after the 9-11 attacks. Practically every country in the world, including Arab ones, came out in support of the US. (It was in all the news.) Now I will not argue that some of them may have been making the obligatory "so sorry" statements and didn't really support the US, but that is more than we'd had for a while. There was also pretty much unilateral support for the effort to root the Taliban out of Afghanistan. That all disappeared when Bush decided to carry out his grudge against a country that was most decidely not involved with the 9-11 attacks. Of course, we could not count on the sympathy after 9-11 to last forever, but the rapidity with which that political capital was thrown away was startling by any standards.

---
edited to add..

By the way. What did happen to the Taliban? I hear they are still there and Afghanistan is still pretty much a hell hole. Is this how the US follows up on it's pledges? What makes you think they will do a better job in Iraq?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky

There was also pretty much unilateral support for the effort to root the Taliban out of Afghanistan.


Do you mean unanimous? Because otherwise your statement doesn't make sense. If that's what you meant, your memory must be fuzzy. Foreign governments weren't generally opposed to our invasion of Afghanistan, since nobody was getting sweatheart deals for oil like the French and Russians with Saddam. But in case you forgot, plenty of people DID object to the invasion. There were all sorts of cries about how we'd turn in into a humanitarian crisis, with mass starvation, floods of refugees, etc. Of course, that didn't happen. Just like there weren't many refugees or cholera epidemics in Iraq, though such possibilities were also used to argue against our invasion there. The idea that we had unanimous support for Afghanistan is an illusion: we did not.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Despite being a founding member of the UN, the US has retracted from any membership in the International Court.Are you sure you don't mix up the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court (http://www.un.org/law/icc/)?On the other hand, this international court implies a global governmental structure and is very Socialist in that regard.Can you explain what is 'socialist' about it? Are there any socialist countries that are member states? Is it in any surprising that in this globalising world, there need to be structures to settle disputes between states (ICJ) or be able to prosecute criminals that act (in horrible ways) above the law in their own country (ICC) ?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Chaos
May I add that there are many things, the grammar being the least obvious, that indicate that Tony is uneducated?


Like what? Please share one of these "many" things.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky

There might have been a fairly large number of anti-Bush people out there, especially those who favored the Kyoto accords, but I dont think there is any doubt that the Iraq invasion turned the majority of the world against the US. It is not that they thought Saddam was a great guy, but that the cure was worse than the disease. I'll bet that few outside of America would agree that the world is a better place now that Saddam is... well... missing.


I think your view only extends to Europe. Most of the world hates us and always has and always will. I think that when all of this is over the Europeans will come around and realize that we are trying to do some good and some things are just beyond our control. Time will tell.

LOL. Yeah, I'll bet you are convinced of that. They're all just America haters who are out to get us. Got news for you, Pepe. The "minority of socialist rabble-rousers" are not a minority outside of your little gated community. The USA cannot behave like the 18th century monarchs in France and ignore the "rabble". Not if we want to keep our heads.
Just noise, not numbers. You don't actually believe those Internet polls, do you? Too bad you are an agoraphobic who spends all of his time posting on left wing message boards, you need to get out more. :p

It was after the 9-11 attacks. Practically every country in the world, including Arab ones, came out in support of the US. (It was in all the news.) Now I will not argue that some of them may have been making the obligatory "so sorry" statements and didn't really support the US, but that is more than we'd had for a while. There was also pretty much unilateral support for the effort to root the Taliban out of Afghanistan. That all disappeared when Bush decided to carry out his grudge against a country that was most decidely not involved with the 9-11 attacks. Of course, we could not count on the sympathy after 9-11 to last forever, but the rapidity with which that political capital was thrown away was startling by any standards.
You should read this:
Case Closed (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp)
Note:
The Pentagon has stated that this leaked document is in "raw form" and therefore not accurate. It can't be all wrong, or there wouldn’t be any purpose to the document, would there?

Besides, it's common knowledge that Saddam supported Abu Nidal and others. We are at war with all Islamic-based terrorism, not just Al-Q.

It cracks me up when people call the war with Iraq a "pre-emptive strike". The first war was never officially over, we were in cease-fire mode and Saddam was not living up to his end of the treaty. What is so hard to understand about that?


---
edited to add..

By the way. What did happen to the Taliban? I hear they are still there and Afghanistan is still pretty much a hell hole. Is this how the US follows up on it's pledges? What makes you think they will do a better job in Iraq?

And you were expecting exactly what from a country who's GNP is Opium? When does any of the responsibility of rebuilding a country fall on the citizens of that country? All we can really do is provide military cover fire, financial backing and construction equipment. The rest is up to the Afghans. I do believe that it was over-extending our Clinton-ravaged military to go to war with Iraq so soon after Afghanistan. Nevertheless, it was something that was going to have to be done sooner or later.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

You should read this:
Case Closed (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp)


Ditto (http://www.spinsanity.org/)


The memo in question was written by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith for Senators Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It lays out fifty pieces of evidence suggesting contacts between Iraq and Iraqis and members of Al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden (Hayes prints a substantial fraction of the numbered points, but not the entire memo).

The memo does provide evidence of several meetings between Iraqi agents and members of Al Qaeda, including several meetings between Iraqi intelligence officials and members of Al Qaeda, mostly between 1992 and 1998. The memo also includes evidence of an agreement between Iraq and Al Qaeda not to take action against one another.

Yet many of the memo's pieces of evidence come with caveats. For example, in regard to several meetings, the memo states that "None of the reports have information on operational details or the purpose of such meetings" (which are obviously crucial to establishing an "operational relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda). Other evidence is indirect, such as a note that "According to sensitive CIA reporting, . . . the Saudi National Guard went on a kingdom-wide state of alert in late Dec 2000 after learning Saddam agreed to assist Al Qaeda in attacking U.S./U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia." (ellipsis in Hayes article).

The memo also details the actions of Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi living in Malaysia. Yet the only documented contact between Shakir and the Iraqi government is Shakir's own claim that he obtained a job at an airport "through an Iraqi embassy employee." And regarding the controversial meeting between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague, the memo substantiates two meetings (one in December 1994 and one in June 2000) but notes that evidence surrounding two others, including one in April 2001 that has been cited by Bush administration officials, "is complicated and sometimes contradictory".

The connections reported between Iraq and Al Qaeda after Sept. 11, 2001 are also vague and far from conclusive. They include an alleged offer of safe haven in Iraq to Al Qaeda members, the provision of weapons to "Al Qaeda members in northern Iraq" beginning in "mid-March," roughly the time of the beginning of US military action; and assistance provided by an Iraqi intelligence agent to Ansar al-Islam, an Al Qaeda-affiliated group which operated prior to the war in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq.

Moreover, there are questions about the reliability of the information contained in the memo. The Defense Department released a statement which describes "[t]he items listed in the [memo]" as "either raw reports or products of the CIA, the National Security Agency or, in one case, the Defense Intelligence Agency," and says that the memo "was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions." (According to reports, the classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002 also indicated that those contacts had not precipitated any lasting relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda.)

As Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball have pointed out, the memo also omits evidence that casts doubt on some of its claims. For example, while the memo details a meeting between Iraqi intelligence officer Farouk Hijazi, Isikoff and Hosenball note that "as Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism official, says, the Feith-Carney memo omits the rest of the story: that bin Laden actually rejected the Hijazi overture, concluding he did not want to be 'exploited' by a regime that he has consistently viewed as 'secular' and fundamentally antithetical to his vision of a strict Islamic state." Regarding the alleged April 2001 meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent, "the Iraqi agent in question, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, has been in U.S. custody for months and, according to U.S. intelligence sources, denies ever meeting Atta."

In short, the evidence remains contested, and the memo itself does not demonstrate the sort of high-level coordination between Iraq and Al Qaeda implied by phrases such as "operational relationship."

Yet several pundits have implied that the memo documents such a connection, often including the suggestion that the memo justifies military action in Iraq. Former CIA director James Woolsey was one of the first, suggesting on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" on the 14th that "Anybody who says there is no working relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence going back to the early '90s--they can only say that if they're illiterate. This is a slam dunk."

Others suggested some sort of personal link between Saddam and Bin Laden (which nothing in the memo supports). On the 17th, Rush Limbaugh trumpeted the article on his radio show (Windows Media Audio), claiming that "It says what I have suspected all along... And that is that there's been a tie, a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda dating back all the way to the early 90s, particularly Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein." The New York Post editorial board also weighed in on the 17th with the suggestion that the Hayes article "documents an even more profound linkage: between none other than Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden." It continues, "The memo provides enormous evidence that the Bush team was right all along about Saddam's terrorist ties - despite charges to the contrary by the president's foes, particularly Democrats."

Syndicated columnist Frank Gaffney overstated the implications of the memo in a slightly different way last Monday, suggesting that "Saddam Hussein's regime had been guilty as charged – tied for over a decade to Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network (among other terrorist groups) for the purpose of waging attacks on their mutual foe, the United States." The memo simply decribes evidence linking Iraq and Al Qaeda – it does not suggest that the purpose of the relationship was to wage attacks specifically on the United States.

On October 21st, Oliver North took the spin a step further, quoting Hayes and then suggesting that "(I)n their attempt to continue to undermine the president, the media is largely ignoring this memo -- and the few that are reporting on it have cast doubts about its contents."
Using randomly picked letters from my desk calendar of .043's verbal blunders I have constructed an anagram illustrating the operational confabulation of the current administration: "Why should I let contradictions of reality diminish the expression of untruth so grounded in firm metaphysical principle?"

[Graham]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

I think your view only extends to Europe. Most of the world hates us and always has and always will.



Sure they do Pepto . . . I bet they're putting something in your water too.

Maybe you should line your hat with tinfoil to keep the rays out . . .

Seriously.

[Ion]

This is incorrect:
Originally posted by peptoabysmal

...
It cracks me up when people call the war with Iraq a "pre-emptive strike". The first war was never officially over, we were in cease-fire mode and Saddam was not living up to his end of the treaty. What is so hard to understand about that?
...

U.N. Resolution 687 -a ceasefire in the war of 1990-, doesn't spell 'attack Hussein in Iraq'.

U.N. Resolution 678 -starting the war in 1990- spells 'attack Hussein in Kuwait' so that Kuwait is freed.

'attack Hussein in Iraq' is nowhere in the U.N..

'attack Hussein in Iraq', that's Bush outside of the U.N..

678 :
authorizes use of all means necessary to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

660:
demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;

661:
sanctions if 660 is not followed;

662:
demanding, once again, that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;
determined to bring the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq to an end and to restore the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Kuwait;
determined also to restore the authority of the legitimate Government of Kuwait.

The objective of resolutions referred to in 678 is having Iraq out of Kuwait and having the state of Kuwait reinstated.

This goal for which the use of force was authorized is accomplished in 1991 thus ending the authorization to use force, unless the U.N.S.C., which remains seized of the matter – not the U.S. – decides otherwise

The authority of the U.N.S.C. in this matter is further stressed and accepted by the U.S. in all following resolutions including:

687: ceasefire conditions
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.

1441: threat of serious consequences
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

687 was the ceasefire which also said that the U.N.S.C. remains seized of the matter.

It was up to the U.N.S.C. - not the U.S. - to decide if Iraq violated the agreement, and if yes how to react to that violation.

Any action by the U.S. without U.N.S.C. authorization is a violation of 687 and all other Iraq resolutions after it.

The U.N.S.C. did not again authorize the use of force against Iraq despite desperate U.S. attempts to obtain such authorization in February 2003.

It is the U.N.S.C. – not the U.S. made of Bush, Perle, Powell, etc. – who had the authority (as recognized by U.S. in its signature) to authorize further use of force.

The U.N.S.C. didn't authorize further use of force against Iraq.

Thus, the Bush war in Iraq is illegal by world standards.

[Ion]

Here is the explicit promise by the U.S. to not use force without the U.N. Security Council Authorization if 1441 was violated:

here (http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/IRAQ/US081102.HTM)

"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."

I repeat:

this shows the explicit promise by the U.S. to not use force without the U. N. Security council authorization.

The promise is broken by Bush's U.S..

Q.E.D.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion
This is incorrect:

U.N. Resolution 687 -a ceasefire in the war of 1990-, doesn't spell 'attack Hussein in Iraq'.

U.N. Resolution 678 -starting the war in 1990- spells 'attack Hussein in Kuwait' so that Kuwait is freed.

'attack Hussein in Iraq' is nowhere in the U.N..

'attack Hussein in Iraq', that's Bush outside of the U.N..

678 :
authorizes use of all means necessary to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;


No need to go any further. I pointed this out a long time ago, "and all subsequent relevant resolutions." If you think that Iraq was complying with the subsequent relevant resolutions then you are completely deluded. There was nothing illegal about this war. You can argue about whether or not war was the best means to solve the Iraq problem but not whether or not it was legal.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion
Here is the explicit promise by the U.S. to not use force without the U.N. Security Council Authorization if 1441 was violated:

I repeat:

this shows the explicit promise by the U.S. to not use force without the U. N. Security council authorization.



That shows no such promise. Nice selective quoting though:
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. The Resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And one way or another, Mr. President, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

That shows no such promise. Nice selective quoting though:

It does.

And it spells that U.N. is to be seized on the matter.

"...acting to defend itself..." which you stupidly (what else?) highlighted is not U.S. acting solo to defend itself from Iraq, or to enforce alone relevant resolutions pertinent to reinstating Kuwait:

.) no WMDs, no Al-Qaeda, no Niger uranium, so no threats from Iraq, but lies galore instead, remember?

.) the resolution 678 and the ceasefire 687 were designed by U.N. (not by U.S.) for reinstating Kuwait, and the reinstatement of Kuwait was achieved and done with.

U.S. is a criminal attempting to wear a sferriff badge here.

[Ion]

That's how stupidity goes:
Originally posted by ssibal


No need to go any further. I pointed this out a long time ago, "and all subsequent relevant resolutions." If you think that Iraq was complying with the subsequent relevant resolutions then you are completely deluded. There was nothing illegal about this war. You can argue about whether or not war was the best means to solve the Iraq problem but not whether or not it was legal.
U.N. was to be seized on the matter to decide.

It's spelled in each U.N. resolution.

U.N., not U.S., got that?

[Ion]

Who is this ssibal?

Who cannot read clear statements of signed documents?

Even though ssibal is using documents and links that I research and I post, with no efforts by ssibal, then ssibal can not chew them because of suffering indigestion...

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion
And it spells that U.N. is to be seized on the matter.

"...acting to defend itself..." which you stupidly (what else?) highlighted is not U.S. acting solo to defend itself from Iraq, or to enforce alone relevant resolutions pertinent to reinstating Kuwait:

How stupid of me for highlighting the whole sentence.....:rolleyes: Where does it say relevant resolutions prertinent to reinstating Kuwait in the U.S. explanation on the vote for 1441? It does not. In their explanation, which is what I was addressing, they explicitly said to enforce relevant UN resolutions.

[Ion]

I cannot believe that people like ssibal live in idiocy.

I posted this, didn't I?
Originally posted by Ion

...
1441: threat of serious consequences
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
...

"...14. Decides to remain seized of the matter..." means that U.N. (not U.S.) "...Decides to remain seized of the matter.".

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion
That's how stupidity goes:

U.N. was to be seized on the matter to decide.

It's spelled in each U.N. resolution.

U.N., not U.S., got that?

So, do you think Iraq was complying with the subsequent relevant resolutions? If your answer is no then the UN was already siezed on the matter in resolution 678.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion
Who is this ssibal?

Who cannot read clear statements of signed documents?

Even though ssibal is using documents and links that I research and I post, with no efforts by ssibal, then ssibal can not chew them because of suffering indigestion...

Ion, if you try to remember, I posted the same documents and links a while back and you denied that the subsequent resolutions were relevant to 678.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion
I cannot believe that people like ssibal live in idiocy.

I posted this, didn't I?


You also posted this which you keep ignoring:
authorizes use of all means necessary to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions

[Ion]

Another imbecility by ssibal:
Originally posted by ssibal


How stupid of me for highlighting the whole sentence.....:rolleyes: Where does it say relevant resolutions prertinent to reinstating Kuwait in the U.S. explanation on the vote for 1441? It does not. In their explanation, which is what I was addressing, they explicitly said to enforce relevant UN resolutions.
My post says that 1441 has no "...relevant UN resolutions." to be enforced by U.S. alone:

.) resolutions about Kuwait are out;
so 678 and ceasfire 687 that imbecility from ssibal tries to bring in in this thread, they are out;

.) threat by Iraq is out;

.) the U.N. (not U.S.) is to decide on breaches;
see the texts that I posted.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Ion
Another imbecility by ssibal:

.) Kuwait (so 678 and ceasfire 687 that imbecility from ssibal brings in this thread, are out);


Wait, are you saying that Iraq was in compliance with the terms of the ceasefire? Ion, there is nothing more to discuss with you concerning this, I might as well argue with a 6 day creationist.

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

You also posted this which you keep ignoring...

The text that you quote comes from 678.

For the fourth time in this thread:

.) 678 was to restore Kuwait;

.) Kuwait was restored:

.) 678 is done with.

If 678 was not done with because Iraq breaches the ceasefire 687, then U.N. is to be seized on the matter, not U.S., and U.N. is to act on the 678 and 687, not U.S..

[Ion]

Originally posted by ssibal

Wait, are you saying that Iraq was in compliance with the terms of the ceasefire?
...

The resolutions do spell out that it is U.N. "...to remain seized on the matter..." of whether Iraq complied with the ceasefire 687.

Not U.S..

For example, 1441 (i.e.: "...14. Decides to reamin seized of the matter..."), does that.

U.S. tried to dupe U.N. in February 2003 that Iraq didn't comply with the ceasefire 687.

It didn't work:

U.S. was debunked, as really looking for oil in Iraq.

[Filthy Animal]

The war is illegal. Of this there can be no doubt.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
[...]
On the other hand, this international court implies a global governmental structure and is very Socialist in that regard. We all know how well Socialist experiments turn out.
<off-topic>Good grief, where do you people come up with this stuff? Is there a Little Blue Book of Hysterical Things to Say About Socialism or something?</off-topic>