How was the Iraq War illegal?

[PanzerJaeger]

Well liberals and Bush bashers, this is your place to open my mind as to why you constantly call the Iraq War illegal.

Please inform me as to which laws were broken and which crimes were committed. Thanks..

[kiwitt]

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. 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.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

The United Nations Charter is the constitution of the United Nations. It was signed at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco on June 26, 1945 by the 50 original member countries. It entered into force on October 24, 1945, after being ratified by the five founding members—the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and a majority of the other signatories.

As a Charter it is a constituent treaty, and all signatories are bound by its articles. Furthermore, it explicitly says that the Charter trumps all other treaty obligations. It was ratified by the United States on August 8, 1945, making that nation the third, after Nicaragua and El Salvador, to join the new international organization.

Therefore, the UN Charter is in force and has been in force for nearly 60 years. Some countries choose to "cherry pick" resolutions that meet it's own agenda and ignore others that do not fit it. They have been numerous resolutions against Israel and other countries where no military action has been launched.

i.e. the Charter is a Legal Document after been ratified by members and breaking this charter is breaking "international law".

[lars573]

Because it lacked the UN's rubber stamp of approval. These days your supposed to get UN permission to go to war. For that reason alone the Iraq war is "illegal". Also calling the nearly unprevoked invasion of Iraq illegal is a big stretch at the best of times IMO. The reason I never was for the invasion of Iraq was Colin Powell's "evidence" of "WMD's" and "links to Al-qaida" were horse-shit. I mean 3 sheds in the desert and having intelligence agents in the Kurd country where Al-qaida has operatives too is not evidence.

[PanzerJaeger]

So the only reason the Iraq war is illegal to liberals is because an organization that has been proven to have been heavily invested in corrupt business dealings with Iraq didnt approve it?

Seems like a conflict of interests at the least..

In any event, thanks for your responses, i now understand the mindset of the people who scream such things.

[Hurin_Rules]

So the only reason the Iraq war is illegal to liberals is because an organization that has been proven to have been heavily invested in corrupt business dealings with Iraq didnt approve it?

Not really. The US is bound to live up to the terms of the treaty it has signed.

[kiwitt]

"The US is bound to live up to the terms of the treaty it has signed."... or withdraw from it.

[Hurin_Rules]

... or withdraw from it.

I was just about to edit my post to make that same point, but you beat me to it.

If you sign a treaty, you either abide by its terms or you formally pull out of it.

[Devastatin Dave]

Not really. The US is bound to live up to the terms of the treaty it has signed.

Kind of like how Iraq lived up to the treaty it signed in 91... oh, wait a minute, it didn't.

[kiwitt]

Every organisation can have "corrupt dealings", but that is no reason to ignore them.

BTW: Would you ignore a "Police Officer", even though you know that some officers are corrupt.

[Idomeneas]

So the only reason the Iraq war is illegal to liberals is because an organization that has been proven to have been heavily invested in corrupt business dealings with Iraq didnt approve it?

Seems like a conflict of interests at the least..

In any event, thanks for your responses, i now understand the mindset of the people who scream such things.

PJ you are Georgie's nephew or something? You say you cannot understand Bush bashers well why dont we reverse the question and share with us the things that makes Georgie such an esteemed figure to you?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Well once the UN gets a backbone and stops taking it up the butt from Kofi and his corrupt buddies in the Congo, we'll listen to it. Because a bunch of sniveling, overprivaleged monarchs in Europe tell us, America, whom without us Europe would be flying the red banner right now, tell us we can't. You know what? Who cares what Europe thinks? Who cares what the UN thinks? I know I don't and I'm glad my nation doesn't give a rats arse about what a bunch of drunken diplomats on a constant heroine fix think. They ignored the Genocide in Rawanda and the Sudan. They pretty much ignored Aparteid in South Africa. Now they have the balls to tell us what we do? Remember, they were America's creation and idea. Ever hear of the league of Nations? Besides, may I add that....
WE ARE NOT AT WAR

There has been no formal declaration of war against Iraq, Usama Bin Laden, or any of those guys. None. Therefore, we are not at war. In fact, we haven't been since WWII.


And also I'll add this

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Isn't this basically saying that "We the United Nations feel that we are the ultimate world government and we wish to establish a new world order and destroy the boarders and sovergnty of Nations worldwide"?

[kiwitt]

No it doesn't.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state ...

[Spetulhu]

Besides, may I add that....
WE ARE NOT AT WAR

There has been no formal declaration of war against Iraq, Usama Bin Laden, or any of those guys. None. Therefore, we are not at war. In fact, we haven't been since WWII.

So what do you call well-equipped armies camping out in another country? A voluntary field trip? Or are these soldiers acting without orders, perhaps?

BTW, would the soldiers be "illegal combattants" if there's been no declaration of war?

[Papewaio]

So the only reason the Iraq war is illegal to liberals is because an organization that has been proven to have been heavily invested in corrupt business dealings with Iraq didnt approve it?

But corrupt billion dollar business dealings with Halliburton is 100% above board...

[PanzerJaeger]

If the US feels the UN has failed to live up to its obligations, it should withdraw from the charter. One should note, however, that the US has been the primary obstacle to many of the UN's most daring initiatives in the last few years (The War Crimes Tribunal, the Kyoto Accords, the landmine ban, etc.)

Why should the US support a tribunal that would have sway over our own troops that is run by such a corrupt organization?

When you attack the UN you attack yourself. The UN is part every country who signed it's charter. If corruption is found it should be dealt with accordingly and not used as an excuse to ignore it.

If that process has been directly tainted by the supposed authority, it loses all credibility.

The whole of the UN is not corrupt, just aspects of it.

And the aspect in question was directly corrupt with Iraq. I fail to see how it is illegal to avoid a corrupt UN.


But corrupt billion dollar business dealings with Halliburton is 100% above board...

Prove it.


The way I see it calling the war illegal because the UN was not fully on board is weak in itself, and when you compound the fact that the UN orchestrated the largest corruption in years in that country makes their authority worthless.

Your argument is basically saying: "Even though the cop takes bribes from the criminal, you should listen to him and not defend yourself against said criminal". Again, conflict of interests.

Also i remember before the war there was a UN resolution passed about Iraq.. i seem to remember it wasnt against the war but i cant remember the specifics. Anybody know of the resolution?

[Proletariat]

But corrupt billion dollar business dealings with Halliburton is 100% above board...

Proof?

[Papewaio]

Proof?

So its ok to have a billion dollar govenment contract that no one else can tender on?

[LittleGrizzly]

Your argument is basically saying: "Even though the cop takes bribes from the criminal, you should listen to him and not defend yourself against said criminal". Again, conflict of interests.

well the criminal (iraq) wasn't attacking at the time and theres a few other things making it a poor example... also i believe the money filtered through the oil for food scandal was not going to france in return for thier veto

the traffic wardens are making a killing off this criminal guy called iraq, the police get asked to do something about iraq but don't find any evidence and leave him alone, this annoys mr america who rounds up his friends to get mr iraq....

[bmolsson]

Well liberals and Bush bashers, this is your place to open my mind as to why you constantly call the Iraq War illegal.

Please inform me as to which laws were broken and which crimes were committed. Thanks..

Thy shall not kill.

God made that law, IIRC.......

[Al Khalifah]

Because a bunch of sniveling, overprivaleged monarchs in Europe tell us

What? Besides Britain - a constitutional monarchy where the monarch has no true power - which other major monarchies would you be refering to? The French and Germans are republics. Monaco? Liectenstein? Wouldn't want to go to war without those guys.

America, whom without us Europe would be flying the red banner right now

Yeah and without the French, America would probably still be flying the Union Jack now. Those French cowards, they save us in our War of Indepedance and all they give us are these crappy 'freedom' fries and a big old statue.

Who cares what Europe thinks?

I'm glad my nation doesn't give a rats arse about what a bunch of drunken diplomats on a constant heroine fix think.[/QUOTE]
What is that based on?

Remember, they were America's creation and idea.

And America is Europe's creation and idea. I'm sure they're not overly prowd of the fact. America used to love the U.N in the Cold War because they used to use international opinion against the Soviets, but now they're above all that because Russia has stepped down as a world power.

Ever hear of the league of Nations?

Yeah it was an organisation with the intention of preventing another Great War with millions of casualties for no actual change in borders. They had this great idea that if all the world powers were on board, then no member nation would be able to go to war with any others. But then a major power didn't join because it had enough of war and didn't value freedom enough to intervene in Europe until its own interests were threatened.

[Meneldil]

Anyone noticed that the arguments provided by the UN bashers crew are just the same as those provided by Hitler, Mussolini and *whoever led Japan during the 30's* against the league of Nations ?

Edit : As I don't want to be misunderstood, I'm not saying that US is a fascist country just as the 3 quoted above, but that the whole arguing about the UN being corrupted, and thus unreliable is kinda hypocritical and silly.

As someone said, you were quite happy to use the UN to stop USSR from reaching its goals, though it (the UN) was probably just as 'corrupted' as it is now.

Furthermore, I don't think US is moraly allowed to tell the world who is corrupted and who is not, and to blame something/someone for being supposedly corrupted.

BTW, I don't really know what is all this fuss about. PJ asked a question (Please inform me as to which laws were broken and which crimes were committed.), and he was correctly answered (though he doesn't admit it).

Your country broke the international law, and I won't even speak about the Geneva Convention (sp?) - while I admit torture might have been needed in some cases.
This is called 'illegal'.

3rd edit : AlKhalifat, I think Spain, Belgium, Danemark, Dutchland and a lot of other european countries are Monarchies, though the so called monarchs have way less power than the French or US president.

Yeah and without the French, America would probably still be flying the Union Jack now. Those French cowards, they save us in our War of Indepedance and all they give us are these crappy 'freedom' fries and a big old statue.

And just so Kapo's arguing (the same good old "We saved us during WWII, though I highly doubt Kapo fought on the European soil) sounds even more stupid : 'Without Europeans, America would never have been discovered.'

[bmolsson]

'Without Europeans, America would never have been discovered.'

Or it would have been discovered by Arabian slave traders. Imagine world politics of today......

[Steppe Merc]

Yeah. Of course, the Vkings didn't do to much with America... just sort of found it, and then lost it.

[Don Corleone]

Regardless of what happened during World War II, European nations should, and I would say are morally obligated to follow courses of action which best serve their citizens. If keeping Saddam in power was benefitting the French people, then I would say the French government's actions prior to March of 2003 make sense.

I read article 5 of the Charter to mean that France, Germany, Russia & China were in default on the intent of the charter. Members are required to take necessary means to see resolutions enforced. If dragging the Syrian sponsored anti-Israel resolutions into this debate will help, then fine, I'd be willing to entertain that debate, if that's really the side you want to line up on, but it does not change the basic fact that there were already countless resolutions promising Saddam a military response for his continuing violations. The only mistake the Bush White House made in this whole affair was going back and asking for another resolution. We should have enforced the ones on the books, as they read.

Now, to my Conservative Club cohorts, as for dissolving the UN goes, I don't think you're thinking of the ramifications. Yes, it's corrupt, and yes, it can be used in modes not originally intended to thwart the spread of democracy and human rights. But I'm reminded of that quote by Winston Churchill... "Democracy is the worst form of government there is....except for all the others". While I don't like the current policies of the UN, and I think it is dire need of reform, it is still better than the alternative...everyone acting on their own. You all are apparently still relying on our old friendships with NATO going down the road. I've got news for you...with the exception of the UK, they are no longer our allies. The last holdout (w/ the exception of the UK) was Turkey, and France made certain that the Turks changed sides by telling them that if they supported the US, they would never, ever get into the EU. The Turks listened, and now, they're on their side. This "French are cowards" business is a dangerous mischaracterization... they're not exactly our advesaries but they are most certainly our rivals (and not very friendly ones at that) and if you all continue to write them off and underestimate them, you're going to deliver a nasty surprise to our doors. They're not bosom buddies with the Chinese and selling them every weapons system they can think of because they've got a warm fuzzy for us. Respect them, watch the courses of actions they have pursued for the past 15 years, and be wary. Don't make a joke out of it, that plays into their hands.