Org Mobile Site
Thread: How was the Iraq War illegal?
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..
Please inform me as to which laws were broken and which crimes were committed. Thanks..
Originally Posted by UN Charter:
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.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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
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.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?
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.
BTW: Would you ignore a "Police Officer", even though you know that some officers are corrupt.
"The US is bound to live up to the terms of the treaty it has signed."... or withdraw from it.
Originally Posted by kiwitt:
... or withdraw from it.
I was just about to edit my post to make that same point, but you beat me to it. ... or withdraw from it.
If you sign a treaty, you either abide by its terms or you formally pull out of it.
I can't see them doing that though. They will lose too much. It is much easier for them to pay lip service and ignore what they don't agree with.
Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
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? 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.
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
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
Originally Posted by :
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"?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.
No it doesn't.
Originally Posted by :
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 ...
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 ...
So that means if I take over Leichtenstein and decide to slaugher all Leichtensteinians the UN won't care! W00T!
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules:
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. Not really. The US is bound to live up to the terms of the treaty it has signed.
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia:
So that means if I take over Leichtenstein and decide to slaugher all Leichtensteinians the UN won't care! W00T!
Again, I don't think so. If you breach the charter, you are bound to have a resolution passed against you. This may include military action. I think the reaction to the Invasion of Kuwait was resolved in this way.So that means if I take over Leichtenstein and decide to slaugher all Leichtensteinians the UN won't care! W00T!
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
Kind of like how Iraq lived up to the treaty it signed in 91... oh, wait a minute, it didn't.
So if one country doesn't live up to it's obligations, it means no country needs to.Kind of like how Iraq lived up to the treaty it signed in 91... oh, wait a minute, it didn't.
In a similar vein, if criminals don't obey laws, we don't need to (or for that matter if some Police don't obey laws, we don't need to)
Originally Posted by :
Not really. The US is bound to live up to the terms of the treaty it has signed.
Wait a minute here. Doesnt the UN having corrupt business dealings with Iraq destroy the authority they have over the matter? Not really. The US is bound to live up to the terms of the treaty it has signed.
If the UN as an organization didnt uphold its side of the deal - fair and objective arbitration - why is the US obligated to uphold its side. Any CEO would tell you thats just bad business.
Gotta love the Saddam apologist leftists...
Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
Wait a minute here. Doesnt the UN having corrupt business dealings with Iraq destroy the authority they have over the matter?
If the UN as an organization didnt uphold its side of the deal - fair and objective arbitration - why is the US obligated to uphold its side. Any CEO would tell you thats just bad business.
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.)Wait a minute here. Doesnt the UN having corrupt business dealings with Iraq destroy the authority they have over the matter?
If the UN as an organization didnt uphold its side of the deal - fair and objective arbitration - why is the US obligated to uphold its side. Any CEO would tell you thats just bad business.
We are in no way apologising for Saddam, just that there is an existing process to follow and it should be followed.
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 some police or judges are corrupt, does that mean we should ignore all judges and police.
The whole of the UN is not corrupt, just aspects of it.
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 some police or judges are corrupt, does that mean we should ignore all judges and police.
The whole of the UN is not corrupt, just aspects of it.
Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
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...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?
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules:
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.)
Geez, how daring. How about they dare up the Sudan?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.)
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?
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?
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
But corrupt billion dollar business dealings with Halliburton is 100% above board...
Proof?But corrupt billion dollar business dealings with Halliburton is 100% above board...
Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
Wait a minute here. Doesnt the UN having corrupt business dealings with Iraq destroy the authority they have over the matter?
If the UN as an organization didnt uphold its side of the deal - fair and objective arbitration - why is the US obligated to uphold its side. Any CEO would tell you thats just bad business.
But the UN as an organization wasn't required for the rubber stamp was it? As far as I know it was the security council which was required for the rubber stamp, which although he can attempt to influence, Annan does not control.Wait a minute here. Doesnt the UN having corrupt business dealings with Iraq destroy the authority they have over the matter?
If the UN as an organization didnt uphold its side of the deal - fair and objective arbitration - why is the US obligated to uphold its side. Any CEO would tell you thats just bad business.
Originally Posted by Proletariat:
Proof?
So its ok to have a billion dollar govenment contract that no one else can tender on?Proof?
Sure is. Explain why it wouldn't be. Have you looked into this?
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....
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....
Originally Posted by Proletariat:
Sure is. Explain why it wouldn't be. Have you looked into this?
Well at the least I wouldn't say it is good government policy, unless there are clear reasons why it shouldn't be (security etc.). I'm struggling to think of a sound economic reason for a government to create a monopoly over supply of a service to them. To me it seems completely irrational. Maybe there is nothing sinister, I simply don't know, but if there isn't anythign sinister, it would appear that there is a degree of incompetence in whoever set up the tendering process.Sure is. Explain why it wouldn't be. Have you looked into this?
So its ok to have a billion dollar govenment contract that no one else can tender on?
its not 100% proof of corruption in itself, it just looks highly suspect.
its not 100% proof of corruption in itself, it just looks highly suspect.
Originally Posted by Independent Media TV:
In the last two years, the Bush administration has awarded Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown and Root subsidiary $10.5 billion in contracts to do everything from providing meals to the troops to repairing Iraqi oil wells.
In the last two years, the Bush administration has awarded Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown and Root subsidiary $10.5 billion in contracts to do everything from providing meals to the troops to repairing Iraqi oil wells.
Originally Posted by Independent Media TV:
A high-ranking civilian whistleblower at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has alleged that KBR was allowed to write the specs for a $2.5 billion oil-repair contract. Not surprisingly, it was the only company qualified to do the work and won a no-bid contract.
Iraq Contract Oddities - Independent Media TV A high-ranking civilian whistleblower at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has alleged that KBR was allowed to write the specs for a $2.5 billion oil-repair contract. Not surprisingly, it was the only company qualified to do the work and won a no-bid contract.
Originally Posted by BBC:
He suggested another contract with the US Army Corps of Engineers to repair and operate oil wells in Iraq was already worth more than $70m, with a ceiling of $7bn.
"When the contracts are combined, the total amount that Halliburton has received to date for work related to Iraq is now nearly $500m," said Mr Waxman.
Halliburton Iraq contract queried - BBCHe suggested another contract with the US Army Corps of Engineers to repair and operate oil wells in Iraq was already worth more than $70m, with a ceiling of $7bn.
"When the contracts are combined, the total amount that Halliburton has received to date for work related to Iraq is now nearly $500m," said Mr Waxman.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO