Iraq War -- Illegal? Legal?

Should the Iraq war be considered legally justified?

  • yes

    Votes: 17 22.7%
  • no

    Votes: 58 77.3%

  • Total voters
    75
Actually, I remember a case from the late 80's where a guy went into a bar and shot a man in cold blood. His defense was that he feared the man would kill him in the near future.

Acquitted.

I know, I know. You're actually making good points. But there was no other way to unseat Saddam or hold him accountable.

As for your assertion that any pre-emptive war is illegal, it's a tough point to argue. I'd have to refer to the violations of the cease-fire agreement. At that point, and considering the world scene right after 9/11, we were working with what we knew at the time. We had to compare the risk of leaving Saddam in power with the risk of unseating him and turning the country over to its citizens. Could you imagine Clinton being forced to make such a decision? (or any substantive decision, for that matter)
 
Censport said:
Actually, I remember a case from the late 80's where a guy went into a bar and shot a man in cold blood. His defense was that he feared the man would kill him in the near future.

Acquitted.

I know, I know. You're actually making good points. But there was no other way to unseat Saddam or hold him accountable. (bold print added)
As for your assertion that any pre-emptive war is illegal, it's a tough point to argue. I'd have to refer to the violations of the cease-fire agreement. At that point, and considering the world scene right after 9/11, we were working with what we knew at the time. We had to compare the risk of leaving Saddam in power with the risk of unseating him and turning the country over to its citizens. Could you imagine Clinton being forced to make such a decision? (or any substantive decision, for that matter)

Cens, I don't wanna stir up this pot too much but hold him accountable for what? What crimes did he commit against US citizens or US Sovereignty? These are reasons to go to war. Even threats to US property might be a reason to attack another sovereign nation, but have any of these things occurred?

And pre-emptive wars can be a short slide down the slippery slope if you make them an exception to prohibitions against agressive war. What we committed when we attacked Iraq is an agressive war. The kind of thing that Nazi Germany did to Poland in 1939. In another thread I stated that I was not comfortable being in the same company as Nazi Germany, this is another such example.

I am not against war. War is a great solver of problems between two nations, but the righteous nation does not always prevail, so I think war is the very last stop on the resolution flow chart, unless yours is a agressive, expansionist country. Sucn nations have not faired well in history. Is this really the way we want to go?

I did not answer the poll. I don't know "illegal" and "legal" in the case of warfare. It sounds like a lawyer's definition that gets hammered out long after all the dead are buried and we forget just how horrible war can be...to the participants...to the by-standers.


Omnium rerum principia parva sunt. Ira furor brevis est.
 
Last edited:
Illegal. ******* illegal.

And people want Iraqis to be thankful? For what? You know the CIA brought Saddam Hussein to power in a coup they backed in the first place? And that's no conspiracy, it's fact.
 
I didn't vote in this poll because I am not sure whether this war is legal or not, but I am happy for the Iraqi people today. They are allowed to vote for their own government! Oversea Iraqis can have a say too. This morning there're over a thousand Iraqis in Ontario have already casted their vote in the ballots.
 
Censport said:
Let's see... in '91, Saddam signed a cease-fire agreement. As part of that agreement, he was to destroy his WMDs and a list of traditional weapons. Instead, he used chemical and/or biological weapons to commit mass murder against the Kurds. He also blocked attempts by UN inspectors over the next 12 years to confirm that he had destroyed his weapons, as he had claimed.

For one thing, you are reversing the chronology here. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988 so it is factually incorrect to say that he did so in violation of a cease fire agreement that was signed in 1991. Not that it necessarily makes much difference, an atrocity is an atrocity whether it violates some agreement or not. But when weighing the legality of the Iraq invasion the Kurdish question can only be considered relevant if the invasion put a stop to an ongoing atrocity or prevented one that was about to take place. Given that the US and British no fly zones allowed them to control the flow of military personell into Kurdish territory, the Kurds were safe and this cannot be considered a factor. Past crimes against a third party are not considered legitimate causes to war in international law, especially in this case given that the US supported Saddam at the time sed crimes occured.

Censport said:
The UN (since some people think they are a litmus test) passed 14 resolutions calling for action to be taken against Saddam.

None of which authorized the US to invade Iraq. The UN charter is very clear about this, there are only two cases in which war is authorized. One is in self defence, which clearly does not apply here. The other is for actions which have SPECIFIC UN security council authorization, which the Iraq invasion did not have.
Censport said:
The same UN passed no resolutions barring the US from taking that action.
Completely irrelevant, the lack of a specific resolution banning something does not confer legitimacy on sed action. It like inferring that because there is no law that specifically states "Phil may not murder Bob" that Phil may murder Bob with legal impunity. In this case it is doubly ridiculous to point this out as the US, as a permanent security council member, would have had to have specifically authorized a resolution barring itself from invading Iraq.


CensportOnce invaded said:
in violation[/I] of the '91 cease-fire agreement.

This may be true, but it does not in and of itself provide a legal justification for the war.

Censport said:
The war was delayed so that the US could attempt to persuade the UN to enforce its own resolutions.

No, the war was delayed so the US could try to persuade the UN to authorize its invasion, which is not the same thing as enforcing UN resolutions. The US decided on its own that invasion was the only way to enforce UN resolutions but three of the five permanant security council members and most of the non permanent members wanted to pursue other means. History has since proven which side was right.

Censport said:
The UN would neither enforce its own resolutions nor stop the US from enforcing them. Does this have anything to do with the Oil-for-Food scandal? Could be. Kojo Annan (Kofi's son) has personally admitted to brokering millions of barrels of oil in that scandal.

As far as conspiracy theories goes this one makes no sense. The whole issue of enforcing the UN resolutions was in the hands of the Security Council and not the General Assembly, which is what Kofi Annan is the head of. Annan had no power over the decision, it was entirely up to the fifteen individual governments that made up the security council at the time of the invasion.



Censport said:
Now you're free to believe whatever crackpot conspiracy drivel you want, Michael Moore and his kind are happy to get rich off of your hate. But as evidence goes, documented history carries more weight than the theory and speculation of professional protestors.

This is true and it holds equally true when applied to the Anne Coulters of the world too. But its not really relevant to the point in question.
 
Censport said:
Ah, but what Bush said was that we shouldn't wait until Saddam became an imminent threat. We also couldn't prove that Saddam wasn't a threat at the time.

Is this not setting the bar a bit too low? I mean, this is saying that a war is justified not only if there has been no act of agression against you, but even if there is no existing threat of action against you. Just the slim possibility that at some indefinite point in the future a threat may or may not emerge. Thats all you need. Given that the methods for judging the 'potential' threat levels seem to be based entirely on conjecture they could easily make the case that any country in the world poses a potential future threat and that ANY act of aggression is therefore fully justifiable.

This isnt a very smart way to go as far as I'm concerned. Being powerful enough to ignore the laws now the US can get away with it, but in the long term its going to work against them as its not hard to see how other countries might use the same stance against the US.
 
senseiman said:
Is this not setting the bar a bit too low?
Yes, it is setting the bar a bit low. Uncomfortably low for everyone. But considering the terror threat as a whole just after 9/11, I don't think it's unreasonable. You've got to remember Saddam's pattern of behavior and his penchant for saber-rattling (Boy, I bet he'll never do THAT again! LOL!).

senseiman said:
This isnt a very smart way to go as far as I'm concerned. Being powerful enough to ignore the laws now the US can get away with it, but in the long term its going to work against them as its not hard to see how other countries might use the same stance against the US.
Like that would be anything new?

Britain, 1812.

Japan, 1941.

Militant Islam, 2001.

And that's just attacks on U.S. soil. Pause for a moment and consider the list of attacks on U.S. interests around the world...
 
Is this remotely logical?: There is a country that has nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. It has a history of using them. It is the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons. Furthermore, it has invaded and intervened in dozens of other countries both overtly and covertly sometime several times with minimal justification or provocation. It has often replaced unfriendly democracies and installed despotic repressive regimes simply because they support its interests.

Is it rational then to invade and disarm this country pro-actively? I think a pre-emptive strike by third world nations against the United States could be justified by this post 9/11 logic.
 
senseiman said:
For one thing, you are reversing the chronology here. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988 so it is factually incorrect to say that he did so in violation of a cease fire agreement that was signed in 1991.
Ah, I got the date wrong. My bad.

senseiman said:
None of which authorized the US to invade Iraq.
That could be a matter of interpretation. I'll look up the resolutions and post what I can find here.

senseiman said:
Completely irrelevant...
I say nay, laddie, as that was addressed to those who think the UN has the final word on world affairs.

senseiman said:
This may be true, but it does not in and of itself provide a legal justification for the war.
I disagree. I think it was reason enough. Added to the non-compliance with the UN inspection teams, and he's 2 for 3.

senseiman said:
No, the war was delayed so the US could try to persuade the UN to authorize its invasion, which is not the same thing as enforcing UN resolutions. The US decided on its own that invasion was the only way to enforce UN resolutions but three of the five permanant security council members and most of the non permanent members wanted to pursue other means. History has since proven which side was right.
First: History isn't finished being written. If you're having problems with premature speculation, see your doctor.

Second: You say invasion, I say enforcement. They called for action, we took the action. We did what we should've done in '91, and what the UN should've been doing for twelve years.

Third: Those three permanent security council members aren't the same ones now being investigated in the Oil-for-Food scandal, are they? Ah yes, I believe they are.

senseiman said:
As far as conspiracy theories goes this one makes no sense. The whole issue of enforcing the UN resolutions was in the hands of the Security Council and not the General Assembly, which is what Kofi Annan is the head of.
See point three, above.

senseiman said:
This is true and it holds equally true when applied to the Anne Coulters of the world too. But its not really relevant to the point in question.
I've read a few of her columns, and I think what her detractors don't realize is the same thing they don't get about Rush Limbaugh. She (like Limbaugh) has a sense of humor. About the Left, about politics, about themselves.... ("Talent on loan from God", get it? It's called 'tongue-in-cheek'.) something the Michael Moores and Al Frankens of the scene are woefully lacking. The voices of the left have built a pillar of intellectualism for themselves that is wrought with insecurity, hate and pathologically delusional self-image. I've read about what it's like to work anywhere near, much less for, these people. It's scary. Really frickin' scary. And when it comes to media attention, they're like that creature from the LOTR trilogy, Shmegal or whatever, and the ring. They're not media whores, they're media junkies. But hey, keep letting them get their limelight, and they'll keep repulsing mainstream Democratic voters....
 
Work for that dour and humorless former SNL writer Franken? I'd rather work as Limbaugh's drug connection.
 
Last edited:
Ah, one below the belt. That's okay, you'd have better job security as a unionized teacher. *cough*
 
You missed the Al Fraken decade bit where he declared the decade about "me...Al Franken." Funny stuff. He is a humorist first. I think you also missed the fact that Moore is highly entertaining and a significant amount of satire and self deprication goes into much of what he does. It's not journalism, it is entertainment...the stunts are meant to be satirical, insightful and at some level, funny.

I read both Moore's "Dude Where's My Country" and David Hardy and Jason Clark's "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man." One of these books was quick witted, sharp and biting, relevant and well written, the other was written by a pair who seemed to be rather clueless and is rather pedestrian, plodding and clunky. (Guess which one I liked?) I also read some of Al Franken's book and a few chapters of Rush-- both were okay (I didn't finish either, so they weren't all that interesting) but Franken was funny and Rush was only at his best when he was angry...his more sober observations make him seem...constipated.

What does Rush say about the ACLU defending the privacy of his medical records in the Fla. perscription shopping investigation?
 
You're right, I missed those examples because I'm not a fan of their work. I've looked at how they treat the people around them and 'under' them. From what I've seen, Moore is self-deprecating when it pays well. I'll find a link.

I've never read a Rush book. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever read one of his columns. Just as Hannity is at his best in book form (I know several women who disagree with me. They want to see him on DVD, if you catch my drift.), Rush is best on radio. He's a natural. Good voice too.

And Rush welcomed the ACLU, and even helped explain why they were right to help him.

Edited: Here's a link on Moore: linky
 
senseiman said:
This is true and it holds equally true when applied to the Anne Coulters of the world too. But its not really relevant to the point in question.
Since you're such a big fan of Coulter, here's a nice picture of her I found for you:

Annie get your gun
 
Censport said:
.


I disagree. I think it was reason enough. Added to the non-compliance with the UN inspection teams, and he's 2 for 3.

In the strict legal sense it was not a justification as finding evidence after the fact of violations does not retroactively provide a basis for the invasion. Non-compliance in and of itself did not provide an automatic "trigger" that would make the invasion of Iraq legal.

Ignoring the legal rationale it doesn't seem at all practical to say that invading a country for possesing large quantities of banned conventional weapons is at all reasonable. Those weapons didn't shift the balance of power into Saddam's favor at all. Invading Iraq to relieve him of these weapons is overkill in the extreme, like police pumping a jaywalker full of lead in order to promote traffic safety or something.


Censport said:
First: History isn't finished being written. If you're having problems with premature speculation, see your doctor.

Well you got me there. We'll have to continue this discussion in a few years to see who is right. From the way things are looking now I'm quite willing to stand by my interpretation of events though.

Censport said:
Second: You say invasion, I say enforcement. They called for action, we took the action. We did what we should've done in '91, and what the UN should've been doing for twelve years.

The two terms aren't synomymous. Like I said, the other members of the security council saw things differently and I think their method makes sense. If we were to resort to invasion to enforce every UN security council resolution the world would be in a pretty bad place right now. Given the fact that no WMD were found in Iraq, it seems to me that invading the country with the express purpose of ridding it of those weapons was not an appropriate means of "enforcement", especially in light of the immense destruction and loss of life that action has caused.

Censport said:
Third: Those three permanent security council members aren't the same ones now being investigated in the Oil-for-Food scandal, are they? Ah yes, I believe they are.

So, now they opposed the war because of the money they were making from the oil for food program? Of course it has to be corruption and have nothing to do with the fact that more than 80% of the populations of those countries were vehemently opposed to the war. I find this a little hard to believe, especially in light of the fact that France, Russia and Germany have all recently agreed to forgive Iraqi debt in totals that amount to several times whatever money they may have made from Iraqi oil, which AMERICAN companies were also involved in selling FYI. There are probably a million other legitimate reasons for not wanting to get involved in an illegitimate war that everyone could see would descend into a costly quagmire. I would imagine that corruption would come VERY low on that list.




Censport said:
I've read a few of her columns, and I think what her detractors don't realize is the same thing they don't get about Rush Limbaugh. She (like Limbaugh) has a sense of humor. About the Left, about politics, about themselves.... ("Talent on loan from God", get it? It's called 'tongue-in-cheek'.) something the Michael Moores and Al Frankens of the scene are woefully lacking. The voices of the left have built a pillar of intellectualism for themselves that is wrought with insecurity, hate and pathologically delusional self-image. I've read about what it's like to work anywhere near, much less for, these people. It's scary. Really frickin' scary. And when it comes to media attention, they're like that creature from the LOTR trilogy, Shmegal or whatever, and the ring. They're not media whores, they're media junkies. But hey, keep letting them get their limelight, and they'll keep repulsing mainstream Democratic voters....

As one of her detractors I can easily recognize that she has a sense of humor,but it is not one that I share. But that is besides the point as it is her political views and not her sense of humor that I am repulsed by. Most of it sounds like deranged ranting to me with very little in the way of an argument . In the aftermath of 9/11 she stated that the best response would be to invade every Muslim country in the world and forcibly convert all of them to christianity. The woman is sick. Rush isn't so bad, I've read two of his books and I can say that while I don't agree with his political views at least he doesn't make me want to vomit every time I read or hear his words. Coultier has that effect on me.
 
I generally agree with you, Senseiman- at least in sentiment if not in detail. My 2.5 cents: Before you start a war in which thousands of innocents will lose lives, children, parents, houses, arms, feet and faces there must be a better justification than that bad guy who may have bad weapons may one day do something bad to us. Any hawkish newspaper can make up something like that.
 
senseiman said:
In the aftermath of 9/11 she stated that the best response would be to invade every Muslim country in the world and forcibly convert all of them to christianity.
Another example of tongue-in-cheek. In that instance, it was an angry tongue, I'll grant you that, but not offered as seriously as Pat Robertson's comments at that time.
 
"I was just joking..." is a great excuse for saying stupid, insensitive or offensive things. I use it all the time.
 

This thread has been viewed 94160 times.

Back
Top