Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Except that we did not violate the UN charter, the US was permitted to attack Iraq by UN Security resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. It is a very clear case of just because you are allowed to do something doesn't neccessarily mean you should do it.
|
I've just reread those resolutions in case I missed something the first few times.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 678
The Security Council,
Recalling, and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August (1990), 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of of 29 October 1990 and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990.
Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council,
Mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of international peace and security,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;
4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;
5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
|
That resolution was put into effect, the Gulf War happened, and then it was over. We are not working with Kuwait currently, so 678 doesn't apply.
687 is about Kuwaiti soverignty, and that has nothing to do with what's going on now. 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations", and the only way to determine whether that opportunity was wasted was by a determination by the UN...which never happened. The UN never had the opportunity to clearly rule that Iraq had no complied with the UN's requirements.
This page should show conclusively that the US broke our treaty in the UN Charter when we invaded Iraq. I've read this page a dozen times or more and I can't find any fault with the conclusions. These are some of the foremost lawyers in the US, who are experts.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
And Godwins law strikes again! I fail to see how this is relevent. If a leader of the US ever removed the other branches of government and declared himself dictator, you would see the military rise against him, this has not happened yet...
|
I dare you to explain why Bush was allowed to bypass FISA, suspend habeas corpus, and cheat in two presidential elections.
BTW, Godwin doesn't mean I'm wrong, it just means the situation is so bad it can be compared to the Nazis.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Jus ad bellum is not the laws of war (though it is sometimes erroniously lumped in with them), it is the justification used for going to war. The military is a tool of foreign policy, not a maker of foreign policy. The military has no place making policy in a republic.
|
I'm not asking anyone to make foreign policy. I'm saying that following an illegal order is wrong.