Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-08-2003, 05:04 PM   #41 (permalink)
Devils Cabana Boy
 
Dilbert1234567's Avatar
 
Location: Central Coast CA
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
That would be cool, if those international laws were clear and unequivocal. They are not.

how much of the UN charter have you read? its preaty clear to me. read: http://www.un.org/law/index.html if you have like 50 hours to spare.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich

and sending in the UN will only get them slaughtered...)
teh UN is a formidable force, the UN has no troops but it draws from all its members, (mainly the US)

Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich

The world isn't as simple as that. There is no world policeman that actually does something, and countries are not people. Just as an example: Who will "arrest" the US for attacking Iraq?
The UN is the world’s policeman, we need the US to stop policing the world with its unilateral view and start to accept that the world does think differently than the US.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich

The US is part of the UN, and was the main party in the '91 coalition. They most certainly do have jurisdiction over the cease fire. And the US did *not* know exactly where the weapons were, and couldn't bomb them if they did. That would have been an act of war, which wasn't allowed by the UN, was it? Clinton did the same in '98, but apparently that was different. Clinton even launched a similar air-strikes-only war in Kosovo, which also was illegal, according to 4thTimeLucky. So, sorry, can't do that, sir.
no the US does not have juristiction, the agreement was signed by the UN, the US is a member there of but does not speak for it.

and again the Administration Said that they know where the weapons are

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003



Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich

It doesn't work that way. Iraq didn't cooperate with the inspections, and certainly would not have agreed to massive numbers of inspectors and constant over-flights. In theory it might sound nice, but in practice it wouldn't have happened. That's basically the end of that story; please stick to realistic options.
If Iraq did not agree to more inspectors, then it would be appropriate to move on stronger methods, but until we tried it we would not know whether it would work or not.



Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, not the Germans (duh!). It was only because the Germans declared war on the US that you attacked them; had they not done so, it would have been infinitely more difficult for Roosevelt to join the war in Europe.
I did not say that the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor (duh!), I did say the Japanese. Please do not try to discredit me with simple mistruths. And it was because Germany and Japan were allied that we also attacked Japan, not to mention that we saw that Germany could possibly conquered the world if left unattended.


Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
Just an example of technicalities: in WW1, Mexico could *never* have successfully attacked the US, so why would you go to war over such a silly telegram, which might even be false? Can you prove that the Germans actually send the thing, or might it have been a US conspiracy? The Lusitania was sunk by German submarines, which might have been a reason to fight, were it not for the fact that the ship was (secretly) used to transport weapons... These technicalities and doubts would have been enough to keep you out of the war. [/B]

The Mexicans could have done serious damage to our southern border, taking us away from a war in Europe which intern; Germany (once dealing with England a France) would come and help the Mexicans.

Further I would ask that you not tell me what I would think and do, it is quite rude.
__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen
Dilbert1234567 is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 07:16 PM   #42 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Let's play devil's advocate for a moment, and suppose that saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. How then would prove that he didn't have them?
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 06-08-2003, 08:47 PM   #43 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
Let's play devil's advocate for a moment, and suppose that saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. How then would prove that he didn't have them?
Governments have a tendency to record what they do. They would have records of what was destroyed, when it was destroyed, and where. Hell they'd even have the pay stubs from the poor SOB who destroyed it. Iraq had none of these.
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
debaser is offline  
Old 06-09-2003, 12:53 AM   #44 (permalink)
42, baby!
 
Dragonlich's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
First, Sparhawk, the WMDs were *not* the only reason for the war, and nobody I know ever thought they were. I don't think any US politician ever said that they were the sole reason for going to war. Thus, the humanitarian reason does not "replace" the WMD reason at all.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dilbert1234567
[B]how much of the UN charter have you read? its preaty clear to me. read: http://www.un.org/law/index.html if you have like 50 hours to spare.
As I already stated quite a few times, the UN charter IS NOT THE INTERNATIONAL LAW. It is *PART* of the international law system. There are many more treaties and agreements that also are part of international law, and every single UN resolution is *also* international law. Often, at least some of these "laws" can be used by either side of an argument to support their cause, if only because they "laws" are vague.

Quote:
teh UN is a formidable force, the UN has no troops but it draws from all its members, (mainly the US)
sure... in theory, the UN is a formidable force; in practice, it almost never is. In Korea it was a big force, but it was almost beaten by the Chinese; in the '91 gulf war it was a big force indeed. That's about it, really. The rest of the time, the UN is pretty impotent.

Quote:
The UN is the world’s policeman, we need the US to stop policing the world with its unilateral view and start to accept that the world does think differently than the US.
The UN is a policeman without power, dependent on the "citizens" to form a lynch mob everytime a "criminal" does something bad. Furthermore, every time, this lynch mob has different rules and regulations, usually making them less potent than they might be.

The US is the most powerful country on this planet, and as such, it can take what it wants, and pretty much do what it wants. In theory, it would be nice if they were to listen to the rest of the world, but if they don't there's not much you or I can do about it. Might does indeed make right here.

Quote:
and again the Administration Said that they know where the weapons are

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Do you have any idea how big this area can be? Do you suggest the US should have bombed each and every shed that might contain WMDs? What about the countless hidden undergrond bunkers the Iraqis were said to have? How the hell do you bomb those? Besides, bombing anything at all would be AN ACT OF WAR, which was a bad thing, remember? (And if you're going to war anyway, you at least need ground forces to check the results of the bombings...)

Quote:
If Iraq did not agree to more inspectors, then it would be appropriate to move on stronger methods, but until we tried it we would not know whether it would work or not.
We tried that game for 12 years. We already attacked them several times, and it did not work.

Quote:
I did not say that the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor (duh!), I did say the Japanese. Please do not try to discredit me with simple mistruths. And it was because Germany and Japan were allied that we also attacked Japan, not to mention that we saw that Germany could possibly conquered the world if left unattended.
I did not say that you said that. I just pointed out the obvious... Hence the "duh". I was talking about the war in Europe, by Germany, and you bring on Japan attacking Pearl Harbor.

Quote:
The Mexicans could have done serious damage to our southern border, taking us away from a war in Europe which intern; Germany (once dealing with England a France) would come and help the Mexicans.
Bullshit. The Mexicans couldn't have done anything. They were beaten into submission in the previous century, and the difference in military power had only grown since then. They would have been destroyed in a war, and they (and everyone else) knew that. Germany was in no position to "deal with England and France" at all - they would have been lucky if they could maintain the pressure, but it was unlikely they could ever "win" the trench warfare. They had already tried that for some 3 years... Besides, even *IF* the Germans could have won, how do you propose they conquer the UK (with it's navy still pretty much intact), and even cross the Atlantic Ocean to conquer the US? The whole scenario is just incredibly unlikely.

Oh, and I think you're mistaken in assuming I say what you think and do. That, as you say, would indeed be rude.
Dragonlich is offline  
Old 06-09-2003, 12:26 PM   #45 (permalink)
Devils Cabana Boy
 
Dilbert1234567's Avatar
 
Location: Central Coast CA
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
First, Sparhawk, the WMDs were *not* the only reason for the war, and nobody I know ever thought they were. I don't think any US politician ever said that they were the sole reason for going to war. Thus, the humanitarian reason does not "replace" the WMD reason at all.
Your right we had 50,000 different reasons, at least one will pan out right?


Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
As I already stated quite a few times, the UN charter IS NOT THE INTERNATIONAL LAW. It is *PART* of the international law system. There are many more treaties and agreements that also are part of international law, and every single UN resolution is *also* international law. Often, at least some of these "laws" can be used by either side of an argument to support their cause, if only because they "laws" are vague.
[/B]
the only laws that apply to all the world are the UN's laws, the French do not need to heed an agreement between Canada and the US.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
sure... in theory, the UN is a formidable force; in practice, it almost never is. In Korea it was a big force, but it was almost beaten by the Chinese; in the '91 gulf war it was a big force indeed. That's about it, really. The rest of the time, the UN is pretty impotent.
[/B]
Those 2 wars were the only 2 wars that involved the world. They had no jurisdiction over Vietnam.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
The UN is a policeman without power, dependent on the "citizens" to form a lynch mob everytime a "criminal" does something bad. Furthermore, every time, this lynch mob has different rules and regulations, usually making them less potent than they might be. [/B]
the UN has no power because the US is not backing them, we only back the UN when we get our way, other wise we take our marbles and leave the playground.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
The US is the most powerful country on this planet, and as such, it can take what it wants, and pretty much do what it wants. In theory, it would be nice if they were to listen to the rest of the world, but if they don't there's not much you or I can do about it. Might does indeed make right here.
[/B]
America needs to set an example to the rest of the world to make the world better, if we solve our problems with violence, it is hypocritical to tell other countries not to use violence to solve there problems.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
Do you have any idea how big this area can be? Do you suggest the US should have bombed each and every shed that might contain WMDs? What about the countless hidden undergrond bunkers the Iraqis were said to have? How the hell do you bomb those? Besides, bombing anything at all would be AN ACT OF WAR, which was a bad thing, remember? (And if you're going to war anyway, you at least need ground forces to check the results of the bombings...)
[/B]
if we have so much evidence that Iraq has WMD and we know so much about there programs, why could we not share this with the UN inspectors, further, why can we not find them quickly. (yes i know about the 2 buried Winnebago’s)

Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
We tried that game for 12 years. We already attacked them several times, and it did not work.
[/B]
no mater how much Saddam conceded in the last 8 months, we were set on war from the start. he was starting make concessions to the world and we threw it away, the world wanted to give him one more chance, but the US did not let him.


Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
Bullshit. The Mexicans couldn't have done anything. They were beaten into submission in the previous century, and the difference in military power had only grown since then. They would have been destroyed in a war, and they (and everyone else) knew that. Germany was in no position to "deal with England and France" at all - they would have been lucky if they could maintain the pressure, but it was unlikely they could ever "win" the trench warfare. They had already tried that for some 3 years... Besides, even *IF* the Germans could have won, how do you propose they conquer the UK (with it's navy still pretty much intact), and even cross the Atlantic Ocean to conquer the US? The whole scenario is just incredibly unlikely.
[/B]
All Mexico had to do was stop the US from joining the war in Europe. This could be accomplished. They could have massed an army at the border and charged through California and Arizona, and then dug in, remember, trench warfare is very slow and tedious, and would have dragged on for months if not years. Remember the tech level, no tanks, no real planes (they had some but more of a support not an offence)

just the act of delaying our entry into the war in Europe could have shifted the balance to the Germans, especially with Russia soon to drop out of the war. And Germany being able to focus on France alone
__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen
Dilbert1234567 is offline  
Old 06-09-2003, 01:09 PM   #46 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Ummm, please keep this thread on topic. If you want to talk about Mexico's role in World War One, start another thread.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 12:33 AM   #47 (permalink)
42, baby!
 
Dragonlich's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
Dilbert1234567, you say that "the only laws that apply to all the world are the UN's laws, the French do not need to heed an agreement between Canada and the US."

This is not quite right, and also misses the point. First, there are many global treaties to ban certain things, or promote something else. These are often, but not always, initiated by the UN. There are also many treaties pre-dating the UN (Geneva convention, Hague convention, etc). These are also international law. Then there are the countless UN resolutions, which also become international law (as I've stated over and over).

Combine all this stuff, and you have "international law", where even experts in the field admit that the total package is vague. It's kinda like British case law, where every single ruling becomes part of the law system - this means there's tons of different, possibly conflicting "laws" out there.

Again I ask you: if international law is so transparent and clear, how come both the pro-war and anti-war sides can be right when pointing at 1441? Or are you suggesting the US did not check their side of the story first?
Dragonlich is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 03:49 AM   #48 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Arguing the resolution's legality is a fairly moot point. The question this thread brings up is whether or not the white house influenced the reports it received and brought to the UN, and others to convince them of their case.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 05:26 AM   #49 (permalink)
42, baby!
 
Dragonlich's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
Arguing the resolution's legality is a fairly moot point. The question this thread brings up is whether or not the white house influenced the reports it received and brought to the UN, and others to convince them of their case.
I know that... it's just a result of how the thread developed.

The quote from the report that was leaked was taken out of context. Even if it were true that there was no reliable evidence that Iraq was building new WMDs, or even any evidence at all... that hardly matters. Iraq had to prove they didn't have any *old* WMDs around, and they didn't do that. One can then argue whether this means that Iraq had WMDs, or whether there is another reason for Iraq's reluctance to prove anything, but that also is pretty irrelevant.

According to 1441 and the countless resolutions before that, Iraq had to prove they had no more WMDs, and Iraq failed to do that. Reason enough to attack them. If the UN then fails to intervene because of political games, I can see why the US would go it alone. Perhaps one can say that they did it because they *could*. Regardless of the reasons or legality of the war, it sends a clear message to other rogue states: if you piss us off, we'll kick your arse.

Thanks to this war, states like Iran and Syria might think twice about supporting terrorism against the west, or doing something else that hurts us.
Dragonlich is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 05:40 AM   #50 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks
Agree with Sparhawk here. Losing a bit of focus here.

I have a few points though.

1) As amusing as I find all this talk of the Mexican army, where did trench warfare come in? And no tanks or planes? This is WW2 you are talking about. It was WW1 that consisted almost entirely of trench warfare and no (or rather few and very crude) tanks and planes.

2) Dragonlich - you say that there is "no international law" and then back this up by saying that it is like British case law. As a British person I can proudly say that we do have a law and it is does a very good job and has done for a long time now. Just because international law bears more resemblance to British law than US law doesn't mean it is any less real.

3) Both sides cannot be right when pointing at 1441. It is the norm in the British (and I believe American) legal systems for two very eminent and intelligent lawyers (or teams of lawyers) to come before a judge and argue very passionate and very coherent cases. Both legal teams say contradictory things and the judge will use existing law to decide who is right and who is wrong - they never say "well actually you are both equally right, so I'm not going to make any ruling at all". Now often companies and countries will go to their very skilled, very well paid lawyers and say "can we do this" [often meaning "can we get away with this under the law"]. And often the lawyers will tell them that they can. And the team of lawyers for the other company/country will be telling their employers the same thing. It takes an impartial judge or team of judges to decide who is right and who is wrong. BUT there is a right and there is a wrong. As it is in domestic law, so it is in international law.

4) I have set out (near bottom of page 1) what I think should have happened in Iraq - and it wasn't a US/UK invasion - and would be happy to elaborate on it or defend it.
__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 06-10-2003 at 05:42 AM..
4thTimeLucky is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 09:30 AM   #51 (permalink)
Devils Cabana Boy
 
Dilbert1234567's Avatar
 
Location: Central Coast CA
we were refering to the zimmerman teligram which was WWI, and how the mexican could have stoped the US from geting in to WWI letting the germans win Eroupe...

as for 1441. 1441 was vaguely writen. and i do belive that the the ganeva convention was transferd into the UN's charter making it then internation law, befor that it only aplied to most of the world, those who signed it.
__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Last edited by Dilbert1234567; 06-13-2003 at 12:54 PM..
Dilbert1234567 is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 09:59 AM   #52 (permalink)
42, baby!
 
Dragonlich's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
2) Dragonlich - you say that there is "no international law" and then back this up by saying that it is like British case law. As a British person I can proudly say that we do have a law and it is does a very good job and has done for a long time now. Just because international law bears more resemblance to British law than US law doesn't mean it is any less real.
I didn't mean to say that there is no international law at all. I meant to point out that the idea that international law is like national law (i.e. at least a bit clear) is just false. In that sense, there is no "international law", there's just a lot of agreements. Agreements that can be broken, by the way, without any real problems, especially if you're powerful enough (like the US).

The problem with case law is that there's so much of it. In Brittain, one occasionally finds some weird medieval law that still applies; because it's a law, it has to be treated as such. Well, until the government/legal system declares the law obsolete. The same goes with international law, but here you have many different parties, each with their own bilateral and multilateral treates and obligations. It's a maze, with multiple exits, in that a lot of times, one can argue a case either way.

Quote:
3) Both sides cannot be right when pointing at 1441. It is the norm in the British (and I believe American) legal systems for two very eminent and intelligent lawyers (or teams of lawyers) to come before a judge and argue very passionate and very coherent cases. Both legal teams say contradictory things and the judge will use existing law to decide who is right and who is wrong - they never say "well actually you are both equally right, so I'm not going to make any ruling at all". Now often companies and countries will go to their very skilled, very well paid lawyers and say "can we do this" [often meaning "can we get away with this under the law"]. And often the lawyers will tell them that they can. And the team of lawyers for the other company/country will be telling their employers the same thing. It takes an impartial judge or team of judges to decide who is right and who is wrong. BUT there is a right and there is a wrong. As it is in domestic law, so it is in international law.
Wrong. In international law, there is the *option* of a justice system that checks such things, but this is not something that happens all the time; besides, a country can potentially ignore the rulings, because nobody might be able to force it to comply. In the case of the whole Iraqi war thing, the case is not black-and-white. Both sides are right, or at least have valid arguments to back up their side of the story. Until an international court of justice decides on the legality of the attack, we cannot say who was right, although we can *think* we know. Besides, such a ruling will take years to arrive, and can still be ignored.

Now, 1441 spoke of serious consequences, which technically can include a war. Many opponents claim that the UN uses different words to allow war, and also say that the French would never have agreed with a resolution allowing war. That's all nice and dandy, but the way 1441 was written allows the US to go to war. That's simply a matter of the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.

However, let's for a moment assume it is eventually ruled that this war was illegal... what should happen then? Does Saddam get to regain power again? Does he get compensation? Will (and can) the US be forced to pay some sort of fine?
We all agree that Saddam was a bad man, so these options are pretty silly, but the question then becomes: what would the potential penalty be? And more importantly, would the US care at all?

This illustrates again that international law is a nice concept, but also quite useless at times. One could even go so far as to say that international law is irrelevant to a country as powerful as the US. An illustration of a previous situation that was kinda similar, if totally different in other ways: Nazi Germany tore up the Versailles treaty because they *could*, and they walked out of the League of Nations because they *could* do that too. The US can do the same with the UN, and there isn't much anyone can do about it.

Last edited by Dragonlich; 06-10-2003 at 10:03 AM..
Dragonlich is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 10:28 AM   #53 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Actually Dragonlich, 4thTimeLucky made an excellent explanation of how the common law and international legal system works.

You seem to be arguing that since 1441 was vague it could be interpreted in at least two different ways--both valid depending on one's point of view.

That assertion does not square with what occurred--although it is being used now to justify the action.

The discussion wasn't about whether "serious measures" meant war. The charter explicitly stated that the UN counsel would determine if Iraq was in breach and what course to take in that event.

The US contention became that, despite the wording of the charter, the threat was so imminent that we had to act immediately. Furthermore, since the threat was to our national security we no longer needed UN approval to act.

Thus, we were not acting under the charter but the doctrine that a nation has a right to defend itself--the discussion became whether a nation has a right to defend itself before an act of aggression occurs (based on the mere threat of aggression, regardless of how big that threat may be)--which became a discussion of how a doctrine of pre-emption reversed our government's notions of foreign policy during the past 50 years.

At the very end people began to question that logic heavily--which spawned the argument that, in any case, the charter says that failure of full compliance would result in serious consequences. Since they were in breach (according to the US view), and the UN was not acting (that is, deciding the serious action, according the the US vew), then the UN was irrelevant.

Which brings us to this thread. Since the whole invasion was predicated upon the claim that we did not need UN approval because our national security was at stake, the emergence of evidence stating that our national security was not really at stake could undermine the legality of the attack.
smooth is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 10:34 AM   #54 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
One could even go so far as to say that international law is irrelevant to a country as powerful as the US.
This is exactly many of our points*. I am perplexed, however, that a non-citizen would argue with the citizens of a country about whether their country should be beholden to international law or flout it.

edit: lol, should be "This is exactly the point many of us are making"

Last edited by smooth; 06-10-2003 at 10:39 AM..
smooth is offline  
Old 06-10-2003, 01:36 PM   #55 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks
At the risk of smooth and I sounding like a mutual appreciation society, I don't think I could have put it better myself. [okay, i do have a slight disagreement - i think the US always tried to justify war as both self-defence and resolution enforcement - but i liked his post so i'll move on.]


OKAY. Here's the long and short of it. The law is a complex thing. There are three possible legal justifications for the US fighting Iraq (self-defence; they are still at war from Resolution 678 in 1990; they are legitimized by Resolution 1441). None of them are simple.

BUT we can all get a lot fruther in this discussion if we all read this. It is a superb legal and political summary that contains both support and challenges for the posts of almost everyone here (including myself - I am not after all infalible).

I hope that people will go to the site, read it, tell us that they have read it and then come back with their thoughts.

-----
I have read it.
My thoughts are:
i) The only possible legal reasons, and the reasons that Powell took to the UN, for war, are different to the reasons given to the ordinary person. Humanitarian intervention or regime change were mentioned only in passing or not at all at the UN. There are legal reasons for deploying troops and then there are popular reasons for "sending in our boys". We must keep the two seperate and recognise them for what they are.
ii) The self-defence ( Article 51) justification seems dead in the water. The US may have decided to invent a new "Bush Doctrine of pre-emption" but noone else was buying it.
iii) Because everyone seems to agree that the ceasefire terms of the 1990 Resolution 687 had been breached, one way or another, then the issue of WMD is irrelevant to that justification. However this is another weak justification that even the US/UK seemed uninterested in pushing.
iii) So the only way the existence/absence of WMDs is genuinely relevant is in regard Resolution 1441. But how relevant are the WMDs? If Resolution 1441 was the only possible justification then the absence of WMDs is not a direct problem. It would only be embarrassing because the US/UK said that we didn't have time to go through a lengthy checking process under 1441 and must go in *NOW*. They could be accused of leaping ahead. They could be accused of lieing to justufy their leaping ahead. But the leaping ahead itself would not be illegal. This is very different to the self-defence case - where an absence of WMDs would pretty much void the self-defence legality.
__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 06-10-2003 at 02:01 PM..
4thTimeLucky is offline  
 

Tags
leaked, news, report, security


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:55 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360