gerbil Posted March 22, 2003 hi all, just a quick question on the war, i know there are already some threads on it, sorry if it's been answered I heard little johnny say that this war was "not illegal" well killing people is illegal but that's another story... Going against the UN, and declaring war before the deadline surely has to be illegal can anyone help me out? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted March 22, 2003 The problem lies in the wording of the resolutions over the last 12 or so years. basically the US is claiming that one of those resolutions, in particular (but not solely) 1441 threatens 'serious consequences'. In previous resolutions, especially around the time of the first gulf war, there was a direct mandate to use force if Saddam refused to disarm. The problem lies in the fact that there are several resolutions and that a new one is made before an old one is cancelled. if they had always cancelled the old ones and included any 'leftovers' into the new resolution, then we wouldn't have this mess. The point is though that it didn't really matter. When the discussions first started they never mentioned the previous resolutions but always claimed 1441 gave them all the mandate they needed. Once they realised this is not quite so (or at least that the rest of the world doesn't see it this way), they started looking for back up plans - and found one. The problem that the UN now faces is that no resolutions can be passed on any of this. If france was to submit for a vote condemming the attack, then the UK could veto it. Basically we are back to the days of the cold war when one of the permanent members would always throw in their veto and thus cripple the council. HOWEVER, -and this is a biggie- the security council is not the only body that can make such a decision. The full UN assembly can formulate a resolution of a different nature. It is not as strong and as binding, but it is nonetheless an effective tool. I can't remember what the process is called, but I am sure we will hear all about it in the months to come. The main feature of this will probably be the rebuilding of Iraq and the responsibility distribution. The UN council usually holds the view of 'if you break it then you fix it'. That means the coalition of the willing may be up for a nice price tag. Not that the US will ever pay though. One of the ways the US always gets its way in the UN is to make sure they are always behind in their payments. in fact that's how the US for many years managed to keep the UN virtually broke. Only in recent years the UN has become a little more independent - both financially and politically. Throwing hissy fits and leaving councils like UNESCO also doesn't attract much attention or respect anymore. Quite the contrary, the US leaving UNESCO put a huge stain on its reputation and the rejoining was probably one of Bush's few good decisions. Mind you, they only rejoined at the time when Bush gave his first presentation to the UN council - remember that speech that was supposed to change everyone's mind about iraq.... but didn't. Well, the UNESCO entry was merely a sweetener to show that the US is still committed to the UN even if the UN does things that are not in the interest of the US. So where to from here?? Dunno, but I think the UN security council will need an overhaul. Maybe change the veto power to having to be from two countries. Not that it would have helped this time, but still, might prevent problems in the future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gerbil Posted March 23, 2003 thanks for the reply Torsten, The whole situation is all a bit confusing, but that did clear things up a bit, thanks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thelema Posted March 24, 2003 What really gets me is the fact that the US has the biggest depository of weapons of mass destruction of any nation in the world.(Close to nearly the SUM of all other nations) Anyone who thinks that the US does not have a chemical and biological warfare r+d division is just naiive. But supposedly this is justified because dubya is not "evil" Hmph. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Auxin Posted March 24, 2003 "the US has the biggest depository of weapons of mass destruction of any nation in the world" Wouldnt you just LOVE to have weapons inspectors go through my gov'ts stockpiles? I would. Of course it would be pointless, noone would be allowed to prosecute the US gov't. It is a fact that we commit war crimes and pay others to do so but the world is so intimidated/payed off that noone holds the US accountable for war crimes. I'd love to see that change too. Its funny, my countrymen call me unamerican because I denounce US war crimes. Some people call wanting an end to our war crimes treason, I call it patriotism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thelema Posted March 25, 2003 Auxin-its funny you mention war crimes given the recent "warning" to iraq of showing pow's on TV. Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the hypocrisy? Just 2 days ago BBC and CNN were showing extended footage of iraqi pow's on TV !!. Lines of soldiers with their hands on their heads in file guarded by american soldiers. Notice also the change in rhetoric that we are being spun: to begin with it was all about "weapons of mass destruction" and "chemical/biological weapons" .Now it seems that after 4 days none of these have been encountered, you will probably no longer hear such phrases from the world leaders. Both Bush and Blair have both spun their rhetoric toward "liberation of the Iraqi people". Both leaders used this phrase yesterday, without referring to weapons or weapons threat of any sort. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted March 25, 2003 Yes Thelema, I did see that and I did also see the hipocrisy. However I wouldn't expect it any other way. Did anyone see the excellent 4 corners report on the way this war was framed? Although it didn't bring anything new, it was good to see it all in one block. Kinda rams home just how this whole thing was manufactured and how dishonest Howard is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Auxin Posted March 25, 2003 Hypocrisy is all over this thing. For instance, the US says it will follow the rules of the geneva convention while at the same time it says it is planning to 'smoke out' iraqis with illegal chemical warfare weapons. Another example is that forcible or coercive regime change is a violation of international law. Forcible regime change is the entire theme of this war! Nukes. Bush denounces Hussein because he has researched nuclear weapon technology. What they dont tell you is that in the so-called 'atoms for peace' project the US gave Iraq a instruction manual telling them EXACTLY how to make weapon grade uranium and how to construct a nuclear bomb! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gerbil Posted March 26, 2003 It's okay for the US to go against what they preach, it's for the good of the people isn't it How about when the main US soldier briefed the world a few days back, about how they would achieve goals, I expected something along the lines of "stealth, intelligence..." etc...but was a bit of a laugh when he said "by shock....and extreme force" it's like the school yard bully. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thelema Posted March 26, 2003 That 4 corners report brought tears to my eyes, and im not afraid to admit it. You look at the bunker of 10,000 women and children they bombed in 1991, dragging 100's of charchaoled small corpses out of the wreckage. In my opinion this war is largely going to be a media war. The situation in Bhasra is a good example. If this situation is not rectified immediately then 10,000's of iraqi civilians will die.(and SH will win even more UN support) Another illuminating thing I learnt from that 4 corners report was that allied forces had specifically bombed and targeted the arabian TV network operating in baghdad in order to prevent negative media images being portrayed. This whole thing makes me sicker by the day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ramon Posted March 27, 2003 link to the body count http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm#total Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest electro Posted March 28, 2003 I wonder if this means it is now legal to kill anyone who you feel may be a threat to you (now or in the future) ... But of course, only if they might have access to weapons that could unleash massive amounts of destruction on you ... ( i dont know about you but i'm scared of knives & guns .. maybe a car if someone was driving toward me ) !! LETS KILL CAR DRIVERS BECAUSE THEY HAVE 1 TON MOVING WEAPONS ! Hmm taking that idea futher, if you speed would it be legal to shoot police dead, on the basis that they might pull a gun on you if you dont stop when they try to pull you over ... (heh maybe the defence in court could be that you were trying to liberate the people of your suburb from local threat [ie the possibly violent cop or the mother who drives her kids to school in the morning who COULD lose her concentration and run over a child at the crossing....] ) [ 27. March 2003, 18:05: Message edited by: electro ] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
