Is the war 'legal' - Your opinion

[Anonymous]

Ive heard the opinion of a Law Preofesser but i wanted to hear other people's opinions. Lay off the ideological shit, is this war legal by the resolutions laid down in the UN?

New Labour got someone in to argue that it was legal but he just sprouted bs about 1991.

[Invader Zim]

The entire opposition to the war was based around that the weapons inspectors could find no evidence of forbidden weapons. America disagreed and went to war. The Iraqi's fired scuds (yes the same ones they claimed not to have) against Allied troops.

So saddam lied there for breaking the UN resolution that Saddam should offer the weapons inspectors all aid. So technically the UN should now have no option but to make it legal as the only case against war has now been disproved.

[Guardia Bolivariano]

Quote: from AK47 on 5:10 pm on Mar. 21, 2003
The Iraqi's fired scuds (yes the same ones they claimed not to have) against Allied troops.



Seriously where do you get you information?
Iraq never denied having scuds
They only denied having womd.
If you had any idea of what military tactics are,you would KNOW(something you almost never do) that scuds are strategic weapons,not WOMD.
The only missile that could take nuclear warheads was the AL-SAmud and they were destroyed weeks before the war.

And why did they fire scuds at the "angels" from the US and UK?
Could It be that they were bombing Iraq?

This is a simple question.

Is the war 'legal'?=Is murder legal?

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Guardia Bolivariano on 5:47 pm on Mar. 21, 2003

Quote: from AK47 on 5:10 pm on Mar. 21, 2003
The Iraqi's fired scuds (yes the same ones they claimed not to have) against Allied troops.



Seriously where do you get you information?
Iraq never denied having scuds
They only denied having womd.
If you had any idea of what military tactics are,you would KNOW(something you almost never do) that scuds are strategic weapons,not WOMD.
The only missile that could take nuclear warheads was the AL-SAmud and they were destroyed weeks before the war.

And why did they fire scuds at the "angels" from the US and UK?
Could It be that they were bombing Iraq?

This is a simple question.

Is the war 'legal'?=Is murder legal?



I got my information from a newspaper. It said that saddam fired scud's at allied troops. But Saddam has been banned from all missiles have a certain range. And scuds exceed that range and were banned. So saddam hid them somewhere.

However it was a tabloid so it may be wrong...

(Edited by AK47 at 6:42 pm on Mar. 21, 2003)

[sc4r]

No it is not legal. 1441 threatened force. To make actions by anybody legal the UN has to authorise force. There is a difference.

The whole USUK position is seemingly based upon the idea that if one person commits an illegal act (judged by anybody) then that anybody has a legal right to impose and enforce sentence. This is a unique view of how law works not enshrined in any previously existing doctrine and it its easy to see why its flawed.

American (and UK) actions have effectively killed a good deal of the notion of International law having any meaning. They will doubtless not be so keen when others take the same stance.

(Edited by sc4r at 12:46 am on Mar. 22, 2003)

[Pete]

I remeber how America assuerd the world that 1441 did not mean force. Many times. It was not accepted until it said that.

I hate how even in Canada tehy are refered to as the "Allied Troops" bearing the connotation of WWII. Yet they are not our allies.

[Anonymous]

Yeh, the Cambridge international law teacher agreed that there was no way it could be considered legal.

[kelvin90701]

The peace treaty to end the first Gulf War, Iraq gave up the right to deny inspections, gave up the right to fly fixed wing aircraft in no fly zones, gave up the right to build WMDs, gave up the right to build missiles than exceed a certain range. We agreed to stop shooting at them.

Iraq does not have the right to deny inspections, they do not have the right to stop us from enforcing the no fly zone, etc.. We have the right to start shooting. We did not agree to give up the right to start shooting.

[sc4r]

Quote: from kelvin90701 on 2:39 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
The peace treaty to end the first Gulf War, Iraq gave up the right to deny inspections, gave up the right to fly fixed wing aircraft in no fly zones, gave up the right to build WMDs, gave up the right to build missiles than exceed a certain range. We agreed to stop shooting at them.

Iraq does not have the right to deny inspections, they do not have the right to stop us from enforcing the no fly zone, etc.. We have the right to start shooting. We did not agree to give up the right to start shooting.

Yes you did, you gave up the right to shoot without UN authorisation when you signed the UN treaty.

Two wrongs dont make a right. To quote a comedian I heard last night :

'the US agrees with this; it agrees that 3 dont, and that 4 dont, and that 5 dont; but it figures that somewhere there must be a number of wrongs that do make a right and it intends to keep on doing wrong until it finds that number.


(Edited by sc4r at 2:46 pm on Mar. 23, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from sc4r on 2:43 pm on Mar. 23, 2003

Quote: from kelvin90701 on 2:39 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
The peace treaty to end the first Gulf War, Iraq gave up the right to deny inspections, gave up the right to fly fixed wing aircraft in no fly zones, gave up the right to build WMDs, gave up the right to build missiles than exceed a certain range. We agreed to stop shooting at them.

Iraq does not have the right to deny inspections, they do not have the right to stop us from enforcing the no fly zone, etc.. We have the right to start shooting. We did not agree to give up the right to start shooting.

Yes you did, you gave up the right to shoot without UN authorisation when you signed the UN treaty.

Two wrongs dont make a right. To quote a comedian I heard last night :

'the US agrees with this; it agrees that 3 dont, and that 4 dont, and that 5 dont; but it figures that somewhere there must be a number of wrongs that do make a right and it intends to keep on doing wrong until it finds that number.


(Edited by sc4r at 2:46 pm on Mar. 23, 2003)


Possibly... Oh well there is no point dicussing this any way i mean whos going to tell america they cant and expect not to be branded part of the "axis of evil" Aka any one who is currently at odds with the USA.

[kelvin90701]

You are right. I wrongly equate the UN with USA. The UN was not there durring the Gulf War, it was a colliation of states. No one durring the Gulf War was wearing those sissy blue UN helmets or flying a UN flag. The UN is responsible for the inspection, but they are not responsible for the enforcement of the peace treaty. Saddam has denied inpections for 12 years. That is all the reason the USA needs.

After 12 years of being denied inspection. Do you maintain the status quo? Saddam has broken his treaty with the USA. The UN was not in a tent in the desert durring peace negotiations, it was Stormin Norman and his staff. Anyhow it is all just academic at this point.