Is it unpatroitic to critize the US?

[KrustyKidd]

The US did not have a right to lift a finger against Iraq without the express approval of the Security Council.

Claim victory if you like, child. That doesn't make you right.

Para 2 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 678

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 foregoing 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;

It sure does if you are using the United Nations as your benchmark. If you are using those weirdos that can't even hold a quorum in a hotel conference room because they are looked at as radical idiots then I guess anybody but the local drunk would be wrong.

Child

How gracious of you. Nexrt time we meet I won't even try to be civil. BTW, I checked out your Vanity Opinion Site that featured your goateed puss as the feature cartoon and laughed. Lots of fact happening there. Only an idiot would quote themselves as fact in order to make a point as you did on this forum.

I quote one of your own readers who, responding to one of your sage posts, managed to provide you with excellent advice.

  Get you head out of your ass.

I played with you as a mental exercise in order to see what crap you would pull and then realized that you actually think you are right. As I said before, there is not one Leftist on this site who would take on your argument. Lonius did for a two post convert but for the rational that WMD were not proved, not being aware that there were four other items that could (and were) used as pretext, not the legal reason. They are no dummies as they put forth many arguments as to why this was morally wrong (which we address in other threads) Your attempt to come in here and play idot becasue you have never been up against fact must have been a familiar role for you but probably rarely ever get called on it as you deal only with other ill informed Letists in day to day rhetorical chanting. Never facts. Anyhow, now that you have provided the link I will endevor to let all your worshiping readers know that the Emporer has no clothes. Look for me, I'm "revsanidiot' and my first post was .....

Revs high on rhetoric and low on facts.  When confronted by this stark reality he resorts to name calling.  Check out his latest antics on this site.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/community/foru...t=ST&f=7&t=1597

Child. Right.

Now can we move on to another subject? The one the thread is supposed to be about? Are you capable of that or are just a robot that posts the same drivel over and over again?

We sure can, as long as we do so with the knowlege that the US invasion of Iraq was not illegal. Unless of course you have factual evidence that it was. If you do, I should like to see it considereing relevent UN resolutions say it is completely legal. As for being a robot, there is only one right and that is law. Forgive me for continuing to quote the only thing that makes this action legal - law. The actual laws. Not a myrad of opinions from disgruntled pacifists with various agendas but the one and only law applicable to this issue. Yes, forgive me for continuing to quote the law.

You outlaw you. WTF, make up your own laws right? Call anybody that cites law in the face of your opinion a child and a robot. You rational guy you.

And get a shave.

[Reverend Blair]

I'm not playing this stupid little game of yours anymore, Krusty. You only have one point and it has little or nothing to do with the thread. The majority of those who have spoken out on the legality of the US invasion do not agree with you.

I will continue to say that the war was, and still is, illegal. I will not argue that point with you anymore because you are apparently incapable of considering any evidence that you do not agree with.

Now, if you can, please answer this question. Is it unpatriotic for a Canadian, especially a Member of Parliament, to criticise the United States? Why?

[KrustyKidd]

Sure. Identify those who think you are right. I will then ask them individually what they figure. And then at least tell me why you think UN law should not be used as the benchmark for legality in this matter. Or else tell me why the opinions of any individual superceeds those resolutions.

[Reverend Blair]

I asked you a direct question, Krusty.

[KrustyKidd]

You still don't get it Rev. A common fault of a shoddy argument is to make a statement that, if not addressed and settled is accepted as fact. Then when the discussion moves on, it is in the back of everybody's mind that it was never discounted and it becomes assumed as fact. I should think that the legality of the war is of relevence to this argument and, myself, going by international law and the applicable UN resolutions find that it is legal. Therefore your contention that it was illegal makes the argument useless to go on with until this is resolved.

That is why I will not address any of the thread. If for example, a secret Security Council Vote was taken on an unknown resolution say ..... 1442. Which says simply that 'all resolutions pertaining to Iraq and them having to adhere to any or all previous resolutions has been recsinded' and that resolution was dated prior to the invasion then you would have a legal point. And a very strong case for us being right in not approving what the US was doing on legal grounds only and it would therefore affect the moral argument as well. Therefore an outstanding point as great as this must be cleared up before the thread can move on or off.

So, let's clear it up.

[Reverend Blair]

It is cleared up. I accept that you do not agree with me and I do not agree with you. I think everybody else here understands that too. Now please answer my question, it does not have to pertain to Iraq and Iraq is, in fact, only a part of it. Let me rephrase the question.

Is it unpatriotic for an elected representative of Canada to criticise the United States on Kyoto, BSE, Iraq, the war on terror, the war on drugs, etc?

[KrustyKidd]

Absolutely not.

[Reverend Blair]

There, was that so hard?

[KrustyKidd]

Not at all. I have no great love for the US and even told you that I probably dislike GW more than you. This thread, with me and you in it I fear will not go far with this unresolved point though.

[KrustyKidd]

The Security Council, very pointedly, did not support the US invasion of Iraq. 

You can try to sidestep it all you want, but we all watched it unfold on the news, including the lies, the spying, the bullying, and so on.  The US, using the same incredibly questionable argument you seem to stuck on, then decided that it did not need to ask permission.

Since you apparently were unable to read the link I supplied:

International Laws Violated.

    * Article 2 of the United Nations Charter.

    * Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter.         

    * Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.     

    * Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928.

Is that clear enough for you, Krusty? It lists the articles and how they were violated. You can agree or not, but until you show up on my doorstep with a degree in international law and a huge resume, I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with the experts. Their opinions and interpretations of international law are worth far more than that of some anonymous poster on the Internet.

Nopw either address the real issue at hand, whether it is unpatriotic for a Canadian to criticise the US or show us all your degree in international law and a resume showing you aren't just mob lawyer trying to pick up a side job.

Where is your law degree Mr 'This War is Illegal and I know it 100% becasue I believe what 'unofficial pacifists holding a 'non binding kangaroo court in some hotel basement say so?' Not only are the guys holding this feel good, yet unoticed peacenik circle jerk long on rhetoric (conscripted coalition), they are short on facts (despite being unable to prove its allegations that it posed an imminent threat to the US). I guess they never heard that Iraq was already in violation of the respolutions and had been for over twelve years. Ridding themselves of WMD material, equipment, attempts to aquire same as well as providing accurate documentation of same, repatriation of Kuwaitis, human rights of it's own citizens, repayment of War damages and on and on. There was never a resolution that provided for damages or threats to the US and as I told you before, that was only a sell job to the American public and has zilch to do with international law.

I appoligise for abbrieviating your quote, but I included it in full in my post as I address each point.

International Laws Violated.

    * Article 2 of the United Nations Charter.

          o Text of Article 2, Section 3- 4. “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. .... [and] refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” [uN Charter, Article 2, Sections 3,4]

        o Violation. The US used force to settle its dispute with Iraq, ignoring calls from UN Security Council members for a peaceful resolution.

KK

Which resolution that the Security Council passed does it specifically say not to take action? Can you show us that it actually exists or was this just unofficial talking? As we all know, the UN likes to make rulings and such, surely there must be one for this important decision. When UN laws are made by guys 'calling' rather then voting in a formal quorum, this will stick. Until then, calls don't mean squat, resolutions do.

  *

      Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter.

          o Summary of Articles 39-50. Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter clearly stipulate that no member state is authorized to use military force against another country without the UN Security Council first determining that certain criteria have been met. (1) There must be a material breach of its resolution; and (2) All nonmilitary and peaceful options to enforce the resolution must be fully exhausted. Once it has been decided that the necessary conditions for military action have been met, only the UN Security Council can authorize the use of military force. [uN Charter]

          o Violation. The United States and its conscripted coalition invaded Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council. The Bush administration chose not to take the issue to the council because it knew that a resolution to use force against Iraq would not pass.

KK

What is this then? Security Council Resolution 678 “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 foregoing 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;”

It seems that the UN actually approves the idea of having a team of ‘Member States’ to assist the Government of Kuwait and get Iraq to comply with UN rulings USING ALL NECESSARY MEANS. When and where did this all OFFICIALLY change?

  * Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

          o Summary of Article 51. Article 51 allows for a nation to use military force to defend itself only in cases of an ongoing or impending attack. It only provides this military solution as a temporary one –until the UN Security Council can find the appropriate peaceful response. The intention of this article was not to set criteria for the justification of war. Quite the contrary; its intent was to prevent conflicts from escalating into war.

          o Violation. The US and its conscripted coalition invaded Iraq - calling it a preemptive defense strike, a concept with no legal meaning - despite being unable to prove its allegations that it posed an imminent threat to the US Although the US claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq was developing these weapons, and that Iraq intended to use these weapons against the US, the US failed to provide any evidence to substantiate these claims. [Read more] UN weapons inspectors who examined suspected banned weapons facilities in Iraq found no support for the US assertions. [Read More] The US also alleged that Iraq had ties to terrorist groups and would likely provide these organizations with weapons of mass destruction. No evidence was presented to the UN to support the accusation. [Read More]

KK

The UN never gave legal justification for an attack against the US. That runup was for the American people. We are talking international law. Here is international justification

UN Security Council Resolution 1441

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

  *

      Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928.

          o Summary of Article 51. The Kellog-Briand treaty, ratified by the United States in 1929, requires that all disputes be resolved peacefully. It prohibits war as an instrument of foreign policy. [Kellog-Briand Treaty of 1928] As a testament to this fact, in 1932, the secretary of state, Henry L. Stimson stated, “War between nations was renounced by the signatories (including the US and Britain) of that Treaty. This means that it has become throughout practically the entire world... an illegal thing. Hereafter when nations engage in armed conflict... we denounce them as law breakers.” [cited in Dawn, 11/13/01]

          o Violation. The US used force to settle its dispute with Iraq, ignoring calls from UN Security Council members for a peaceful resolution.

KK

WTF??? These guys are so lame they can't even come up with a typist to make it look like they changed the wording of the first violation. Same crap, same wording but I will add some to the origional rebuttal above....

Calls so weak that they couldn’t find the time or the strength to make a resolution to recsind their own resolution? Come now, that is stretching things a bit.

Their own resolution that they supposedly don’t support; Security Council Resolution 678 “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 foregoing 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;”

show us all your degree in international law and a resume showing you aren't just mob lawyer trying to pick up a side job.

You are the one who is the supposed expert sayng that definitely it is illegal. I am merely quoting UN law and resolutions and asking you to prove they are wrong. Plain English. You can read that I am sure. You don't agree with UN resolutions? Why not?

The Security Council, very pointedly, did not support the US invasion of Iraq. 

Then why didn't they let somebody know about it? Instead they leave the door open with Security Council Resolution 678 “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 foregoing 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;”

An oversight perhaps? They forgot to meet and cancel it? What? Instead, you would have us believe that they bitched and complained but never got around to stopping it? Too busy shopping that day I suppose.

The US, using the same incredibly questionable argument you seem to stuck on, then decided that it did not need to ask permission.

Let's see, the UN, the highest authority on the planet gives you written and recorded authority 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 and you figure that they are legally bound to take that resolution back to the UN and ask if it is still valid after 16 further resolutions over the last twelve years all said that it was? These things were written so that anybody can understand them, Sadddam, you, me, GW. Everybody. You showed me stuff that you understood that was written by Japanese Pacifist Lawers and I understood it. I assume you did as well otherwise you wouldn't have posted it. Are you telling me that what I have posted from an actual autority known as the highest in the world is beyond your understanding?

Come to think of it, I probably could sell you on me being an international lawyer. I mean, you think those guys are on the up and up so you probably would believe anything. Here, I'll make it easy on you. Give me a UN security council resolution made after Jan 2004 that says it is illegal for the US to take action in Iraq and I will say it is illegal. Fair enogh? Not a group of citizens, not a group of lawyers but a UN order.

On the other hand, scince you don't seem to like the actual laws. Would me getting some Right Wing Lawyers opinions make the case? I mean, you only seem to have Left Wing opinion here and at best, opinion of laws written before the UN made the resolutions countering those laws so why not?

[Reverend Blair]

I said I'm not going to discuss it anymore, Krusty. The only thing that will clear it up for either of us is if it goes to court. Political moves on all sides make that unlikely.