Are you anti USA or anti Bush?

[maplesyrup]

eureka....seeing as you enjoy the Toronto Star:

Four more years of Dubya? Oh dear!

[caesar]

Give up on Krusty; he is in denial; Brainwashed. Or poerhaps he just likes to argue. trolling, perhaps.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear caesar and eureka, and KK as well...

While it may seem that KK is stuck on arguing point of law, it is valid to do so insofar as 'right and wrong' are meaningless if us, ourselves, ever wind up in court.

We must remember that the US and the UK themselves drafted Resolution 1441, and the UN legitimized it.

My question to KK would be, from a legal point, would be ... If any member nation of the UN could have invaded Iraq to 'force compliance', would the US/UK have supported that nation (even if it were Israel, or, say, France!?) and allowed the 'rebuilding contracts' to be awarded to 'that little red hen'?

Legal standpoint?... it is moot, since the US/UK did it first. ( I'm sure KK would agree)

Secondly, what is keeping other nations from 'enforcing compliance' of other passed resolutions? The wording and legality, of course, but what keeps other nations from drafting their own resolutions with the wording 'enforced' in it to legitimized armed intervention regarding said resolutions?

One need look no further than the IMF, The World Bank, The Carlyle Group, The Council on Foreign Relations and their proximity to the World Trade centers.

[Argus]

But it was not a war; none was declared

It is not a criticism of those soldiers who are risking their lives

It is a criticism of risking those lives for an unjust cause.

Do you know what the cause is?

[Argus]

Iraq was complying; They were allowing the weapons inspectors to check wherever they wanted. There were no illegal WMD. It is a simple task to prove that a country does have WMD; just reveal them. It is another task to prove that a country does not have any WMD.

If Iraq truly was innocent then it was the guiltiest appearing innocent who ever got strung up. Cooperation? Hardly. Have you forgotten how Iraqi scientists were threatened with death if they talked to UN inspectors without their minders? Have you forgotten how the UN inspectors were booted out? Have you forgotten the way the Iraqi's tried to delay them, bug their cars and apartments, refused to allow them to enter certain areas?

[Argus]

What part of those resolutions do you consider justification for the invasion of Iraq? You seem not to have noted that the UN itself declared that they were not. Nowhere do they give America any right to act in defiance of the United Nations.

Okay, you know what? People should stop talking about the UN like it was some kind of government, like it had any kind of authority over anything, like it even had the moral authority that a group which defends justice would have.

The UN is a collection of governments, which, for the most part, are made up of vicious, murdering, thieving, utterly dishonest, dishonourable scum whose only "right" to rule is the guns they hold against the heads of their people. I don't particularly care what the UN thinks on ANY issue. I certainly don't take it as any indication of moral authority.

[Argus]

STATEMENT  BY RUSSIA, CHINA AND FRANCE

Joint statement issued by Russia, China and France outlining their interpretation of UN of the resolution:

These would be the countries which had billions of dollars in oil interests and tens of billions in support contracts with Iraq?

The Russians, crying crockodile tears over the possibility of civilian casualties while lining up regiments of heavy artillery wheel to wheel as they hammer civilian areas of Chechnya, the French, led by a thieving liar who was best friends with Saddam, who took bribes from Sadaam, who did his best to delivery nuclear weapons to Iraq, the Germans, led by a postule of a man, whose industrial and chemical companies were so deep into Iraq they feared it all being exposed?

Don't get me wrong: there are many grounds and reasons of morality and law and simple intelligence on which one could have opposed intervention in Iraq. But these three countries were motivated by pure self-interest and greed. They cared nothing for the well-being of the Iraqi people, and still don't.

[Argus]

Here's an interesting take on the matter...it could be argued that Iraq was in compliance with the UN disarmament resolutions. They indeed destroyed their WMD stockpiles (but did not provide proper documentation) and the UN inspectors were there to prove (or disprove) that compliance.

However, the US/UK coalition simply called the Iraqis 'liars' and invaded, under different auspices other than the UN resolution, namely, a 'regime change'.

From the distance of time people seem to forget that Iraq refused to cooperate, that it actually booted out the UN weapons inspectors and refused to let them back in.

Until, of course, the US and UK forces began to build up on their borders. Then they started making mouth noises about, well, perhaps we might cooperate, maybe, in time, if you're nice to us. After weeks, months of buildup they finally grudgingly concented to let them back in, but then hindered them in their operation, delaying and obstructing wherever possible.

Meanwhile, the US/UK had tens of thousands of soldiers, many of them citizen soldiers called up from their civilian lives, sitting in the desert as the summer season began to approach. There were a lot of commentators at the time saying that there would be no possibility of operations in the summer; too much heat and dust storms.

I think the US just basically decided they could not keep so many men there indefinitely, and that if they brought them home again it would politically impossible to then ship them and their equipment back once again months later - when Saddam decided to play games again. Remember again that such cooperation as he was giving had only come about as their buildup had come near completion and the threat of invasion became real.

I remain convinced that regime change was probably their real reason for invasion. I don't mean they wee terribly upset about the torture and murder victims in Iraq. I mean they felt that if they could bring about a real change in the type of government in that particular location, make it into a somewhat succesful semi-democracy, it would serve as a beacon to the rest of the Arab world and bring immense pressure on neighbouring states, particularly the Iranians and Saudis, to reform.

The only real way to address terrorism, in the long run, is to change the face of the Arab world, to give them some outlet, some hope for redemption from their miserable existence other than religious fanaticism. I think that is what they were really aiming at.

[Argus]

http://www.amenusa.org/Iraq15.htm

There's a starter for you Stoker. Israel leads the pack in ignoring resolutions.

Most of the anti-Israeli resolutions the UN passed were shameful, bigoted and one-sided. They are a tribute to the corruption and prejudice of the UN.

[Argus]

The invasion of Iraq was a morally and unjustified action

Why?

[caesar]

WhY????? Because Iraq/Saddam WAS cooperating with the weapons inspectors; no viable WMD were detected; the American government used fraudulent documents, forgeries and an old plagiarized student paper to state their case!!!!!!

There was NO threat to the USA. Not only did thousands of innocent Iraqis die, thousand seriously injured; American/British soldiers died and thousand were seriously maimed; others will come home with mental problems; many have committed suicide, already. Perhaps another Timothy McVeigh such as came back from the first Gulf War.

I could go on and on and on but....

[Argus]

More than the Resolutions that Israel has ignored (and there are many of them) is the list of proposed Resolutions condemning Israeli actions  that the USA has vetoed. More than half ( I believe over fifty) are on the list.

The UN has been powerless to act on Israel because of the abuse of its position on the Security Council by the US.

There have been occasions when the US vetoed an anti-Israeli resolution it ought not have.

But not many, to be honest.

Let me give you an example of a UN resolution on Israel.

Two years ago the UN issued a resolution condemning Israel for the deaths of Palestinian children and calling on Israel to take all possible steps to ensure their safety and to exempt them, wherever possible, from any violence. It made no acknowledgement of the fact that these "children" - basically anyone under 18, might have been involved in violent acts themselves. The resolution was "The Situation of and Assistance to Palestinian Children"

But consider that Palestinians regularly target Israeli children. I know that some have claimed that Israelis have killed Palestinian kids on purpose, but we're not talking about suspicion here. Palestinians have deliberately sougth out Israeli children to murder on numerous occasions.

So why didn't the resolution condemn violence against children on either side?

Well, last year, for no particular reason, the Palestinians decided to put the same resolution before the UN again, to again condemn Israel for the death of Palestinian kids. And, of course, it passed by an enormous margin. So the Israelis decided to put forth their own resolution, mirroring this one. It was called "The Situation of and Assistance to Israeli Children". It was strongly opposed by all Arab and most Muslim nations, and supposedly moderate nations like Egypt proposed draft changes which removed the word "israeli" to substitute "middle east" and added language condemning Israeli military agression. The consensus was the resolution had no chance whatsoever of passing as it was, not without strong anti-Israeli language being attached and removing any reference to Israeli children, so it was withdrawn.

BTW, Israel is the only member of the UN inelligible to sit on its major bodies, like the Security Council and World Court.

[Argus]

WhY?????  Because Iraq/Saddam WAS cooperating with the weapons inspectors; no viable  WMD were detected; the American government used fraudulent documents, forgeries and an old plagiarized student paper to state their case!!!!!!

There was NO threat to the USA.

Well, leaving aside this alleged cooperation, do you not think there could be other moral justifications for invading Iraq?

[KrustyKidd]

My question to KK would be, from a legal point, would be ... If any member nation of the UN could have invaded Iraq to 'force compliance', would the US/UK have supported that nation (even if it were Israel, or, say, France!?) and allowed the 'rebuilding contracts' to be awarded to 'that little red hen'?

I don't have to deal with that question here as it is not part of the legal argument, rather it is a 'what if?'. I would be happy to get into it on another thread though, or this one when this dies out. Thanks for reminding me about the other nations though, it was something I wanted to bring up to clarify and focus the actual issue without bringing in how many vetos the US has done, how much the reconstruction contracts bring in ans so forth. Stick to the legality or illegality argument itself.

The question is, if this action was illegal, prove that Poland, Spain and Italy commited a crime.

There, that should get rhetoric out of the way and focus us on the legal argument.

[Guest eureka]

None of those countries committes a "crime" unless it is declared that the breach was in aninstance of "absolute liabilty." Here is where "Mens Rea" would come into any charge. They were unaware of a breach since they believed the USA and Britain and acted, as they thought, for the safety of the world.

They are guilty only of the Bush disease - stupidity.

[Guest eureka]

I have not looked at all the UN proposed Resolutions concerning Israel. Since there over fifty vetoed by the US, that would be too big a task and, it would be presumptuous of me to pass judgment on all.

However, many of the Resolutions were unanimous except for America. I do not think it is possible that the world was "ganging up" on Israel all the time and only the US was following the moral course. Many Resolutions would have been passed with the consent of countries that were also favourable to Israel or indebted to the US. Yet, they wished to condemn Israel.

This is not a one-sided issue, as, I think, any fair minded person knows. It is, though, fairly clear that, whatever the history and whatever the favoured solution, Israel is the power in the struggle and it will not accommodate a settlement.

[KrustyKidd]

Show me how what they did was illegal, you know, against the law. even if a doctor speeds on the way to an accident scene, he is still commiting a crime. If he get's there and it was only a crank call, mens rea takes effect and he is off the hook. The crime or illegality has been commited though, it is his justifyable state of mind that gets him off.

Next example, a teen gets into his car and drives down to the strip, obeying every law of the road. He has every intention of breaking every law in the book once he gets there and starts racing. Once there, he sits in his car with nobody to race. Mens rea, the intent to commit a crime yet no crime has been commited? Get real.

As i said, in order for mens rea to come into play, there must be a crime.

However, we seem to have reached an impasse. Somebody else needs to pick up the ball and introduce fresh viewpoints.

Thank you. In the absence of somebody bringing something new, I will observe that there are three positions here. Legal, illegal and neither. Scince neither of us has convinced the other, it may be neither. With the absence of charges and fifty some odd wolrd leaders in irons at the Haugue, I will say that at worst, the world agrees, or is at least, so unsure of it that it cannot make a legally binding call.

Therefore, this was not an illegal warnor can it rightfully be called such until it can be proven otherwise.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

Therefore, this was not an illegal warnor can it rightfully be called such until it can be proven otherwise.

Actually, it was not a war. If it were, it would have been illegal. The US did not officially declare war on Iraq, only on terrorism. Which, in itself, is utterly ridiculous. The US has been trying to play every angle, though, which have made some of their actions illegal.

For example, with no declaration of war, the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay had no Geneva Convention rights (which the US agreed with and used as a 'point of law'). They also had no US constitutional rights as they were being held 'technically' outside of the US. (That is a load of bunk also, as the US defends every base and embassy of theirs as 'soveriegn US soil'). So, in effect, those prisoners were kidnap victims, as no other classification seemed to apply. I realize that those prisoners were from Afghanistan, but no official war declaration was filed against that nation either. (With Iraq, the US claimed to be enforcing a UN resolution, so it felt that no declaration would be needed.)

Saddam Hussein cannot be considered a P.O.W. without a declaration of war either.

The problem lies with the fact that an aggressor nation declaring war on another becomes responsible for the welfare of that nation, and must bear the costs of occupation (and the stigma that goes along with that name). Something that the US is keen to avoid.

As for 'war crimes', again, a war must be declared. Certainly torturing prisoners to death would be considered one, but only the interrogators and Rumsfeld could be held accountable.

[Guest eureka]

The doctor's defense would be necessity, not Mens Rea

[Argus]

I have not looked at all the UN proposed Resolutions concerning Israel. Since there over fifty vetoed by the US, that would be too big a task and, it would be presumptuous of me to pass judgment on all.

However, many of the Resolutions were unanimous except for America.

This is simply not true. Few were unanimous. The one about Palestinians was unanimous, for example. One of the reasons why was that a deal was struck with Israel promising them that they would be allowed to introduce an identical bill about Israeli children and that it would be allowed to be voted on as it was. That deal was betrayed.

Many Resolutions would have been passed with the consent of countries that were also favourable to Israel or indebted to the US. Yet, they wished to condemn Israel.

The Muslim states teamed up with the Soviet bloc and then paid the Africans and other third world countries to vote with them so that their resolutions mostly passed. I suggest you examine the nations who voted against Israel most consistently. You will find, without exception, that they are dictatorships which treat their people far worse than the Israelis treat the Palestinians.

This is not a one-sided issue, as, I think, any fair minded person knows. It is, though, fairly clear that, whatever the history and whatever the favoured solution, Israel is the power in the struggle and it will not accommodate a settlement.

It is impossible to reach an agreement without both sides being willing. The last time one was attempted it fell apart mainly on the insistence on the Palestinian "Right of Return". The Palestinians and Arabs insist that all Palestinians who used to live in the current territory of the state of Israel, along with their descendants, be permitted to go home. As this is some millions of people who violently hate Israelis the idea is ludicrous. It would mean the end of the state of Israel.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

It would seem that your take on the matter is incredibly one-sided.

The Palestinians and Arabs insist that all Palestinians who used to live in the current territory of the state of Israel, along with their descendants, be permitted to go home.

The Israelis call it 'making aliyah. The chosen ones of G-d have that right, but no one else. For the Bible(at least theOld Testament) lays down the 'legal' deed to the land.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Furhermore, I suggest you read up on 'The Stern gang' before you pass judgement on 'Intifada'.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

It would seem that your take on the matter is incredibly one-sided.

The Palestinians and Arabs insist that all Palestinians who used to live in the current territory of the state of Israel, along with their descendants, be permitted to go home.

The Israelis call it 'making aliyah. The chosen ones of G-d have that right, but no one else. For the Bible(at least theOld Testament) lays down the 'legal' deed to the land.

I do not care a damned what the old testiment calls it or how it might resemble the Jews returning to Palestine. The point is it will NEVER happen. You cannot possibly expect Israel, a land of just over six million people, the Jewish state - to take in an estimated 4-5 million Arabs - who hate Jews with a passion we in North American can hardly imagine. Think of trying to persuade Quebec to take in 6 or 7 million Anglos, then multiply by ten. That is the kind of response you'd get.

If this is a deal breaker then there will NEVER be a deal.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

a land of just over six million people, the Jewish state - to take in an estimated 4-5 million Arabs

I would suspect that is why the fence is going up. Once the Arab population exceeds the Jewish population, the Israelis will have to discard democracy.

I do not care a damned what the old testiment calls it or how it might resemble the Jews returning to Palestine.

'Making Aliyah' is what the 'Jewish right of return' is called today. It is openly encouraged for one religion, discouraged for another, and ironically all are the same race, the 'Semites', and one could argue, beleive in the same God, or G-d.

Would a God by any other name be as cruel?

[Argus]

a land of just over six million people, the Jewish state - to take in an estimated 4-5 million Arabs

I would suspect that is why the fence is going up. Once the Arab population exceeds the Jewish population, the Israelis will have to discard democracy.

I suspect if the Arab population exceeded the Jewish population they would indeed have to discard democracy as there seems little respect for democracy among Arabs. Democracy requires compromise and respect for the rights of others to do that which offends you, and I have not noticed a great predeliction for this in the Arab world.

And in any event, you are ignoring the point: which is that no reasonable person could expect the Israelis to absord that many people who despise them. Let the Palestinians go and live in Arab nations. There is no physical, cultural, religious, racial or linguistic difference between them anyway.