Republicans and Democrats - on Iraq

[bush_cheney2004]

Bush went to war with 16 resolutions in hand refering to and affirming violated ceasefire resolution. Just to help out your understanding, a ceasefire, when broken, is no longer a ceasefire. It means a resumption of hostilities. You're wrong.

Bravo! That is the long and short of it for those who need such things to make the war "legal" (LOL!), with precedent set by the prior American administration and UK - military enforcement actions against a sovereign Iraq in violation of ceasefire instruments with each and every one an "act of war". (Then it was on to Kosovo...bombs away!)

[GostHacked]

...What can 500 billion dollars buy?

Universal health care for the planet and all it's residents?

Top notch education for everyone?

Better urban developement?

I can find much more important things to spend that money on.

I'm sure you could, but you don't get to spend the money. And with good reason...look what happened with the Gun Registry!

Th Gun Registry was a bad idea from the start, and quickly showed to be bloated and missmanaged. So you get no arguments here on that. Funny how much I agree with you on things.

[ScottSA]

The international law regarding the use of force is stated in the UN charter. In particular,

Article 2(4): All Members shall 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.

Article 51" Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Article 51 was used by the US to justify its attack on Afghanistan. What you haven't posted is the Charter's third position on the use of force, found in Chapt VII, articles 43-45, allowing the UNSC to decide when an application of force is required. Given resolution 687, that not only makes the invasion legal, but actuallt, by the letter of the law (article 45) makes France's lack of action (and canada's) illegal, or at least not fulfilling its obligations. Ain't THAT a kicker?

Article 45

In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

I take it sweal is still trying to hunt up some international law that outlines degrees of war...unfortunately it doesn't exist.

[Hollus]

"Article 51 was used by the US to justify its attack on Afghanistan"

No it was not. The UN was not involved in the initial invasion of Afghanistan.

What you haven't posted is the Charter's third position on the use of force, found in Chapt VII, articles 43-45, allowing the UNSC to decide when an application of force is required.

You said it. It doesnt say allowing the United States to decide when an application of force is required

Given resolution 687, that not only makes the invasion legal, but actuallt, by the letter of the law (article 45) makes France's lack of action (and canada's) illegal, or at least not fulfilling its obligations. Ain't THAT a kicker?

Once again you seem to be confused of who holds the authority to enforce UN resolutions. Let me clear this up for you: The authority lies strictly with the Security Council.

"Article 45

In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee."

Now if you take a look at the words preceding those you have italicized, who does it enable to take urgent military measures? Say it with me: UNITED NATIONS, not United States. I know they both have the word United in them, but they really mean to very different things.

I take it sweal is still trying to hunt up some international law that outlines degrees of war...unfortunately it doesn't exist.

The crime of war of aggression is listed in Article 5.1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as on of the four most serious crimes of concern to the international community, and it falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Yes, it exists.

[M.Dancer]

"Article 51 was used by the US to justify its attack on Afghanistan"

No it was not. The UN was not involved in the initial invasion of Afghanistan.

I'm not sure if you understand the point. The US didn't need to ask permission of the UN, they US Invoked article 51, which is their right.......

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

[Hollus]

"Article 51 was used by the US to justify its attack on Afghanistan"

No it was not. The UN was not involved in the initial invasion of Afghanistan.

I'm not sure if you understand the point. The US didn't need to ask permission of the UN, they US Invoked article 51, which is their right.......

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Whatever, the rest of my post stands. However, I will point out that Afghanistan did not attack the US, they were simply issued an ultimatum demanding they give up Al Queda residing within their boarders. I dont see how Article 51 applies to their case.