Legality of Iraq War

[ScottSA]

I guess that was the climax of what you could come up with as far as contributions to this thread go. Well done. Congratulations. Everybody's truly impressed.

I would have thought you would have long ago crawled away from this thread with your tail tucked neatly between your legs. Guess I gave you too much credit...

[myata]

I might have considered doing that just to make someone happy. Too late, sorry.

And so, to round this discussion up:

1) There was no credible "common sense" arguments for the war presented here; and,

2) You failed to provide any evidence of your qualified contribution in a specialist discourse on the matter that is recognised by the peers;

To me, it walks and quacks like there's no arguments for the legality of war. So far, at least.

[ScottSA]

I might have considered doing that just to make someone happy. Too late, sorry.

And so, to round this discussion up:

1) There was no credible "common sense" arguments for the war presented here; and,

2) You failed to provide any evidence of your qualified contribution in a specialist discourse on the matter that is recognised by the peers;

To me, it walks and quacks like there's no arguments for the legality of war. So far, at least.

1 The discussion was about the legality of the war, not a subjective "ought" argument destined to go round in circles forever. You do know there's a difference, right?

2 I don't have to provide my credentials before telling you how the system works and what constitutes "legal" within it. Since you're enamoured of "common sense," one would have thought you'd try to produce a conviction instead of a legal opinion. Here are the facts:

a ) The legal opinion Hollus presented is just that: an opinion. It carries no more weight than the legal opinion I presented, concluding the exact opposite.

b ) The only body universally recognized as qualified to render convictions between states in the international arena is the UNSC, through a UNSC resolution.

c ) No UNSC resolution condemning in any way the US for invading Iraq exists.

[GostHacked]

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

No WMDs were found.

Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse."

Certainly looks worse to me.

If you look at the legality of the war in terms of US policies and procedures, the US Congress and Senate both approved of military action against Iraq. In essence, declaring war on Iraq. With support of the resolutions, it looks like it is all legal.

http://thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline

But who cares about actuall laws in this Administration. I don't support the war, never have and never will. because it is legal, certainly does not make it the right thing to do.

[bush_cheney2004]

If you look at the legality of the war in terms of US policies and procedures, the US Congress and Senate both approved of military action against Iraq. In essence, declaring war on Iraq. With support of the resolutions, it looks like it is all legal.

But who cares about actuall laws in this Administration. I don't support the war, never have and never will. because it is legal, certainly does not make it the right thing to do.

That's why we didn't ask for your permission.

[GostHacked]

If you look at the legality of the war in terms of US policies and procedures, the US Congress and Senate both approved of military action against Iraq. In essence, declaring war on Iraq. With support of the resolutions, it looks like it is all legal.

But who cares about actuall laws in this Administration. I don't support the war, never have and never will. because it is legal, certainly does not make it the right thing to do.

That's why we didn't ask for your permission.

That is a very pompous reply. And will not garner you more support, or respect, in the future. The same pompous approach the Bush Administration has taken towards this so called War on Terror. I supported your claim of the legality of the war in terms of what I posted, and yet you come off with a pompous reply. So you get no further help from me. NOT THAT YOU WANTED OR NEEDED IT.

Thanks but, no thanks.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pompous

pom·pous (pmps)

adj.

1. Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious: pompous officials who enjoy giving orders.

2. Full of high-sounding phrases; bombastic: a pompous proclamation.

3. Chracterized by pomp or stately display; ceremonious: a pompous occasion.

Here Bush-Cheney, let me put your earplugs back in, and your blindfold back on. Just ignore everything and it will go away.

[bush_cheney2004]

That is a very pompous reply. And will not garner you more support, or respect, in the future. The same pompous approach the Bush Administration has taken towards this so called War on Terror. I supported your claim of the legality of the war in terms of what I posted, and yet you come off with a pompous reply. So you get no further help from me. NOT THAT YOU WANTED OR NEEDED IT.

It was meant to be "pompous", and ARROGANT too.

Perhaps your "help" is needed elsewhere?

[GostHacked]

That is a very pompous reply. And will not garner you more support, or respect, in the future. The same pompous approach the Bush Administration has taken towards this so called War on Terror. I supported your claim of the legality of the war in terms of what I posted, and yet you come off with a pompous reply. So you get no further help from me. NOT THAT YOU WANTED OR NEEDED IT.

It was meant to be "pompous", and ARROGANT too.

Perhaps your "help" is needed elsewhere?

Are you purposefully trolling? If so, you really need to read this sites guidelines again. One day you will be helped, just like how you are helping the Iraqis right now. Now I know you don't mean it all, I know you really support my side, but you play the Devil's Advocate because well.. it is easier. How can you expect to get support from the crowd with an attitude like that? The Decider does not listen to the people of the United States, so it does not look like much of a democracy/republic with this kind of infintile mentality in the White House. Take George's power away and he will be in the corner crying sucking his thumb huggin his blanket crying for his mommy.

And people wonder why the progress is not there with leadership like this, who's approval rating just gets LIMBO LOWER NOW..... Might as well just lay down and call it quits.

[Hollus]

GostHacked: We are talking international law here. Not domestic.

a ) The legal opinion Hollus presented is just that: an opinion. It carries no more weight than the legal opinion I presented, concluding the exact opposite

b ) The only body universally recognized as qualified to render convictions between states in the international arena is the UNSC, through a UNSC resolution.

c ) No UNSC resolution condemning in any way the US for invading Iraq exists.

Cant argue much with this. However I would like to challenge the Bush administration to re-enter their participation in the International Criminal Court which they so tellingly withdrew from in 2002. Untill that time comes, the world could do without their self-proffesed championing of freedom bullshit mantra. Be honest. Come out and say it: 'We are against freedom and democracy. We aim to dominate the world in every respect and we will kill and maim to do so. We value only power and material wealth. To us the world is only a market and if you interfere with our corporatist elite design you are our enemy.'

I hope that one day all you supporters get what you deserve and I hope it is viciously brutal.

[White Doors]

oh nice

a death threat.

[Hollus]

oh nice

a death threat.

What part of that was a death threat retard?

[myata]

1 The discussion was about the legality of the war, not a subjective "ought" argument destined to go round in circles forever. You do know there's a difference, right?

2 I don't have to provide my credentials before telling you how the system works and what constitutes "legal" within it. Since you're enamoured of "common sense," one would have thought you'd try to produce a conviction instead of a legal opinion.

That however would require a specialist qualification and experience. Of which (your possessing of) there's been no mention here. Without such your telling me how the system works is no different from me telling how it does not. Are we going to discuss quarks theory next?

Here are the facts:

..

b ) The only body universally recognized as qualified to render convictions between states in the international arena is the UNSC, through a UNSC resolution.

c ) No UNSC resolution condemning in any way the US for invading Iraq exists.

That does not prove legality of war, simply that the mechanism of UNSC in condemning unauthorised agression by its permanent and veto wielding member is grossly inadequate. There would be no practical gain for any of the members in bringing up such a resolution. That of course means UNSC is not impartial in the result. It is not a court of law.

[Hollus]

I hope that one day all you supporters get what you deserve and I hope it is viciously brutal.

Let me rephrase this.

I hope all you supporters get drafted.

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you purposefully trolling? If so, you really need to read this sites guidelines again. One day you will be helped, just like how you are helping the Iraqis right now. Now I know you don't mean it all, I know you really support my side, but you play the Devil's Advocate because well.. it is easier. How can you expect to get support from the crowd with an attitude like that? The Decider does not listen to the people of the United States, so it does not look like much of a democracy/republic with this kind of infintile mentality in the White House. Take George's power away and he will be in the corner crying sucking his thumb huggin his blanket crying for his mommy.

And people wonder why the progress is not there with leadership like this, who's approval rating just gets LIMBO LOWER NOW..... Might as well just lay down and call it quits.

Actually, President Bush's approval ratings are better than for the Congress, and certainly on par with voting support for the ruling party of Canada.

You don't have a side that matters when it comes to Iraq....Canada is on the "sidelines" by choice.

The only infantile thing I see are your child-like swipes at the democratically elected head-of-state of another nation.

[bush_cheney2004]

Cant argue much with this. However I would like to challenge the Bush administration to re-enter their participation in the International Criminal Court which they so tellingly withdrew from in 2002. Untill that time comes, the world could do without their self-proffesed championing of freedom bullshit mantra. Be honest. Come out and say it: 'We are against freedom and democracy. We aim to dominate the world in every respect and we will kill and maim to do so. We value only power and material wealth. To us the world is only a market and if you interfere with our corporatist elite design you are our enemy.'

I hope that one day all you supporters get what you deserve and I hope it is viciously brutal.

This is cute....Member Hollus "challenges" the Bush Administration. Do not hold your breath waiting for our "viciously brutal" demise. Better "challenge" the US Congress too:

The American Servicemembers Protection Act's (ASPA) provisions include, subject to full waivers at the discretion of the President:

- Prohibition on cooperation with the International Criminal Court;

- Restrictions on US participation in UN peacekeeping operations;

- Prohibition on direct or indirect transfer of classified national security information, including law enforcement information, to the International Criminal Court, even if no American is accused of a crime;

- Prohibition of US military assistance to parties to the International Criminal Court; and

- Preauthorized authority to free members of the armed forces of the US and certain other persons detained or imprisoned by or on behalf of the international criminal court (the Hague Invasion Clause).

Send Chretien to The Hague for "illegally" bombing Serbs...then maybe we'll think about it...LOL!

[GostHacked]

Again Bush_Cheney..

Send Chretien to The Hague for "illegally" bombing Serbs...then maybe we'll think about it...LOL!

You are correct. Funny how many things we see eye to eye, but yet when it comes to your own incompitent leader, you follow blindly. I did not vote for Harper, and never would have. I would love to see him out of office as well.

You try to rattle chains, but they end up being your own it seems.

[bush_cheney2004]

You are correct. Funny how many things we see eye to eye, but yet when it comes to your own incompitent leader, you follow blindly. I did not vote for Harper, and never would have. I would love to see him out of office as well.

You try to rattle chains, but they end up being your own it seems.

Alas, I often have to take the contrarion approach to get traction on an issue. By challenging the status quo for "good guys" and "bad guys", much is revealed. On the now defunct CBC forums, my greatest and most worthy nemesis begrudgingly complimented me as a superb abstract thinker. It drives some people nuts....the emotional ones are usually first to fold.

I suppose we could share an ale or two with spirited debate.