If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I go by the following criteria though: seeing as we went into war on the premises that Saddam
a) had WMDs
b) was a clear and present threat to others
c) had links to Al Qaida, terrorism and 9/11
and all those things turned out to be nothing but lies (and lies the US and British government were full aware of as well), the war must be illegal and Bush and Blair should be tried at The Hague.
Not that it's going to happen though... :rolleyes:
I am going to find a link to those resolutions so bare with me.
But that doesn't make the war ethical, im just saying technically it was legal.
Nah, bollocks. Techincally it was illegal. All government action is.
In fact, you can make a case for either viewpoint, this is what the law is designed to do - to enforce the opinion's of one man on another and make it look legitimate.
You and other apologists spout this soundbite repeatedly without, I suspect, having ever so much as read those previous resolutions (which by theway, if there be no international law, are unusable as any sort of argument whatsoever).
None of those previous resolutions authorised, nor could authorise unilateralist unprovoked invasion for the purpose of regime change which is patently illegal under multiple far longer existing international conventions not to mention the UN charter itself.
This war was every bit equal in criminal principle to the precept set forth to judge Nazi Germany for its own pursuit of war of aggression. I suggest our apologists read carefully the unambiguous tenets of that document and take them to heart.
Detailed Legal analysis of illegality of the US invasion and occupation
Additional lengthy legal analysis on the illegality of the US invasion
I never said there was no international law so why are you saying i did???
Why call me an apologist for the war? I am not now nor ever apologising and i have already made my position clear that i supported the war on regime change, though in hindsight i see how bad an idea the war was.
Finally, why post links to things that only support your beliefs? Why not post a link to the UN showing ALL UN resolutions, especially the ones from several years ago authorising military action against Iraq that were never ever acted upon. i believe it was at the time UN weapons inspectors were expelled from the country, possibly during the Clinton Administration. Any UN resolutions authorising military action make the war Legal and not unilateral action, they just mean several governments of the world changd their minds. Do not blame me just because the already existing Resolutions were never undone, or attempted to be undone as a result of VETO power held by Britain and America.
The reasons given for going to war have nothing to do with the old resolutions passed, but resolutions passed earlier make action legal, however the reasons that brought about the resolutions and the reason given for war were not the same. But as an action was never taken at the time, it doesnt change that the lagality existed.
Unless you are saying, like Klintock, that no action ever taken by troops as a result of UN reslutions is legal? Coz if you are...then yes you are right.
I was merely stating a technical point, i was not picking sides. So stop posting innaccurate replies to my posts, when you cannot even be bothered to read them first!
You are not the only person being addressed in my post subject. What does not apply to you is not directed at you. Wlakingdude HAS asserted that there is NO international law and to that my comment in that regard is asserted.
I post links to legal analysis which did not receive the sort of braod mainstream media coverage as those politically pressured admissions from the "official" legal spokesmen touted by both Bush and Blair to justify their circumvention of clear and unambiguous precepts against war of aggression and regime change.
As stated before, the legal principles remain consistent, it is our governments who have circumvented or otherwise disregarded them intentionally thanks solely to the unopposable military might at their disposal.
UN inspectors were never "expelled", they were pulled out by Washington in advance of Clinton's bombing raid. This lie has apparently persisted despite countless articles exposing its untruth.
Once again, NO they don't nor didn't make it legal. No earlier resolution gave any authorisation either for the unprovoked invasion of Iraq nor the right to decide its internal political disposition. I suggest you read the prior resolutions (going back to the early 90's) if you will not bother to read the legal analyses on the very argument you repeatedly employ. Repetition of your assertion makes it no less unfounded in empirical fact.
Also, what about UN resolutions 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1194, 1205?
I thought one of them expressed permission for military action. Do none of them at all? because i was sure 4 of them implied concern and 2 implied permission of action...Though if they do not, then there was no legallity, hmmm.
The Bush admin's (and Blair's) disregard not only for the explicit and unambiguous precepts set forth in the UN Charter itself (which only authorises military force as a defense against unprovoked transnational aggression) but also for the Nuremberg Principles (which again unambiguously define the characteristics of War Crimes and Crimes against the Peace) show them for the adherents to "might makes right" imperialism, and not "the rule of law", which - like those judged by those same principles in an earlier era - they are. Legal snowjobs from politically blackmailed or willingly collusionist mouthpieces notwithstanding.
I advocate it insofar as it is equally applied to all, mighty as well as weak. As evidence to the contrary has been amply demonstrated dozens upon dozens of times in my lifetime alone by the US and other powers, I don't "believe in" its validity in any manner other than as a matter or principle.
Its employment as a rhetorical cudgel by those simulataneously excusing themselves from all accountability thereto is a subject that I will, however, until my dying day.