It *still* doesn't matter if they find a drum full of unusable chemicals.

[JanMichael]

Our argument rests on the "Imminant Threat", and 9-11 connection, lie which is still a lie! Hell most of us here said they probably have some prohibited weapons, I'm SHOCKED that they haven't found anything so far into the game.

Plus I think it's pretty well obvious, to even the thickest freeper, that should they stumble across something that can be loosely call a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" it's purely be chance. All of the proclamations of quantities, locations, capabilities were 100% conjecture.

That's why is shouldn't matter.

Yet the idiot press will screw us once again...Yippee...

But we were right to oppose this travesty.

[MaverickX]

1. lack of imminent threat doesn't mean using force wasn't necessary..

It simply means unilateralism was uncalled for. DUers need to read up on international law.

[htuttle]

2. As a matter of fact, I have

And according to international law, the US invasion of Iraq was illegal without the imminent threat.

There's no sense exploring a 'what if' the US had obtained Security Council authorization -- they DIDN'T.

That's like saying, it would have been legal to invade Iraq if Saddam Hussein had invaded Kentucky -- so what, he didn't.

[MaverickX]

6. actually international law..

Allows for a country to go to war based on self-defense and self-defense is very hard to define, hence I feel foolish saying it was an "illegal war". However I do feel going it alone was a huge mistake which really pushed the boundaries of international law.

[bvar22]

8. Using the same criteria...

...the only thing wrong with Hitler's invasion of Poland was that it was unilateral.

[MaverickX]

10. not exactly..

Did Poland have a history of violating international mandates and invading its neighbors? Hitler invaded Poland to cede territory, not enforce international mandates.

[JanMichael]

13. But we didn't "Go it alone".

The "Coalition of the Willing" were with us lock stck and barrel.

The British were there from the start with thousands of troops and equipment.

[MaverickX]

16. two countries..big deal

n/t

[htuttle]

15. Fine. Make your case

In what manner was Iraq an imminent threat to the United States?

Here's article 51, under which you imply that the US invasion of Iraq was justified:

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

So, where's your proof that we were at risk of an armed attack against us by Iraq?

And speaking of the rest of the stuff in Article 51, has Bush:
- immediately reported to the Security Council to explain and justify the military action?
- if the 'threat' to us has passed, has Bush allow the Security Council to take measures to handle the situation? Note: the permission granted by Article 51 only extends until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
- has Bush acknowledged (and acted in accordance with) that the Security Council still has authority in Iraq?

Bah. Now give me your talking points that justify this clusterf*ck.

[MaverickX]

17. I never said they were an imminent threat..

I just think debating the legality is a waste of time. I said I believe a unilateral attack was the wrong thing to do, the rest is semantics.

[htuttle]

18. I'll try that point...

...the next time I'm arrested for something.

"Debating the legality of my actions is a waste of time, officer...it's just semantics..."

[MaverickX]

19. international law isn't as straightforward as domestic law...

There is really no body that has governing jurisdiction over the world.

[htuttle]

22. What?

Every treaty has jurisdiction over the parties to the treaty, correct? If not, why would anyone ever sign one?

We signed (and wrote most of) the UN charter. That gives the UN charter jurisdiction over the US on the points that we agreed to in the Charter (using the enforcement mechanisms spelled out in the Charter).

In case that's not clear enough, Article VI of our own Constitution places treaties signed by our government on an equal level with bills passed by the legislature. They are both called the 'supreme law of the land'. So if nothing else, our own Constitution provides jurisdiction as far as the United States is concerned.

If you are taking the stance that since nobody appears to have sufficient military force to 'arrest' the United State, that the Charter is meaningless, then you are voting for international barbarism, sans rule of law.

International law isn't rocket science, either. Lots of people try to make it more complicated than it is to obfuscate the fact that the US runs roughshod over it all the time.

[JanMichael]

20. Hmm. I wasn't making any legal arguments.

I simply said that we we right to protest this Invasion and they are liars. Yet your first response was:

"lack of imminent threat doesn't mean using force wasn't necessary..
It simply means unilateralism was uncalled for. DUers need to read up on international law."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=223092#223100

Curious as to why you'd jump on that issue? It looks like a defence of the Administration, which I'm positive that you'd never intend that to happen.

[MaverickX]

21. which issue?

The administration supported unilateralism and I don't.

[JanMichael]

25. The "Legality" issue. You contend that it was not an Illegal act, no?

You said that some DU'ers should brush up on International Law, no?

I wasn't playing the Legal/Illegal card though.

However, since you've insisted, here you go:

The International Commission of Jurists said the following,


http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en

"The ICJ today expressed its deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression. The United States, the United Kingdom and Spain have signalled their intent to use force in Iraq in spite of the absence of a Security Council Resolution. There is no other plausible legal basis for this attack. In the absence of such Security Council authorisation, no country may use force against another country, except in self-defence against an armed attack."

Here's something from a BBC article that argues both sides of 1441,"But as for what would happen if he did not do so, 1441 merely reminded him of the serious consequences threatened in previous resolutions.

It did not authorise member states to use all necessary means to enforce it - the key phrase in Security Council resolution 678 that gave authority for the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991.

The reason 1441 was ambiguous is that France and Russia would not agree to such clarity.

Many experts in international law say the absence of explicit wording means that 1441 does not authorise force."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2850043.stm

[alcuno]

24. You could make the argument that the president violated his oath

of office and thus the war was "illegal." I believe that taking a country to war under false pretenses could be grounds for impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

I don't think the argument is the violation of international law, but rather US law.

[JanMichael]

3. I'm talking about their selling of this garbage.

"uncalled for"? Hmm. I'd use stronger terminology. Then again since I was opposed to the Invasion from the beginning and have (so far) been proven correct that should be expected.

Back to your subtle defence of the BFEE: Explain why it was necessary to Invade then Occupy?

[MaverickX]

5. they weren't disclosing evidence of dismantling..

Their weapons program. By the way, serious foreign policy students don't use loaded terms like BFEE, it oversimplifies things.

[JanMichael]

11. We're not in class silly.

It's a message board not a Political Science classroom:eyes:

BTW you still haven't answered my question. What justified our actions when all the reasons were fabrications?

Not, in our opinion, having disclosed dismantling of a weapon's program that they have obviously dismantled to a great degree is weak as an excuse for an Invasion and Occupation.

You any relation to Tony Blair?

[MaverickX]

12. no offense..

But I'm tired of typing the same things on several different posts.

[JanMichael]

14. None taken.

.

[never cry wolf]

7. even the mossad

had dropped iraq way down on their list of imminent threats, or so i heard on guy james yesterday. sadaams conventional military was decimated and his WMD nearly non-existant. the PNAC published an 80 page or so document in 1998 essentially calling for US global hegemony. they wanted to start in iraq so they could control the oil. with their hand on the nozzle, potential rivals such as the EU or China could be easily stifled by cutting them off. they talk about a build up of the US military and how it will take some time, barring a "pearl harbor" type event. well, they got their pearl harbor and their long planned war that had nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of threat to the USA or iraq's neighbors. go to the PNAC website and read this document for yourself, it's all down there in black and white. also take note of the PNAC members like rummy, wolfowicz, perle, jeb bush, cheney, murdoch anddozens of others who are making the policy for our country now. every single justification given publically for the war was a truckload of crap.

[never cry wolf]

4. you are right on it

it was the imminent threat and ties to the "terrasts" that was put forth as the justification for instituting the PNAC policy. it actually boggles my mind how thinly veiled the neo-con plans are and how the mainstream press still won't push them. everyone here knows that the war was planned years ago and all the reasons given by the misadministration were pure bullshit. most here also believe in LIHOP and/or MIHOP as a way to accelerate their plans.

it is sometimes so frustrating that we have to cheer over the yellowcakegate (which apparently has faded away) while the depth of the lies and dirty deeds runs so goddamn deep. i guess that mainstream can't handle a niagra falls and we will have to settle for now on the drip, drip, drip hoping the floodgates break someday.

i have sent links to the PNAC foreign policy paper to many local columnists and papers, seems like no one will touch it. the truth is out there so WTF!!!!!!!!

[Demobrat]

9. Nothing they find/plant now can positioned as an "imminent threat".

They're just going to have to jump up and down and scream real loud and hope it works to drown out all the skeptics. And it might. There is somebody out there, though, who just might have the motivation and the guts to scream out the truth, and may even have the media coverage to get noticed. Of course I'm talking about Howard Dean. Kucinich, of course, will try, but he at this point is a bit easier for the press to ignore (unfortunately). Kerry will talk for five minutes and never get to the point. Maybe Clark will jump in, but if he hasn't announced nobody will listen.

[alcuno]

23. Some idiot said this morning that there was no reason for a desert

country to have all those pesticides. I think it was yet another brain dead Republican congressman. This was after RETURNING from Iraq. Busy having photo ops with GI's, he must have missed the Tigris and Euphrates and all that farmland through the central part of the country.