Unlawful war

[Jock Monahan]

Reflect on this,all you 15 minute of fame parasite protesters.
It is the soldier,not the journalist,who gives you the freedom of the press.
It is the soldier,not the journalist,who gives you the freedom of speech.
It is the soldier,not the campus leader,who gives you the right to demonstrate.
It is the soldier who serves under the flag,salutes the flag and whose coffin is draped by the flag,who gives you the right to burn the flag.
We proudly served under that flag you so fervently dessicrate.
We were in conflicts,theatres of war,we were sometimes scared shitless,but we done the job we were trained to do.
SHAME ON ALL YOU GUTTLESS, FACELESS W*NKERS.

[wilson]

Well said Jock monohan,

Aye,
wilson

[MOUSE]

CANT AGREE MORE WITH MOST OF COMMENTS ON THE UN.
UNTIL ITS RUN BY THE RULES IN A POCKET SIZED BOOK IT
WILL CONTINUE TOO BE THE FARSE IT IS TODAY.
TOO MANY PEOPLE IN SUITS LOOKING AFTER NUMBER 1.
KISS, KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID ?
MAYBE A NEW TITLE United New world order ?
EVERYONE CAN JOIN PROVIDED THEY MEET BASIC CRITERIA,
NO GENOCIDE ect.
PERHAPS THE TOSSERS AT THE TOP DONT WANT IT TOO WORK,
AFTER ALL, IMAGINE THE DAMAGE TO THE ARMS INDUSTRY ?
PEACE IN THE 21st CENTURY, SURELY NOT.
P.S ANYONE WANT TO SWAP ANY OIL FOR FOOD.

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK ROYAL!!!

[dan]

Eh? Eh?? Sorry, my hearing aid wasn't in, could you shout any louder?
Just joking, take off Caps Lock and your post would be tons more pleasant to read!

[TexasRanger]

If you examined it closely you would find that most of the countries who throw U.N. approval in our faces are currently or have been recently involved in some form of conflict without U.N. approval.
Russia and Chechnya
China and Tibet
France and Ivory Coast

The whole thing is just a big game in my opinion. George Bush should have just attacked Iraq on Sept 12 when less people would have blamed him. The weapons of mass destruction issue is underestimated. If we cant even disarm Iraq with 18 resolutions then we have no hope of holding proliferators to account anywhere. If the coalition were to fail in this war for some reason. It would be open season for W.M.D. production all over the world. Id rather fight a somewhat conventional war with 2 or 3 countries now than to be held hostage by humanitarian models like Lebanon and Syria. The one good thing that could come out of this war is for countries like North Korea to decide that shock and awe is not for them and to disarm. If huge countries like Russia and China are so completely irresponisble with weapons technology do you really think we will be able to trust countries like Zimbabwe when the whole process becomes as affordable as magazine subscriptions? To make matters worse, world leaders spent the last 15 years doing very little to prevent all this danger. India and Pakistan are now at high noon on the atomic prairie. North Korea waited till the U.S. jet left the airport to restart their nuclear program. Now, with terrorists galavanting around the globe the whole thing has just become too risky. Imagine the effect of a suitcase bomb from Indonesia on down town London. Real heroic tough guys like Clinton sat around for the past decade and watched the whole cauldron come to a boiling point. Now we are in a litteral race against the clock to temper the flames.

I dont know, maybe Im just trying to get my little bullet icons fully colored.

[Sully]

What did Iraq have to do with the WTC attack? There hasn't been any link established between Al Queda and Answar Al Islam. Weren't 15 of the 19 highjackers from Saudi Arabia? How many of them were from Iraq - not that that provides any justification for invading a country. Bizarrely, I saw a poll in which about two thirds of US citizens believed Sadam was responsible for the WTC attack. I think you lot watch too many films.

If you get off on massaging your hurt pride by picking on an easy target that's fine. I don't think its the British way. By the way I've met some fantastic americans - as good a people as you'd find anywhere in the world (notice I said 'as good as').

[Sully]

Oh, and another thing.... .

On the subject of irresponsible countries doling out arms, this has been done to death but where did people like Bin Laden and Heckmattyr get their gear from. Sadam hasn't used his much vaunted WMD yet - even in a fight to the death so what makes you think he would have used them in an unprovoked attack (if he's got any). He hasn't got any delivery systems to challenge the west. The North Koreans have - and its their major export - your move.....

[TexasRanger]

You need to lay off those liberal tabloids friend. The BBC is like anthrax for your brain. Look, nobody believes Sadam ordered 9/11. Its not even relevant. We arent going to be practicing reactionary defence measures anymore. We know he has chem and bio weapons, everyone does. Hell, we even gave him some when he was fighting Iran but that doesnt make him any less of a threat. Remember the anthrax that shut down our senate and postal system in D.C.? Killed 4 or 5 people and shut down several media outlets. It came from Iraq, we know this because it probably matches strains that the CIA gave him. However, he got the bulk of his weaponry from other countries. Our involvement with him was very limited but it did exist. Cold war policies created some problems for us today and we ignore them at our own peril. We also armed and trained Bin Ladden during the war in Afghanistan. At the time the Soviet Union was a major threat to us and we fought communism at every turn. It was a policy that was vital to our survival. This war spilled over into countries like Iran and Iraq. But by your method of rationalising we should just wait for whatever weve got coming because a CIA agent gave Usama an RPG 20 years ago. Get real man. People like Sadam are a huge threat to us, the guy even contracted an assasination of former president Bush. They arrested his hitmen in the U.S. Maybe not a reason for war but it just demonstrates the logic of men like Sadam. If you need a justification for removing Sadam just look at the cease fire agreement he violated after the first war. Then over the years as he violated every resolution passed on him. Let me speak simply. Sadam is a maniac with an arsenal of deadly chemicals that are every terrorists wet dream. We may not be facing a ricin attack tomorrow but it is just a matter of time before he passes (willingly or not) chem and or bio weapons to terrorists. You would probably prefer that we wait for sept 11 part 2 or maybe your only justification for the disarmament will come when my family is choking on lungs full of VX but if its all the same to you I opt to confront this problem now. As for North Korea, I mentioned in my above post that one of the greatest things that could come from this war would be for countries like North Korea and Iran to decide that they want no part of this carnage and disarm peacefully, pursuant to diplomatic means. Think about it amigo.

[Sully]

You need to lay off those liberal tabloids friend

I usually read the Times.

Remember the anthrax that shut down our senate and postal system in D.C.?

The news reports over here have said that the strain was traced to a lab in the US and definitely did not come from Iraq - and the prime suspect seems to be someone who, I think, worked for the US govt. I bow to your superior knowledge though.

If you need a justification for removing Sadam just look at the cease fire agreement he violated after the first war

What happened there? I'm not saying he didn't, just enlighten me. Perhaps a related point is that in 1998 the US started to voice its opinion that sanctions would not necessarily end when Iraq complied with its disarming obligations - perhaps this was after Rumsfelds trip to meet Sadam where he eye'd up all that oil. Given that, is there any wonder that they didn't really feel incentivised to play ball.

You would probably prefer that we wait for sept 11 part 2 or maybe your only justification for the disarmament will come when my family is choking on lungs full of VX

Would I?

I opt to confront this problem now

My hero can I have a t-shirt? What's your contribution? Enjoying your freedom fries? For the record I'm a former Royal Marine Commando and not a tree-hugger - for what its worth.

Time for you to think bud - perhaps about whether this action and the repurcussions through the Arab and Moslem world make the world a safer place. Although the time for thinking about it has long gone - the repurcussions are in the post.

Britain is far more susceptible to the attacks you seem to fear so much - I suppose I could say that the actions of Bush and Blair have made these attacks far more likely and (like you) blame you personally. I think that's an unconstructive and ridiculous line though. Enjoy your 'victory' my friend - feel good?

[TexasRanger]

If your talking about the "Ames strain" it was in production for years both domestically and abroad. There are no reports of labs that produced it in Iraq but I have read several reports that say its entirely possible that Sadam got the strain during the 80's. This isnt by any means proof that terrorists did get this particular anthrax from Iraq but its a mere ripple in the pool. That Sadam has chem and bio weapons is unquestionable and the point is that only a fool would suggest that we never have to worry about any number of weapons from that arsenal falling into the wrong hands. He has the weapons. He agreed to get rid of them. He did not get rid of them. He still has them. He refuses to get rid of them. They are still there. He wont get rid of them. They are still there. 18 resolutions demanded that he get rid of them. They are still there. Is it sinking in yet Sully?


Also, no I dont think you want us to be on the recieving end of a bio or chem attack, I just think you really dont care.

you said "perhaps that was after Rumsfelds trip to meet Sadam where he eyed up all that oil"
Get serious man. We could have taken their oil in 91 if we were that crazed over it. Also, what do you think that petroleum expert D. Rumsfeld went over there and checked the meters on their oil wells to be completely surprised that they had it? Like we had no idea it was even there and all of a sudden he conspired a plot based on his knowledge of who the future president would be to attack the poor peaceful Ba'ath party so that he could take their oil. Thats weak.

you said "enjoy your 'victory' my friend- feel good?"
I have two cousins and a number of friends in Iraq right now. What you are insinuating is that I care not whether they live or die, as long as my misguided reasons for removing imaginary threats are perpetuated. I have dedicated the last 6 years of my life to helping people who are under the thumb of oppression. My current project under ACI will involve the largest ever foriegn assistance program to the Karen and Naga peoples on the Myanmar border. Im going in with 2 dozen ex military personnel for the long haul. I am not a mercenary. All the money for this project I have raised myself. I have been shot twice and I have no illusions about what combat is like. For what its worth.

To take a quote from my childhood. "You started it". No hard feelings though. You and I look at the world and see two different planets. Its not right or wrong, it just is. And like you said the time for thinking about it has passed and with it has passed the need to argue about it. Have a great day.

[Sully]

So, after reading too many liberal tabloids, not caring about whether you or your family die and insinuating that you don't care whether the people you know out there die or not I'm surprised you wish me a great day. I don't know why you feel the need to impute all sorts of ill-will into someone who, after all, sees the world differently. It does your argument no favours by starting from the assumption that someone who doesn't agree with you is thick or somehow tainted in their motives - that reminds me of my childhood.

The foreign assistance programme sounds good (subject to what the ACI is and what their aims are) as long as you don't export any of that awful C&W music. Good luck with it.

[TexasRanger]

The above post was my feeble attempt to excuse all of my sass. How about an apology? sss....ss...sss..sss....sorry. whew!

Whats wrong with C&W music? I guess you have never had the pleasure of smoking a cheroot while listening to George Jones in the jungle. Willy Nelson in the wild or something along those lines.

ACI is the tax exempt handle for our project. It stands for Asia Crusade 1. We basically go into the Burmese jungle with groups liket the Karen and help them set up MASH style hospitals and train them in special forces tactics. Problem is that they end up teaching you as much as you teach them. Have you ever read about the Karen? Half of them are Christians, thats the group we are going to help, naturally. The Nagas are a solid bunch as well. Nagaland straddles Burma and India and is 98% evangelical Christian. The highest percentage in the world. This is a step up from their head hunter days. They are of Chinese origin. Both of the groups share the pleasure of life under Burmas Tamadaw which ensures them a decent size slaughter every year after the rainy season. You ever read SOF mag? The chief foriegn correspondent is going with us on this trip. Thanks for the luck.

[Sully]

You will see that I have edited this message - or rather deleted my friendly banter after reading your comments to Jesse on another thread - by the way, good work Jesse (or shall I call you Nancy - that's my weekend name by the way ).

Tex. God only knows what you get up to with these inferior people you 'help'. We all have our views on immigration here but this shouldn't be confused with bigotry and prejudice. I take people as I find them and can't imagine what goes through the mind of someone who preaches hatred of whole groups of people because their culture is different.

You must be a very angry and bitter man, I feel sorry for people like you.

[Sully]

But, back to the thread (sorry Jules).

The argument put forward by the US and UK govts (plus the ones that have been bought) is that Resolution 1441 is irrelevant. The argument goes that Resolution 678 authorised the Security Council to use its Chapter VII powers and use force against Iraq and that Resolution 687 merely called a ceasefire which was subject to continuing obligations on Iraq to disarm. The 'Coalition of the willing' have maintained that a 'material breach' of 687 revives the authority to use force under 678.

My view is that 678 was cleverly worded in giving authorisation to "Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait" (see para 2). This was thought necessary in order to authorise the liberation of Kuwait and to exclude the ability of other Member States (i.e. Israel) having a pop at Iraq on its own accord. I believe that if this wording was intended to and did exclude the authorisation of Israel using force then it excludes the "Coalition of the willing" now. My view is that 678 does not provide authorisation for Member States to use force without a further UN Security Council resolution expressly authorising such force. This view is supported by the way in which the wording of 687 differs from 686 (which explicitly kept 678 live and was superseded by 687). That said, the concept of 'material breach' is a red herring.

Professor Thomas Franck stated at the proceedings of the American Society of International Law in 1998:

"...to now state that...there remains under Article 51 and Resolution 678, which authorised the use of force, which authorisation was terminated in Resolution 687, a collateral total freedom on the part of any UN member to use military force against Iraq at any point that any member considers there to have been a violation of the conditions set forth in Resolution 687, is to make a complete mockery of the system." (ASIL Proceedings 1998 at p.139)

I think 1441 is relevant, and so do (or did) the US/UK otherwise they wouldn't have bothered with it and not least because recency has a strangely persuasive, if not binding quality in jurisprudence. The Resolution recalls 678, 687 and the rest (by the way Tex, I only counted 9 resolutions referred to in the text of 1441 - perhaps the 'Hicksville Chronicle' or the 'Auschwitz Apologiser' could point me in the direction of the rest). It deplores the action (or rather inaction) of Iraq etc. but does not include the words 'authorised' to 'use all necessary means' in pursuit of a specified goal - the words would have been there if that was the intention.

Secondly, Member States can only derogate from the fundamental prohibition against the use of force contained in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter in self-defence. I don't think that means that some loony in Hicksville is a bit worried about Sadam singling out his family for a VX attack using missiles not even dreamt of yet.

Thirdly, the wording of para 12 of 1441 clearly contemplates that the Security Council and not Member States acting unilaterally will decide on any further action to be taken against Iraq in the event of any non-compliance by Iraq with its obligations under 1441.

In summary, my view is that the agression against a sovereign country (who we all agree has a despotic regime - but then this has never motivated the US before, it has supported many despotic regimes and has overthrown a democratically elected and popular government - Allende's in Chile) is unlawful in international law.

In answer to you question Jules, war crimes are only prosecuted against the losers - stacks of Russians (possibly a few Brits and yanks) could have been tried at the end of WW2 but weren't.

[El Prez]

May I take this opportunity to thank my learned friend for his most absorbing and intensively referenced dissertation. I am certain it may not sit easy with the Forces for Good and World Dominion; but in reply to them I would quote Confucious, "Tough!"