Why the war with Iraq is completely LEGAL!

by dolphman 21 Replies latest social current

  • dolphman

    Look, I keep hearing all this garbage that the war is illegal and blah blah blah goes against international law but get this:

    In 1991 Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement that basically said in agreeing to all it's requirements US promised to stop blowing the crap out of retreating Iraqi units. the requirements were:

    Submitting to UN weapons inspections and disarming themselves of WMD

    Allowing No-Fly zones (which means not shooting at them)

    maybe some other stuff i cant remember...

    So, in theory, since a cease-fire aggreement is NOT an official armstinance, which is a formal end to war, but merely a cessation of hostilities as long as certain requirements are met, then in theory, when the UN inspectors were forced to leave in 1998 and since the first time a US aircraft was shot at in the no-fly zone, then the Iraqis have been in Violation of this LEGAL aggreement and therefore subject to military strikes...Basically, Clinton's impotent strike in 1998 was the first salvo and now we are in the endgame....So, because the iraqis have violated the cease fire aggreement, then we have the legal right to re-engage in hostilities...

    hmmmm....am I brilliant, or have I missed something?

  • Simon

    I think this is a massive over-simplification

    The US and UK have attacked ground targets in the no-fly-zone for years ... where was this in the agreement?

  • ThiChi

    Nothing like the facts.

    Over 30 nations are assisting the US. This is second only to WWll when 47 Nations indirectly or directly helped the US......UN passed 1441 that calls for action.....

    However some still insist to make peace with the Devil at any expense.....Stockholm Syndrome? Who knows!

  • ThiChi

    No, it a massive rationalization!

    The "no fly zone" is an ongoing act of war...did you know that?.....

    Legal experts agree......

  • Simon
    Over 30 nations are assisting the US.

    Do we have the list of countries anywhere? I suspect that anyone not actively objecting is put on the list as supporting it and most importantly, it does not include major countries like Russia, China, France, Germany etc... but probably lots of little "island states" and the like.

    This is second only to WWll when 47 Nations indirectly or directly helped the US......

    That was totally different. We weren't "helping the US" ... we were already in it and fighting for years before you showed up. Over here, it's the 1939 - 1945 war ...

    UN passed 1441 that calls for action.....

    When 1441 was passed, it was clearly not a mandate for war. This is why the US and UK were going for the second resolution. Why would they do that if they didn't need to?!

    However some still insist to make peace with the Devil at any expense.....Stockholm Syndrome? Who knows!

    No, we want to save innocent lives. You want to go to war at any expense ... phsychotic? Who knows!

  • dolphman

    wow simon funny how you left out the UN arms inspectors in that comment. Any replies on that?

    so hmmm....the Americans and UK just love randomly blowing up stuff in the desert. I suppose if I was flying in a supposedly safe no-fly zone, and someone decided to SHOOT at me, I'd perhaps bomb a ground target.

    And just what are those ground targets anyway? hmmm? hospitals? day-cares? how about mobile anti aircraft systems....that's more likely.

    remember Simon, the Iraqi's LOST, which means they don't get to decide who flys over their country or doesn't. They signed the paper-work.

    You make it sound like the UK and US bomb stuff for the fun of it. In either case, if they are being fired on, they have EVERY right to.

    that's what happens when you lose a war, you lose.

  • ThiChi

    1. The Gulf War and Conditions of the Cease-Fire

    On August 2, 1990, President Saddam Hussein of Iraq initiated the
    brutal and unprovoked invasion and occupation of Kuwait. The United
    States and many foreign governments, working together and through the
    UN, sought by diplomatic and other peaceful means to compel Iraq to
    withdraw from Kuwait and to establish international peace and security
    in the region.

    President George H.W. Bush's letter transmitted to Congress on January
    16, 1991, was accompanied by a report that catalogued the extensive
    diplomatic, economic, and other peaceful means pursued by the United
    States to achieve U.S. and UNSC objectives. It details adoption by the
    UNSC of a dozen resolutions, from Resolution 660 of August 2, 1990,
    demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait, to Resolution 678 on
    November 29, 1990, authorizing member states to use all necessary
    means to "implement Resolution 660," to implement "all subsequent
    relevant resolutions," and "to restore international peace and
    security in the area."

    Despite extraordinary and concerted efforts by the United States,
    other countries, and international organizations through diplomacy,
    multilateral economic sanctions, and other peaceful means to bring
    about Iraqi compliance with UNSC resolutions, and even after the UN
    and the United States explicitly informed Iraq that its failure to
    comply with UNSC resolutions would result in the use of armed force to
    eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait, Saddam Hussein's regime remained
    intransigent. The President ordered the U.S. armed forces, working in
    a coalition with the armed forces of other cooperating countries, to
    liberate Kuwait. The coalition forces promptly drove Iraqi forces out
    of Kuwait, set Kuwait free, and moved into southern Iraq.

    On April 3, 1991, the UNSC adopted Resolution 687, which established
    conditions for a cease-fire to suspend hostilities. Among other
    requirements, UNSCR 687 required Iraq to (1) destroy its chemical and
    biological weapons and ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150
    km; (2) not use, develop, construct, or acquire biological, chemical,
    or nuclear weapons and their delivery systems; (3) submit to
    international inspections to verify compliance; and (4) not commit or
    support any act of international terrorism or allow others who commit
    such acts to operate in Iraqi territory. On April 6, 1991, Iraq
    communicated to the UNSC its acceptance of the conditions for the

    2. Iraq's Breach of the Cease-Fire Conditions: Threats to Peace and

    Since almost the moment it agreed to the conditions of the cease-fire,
    Iraq has committed repeated and escalating breaches of those
    conditions. Throughout the first seven years that Iraq accepted
    inspections, it repeatedly obstructed access to sites designated by
    the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International
    Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). On two occasions, in 1993 and 1998,
    Iraq's refusal to comply with its international obligations under the
    cease-fire led to military action by coalition forces. In 1998, under
    threat of "severest consequences," Iraq signed a Memorandum of
    Understanding pledging full cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA and
    "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted" access for their
    inspections. In a matter of months, however, the Iraqi regime
    suspended cooperation, in part as an effort to condition compliance on
    the lifting of oil sanctions; it ultimately ceased all cooperation,
    causing the inspectors to leave the country.

    On December 17, 1999, after a year with no inspections in Iraq, the
    UNSC established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and
    Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) as a successor to UNSCOM, to address
    unresolved disarmament issues and verify Iraqi compliance with the
    disarmament required by UNSCR 687 and related resolutions. Iraq
    refused to allow inspectors to return for yet another three years.

    3. Recent Diplomatic and Other Peaceful Means Rejected by Iraq

    On September 12, 2002, the President addressed the United Nations
    General Assembly on Iraq. He challenged the United Nations to act
    decisively to deal with Iraq's systematic twelve-year defiance and to
    compel Iraq's disarmament of the weapons of mass destruction and
    delivery systems that continue to threaten international peace and
    security. The White House background paper, "A Decade of Deception and
    Defiance: Saddam Hussein's Defiance of the United Nations" (September
    12, 2002), summarizes Iraq's actions as of the time the President
    initiated intensified efforts to enforce all relevant UN Resolutions
    and demonstrates the failure of diplomacy to affect Iraq's conduct:

    For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein has deceived and defied the
    will and resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by, among
    other things: continuing to seek and develop chemical, biological, and
    nuclear weapons, and prohibited long-range missiles; brutalizing the
    Iraqi people, including committing gross human rights violations and
    crimes against humanity; supporting international terrorism; refusing
    to release or account for prisoners of war and other missing
    individuals from the Gulf War era; refusing to return stolen Kuwaiti
    property; and working to circumvent the UN's economic sanctions.

    The President also summarized Iraq's response to a decade of
    diplomatic efforts and its breach of the cease-fire conditions on
    October 7, 2002, in an address in Cincinnati, Ohio:

    Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the
    Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction,
    to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for
    terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those
    obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological
    weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and
    support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The
    entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance,
    deception and bad faith.

    In response to the President's challenge of September 12, 2002, and
    after intensive negotiation and diplomacy, the UNSC unanimously
    adopted UNSCR 1441 on November 8, 2002. The UNSC declared that Iraq
    "has been and remains in material breach" of its disarmament
    obligations, but chose to afford Iraq one "final opportunity" to
    comply. The UNSC again placed the burden on Iraq to comply and disarm
    and not on the inspectors to try to find what Iraq is concealing. The
    UNSC made clear that any false statements or omissions in declarations
    and any failure by Iraq to comply with UNSCR 1441 would constitute a
    further material breach of Iraq's obligations. Rather than seizing
    this final opportunity for a peaceful solution by giving full and
    immediate cooperation, the Hussein regime responded with renewed
    defiance and deception.

    For example, while UNSCR 1441 required that Iraq provide a "currently
    accurate, full and complete" declaration of all aspects of its weapons
    of mass destruction ("WMD") and delivery programs, Iraq's Declaration
    of December 7, 2002, failed to comply with that requirement. The
    12,000-page document that Iraq provided was little more than a
    restatement of old and discredited material. It was incomplete,
    inaccurate, and composed mostly of recycled information that failed to
    address any of the outstanding disarmament questions inspectors had
    previously identified.

    In addition, since the passage of UNSCR 1441, Iraq has failed to
    cooperate fully with inspectors. It delayed until two-and-a-half
    months after the resumption of inspections UNMOVIC's use of aerial
    surveillance flights; failed to provide private access to officials
    for interview by inspectors; intimidated witnesses with threats;
    undertook massive efforts to deceive and defeat inspectors, including
    cleanup and transshipment activities at nearly 30 sites; failed to
    provide numerous documents requested by UNMOVIC; repeatedly provided
    incomplete or outdated listings of its WMD personnel; and hid
    documents in homes, including over 2000 pages of Iraqi documents
    regarding past uranium enrichment programs. In a report dated March 6,
    2003, UNMOVIC described over 600 instances in which Iraq had failed to
    declare fully activities related to its chemical, biological, or
    missile procurements.

    Dr. Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, reported to the UNSC on
    January 27, 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine
    acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of
    it." Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of the IAEA, reported
    that Iraq's declaration of December 7 "did not provide any new
    information relevant to certain questions that have been outstanding
    since 1998." Both demonstrated that there was no evidence that Iraq
    had decided to comply with disarmament obligations. Diplomatic efforts
    have not affected Iraq's conduct positively. Any temporary changes in
    Iraq's approach that have occurred over the years have been in
    response to the threat of use of force.

    On February 5, 2003, the Secretary of State delivered a comprehensive
    presentation to the UNSC using declassified information, including
    human intelligence reports, communications intercepts and overhead
    imagery, which demonstrated Iraq's ongoing efforts to pursue WMD
    programs and conceal them from UN inspectors. The Secretary of State
    updated that presentation one month later by detailing intelligence
    reports on continuing efforts by Iraq to maintain and conceal
    proscribed materials.

    Despite the continued resistance by Iraq, the United States has
    continued to use diplomatic and other peaceful means to achieve
    complete and total disarmament that would adequately protect the
    national security of the United States from the threat posed by Iraq
    and which is required by all relevant UNSC resolutions. On March 7,
    2003, the United States, United Kingdom, and Spain presented a draft
    resolution that would have established for Iraq a March 17 deadline to
    cooperate fully with disarmament demands. Since the adoption of UNSCR
    1441 in November 2002, there have been numerous calls and meetings by
    President Bush and the Secretary of State with other world leaders to
    try to find a diplomatic or other peaceful way to disarm Iraq. On
    March 13, 2003, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN asked for members of the
    UNSC to consider seriously a British proposal to establish six
    benchmarks that would be used to measure whether or not the regime in
    Iraq is coming into full, immediate, and unconditional compliance with
    the pertinent UN resolutions. On March 16, 2003, the President
    traveled to the Azores to meet with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose
    Manuel Durao Barroso, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Spanish
    Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar to assess the situation and confirm
    that diplomatic and other peaceful means have been attempted to
    achieve Iraqi compliance with all relevant UNSC resolutions. Despite
    these diplomatic and peaceful efforts, Iraq remains in breach of
    relevant UNSC resolutions and a threat to the United States and other
    countries. Further diplomatic efforts were suspended reluctantly
    after, as the President observed on March 17, "some permanent members
    of the Security Council ha[d] publicly announced they will veto any
    resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq."

    The lesson learned after twelve years of Iraqi defiance is that the
    appearance of progress on process is meaningless - what is necessary
    is immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation in the complete
    disarmament of Iraq's prohibited weapons. As a result of its repeated
    failure to cooperate with efforts aimed at actual disarmament, Iraq
    has retained weapons of mass destruction that it agreed, as an
    essential condition of the cease-fire in 1991, not to develop or
    possess. The Secretary of State's February 5, 2003, presentation cited
    examples, such as Iraq's biological weapons based on anthrax and
    botulinum toxin, chemical weapons based on mustard and nerve agents,
    proscribed missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver weapons of
    mass destruction, and mobile biological weapons factories. The
    Secretary of State also discussed with the Security Council Saddam
    Hussein's efforts to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

    The dangers posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long-range
    missiles are clear. Saddam Hussein has already used such weapons,
    repeatedly. He used them against Iranian troops in the 1980s. He used
    ballistic missiles against civilians during the Gulf War, firing Scud
    missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia. He used chemical weapons
    against the Iraqi people in Northern Iraq. As Congress stated in 1998
    in Public Law 105-235, "Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction
    programs threaten vital United States interests and international
    peace and security." Congress concluded in Public Law 105-338 that
    "[i]t should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
    remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
    promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that

    In addition, Congress stated in the Authorization for Use of Military
    Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), that:

    Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the
    United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf
    region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its
    international obligations by, among other things, continuing to
    possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
    capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
    supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

    Nothing that has occurred in the past twelve years, the past twelve
    months, the past twelve weeks, or the past twelve days provides any
    basis for concluding that further diplomatic or other peaceful means
    will adequately protect the national security of the United States
    from the continuing threat posed by Iraq or are likely to lead to
    enforcement of all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq and the
    restoration of peace and security in the area.

    As the President stated on March 17, "[t]he Iraqi regime has used
    diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage." Further delay in
    taking action against Iraq will only serve to give Saddam Hussein's
    regime additional time to further develop WMD to use against the
    United States, its citizens, and its allies. The United States and the
    UN have long demanded immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation
    by Iraq in the disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction. There
    is no reason to believe that Iraq will disarm, and cooperate with
    inspections to verify such disarmament, if the U.S. and the UN employ
    only diplomacy and other peaceful means.

  • Simon


    Do you ever intend to stop in on one topic and debate or are you just going to do hit and run topic hopping?


  • LB

    Asking what is legal is almost like asking what is the truth? It can be debated over and over. We have thousands of thousands of pages on the law in our country, yet nothing is ever simple.

    What counts is that there is a war. What happens if this is an illegal war? Going to arrest the USA?

    It's on, people from both sides are already being killed. I do appreciate the opening of this war, targeting what they feel are key targets, key personal. They are now preparing the battle field for the real war to follow. US troops are on Iraqi soil already. We have invaded in all senses of the word.

    I would love the leaders of Iraq to submit right now. Think about how many lives that would save. They aren't in fear that the invading troops are going to destory the homeland, change everyones life for the worse. The kindest thing the Iraqi government could do right now is to surrender and allow their people to move forward.

  • dolphman

    I think I got simon on this one....

    When 1441 was passed, it was clearly not a mandate for war. This is why the US and UK were going for the second resolution. Why would they do that if they didn't need to?!

    Well Simon, it's like this simply put:

    To appease weak minded people who don't have the guts to deal with the situation rationaly and decisively. We tried bringing an international consensus, but the fact is people are to blinded by fear to deal with the reality of what has to be done.

    Colin Powell should be given a medal for putting up with that circus known as the UN. He did a great job. But as you can see, people are much more willing to appease a dictator than face the reality of enforcing their own resolutions.


Share this