The War in Iraq, is it legal?

[sv3n 0]

Here's a question for the lawyers out there.....

Does the following video hold water, legally speaking?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Khut8xbXK8

...and you're in violation of your face!

[kelpdiver 2]

nothing on yoootube has any legal standing.

[ExAFO 0]

Who's to say what international law is? There really is no true authority for international law. It's only what parties decide to acquiesce to...for instance, Iran and North Korea really don't answer to anyone...they may agree to do stuff, but they're not required to...

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

nothing on yoootube has any legal standing.

Did you even watch this? I will assume that you did not, do yourself and everyone else a favor and unless you actually watched it don't reply. It is pointless to respond to a discussion about something that you haven't even seen and does nothing to further that discussion. If this is truely the case then your inane reply is simply wasting everybody's time.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Who's to say what international law is? There really is no true authority for international law. It's only what parties decide to acquiesce to...for instance, Iran and North Korea really don't answer to anyone...they may agree to do stuff, but they're not required to...

If I'm not mistaken the treaties and charters that our government has signed would make the laws that we need to follow. The way it's been represented is that any treaty that we sign actually becomes U.S. law as well. I'm no lawyer, nor a law student.........and this is exactly why I asked for lawyer opinions on this.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[joedirt 0]

OK, I got through about 10 minutes of those pussies before I comfortably decided they had "picked a side" before researching. They didn't seem interested in SH's violation of international law. That somehow gets overlooked. Maybe I just didn't make it far enough in the video. I'm sure you'll correct me if that's true. I just get tired of clicking on something only to find it's another piece of propaganda.

SH signed a cease fire agreement so that his army would not be totally annhialated. It was getting pretty gruesome for him... had it gone on for a few more days it would have been MUCH more gruesome. In the 90s he constantly violated his cease fire agreement, shooting at our pilots, who were trying to enforce our "internationally legal agreement". In 98 he finally decided to kick out all UN weapons inspectors.

Does the international law only apply to the United States? Was SH Exempt? What do you do when someone violates international law? Who enforces it?

Was SH's violation of "international law" on that video?

I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying this, and i'm speaking from a strategic viewpoint, but WW1 and WW2 were a result of not finishing the enemy; just like the 1st and 2nd gulf war. The European powers let Germany violate many of their cease fire agreements too. Now I know SH didn't have the military might of Nazi Germany, but it does say something about the power of international law. League of Nations? cParis Peace conference?

Did the first GW not have the hindsight to see we would be tangled up again? Maybe he just had the foresight to see that it would become the Jihadist's ultimate adventure.

There's always more to the story. Peace is ALWAYS temporary, unless organic animals become extict. Believe me I'm no big fan of how this war was executed, but we can't change history.

There you go... my 2 cents...tear me a new one. I'm not a lawyer.

[Channman 2]

Quote

Here's a question for the lawyers out there.....

Does the following video hold water, legally speaking?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Khut8xbXK8

The above referenced video had a stupid cat with a irritating voice, could'nt make it beyound 2.5 minutes.

[idrankwhat 0]

Well, if we're trying to be accurate, then it should be noted that Saddam didn't "kick out" the inspectors. They were pulled out. Secondly, the no fly zones were not sanctioned by the UN. They were a creation by the US, Britain and France and were supposed to be temporary. When they weren't, France pulled out. So it's hard to put blame on Saddam for firing on planes that were bombing his country from inside his airspace without an international mandate.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

The above referenced video had a stupid cat with a irritating voice, could'nt make it beyound 2.5 minutes.

what he said. But I didn't even make it that far.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[sv3n 0]

Quote

OK, I got through about 10 minutes of those pussies before I comfortably decided they had "picked a side" before researching. They didn't seem interested in SH's violation of international law. That somehow gets overlooked. Maybe I just didn't make it far enough in the video. I'm sure you'll correct me if that's true. I just get tired of clicking on something only to find it's another piece of propaganda.

SH signed a cease fire agreement so that his army would not be totally annhialated. It was getting pretty gruesome for him... had it gone on for a few more days it would have been MUCH more gruesome. In the 90s he constantly violated his cease fire agreement, shooting at our pilots, who were trying to enforce our "internationally legal agreement". In 98 he finally decided to kick out all UN weapons inspectors.

Does the international law only apply to the United States? Was SH Exempt? What do you do when someone violates international law? Who enforces it?

Was SH's violation of "international law" on that video?

I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying this, and i'm speaking from a strategic viewpoint, but WW1 and WW2 were a result of not finishing the enemy; just like the 1st and 2nd gulf war. The European powers let Germany violate many of their cease fire agreements too. Now I know SH didn't have the military might of Nazi Germany, but it does say something about the power of international law. League of Nations? cParis Peace conference?

Did the first GW not have the hindsight to see we would be tangled up again? Maybe he just had the foresight to see that it would become the Jihadist's ultimate adventure.

There's always more to the story. Peace is ALWAYS temporary, unless organic animals become extict. Believe me I'm no big fan of how this war was executed, but we can't change history.

There you go... my 2 cents...tear me a new one. I'm not a lawyer.

I could care less about "tearin' you a new one", this is a discussion not an argument. I posted this to get some people's insight into it.

As far as SH's violation of international law.......I don't believe he is exempt of international law, but we were not elected by the rest of the international community to deal with that. Until it is sanctioned by the UN it is not a legal action. At least that's how I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. General Powell's speech to the UN was the attempt to get the action sanctioned and the UN said no...........but we moved ahead without the approval. Is that illegal or not? Like I said, I'm not an attorney.....I'm curious what the answer is though?

I think the first GW realized that pursuing the move of policing Iraq would be an uphill battle that would never end.....actually if I'm not mistaken he, as well as the current one, was advised by his military advisors not to move into Iraq because of the situation that we're in now. The current one just decided he didn't want to hear it.

I agree, we're sort of stuck with the current situation and need to resolve it the best we can.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

The above referenced video had a stupid cat with a irritating voice, could'nt make it beyound 2.5 minutes.

what he said. But I didn't even make it that far.

Yeah....you sort of have to fight through it for the content. She pauses a lot and talks really slow. But the content is intruiging.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[birdshit 0]

Quote

OK, I got through about 10 minutes of those pussies before I comfortably decided they had "picked a side" before researching. They didn't seem interested in SH's violation of international law. That somehow gets overlooked. Maybe I just didn't make it far enough in the video. I'm sure you'll correct me if that's true. I just get tired of clicking on something only to find it's another piece of propaganda.

SH signed a cease fire agreement so that his army would not be totally annhialated. It was getting pretty gruesome for him... had it gone on for a few more days it would have been MUCH more gruesome. In the 90s he constantly violated his cease fire agreement, shooting at our pilots, who were trying to enforce our "internationally legal agreement". In 98 he finally decided to kick out all UN weapons inspectors.

Does the international law only apply to the United States? Was SH Exempt? What do you do when someone violates international law? Who enforces it?

Was SH's violation of "international law" on that video?

I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying this, and i'm speaking from a strategic viewpoint, but WW1 and WW2 were a result of not finishing the enemy; just like the 1st and 2nd gulf war. The European powers let Germany violate many of their cease fire agreements too. Now I know SH didn't have the military might of Nazi Germany, but it does say something about the power of international law. League of Nations? cParis Peace conference?

Did the first GW not have the hindsight to see we would be tangled up again? Maybe he just had the foresight to see that it would become the Jihadist's ultimate adventure.

There's always more to the story. Peace is ALWAYS temporary, unless organic animals become extict. Believe me I'm no big fan of how this war was executed, but we can't change history.

There you go... my 2 cents...tear me a new one. I'm not a lawyer.

Doesnt really matter when you think that the reason we are there is because we were trying to find "weapons of mass destruction". Finding a good reason to attack them after we have attacked them is revisionist. The reason we went in was WMD. You can't change the reaon after the fact, no matter how badly you might like to.

It isnt about Oil.
It isn't about WMD.
It isnt about the Kurds that nobody cares about that got gassed 30 years ago.
It isnt about 'fighting them there so we dont have to fight them here'
It isnt about the connection between 9/11 and Iraq
It isnt about 'spreading freedom like an STD'

It is about fighting war for wars sake. It is about spending staggering sums on national defense and redistributing wealth to the ruling class of America by waging war.

We spend close to a trillion dollars a year on 'National Defense', even though America has been attacked by a foreign power once since the 1800's. Once.

That is more than 10 times spent by the country in second place, China. That is more than the combined GDP of all 42 countries in Africa. Where do you think all that money goes? Contractors, Tanks, Bullets, Gasoline, Jet parts, APCs, Flack Vests. Cha Ching!

If only I had seen this back in the day and bought some stock in Boeing, General Dynamics and Raytheon back then. Then I too would be making money hand over fist, just like the republicans and friends of George Dubya. Heck, lets kill another 4,000 GIs! I am making big money!

Why don't you do some research? Preferably at more than one website besides Fox News? Try doing a google search on 'military industrial complex'

" Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. " ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

[Armour666 0]

Quote

Quote

The above referenced video had a stupid cat with a irritating voice, could'nt make it beyound 2.5 minutes.

what he said. But I didn't even make it that far.

Ya the voice is anoying but if you like to read instead here is the transcrips http://www.pinkyshow.org/archives/episodes/070525/070525_credits.html

They doing bring up some valid points. They target younger people and open up some critacle thinking. I don't think its one sided they took the facts and researched it.

Yes SH broke International law but this was not about SH actions this was about weather the US lead invasion with out UN sanctions legal or an illegal war. Now before some people go off on the screw the UN rant don't forget that the US was a major founder and help set the structure the UN follows and they are one of the vetoing powers. So you really can't set up a club with your rules and then get pissed of when the same set of rules applies to you. I have very mixed feeling about the whole invasion. I do not have any mixed emotions about HS being removed HE was a tyrant to the world and his own people. They part that I don’t like is as superpower the US holds other nations to a creating level of expectations then they then self break those. Where is the ethicist in this? It has been a very weak footing for the reasoning of the invasion.

Acts that have been committed that contravene the Geneva Convention and the rules of armed conflict I’ll leave that as an open question on how you fell about that ans what should be done.

SO this one time at band camp.....

"Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most."

[Royd 0]

Quote

" Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

I suppose you would rather see them involved in a public welfare system, handing out money to people who never have any intent of doing anything. At least, we can put our hands on something that the money created, and the money does go back into the economy.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I suppose you would rather see them involved in a public welfare system, handing out money to people who never have any intent of doing anything. At least, we can put our hands on something that the money created, and the money does go back into the economy.

Not to go off on this tangent and divert the thread, but what do you think welfare recipients do with the money that they receive? Doesn't it ALL go back into the US economy?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

nothing on yoootube has any legal standing.

Did you even watch this? I will assume that you did not, do yourself and everyone else a favor and unless you actually watched it don't reply. It is pointless to respond to a discussion about something that you haven't even seen and does nothing to further that discussion. If this is truely the case then your inane reply is simply wasting everybody's time.

First, I don't watch video at work. Second, I generally don't watch or follow links with no description. Third, this topic had been discussed many times over.

A fucking talking cat? You want to know if that might have legal standing? I think a judge would throw a person out of court for shit like that.

Don't waste our time. Make a succinct argument for yourself. Don't find long boring videos hosted by animals.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

nothing on yoootube has any legal standing.

Did you even watch this? I will assume that you did not, do yourself and everyone else a favor and unless you actually watched it don't reply. It is pointless to respond to a discussion about something that you haven't even seen and does nothing to further that discussion. If this is truely the case then your inane reply is simply wasting everybody's time.

First, I don't watch video at work. Second, I generally don't watch or follow links with no description. Third, this topic had been discussed many times over.

A fucking talking cat? You want to know if that might have legal standing? I think a judge would throw a person out of court for shit like that.

Don't waste our time. Make a succinct argument for yourself. Don't find long boring videos hosted by animals.

Whoa....time to switch to decaf. No need to get your undies in a bunch.

It's a bunch of students that researched our involvement in iraq and the laws that are in place.........then they made it into a video. Now wether they choose a talking cat or dog, I could care less.............what I'm asking about is the legality of the conclusions of their research.

If it's a waste of your time, then quit replying and move on.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[kelpdiver 2]

if you don't like the answers, don't post the questions.

Students are the least qualified people on the subject of the real world. How do you enforce 'laws' against a superpower like the US, China, (and in the past) the USSR? You don't.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

if you don't like the answers, don't post the questions.

Students are the least qualified people on the subject of the real world. How do you enforce 'laws' against a superpower like the US, China, (and in the past) the USSR? You don't.

You don't?

What exactly makes you think that we're so special that the rules and laws don't apply to us?

If we're supposed to present the example of democracy that we're trying to spread to the rest of the world...........the only way to do that is through example. You can't ignore the rules and then whine when other countries ignore them too.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

if you don't like the answers, don't post the questions.

Students are the least qualified people on the subject of the real world. How do you enforce 'laws' against a superpower like the US, China, (and in the past) the USSR? You don't.

You don't?

What exactly makes you think that we're so special that the rules and laws don't apply to us?

Just to help you out further, there is no Santa Clause.

But for fun - show me an example where a reigning superpower was forced to do anything by the power of 'law.'

In the real world, the power is force, in both economic and miltary forms.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

if you don't like the answers, don't post the questions.

Students are the least qualified people on the subject of the real world. How do you enforce 'laws' against a superpower like the US, China, (and in the past) the USSR? You don't.

You don't?

What exactly makes you think that we're so special that the rules and laws don't apply to us?

Just to help you out further, there is no Santa Clause.

But for fun - show me an example where a reigning superpower was forced to do anything by the power of 'law.'

In the real world, the power is force, in both economic and miltary forms.

What, integrity is some sort of fairy tale to you?

That's a great bully attitude.........no wonder our international image is so low. You can't steamroll over the rest of the planet and then expect to have people help you out when you're in need. Power comes and goes.............but the integrity of your country is there forever. You tarnish it and people are gonna remember that.

You shouldn't have to be forced to do the right thing and follow the law.......especially if you're trying to preach things like democracy and justice. If you want people to believe you, you should probably be following your own advice.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[kelpdiver 2]

have you taken a history class in your life?

You think this is just about the US, now. I've been trying to help you understand the way it has long been. You keep trying to frame this as a question of what is right. I'm telling you how it actually is.

[billvon 3,120]

> It's only what parties decide to acquiesce to...

Well, not exactly. It didn't matter what Saddam agreed to; we invaded and had him killed.

History is always written by the winners, and international law is always determined by the countries who have the power to enforce it. We've seen some encouraging steps away from the might-makes-right philosophy (i.e. the UN) but we don't really support them unless they are doing exactly what we want them to. I hope we can reverse that direction and start to create international law (through our representatives at the UN) that we follow, and that that starts to catch on. We will be very glad of that when the day comes when we're not the most powerful nation on the planet any more.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

have you taken a history class in your life?

You think this is just about the US, now. I've been trying to help you understand the way it has long been. You keep trying to frame this as a question of what is right. I'm telling you how it actually is.

The question that I origninally asked......."is this legal?" asks if this is the way things are supposed to be according to the laws that we agreed to follow, not how things are.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

> It's only what parties decide to acquiesce to...

Well, not exactly. It didn't matter what Saddam agreed to; we invaded and had him killed.

History is always written by the winners, and international law is always determined by the countries who have the power to enforce it. We've seen some encouraging steps away from the might-makes-right philosophy (i.e. the UN) but we don't really support them unless they are doing exactly what we want them to. I hope we can reverse that direction and start to create international law (through our representatives at the UN) that we follow, and that that starts to catch on. We will be very glad of that when the day comes when we're not the most powerful nation on the planet any more.

I couldn't agree with you more.

If our actions are illegal they need to be stopped. We need to make things right and follow our own and international laws..........and think about the rest of the world as well as us.

...and you're in violation of your face!