The Iraq Thread 2

[r1c0cH3T 0]

An where does it say "some"? By bringing and relating al-Mada to Weekly World News, he most likely didn't mean "some".

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]You can't just deny something, possibly the truth, just because a questionable news source brought it up. What if it was the truth? Would everyone just push it aside and say it is insufficent evidence?

They havn't shown any evidence, but have made a spectacular claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They have provided none and are a questionable news source.

[Balschoiw 0]

Did france start the illegal war or USA ?

[Acecombat 0]

Did france start the illegal war or USA ?

I asked this to a american once and he replied by saying "Show me a legal war" .

And then i banged my head against a wall

[Baron von Beer 0]

Please expalin what a legal war is, and when one has ever been fought. I doubt there is such a thing. In any war, laws somewhere have been broken. (Unless there is a nation on this planet that does not deem it illegal for another nations armed forces to enter their territory without government consent.)

Edited for above: We must have been thinking the same thing. (My statement has nothing to do with me being a US citezen, simply that many think that because their nation was behind a given war, it somehow meant that it was "Legal".. the law is the law, seperate of common belief of right or wrong. Add to that that every nation has it's own laws, and that those apply to within their nations land, that makes the likelyhood of a "legal" war, less than none.)

[denoir 0]

Legal war: Approved by the UN security council. (example: first Gulf War, Korea, Afghanistan..) Also any direct territorial self-defence is legal.

Illegal war: Not approved by the UN security council.

This was defined in the 1949 UN Charter, which all UN members, including the US has ratified.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Please expalin what a legal war is, and when one has ever been fought.

A legal war is a war that has been decided by the UN or in common sense with international law.

To attack a country for false reasons is illegal. The war on Iraq has not been legitimized by the world community.

Clear enough ?

I´m not talking about things that happen in Iraq (Although there are pretty much evidence of violations of the geneva convention) but the global aspect of this war. It is illegal no matter what. With the TBA claims going down the river one by one it doesn´t get better.

[r1c0cH3T 0]

So, based on what was said, the UN decides if the limbs fly.

I think thats somewhat "stupid" though. Rules were ment to be broken. There is no such thing as a legal or illigal war.

"Okay, we have found [insert item], you may now go in and bomb the f*ck outta this country."

or

"We have found sufficient evidence, we give you the right to invade this country and kill the men, women, and children that live in this country, kill civilians and bomb churches, cities and neighborhoods."

It just doesn't sound right.

[denoir 0]

So, based on what was said, the UN decides if the limbs fly.

Exactly. The logic behind it being that it's better to have a democratic vote about it in the international community than to have every single country deciding what is a legal war and what is an illegal war.

Not surprisingly everybody thinks that "their" war is legal. Saddam thought he was fully justified to attack Kuwait. Bush thought he was fully justified to attack Iraq. Etc.

Therefor a common standard is needed; a common set of rules. And that's what the UN provides.

[Frisbee 0]

This was already a rule in the league of nations,and even in the time of the concert of europe (the age right before the waves of revolutions across the world)

Civilised nations should not have to resort to violence,first there should be discussions about it in forum for nations,calling conventions to sort out the matter,using neutral countries to negotiate. (thoguh the superpowers got their way most of the time,one way or another)

Back then it was theory,but since the un it has been common practice most of the time.

Think about it,if you have a difference with someone,you go to court and have an impartial judge decide on the matter,you don't go and club his head in with a large blunt object,it's something our civilisation has advanced to after seeing all the needless bloodshed of war (especially europeans,though americans at the time also heavily supported the forming of an organisation like this)

[bn880 5]

What is this, now we are questioning what a legal vs illegal war is? It reminds me of then Clinton debated the meaning of "is" All I see coming out of this is some US Hawks (not sure who) trying to say the war was legal.

[ralphwiggum 6]

new iraq thread #3

please use above one