Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (151339)	11/9/2004 11:52:54 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

MW: Last I checked the war in Iraq was indeed "illegal". twfowler: Then you didn't check very well. In fact I did. The war in Iraq is in fact illegal for one simple and basic reason: The UN declares it as such. The Bush administration seeks to pervert common sense by arguing that certain UN resolutions gave it legitimacy; while at the same time the Bush administration in attacking Iraq violates all the important aspects of the UN charter itself. UN resolutions gave legitimacy to "Operation Desert Storm". It is not up to the US to decide arbitrarily when it will and will not abide by UN resolutions if it is to lean upon those same resolutions to give its actions even the appearance of legitimacy. What the Bush administration has done is decide which articles of the UN charter it wishes to listen to, and which it does not. It has decided unilaterally which resolutions it wishes to enforce, even though no right of enforcement was deemed granted to the US. To argue that prior UN resolutions somehow give legitimacy to the Bush administration's unilateral decision to invade Iraq - without the approval of the UN or UN Security Council - is directly akin to arguing that all children insolent to their parents should be stoned to death, simply because this "rule" has been on the books for thousands of years. ( Exodus 21:17 states: And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. ) Brief history: 1. The UN / UN Security Council defined, voted, and approved dozens of resolutions regarding Iraq with respect to international law, security, Kuwait, oil for food, UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, and the IAEA, culminating in the final resolution, 1441 on November 8, 2002. - Security Council resolution 678 (1990) approved the use force in the event Iraq did not immediately withdraw from Kuwait - Resolution 687 (1991) provided the terms under which a ceasefire was accepted. - Resolution 1441 notified Iraq was in material breach of its obligations, but set out a course for Iraq to rectify the issues and reconcile itself with the international community. Resolution 1441 did not proscribe a course of action to be followed if Iraq was found, in the end, to have not complied with UN directives. The demands made of Iraq in resolution 1441 were by and large being followed by Iraq. 2. President George W. Bush unilaterally chose to invade Iraq; demanded that the UN break off all inspections; and invaded the country of Iraq. - There was no resolution suspending the ceasefire of 1990. - The UN did not approve of the US taking unilateral, and illegal, action to deliver the "serious consequences" threatened by 1441. - UN inspectors demanded more time; Bush shoved them out. - The US acted unilaterally; Bush refused to put the matter to a Security Council vote -- no legitimacy can be claimed. Bottom line: Under international law, the US / "coalition partner" invasion was an illegal act of war. As a legitimate arbiter of what constitutes legal and illegal state to state action, the UN carries weight with most of the world, even though the US enjoys undermining the UN wherever it can, the US continues to exploit the UN whenever it is convenient. Well, Bush can't have it both ways. If you expect the rules to help you, you must play by them. This issue of legitimacy is an important one. I'm ashamed that Bush has squandered all the goodwill and political capital that the US was given through the great tragedy of 9/11. You might enjoy this article: It cannot be said, to be sure, that the Bush White House has been oblivious to the need for securing international legitimacy. By styling its doctrine of preventive war the "strategy of preemption," it sought to approximate its strategy to one of self-defense-for preemption, if the threat is imminent, can at least make a tolerable claim to legitimacy. This approach would have been unconvincing even if banned weapons had been found in Iraq-possessing weapons is not proof of impending attack-but it utterly collapsed when no weapons were discovered. Advocates for war then argued that the administration had never actually said that the threat was imminent, only that it was "grave and growing." Absent a showing of imminence, however, one could not make a plausible claim for the lawfulness of the action. In truth, the Bush administration did not care a fig for whether the war was lawful. foreignaffairs.org