IRAQ THREAD originaly "Seems at least one Brit agrees with me....er us."

[Collegeboy]

I was pointing out that I was not bashing (which I know you wasn't saying I was). I knew that someone would bring up you had no idea what the soldiers went through, how can you say their role was to protect US interest instead of saving lives. I was just showing that I understand what they went through and wasn't trivializing their position there. They thought they was saving lives. It is the politicians I am bashing.

[Sooky]

Besides this coming war being illegal, one thing that concerns me is the US governments refusal to adhere to, and campaign against, the new International Criminal Court that was officially opened on March 11 (especially as it is on the eve of war). Since it is meant to persecute war crimes, why can't the USA sign on to show its good intentions to the international community? It's things like this that make me a little nervous...

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I was pointing out that I was not bashing (which I know you wasn't saying I was). I knew that someone would bring up you had no idea what the soldiers went through, how can you say their role was to protect US interest instead of saving lives. I was just showing that I understand what they went through and wasn't trivializing their position there. They thought they was saving lives. It is the politicians I am bashing.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Sooky
Besides this coming war being illegal, one thing that concerns me is the US governments refusal to adhere to, and campaign against, the new International Criminal Court that was officially opened on March 11 (especially as it is on the eve of war). Since it is meant to persecute war crimes, why can't the USA sign on to show its good intentions to the international community? It's things like this that make me a little nervous...

[Sooky]

Originally posted by shartley

Kofi Annan has said that any military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution would be illegal. Also, I recently read of 40-something Australian legal experts stating the same thing. I'll look for a link and post it if I find it.

The ICC is supposed to deal with any war crimes committed after July 1, 2002. Things like genocide, the bombing of civilians, and systematic rape and torture. Russia and China have also refused, but the US gov. has actively campaigned against the court, and tried for an amendment to exemplify non-signatories. Also, the USA has been seeking guarantees from other countries to not turn over americans to the ICC. It just seems to me a tad unreasonable; isn't it creating a two-tier justice system, where the powerful are not responsible to anyone?

Edit: heres the link: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...55E421,00.html 43 international experts delared it illegal, but 21 said it wasn't. I know little about international law to say more than that, however.
Another: http://www.inq7.net/brk/2003/jan/25/brkafp_2-1.htm

[shartley]

Originally posted by Sooky

Kofi Annan has said that any military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution would be illegal. Also, I recently read of 40-something Australian legal experts stating the same thing. I'll look for a link and post it if I find it.

The ICC is supposed to deal with any war crimes committed after July 1, 2002. Things like genocide, the bombing of civilians, and systematic rape and torture. Russia and China have also refused, but the US gov. has actively campaigned against the court, and tried for an amendment to exemplify non-signatories. Also, the USA has been seeking guarantees from other countries to not turn over americans to the ICC. It just seems to me a tad unreasonable; isn't it creating a two-tier justice system, where the powerful are not responsible to anyone?

Edit: heres the link: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...55E421,00.html 43 international experts delared it illegal, but 21 said it wasn't. I know little about international law to say more than that, however.

[Lone Brain Cell]

Originally posted by Sooky

Kofi Annan has said that any military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution would be illegal. Also, I recently read of 40-something Australian legal experts stating the same thing. I'll look for a link and post it if I find it.

The ICC is supposed to deal with any war crimes committed after July 1, 2002. Things like genocide, the bombing of civilians, and systematic rape and torture. Russia and China have also refused, but the US gov. has actively campaigned against the court, and tried for an amendment to exemplify non-signatories. Also, the USA has been seeking guarantees from other countries to not turn over americans to the ICC. It just seems to me a tad unreasonable; isn't it creating a two-tier justice system, where the powerful are not responsible to anyone?

Edit: heres the link: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...55E421,00.html 43 international experts delared it illegal, but 21 said it wasn't. I know little about international law to say more than that, however.
Another: http://www.inq7.net/brk/2003/jan/25/brkafp_2-1.htm

Yes but professor triggs is a moron! You should see other things that he objects to. He also stated that a retaliation against OBL was uncalled for & we should wait until we can grab him at an airport then put him on trial. HUH? The guy mus teach at the school that collegeboy goes to.

Iraq lost a war. he signed a cease fire on the grounds that he would disarm. He didnt. he has played us for a fool for too long, now it is time for action. the free world cannot allow terrorists & backers of terrorism to be able to conduct their terror on the world. I have said it b4, if Sadam had the power & the arms of the United States do you think that we would still be alive today??. He has shown that he cant be trusted. His time ends today & it was 12 years too long.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I surely wish people would brush up on their history before posting nonsense. And yes this is directed to you FOL.

When did your relatives immigrate here from Britain FOL?

According to the family history that is quite extensive, my family came here in the late 1600's. Yours?

And your assertion that some of us should "brush up on our history". Who's? Yours?

[cphilip]

Originally posted by Sooky

Kofi Annan has said that any military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution would be illegal.

That is incorrect. He did not say that. Everyone was carefull never to say that even the French.

Again this is a cancelling of a cease fire for non compliance by a party agreeing to it. Its perfectly legal to protect your soverienty. Not only that its perfectly legal to protect the UN's original intent! Thats a subject of debate and a grey area what Soverenty is. But one of the reasons that no resolution is needed in that case is that its not a new action at all its a continuation of old actions all sanctioned by the UN. Some (a few) members of the UN would like for it to be interpreted the way you think it is but that is so they can have it their way and protect their own interests. However they are wrong.

All Kofi said was it would be a bad thing not to all get together and pass one. I regret we cannot either. He didn't take sides on it at all. Nor did he say it was illegal. He knows it's not. The few that do not want to now force the disarmament of Iraq now want to mince words. And if thats the case they regret voting for 1441 and now want to try and act dumb to get out of it. To be honest when they voted they realy underestimated what Saddam would do. They realy believed he would comply! And now they are faced with the fact that they were wrong and have to live up to it. So now they act like they didn't know what they ment? Not buying that! But what else would "sever consequences" mean from non compliance with a "cease fire"? Don't try and snow yourself. Your not the only one fooled but a fool none the less if you want to swallow that.

[Sooky]

Well, I am choosing to believe Kofi Annan. I don't understand why he would be wrong in this matter. Maybe explain?

As for the ICC, I can understand the US not wanting to have its citizens prosecuted, but shoudn't they be if they commit war crimes? I think it would reassure other nations if the USA didn't appear to be seeking special status for its soldiers. When hearing of this, I am sure people suspect Guantanemo bay, and rumours of torture in Afganistan (whether they are true or not- I am not saying either way). Refusing to adhere to the ICC just makes the US seem guilty, thats all. And with Iraq, it just brings cause for concern as to the actions of the US military not being accountable to some independent authority.

Sorry if I am getting this too off topic.
Edit: others already responded, one second.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Sooky
Kofi Annan has said that any military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution would be illegal. Also, I recently read of 40-something Australian legal experts stating the same thing. I'll look for a link and post it if I find it.

I always find it interesting when people discuss whether the war is illegal or not. Is someone going to put sanctions on us? Not likely. How about try our president for war crimes? PLEASE!!! That is one thing that U.S. citizens would not dissent over!

Lawyers can come to any conclusion that they want but it is a moot point. The relationships between us and our allies is important. The legality issue, however, is ridiculous.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Sooky
Well, I am choosing to believe Kofi Annan. I don't understand why he would be wrong in this matter. Maybe explain?

As for the ICC, I can understand the US not wanting to have its citizens prosecuted, but shoudn't they be if they commit war crimes? I think it would reassure other nations if the USA didn't appear to be seeking special status for its soldiers. When hearing of this, I am sure people suspect Guantanemo bay, and rumours of torture in Afganistan (whether they are true or not- I am not saying either way). Refusing to adhere to the ICC just makes the US seem guilty, thats all. And with Iraq, it just brings cause for concern as to the actions of the US military not being accountable to some independent authority.

Sorry if I am getting this too off topic.
Edit: others already responded, one second.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


According to the family history that is quite extensive, my family came here in the late 1600's. Yours?

And your assertion that some of us should "brush up on our history". Who's? Yours?

Then how can your grandfather land on Gold Beach.

Na standard history is fine.

[Sooky]

Originally posted by cphilip

That is incorrect. He did not say that. Everyone was carefull never to say that even the French.

Your not the only one fooled but a fool none the less if you want to swallow that.

Well, I don't think I'm a fool, but I am pretty sure I read a direct quote from him. It is possible I am wrong though, I will have to verify that. Although, I have heard the same from some of my professors, and thought it was common knowledge... But I will have to check.

Aaron_mag: I'm not trying to imply that the US government will be charged with war crimes, even if they commit them. But the fact that the US can get away with anything (including if this war is illegal [which I will have to look into again]) just because of their economic and military might ticks alot of people off and just contributes to the anti-americanism, etc, that has been coming up in this thread.
shartley: I am not saying the US cannot police itself, but if it appeared responsible to an international organization rather than itself, it would alleviate some suspicion (or at least mine).

Anyways, I didn't really mean to get too heavily into this as I am not really an expert or a MASTER DEBATER on the issues or anything (thats why I read rather than post), so please don't take my posts as a challenge or anything. Jeez, you can't even post without everybody jumping all over you here!

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Sooky
Aaron_mag: I'm not trying to imply that the US government will be charged with war crimes, even if they commit them. But the fact that the US can get away with anything (including if this war is illegal [which I will have to look into again]) just because of their economic and military might ticks alot of people off and just contributes to the anti-americanism, etc, that has been coming up in this thread.

I am not disagreeing with you there. It is important for the U.S. to consider this in their actions. Consideration of this was the reason Bush Sr. and many moderate Republicans did not want to invade Iraq after the war. Many of us still feel this way and I think Bush Jr. felt that way before Sept. 11th. Whether or not this was the right decision is the whole topic of this thread. Now I hope that it will go quickly (which I am sure it will) with little loss of life on both sides (also possible as I think the Iraqi forces will surrender quickly). Then the biggest hope is that our occupation of Iraq does not become a mess.