Text 10412, 69 rader
Skriven 2009-03-20 05:22:34 av JOHN FITZGERALD (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av DAVE DRUM
Ärende: WAR CRIMES??
====================
-
 
BA>   Bombing a country one is not at war with is a crime.
BA>   In point of fact there was never a declaration of
BA>   War against Iraq.

JF>   The invasion was an allied/UN venture, authorized by a joint
JF> resolution which was passed overwhelmingly by both Republicans and
JF> Democrats. Accounts on this issue can be found with no difficulty:
 
JF> The position of the US and UK is that the invasion was authorized by a
JF> series of UN resolutions dating back to 1990. Resolution 1441 declared
JF> that Iraq was in "material breach" of the cease-fire under UN
JF> Resolution 687 (1991), which required cooperation with weapons
JF> inspectors. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that
JF> under certain conditions, a party may invoke a "material breach" to
JF> suspend a multilateral treaty. Thus, the US and UK claim that they used
JF> their right to suspend the cease-fire in Resolution 687 and to continue
JF> hostilities against Iraq under the authority of UN Resolution 678
JF> (1990), which originally authorized the use of force after Iraq
JF> invaded Kuwait.[29] This is the same argument that was used for
JF> Operation Desert Fox in 1998.[30]
 
DD>   Except that the UN agreed to Desert Storm.  But, the US/UK under
DD>   George III and Tony Bologna withdrew their application for 
DD>   sanction by the UN when it became apparent that such approval 
DD>   would NOT be forthcoming - preferring instead to go with their 
DD>   "Coalition of the willing" (and coerced).   FEH!!!

  Their right to go after Saddam was still in place since the invasion of 
Kuwait, and when we withdrew it was with the condition that if Saddam 
didn't comply to UN resolutions and with sanctions that we would resume 
that legitimate pursuit which the allies did, in '03.




DD>   Keep in mind that Wikipedia stuff is notoriously subject to 
DD>   willy-nilly revision by damned near anyone..

  They do a decent job of verifying their material, and yes, Wikipedia is 
not the Bible, or final word on all information, but it is no more or less
'willy nilly' than a lot of other cites out there.  At least the managers 
at Wiki' require citations, and if none are provided they tell you up 
front at the beginning of the article in question.  There is no such 
warning here.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_resolution



DD>    and as such is not considered a reliable source
DD>    to any except those who find an article that 
DD>    supports their position.

   The same could be said for any source.

   Since the Iraq resolution has had several amendments, and there seems
to be a whole array of legal ambiguities involved, and since the legal 
controversy still lingers today among legal scholars, perhaps it would be 
best to concentrate our efforts on the moral and ethical aspects of the 
'03 invasion rather than the legal aspects, as the legality of the war 
has little to do with whether it was right or wrong to go after Saddam.
ie.He was a loose cannon up to his neck in cannon balls.


---
 *   *
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)