OK, I know its old news but I found this article discussing the legality of the Iraq war quite interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...423237,00.html

It's a strange world that we live in whereby war has to be 'legal'.

And we discussed this almost 3 years ago. Where were you?

Registered: Dec 2002

Obviously not here.

I'm curious as to why you think this is strange? The legal situation provides guidelines and boundaries:

The legal framework easily shows that Libya, North Korea and Iran are far greater threats to world peace and far more of a present danger as far as our own security is concerned. The humanitarian situation in North Korea is far far worse than Iraq and Iran represses its people far more effectively than Hussein ever did.

So basically, if the legal advice had been considered, the whole world could have tackled the real problems in the world like terrorism and tyranny, rather than tying down US and British troops for the next ten years in a country that was no threat and squandering all the goodwill that the 11th September attacks brought.

International law attempts to bring rational thought into the foreign policy process, or at least a period of consideration about your actions - when its ignored then the consequences are never good. The neo-cons were planning to attack Iraq before the War on Terror ever rose its ugly head - this was an agenda and the legality of the situation was therefore irrelevent.

It's probably worth pointing out that when it comes to aggression against other states, the United States is top of the pile by a long, long way. So for people who don't see eye-to-eye with Bush & Co, international law is also a way of protecting themselves against the actions of a rogue state. Even if the prospect doesn't appeal, I can't really blame Iran for wanting nukes (assuming that the unsubstantiated US accusations are true) - in their position I would feel exactly the same way.

[ 02-24-2005, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

On that Dace you and I agree, Legal is a term used to justify war, make one "feel" good about conducting a war. As a Southerner I hate to quote Gen. Sherman, but I'll do it "War is Hell". People get killed things get destroyed lives are ruined.

Okay, as some of you may recall, I do not support the war on Iraq because I think the war vs. terrorism belonged elsewhere and I think the war vs. Iraq was made, more than anything, just to start a war somewhere in the Middle East -- the thing the war on terrorism lacked was venue.

That said, it would be a hard case to make that the war vs. Iraq was illegal. To show it was illegal, you would have to show that when the UN said, in several resolutions, that "all measures" would be taken to assure Saddam had disarmed, that the UN explicitly did not mean ending the cease fire (there was no peace, only cease fire, following desert storm).

The war on Iraq was legal for the basic reason that it was up to Iraq to prove it had no WMD, and it did not. As we now know, it did not have WMD, but at the end of the Gulf War it made promises to PROVE it did not have them, and it failed - horribly - to follow through with these promises of proof, even to the extent of expelling, time and again, the UN inspectors.

So, the rest of the world would ultimately be SOL on proving the war illegal. What can I say, other than we have the best lawyers on the planet? :shrug:

Well salt ma grits an pour me some sippin liquor cos it's time for a toast - great to see you back TL - here's to ya [img]smile.gif[/img] . The place has been somewhat subdued without you around. I am glad to see a familiar face making a return.

Cheers buddy. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Welcome back Timber [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yes, welcome back Timber, nice to see you around.

Thanks, guys. In case anyone was wondering where I was, there was a singularity event throwing me into another universe. I finally saved the universe, fixed it all, and was able to return home, but it took about 500 years. Time passes more quickly there, it seems.