egafd.com

I thought I'd lay out a few facts on the legality of the Iraq war in 2003 as many people are of the opinion it was illegal (for different reasons).

Firstly, we must look at what the UN conditions are for a state to lose it's legal sovereignty:

1. Irresponsible development of nuclear weapons, violating the non-proliferation act.

2. Invading and aggression against other sovereign nations.

3. Committing genocide.

4. Harbouring or funding international terrorists.

I'll not go too much into #2 and #3. It is well documented that Saddam Hussain committed genocide on the Kurds. The Hague, in 2005 ruled that Saddam's actions against the Kurds constituted genocide. There are ongoing efforts by the Kurds to include further chemical attacks to be recognised as genocides that yet haven't been. And, we all know that Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait which is why the first Gulf war was sanctioned by the UN and perfectly legal (remember this for later).

#1 When it comes to the development of nuclear weapons, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi (Saddam's senior physicist) led American soldiers to buried blueprints for a nuclear centrifuge as well as some actual centrifuge components. He was, up until 1997, actively trying to develop nuclear weapons. Even as late as 2003, there are computer files obtained by international inspectors showing Saddam's agents having secret meetings in Damascus about buying banned rockets from North Korea and that money had actually changed hands. Though NK were late on the delivery and the war intervened.

#4 is a little more hazy. The terrorist we know of that Saddam gave refuge to was Abdul Rahman who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing.

What is clear to me is that we know Saddam broke two of the conditions for keeping Iraq's legal sovereignty. One is enough but he broke two......maybe even every one.

"But," I hear you say, "even though Saddam flouted all those UN resolutions and broke all those conditions, the UN did not give a final go ahead for military intervention in Iraq." This is true. And Saddam breaking UN resolution 1441 would have meant that the security council would have to give permission for such a war to begin. But, the war had already begun in 1990. When hostilities ended after the first Gulf war, it wasn't an end to the war, only a ceasefire. A ceasefire between the US/Allies and Iraq. A ceasefire that was conditional to many UN resolutions. Resolutions he continually flouted for the next 12 years. Given permission for military intervention from the UN security council had already been given in 1990, and given that the ceasefire was signed between both opposing sides, the war had not officially ended. Lots of people seem to assume after liberating Kuwait the war was 'over'. It wasn't. It was a ceasefire. Big difference. So, I'm guessing that unless there was specific rulings that said only the security council could decide if the ceasefire was over, the intervention in Iraq was legal. And, also, we should stop calling it the 2nd Gulf war, or just, 'going to war'. We were already at war, legally, since 1990.

On another note, which I find annoying from the anti-war brigade, is their hypocrisy in screaming about the illegality of the lifting of the ceasefire (not 'war' remember). They seem to hang everything on what the UN says when we -in their view- break the rules, but most are of the view we should have left Saddam in power, regardless of his resolution flouting and murderous actions. That's hypocritical, not to mention immoral. They'd rather have nations run by genocidal tyrants than make themselves look bad. Shameful.

If you want to point out a 'real' illegal intervention/war then you should look no further than NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. A 3 month bombing campaign without any authorisation from the UN security council against a country that was of no threat to it's neighbours, didn't have a secret nuclear programme and wasn't harbouring international terrorists and their was no recognised or even suspected genocide of the Kosovars. Why does no one mention this? Why didn't Kofi Annan and those 'lawyers' David likes to bring up crying about this intervention? Is it because they can't paint it as the US/UK bullying somebody? Was it because we were defending Muslims then so it was ok? Was it because it was on the doorstep of Europe right around the time a few of the big nations were moving into a single currency and didn't want a long-drawn out conflict that was bad for PR? It just seems strange that we consider an illegal war as a 'success' we should be proud of but a perfectly legal war as 'a mess we string up our leaders for'.

I'm sure there are more illegal conflicts nobody cares about because it's not the Anglo-Saxons. The French support for the Hutu militias responsible for the genocide of up to a million people.

Regardless.....just thought I'd give my views on why I believe the war was legal. 11 years on and nobody has even asked the UN security council nor the ICJ to look at this. And you can't say it's because they're frightened of the big bad USA when the ICJ has found against the USA before for their actions in Nicaragua (which the US ignored btw, but that's beside the point). There's no conspiracy here. Despite all the hot air from some within the UN, they haven't done anything to bring anyone to trial. Which, if the war WAS illegal, and they think it is, you'd have to question their principles here. If the US and it's allies do have hundreds of thousands of people's blood on their hands due to an illegal military war, you'd think somebody in a position of power and influence in the UN would fight their corner rather than just spout hot air and do nothing. If you take my view that the war was legal and that all this talk of it being illegal is political posturing and some lawyers hoping for a big payday and making a name for themselves then you'll see it all makes a lot more sense.

What we do know is that the removal of Saddam Hussain gave the Kurds protection. It gave the Marsh Arabs their homes back. It gave the country it's first elections. If that's not enough, it made Gaddafi halt it's nuclear programme and declare 25 tonnes of mustard gas, 1400 tonnes of chemical precursors and 3500 chemical weapon munitions (3 times the amount we thought he had). Imagine how the Arab spring would have turned out if he'd had that lot to play with. It's easy to count death tolls -not that they should be ignored- but it's much harder to guess at the lives saved.

Again, it is my opinion that the lifting of the ceasefire was legal and that until anyone has been convicted in an international court, it IS legal. And stating the war is illegal, without making it known it is your opinion is wrong (no matter how you try and slither out of it). It is also clear that if you judge their actions rather than their words, many people within the UN also think the war was legal.

I'll finish off by saying, if you've read this far, you're mad.

God knows why you cannot respond to my thread started on this very topic yesterday instead of cluttering up the forum with a completely different thread. You are a funny one, Sam.

Wot, no comparison between the legality of the Iraq war and Bill Roache of Coronation Street's trial?

Most of this typically rambling, incoherent, confused post has nothing to do with the subject of Iraq war legality or otherwise.

I will strip out all the irrelevant guff from your post and just concentrate on the very few points in your case.

1. "When hostilities ended after the first Gulf war, it wasn't an end to the war, only a ceasefire. A ceasefire that was conditional to many UN resolutions. So, I'm guessing that unless there was specific rulings that said only the security council could decide if the ceasefire was over, the intervention in Iraq was legal. And, also, we should stop calling it the 2nd Gulf war, or just, 'going to war'. We were already at war, legally, since 1990.

Ah yes, GUESSING. Your forte on this subject. The legal right to determine how to enforce its own resolutions lies with the Security Council alone (UN Charter Articles 39-42),[34] not with individual nations."

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 was a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).

On 8 November 2002, immediately after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1441, Russia, the People's Republic of China, and France issued a joint statement declaring that Council Resolution 1441 did not authorize any "automaticity" in the use of force against Iraq, and that a further Council resolution was needed were forced to be used.

So that is your first point gone in a "surgically precise" strike from a missile. Resolution 1441 was a composite covering other resolutions including the ceasefire of the 1st Gulf War. That further Council resolution that was needed to go to war, DID NOT happen.

2. "11 years on and nobody has even asked the UN security council nor the ICJ to look at this". the US and it's allies do have hundreds of thousands of people's blood on their hands due to an illegal military war, you'd think somebody in a position of power and influence in the UN would fight their corner rather than just spout hot air and do nothing.

This is incorrect. The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006 that he had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed.

Secondly in complete contradiction of what you say, the ICC is currently looking at claims of war crimes committed by Allied soldiers in the Gulf War.



That is your second point gone in an explosion of cluster bombs.

3."that until anyone has been convicted in an international court, it IS legal."

Ah yes the Bill Roache kiddie fiddling defence. I give you full marks for persistence but a low score for the ability to grasp an argument. In my post on this topic yesterday I explained that there is no agreed act of aggression which CAN BE USED TO BRING A CASE BECAUSE THE KAMPALA DECLARATION HAS NOT BEEN RATIFIED WHICH COVERS WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ACT OF AGGRESSION. So what is left is the ability for the ICC to look into war crimes e.g. torture which is what they are currently doing re. alleged Allied troop atrocities.

To help you understand, it is as if Bill Roache could not be convicted of kiddie fiddling because there was no agreed legal statute covering kiddie fiddling yet on the books even though the government/legal department had agreed that kiddie fiddling is illegal.

Given you are unlikely to ask me to explain this to you again, please ask someone else to help you out rather than repeating the same mistake yet again.

That is your third point blown to pieces like an innocent Iraqi child.

I couldn't care less if it was illegal or not, it remains the most stupid military action, and foreign affairs disaster, by this country since Suez, the consequences of which we will have to live with for many years.

"it remains the most stupid military action, and foreign affairs disaster, by this country since Suez, the consequences of which we will have to live with for many years."

Agree entirely. Why I care if it was illegal or not, is because unlikely as it is, I would like to see Tony Blair and his ilk behind bullet proof glass in the dock of the International Court of the Hague.

Without a statute on the books, enshrining what we already know about acts of aggression i.e. not self defence and without Security Council authorisation, the likes of Blair will continue to carry out intervention, here, there and everywhere with complete impunity.

The war between S Slater and D Johnson is turning out to be bigger and longer than the Iraq war itself. Gone to war over a war. Obviously no ceasefire is in the offing. Was it illegal? Was it legal? You decide. Who's right? Whose wrong? You decide or do you even care?

Bring back the !football!

The third post (by andy at handiwork) in this thread sums it all up perfectly as far as I'm concerned.

you two should just knock it on the head and call it even because you're just starting to bore people with this now. I've not been on here for a while and I come back to find that STILL you're at it. Give it a rest for fuck's sake, you're like a couple of punch drunk boxers.

The posts I don't want to read, I don't read. Works every time for me.

And I did start my thread with a post beginning with

"This is probably of no interest to anyone other than Mr. Samuel Slater."

I disagree.

The military action was pretty much a success. Now.......if you want to talk about post-war planning and long-term strategy, I might agree with you. But my point is specifically about the legality of it all and bringing in some balance to David's misinformation and false statements.

As I've said previously, Saddam was going to go at some point. Which left two crazy sons left to fight over it all. It was going to go tits up anyway, and when it did we'd have blamed ourselves for letting it all unfold just like we are now. We love whipping ourselves.

The Iraq war made Gaddafi hand over more chemical weapons than we even knew he had and halt his nuclear ambitions. Without military intervention in Iraq, he'd have carried on as normal. One could argue that without the Iraq war, the Arab Spring might have a much larger death toll.

And talking of Gaddafi's chemical weapons stockpile.......I always thought it interesting that Saddam had fewer chemical weapons than we thought, but Gaddafi had much more than we thought. You thinking what I'm thinking?

Like it or not, because of the Iraq war, the world now knows where 25 tonnes of mustard gas, 1400 tonnes of chemical precursors and 3500 chemical weapon munitions are. We have them either under lock and key or disposed of them safely. We also know that Saddam and Gaddafi's nuclear programmes are no more. On top of that, the Kurds are now are not living under oppression, have their own Parliament with a majority centre/centre-left assembly. Probably the only centre-left assembly in the middle-east.

There are plenty of positives. People just don't want to know because it muddies the waters too much.

Not that it's been a complete success. Far from it. I just think a little bit of balance is in order.

No war. Don't worry. Just adding a little balance.

There's only one obeying the Queensbury rules, MTM!*


































* Me.