This war is illegal!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by trader556, Mar 1, 2003.

  1. Australian legal experts declare an invasion of Iraq a war crime.

    Forty-three Australian experts in international law and human rights legislation have issued a declaration that an invasion of Iraq will be an open breach of international law and a crime against humanity, even if it takes place with the authorisation of the UN Security Council.

    The legal experts reject outright the justifications for war being made by the American, British and Australian governments as a violation of the UN Charter

    Cool job Tony, but but but weren't you supposed to overlook all that bs that we call law? Shame on you!!! where is your support for US attacking Iraq?:confused:
    Here we are trying to get a coalition of the coerced and you are pulling away? Ok ok ok.. we didn't pay you enough? but hey Turks come first.:mad: :mad: :mad:

    Ofc it's a crime. Shrub Mafia and Co has to go
  2. Hussein is a threat to the peace. (Where have you been for the past 20 years?)

    Further negotiation? Where do you find these people! I think I'm going to wet my pants!
  3. The problem with "international" law is there is no governing body like a Supreme court to properly interpret law.

    All the time in this country, we have people who challenge the law via the appeals process. We have attorneys make their case for one way to view the law, and attorneys on the opposite side making their case.

    The conclusions you posted by legal experts are meaningless. Any time you want, you can find law professors at many different scholastic universities around the world render different, and opposing opinions on what the law really means, and how to apply the law in a specific circumstance.

    Laws are written by men, and thus subject to interpretation or subordinate pre-existing laws.

    Who really is in a position to adjudicate this process? Which country can stand without political ambitions as countries take up their respective sides and causes?

    International law is a total joke without a strong force to enforce, or an appeals court to question its validity.

    That you would post the opinion of a lawyer to justify your own personal bias is typical of one who cannot make a case on their own.

    Imagine holding up an attorney as a model of proper thought.
  4. skeptic123

    skeptic123 Guest

    - 43 is actually not a lot, likely a minority even among Australian experts. I wonder what the rest of them (experts) are thinking
    - "Experts" do not make judgements, they cannot declare anything legal or illegal. Courts do it. Experts express opinions. Just because they are of an opinion that something is or is not legal does not make it so until they have won the court case.
    - If they believe the war is illegal, I am sure they believe that Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991 was also illegal. They had 12 years to issue their declarations regarding Iraq and take Iraqi government to Court. Show me what they've actually done in these 12 years. I mean, I am sure they are consistent in their beliefs, if they accuse USA of war crimes now they of course did not hesitate to condemn and sue Iraq for what it did... right?
  5. All your statements are self contradictory. Not looking to get into a wording pissing match or debate the meaning of the word is. If the law is meaningless according to you, why have it? If it's a matter of interpretation then who's to say who is right and who is wrong. You immediately discount the other side. Are you an attorney of international law? Where is the supporting side besides the Shrub and Co spin?. Sooooooo, he who has the weapons and WE DO! can just f%$k everyone else and be done with it? Who's gonna stop us? :mad: One opinion, according to this it's 43. But it's really dosn't seem to matter in these discussions-as long it is against your views anything is discounted right?
    Look optional777 you either respect the law and enforce it ACROSS the board or not. You can't be selective about crimes. War and thousands of lives -Hundreds at stake!!!!! look at all the UN resolutions and all the violators and tell me what kind of righteousness and justice are WE supporting? Might makes it right? if that's your law, lets accept it, declare it and be done with the dog and pony shows. It will still be US vs the whole world including many of our own, but we may get some respect on being truthfully.

    Out of 192 nations have what? 3-4 on our side? Is that democracy? Dismantle the UN because it's convenient this time? Pay the Turks 44 billion cash upfront with over 90% opposition in their own country for what? my tax dollars at full work?:mad:
    Turks maybe worst than Iraq in human rights violations treatment of women but don't let these friggin facts stop us.

    It used to be---life, liberty and the pursue of happiness
    monkey and them goons new meaning?
    ---death, control/manipulation by force, and the purse of money, oil, and world domination at any cost :mad :mad:

    Shrub Mafia and Co just has to go
  6. Amazing how these Bozos can stand up and denounce the potential war but not the criminal that has caused the whole stinking mess. Where was the full page ruling of theirs about what Saddam has done in the past? I always wonder about folks like this.

    I have an associate who swears that the world was out of line when we declared war against Germany for Hitler's actions. I can't tell you how many times he has drug out his law books to show me the various areas of law that were violated during WWII by America and its allies in their actions against Germany.

    And now, that great superpower Australia flexes its muscles. Let me see if I have this right. How large is the military contingent that they would be sending again? History shows that there were many who didn't want entry into WWII. Now we'll let the record show Australia's posture in this matter. They've weighed in, let's move on. :)
  7. Saddam has law, his law, and he enforces it. Does that mean his law is good, that he is lawful?

    My point is that laws always exist, always have to some degree or another.

    The issue right now concerning Bush's potential undertaking is
    whether or not it is lawful.

    Who decides what is lawful? In whose eyes is it lawful or unlawful?

    Who is the judge in this case? Who is interpreting the law properly. Don't you think that Bush has a team of legal experts who could write brief upon brief in support of his interpreting laws to support his position?

    We don't have a world government, we don't have a final authority. How many times since the creation of the United Nations and international law has law been "violated" according to someone's interpretation of the law?

    A law is only as good as someone's ability to enforce it, and a law is just only to the degree that is corresponds to the concept of justice and fairness.

    Until the United Nations could agree on a body to be the final authority on the correct interpretation of international law, and be willing to back up the enforcement of international law, what good is it really?

    I don't trust the agendas of any country, as they are all self centered. The #1 job of our government is to defend itself and its citizens, just like any other government. To ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense.

    As much as we might like a United Nations of the world, it is just a silly concept that doesn't really work.

    Alliances work as they are born out of common political needs at a particular time and place, and they are subject to change as a country changes their own personal agenda. Look at the current alliance between France and German, less than 65 years after Germany invaded France. It is a total joke. It is a marriage of convenience and sympathetic political agendas, not some concrete alliance based on morality. It is a house of straw, that will be blown down with the first major economic crisis in either France or Germany.

    Anyone with an historical perspective knows that all alliances are temporal, as each country lives in a state of flux.

    And some people dream of a world wide alliance?

    Folly, pure folly.
  8. I just looked up their involvement the first time and found that they sent approximately 1,800 troops and a couple of supply frigates. They also experienced no casualties. Other than a presence, I can't find any active battles that they were involved in either. So basically, we'll be about 1,800 troops lighter this time around. OK, noted! :)
  9. I have heard of 43 beans in every cup (Nestle coffee advertisement). That would have been in a coffee cup no doubt.

    43 lawyers proffering their opinion eh ? It sounds as if they had nothing better to do than making a storm in a teacup.

    I wouldn't take too much notice of 43 nerds in a teacup. No-one else much will. They do not represent the government nor do they represent the thinking people.

    Come to think of it, here is a good example how much thought some people put into their actions : at one of the peace rallies in Sydney last weekend one Arab woman got hold of the microphone and started a tirade talking about the Israelis being murderers blah blah blah.

    Not one of the thinking (?) people there had the sense to yell out 'hey, this is a peace rally, not a hate rally'.

    It reminds me of someone who many years ago approached me in Hyde Park (a park in Sydney where at the time people gathered on Sunday afternoons to listen to speakers) asking for my signature on a peace petition which was going to be sent to Parliament house.

    When I responded that he was a fool wasting his time as no-one would take notice of the petition anyway and that it would merely be thrown in the wastepaper basket, he got so angry that he raised his umbrella and wanted to kill me with the sharp end of his umbrella.

    I could not stop laughing because he had not realised yet that Man's violence comes from within and cannot be changed merely by petitions or statements.

  10. GW Wants war? Not so fast buddy

    Aussies :D

    Australian legal experts declare an invasion of Iraq a war crime

    Australia baulks at US plans for a postwar Iraq

    Australia warned of growing isolation

    Home front :D

    MI-6 and CIA oppose war on Iraq

    Role Reversal: Bush Wants War, Pentagon Urges Caution
    Why is the military NOT completely in support of a potential war against Iraq...?

    Anti-War Conservatives Bash Hawks on Iraq

    Byrd Warns War Will be a Disaster for the Nation

    U.S. Diplomat Resigns, Protesting 'Our Fervent Pursuit of War'

    _______GW save face and get out_________
    White House advisors looking for a "way out" of war with Iraq

    Re-evaluating Powell's brief for a war

    Desert Caution
    Once 'Stormin' Norman,' Gen. Schwarzkopf Is Skeptical About U.S. Action in Iraq¬Found=true

    Retired Air Force general takes Bush to task on Iraq

    A lot of lives will be lost -- and for what?

    11 Million World Citizens Marched and Rallied on February 15th, 2003.
    cool pics

    ***Bombing the Starving, Sick & Homeless***

    Gaining an empire, losing democracy?

    "To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace."
    - Tacitus

    Why Iraq?

    Blair Resumes Diplomacy on Iraq LONDON Feb. 27 —

    Turkey Rejects U.S. Troops , Iraq Scraps Missiles

    Arab leaders back Saddam

    Arabs Oppose Any War on Iraq, Refuse to Take Part

    Philippines: U.S. troops won't be fighting Asks US troops to leave

    Looks like a coalition of 1. -one person and few goons around him-:mad:

    GW, cut your losses sort, it's bad trade, take your stops and get out of this mess. Bring our people back. Turkey refused, take that 40-50 billion and help our bankrupt states. Obey the law!

    THIS IS THE GREATEST NATION on the FACE OF THIS EARTH!--- do not destroy it any more--

    I want my country back and what it USED TO STAND for :mad: :mad:

    Wake up America
    #10     Mar 2, 2003