The US supported Iraq against Iran in the Early to mid 80's same time as we were supporting Bin Laden in the 'Stan against the Soviets. Could the US have assisted in the cover up of the Nuke program? Who knows with Cold War intelligence being what it was. Would it surprise me if hard proof could be offered? Not in the least. I never claimed the US has made good choices of Allies in that time frame.

No. No WMD's were found. But I don't think that it could have been proven without boots on the ground. Saddam would have continued his shell game forever.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

The US supported Iraq against Iran in the Early to mid 80's same time as we were supporting Bin Laden in the 'Stan against the Soviets. Could the US have assisted in the cover up of the Nuke program? Who knows with Cold War intelligence being what it was. Would it surprise me if hard proof could be offered? Not in the least. I never claimed the US has made good choices of Allies in that time frame.

No. No WMD's were found. But I don't think that it could have been proven without boots on the ground. Saddam would have continued his shell game forever.

fair enough there 03, can't disagree with you there. i just think that there was more wiggle room to use before sending in the tanks.

but yeah...that pretty much explains my perception anyway, nice to see this wee tangent didn't decend into mudslinging too...good work on both our parts i say!

Originally Posted by MontyB

I think that given the UN secretary generals statements about the war not being the right thing to do indicate that it was illegal, and exactly how did "all sides mess up badly"?. I am sorry but we now do have the benefit of hindsight and Hans Blix and co must be smirking all the way to the bank now as they were spot on.

Anyway you asked why I dont just let the Americans have their reality and I have explained that reason basically because the US has gone from a nation that meddles in peoples affairs quietly to a nation that is trying to impose its will world wide and I consider that a bad thing therefore if I leave it until the point that it is affecting me then it will be too late.

Managed to keep it simple for times sake.

Ok I'll tell you how all sides messed up.
The US and the UK rushed it and it was a huge risk they took because from day 1 it was pretty unpopular. They didn't take the word from Europe seriously enough.
But here's the thing, by this time, Europe had almost had a rubber stamp saying no to what the US and the UK did anyways so the words of the war opposition fell on deaf ears. Why, this is why even Democrat senators in the US ignored them. Basically Europe cried wolf too many times and when it really mattered, their words just didn't mean anything anymore. That's what I mean by all sides screwing up.
As for the UN, they were HUGE screwups. They had a long record of making resolutions etc. and not backing them. Saddam had violated 1441 (WMD or no WMD) and the security council decided that violation would lead to "severe consequences," which is pretty much political speak for military action. Hell that's all that was left. Iraq was already under sanction. Instead the UN laughed it off. ITS OWN RESOLUTION. Which is why the US and the UK started ignoring the UN.
This is why I say all sides screwed up.
When things like this go wrong, it's rarely because only one side messed up.
Americans... probably suffered from the "yes" men in the intelligence circle. Or the people who processed it for the president. That's a guess though. I can't be sure. But obviously someone here messed up too, but the point is, EVERYONE screwed up.

Originally Posted by staurofilakes

The UN Convention Agaist torture gives a very clear definition of it:
torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions

For the exintence of torture you do not need many people tortured,with just one is enough.

Right. But just how many of these prisoners were actually "tortured?" Certainly from what we've seen there was no physical pain. There was some mental ones... but you could even argue that locking up someone would be a mental punishment. Basically the problem with the mental part is that it's way too vague. If a prison guard used foul language at a prisoner, would that constitute as a mental punishment?
Now okay let's just assume it was ACTUAL torture. The ones who did it were taken care of, and the commander of the prison was forced to retire. So in other words, the Army took care of it.
Things don't go smoothly in any other occupation. The police have its abuses. What, do we suddenly conclude that the police are bad?
Hell, priests have been sleeping with little boys, do we suddenly decide to ban religion?
Two big kids beat up a smaller kid at a school yard. Whoah, let's just ban school.
Basically the point is, this sort of stuff happens everywhere and anywhere. Chances are, in a time of war, these guys who've shot and bombed the comrades of the prison guards aren't going to get royal treatment. Whatever the case, the Abu Grahib guards certainly failed to exercise the discipline expected from soldiers.


About Article 51.
What if the US and the UK firmly believed their actions involved defending their homeland? What if they (and I believe this) REALLY believed that there were WMDs in Iraq? I mean, okay fine, some of you may never believe the US part, but certainly, there is nothing to suggest why the UK would have been on this if they believed there were WMDs. Then what? Yes they were wrong about defending their own country, but they honestly to God thought they were.

As for the UN, they were HUGE screwups. They had a long record of making resolutions etc. and not backing them. Saddam had violated 1441 (WMD or no WMD) and the security council decided that violation would lead to "severe consequences," which is pretty much political speak for military action. h**l that's all that was left. Iraq was already under sanction. Instead the UN laughed it off. ITS OWN RESOLUTION. Which is why the US and the UK started ignoring the UN.

Umm the bit that people so conveniently overlook is that the decision to enforce a UN resolution is not the responsibility of one country, the only method of enforcing a UN resolution is as a directive of the UN itself.
I am fully aware this has been GWB's method of justifying his "UN support" argument but it is very flawed.

I also doubt that the UN:SG would make comments to the effect that he has if he himself felt the UN had sanctioned this.

I am also waiting to hear what this imminent threat Iraq posed to the USA was especially since much of the pro-war "evidence" was coming from Iraqi exiles who were notoriously unbiased towards Hussein (sarcasm) while even the CIA were doubting the data collected.

The UN is not a Governing body, Judical Body, or Legislative Body.
The Charter is not International Law. It is a set of bylaws adopted by the UN to govern the actions of that particular Organization. It has no legal or binding effect on Nations outside of how it relates to their membership in the UN. On nonmember nations it has no effect.

Resolutions are not laws, not legislation they are nothing more than the UN's opinion on issues. Notice Rwanda, Congo, Somilia. The UN passes resolutions daily condemning actions of Nations and Groups with little to no effect. Not legislation.

I will give you definition of international law: International law deals with the relationships between states, or between persons or entities in different states. It sub-divides into "public international law", and "private international law". When used without an adjective, "international law" generally refers to "public international law", and this article concentrates on that meaning.

Traditionally, international law had states as its sole subjects. With the proliferation over the last century of international organizations(such us UN), they have been recognized as its subjects as well. More recent developments in international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international trade law (e.g. NAFTA Chapter 11 actions) have led to individuals and corporations being increasingly seen as subjects of international law as well, something which goes against the traditional legal orthodoxy. Since international law increasingly governs much more than merely relations between sovereign states, it may be better defined as law decided and enforced at the international, as opposed to national level.

I hope this definiton is clear enough. Conclusion: they make laws that regulate the relations betwen states.

About Article 51.
What if the US and the UK firmly believed their actions involved defending their homeland? What if they (and I believe this) REALLY believed that there were WMDs in Iraq? I mean, okay fine, some of you may never believe the US part, but certainly, there is nothing to suggest why the UK would have been on this if they believed there were WMDs. Then what? Yes they were wrong about defending their own country, but they honestly to God thought they were.

They could have belived whatever they wanted, but according to international law the war in Irak was illegal. To attack a country you need UNSC resolution,and that´s all.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Umm the bit that people so conveniently overlook is that the decision to enforce a UN resolution is not the responsibility of one country, the only method of enforcing a UN resolution is as a directive of the UN itself.
I am fully aware this has been GWB's method of justifying his "UN support" argument but it is very flawed.

I also doubt that the UN:SG would make comments to the effect that he has if he himself felt the UN had sanctioned this.

I am also waiting to hear what this imminent threat Iraq posed to the USA was especially since much of the pro-war "evidence" was coming from Iraqi exiles who were notoriously unbiased towards Hussein (sarcasm) while even the CIA were doubting the data collected.

What I'm saying is that even those who are on the opposite side of George W Bush backed Bush even with the UN screaming its head off. THAT'S when you know the UN's made a mistake. If George W Bush dislikes the UN like crazy, it won't matter as long as there are enough people who have faith in the UN in the US government because they won't give the President the neccessary green light to go and start a war in Iraq. They won't let it happen. Hell, even in the UK the same thing. They didn't take the UN seriously. How could two almost identical things happen in two different countries over this matter? If the UN hadn't made a joke out of itself, the UK possibly could have told the Americans that this was a big mistake. Instead the UK was sitting where there was the UN who had made a mockery of itself, and the US who apparently didn't have SOLID proof. They chose the US.
President George W Bush cannot authorize military action all on his own. He needs to get the approval. Checks and balances.
The imminent threat was under the belief that Saddam had WMD. Again I told you this side of the story, the US and the UK were WRONG here. How many times do I have to repeat this? They were wrong about the WMD and imminent threat.
As for no terrorist ties, I think it's one of those things that are hard to prove because the enemy's not stupid enough to put that stuff in a neatly documented file with "Al Qaeda Buddies" written on it. Though there's no proof to back it, I think it's silly to just discount it because "Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein don't like each other very much." A common enemy unites people of all kinds in a flash. Happens all the time. But imminent terror threat? Most likely no.

Originally Posted by staurofilakes

They could have belived whatever they wanted, but according to international law the war in Irak was illegal. To attack a country you need UNSC resolution,and that´s all.

Hmmm really? I remember the story of a father who came back with his wife to his own home. His daughter decided to surprise them by hiding in a closet. Apparently the father noticed something wrong. Maybe the daughter had messed up a few thigns before hiding. So he got his gun ready. Daughter jumped out and said "BOO!" The unfortunate father shot her.
Didn't go to jail.
Now I don't know if this story is 100% true. If someone could look it up that'd be great... if it is an urban legend then my apologies.
But I think that if you can prove that you made a legitimate error it could end up as something else. This wasn't a case of negligence, in which it would be manslaughter. It was percieved self defense.
Actually if you asked me, this mistake I felt should have costed George W Bush's job, but unfortunately even though John Kerry seemed a good candidate, his party and the noisy backers of the party (organizations like Move Forward) clearly showed that they were not ready to rule the country. So it saved Bush's job. I was very disappointed in the way that George W Bush handled the "I was wrong," thing. He just deflected the blame... he didn't take it like a man.

Hmmm really? I remember the story of a father who came back with his wife to his own home. His daughter decided to surprise them by hiding in a closet. Apparently the father noticed something wrong. Maybe the daughter had messed up a few thigns before hiding. So he got his gun ready. Daughter jumped out and said "BOO!" The unfortunate father shot her.
Didn't go to jail.
Now I don't know if this story is 100% true. If someone could look it up that'd be great... if it is an urban legend then my apologies.
But I think that if you can prove that you made a legitimate error it could end up as something else. This wasn't a case of negligence, in which it would be manslaughter. It was percieved self defense.
Actually if you asked me, this mistake I felt should have costed George W Bush's job, but unfortunately even though John Kerry seemed a good candidate, his party and the noisy backers of the party (organizations like Move Forward) clearly showed that they were not ready to rule the country. So it saved Bush's job. I was very disappointed in the way that George W Bush handled the "I was wrong," thing. He just deflected the blame... he didn't take it like a man.

The story you are telling is probably true,in law that is called "mistake in the person",his father did not have the intention of killing her daughter(dolus),we also have here a case "error in a self defense case",the father tought that somebody was in his house...but there are many facts involved that you have to consider...
But you have to remember that in international law doesn´t work the same rules... The only rules are the ones that UNSC created, and attacking another country due to an error sound really wiard

Geez... I think we're going to have to get some lawyer types to explain this one to us!

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Geez... I think we're going to have to get some lawyer types to explain this one to us!

well, I am studing this stuff, but explaing it in english is quite dificult.
To see if somebody has comited a crime(at least in spain) you have to follow this steps: ( for example in a murder)

-Action: human and voluntary action.

-Tipicidad(this is in spanish): you check if the action is the same as the described in the law( in our case, killing a person) Here there is an objetive part(if the action done was the right to get the porpouse) and a subjetive(intention to kill)
-antijuricity: you check if there were some reason that justifies the action, such as self defense,following orders( a police for example that shoot a guy),.....
-culpability: if any circuntance that influences in the comportament of the suspect exist he might not be guilty: drug intoxication, crazy, mental problems.....

If there is not a human and voluntary action there is no crime, it happens the same if the action is not the same as in the law, if there is not culpability there is crime, but the guy can not go to jail, may be mental institution....

this is a very short resume, but it will give you an idea...there are lots more facts that you have to consider....

In 1945 representatives from 50 Nations met in San Francisco at the United Nations Conference on International Organization to draw up the United Nations Charter. The Organization offically came in to exsistence 10/24/1945 when the Charter was ratified by the US, UK, USSR, France and China and a majority of other signatories.The purpose of the in the Charter , are to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to create a centre for harmonizing the actions in attaining these ends. There are 191 member States.


Not a Governing or legislative body by their own admission


UN International Law Commission

Established in 1947 by the General Assembly, the ILC promotes the Development and codification of international law.

Not an Enforcement or Judicial body.