Isn't "assasinating" Saddam considered a war crime?

Why don't you go read the f*ing UNSC resolution? If very clearly authorizes force in the event that Iraq violates its ceasefire obligations. I don't care what this article says - it is not the legal document governing the use of force and Iraq's obligations. I care what UNSCR 687 says. I'd say that that is more important than what a reporter thinks about the war's legality.

Go read.

http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/23/IMG/NR059623.pdf?OpenElement

Also go here: http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm

You can index the other 16 resolutions pertaining to Iraq's disarmament.

 

It doesn't HAVE to be wrong. But it is. Just a few points.

Dorf makes a lot of assumptions about what is and is not 'implied' by different actions and resolutions, and does so as if they are factual interpretations. They are not.

Also, the third category of recognized legitimate interventions, those to stop genocidal policies of a particular regime, is invoked everytime the administration talks about Saddam as a despot, a tyrant, who commits genocide on his own people. To say that the administration has never named this among any of its justifications for intervention is flat out false. The administration adamantly speaks of Iraqis being killed 'everyday' by the regime, and as such Saddam must be removed to stop 'ongoing crimes against humanity.'

"Thus, the argument for self-defense must be based on an expansion of that concept - from self-defense as repelling an ongoing or imminent attack, to self-defense as pre-emption of a feared future attack."

I think that's how Napolean got to Moscow ...

 

I keep hearing people say that this war is "illegal", but I haven't heard the UN say it's illegal. So do people have facts that say this is illegal or are they assuming it's illegal because the UN hasn't give their full blessings on it? Because I've seen it pop up suddenly that this war is illegal, and everyone is saying it but the UN themselves to my knowledge.

 

Just to make this simple: 'all necessary measures'

Main Entry: all
Pronunciation: 'ol
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English all, al, from Old English eall; akin to Old High German all all
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the whole amount or quantity of <needed all the courage they had> <sat up all night> b : as much as possible <spoke in all seriousness>
2 : every member or individual component of <all men will go> <all five children were present>
3 : the whole number or sum of <all the angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles>
4 : EVERY <all manner of hardship>
5 : any whatever <beyond all doubt>

Main Entry: necessary
Pronunciation: 'ne-s&-"ser-E
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English necessarie, from Latin necessarius, from necesse necessary, probably from ne- not + cedere to withdraw -- more at NO
Date: 14th century
1 a : of an inevitable nature : INESCAPABLE b (1) : logically unavoidable (2) : that cannot be denied without contradiction c : determined or produced by the previous condition of things d : COMPULSORY
2 : absolutely needed : REQUIRED

Main Entry: measure
Pronunciation: 'me-zh&r, 'mA-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mesure, from Old French, from Latin mensura, from mensus, past participle of metiri to measure; akin to Old English m[AE]th measure, Greek metron
Date: 13th century
1 a (1) : an adequate or due portion (2) : a moderate degree; also : MODERATION, TEMPERANCE (3) : a fixed or suitable limit : BOUNDS <rich beyond measure> b : the dimensions, capacity, or amount of something ascertained by measuring c : an estimate of what is to be expected (as of a person or situation) d (1) : a measured quantity (2) : AMOUNT, DEGREE
2 a : an instrument or utensil for measuring b (1) : a standard or unit of measurement -- see WEIGHT table (2) : a system of standard units of measure <metric measure>
3 : the act or process of measuring
4 a (1) : MELODY, TUNE (2) : DANCE; especially : a slow and stately dance b : rhythmic structure or movement : CADENCE: as (1) : poetic rhythm measured by temporal quantity or accent; specifically : METER (2) : musical time c (1) : a grouping of a specified number of musical beats located between two consecutive vertical lines on a staff (2) : a metrical unit : FOOT
5 : an exact divisor of a number
6 : a basis or standard of comparison <wealth is not a measure of happiness>
7 : a step planned or taken as a means to an end; specifically : a proposed legislative act
- for good measure : in addition to the minimum required : as an extra

Exactly what is difficult about this? By these definitions from Merriam-Webster (I'm assuming that's an OK source?), these three words would *seem* to include the use of force. Let me put the definitions together for you, just in case their total meaning still escapes you:

'whole number or sum of logically unavoidable step(s) planned or taken as a means to an end'

The end here being Iraqi compliance with UNSC resolutions. Now, does this help? Do you understand it now, No Worries? Is this clear enough for you?

 

US sponsered Iraq economic sanctions.
Said sanctions lead to genecide.
US must prevent acts of genocide (it is our moral imperative).
US must invade itself.
QED

 

Isn't it possible that the implications were tacit agreements within the UN Security Council?

 

Oh give me a break! The United States have tried to help Iraq's people but Saddam Hussein is a murderer. The UN isn't worth jack crap so they sit back and let him do it and then whine when the U.S. gets tired of Hussein. So the best there are two ways to get rid of the acts of genocide:

1.) Your way, have the U.S. bomb themselves or,

2.) The logical way, go into Iraq and take down Hussein and his regime.

I mean to blame the U.S., or anyone else for that matter, because Saddam Hussein is a maniac is just trying to lay blame or everyone but the one person who should be blamed: Saddam Hussein. You can blame the U.S., the U.N., Italy, Germany, Japan, U.K., whoever. I'll blame Saddam Hussein and hope they blow his sorry @ss off the face of this earth.

 

True.

False. Saddam's hoarding of food and medicines, combined with his averting funds to rebuild his military lead to genocide.

True.

False. The US must destroy Saddam's regime.

Your structure here is fine, but you mistakenly assume that the US is responsible for the suffering inside Iraq. This is what is called a false assumption. It is a common mistake... It is not surprising; the idea that the US bears primary responsibility for Iraq's troubles is a common misconception in USA-hater circles. One we have argued many times before, and will soon have no relevance at all.

BTW, did my definitions help to clear things up for you? I do hope so. I don't want you to make yourself look like a fool in a conversation on the legality issue, or anything like that...

 

Iraq is firing banned weapons at our troops and all we can ponder is if action is legal?

WashTimes.com Yahoo.com
TheAge.com
Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar: "Disarming Iraq is legal under a series of U.N. resolutions," Aznar said. "Iraq is in flagrant violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions."

 

you are seriously out of control...seriously, No Worries...enough is enough already...we know there's a conspiracy behind everything now...we know that the administration is nothing more than common criminals...really...there's nothing more you can say to shock us...so move on to the jazz board or something and try to convince someone over there. we've heard it all already. like madonna, it's all played out now.

 

Oh, so now our solemn treaty obligations are just 'tacit agreements'???



I thought I was the treaty-breaker here???

 

I know there is bound to be someone that comes along, who is saying what the U.S. is doing is illegal, and will use the rationale that Iraq had to use those banned weapons to defend themselves. Well think about this, if weapons are banned how do you have them to use so quickly? I can't believe there are people who are saying the U.S. illegal and are ripping them, or saying the U.S. is sanctioning "genocide", and then this comes out that Iraq is using banned weapons, some of the weapons the UN has been trying to get them to get rid of. Why don't they just hold up a big neon sign saying: "Iraq is GUILTY! G-U-I-L-T-Y".

 

The UN relief disagree with your assertion. But wtf they were actually there, so they can not be trusted.

Before you diss this argument answer the following questions?

How much did the oil for food program raise after Kuwaiti reparations?

How much per capita per year did this supply?

Gee, you might have yourself a bad take there.

 

Thanks for the link to the Resolutions. I read 687. I found that most of it is setting out a lot of the things that we accuse Saddam of violating: nukes, chemical weapons, bio weapons, long-ranged weapons, etc. There is not one jot about enforcement until the last paragraph, which Dorf had quoted:

I understand it to mean just that the Security Council will watch the situation (as outlined in many places in the resolution) and, if Iraq doesn't play along, they will take further steps to provide a solution. Those further steps would be Resolutions (do they act in any other way?).

Not here's the important part which I don't think you addressed with the 'all necessary measures' quote. Who is allowed to take necessary measures? I read it as the Security Council can take all necessary measures. War is justified according to the UN Resolutions if the UN undertakes it.

If Iran unilaterally invaded Iraq saying they wanted to free the country of a tyrant, would that be legal?

 

The sanctions were directly responsible for the deaths of 500,000 children under the age of 5. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ...

 

Why, Oh Why, were the Kurdish areas not impoverished? Starving? In need of medicines? They recieved no more cash than the rest of Iraq; the only differences were: 1) protected from Saddam's troops, and 2) administered by USwith the UN. Only differences - no financial differences.

Please. Explain this incongruency?

 

Umm, no Saddam Hussein is responsible for the deaths of 500,000 people. Last I checked the sanctions didn't force Hussein to torture his own people and kill people.

 

Showing the flaws in the "stop genocidal policies" logic makes me out of control? Go figure.

 

you must have missed the rest of my post...go figure.

 

I apologize if I misled. The links were in reference to the legal case for war. My comment was based on the fact banned weapons such as Scuds and Al Samouds are being fired at Kuwait and our troops and we argue the legality of such action in Iraq? Well they have been firing the case at us for the past two days.