just keep moving…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632566,00.html
In another amazing development, the US and Great Britain signed the Atlantic Charter in about May 1941, giving the USN primary responsibility for guarding convoys from U Boats during the initial phase of their trip between the United States and Great Britain. This was six months before Pearl Harbor and therefore proves that FDR lied to get the US into WWII.
In guess you must have forgotten that it was reported at the time that the US was had begun eliminating the Iraqi antiaircraft systems six months before Operation Iraqi Freedom began. You know, about 12 years after Iraq started both violating the ceasefire agreement that ended the First Persian Gulf War and various UN Resolutions requiring it to disarm. Slightly less time after it started bribing the colation of willing politicians with oil that was supposed to be sold for food.
The new information, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, shows that the allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001, and that the RAF increased their attacks even more quickly than the Americans did.
so basically, then, the allies had started to prosecute the war in iraq prior to receiving the vote in the un that was the supposed legal justification for the invasion?
: not to mention that it looks from this timeline as if the air campaign started well in advance of six months prior to the onset of “iraqi freedom”…
yep, invading iraq was a good faith decision based on weighing the available evidence…
And only with the permission of an organization that has recently put Libya and Syria in charge of its committee on human rights is military action legally justified?
Do you think that the US and British forces should put Saddam back in power?
Or do you think that our prison at Gitmo is the new gulag of our times, thereby demostrating your ignorance of both the actual gulag sytem and the purpose and conditions at Gitmo?
the u.s. sure seemed to think that obtaining permission from the un was important. moreover, simply because the un has corrupt individuals/groups doesn’t mean that the underlying laws upon which it is based aren’t “pure” or still legally binding. so basically, yes, approval from the un was a fairly necessary component in the case for war against iraq. the admin sure played it off that way.
your second question is ridiculous. seems to imply that you favor a machiavellian approach to everything–ends justify the means which is patently absurd. it’s good saddam is out of power. doesn’t give shrub a free pass on the run up to war. moreover, things aren’t getting better in iraq. and because of the haste to prosecute an unnecessary war, the job in afghanistan was left half done and the gains made there are in danger of completely falling apart. rather than doing one thing and finishing it, the admin is botching two things…
i don’t know all of what goes on in gitmo. i know that people have been beaten to death in similar prisons in afghanistan and at abu ghraib. i know the existence of gitmo and some of the behaviors that go on there and that have been made public endanger american lives. and i’m quite certain what we’ve heard to date isn’t the worst of what goes on down there. but if your ok with that, more power to you…
So, based on this reasoning, the war against Serbia over Kosovo was also illegal. Clinton never even attempted to get a UN resolution sanctioning that war because he knew both China and Russia would oppose it.
Spot
i’ve heard that argument made on several occasions. to be quite honest, at that point in time, my political awareness wasn’t particularly acute, so i can’t really comment.
Not very acute at this time either.
well that definitely clears it up, thanks.
In order to have known about the increased bombing campaign prior to the start of the war, you would have had to read super secret documents like, maybe even the NY Times.
I commented many times during the six month lead up to the war, that it had actually already begun.
I am shocked, shocked to read this article. Thanks for passing it on.
You wrote: "to be quite honest, at that point in time, my political awareness wasn’t particularly acute, so i can’t really comment. "
Do you really mean that? You have no opinions on events that you form indenpendantly? You need direction from whatever media sources you follow to tell you which way the political wind is blowing? In all of the lame thoughts shared in this Lavender Room (The Hottie Thread excluded from critisism of course) to me this may be the lamest.
My ‘political awareness’ wasn’t particularly acute durring Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, etc…but I still have informed and coherent thoughts on them. I do appreciate that you may not be a history buff but really, if you are going to have a passion for current political and military efforts it is helpful to understand, or at least be aware of precedents and very recent relevant history. It’s not like Bosnia was THAT long ago.
I think the idea that the UN is the source of moral authority for anything is very amusing.
Does anyone really believe that anymore?
Only the finest wines in the finest Swiss hotels
.
“I think the idea that the UN is the source of moral authority for anything is very amusing”
I don’t think many people think that way. The question isn’t if the UN is a moral authority, but if it’s a legal one.
I have always gotten a kick out of that line of reasoning. Someone please tell me what law the US arguably violated by invading Iraq. Please provide the text of the law and its legislative history.
“Someone please tell me what law the US arguably violated by invading Iraq. Please provide the text of the law and its legislative history”
I think the part that people would point to is the portion of the UN Charter that says:
- All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
-All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Since we signed the UN Charter and it is considered treaty law, it is not only arguable that it is binding international law, but also that it is the Supreme Law of the Land in accordance with the Constitution. Many people would argue that our actons in Iraq did not meet the requirements of Article 51 allowing individual or collective self-defense. Do you really need the legislative history of the UN Charter? Just like the debate about embryonic stem cells, this one has reasonable arguments on both sides.
I have to admit I have never curled up with the UN Charter. It seems to me that there are few other things in there like right to self defense and maybe even the right to enforce treaties such as the one after the first Gulf War.
By your interpretation, any war would be illegal. When the UN signs off on a war, are they suspending their charter?
I would probably sign off on a piece of paper that says we shall all love one another and get along, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t defend myself or my family.
“I have to admit I have never curled up with the UN Charter. It seems to me that there are few other things in there like right to self defense and maybe even the right to enforce treaties such as the one after the first Gulf War”
There are provisions for self defense the right to enforce security counsel resolutions. However, reasonable arguments could easily be made that Iraq was not a threat to the US or the members of our coalition and the Charter also says you can’t attack in conravention of UN efforts to control the situation, which people could also argue we violated.
“By your interpretation, any war would be illegal”
That’s the whole point of the UN. The idea was to prevent wars altogether. Wars of self-defense would be legal for the defending nation because they would be defending themselves against th country comitting an illegal act.
“When the UN signs off on a war, are they suspending their charter?”
No. the Charter is designed to work out differences through the UN, and the UN can authorize the use of force. That’s why we were trying to get their approval for use of force in Iraq.
“I would probably sign off on a piece of paper that says we shall all love one another and get along, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t defend myself or my family.”
And that’s a perfectly valid way to think, but it’s also perfectly reasonable to think that your family was in no threat from Saddam, or at least not the type of threat which would legally allow an attack without UN authorization. The point is, there is a legitimate legal debate there, not just rhetoric.
However, reasonable arguments could easily be made that Iraq was not a threat to the US or the members of our coalition and the Charter also says you can’t attack in conravention of UN efforts to control the situation, which people could also argue we violated.
Actaully, there is very little room for any reasonable argument on whether or not Saddam was a threat to the United States. He wasn’t. The facts are very one-sided to anyone who chooses to review them.
absolutely i mean it and have no shame about it either. i was in my prime college years and politics wasn’t particularly relevant to me at that time. bosnia wasn’t such a major historical event such that i felt a need to go back and research it.
has nothing to do with “independent” thoughts. just priorities then and now.