Science Undecided on Room Temperature Superconductors

[Forty Two]

The second gulf war was probably not illegal, and had some ethical justification in terms of Saddam's vicious treatment of the Kurds etc. However, that doesn't change the fact that, after the initial successful blitzkrieg, it was both poorly managed, and had some very bad political consequences for the region.

bullshit, Jim. Your version of what is ethical is not the standard for declaring war and invading another country. If you are worried about the Kurds, you better start calling for an invasion of Turkey.

The word "some" was the clue...

Critics of the Iraq invasion (and there is a lot one can be critical about, sure) tend to minimise what a monster Saddam was, and the harm he was doing to his own people.

No no. Saddam Hussein was a modern, secular leader who, while a dictator, at least enforced an egalitarian dictatorship wherein there was little religious strife, women and minorities were treated well, education and economic advancement were first rate, and the people lived in general peace and harmony.

[Forty Two]

And this has what to do with the clusterfuck that was/is Iraq? Merka RAH RAH RAH?

Not talking just about "legality" anymore? Just want to find out where the goalposts are.... is this Merkin football, with the posts at the back of the end zone, Canada rules with the posts in the middle of the end zone and a bigger field, or Ozzie rules with inner and outer posts?

Oh, wait... clusterfuck therefore illegal. Or, maybe it's "Bush, therefore illegal" and "Obama, therefore covered?"

[pErvinalia]

We are discussing legality. "Who gives a fuck" isn't a sensible answer.

If we're discussing legality, then clearly the Security Counsel approval is not required for a war or military action to be legal. Most wars are not approved the Security Council.

There's two(?) provisions in international law for declaring war on someone else. They don't need UNSC approval. Self defence, and something else (protecting an ally, I think?). Outside of that, you need UNSC approval for war, for it to be legal. The US is legally covered in their bombing of Syria as they are protecting their ally Iraq. Iraq in 2003 met neither of those two conditions. The UN resolution made it clear that war wasn't cleared in the case of Iraq's violations of other resolutions. The rest is all just version of "who gives a fuck?".

Syria attacked Iraq?

Were did I say that??

You say the US and UK are covered for war in Syria

,

No I didn't. I said the US is. That's the legal interpretations that I've heard. The US is not attacking Syria, it is attacking one of Syria's enemy.

But, you think that Iraq's recognized government in 2003 taking military action against the military forces of the US and UK is not sufficient to allow military action in response, even though the same was a direct violation of Cease Fire Accords in place at the time by one of the State parties to the Accords?

I don't "think" it, I know it. It's written in the link you provided for 1441.

The US and UK were attacked by Iraq in that Iraq violated the Cease Fire Accords and fired upon Coalition aircraft and personnel.

Link?

Those personnel were there under UN auspices, enforcing the UN enacted no-fly zone and monitoring the UN oil-for-food program. A country enforcing said resolutions is not obliged to allow its forces to be fired upon, pending UN permission to fire back.

"fire back" = invasion. Interesting.

The UN resolution did not at all "make it clear" that war wasn't cleared. Resolution 1441 is part of the legal basis for war, because it can be interpreted as allowing for that as a serious consequence of Iraq's noncompliance.

Yes it did. It explicitly said just that. You need to re-read your own fucking link.

edit: apologies, it was Piscator who linked 1441.

[pErvinalia]

The second gulf war was probably not illegal, and had some ethical justification in terms of Saddam's vicious treatment of the Kurds etc. However, that doesn't change the fact that, after the initial successful blitzkrieg, it was both poorly managed, and had some very bad political consequences for the region.

bullshit, Jim. Your version of what is ethical is not the standard for declaring war and invading another country. If you are worried about the Kurds, you better start calling for an invasion of Turkey.

Would an invasion of Turkey have been justified based on treatment of the Kurds?

No. What a stupid question.

[pErvinalia]

And this has what to do with the clusterfuck that was/is Iraq? Merka RAH RAH RAH?

Not talking just about "legality" anymore? Just want to find out where the goalposts are.... is this Merkin football, with the posts at the back of the end zone, Canada rules with the posts in the middle of the end zone and a bigger field, or Ozzie rules with inner and outer posts?

Oh, wait... clusterfuck therefore illegal. Or, maybe it's "Bush, therefore illegal" and "Obama, therefore covered?"

How about illegal AND a clusterfuck? Did you do logic at school?

[Forty Two]

We are discussing legality. "Who gives a fuck" isn't a sensible answer.

If we're discussing legality, then clearly the Security Counsel approval is not required for a war or military action to be legal. Most wars are not approved the Security Council.

There's two(?) provisions in international law for declaring war on someone else. They don't need UNSC approval. Self defence, and something else (protecting an ally, I think?). Outside of that, you need UNSC approval for war, for it to be legal. The US is legally covered in their bombing of Syria as they are protecting their ally Iraq. Iraq in 2003 met neither of those two conditions. The UN resolution made it clear that war wasn't cleared in the case of Iraq's violations of other resolutions. The rest is all just version of "who gives a fuck?".

Syria attacked Iraq?

Were did I say that??

You didn't, which is why I asked the question. If the answer is "no" then you'll need to explain how either self-defense or defense of another country operates to allow the US to attack Syrian territory.

You say the US and UK are covered for war in Syria

,

No I didn't. I said the US is. That's the legal interpretations that I've heard. The US is not attacking Syria, it is attacking one of Syria's enemy.

The US is attacking Syrian territory and invading its airspace without permission. Syria doesn't want the US attacking Syrian territory. Are you saying that the presence in a country of an organization that has attacked US forces is fair game for the US to attack?

But, you think that Iraq's recognized government in 2003 taking military action against the military forces of the US and UK is not sufficient to allow military action in response, even though the same was a direct violation of Cease Fire Accords in place at the time by one of the State parties to the Accords?

I don't "think" it, I know it. It's written in the link you provided for 1441.

It isn't, actually, and I didn't provide a link to Resolution 1441. Please reference the link - show me where it is written.

The US and UK were attacked by Iraq in that Iraq violated the Cease Fire Accords and fired upon Coalition aircraft and personnel.

Link?

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31641.pdf

and, http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/ ... sefire.htm

Those personnel were there under UN auspices, enforcing the UN enacted no-fly zone and monitoring the UN oil-for-food program. A country enforcing said resolutions is not obliged to allow its forces to be fired upon, pending UN permission to fire back.

"fire back" = invasion. Interesting.

Legality. Isn't that the question?

Do you have some arbitrary distinction in your mind between air strikes/missile strikes and other forms of warfare? Something would justify bombing Iraq from the sky, but a US ground forces response would be illegal? Is that your argument? If not, explain your position.

The UN resolution did not at all "make it clear" that war wasn't cleared. Resolution 1441 is part of the legal basis for war, because it can be interpreted as allowing for that as a serious consequence of Iraq's noncompliance.

Yes it did. It explicitly said just that. You need to re-read your own fucking link.

edit: apologies, it was Piscator who linked 1441.

Please cut and paste the sentence or paragraph to which you refer wherein it is "made clear."

[Forty Two]

And this has what to do with the clusterfuck that was/is Iraq? Merka RAH RAH RAH?

Not talking just about "legality" anymore? Just want to find out where the goalposts are.... is this Merkin football, with the posts at the back of the end zone, Canada rules with the posts in the middle of the end zone and a bigger field, or Ozzie rules with inner and outer posts?

Oh, wait... clusterfuck therefore illegal. Or, maybe it's "Bush, therefore illegal" and "Obama, therefore covered?"

How about illegal AND a clusterfuck? Did you do logic at school?

How about:

The war was illegal because ........................ [insert your argument here].

So far you've said "No UNSC resolution."

That's been explained, several times now, as not being a requirement for a war to be legal. It may be a partial justification -- it may be support for a war being legal -- but, the absence of a UNSC resolution does not make a war illegal. Your continued assertions to that it does are just plain wrong.

[pErvinalia]

You say the US and UK are covered for war in Syria

,

No I didn't. I said the US is. That's the legal interpretations that I've heard. The US is not attacking Syria, it is attacking one of Syria's enemy.

The US is attacking Syrian territory and invading its airspace without permission. Syria doesn't want the US attacking Syrian territory. Are you saying that the presence in a country of an organization that has attacked US forces is fair game for the US to attack?

I'm only repeating the legal arguments I've heard. It's definitely not clear, but a precedent has been set before with the US invading A'stan for Osama. The US/Aust/France aren't attacking Syrian targets. They are attacking ISIS targets. They definitely aren't at war with Syria. Well, that's the official line, but it's well known that the US is ignoring ISIS units engaged with the Syrian army (so as to weaken the Syrian army), just like Turkey is ignoring ISIS units engaged with the Kurds. Same as Russia is only attacking US friendly rebel groups.

But, you think that Iraq's recognized government in 2003 taking military action against the military forces of the US and UK is not sufficient to allow military action in response, even though the same was a direct violation of Cease Fire Accords in place at the time by one of the State parties to the Accords?

I don't "think" it, I know it. It's written in the link you provided for 1441.

It isn't, actually, and I didn't provide a link to Resolution 1441. Please reference the link - show me where it is written.

"France questioned the phrase "serious consequences" and stated repeatedly that any "material breach" found by the inspectors should not automatically lead to war; instead the UN should pass another resolution deciding on the course of action. In favour of this view is the fact that previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII used much stronger terms, like "...all necessary means..." in Resolution 678 in 1990 and that Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter.""

and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Na ... uncil_vote which Hermit has already quoted from.

Those personnel were there under UN auspices, enforcing the UN enacted no-fly zone and monitoring the UN oil-for-food program. A country enforcing said resolutions is not obliged to allow its forces to be fired upon, pending UN permission to fire back.

"fire back" = invasion. Interesting.

Legality. Isn't that the question?

Yeah, and how does legality for shooting back equate to legality for a full scaled invasion and regime change?!?

Do you have some arbitrary distinction in your mind between air strikes/missile strikes and other forms of warfare? Something would justify bombing Iraq from the sky, but a US ground forces response would be illegal? Is that your argument? If not, explain your position.

Full scale invasion and regime change is clearly different from small engagements. I wouldn't have thought that would need explaining. But this is you I'm debating, after all.

[pErvinalia]

And this has what to do with the clusterfuck that was/is Iraq? Merka RAH RAH RAH?

Not talking just about "legality" anymore? Just want to find out where the goalposts are.... is this Merkin football, with the posts at the back of the end zone, Canada rules with the posts in the middle of the end zone and a bigger field, or Ozzie rules with inner and outer posts?

Oh, wait... clusterfuck therefore illegal. Or, maybe it's "Bush, therefore illegal" and "Obama, therefore covered?"

How about illegal AND a clusterfuck? Did you do logic at school?

How about:

The war was illegal because ........................ [insert your argument here].

So far you've said "No UNSC resolution."

That's been explained, several times now, as not being a requirement for a war to be legal. It may be a partial justification -- it may be support for a war being legal -- but, the absence of a UNSC resolution does not make a war illegal. Your continued assertions to that it does are just plain wrong.

We've been over this before. There are two(?) scenarios in which war can be declared outside of a UN resolution. Neither of those two applied to Iraq 2003. I'm not sure if invading other countries is specifically illegal outside of the conditions and a UN resolution, I'd have to look into that. But it should be considered exactly the same way that Iraq was considered when it invaded Kuwait. If the UN was actually a fair and just organisation, it would be the same. But of course, we all know that "might makes right", unfortunately.

[pErvinalia]

Second Google hit. Not sure how accurate this is, but it aligns with what I've read about the issue before:

As a matter of international law, use or threat of force against the territorial integrity or political sovereignty of another State is illegal. Force may be used for the purpose of self defense and within the confines of necessity and proportionality. This prohibition on use of force is one of the norms that international lawyers call 'jus cogens' (peremptory norms) and has been codified in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Customary international law also prohibits States from acquiring territory through aggression or recognising such acquisitions made by other States.

https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-country ... de-another

[pErvinalia]

Looking at the following, it appears that legality might be only determined when a determination is called for: (this is in relation to the legality of Iraq: The Sequel)

The UN Security Council, as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but has yet not been asked by any UN member nation to do so. The United States and the United Kingdom have veto power in the Security Council, so action by the Security Council is highly improbable even if the issue were to be raised. Despite this, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) may ask that the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—"the principal judicial organ of the United Nations" (Article 92)—give either an 'advisory opinion' or 'judgement' on the legality of the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

But then a bit further on it says:

The United Nations Charter is the foundation of modern international law.[10] The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and its principal coalition allies in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which are therefore legally bound by its terms. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter generally bans the use of force by states except when carefully circumscribed conditions are met, stating:


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.[11]

This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined", said Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General International Commission of Jurists.[12]

Therefore, in the absence of an armed attack against the US or the coalition members, any legal use of force, or any legal threat of the use of force, had to be supported by a UN security Council resolution authorizing member states to use force against Iraq.[10

[Forty Two]

The second gulf war was probably not illegal, and had some ethical justification in terms of Saddam's vicious treatment of the Kurds etc. However, that doesn't change the fact that, after the initial successful blitzkrieg, it was both poorly managed, and had some very bad political consequences for the region.

bullshit, Jim. Your version of what is ethical is not the standard for declaring war and invading another country. If you are worried about the Kurds, you better start calling for an invasion of Turkey.

Would an invasion of Turkey have been justified based on treatment of the Kurds?

No. What a stupid question.

Oh, o.k., well. You brought it up. You said that if someone is worried about the Kurds, then better start calling for an invasion of Turkey. The Kurds must be in a terrible situation in Turkey right now. What's happening to them there?

[Forty Two]

Looking at the following, it appears that legality might be only determined when a determination is called for: (this is in relation to the legality of Iraq: The Sequel)

The UN Security Council, as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but has yet not been asked by any UN member nation to do so. The United States and the United Kingdom have veto power in the Security Council, so action by the Security Council is highly improbable even if the issue were to be raised. Despite this, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) may ask that the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—"the principal judicial organ of the United Nations" (Article 92)—give either an 'advisory opinion' or 'judgement' on the legality of the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

But then a bit further on it says:

The United Nations Charter is the foundation of modern international law.[10] The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and its principal coalition allies in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which are therefore legally bound by its terms. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter generally bans the use of force by states except when carefully circumscribed conditions are met, stating:


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.[11]

This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined", said Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General International Commission of Jurists.[12]

Therefore, in the absence of an armed attack against the US or the coalition members, any legal use of force, or any legal threat of the use of force, had to be supported by a UN security Council resolution authorizing member states to use force against Iraq.[10

And there was the use of force and threat of use of force against the US and coalition members, and other UN members. Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 90s, and the UN at that time responded, led by the US and UK, to liberate Kuwait and go to war against Iraq. There were Cease Fire Accords put in place, and Iraq repeatedly violated them, in part by shooting at coaliltion forces that were there enforcing the no-fly zone and the oil for food program, etc, throughout the 1990s. Those attacks justify disregard of the cease fire and war against Iraq. Add to that the series of UN resolutions culminating in Resolution 1441, and the overall threats to neighboring countries, etc. and you have plenty of justification for war. The US/UK was not bound to sit by and let their forces get fired upon waiting for the UN.

[pErvinalia]

The second gulf war was probably not illegal, and had some ethical justification in terms of Saddam's vicious treatment of the Kurds etc. However, that doesn't change the fact that, after the initial successful blitzkrieg, it was both poorly managed, and had some very bad political consequences for the region.

bullshit, Jim. Your version of what is ethical is not the standard for declaring war and invading another country. If you are worried about the Kurds, you better start calling for an invasion of Turkey.

Would an invasion of Turkey have been justified based on treatment of the Kurds?

No. What a stupid question.

Oh, o.k., well. You brought it up. You said that if someone is worried about the Kurds, then better start calling for an invasion of Turkey. The Kurds must be in a terrible situation in Turkey right now. What's happening to them there?

Does the rock you live under not get internet news??

[Forty Two]

Second Google hit. Not sure how accurate this is, but it aligns with what I've read about the issue before:

As a matter of international law, use or threat of force against the territorial integrity or political sovereignty of another State is illegal. Force may be used for the purpose of self defense and within the confines of necessity and proportionality. This prohibition on use of force is one of the norms that international lawyers call 'jus cogens' (peremptory norms) and has been codified in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Customary international law also prohibits States from acquiring territory through aggression or recognising such acquisitions made by other States.

https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-country ... de-another

There is a lot of grey area within necessity and proportionality. However, as to self-defense, if a country fires on some of your ships or forces, it's an act of war.