Science Undecided on Room Temperature Superconductors

[Seth]

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

But "the UN is not the supreme authority over anything and has no legal authority to prohibit the United States from acting militarily in it's sovereign national interests" is. It is also the authoritative answer that refutes your ridiculous notion that the UN Security Council is some sort of ruling legislative body. It isn't and you clearly don't understand what the UN is or how it operates.

[Seth]

Legality.

Stupidity.

Education.

[Seth]

It wasn't authorised by the UNSC. Sorry, bro.

Neither was the more recent Libyan action, the current Syrian war, the bombings of Yemen, etc. Neither is Operation Barkhane in Africa, which has been going on for a year and a half.

A war or military action is either legal or illegal. An illegal war does not become legal if the UNSC approves it, and a legal war does not become illegal by declaration of the UNSC. The UN Charter vests no such "war legality declaration power" on the UNSC. Approval of the UNSC is political support, and also the expression of the SC that a particular action is legal. But, each country's opinion on international law issues is that country's opinion.

Nor, I want to make clear is the LACK of UNSC approval a bar to military action by any nation. rEv seems to think the UN is a world government that exercises veto authority over the actions of sovereign nations. It isn't and never has been.

[Forty Two]

There was no UN resolution or permission to attack Iraq.

A UN resolution is not required for the US to come to the defense of its allies. Never has been. Never will be.

It wasn't authorised by the UNSC. Sorry, bro.

A UN resolution is not required for the US to come to the defense of its allies. Never has been. Never will be.

The United States is a sovereign nation, not a vassal state of the United Nations, and while it might be nice to have the UNSC approve of what we, as a sovereign nation, do with our military, it is not a "legal" requirement because the UN Security Council most certainly is NOT the supreme authority of anything, it being infested with communists and other Marxist influences that make it an utterly impotent and worthless advisory body with even more utterly useless and worthless security forces who are the laughingstock of every military on earth.

Fuck the UN.

A better way to put it might be that the UN has the powers granted it by member states under the UN Charter, and States have obligations in accordance with UN Treaties to which they have assented and other sources of public international law. Wars can be legal without UN approval; however, they can also be illegal with UN approval.

Under Article 39 of the UN charter, the Security Council has the obligation to determine the existence of threats to international peace and to authorize certain actions in response. However, the absence of Security Council action does not mean that no action may be taken. I.e., the Security Council may see a threat to peace and authorize economic sanctions. However, countries need not wait for the Security Council to authorize an action before taking it themselves.

[Seth]

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.

In the case of Iraq -- the US government stated that an armed attack by Iraq did occur against the US and its coalition partners as demonstrated by the assassination attempt on former US President George H. W. Bush in 1993 and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones over Northern and Southern Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement. The firing on coalition aircraft, as Seth noted, was also in violation of the ceasefire accords from the Gulf War. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, the countries have the reserved right of self-defense and needs no UN mandate to act. Also, the US and the UK pointed out that the invasion was entirely legal because it was already authorized by existing United Nations Security Council resolutions and a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities.

It was a thorny legal issue and is debated, and debatable. However, both sides have an argument. That would explain why nobody has asked the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the topic, and no country has asked the UN itself to declare it illegal.

Very rarely, however, do I see folks applying the same standard of "war legality" to wars started after 2008 as they did to the Iraq War. Do we hear any of the same rationales applied to, say, Syria, as with Iraq? Syria hasn't attacked anyone. No UN resolution. No Congressional authorization. Libya too.

I agree with what you say with the exception of this statement: "It was a thorny legal issue..." It most certainly was NOT a thorny legal issue at all. The legal precedents were absolutely clear and unequivocal and the Coalition was completely and fully authorized to resume military actions in Iraq when it did so...and way the fuck before it actually did so. The Coalition applied extraordinary forbearance and patience with Saddam, to the point of actually not acting when it damned well should have acted in order to pander to the dipshits and pundits who didn't know a damned thing about the situation other than what the news media and anti-American propagandists like rEv foisted upon them.

The only "debate" comes from jackasses who try to insist that sovereign nations are not sovereign nations and that UN permission is required for anyone to wage war. That's the most ridiculous and ignorant argument ever and was rightfully dismissed out of hand by anyone who knows anything about international law.

Only terrorist sympathizers object to the resumption of military actions against Saddam. If the shoe fits, wear it.

[Forty Two]

It wasn't authorised by the UNSC. Sorry, bro.

Neither was the more recent Libyan action, the current Syrian war, the bombings of Yemen, etc. Neither is Operation Barkhane in Africa, which has been going on for a year and a half.

A war or military action is either legal or illegal. An illegal war does not become legal if the UNSC approves it, and a legal war does not become illegal by declaration of the UNSC. The UN Charter vests no such "war legality declaration power" on the UNSC. Approval of the UNSC is political support, and also the expression of the SC that a particular action is legal. But, each country's opinion on international law issues is that country's opinion.

Nor, I want to make clear is the LACK of UNSC approval a bar to military action by any nation. rEv seems to think the UN is a world government that exercises veto authority over the actions of sovereign nations. It isn't and never has been.

Certainly not, particularly since some members of the Security Council have veto power and can frustrate any security council measure. I.e., saying Security Council approval is necessary for a war to be legal would give veto power of all wars to countries like the US. The US would simply veto any measure for a war it did not support, and then other countries would be precluded from aiding a nation under threat.

[JimC]

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.

[Svartalf]

I don't care if it was legal, ousting saddam was one of the most stupid things bush junior ever did, and he did many !
His da knew that doing so would destabilize the whole region, and look what happened when somebody did what he wisely refrained from.

[Seth]

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.

Well, yeah. All that "nation building" stuff was a giant waste of time, treasure and American lives. Like I said, go in, bomb the place back to the stone age and go home. And if the neanderthals stick their heads up and bother others, do it all over again as many times as is necessary to teach them polite and civilized behavior. Never have to put a boot on the ground.

[Seth]

I don't care if it was legal, ousting saddam was one of the most stupid things bush junior ever did, and he did many !
His da knew that doing so would destabilize the whole region, and look what happened when somebody did what he wisely refrained from.

Well, at the time even a destabilized Islamic shit-hole was preferable to Saddam selling nukes, bio and chemical weapons to any terrorist that came along.

At least we destroyed Iraq's ability to make such weapons and we'd damned well better keep it that way...right after we do it to Iran.

[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?".

[pErvinalia]

There was no UN resolution or permission to attack Iraq.

A UN resolution is not required for the US to come to the defense of its allies. Never has been. Never will be.

It wasn't authorised by the UNSC. Sorry, bro.

A UN resolution is not required for the US to come to the defense of its allies. Never has been. Never will be.

The United States is a sovereign nation, not a vassal state of the United Nations, and while it might be nice to have the UNSC approve of what we, as a sovereign nation, do with our military, it is not a "legal" requirement because the UN Security Council most certainly is NOT the supreme authority of anything, it being infested with communists and other Marxist influences that make it an utterly impotent and worthless advisory body with even more utterly useless and worthless security forces who are the laughingstock of every military on earth.

Fuck the UN.

Yes, we know your views on morality and Merkan exceptionalism. Nothing new there..

[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.

[piscator]

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?".

Who enforces your version of, "Legal" and "Illegal"?

[JimC]

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.