Science Undecided on Room Temperature Superconductors

[JimC]

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"?

No one can, at least where very powerful countries like the US or Russia go to war. But the fact that there may be no practical way of sanctioning a country who goes to war simply because it decides that it is in its national interests to do so has no bearing on whether the international community might or might not call the war "illegal"

[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?".

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

Red herring. The point was about legality, not whether it was enforceable or not.

[piscator]

An unenforceable agreement (like a contract or treaty) cannot compel the signatories to the terms. So enforceability is germane.



Calling a war "Illegal" is like calling someone a "Fascist" - it's fact-free.

[pErvinalia]

Not in this discussion it's not. The point was simply one of legality. You just keep raising logical fallacies in an attempt to avoid accepting that it was not only illegal to invade Iraq in 2003, it was incredibly stupid and has generated mass terrorism and ISIS. Drop the infantile Merkan exceptionalism and neocon bluster, you are starting to sound like Seth.

[pErvinalia]

In any case, international law is enforceable through the ICC. But it's really only there to punish 3rd world war criminals, not the 1st world variety....

[piscator]

The Interstate Commerce Commission? You sound like College Liberal...
Islam generated ISIS. "Illegal war" is a meaningless term without World Police.

[pErvinalia]

Now you're just posting random nonsense. At least with logical fallacies you were attempting to make a point.

Chicks with dreads have nothing to do with whether the Iraq war was legal or not. It's pretty simple.

[pErvinalia]

The Interstate Commerce Commission? You sound like College Liberal...

And you sound like Seth. I know which one I'd rather sound like..

[JimC]

I'm really unsure whether "legal" and "illegal" in terms of international law mean the same as they do within the codified legal system of any given sovereign state.

[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.

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?).

Er, yeah, the latter of which justified the first Gulf War and the former of which justified the 2nd Gulf War. Duh.

Outside of that, you need UNSC approval for war, for it to be legal.

"Legal" according to whom? International law does not trump national sovereignty or national security my good man.

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.

You're clearly delusional rEv. As you have been told dozens of times the resumption of military action in Iraq in 2003 was not a "new war" it was a resumption of an existing war started by Saddam, who by invading Kuwait triggered our full authority to defend our allies, which include not just Kuwait, but the rest of our NATO and other allies as they were threatened by Saddam's belligerence and refusal to abide by 14 separate UN mandates over a period of 12 years.

I know you want to divorce the two conflicts for the convenience of your silly "it was illegal" argument but the facts, history, and every document applying to the situation prove you're simply wrong.

The UN resolution made it clear that war wasn't cleared in the case of Iraq's violations of other resolutions.

Which "UN resolution" are you referring to, specifically? Linky?

[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.

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.

Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

[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.

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"?

Red herring. The point was about legality, not whether it was enforceable or not.

Somebody declaring something to be "illegal" does not make it so.

[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?).

Er, yeah, the latter of which justified the first Gulf War and the former of which justified the 2nd Gulf War. Duh.

Outside of that, you need UNSC approval for war, for it to be legal.

"Legal" according to whom? International law does not trump national sovereignty or national security my good man.

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.

You're clearly delusional rEv. As you have been told dozens of times the resumption of military action in Iraq in 2003 was not a "new war" it was a resumption of an existing war started by Saddam, who by invading Kuwait triggered our full authority to defend our allies, which include not just Kuwait, but the rest of our NATO and other allies as they were threatened by Saddam's belligerence and refusal to abide by 14 separate UN mandates over a period of 12 years.

I know you want to divorce the two conflicts for the convenience of your silly "it was illegal" argument but the facts, history, and every document applying to the situation prove you're simply wrong.

The UN resolution made it clear that war wasn't cleared in the case of Iraq's violations of other resolutions.

Which "UN resolution" are you referring to, specifically? Linky?

It was linked little more than a page or two ago. Why does this site attract so many dumb cunts?

[Seth]

The Interstate Commerce Commission? You sound like College Liberal...
Islam generated ISIS. "Illegal war" is a meaningless term without World Police.

International Criminal Court, which unfortunately for rEv's agenda does not have jurisdiction over sovereign nations.

[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.

Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

Is that another one of your made up fallacies?! I made no fallacy. I'm simply making the point - "Saddam was an arse" does not make an invasion of his country legal. Anything else is red herring nonsense.