• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jacques Chirac: Iraq war "illegal"

jay gw

Unregistered
J
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
1,821
HANOI - French President Jacques Chirac has said the US-led war in Iraq was illegal and expressed his fear for the country's future in the face of a "civil war".

In an interview with China Central TV filmed last month ahead of a visit to China this week, Chirac reiterated his strong opposition to Washington's decision to wage war on Saddam Hussein without United Nations backing.

"I believe it was a bad solution which didn't conform with legality and with international law, and so it was a mistake," he said, according to a transcript of the interview released here by Chirac's office Friday.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/iraq/?id=11514
 
Buying UN Allies Illegal! Article

The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam Hussein targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council before the Iraq war. Both countries were influential voices against UN-backed action.
Click to expand...
 
corplinx said:
How is "war" ever "legal" ?
Click to expand...

Under international law. Basicly you are not allowed to start it unless there is (can't remeber the precise wording it's like inimeent but not quite as strong) threat. It the other guy attacks you first you're fine. If you start it it gets complicated.
 
I probably could easily start a flamewar up by mentioning Israel's pre-emptive attack on it's neighbors decades ago...

So, of course, I'll refrain from doing so.

:D
 
Originally posted by corplinx:
How is "war" ever "legal" ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by geni:
Under international law. Basicly you are not allowed to start it unless there is (can't remeber the precise wording it's like inimeent but not quite as strong) threat. It the other guy attacks you first you're fine. If you start it it gets complicated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take your point but I`m not so sure it gets complicated.

US Prosecutor Robert Jackson's words at Nuremburg enunciate this doctrine in pretty unequivocal terms:

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."

................

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
 
The thing about laws, demon, is that if you have them, or want to have them you need a place where someone can debate the merits and meaning of the laws. You know a court or some such establishment. Otherwise the accusations are no more valid than if I accuse you of breaking a Chinese law. You probably would not care at all.
 
Point taken Grammatron.
In theory we have The Hague and the UN but some are above the law are they not? It doesn`t help when we seem to make it up as we go along.
 
demon said:
Point taken Grammatron.
In theory we have The Hague and the UN but some are above the law are they not? It doesn`t help when we seem to make it up as we go along.
Click to expand...

Exactly, they are there just to be there. Of course I doubt everyone in the UN will agree on the laws. More than half the world would be in violation most likely and then what, who is to enforce them? And who do you enforce them against? It's an issue more complex than we as humanity can deal with at this point in our short history.
 
More eurohypocrisy. How about the war in the forner Yugoslavia? Just as "illegal".

Eurodefinition of legal war: One that directly helps euro interests.

Eurodefinition of illegal war: A war involving the U.S. that doesn't directly help euro interests.

No complaints in the UN about "legality" when france was fighting its various colonial wars, france and UK occupied suez, china invaded tibet, Argentina invaded the Falklands, Clinton invaded Haiti to install a leftwinger, etc.

Everything changed after 9/11. The world has to update its definition of "legality" to meet the new realities.
 
Let's see..."Juppégate", public dollars to pay for personal vacations for himself and his family, kickbacks in the 1980s and early 1990s...Yup, President Jacques Chirac should know illegality when he sees it...since he's probably the most corrupt leader in the E.U.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom