So it WAS Illegal After All!

[Ion]

...
Can anyone give me a pointer to an international legal document that clearly states that is it illegal for any country to declare war on another country for any reason whatsoever?
...

What is legal and illegal in declaring war according to U.N. is shown below.

The U.N. Chart in Chapter 1, Article 2, states:

"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."

which in Iraq's case forbids U.S. the "...use of force against the territorial integrity..." of Iraq, except in case of self-defense as shown in Article 51:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

So:

.) the Article 51 would apply to U.S. attacking Iraq in self defense, if (and only if) Iraq was attacking U.S. first, which didn't happen,

therefore

.) the U.N. Chart Chapter 1, Article 2 applies in forbidding U.S. "...the use of force against the territorial integrity..." of Iraq.

Q.E.D..

pepty,

.) this is the second time that I feed you the answer;

.) what happened since the first time when I fed you this answer, three months ago?

.) is your brain hibernating for long periods of time?

Regarding Tony's assertion that an international law has value only when there is capability of enforcing it, I counter with:

.) why did U.S. sign into the U.N. Chart, if U.S. is not self-enforcing the U.S. signature?

.) I tell you why;

.) U.S. is dishonest under Bush.

 

[Cecil]

Another thing, there seems to be a double-standard here. If Perle had claimed that Iraq had WMD you would be calling him a liar. But now that he is claiming something that you agree with there are no cries about him being a liar or demands for him to prove his claim. Wonderful.

People don't usually tend to decry views they agree with.

 

[subgenius]

So should all international law be scrapped since none of it has force or power behind it?

(Caution: posted before reading the whole thread)
Chairman Mao say: Political power comes out of the end of a gun.

subgenius say: much truth in that since.for example, the US Supreme Court doesn't have police to enforce its orders. Constitutional crises have been avoided since Marbury v Madison and through Clinton (who should have told them to shove their subpoenas, and instead, through a wish to avoid a constitutional crises, allowed an encroachment on the seperation of powers)

Ultimate lesson: ....you only have the power if you're able to FORCE, or otherwise BS, others to do your will.... and yet the true proof of power is in the restraint in its use.....

 

[El Greco]

There's an eroneous assumption here that only the mighty can ignore international law.

Sorry, but the only erroneous assumption I see is your assumption that I made an erroneous assumption.

I never said that only the mighty can ignore law. What I said is that some people seem to think that if the mighty ignore law then they are not illegal just because they are mighty.

During the war I have had numerous discussions on its legality on another forum. One of the main arguments of the war proponents (the only argument for many of them) was that Saddam has MDW. A few days ago I checked back that forum and sure enough they were still talking about it. I checked the posts of some people who were talking about MDW back then. They seemed completely unaffected by the fact that their main argument had collapsed. They just shifted the goal posts like Mr. Manifesto said, and continued with the same stubborness. I then realized that no further discussion was meaningful, it would be like trying to convince the pope that there is no god. They can be moving the goal posts all around the field till kingdom come, and even if someone manages to score they will claim it was an offside.

And I'm getting really tired of all this...

 

[peptoabysmal]

What is legal and illegal in declaring war according to U.N. is shown below.

The U.N. Chart in Chapter 1, Article 2, states:

"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."

which in Iraq's case forbids U.S. the "...use of force against the territorial integrity..." of Iraq, except in case of self-defense as shown in Article 51:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

So:

.) the Article 51 would apply to U.S. attacking Iraq in self defense, if (and only if) Iraq was attacking U.S. first, which didn't happen,

therefore

.) the U.N. Chart Chapter 1, Article 2 applies in forbidding U.S. "...the use of force against the territorial integrity..." of Iraq.

Q.E.D..

pepty,

.) this is the second time that I feed you the answer;

.) what happened since the first time when I fed you this answer, three months ago?

.) is your brain hibernating for long periods of time?

Regarding Tony's assertion that an international law has value only when there is capability of enforcing it, I counter with:

.) why did U.S. sign into the U.N. Chart, if U.S. is not self-enforcing the U.S. signature?

.) I tell you why;

.) U.S. is dishonest under Bush.

Laws can only be enacted by governments, and only by the consent or coercion of those governed. In order for there to be "international law", there must be an "international government". The UN is not an international government, period.
The UN charter is simply the rules of conduct to be a member of club UN. The punishment for disobeying the rules is that you can be kicked out of the club. But not the US, because the US is a founding member with veto power.

If you tell me one more time you are going to "feed me the answer", I will feed you to my ignore list.

 

[Chaos]

Laws can only be enacted by governments, and only by the consent or coercion of those governed. In order for there to be "international law", there must be an "international government". The UN is not an international government, period.
The UN charter is simply the rules of conduct to be a member of club UN. The punishment for disobeying the rules is that you can be kicked out of the club. But not the US, because the US is a founding member with veto power.

*snip*

So you say yourself that the USA may ignore the rules, while others may not. How´s that for a double standard?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Laws can only be enacted by governments, and only by the consent or coercion of those governed. In order for there to be "international law", there must be an "international government". The UN is not an international government, period.
The UN charter is simply the rules of conduct to be a member of club UN. The punishment for disobeying the rules is that you can be kicked out of the club. But not the US, because the US is a founding member with veto power.

If you tell me one more time you are going to "feed me the answer", I will feed you to my ignore list.

Read: I will flee like a coward when someone challenges my pre-conceived notions.

 

[a_unique_person]

Laws can only be enacted by governments, and only by the consent or coercion of those governed. In order for there to be "international law", there must be an "international government".

Governments are the representative of the constituents. Governments can take many forms, from the Libertarian minimalist model to the all pervasive USSR model.

 

[Tony]

Read: I will flee like a coward when someone challenges my pre-conceived notions.

You have to sink pretty damn low to call Ion's babbling a "challenge".

 

[BillyTK]

Laws can only be enacted by governments, and only by the consent or coercion of those governed. In order for there to be "international law", there must be an "international government".

Why? Your conclusion here doesn't automatically follow from your supporting claim.

The UN is not an international government, period.

Very true, and neither was it intended to be (is there anyone other than conspiracy theorists and cultists who believe it is?).

The UN charter is simply the rules of conduct to be a member of club UN. The punishment for disobeying the rules is that you can be kicked out of the club. But not the US, because the US is a founding member with veto power.

Also true, except that the rules of conduct were established because it was understood that settling international disputes via law is much more preferable to settling disputes via force. It may be expedient for the US to ignore the UN now, but what happens when the next big guys come along? Or when the US overstretches in attempting to enforce the Pax Americana?

 

[Kodiak]

Mr Perle, meet Mr. Manifesto. I think you two will get along fabulously.

From the posted story:


Can anyone give me a pointer to an international legal document that clearly states that is it illegal for any country to declare war on another country for any reason whatsoever?

Mr. Perle might think himself brave for expressing his opinion so boldly, but he is just plain wrong.

There are international agreements that are very specific about military conduct during a war, many of which were broken by the Iraqi army such as posing as civilians and so on, but there is no law that makes it illegal for any nation to declare war on another for whatever reason it deems necessary.

To suggest such a stupid law would deny any nation of it's right to defend itself as it sees fit, and this is the point that will be driven home by laywers representing the US and UK.

Cry all you want Mr. Perle, but you lose. bzzzzt!, next contestant please...

Unfortunately, there are many who would willingly sacrifice their sovereignty in exchange for peace.

Believe it or not, there are people in this world who are not willing to fight for anything...

 

[Tony]

Believe it or not, there are people in this world who are not willing to fight for anything...

Arent those people called Europeans?

 

[subgenius]

Unfortunately, there are many who would willingly sacrifice their sovereignty in exchange for peace.

Believe it or not, there are people in this world who are not willing to fight for anything...

You've got to fight for your right to party.

 

[Kodiak]

You've got to fight for your right to party.

Praise Rev. Bob!!

 

[Ion]

What gives you this idea?

Arent those people called Europeans?...

Take my example, me being an European.

I see instances where I fight more than you do.

Like speaking foreign languages better than you do speak your native language.

So that I teach you that "Aren't those people...", that's how you need to learn your native language.

 

[Ziggurat]

Like speaking foreign languages better than you do speak your native language.

So that I teach you that "Aren't those people...", that's how you need to learn your native language.

Ion, you're an idiot. I don't criticise your poor English skills (and yes, it's pretty damned obvious you're not a native speaker) because, frankly, that doesn't matter. Your idiotic political positions matter far more than your bad grammar. But when YOU make language an issue (in this case, chances are Tony didn't hit the ' key hard enough, and didn't check what he wrote carefully), you're really setting yourself up for a smackdown. You, of all people, shouldn't be trying to make this an issue of language skills, because you'll lose. I can tell Tony is fluent in English, and I can tell you're not. But I guess this isn't the first time you made an ass out of yourself - maybe you should try for a repeat, and start claiming people don't know math or physics?

 

[Aoidoi]

What gives you this idea?

I believe this should be "What gave you that idea?"

Take my example, me being an European.

I believe this should be "Take me for example. I am a European." Depending on what exactly you mean, of course.

I see instances where I fight more than you do.

Like speaking foreign languages better than you do[sic] speak your native language.

I'm not quite sure how speaking equates to fighting. Perhaps you fight more for bilingual education, but as written it doesn't really mean that. I suspect this is more a language issue than a thought process one.

So that I teach you that "Aren't those people...", that's how you need to learn your native language. [/B]

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say. I believe "So I need to teach you that "Aren't those people..." is the correct punctuation. You need to learn your native language."

Sorry, just being a bit silly. I was wondering why your grammar seemed odd since your location is listed as in the US, but wasn't going to comment until you brought up his typo (not that we don't all need to improve our language skills).

 

[Ion]

I believe this should be "What gave you that idea?"
...

I believe you should talk only after you learn that "What gives you this idea?" that's correct English.

And so on, until the last point of your post.

For you to make any of the points that you try to make in your post, please open a dedicated thread, where I will teach you.

Good luck.

 

[Ion]

...
I can tell Tony is fluent in English, and I can tell you're not.
...

I can tell Tony is sloppy in English, like an uneducated native speaker.

You can tell that English is not my first language, but this shows more education than a sloppy native speaker.

That's where "...willing to fight for anything..." comes into the picture, with this example of fighting for more education.

 

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion
I can tell Tony is sloppy in English, like an uneducated native speaker.

So you ARE trying for a repeat. Sloppiness has nothing to do with education level. You don't know anything about Tony's education level (and I don't either - Tony can fill us all in if he cares). But it's presumptuous to claim you do, and you could easily end up looking like as big an ass as you did when you accused me of not having any math or physics education. And, just like that case, it's also rather irrelevant. You're at a loss on issues of substance, so you've decided to criticise cosmetic issues instead.

BTW, it should more properly be "I can tell Tony's English is sloppy..." (though I appreciate the irony of your version).