Attack or Self-Defense? - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-21-2003, 08:15 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:52 PM
Dreadsox,

"I am pretty much through debating this with you. When you have something new to say, with something other than your opinion I will gladly debate this with you. I have provided ample sources throughout the this debate to make my case. You may not agree with it, and that is fine. I am just plain tired of this debate."

I have provided sources as well and brought up things in several of the resolutions that you failed to recognize or aknowledge. The Case you make is your opinion backed up by others. Your opinion that 678 is not relevant beyond 687 is certainly not new. But its certainly contridicted by the fact that is affirmed in both 687 and 1441. That fact, that it is affirmed in both is just that, a fact, not an opinion.

The administration is going back to the security council for a second resolution for political reasons, not legal ones. The Administration already clearly states that it had the legal bases for action from 1441.

The fact that the French and Russians believe that 1441 does not provide the legal bases for action is their opinion. If you feel your opinion is more in line with the French, so be it. Our President will continue to bend over backwards to build political support which is the only reason there is going to be a second resolution.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 08:19 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:52 PM
Back to a part of one of the original articles I posted:

Armed intervention is justified under the following conditions:
1. The existence of armed aggression (the definition adopted by the UN General Assembly, Resolution 3314 of 1974): Aggression is defined as the use of armed force by one state, against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state.
2. The absence of necessary measures by the UN Security Council to maintain peace. Once the Security Council has taken these measures, the right to armed self-defense ceases. A state that takes measures of legitimate self-defense is obligated to inform the Security Council.
3. Legitimate defense only justifies "those measures proportional to the armed aggression that has occurred, and that are necessary for ending that aggression." (International Court of Justice, June 27, 1986 in re Nicaragua).

Self-defense only warrants "measures which are proportional to the armed attack and necessary to respond to it". It implies that the victim of aggression must not occupy the aggressor state's territory, unless strictly necessary.

The use of armed force may on occasion be justified as part of humanitarian assistance, but only in order to prevent human suffering and "to protect life and health and to ensure the respect of persons" (International Court of Justice, June 27, 1986 in re Nicaragua). Such intervention must not be discriminatory.

In each of these cases, it is clear that the United States does not have the right to intervene without the approval of the Security Council. Nevertheless, on several occasions the US has used the argument of Article 51 of the UN charter to justify attacks that do not fall within the domain of legitimate defense:
- In 1986 against Libya (to justify an attack that caused the death of 37 people, mostly civilians) in reprisal for the bombing of a Berlin disco that caused the death of an American soldier.
- In 1993 against Iraq (purportedly to prevent an assassination attempt against the US president orchestrated by Iraq).

The rationale of anticipatory self-defense has been invoked by Israel to justify attacks against Palestinian camps in Lebanon in 1975. Subsequently, UN Security Council resolutions have condemned this attack while contesting the idea of self-defense where there has been no armed intervention by the "aggressor".

The thesis of anticipatory self-defense is thus not an acceptable principle of international law today, because it is prone to arbitrary interpretation. A preemptive attack on another sovereign nation is counter to established and universally accepted standards of international law. This may help to explain the vehemence of opposition to a preemptive attack, among even our staunchest European allies.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 08:22 PM   #78
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
That is not what I said. I said that as long as Iraq is not found in material breech of the resolutions, that blocks legal basis to act on 678. By the way 678 IS AFFIRMED IN 687. There fore ever mention of 687 is a mention of 678. I agreed only the security council can declare Iraq in material breech of their obligations. They have done so. That means member states are legally authorized to take military action per resolution 687 that affirms 678 in which the Security Council gave such authorization.

Sting, I sincerely give up. The whole point to 1441 is to give Iraq a chance to comply. It does not in any way shape or form:

1) End the Cease Fire of 687
2) Authorize independant states to decide if Iraq is complying.

End of discusssion. If you agree with the administration's interpretation that a 12 year old Resolution that Authorized the Removal of Iraq from Kuwait is still in effect that is fine. Most other nations in the UN besides Great Britain and the US do not believe this. Pollack makes this clear as well as I have 100% accurately sited above. I have sited examples proving past history that is up to the Security Council to officially declare a cease fire over unless the other nation phsically attacks.

I personally do not think it is wise, nor is it prudent, to move ahead based on this. This is based on reading Pollack, Reading the letter from the NYC BAR, ect....ect....

In the future, though, should there be a reference to the Resolution 678 in another thread, I think it would be fair to link anyone who cares to this thread. Let them read and decide for themselves because it is not as cut and dry as it would seem. T
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 08:30 PM   #79
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The fact that the French and Russians believe that 1441 does not provide the legal bases for action is their opinion. If you feel your opinion is more in line with the French, so be it. Our President will continue to bend over backwards to build political support which is the only reason there is going to be a second resolution.


What a round about way of saying I am anti-American!!!!!!! No No, I am not putting words in your mouth. You walked right up to the fence though. It is a good thing I am secure with where my heart is, having served my country, worn the Uniform with Pride and all.

In fact, my position, is more on line with Pollack's building of INternational support and fro a Coalition. But that is ok. In fact, my position is more in line with protecting the United States standing in the future.

Our President, seeking another resolution, 100% proves my point. We need another resolution or we will be in violation of the UN Charter and the Cease-Fire without it.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 08:40 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:52 PM
Dreadsox,

Pollack while saying it is not politically wise to use 678 as the bases for military action agree's that a legal bases can certainly be formed. From a strictly legal point of view, despite not being an international lawyer, Pollack supports the position that 678 does provide the LEGAL bases for action. He does not suggest we should act solely on that but does agree with the legal principle of it.

Any action by Iraq that would put it in material breach of 687 would end the ceacefire. Bill Clinton justified Desert Fox in 1998 along similar lines. The fact that the resolution is 12 years old is irrelevant.

"I have sited examples proving past history that is up to the Security Council to officially declare a cease fire over unless the other nation phsically attacks."

Material Breach is what determines if the Ceacefire is over and when material breach happens, the legal basis for military action is found within 687 which reaffirms 678. The only history that is relevant is the history of the resolutions passed in regards to Iraq on this issue since 1990. It has specific language and instruction not used in the Korean example.

The French, Russians, and others have their own views and interpretation of the law which is different from the USA. I've seen both and support the USA position. You have seen both and support the French and Russian interpretation.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 08:50 PM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:52 PM
STING2: No way out. Iraq is NOT officially at war with the international community at the moment. You should simply admit that the US wants to attack Iraq. Its not self defense.

Its not the most difficult thing in the world to admit that. You really sound more like a politician than like a proud member of the US Army.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 08:56 PM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:52 PM
Dreadsox,

I don't think its anti-American to believe the French or the Russians have a more logical position on a particular issue. My statement was in support of you expressing your opinion. I have often argued that the Europeans have a far superior position on gun control than the United States does. I don't think that makes me Anti-American.

"In fact, my position, is more on line with Pollack's building of INternational support and fro a Coalition. But that is ok. In fact, my position is more in line with protecting the United States standing in the future."

"Our President, seeking another resolution, 100% proves my point. We need another resolution or we will be in violation of the UN Charter and the Cease-Fire without it."

Again, thats your opinion and I support you in expressing it. If you think I'm wrong, thats ok. I'd please ask you not to infer so many personal things from statements I have made. I'm not saying I'm perfect or that I have not made mistakes, but in such a borderline case, I'd ask that you at least give me the benefit of the doubt and ask me to clarify what I meant, before jumping to the conclusion that I'm making a personal comment about you.

Thank You.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 08:57 PM   #83
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 09:52 AM
well attack iraq makes more sense than iran or north korea, it's the catchier slogan of the 3

i dunno, what do you guys think of "slam iran"

or "go forth in north korea, because it's the Right idea"

"wee, over paris"

no, not as catchy
__________________
send lawyers, guns and money...
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 09:00 PM   #84
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:52 PM
Ok, Wanderer, all I´m asking is to give up the false rhetorics and telling the truth. If Iraq is attacked by the US, it is attacked. Thats not self-defense.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 09:10 PM   #85
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 09:52 AM
war is war
__________________
send lawyers, guns and money...
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 09:29 PM   #86
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

The French, Russians, and others have their own views and interpretation of the law which is different from the USA. I've seen both and support the USA position. You have seen both and support the French and Russian interpretation.
Don't forget the NYC Lawyers support the French and Russian position as well.

Don't forget all of the references I quoted from Pollack that clearly demonstate that the US position is not necessarily the right one.

They must be wrong too!
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 10:49 PM   #87
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer
war is war
agreed. and attack is attack.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-22-2003, 10:26 AM   #88
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Further Evidence that resolution 678 does not YET give the United States the right to attack the country of Iraq. Again, this is from the "American Society of International LAW". It is an arrticle written specifically about Resolution 1441.

AS I have been saying and saying, and the Lawyer's opinion below clearly demonstrates:

#1 1441 Declares Iraq In Material Breech
#2 1441 Provides Iraq another Chance
#3 1441 Warns of Severe Consequence
#4 1441 Does not in any way shape or form "SUSPEND THE CEASE FIRE" resolution of 687.

They author states:

Security Council Resolution 687, adopted at the end of the Gulf War, includes a provision declaring a formal cease-fire between Iraq, Kuwait and the member states (such as the United States) cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with Resolution 678 (1990). Resolution 678 authorized member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area, and thus provided the basis under international law for the allies’ military action in the Gulf War. The determination in Resolution 1441 that Iraq is already in material breach of its obligations under Resolution 687 provides a basis for the decision in paragraph 4 (above) of Resolution 1441 that any further lack of cooperation by Iraq will be a further material breach. If Iraq, having confirmed its intention to comply with Resolution 1441, then fails to cooperate fully with the inspectors, it would open the way to an argument by any specially affected state that it could suspend the operation of the cease-fire provision in Resolution 687 and rely again on Resolution 678. It might also invite an argument that any party to the U.N. Charter could suspend the operation of the cease-fire provision because the material breach would pose a threat to international peace and security and would therefore radically change the position of all U.N. member states under Resolution 687. The argument would point out that the breach would relate to weapons or materials capable of mass destruction that, if put to use, could have an impact not just on regional security, but on worldwide security.

The Author continues to point out:

Other states could argue that since the Security Council has decided in Resolution 1441 that certain conduct by Iraq amounts to a material breach, but the Council did not at the same time suspend its own cease-fire and instead decided to give Iraq another chance to comply with its obligations under Resolution 687, only the Council can decide later that Iraq has not cooperated fully in the implementation of Resolution 1441 and that the cease-fire consequently is no longer in force. For example, the representative of Mexico (a current member of the Security Council) said after the vote on Resolution 1441 that the use of force is only valid as a last resort and with prior, explicit authorization from the Council. Mexico does not stand alone in taking that position. It is based on the Charter-based principle that disputes should be settled peacefully, and that only the Security Council can determine when there is a need for coercion. It would be argued that, in light of the emphasis in the Charter on peaceful dispute settlement, Resolution 678 could not be used as an authorization for the use of force after twelve years of cease fire, unless the Security Council says so.


The last line above is very telling. LETS ALL REPEAT IT SHALL WE:

Resolution 678 could not be used as an authorization for the use of force after twelve years of cease fire, unless the Security Council says so.


and again:

Resolution 678 could not be used as an authorization for the use of force after twelve years of cease fire, unless the Security Council says so.


and again:

Resolution 678 could not be used as an authorization for the use of force after twelve years of cease fire, unless the Security Council says so.

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh92.htm


Happy Reading everyone. The sad part is the more I read, the more I am concerned with us continuing to look like a bully on this issue.

PEACE
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-22-2003, 10:38 AM   #89
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:52 AM
Even better than what I posted above:

In any event, the terms of Resolution 1441, paragraph 4 (above), make it clear that a failure of Iraq to cooperate, if reported to the Security Council, would not justify either the United States’ or any other state’s unilateral suspension of the cease-fire provision without giving the Security Council an opportunity to consider the situation and to act under paragraph 12.


This is the RESOLUTION interpreted by lawyers. If the United States acts without the Security Council, we lose the upper hand. We violate international law.

Furthermore, we increase the chances of losing allies down the road. We increase our risk of further terrorism, not because we have removed Saddam, but because we are acting on our own in violation of the UN Charter, and Resolutions.

Again to Quote Pollack, a man who puts forward arguably the best case for removing Saddam:

Many on the far right of the American political spectrum argue that the United States can and should overthrow Iraq entirely on its own. They are wrong. We can't and we shouldn't....Moreover, the United States is not some rogue superpower determined to do what it wants regardless of who it threatens or angers. If we behave in this manner we will alienate our allies and convince much of the rest of the world to band together against us to try to keep us under control. Rather than increasing our security and posterity, such a development would drastically undermine it.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-22-2003, 12:25 PM   #90
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:52 PM
Dreadsox,

I'm not an international lawyer or a student of international law. I still think I have a valid argument but I'm certainly not about to rebutt every Law firm from New York or else where that has a different interpretation of international law from the US State Department and 4 different Presidential Administrations. These 4 different Presidential Administration have justified past military actions against Iraq since March 1991 often on the bases of Resolution 678 alone. Many of these limited military actions were a key part of the Containment Strategy that Kenneth Pollack talks about in his book. But of course your interpretation of the law as well as the law firms you choose to site find them illegal.

If you can find someone in the current administration that indisputedly agrees with your legal interpretation of the law, you might be able to convince me that is the best interpretation. The Administration is asking for a second resolution for political reasons rather than legal ones.

For the past 12 years, thousands of military combat missions have been flown against Iraq as well as an unknowable number of covert and intelligence operations. Many of these military operations but perhaps not all have certainly been in violation of the lawyers and Dreadsox interpretations of the Security Council Resolutions. But clearly 4 different Presidential administrations(Democrat and Republican) have justified several of these actions on the grounds of 678.

I'm not an international lawyer or a student of international law. I still find my interpretation of the Security Council Resolutions and the interpretation by 4 different Presidential Administration to be the correct one. I believe that every action taken by the US military in regards to Iraq over the past 12 years has been legal.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com