Guernica Revisited

By going to war, Bush has placed himself outside of the international right-order. By claiming the right to start a pre-emptive war - a concept that doesn't even exist in international right - the US have made clear that from now on, the world will have to deal with a nation that claims the right to be the world's police officer, following her own criteria, her own rules, her own propaganda, without having to take into account the facts on the field, the findings of weapons-inspectors or the wishes of other nations who once were allies. This American uni-lateralism has been shown before: the Kyoto-protocol, the heavy import taxes on non-American steal, and now the military aspect. 50 years of international political co-operation down the drain.

The question is what this one-sided decision will cause. Military experts predict a fast victory for the US. This raises a question: if that is the truth, then why is Iraq such a threat? Even more important is the question what to do after the victory: turning Iraq - a regio where anti-Americanism will raise to a new high thanks to themselves - into an American protectoriat?
And the final question: where will Bush stop? Following Bush's logic, I can think of a couple countries that are a more realistic threat than Iraq. Will he also deal with them pre-emptively? Will he dare to act pre-emptively against countries that DO have weapons of mass destruction? Countries that are willing to use them against American invaders?

Let's face it: in the generally accepted sense of the term, Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction. This may sound harsh, but some gass that can kill 1000 civilians at a time is not a weapon of mass destruction.

This also is a war that will be fought in the media. I see something here that's almost turned into a tradition: American media being an instrument of propaganda for their own government.

What could make this war legal, are two things: the basis of self-defense (Article 51), or Resolution 1441 authorizing the use of force. Since their is no actual or immiment threat from Iraq that could justify 'self-defense' (as required by Article 51 - btw: any force used in response to a threat, has to be proportionate according to that same Article - the fact that Iraq has the capacity to attack at 'some unspecified time in the future', is not enough), this is out of the question.

That leaves Resolution 1441.
I've tried to explain before that Resolution 1441 does NOT authorize the use of force, and I'll try to explain again.
The words Iraq will face serious consequences if it continues to violate obligations in Resolution 1441, are the keywords. The words all necessary means are not being used in Resolution 1441 (only to refer to Resolution 678, referring on its turn to Resolution 660).

Quote:

---

Resolution 1441
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area

---

There you have the all necessary means, simply referring to 678 and 660. Resolution 1441 itself does NOT authorize the use of force.
All necessary means are the words used by the UN to indicate that the use of force is authorized. They were used to justify military action against Iraq in 1991. Saying that all security council members, including France and Russia, authorized the use of force when they voted for Resolution 1441 is compelling, but wrong.
The only possible alternative for the US government is argueing that Iraq's failure to comply with UN Resolution 687 (the ceasefire requirements after the Gulf War) justifies the renewed use of force. That too is wrong. Resolution 687 itself does NOT authorize the use of force. The ONLY Resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq is 678 (passed at the start of the Gulf War in November 1990), and the ONLY action it authorized was the use of force to restore Kuwait's sovereignity.
It is true that Resolution 687 also requires Iraq to destroy all WMD. Article 42 though states that it is for the Security Council to decide how that should be enforced, and not the US or UK.

My final point: the US are acting against international law, wether they are right or wrong. That makes them the agressors, wether they are right or wrong. Learn to live with it.

Strength to the American and British soldiers and their families, who are the real victims of this act of aggression. Strenght to the Iraqi people who are the real victims of this act of aggression.
And please leave God out of this, Mr. Bush. He might consider blessing the Americans, but not the America you have in your mind. If God exists, I'm sure he is not a pervert.

So what I'm gaining from this is the fact that no one, under any circumstances, should forcibly disarm Iraq?....

Even though the entire world has agreed that he needs to be disarmed. You honestly believe that he should be able to procrastinate for more than 12 years and, in essence, never disarm?...

"serious consequences" speaks differently from person to person, it is interepretable. Just like when you ask three different people to describe one traffic accident they all were witnesses to, you'll get three different stories.

BTW- The U.S. is not acting against international law, it may be in the gray area, but the gray area is where most things tend to get done, anyway.. I'm not a big supporter of bureaucracy, as you can plainly tell; and the U.N. seems to be a tool for the Arab nations to show how much they dislike their Israeli neighbors.

P.S. Is the "international right-order" anything like the New World Order?

Quote:

---

So what I'm gaining from this is the fact that no one, under any circumstances, should forcibly disarm Iraq?...

---

At this point, no one is LEGALLY ALLOWED to forcibly disarm Iraq (under international law, that is. Bush could of course just make up a new US-law). That's what my post was all about. International law offers two possibilities for one country to use force on another country: self-defense, and a resolution. In this case, none of those requirements are set.

Quote:

---

Even though the entire world has agreed that he needs to be disarmed. You honestly believe that he should be able to procrastinate for more than 12 years and, in essence, never disarm?...

---

I'm all in favour of a disarmament, Korp. The entire world indeed is, and agreed to his disarmament. As I've said before: the only thing we disagree on, is the WAY he should be disarmed.

Quote:

---

"serious consequences" speaks differently from person to person, it is interepretable. Just like when you ask three different people to describe one traffic accident they all were witnesses to, you'll get three different stories.

---

Those "serious consequences" is something that requires a new resolution, Korp. Resolution 1441 states that in the case of Iraq not complying to that resolution, the situation will be looked over again, possibly ending in a new resolution stating what those "serious consequences" will be. It's got nothing to do with interpretation.

The Buick is too blame, by the way: he ignored the red light.

Quote:

---

BTW- The U.S. is not acting against international law, it may be in the gray area, but the gray area is where most things tend to get done, anyway.. I'm not a big supporter of bureaucracy, as you can plainly tell; and the U.N. seems to be a tool for the Arab nations to show how much they dislike their Israeli neighbors.

---

The US ARE acting against international law. There simply is no resolution that allows the use of force in this case. That might be bureaucratic bullshit, it still is against international law. A law that, for a huge part, has been written by the US. And this has got nothing to do with a disarmament by force being the right thing to do or not: even if it IS the right thing (who knows), under international law it's an act of aggression.
The UN being 'a tool for the Arab nations to show how much they dislike their Israeli neighbors' is even more besides the point.

Quote:

---

P.S. Is the "international right-order" anything like the New World Order?

---

Nah... more like the opposite of the Pax Americana... Remember what happened to the Pax Romana. One step too far, and they were done ;)

The US starts a war without security coucils permission. The UN may declare war on the US for doing this (as states in article x). The security coucil has to agree, but what the hell, we aren't going to wait for the US to conquer the world, let's attack Washington now. They once, long ago when people were all lazy, signed trieties for nuclear disarmment. Ow Those bastards didn't diaserm the past 60 years, nobody does anything about it. Time for us to kick some but. We feal very threatend by this US nation, they might attack neigboor countries with their bombs... What do you say ? They are already doing it right now ? :o Let's drop a neutron bomb as a warning signal. All washington without oxigen, millions of dead. Ow well... we were right weren't we ?
For the $ 9.817.623.469.127.840 couldn't you think up something original to get rid of this threath ? On to our Squirl uberbroadcast late night talkshow by osama biiiiin laadeeeenn !!! How we conquered them terrorists america.
Bush was convicted of warcrimes against humanity and etc. in Den Haag. The US just made a law that justifies attacking the netherlands to get Bush back. The Northsea is full of 16th century war galleys, dutch people are awayting US forces with home made catapults and belgium import fireworks. Balkenende drops marihuana on the beach to keep them alive. One dutchy was moved to the Nation Dutchy Hospital because he was hit by a bullet that was shot in the air, but came down again to. How will this end ?
Whilhelmus vahan Nahasauwe...

Quote:

---

The US starts a war without security coucils permission. The UN may declare war on the US for doing this (as states in article x). The security coucil has to agree, but what the hell, we aren't going to wait for the US to conquer the world, let's attack Washington now. They once, long ago when people were all lazy, signed trieties for nuclear disarmment. Ow Those bastards didn't diaserm the past 60 years, nobody does anything about it. Time for us to kick some but. We feal very threatend by this US nation, they might attack neigboor countries with their bombs... What do you say ? They are already doing it right now ? Let's drop a neutron bomb as a warning signal. All washington without oxigen, millions of dead. Ow well... we were right weren't we ?

---

How very very simply stated, and how very very true. This is the fear that Americans who haven't been pushed along by the govt and accepted everything we've seen on CNN as truth have. All issues of right and wrong, good and bad, right wing or left wing are completely moot when compared to the issue that we ourselves have broken international law...therefore we should not in any way complain when someone else does it. We have lost the support of very large countries that could quite easily be a threat to us. Those who don't believe that China and Russia could put a very severe "ass whupping" on us are fools blinded by government propoganda.

I find the loss of life that this war is going to cause extremely sad. I support the troops and their families that have followed their Commander in Chiefs orders. I pray daily for the welfare and safety of both the troops and the Iraqis. We have no right to kill innocent civilians. It is no more right when we do it to others than when it is done to us. However, I am a mother. I have a son that I want to grow up the same way I did. My greatest fear is that in overstepping our bounds and breaking international law, we have isolated and alienated ourselves from a very dangerous group of countries. I am truly in fear of the repercussions this war is going to have.

Deb

I understand your point of view Neg. And to you, you're absolutely correct, but not everybody thinks the important things that need to be done FOR the international community should sit in a *****ing committee until SoDamn INsane has time to give his technology to terrorists (if he hasn't already) and for them to move it into our (or your) backyard. And just to put this on even ground, every country has entered into "deals" that break international law, you know it and I know it. So don't sound so outraged when it comes to this. We aren't running in there with guns blazing and bombs dropping, we are being as surgical as you can possibly be.

Deb, I have two young sons, and I'm just as concerned about the world they are growing up in as you but, I'm more concerned with the fact that Americans still, to this day, don't want to take responsibility for anything. They want it to be someone else's job, no one trained them to be responsible. My eldest wants to be an Air Force pilot. I'm not pro-military in the least but I'll support him in his decision whatever that may ultimately be. I refuse to live in fear of anything, because fear is the mind-killer. I'd rather live with hope.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." -President Franklin Delano Roosevelt

I will preface my comments by saying that I was personally
opposed to this war, and that IMO, Geo. Bush abused the
US constitution by starting it without the required declaration
of war, issued by the US congress.

Quote:

---

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

---

http://memory.loc.gov/const/const.html

...but, there is no such thing as international law
since there is no international law maker, and no international
law enforcer.
International law is treaty law, treaties voluntarily signed
by sovereign nations. The only punishment for violating
a treaty must be meted out by the offended nation, ie by
going to war to resolve the differences between
nations.

Be careful if you wish for a super-authority to dominate
the nations and have world wide sovereignty, because that
super-authority may turn out to be an Imperialist America.
We're better off without international law
:cool:

um how is a tarriff on imports a unilateral global action? seeing as how ALL countries have some kind of tarrifs, and EU has a tariff on imported fruit for the exact same reason? and we withdrew from the kyoto treaty becasue its a stupid idea that solves nothing and hampers us.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Worm Wood
um how is a tarriff on imports a unilateral global action? seeing as how ALL countries have some kind of tarrifs, and EU has a tariff on imported fruit for the exact same reason? and we withdrew from the kyoto treaty becasue its a stupid idea that solves nothing and hampers us.

---

Don't you feel like a complete moron now ? Now what exactly did you want to show us here ? Ah, never mind...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Worm Wood
um how is a tarriff on imports a unilateral global action? seeing as how ALL countries have some kind of tarrifs, and EU has a tariff on imported fruit for the exact same reason? and we withdrew from the kyoto treaty becasue its a stupid idea that solves nothing and hampers us.

---

Unilateral being (a decision) undertaken by/recognized by only one party, I think it's pretty obvious why it's a unilateral decision. Tariffs of up to 30 percent on imported steel over the next three years is not just a tariff.

I know you just won't take anything I say for truth, so here's what experts say:

Quote:

---

WTO Reporter
The experts, based in Geneva, Brussels, and Washington, D.C., said the measure was particularly vulnerable on two points: the five-year period which the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) used as the basis for its conclusion that there was an absolute increase in steel imports justifying a safeguard measure; and the ITC's failure to differentiate between different steel products in determining the harmful impact of imports on U.S. producers.

Those two problems alone are probably enough to ensure that a WTO panel would rule against the import restrictions, they argued. The United States has already seen four of its safeguard measures challenged in previous WTO dispute proceedings, and has lost in every one of those cases.

---

Here's a nice Q&A about the case.

Read about what the reason for this tariff was, and you'll see that the EU does not have a tariff on fruit 'for the exact same reason'.

And I'm sorry clean air and water hampers you. Not having the Kyoto treaty probably won't hurt you at all. Let's just hope your grandchildren won't be hurt by your withdrawal.

why would i feel like a moron? for responding to a part og negatives post that everyone else has ignored?

umm first off i said unilateral global action, witch is what this complaint is about. all internal laws are unilatreal, thast what soverignty is. global things, like attacking another country can be made unilaterally, but are globla becasue it forces an action in others that they have no choice about. tarrifs they can always choose not to trade with us. but u cant claim us laws are unfairly unilateral.

and the 30% tarriffs are there for a reason.

yes they do have the tariff there for a reason. the steel tariff is in place mainly becasue of japan and other nations selling steel so cheaply(us claims they are being dumped on us at below price) that steel makers here cant compete. in order to keep SEVERAL THOUSAND employees employed and stop the entire us steel market from collapsing, the us imposed tarriffs to keep the prices competitive.

the EU imposed the tarriif on fruit because namly chaquita was importing bananas and other fruit so cheaply from south america that it was puting local growers out of bussiness. EU raised tarriffs to raise the price so that they could compete with the imports. FYI, in retaliation fot that tarriff, clinton imposed a tarriff on goods from the EU, mostly novelty things and batteries if i recall.

and my recollection from the kyoto is hazy, but from what i recall, its main aim WASNT to stop pollution, but to lower green house gases, not the same thing. it also slapped a band-aid
on the problem and would not have any real affect on anything short of hampering the idustralized nations, namely america, while not adressing the problem in third world countries.
its affect on health debilatating illness caused by pollution would have been minimum if at all.