Che Guevara Flags in Obama's Houston Office

[GaryC 7]

Authorization.......

Paralleling its efforts in the U.N., the Bush Administration also sought domestic authorization for an invasion, which it was granted on October 2002 when the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq".

source

The Bush administration's efforts to obtain proper authorization from the Security Council failed. No authorization from that body and hence no lawful basis for the attack on Iraq exist. Effort, my friend, does not equal result.

you're under the mistaken impression that a country needs un authorization for a war.

Ditto. This is a misconception. The U.S.A. is not bound by U.N. Security Council authorizations, nor is any sovereign nation.

You fellas need to educate yourself on what it means to be a signatory to the UN Charter. That'll help you avoid ignorant statements like the ones above.

Don't have to. It's absurd to think a failure to acquire approval of the U.N. security council supercedes U.S. law.

U.S. law dictates our destiny, not the dictates of the U.N.

The problem with your argument is that outside of the US - where the unlawful attack happened to take place - US law means precisely squat.

And as absurd as you might feel it is, as a signatory to the UN charter, that approval is exactly what a nation needs to go to war unless is it is defending itself from an attack under way or from an imminent attack. Neither of the latter was the case in Iraq. Attacking that country was an illegal act of aggression whether you like it or not. It was no different than Saddam's attack on Kuwait back in 1990. Saddam's only problem was that he wasn't a permanent member of the Security Council as were the US and the UK.

Screw the UN. I think we should withdraw from that useless piece of sh!t.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As these guys not only want to get rid of the UN but also see no necessity for the universal declaration of human rights, because the 'bible' tells them all they need to know about such things, I can't see being bound to the UN charter as a particularly large obstacle to their ideals of legality vis a vis the Iraq war.

who mentioned a bible in this thread?

I did. I mentioned that I didn't need the UN to tell me what human rights were. My faith gives me that. She thinks I am a cave man for trusting in my faith apparently. It's OK, her attitude tells me that she has nothing to bring to the conversation. People like that are best ignored.

I dunno - I think there's been a bit of a misunderstanding here. There's nothing wrong with a universal statement of values (AKA the universal declaration of human rights). That can certainly involve distilling the best from religious teachings, but lets be honest here. In addition to 'the good', there is a hell of a lot of crazy-###-#### in the Bible. Saying that you need only look to the Bible to have an understanding of "human rights" is, at best, rather ambiguous - as it carries with it controversialities that are implicit to the Christian faith.

Your scorn for the UN is clear, and perhaps justified. But other than that its the "UN declaration of human rights", I'm not sure I understand the argument here. The point has been made that the declaration is essentially worthless - and while on paper it may look that way, the idealism is sound. As I say the concept isn't all that hard to understand. We already uphold a broad statement of values in the US constitution and Bill of Rights - why? because we have enshrined them into our domestic laws. Same holds true for signatories to the UN Declaration. It can't be imposed, it has to be voluntary. Once in law - it is no longer voluntary.

As for withdrawing from the UN - I won't deny that the institution needs reform, but scrapping it entirely would not only be an isolationist act setting the international community back to WW1. An international forum of nations is necessary to maintain some sort of world order.

Edited February 17, 2008 by Number 6

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The problem with your argument is that outside of the US - where the unlawful attack happened to take place - US law means precisely squat.

And as absurd as you might feel it is, as a signatory to the UN charter, that approval is exactly what a nation needs to go to war unless is it is defending itself from an attack under way or from an imminent attack. Neither of the latter was the case in Iraq. Attacking that country was an illegal act of aggression whether you like it or not. It was no different than Saddam's attack on Kuwait back in 1990. Saddam's only problem was that he wasn't a permanent member of the Security Council as were the US and the UK.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Authorization.......

Paralleling its efforts in the U.N., the Bush Administration also sought domestic authorization for an invasion, which it was granted on October 2002 when the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq".

source

The Bush administration's efforts to obtain proper authorization from the Security Council failed. No authorization from that body and hence no lawful basis for the attack on Iraq exist. Effort, my friend, does not equal result.

you're under the mistaken impression that a country needs un authorization for a war.

Ditto. This is a misconception. The U.S.A. is not bound by U.N. Security Council authorizations, nor is any sovereign nation.

You fellas need to educate yourself on what it means to be a signatory to the UN Charter. That'll help you avoid ignorant statements like the ones above.

Don't have to. It's absurd to think a failure to acquire approval of the U.N. security council supercedes U.S. law.

U.S. law dictates our destiny, not the dictates of the U.N.

The problem with your argument is that outside of the US - where the unlawful attack happened to take place - US law means precisely squat.

And as absurd as you might feel it is, as a signatory to the UN charter, that approval is exactly what a nation needs to go to war unless is it is defending itself from an attack under way or from an imminent attack. Neither of the latter was the case in Iraq. Attacking that country was an illegal act of aggression whether you like it or not. It was no different than Saddam's attack on Kuwait back in 1990. Saddam's only problem was that he wasn't a permanent member of the Security Council as were the US and the UK.

Screw the UN. I think we should withdraw from that useless piece of sh!t.

Whatever you wish, the reality is that we haven't. And since we haven't, we have obligations that this administration ruthlessly disregarded. The country and the world are worse off for it.

[Cassie 8]

Authorization.......

Paralleling its efforts in the U.N., the Bush Administration also sought domestic authorization for an invasion, which it was granted on October 2002 when the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq".

source

The Bush administration's efforts to obtain proper authorization from the Security Council failed. No authorization from that body and hence no lawful basis for the attack on Iraq exist. Effort, my friend, does not equal result.

you're under the mistaken impression that a country needs un authorization for a war.

Ditto. This is a misconception. The U.S.A. is not bound by U.N. Security Council authorizations, nor is any sovereign nation.

You fellas need to educate yourself on what it means to be a signatory to the UN Charter. That'll help you avoid ignorant statements like the ones above.

Don't have to. It's absurd to think a failure to acquire approval of the U.N. security council supercedes U.S. law.

U.S. law dictates our destiny, not the dictates of the U.N.

The problem with your argument is that outside of the US - where the unlawful attack happened to take place - US law means precisely squat.

And as absurd as you might feel it is, as a signatory to the UN charter, that approval is exactly what a nation needs to go to war unless is it is defending itself from an attack under way or from an imminent attack. Neither of the latter was the case in Iraq. Attacking that country was an illegal act of aggression whether you like it or not. It was no different than Saddam's attack on Kuwait back in 1990. Saddam's only problem was that he wasn't a permanent member of the Security Council as were the US and the UK.

Screw the UN. I think we should withdraw from that useless piece of sh!t.

Whatever you wish, the reality is that we haven't. And since we haven't, we have obligations that this administration ruthlessly disregarded. The country and the world are worse off for it.

AMEN.

[Peikko 1,575]

I did. I mentioned that I didn't need the UN to tell me what human rights were. My faith gives me that. She thinks I am a cave man for trusting in my faith apparently. It's OK, her attitude tells me that she has nothing to bring to the conversation. People like that are best ignored.

I suggested that you misunderstand the importance of the UN and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because you believe that the bible contains something similar and this belief leads you to the conclusion that the declaration of human rights is somehow superflous or unnecssary. I certainly did not suggest that you were a cave man nor have I suggested you lack morals or any other like absurd notion. Your faith is simply irrelevant to the question of human rights. For some reason you find this irritating and some kind of personal attack which I find particularly odd.

However this is a very grave misunderstanding and if you choose to ignore 'people like me' (whatever that is supposed to mean) who try to point out where you are in error you will continue to labour under these misconceptions. This type of misunderstanding is very pertinant to the question of whether the US acted properly or not as regards the War in Iraq. As has been stated, the US disregard for the process of the UN has actually had a very destabilizing effect world wide. You may have a 'devil may care' attitude to such things, but many people, both within the US and around the world quite definitely do not.