<a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/06/nblur06.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/03/06/ixportaltop.html' target='_blank'>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...xportaltop.html</a>

Discuss.

That only applies to England!

We are the United States of Texas and we can do whatever the hell we want.

Go Rangers! :wave:

I don't think Mr Blair admitted that the war against Iraq was "illegal". I think his comments, fairly understood, were to the effect that an express right to take action against countries run by men like Hussein should be set out in a formal doctrine, so as to avoid these present arguments of "illegality".

As for myself, I think he is being entirely too sensitive, though in Europe he may have to be given the head - in - the - sand attitude of those coddled babies. The fact is, UN and treaties and all that aside, every country has at all times the right to take such action as it deems necessary to defend itself, subject only to its ability to take such action. It will take such action only where taking action is not likely to cost it more than the intended favorable result is worth.

Blair's comments are not that exeptional. The Nuremburg trials occurred without the benefit of some definite, defined right to try leaders of a defeated nation for "crimes against humanity" and such, and indeed the argument could be made that there were no such crimes until the end of World War II, thereby creating embarrassing ex post facto issues. So since then we have created an international court and a putative body of law to deal with such people, as Slobodan is finding out.

Countries do what they got to do. Always did, always will.

Schadenfreude Wrote:<a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/06/nblur06.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/03/06/ixportaltop.html' target='_blank'>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...xportaltop.html</a>

Discuss.

Aren't all wars illegal. Can you name one that wasn't illegal besides maybe Gulf War I, which Kerry voted against, FYI.

MaumeeRocket Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:<a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/06/nblur06.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/03/06/ixportaltop.html' target='_blank'>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...xportaltop.html</a>

Discuss.

Aren't all wars illegal. Can you name one that wasn't illegal besides maybe Gulf War I, which Kerry voted against, FYI.

Although it predates the signing of the UN charter, United States participation in World War II did not run counter to the principles outlined in Chapter VII of the United Nations charter:

<a href='http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm</a>

Pay particular attention to 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 measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The United States cited Article 51 before invading Afghanistan, as you can see here:

<a href='http://www.un.int/usa/s-2001-946.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.un.int/usa/s-2001-946.htm</a>

I'm no lawyer, but our action in Afghanistan certainly appears to been justified under Article 51. As we can see from this article, Kofi Annan did not appear to be objecting to the heart of our case, only expressing concern about whether the United States was going to broaden its attacks outside of Afghanistan:

<a href='http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1010-02.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1010-02.htm</a>

This is a discussion of the action in Afghanistan by the Australian Section of the International Commission of Jurists that seems to back up the idea that the United States action in Afghanistan was acceptable under Article 51:

<a href='http://www.ejil.org/forum_WTC/messages/17.html' target='_blank'>http://www.ejil.org/forum_WTC/messages/17.html</a>

For what it is worth, an imminent threat of an attack has also been commonly interpreted as a justification for invoking Article 51 and conducting a war of self-defense. This is why the question of whether Iraq posed an "imminent threat" have come up so often

Did Afghanistan(Taliban) attack the U.S., No! It was Al-Qaida. If the KKK decided to go bomb Toronto, does Canada have the right to invade the U.S. for harboring those creeps? UN articles are all about whose interets are being protected.

If the government of the United States was harboring, assisting, or allowing the KKK to use its territory for such purpose, the answer would be yes. If the government of the United States did not have the ability to suppress the KKK, the answer would still be yes.

So knock out goverment to take over a thousand dipsh*ts :rolleyes:

Shoot, illegal war or not, if the UN doesn't like what we did, what can they do about it? Invade the US? Hardly. The UN is all talk and no walk without the US and Britain. Oh, watch out! Here comes the french with their german *******.

MaumeeRocket Wrote:So knock out goverment to take over a thousand dipsh*ts :rolleyes:

If a thousand dipshits were doing bad stuff in your country, and the country they were based in couldn't or wouldn't handle them, then yes. The one basic "entitlement" that a citizen or subject of a country ought to be able to expect is protection from such threats.