Terrorism? is it really?

Remove all ads!

Ruler of the known universe wrote:

I want to point out, that that's too a plausible legal postition. It is the by far the majoritiy position. There is a tiny minority of lawyers, who argue a different way, i.e. saying it gave the US the authority to do it. As I said before, the minority opinion of those is based on plausible argumentation. It is just not a convincing argumentation. But they are entiteld to their opinion.

Warning, vain attempt on sarcasm following:

Hey, even if they are a tiny minority, it's not like we crush their right of free speech and make them pose naked on the cover of a magazine.

Just followed by another one:

Strangley enough, those tiny group of lawyers are concentrated on one spot of the world map.

 

Yes, there might be a tiny mintority who think that but I never said that they weren't entitled to their own opinon (and if i did, opps sorry). All i said was that no where did it say that the USA could illigally invade Iraq if they did not disarm in the time frame USA saw.

 

Just to clarify to BTA and Jack Funk:
Resolution 687 which incorporates the cease fire agreement from Desert Storm supersedes the only resolution giving specific authority to use force, namely Resolution 678.

Resolution 687 is not conditional, so can thus not confer the right to use military force to enforce compliance.

Read the conlcusions of the Markland Group here. I believe this was written before the adoption of 1441, and thus does not comment on this one.

1441 is thus the only resolution that can be used to justify military action. Whether or not it does is for lawyers to debate, not me.

[DOUBLE EDIT] DAMNED TYPOS! [EDIT]

[ May 16, 2003, 18:53: Message edited by: Viking ]

 

BTA

The motives perhaps are not known , but assumptions based on some facts can be made.If Iraqis had used the tv station for other military activities (such as broadcasting military communications) and not only for propaganda, Pentagon would claimed that the bombing took place because of this. As far as I know Pentagon never claimed this.

During the war, when the members of the U.S administration were asked why Iraqis had not revolted against Saddam, they always answered that the fear and the feeling that Saddam had still power prevented them from doing so. One of the tools that Saddam used to achieve this was tv propaganda. Therefore, one of the reasons for the attack was to stop this propaganda in order to undermine any political support.

As for which the main reason could be, in my opinion is the fact that Iraqis were winning the propaganda war by showing american POWs or destroyed american equipment.

 

@Ruler

First, there is nothing wrong with being ignorant. I am on most subjects. The problem is when an opportunity to be educated is ignored. That is what I mean by selective ignorance.

You are new here, so let me give you some background. This topic is not new. It has been effectively beaten to death on these forums. And no matter how many times the issue of the violation of the cease-fire comes up, the same people (not you) will repeatedly insist that the coalition had no justification to take military action. That is what prompted my comment.

When you are losing a war and agree to a cease-fire to end hostilities, then you have to live up YOUR agreement or face the possibility that the war will resume.

Again @Ruler

I don't follow your logic, but, go ahead and invade.

One more time @Ruler

When you are losing and want a cease-fire, you are clearly getting the terms forced upon you. It's the cease-fire or the opposition will continue to attack (ie. use force). So what is your point?

 

@ Jack Funk
Ok, thanks for the background, but arguing weather or not the coalition had the rights to invade Iraq was not the point of this. Lets just say they did have rights. Would this mean that all the "terrorist" attacks commited by Iraqie civilians during the "war" (not war massicure) weren't terrorist attacks like the USA claim them to be. And if they are then clearly the USA (and the UK of course) would be in some of their attacks.

IMO none of these recent attacks, resent as in after 11th september 2001 (i think?), were terrorist attacks. It is all just another form of amarican propreganda.

(the following is off topic slightly)

And maybe i didn't make my self clear enough about this. The USA in the 1920s if memory serves, decided that the terms of the treaty were forced unfairly on Germany. This ended up resulting in some treaty or something (i think it was the kellog brand pact (kellog and brand been two forien minister) but i'll have to check this) which easied off the terms. What germany did in WWI was much worse than what Iraq did in the gulf war, yet USA sees it fit to strech the wording of resoultion 1441 to give them right to attack. In the 1920s USA said that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles shouldn't have been foced upon the Germans, but then in the 1990s they go and do the same thing on Iraq.

(back on topic )

My logic here is quiet simple, if Iraq broke some international treaty and the consecences of this is invasion and the destruct of their government then shouldn't the same apply for the USA?

 

sounds more like WWII
(there were no war crimes in the 1st one that im aware of)

 

Oh there are war crimes in every war ragman, just some wars much more than others.

 

ROTKU, the small villages were suspected of aiding the Al Quada, so going in with guns blazing was kind of excessive.

 

I have to add a bit to BTA's remark. He displays the official US position on the war against iraq. It is, however, pretty much undisputed that these arguments are insufficient and cannot justify a war. The US-british attack on iraq was an agression. That may be legalistic but still.

As for afganistan and Al Quaida he's right.

 

Sorry, Rugusa, but i don't see any conection between your quote there and afganistan and Al Quaida
@Tarsahk
If i'm correct then some of these 'small' villages were suspected of habouring Al Quaida as well. But I do agree in the fact that the USA took it to the extrem.

 

It was the sentence after BTAs remark I quoted above: As for afganistan and Al Quaida he's right. As war is an international dispute, the march into a land that isn't even ruled by a recognised* gvt cannot be considered an act of war, maybe a violation of territorial integrity - but even that's questionable in a failed state.
Anyway - discussing this is kinda pointless as the US fighting in afganistan was backed by a UN resolution - they were justified; for the US afganistan was a "legal" conflict.

* = The taliban were officially recognised only by their godfathers, pakistan, and saudi-arabia. Neither the UN nor any other country recognised them. Afganistan was still considered to be a failed state.

 

@ Ragusa
What exactly do you mean by a "failed state"?
Sorry I'm not to fimilar (spelling?) with all these law terms.

 

A failed state is a country in which govertnmental control and the rule of law and order collapsed, where governmental institutions don't work anymore - like somalia that is ruled by warlords, opposing any regime they're not in. Failed states are usually a result of extended civil war.

 

Sorry a bit of topic but i'm curious (spelling?)now. When was the last civil war in afganistan?
I can't remember there ever been any. But i am sure there have been some some time or another.

 

Afghanist, irrc, has never been a state in the last 200 years. At least, not a state, as we think of. It is a typical failed state. But failed is given the history wrong, becuase there was never a "state" which could have failed.

But it was a "puffer-zone" between the Russian and the British Empires. The 1848 invasion of the British endend with the famous night of the long knives. A lot of invasions followed, but Afghanistan acutally was never the fuss worth to controll it. Just an anarchy with a important geographical position. The Oil-fields in the countries north of central Asia don't make matters better. Oil from central-Asia is either transported through Russia, China or.... Afghanistan. Which of the countries will be favoured from other countries?

The invasion of Afghanistan through the russians was a civil war. There was a socialist Goverment which suddenly faced resistance from the inside. So, the Russians took the chance for an invasion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/country_profiles/1162668.stm

The troublesome point is, the west supported a "holy war" against the atheist russian intruders. There was a great call for soldiers all over the muslim world. Those "holy warriors" of the 80's searched after the end of the USSR for another evil Empire to resist. The classic case of a blowback. The "Afghan-warriors" had training by British and US military experts and possibly other western nations.

And now, Afghanistan is, what is was before, an uncontrolled land on a map. Anarchy and the main producer of opium in central-asia.

 

The last civil war in afganistan started with the withdrawal of the russian troops in 1988 or 1989 and continued until the Taliban took power and practically controlled the country and eventually ended fighting. They were welcomed by the population even as they brought back law and order, a thing long missed - that, for the beginning, compensated for their weird and to afgans unfamiliar wahhabi islamism.

Kabul was destroyed by the afgans themselves, not by the russians.

-A more obsolete link here, reporting pretty good on the information available in approx 1998: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/afghan/intro.htm
-And more actual: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/index.html

 

Oh, and by the way. At the beginning of the 90's, people who were in Afghanistan at that time, always stress, that women used to were mini-skirts in Khabul at that "pre-taliban" time.

 

@ Ragusa: What about the concept of a "Stabilized De-Facto-Regime" (stabilisiertes De-Facto-Regime)? Does it not apply on the Taliban-Regime in Afghanistan? Or was the timespan to short?

I agree that Somalia is a failed state, because the government is powerless. But Afghanistan under the Taliban was tightly controlled by them. So there was a governement. Right now, Afghanistan is a failed state, because Hamid Karsai controls only the capital.

[ May 18, 2003, 14:08: Message edited by: Fabius Maximus ]

 

As I said, no one wanted the Taliban, except the saudis (who paid them) and the pakistanis (who led and trained them). Reconsider your argument: What if another party, maybe that of a drug dealing warlord, had managed to gain control in the largest part of the country?

A country needs a little more than just a high degree of internal control. And you're basically right - even though we like the current drone in Kabul he's the weakest "leader" there, yet the best protected. But he heads an interim gvt - afganistan is struggling not to fail - failed it is when the people are fighting again.