Half of U.S. still believes Iraq had WMD

[Candyvan Stan]

Do you believe in Iraqi "WMD"? Did
Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?

Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in
Iraq.

People tend to become "independent of reality" in these circumstances, says opinion analyst Steven Kull.

The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents — up from 36 percent last year — said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD. Other polls also have found an enduring American faith in the WMD story.

"I'm flabbergasted," said Michael Massing, a media critic whose writings dissected the largely unquestioning U.S. news reporting on the Bush administration's shaky WMD claims in 2002-03.

"This finding just has to cause despair among those of us who hope for an informed public able to draw reasonable conclusions based on evidence," Massing said. [continued]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060806/ap_on_re_us/iraq_believing_wmd

[Alphonse v.2]

Just because the country is a superpower, you can't ask all of its citizens to be intelligent.

[mugen]

Just because the country is a superpower, you can't ask all of its citizens to be intelligent.
Intelligence? More like basic cognitive skills.

Even though 50% a very high number of people, I can somewhat understand what causes them to think that way. A lot of people don't want to admit they lost, or that in hindsight, they did something wrong. Just look around you, people lie to themselves everyday.

[Candyvan Stan]

It's not that America's citizens are not intelligent. I simply can't believe that they are not, because the majority of the Americans I have met both online and offline have been just as intelligent (if not more so) than the average European I talk to.


As Israeli troops and Hezbollah guerrillas battled in Lebanon on July 21, a Fox News segment suggested, with no evidence, yet another destination for the supposed doomsday arms.

"ARE SADDAM HUSSEIN'S WMDS NOW IN HEZBOLLAH'S HANDS?" asked the headline, lingering for long minutes on TV screens in a million American homes.

However, Americans seem to be far more often exposed to outlandish indoctrination by their government and the media. Headlines like these are just strange.

[Vincent "Mikado" Logan]

I love the fact that "weapons of massdestruction" got its own acronym. That alone should tell you something in regards to the "intelligence" of the nation.

[Jetsetlemming]

Uh, guys? They released the info that they found chemical WMD's in Iraq a while ago. Iraq just didn't have nukes.

[Kass]

I love the fact that "weapons of massdestruction" got its own acronym. That alone should tell you something in regards to the "intelligence" of the nation.

WMD has been an acronym for weapons of mass destruction since, oh, WWII prior to the US involvement in the war. It was first referenced in conjunction with the mass destruction of Guernica, Spain in 1937 by aerial bombardment. Following the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it came to refer to non-conventional weapons.

Any weapon that causes indiscriminate, massive loss of life is a WMD, though most people think only of nuclear and biological/chemical weapons.

"WMD" has been common usage in negotiating weapons reduction treaties, peace plans and cease fires since the end of WWII. Reagan used it when he was pushing the former USSR to reduce its nuclear weapons arsenal and when he was pushing his SDI initiative.

Just because you're unaware of history and the terms used in conjunction with it doesn't mean the rest of the country is.

[Candyvan Stan]

That was totally from Wikipedia.

[Kass]

The date on Guernica was, yes, but most of it was from the history classes I took in college, as was the Reagan stuff and the treaties. Some people a) paid attention and b) retained what they learned. WMD was all over the news in conjunction with the Star Wars stuff Reagan tried to do.

The bombardment of Guernica was notable because it was the first wholesale devastation of a town using aerial bombardment. It started a "trend" in WWII toward using bombers to wreak havoc on military, industrial and sometimes civilian targets.

[Black fist]

Well most people who still think irag got WMD are followers of bush especially in texas where I'm at. Most kids I know were bush or none.

[Kass]

The operative word in that sentence being "kid." And they did find evidence of chemical weapons, though if I recall correctly, they weren't substantial enough to be WMD.

[Kaji]

With all the time we allowed the UN to stall, it's not unthinkable that transport or destruction operations were in place. After all, our good friends the French would have you think that Oil For Food was a complete success...

[Trump]

I also thought they found chemicals but did not find that Iraq had a way to distribute them (wow, distribute isn't exactly the word I would use). So techinically, those aren't WMDs.

[Kwiz]

I also thought they found chemicals but did not find that Iraq had a way to distribute them (wow, distribute isn't exactly the word I would use). So techinically, those aren't WMDs.

Those chemical weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction - they just didn't have a fully built delivery system.

And 'WMD' seems a far too broad grouping to me. I'd rather see a poll asking "do you believe Saddam Hussein developed nuclear weapons prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq?"

[Mechs]

Wow, I can't believe there are actually people that still doubt Iraq had WMDs. You would think people would know that they did, but I guess not since the only network that really covered that story was FOX News....

[Candyvan Stan]

Wow, I can't believe there are actually people that still doubt Iraq had WMDs. You would think people would know that they did, but I guess not since the only network that really covered that story was FOX News....


Haha, no offense - but I seriously thought that if one person on this forum believed they had weapons of mass destruction, it'd be you.

Also, it has happened more than one time that FOX news reported completely false information, as seen below.

On March 23, 2003 the FOX News channel headline banners were rolling: "Huge chemical weapons factory found in Iraq... Reports: 30 Iraqis surrender at chem weapons plant... coal. troops holding Iraqi in charge of chem. weapons." On the next day the Dow Jones Newswires reported, that, U.S. officials had admitted that morning that the site contained no chemicals at all and had been abandoned long before Gulf War II.

[c-rex]

Umh Michael we KNOW Saddam had WMDs (assuming you consider nerve gas and some other fun chemical weapons to be WMDs) because the Pentagon still has the sales slips on file (oops, our bad). To be fair by the time we got around to invading 95% of the stuff had been used up on the Kurds and the Iranians.

Also it is pretty much proven Saddam had a WMD program. It was a shitty program that wasn't producing much, but he had enough PR to sell it to the Iranians and us, which turned around and bit him in the ass. One of the few reasons Iraq managed to survive its conflicts with the Iranians in the 80s was the fact it had chemical weapons. So up until the day American troops moved in Saddam was trying to act like he had WMDs to kepe the Iranians at bay. Sadly the CIA fell for this BS hook, line and sinker and we're going to spend the next years rebuilding a third world hell hole.

All in all the guy was no threat to us and invasion was pretty much a waste of time, money and lives.

[Candyvan Stan]

Umh Michael we KNOW Saddam had WMDs (assuming you consider nerve gas and some other fun chemical weapons to be WMDs) because the Pentagon still has the sales slips on file (oops, our bad).

You're acting as if I'm completely denying that there were no weapons of mass destruction. At least, that's what I picked up from the "uhm Michael" part. I never said that he hasn't. I don't know, and I'm pretty apathetic towards debating it. I'm not part of any nations intelligence agency, and I don't fully trust any media 100%.

Don't shoot the messager.

[Mechs]

All in all the guy was no threat to us and invasion was pretty much a waste of time, money and lives.

Better safe than sorry I always say.

[mugen]

I also thought they found chemicals but did not find that Iraq had a way to distribute them (wow, distribute isn't exactly the word I would use). So techinically, those aren't WMDs.
Those chemicals were produced after the U.S. invaded Iraq. Maybe I am wrong, can anyone show me sources?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
Umh Michael we KNOW Saddam had WMDs (assuming you consider nerve gas and some other fun chemical weapons to be WMDs) because the Pentagon still has the sales slips on file (oops, our bad). To be fair by the time we got around to invading 95% of the stuff had been used up on the Kurds and the Iranians.

Also it is pretty much proven Saddam had a WMD program. It was a shitty program that wasn't producing much, but he had enough PR to sell it to the Iranians and us, which turned around and bit him in the ass. One of the few reasons Iraq managed to survive its conflicts with the Iranians in the 80s was the fact it had chemical weapons. So up until the day American troops moved in Saddam was trying to act like he had WMDs to kepe the Iranians at bay. Sadly the CIA fell for this BS hook, line and sinker and we're going to spend the next years rebuilding a third world hell hole.

All in all the guy was no threat to us and invasion was pretty much a waste of time, money and lives.

You are missing the point. I think we all know Iraq had chemical weapons in the 80's and early 90's, but Michael pointed out 50% of the Americans believe Iraq had chemical weapons in 2003.

[Matt W]

Wow, I can't believe there are actually people that still doubt Iraq had WMDs.

Uhhhh, Iraq had no WMD's, what in the world are you and the other people on this board talking about.

[Kaji]

Uhhhh, Iraq had no WMD's, what in the world are you and the other people on this board talking about.

There's a difference between not finding them and there not having been any in existence at the time to begin with.

[Jetsetlemming]

XD Posts like that make me laugh. Look up the news stories, Mugen JUST posted on before you.
Iraq had plenty of chemical WMD's. They killed a whole lot of Iraqis with them. They most likely didn't use up their whole stock and just not bother to seek out more, I'd imagine.

[Trump]

They uncovered a couple bunkers with gas masks and such didn't they?

[O-Matic]

lol...bush owns fox. fox loves bush. they find a flobber in iraq, they say it's mass destruction...ahh goddamn, I don't want to talk about this shit. Everytime I try to, I start hating the U.S....and according to my beard I could get into a dangerous position for doing so^^

I think, everytime the republicans fear that they might lose the next elections, they cut the budget for education.

[Kaji]

bush owns fox.

I love how people who claim to be smarter than our president and deride him for what they perceive as factual inaccuracies can't even get their own facts straight. Ain't saying he's perfect, but for crying out loud, you free thinkers could actually think for yourselves for a change!

[PopCulturePooka]

They were sold to Syria. Duh.

[Roxie]

I love how people who claim to be smarter than our president and deride him for what they perceive as factual inaccuracies can't even get their own facts straight. Ain't saying he's perfect, but for crying out loud, you free thinkers could actually think for yourselves for a change!

Well, his press secretary, Tony Snow used to work for FOX before his current position.....I'm just saying. He may not own them, but they like to snuggle alot.

[Jetsetlemming]

Fox is pro business. That's all you need to know to know the entirety of the politics behind the channel. As long as Bush is doing pro business acts, they'll like him. It's not a "you scratch my back I scratch yours" sort of thing, just a mutual respect.

[Roxie]

OH, so they're spooning...I see.

[erbiumfiber]

Well, that news story got it right- half this board believes that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Or at least the tractor trailers that Colin Powell showed the UN when, on the worst day of his life, he became a patsy of the administration and made the case for war...

A related humorous cartoon:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=15130

[Matt W]

XD Posts like that make me laugh. Look up the news stories, Mugen JUST posted on before you.
Iraq had plenty of chemical WMD's. They killed a whole lot of Iraqis with them. They most likely didn't use up their whole stock and just not bother to seek out more, I'd imagine.


What? The question isn't if Saddam had weapons twenty years ago, obviously he did. They were asking if people believed he had them in 2003, which he obviously didn't. Mugen was pointing this out. Bush said in his 2003 state of the union that Saddam had:
25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people.
38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure.
500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent
30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents
several mobile biological weapons labs
I wont even go into the nuclear.
None of this was true, Iraq was no threat and had no WMD's when we invaded. Every so called Wmd find that made headlines was, upon further inspection, not what it was thought to be and was nothing threatening at all. Those 50% are obviously misinformed about a very important thing.

[Mechs]

What? The question isn't if Saddam had weapons twenty years ago, obviously he did. They were asking if people believed he had them in 2003, which he obviously didn't. Mugen was pointing this out. Bush said in his 2003 state of the union that Saddam had:
25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people.
38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure.
500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent
30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents
several mobile biological weapons labs
I wont even go into the nuclear.
None of this was true, Iraq was no threat and had no WMD's when we invaded. Every so called Wmd find that made headlines was, upon further inspection, not what it was thought to be and was nothing threatening at all. Those 50% are obviously misinformed about a very important thing.


He did have them in 2003. We found 500 weapons filled with the stuff. The whole point was Saddam said he destroyed all his WMDs, so if that is true, why the hell are we finding 500 rounds filled with the stuff? And not threating? From what I hear, even degraded chemical weapons can still be highly dangerous.

[mugen]

sources please

[japanat]

He did have them in 2003. We found 500 weapons filled with the stuff. The whole point was Saddam said he destroyed all his WMDs, so if that is true, why the hell are we finding 500 rounds filled with the stuff? And not threating? From what I hear, even degraded chemical weapons can still be highly dangerous.

500 rounds which had been buried under the sand long enough to be in an unusable state (some estimates ranged from 8-12 yrs).

[Mechs]

500 rounds which had been buried under the sand long enough to be in an unusable state (some estimates ranged from 8-12 yrs).

Unusable as a projectile, but what is inside can still do alot of damage if you take it out and use it.

And the source some one asked for:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

And here is the declassified part of the report in which the article speaks:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

[Trump]

Regardless of the state of the equipment, there was not enough to warrant war.

[Karthak]

If the Americans really wanted to go after countries with secret WMD projects, they would invade Israel.

[Kaji]

A few things here:

1) Israel is known to have nukes, so I'd hardly call it secret there

2) Israel is highly unlikely to use them, considering how restrained they actually are when they make moves militarily. Need we remind you once again that it could have extended its borders to include all of Lebanon by now if it wanted to?

3) Israel having a nuke gives it a bargaining chip to ensure its security in an area where all of the surrounding nations want it gone.

Now, let's compare that to Iran (who wants Israel off the map) and North Korea (which not only wants to wipe South Korea off the map, but also considers Japan's general direction its long-range missle testing ground).

[Matt W]

Mechs
Thanks for posting your source. But even in your source it says
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
Additionally, the Iraq Survey Group's final report said they had found no WMD's, and the report did talk about these weapons your mentioning. The head of ISG, Charles Duelfer said that these weapons are in such a degraded state that they do not qualify as WMD's. You can read more at the link, which talks about how fox news misinforms people on this issue.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200606230008

[Mechs]

Mechs
Thanks for posting your source. But even in your source it says
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
Additionally, the Iraq Survey Group's final report said they had found no WMD's, and the report did talk about these weapons your mentioning. The head of ISG, Charles Duelfer said that these weapons are in such a degraded state that they do not qualify as WMD's. You can read more at the link, which talks about how fox news misinforms people on this issue.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200606230008

Hmmmm...oh well. Better safe than sorry :).

EDIT: Spelling mistake.

[King Kong]

LOL. Americans.

[mugen]

LOL. Americans.
QFT

:clap: I actually Lolled

[Beowulf]

Even if Saddam had WMD's who the hell cares? He couldn't have attacked the US if had wanted to (which he didn't, he already got one trashing from us).

[Vincent "Mikado" Logan]

Fox is pro business.

That. Is the best. Thing. Ever. Written.

That needs to be like... in the next campaign bumper sticker for the upcoming Republican candidate.

[RandomPasserby]

Kind of sad to claim that 500 munitions forgotten for decades to rust under sand are a reason to go to war to defend yourself. Unless you are just lying, you are the biggest pussy on earth pretty much.

[Ichisan]

Uh, guys? They released the info that they found chemical WMD's in Iraq a while ago. Iraq just didn't have nukes.

Oh look. It's one of the 50%.

Do you have a link to this information? Does 'chemical weapons' here mean gas by any chance because it's common knowledge that Saddam had gas and used it against the Kurds?

Well Kass already said the weapons were not large enough to be classified WMDs. Although she seems unconcerned that 50% of the US has fallen victim to government propaganda.

I believe people the world over are highly vulnerable to propaganda. We just notice American propaganda more because it contrasts so much with our own news sources. I do still believe that the mass media in Europe are more objective and informative, relatively speaking, but when governments have agendas to push we get fed a lot of propaganda too.

[Ichisan]

There's a difference between not finding them and there not having been any in existence at the time to begin with.

Yes and I bet you can't prove aliens haven't visited the earth either. Proving a negative is difficult.

Prove to me that you don't have a gun you are planning to shoot me with. I'd better shoot you just to be safe! Bang! Oops, you didn't have a gun. But I'm not fooled: bet you hid it somewhere.

[Ichisan]

A few things here:

1) Israel is known to have nukes, so I'd hardly call it secret there

2) Israel is highly unlikely to use them, considering how restrained they actually are when they make moves militarily. Need we remind you once again that it could have extended its borders to include all of Lebanon by now if it wanted to?

3) Israel having a nuke gives it a bargaining chip to ensure its security in an area where all of the surrounding nations want it gone.

Now, let's compare that to Iran (who wants Israel off the map) and North Korea (which not only wants to wipe South Korea off the map, but also considers Japan's general direction its long-range missle testing ground).

North Korea actually wants to annex South Korea. They are after all a single country divided.

Israel had occupied Lebanon for around 20 years until a couple of years ago and, if what I hear is correct, has no wish to do so again.

You're right about Iran though.

[Mechs]

Yes and I bet you can't prove aliens haven't visited the earth either. Proving a negative is difficult.

Prove to me that you don't have a gun you are planning to shoot me with. I'd better shoot you just to be safe! Bang! Oops, you didn't have a gun. But I'm not fooled: bet you hid it somewhere.

Police do it every so often. Most are not convicted. They thought they saw a threat and they took it out. Self Defense, What so wrong with that?

[Kaji]

Yes and I bet you can't prove aliens haven't visited the earth either. Proving a negative is difficult.

Prove to me that you don't have a gun you are planning to shoot me with. I'd better shoot you just to be safe! Bang! Oops, you didn't have a gun. But I'm not fooled: bet you hid it somewhere.

Go posturing like you have a gun, and you'll be shot like you do have one because people don't want to take a chance where lives are involved. Scaled up to a national level, things don't work any differently.

[shimanotaka]

Police do it every so often. Most are not convicted. They thought they saw a threat and they took it out. Self Defense, What so wrong with that?
Yeah, self defence... But UN had been searching for WMDs in Iraq and couldn't find any. So it's like the police pointing a gun at a suspect while the mall security guard frisks him, and the security guard says "He's clean." and the police goes "I don't believe you!" and shoots the suspect anyway only to find out that the security guard was right. Better safe than sorry my ass...
That's what's wrong with that.

[Kaji]

Yeah, self defence... But UN had been searching for WMDs in Iraq and couldn't find any. So it's like the police pointing a gun at a suspect while the mall security guard frisks him, and the security guard says "He's clean." and the police goes "I don't believe you!" and shoots the suspect anyway only to find out that the security guard was right. Better safe than sorry my ass...
That's what's wrong with that.

The UN inspections were a joke to begin with. If he cooperated with them, perhaps you'd have a point, but when he'd stall the UN inspectors for months on end and prevent them from accessing facilities he is required by the sanctions to allow them access to, it looks pretty damn suspicious. Let's also look at who was calling for leniency on Iraq at the time, I do believe it was France and Germany, two major parties in the Oil for Food scandal. Are sanctions only worth enforcing when they hurt the US now?

[Ichisan]

Police do it every so often. Most are not convicted. They thought they saw a threat and they took it out. Self Defense, What so wrong with that?

But they at least admit they were mistaken about seeing a gun. :duh:

[Ichisan]

The UN inspections were a joke to begin with. If he cooperated with them, perhaps you'd have a point, but when he'd stall the UN inspectors for months on end and prevent them from accessing facilities he is required by the sanctions to allow them access to, it looks pretty damn suspicious. Let's also look at who was calling for leniency on Iraq at the time, I do believe it was France and Germany, two major parties in the Oil for Food scandal. Are sanctions only worth enforcing when they hurt the US now?

Yeah it suits you to believe that the inspections were a joke. The inspections turned up nothing. Months of searching after the invasion also turned up nothing. This is not a coincidence. The fact is that Bush and Blair's claim that there were WMDs was the joke, the joke was on both we who never believed them in the first place and on those who were duped, and evidently there are a lot of people, like you, who *still don't get it*.

[Kaji]

Yeah it suits you to believe that the inspections were a joke. The inspections turned up nothing. Months of searching after the invasion also turned up nothing. This is not a coincidence. The fact is that Bush and Blair's claim that there were WMDs was the joke, the joke was on both we who never believed them in the first place and on those who were duped, and evidently there are a lot of people, like you, who *still don't get it*.

And it suits you to ignore the fact that Saddam had a history of stonewalling the weapons inspections. In the end the UN weapons inspections did about as much good as Sean Penn going over, taking a guided tour set up by the Iraqi government, then coming back to the US to declare that they had no weapons, they'd even given him a tour to prove it. There was plenty of time between when the evidence was presented and the invasion took place, because we DID try to take the diplomatic path through the UN. Those profiting off of Iraq instead tried to use that time to stall and cover their asses, something else it seems to suit you to ignore. Just because something does not exist months later does not mean it did not exist at the time, and with the way the stalling was going it's not too hard to imagine stuff either being sold back to France and Russia, or being resold to Syria and the surrounding nations.

[Mechs]

And it suits you to ignore the fact that Saddam had a history of stonewalling the weapons inspections. In the end the UN weapons inspections did about as much good as Sean Penn going over, taking a guided tour set up by the Iraqi government, then coming back to the US to declare that they had no weapons, they'd even given him a tour to prove it. There was plenty of time between when the evidence was presented and the invasion took place, because we DID try to take the diplomatic path through the UN. Those profiting off of Iraq instead tried to use that time to stall and cover their asses, something else it seems to suit you to ignore. Just because something does not exist months later does not mean it did not exist at the time, and with the way the stalling was going it's not too hard to imagine stuff either being sold back to France and Russia, or being resold to Syria and the surrounding nations.

So true. Weren't those UN weapon inspectors kicked out of Iraq once or twice and left the country out of anger of non-cooperation from Iraq once? I thought I remembered reading something like that from a book by Tom Clancy about a Marine General named Tony Zinni.

[Ichisan]

It's not too hard to imagine all kinds of things happening if you're willing to bend over backwards rather than admit you were lied to.

Is there any evidence that any WMDs were hidden or sold? Why haven't we heard about any evidence of this?

[Kaji]

Oh, I agree that it's not hard to imagine things. It's not hard to imagine that Iraq wasn't lying to us about not having weapons and trying to sluff them off onto someone else while it was stalling the inspectors. The inspections were a failure, and not allowing them was in violation of the sanctions. As the sanctions were part of the conditions for ending the FIRST Gulf War, going back into Iraq is a perfectly justified course of action.

[Ichisan]

Once again: do you know of any evidence to suggest that weapons were hidden, moved, or sold?

And the argument that UN resolution whatever-number-it-was for the first Gulf War makes the second war legal is very thin and not supported by most lawyers. I assume that's what you were referring to, and that since you brought it up the issue of legality matters to you.

[Mechs]

Once again: do you know of any evidence to suggest that weapons were hidden, moved, or sold?

And the argument that UN resolution whatever-number-it-was for the first Gulf War makes the second war legal is very thin and not supported by most lawyers. I assume that's what you were referring to, and that since you brought it up the issue of legality matters to you.

Do you have evidence that he destroyed all of his WMDs?

And the arguement for the breaking of the UN resolution not supported by lawyers, well I don't know about that, but the Saddam broke 17 UN Resolutions over nine years (Most refer to his non-compliance with IAEA and UN Weapon inspectors). How many more does a person have to break before it becomes "legal" to take him out?

[Ichisan]

Do you have evidence that he destroyed all of his WMDs?

And the arguement for the breaking of the UN resolution not supported by lawyers, well I don't know about that, but the Saddam broke 17 UN Resolutions over nine years (Most refer to his non-compliance with IAEA and UN Weapon inspectors). How many more does a person have to break before it becomes "legal" to take him out?

Just one provided that the UN Security Council authorises the use of force. (And no I don't think that the fact that a bunch of companies and politicians were making money scamming the Oil for Food program somehow invalidates the whole of international law before you bring that up. At least the program succeeded in bringing food aid to huge numbers of Iraqi citizens who needed it.)

Do I have evidence that he destroyed all of his WMDs? See above about proving a negative.

Once again, do you have any evidence that any WMDs were hidden, destroyed, or moved to another country? (No). Don't you think it's odd that even with the entire country occupied and an active search for WMDs going on for months that no trail or possible trail leading to WMDs was ever found? I would have to say that the whole idea is just wishful thinking on the part of the right. Please bring your version of reality up to date.

[Kaji]

Whoa, whoa, how are you proving a negative if you're trying to prove that things were destroyed? It's perfectly measurable, since you can track how much was there, and how much was destroyed as time went on. So once again, evidence that he did so in accordance to the resolutions, please?

I love how European politicians and companies that have everything to gain from corruption in Iraq are considered to be a case where the good outweighs the bad, whereas when America takes action to enforce the sanctions in the manner that they were prescribed, it's suddenly all about how America should keep its own interests out of Iraq. Whether or not the weapons were present at all becomes irrelevant when Saddam obstructs the execution of the inspections that were prescribed as part of the sanctions.

Furthermore, let's see proof that the aid given to Iraq actually made it to Iraqi citizens before you go praising it as a success.

[Nebosuke]

To be fair, the US was already at war with Iraq, and had been since the first gulf war, with only a cease-fire agreement in place. From a purely legal standpoint, the US had every legal justification it needed to nullify the cease-fire and resume hostilities, as Saddam had violated the terms of the cease-fire numerous times since its inception.

Legal, necessary, and moral are, of course, all separate and orthogonal concepts, so you can still argue that the invasion was 'wrong' in some sense even if it was legal.

[Ichisan]

Whoa, whoa, how are you proving a negative if you're trying to prove that things were destroyed? It's perfectly measurable, since you can track how much was there, and how much was destroyed as time went on. So once again, evidence that he did so in accordance to the resolutions, please?

By 'proving a negative' I'm referring to the demand for proof that there were no WMDs.

Mechs asked 'Do you have evidence that he destroyed all of his WMDs?'. The answer is no. That could mean that there is evidence but we just haven't looked hard enough, or it could mean that there were no WMDs in the first place. Do you really believe we haven't looked hard enough?

Once again: is there any evidence that WMDs were destroyed, hidden, moved, or sold? If not, why not?

[Ichisan]

To be fair, the US was already at war with Iraq, and had been since the first gulf war, with only a cease-fire agreement in place. From a purely legal standpoint, the US had every legal justification it needed to nullify the cease-fire and resume hostilities, as Saddam had violated the terms of the cease-fire numerous times since its inception.

This is the argument that the legal authority to use force against Iraq already existed from the combined effects of UN Security Council resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. It's also called the 'revival' argument because the authority to use force is supposed to revive. It goes like this:

1. In Resolution 678, the Security Council authorised force against Iraq to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area. Gulf War 1 went ahead on this basis.
2. In Resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its WMDs in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under Resolution 678.
3. A material breach of Resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under Resolution 678.
4. In Resolution 1441, the Security Council determined that Iraq was and remained in breach of Resolution 687, because it had not fully complied with its obligations to disarm.
5. The Security Council in Resolution 1441 gave Iraq 'a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations' and warned Iraq of the 'serious consequences' if it did not.
6. The Security Council also decided in Resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply or cooperate fully in the implementation of Resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.
7. It is plain that Iraq failed to comply and therefore Iraq was in material breach.
8. Thus, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 revived.
9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus all that Resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.

This was the statement made by the British Attorney General just before Gulf War 2 in answer to a Parliamentary question, and also to satisfy the senior British general's request for a clear and unambiguous statement that the war was legal.

The general by the way was well aware of all the opposition to the war, that there was no new resolution from the UN, and that certain permanent members of the Security Council were far from convinced that war was necessary. He also knew that according to international conventions since the Nuremburg trial the 'I was only following orders' excuse was not enough if the war was illegal.

So, anyway, the argument looks pretty convincing, right? And Resolution 1441 shows that Kaji and Mechs are of course right that Iraq was in breach of its ceasefire obligations! (which is not the same as saying it had WMDs, for the record).

Now I'm going to tell you why it's wrong and Gulf War 2 was illegal. Although I know some of you war-supporters don't really care if it was legal or not and your only interest in the issue is if it shows the opposition are wrong. If one argument doesn't work, just throw it out and find some new ammunition, right? So I know this isn't going to convince anyone to change their mind on the Iraq War because, hey, it's only international law. The only reason I'm posting this is I want to clear up the myth that the war was legal. Just to make that clear.

1. "The UN resolution made clear that the mission was only to free Kuwait" - Colin Powell, 1995 memoir. It was clear to everyone at the time of Gulf War 1 that the purpose of Resolution 678 was only to get Iraq out of Kuwait, not invade Iraq.
So how can Resolution 678 be used to justify invading Iraq in 2003 when it didn't do so in 1991? You can't revive an authorisation if it didn't exist in the first place.
2. Resolution 687 states that it is for the Security Council to enforce the ceasefire conditions, not one or more members of the Security Council. Decision making is supposed to be collective. The whole point of the UN is for countries to work out international problems together, as they did successfully in Gulf War 1.
3. Resolution 1441 called for the weapons inspectors to report any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations to the Security Council, which was then 'to convene immediately upon receipt of a report...to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Security Council resolutions'.
How can you interpret this to mean that use of force was authorised automatically? It means the situation must first be assessed by the Security Council collectively and it was for the Council to decide what to do next.

In fact this issue was discussed at the time 1441 was drafted. The US proposed that non-compliance automatically authorise unilateral use of force but Russia and France had the relevant provisions removed from the draft. John Negroponte, US Permanent Representative to the UN at the time, said 'resolution 1441 contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with the use of force'.
Hence when the British and Americans attempted to use the 'revival' argument (i.e. the one set out in 9 points above) in 2003 other countries were understandably pissed off. They'd already been through this argument.

This is the main reason why the majority in Britain - ordinary people not just leftists with an agenda although naturally they protested too - were against the war at the time. People knew Saddam was probably not cooperating fully with Hans Blix' team of inspectors, but the next step was to go to the Security Council.

Now of course it turns out that intelligence reports were wrong and there was no threat and no WMDs in 2003. What's next? If you war supporters will concede that the war was not legal then we can go on and discuss UN corruption and the dastardly French and Germans!

[Ichisan]

Why's it all gone quiet in here? :-D

[Nebosuke]

If you actually read resolution 678 (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm), you'll find that nowhere does it state that authorization was limited to removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The decision to allow Saddam's Republican Guard to retreat into Iraq unmolested beyond Iraq's borders is one of the most controversial judgement calls in Colin Powell's career as a military commander. Among other things, that decision is what allowed Saddam to brutally quash the rebellions that the US itself had stirred up within the Shia community.

The relevant section reads:

Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

It does not require limited warfare, does not set deadlines for completion of hostilities, and does not require the consensus of the security council or any other UN bodies for a member state to take action. Colin Powell's judgement was entirely subjective. You can argue that the spirit of the resolution precludes full military invasion, but the letter of the resolution does not.

The only condition, according to the letter of the resolution, for any member state to take unilateral action for reasons stated in the resolution, is that it must secure the cooperation of the Kuwaiti government, which the US did.

The only obligation that member states acting to enforce resolution 678 have to the UN security council is spelled out in paragraph 4. They are requested to keep the security council informed as to the progress of actions taken to enforce the resolution.

sidenote:

I, personally, don't support the invasion. I think it was wrong and terribly misguided, but there is really little basis for the claim that it is illegal. It isn't illegal if it's wrong, it's illegal if it's against the law.

[Mechs]

Why's it all gone quiet in here? :-D

Because I ain't smart enough nor have the the time to research a counter arguement against what you posted, but it looks like somebody did though.

Thank you for Enlightening us Nebosuke.

[Ichisan]

It does not require limited warfare, does not set deadlines for completion of hostilities, and does not require the consensus of the security council or any other UN bodies for a member state to take action. Colin Powell's judgement was entirely subjective. You can argue that the spirit of the resolution precludes full military invasion, but the letter of the resolution does not.

You're quite right that it doesn't say specifically to stay out of Iraq but the judgement of Colin Powell - among many others - was that that was the intention of those who drafted it.

Call it 'the spirit of the resolution' if you will. Do not call Colin Powell's judgement 'entirely subjective' - emphasis mine - since, after all, he was in a position to know what he was talking about.

The only condition, according to the letter of the resolution, for any member state to take unilateral action for reasons stated in the resolution, is that it must secure the cooperation of the Kuwaiti government, which the US did.

The only obligation that member states acting to enforce resolution 678 have to the UN security council is spelled out in paragraph 4. They are requested to keep the security council informed as to the progress of actions taken to enforce the resolution.

Yes but you're not addressing points 2 and 3 in my first post because they're about Resolutions 687 and 1441 and about the - legal - authority of the US and Britain to act unilaterally in Gulf War 2, not Gulf War 1.

There was never any question that Gulf War 1 was legal and there was never any question of unilateral action either since it was fought by a UN sanctioned coalition, so you're taking Resolution 678's request to report to the Security Council entirely out of context.

sidenote:

I, personally, don't support the invasion. I think it was wrong and terribly misguided, but there is really little basis for the claim that it is illegal. It isn't illegal if it's wrong, it's illegal if it's against the law.

Sure, I'm only concerned with the question of legality here too. People could - and have - argued that Gulf War 2 was morally justified because of how bad Saddam was. Right now I'm just saying we were legally obligated to look to the UN for authorisation before commencing hostilities. (And that doesn't apply when you're facing imminent danger or in cases of self-defence, before anyone says so.)

[Nebosuke]

Go ahead and read resolutions 687 (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm) and 1441 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement).

I don't know where you're getting your information, but the fact of the matter is that conjecture about the 'spirit' of the resolution is immaterial if it contradicts the actual wording of the resolution. Resolution 687 only outlines the requirements of the cease-fire agreement, and only suspends operations authorized by 678 as long as Iraq adheres to those agreements. Resolution 1441 specifically reiterates that point.

1.Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2.Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

Etc. etc. Resolution 1441 was basically a formal declaration by the UN that Iraq had not, in fact, complied with resolution 687. It did not place any restrictions on the execution of action authorized by resolution 678. It granted Iraq a final 'good will' extension for compliance, which Iraq failed to meet.

Even if it is found that Bush was lying about the WMDs, the WMDs were hardly necessary for the invasion to be legal. Technically, he could have authorized the invasion of Iraq simply because Saddam refused to pay the Kuwaitis full reparations. Again, the lynchpin of your original argument was Colin Powel's personal interpretation, which is not consistent with the actual wording of the resolution in question.

The argument that the war in Iraq was illegal hinges entirely on the premise that resultion 678 did not actually mean what it actually said, which is not a strong legal position any way you look at it.

edit:
Removed erroneous quote. The quote was from a summary of the resolution, not the resolution itself.

[Matt W]

Am I missing something, I thought the U.S. attacked Iraq, not the U.N.? Simply breaking U.N. resolutions doesn't give a country the right to attack it. The U.N. didn't vote to give the U.S. authorization to attack. This was not a U.N. sanctioned war.

[Jetsetlemming]

What does UN sanctions have to do with the price of tea in china?

[Kaji]

Am I missing something, I thought the U.S. attacked Iraq, not the U.N.? Simply breaking U.N. resolutions doesn't give a country the right to attack it. The U.N. didn't vote to give the U.S. authorization to attack. This was not a U.N. sanctioned war.

Newsflash, the US spearheaded the war in Iraq that was authorized in the UN resolutions. Just because parts of the coalition decided not to participate in Round 2 does not mean that the war is not authorized under the resolutions.

[Matt W]

Where in these resolutions is the United States mentioned? Where is it given the power to attack Iraq if the U.S. feels that Iraq isn't living up to the resolutions? The U.N. is the only one with the power to enforce its own resolutions. Countries can't just say, country x broke a U.N. resolution, therefore I am going to take action against them. Countries break U.N. resolutions all the time. Do you think Iran has the right to attack Israel just because Israel has broken U.N. resolutions?

[Nebosuke]

Where in these resolutions is the United States mentioned? Where is it given the power to attack Iraq if the U.S. feels that Iraq isn't living up to the resolutions?
Um... Right in resolution 678, actually.

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;(emphasis mine)

The US is a member state. The US secured the cooperation of the Kuwaiti government. Ergo, the US is authorized under resolution 678. Again, it seems that many claim that that's not what resolution 678 means, but that's what resolution 678 actually says.

[Matt W]

Well, the next to paragraphs of that resolution state:
Requests all states to PROVIDE APPROPRIATE SUPPORT for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2.
Requests the States concerned to keep the Security council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3.

Anyways, that was for the Gulf War in 91, not the current conflict. 1441 was passed, and the U.S. contended that the documents Iraq handed over to comply with 1441, and the weapons inspectors that were allowed into the country were a sham, and tried to get a second resolution passed calling for force. The Security Council would not agree to this, France and others wanted the inspections to continue, and the US and Britain went it alone.

[Nebosuke]

Again, people keep citing resolutions, but you need to read the resolutions to see what they actually say. Resolution 1441 in no way rescinds the authorization granted in 678. 1441 is, in fact, a declaration that Iraq has been formally found to be in violation of 687, and grants Iraq a grace period for compliance with 687. Iraq subsequently fails to fully comply with 687, in either the letter or spirit of the resolution. It does not provide full documentation regarding the destruction of weapons stores it had in 1991, does not pay full reparations to Kuwait, does not allow UN inspectors fully unfettered access to its facilities, etc. etc. From a legal standpoint, whether or not Saddam had WMDs or was actually trying to develop them is entirely immaterial.

You seem to be mistaking 'illegal' with 'not morally justified'. There is a great difference between the two. Take, for example, the current Lebanon/Israel cease-fire. The terms of the cease-fire were violated less than a day after it was brought into effect. Hezbollah launched several mortars across the border and into Israeli territory. At this point, Israel would have been legally justified in declaring Hezbollah in violation of the cease-fire and resuming hostilities, but they decided to overlook it, which was the pragmatic thing to do.

In the same manner, President Clinton had the legal authority under resolution 678 to launch operation Destert Fox, but chose not to commit the US to full invasion because of the practical considerations of cost, lack of political will, and the fact that full invasion would have been an overwhelmingly assymetrical response for simply interfering with inspectors.

Well, the next to paragraphs of that resolution state:
Requests all states to PROVIDE APPROPRIATE SUPPORT for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2.
Requests the States concerned to keep the Security council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3.

Yes, and the US fulfilled both obligations. Note that 678 does not require member states to do anything more than report on the progress of actions taken. It does not require member states to obtain authorization from the SC on specific strategic initiatives, just that they secure the cooperation of the Kuwaiti government, and again, the US did secure the cooperation of the Kuwaiti government for the second gulf war. Make no mistake, the US made full use of its veto power as a permanent member of the security council to ensure that no resolutions were passed that removed the legal option to resume hostilities with Iraq.

[Matt W]

The members of the Security Council now face a great choice. If they fail to agree on a common position, and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action will be seriously impaired.
-Kofi Anan (March 10, 2003)

In Moscow, the Russian foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, said that "a unilateral military operation against Baghdad that is not sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council is capable only of worsening the already difficult situation in the region," according to the Interfax news agency.
Mr. Ivanov said war without the approval of the Security Council "would lead to unpredictable consequences for international peace and stability, including damage to the interests of the global struggle against terrorism."
Canada's Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, said at a news conference in Ottawa that the world "must speak and act through the U.N. Security Council," and that, within reason, the weapons inspectors should have more time if they need it.
Mr. Blair said, "Of course we all want a second U.N. resolution.

Asked today whether the United States would seek another resolution from the United Nations if Mr. Bush decides to go to war, Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said Mr. Bush had promised to consult with the Security Council and its members but had left open the option of acting against Iraq without a new resolution.

-As quoted in the NYT 01/16/03

“Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998.”
SECURITY COUNCIL 7 MARCH 2003Oral introduction of the 12th quarterly report of UNMOVICExecutive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix
Mr Blix said: "I don't buy the argument the war was legalized by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions."
Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire
-Published on Friday, March 5, 2004 by the lndependent/UK

Why bother to seek a second resolution if it wasn’t necessary? And Why if the inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and able to do their job would an attack be warranted at that time?

[Nebosuke]

Why bother to seek a second resolution if it wasn’t necessary? And Why if the inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and able to do their job would an attack be warranted at that time?
Firstly, the legal authority invoked by Bush and co. to begin the second war was a technicality. Legal, but not necessarily justified. The second resolution they sought would have been like an international stamp of approval providing political justification. In essense, it would have shielded the US, Great Britain, and others in the second coalition from much of the possible political fallout. A second resolution was therefore very desirable, but not actually necessary.

As to the second question, inspections are not the only things that Saddam was required to comply with. Iraq was also, under the terms set forth by 687, to pay full reparations to Kuwait for damages caused during the invasion in 1990. It was also required to provide documentation detailing the disposal of its known stores of chemical weapons (the ones he had in the late 80's/early 90's). Refusal to pay the bills and a matter of paperwork[1] do not really justify an invasion in any moral or political sense, but do technically constitute a breach of the terms of the cease-fire.

When it comes to treaties, especially in volatile situations such as those typically surrounding cease-fires, the legality of a possible action and its practical consequences and moral justifications are often extremely far removed from eachother. A good example would be the situation with North Korea.

North Korea has been found, numerous times, to be in serious violation of the terms of the cease-fire. From armed incursions into the DMZ to massive tunnels below, to the recent test firings of long-range missiles and ongoing nuclear weapons development program, North Korea has basically shat all over the terms of the Korean War Armistice Agreement. You could write a lengthy novel comprised of the legal justifications for resumption of hostilities with North Korea. Actually going to war with North Korea again, however, is not politically or morally justified. Seoul is something like 20 miles from the DMZ. I remember reading an article (I think it was in the Stars and Stripes), that stated that Seoul was in range of at least 12,000 North Korean artillery batteries lining the DMZ. Millions of people would be killed on the first day of such a conflict. Such an action, therefore, would likely be labelled as a heinous crime against humanity even though it would be perfectly legal.

When people argue that the war in Iraq was not justified, they mean it in the same sense that war against North Korea is not justified. Not that was illegal[2], but that there was insufficient political and moral justification to subject millions of people to the hardships of armed conflict, and what is now looking increasingly like a civil war.

[1] The actual chemical weapons themselves would have long since degraded by the time of the second gulf war, therefore the matter of those particular weapons was immaterial in every sense except the legal one.

[2] Well, there are always pundits and bloggers who will claim it was illegal, and you will see out-of-context quotes that seemingly imply that it was illegal, or that a second resolution was required, but the only words that actually count are the ones on the resolutions that actually passed.

[Ichisan]

Nebosuke: all you're doing is reiterating the argument that I spelled out in my post, but without addressing the objections to it.

For instance, the fact that the issue of 'automaticity' was raised at the time Resolution 1441 was adopted and rejected, and that this was recognised by the Americans involved at the time. That means you don't get automatic legal authority to take action against Iraq once it violates its obligations: you go to the UN first and the UN collectively decides what the best course is.

To pretend otherwise is to make a mockery of the UN and the whole purpose of the UN. Or, as we say in the UK, the US and the UK are taking the piss.

[Ichisan]

Well, there are always pundits and bloggers who will claim it was illegal, and you will see out-of-context quotes that seemingly imply that it was illegal, or that a second resolution was required, but the only words that actually count are the ones on the resolutions that actually passed.

"pundits and bloggers"?! We're talking about World Opinion here.

Moreover it's not just the words but the established interpretation of the words that counts.

[Nebosuke]

"pundits and bloggers"?! We're talking about World Opinion here.
And that distinction makes a difference legally why? In matter of fact, it doesn't. Again, such arguments do not appeal to the legal issue, but rather the questions of moral and political justification.

For instance, the fact that the issue of 'automaticity' was raised at the time Resolution 1441 was adopted and rejected, and that this was recognised by the Americans involved at the time. That means you don't get automatic legal authority to take action against Iraq once it violates its obligations: you go to the UN first and the UN collectively decides what the best course is.
Yes, that is the consensus that was reached during the discussion, but again, if you actually read 1441, you'll see that the US blocked that language from actually making it into the resolution. This is where people seem to be confused. It doesn't matter who said what during the discussions that lead up to the passing of a resolution. With the right hand the US acknowledged the consensus that force was not justified, but with the left hand it exercised its veto to ensure that terms specifying such never made it into the resolution that actually got passed. And in the end, all that matters, from a legal perspective, is what actually made it into the resolution in its final form as it was passed. It's dirty as hell, sure, but that's how they play the game.

[Ichisan]

"pundits and bloggers"?! We're talking about World Opinion here.

And that distinction makes a difference legally why? In matter of fact, it doesn't. Again, such arguments do not appeal to the legal issue, but rather the questions of moral and political justification.

Of course it makes no legal difference. What I object to is the dismissive way in which you referred to 'pundits and bloggers' who will 'always claim the war was illegal' - as if the only people who don't think the war is legal are a few crackpots!

The majority of people in the world regard the invasion of Iraq as illegal.

For instance, the fact that the issue of 'automaticity' was raised at the time Resolution 1441 was adopted and rejected, and that this was recognised by the Americans involved at the time. That means you don't get automatic legal authority to take action against Iraq once it violates its obligations: you go to the UN first and the UN collectively decides what the best course is.

Yes, that is the consensus that was reached during the discussion, but again, if you actually read 1441, you'll see that the US blocked that language from actually making it into the resolution. This is where people seem to be confused. It doesn't matter who said what during the discussions that lead up to the passing of a resolution. With the right hand the US acknowledged the consensus that force was not justified, but with the left hand it exercised its veto to ensure that terms specifying such never made it into the resolution that actually got passed. And in the end, all that matters, from a legal perspective, is what actually made it into the resolution in its final form as it was passed. It's dirty as hell, sure, but that's how they play the game.

Yes the US blocked more explicit language declaring unilateral action illegal from inclusion in Resolution 1441 (http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/iraq/unscr1441.htm). Russia, China, and France also, I believe, blocked language formulas that would have recognised automaticity. A lot of politicking goes on before resolutions are passed.

So here's what made it into the resolution in its final form as it was passed:-

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

<snip>

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

Now are you going to tell me this means the UN Security Council was to convene and discuss a course of action but, meanwhile, the US and UK could go ahead and invade anyway? That's fine if you think the role of the UN is to be an irrelevant talking shop. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Legal texts have to be interpreted and are interpreted in established ways. This resolution does not - thanks as you say to US and UK resistance - explicitly state that unilateral use of force would be illegal. But what would be the point of the Security Council convening if it's decisions were simply to be pre-empted?

For those that are interested there's also a little statement at the bottom of the resolution. It doesn't form part of the text (so no need to point that out Nebosuke!): it just confirms that this issue was discussed at the time. Embolds are mine:-

STATEMENT BY RUSSIA, CHINA AND FRANCE

Joint statement issued by Russia, China and France outlining their interpretation of UN of the resolution:

Resolution 1441 (2002) adopted today by the Security Council excludes any automaticity in the use of force. In this regard, we register with satisfaction the declarations of the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom confirming this understanding in their explanations of vote, and assuring that the goal of the resolution is the full implementation of the existing Security Council resolutions on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction disarmament. All Security Council members share this goal.

In case of failure by Iraq to comply with its obligations, the provisions of paragraphs 4, 11 and 12 will apply. Such failure will be reported to the Security Council by the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC or the Director General of the IAEA. It will be then for the Council to take position on the basis of that report.

Therefore, this resolution fully respects the competences of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.

By the way, wouldn't it be nice if the server didn't log you out and lose your message if you take a while to type it all in? I always CTRL-C it, but in an ideal world...

[Nebosuke]

The bottom line, however, is that lacking any explicit language modifying the mandate of 678, the only standing directives relevant to this particular issue are contained in 678. The stonewalling by boths sides over 1441 basically reduced 1441 to a political statement containing no binding directives, which, incidentally, is exactly what happens to most UN resolutions on highly controversial issues. And yes, politicians on both sides will tend to issue statements containing interpretations that are biased to their agenda, often to the point where the actual text of the resolution does not support the statement. In the US, for instance, we heard basically that 1441 was a formal declaration that Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, with the implication that it could be used as justification to take further action against Saddam.

[Ichisan]

The bottom line is that that is an interpretation that only someone with no respect for the UN or international law would make.

On the assumption that the UN charter is more than hot air, you would interpret 1441 to mean we have to go to it for a collective decision before taking any military action.

I put it to you that if you argued the 'automaticity' case in court you would lose.

[Kaji]

The UN charter is a bunch of hot air, because things are set up to prevent anything from ever being done (something has to threaten the US, UK, China, Russia, and France all at the same time to get the security council to do anything. Frankly, France shouldn't have any place on it, and was only granted one at all as a courtesy to DeGaulle, as I recall correctly...)

[Ichisan]

So you don't care about the UN?

Do you care whether the war is legal or not? I know a lot of people don't.

[Kaji]

Legality of war is moot, because it's not going to stop anyone from doing it. International law is a joke, because it's only adhered to when those subject elect to, or have a gun held to their head. Furthermore, international law is a violation of each nation's soverignty.

[Ichisan]

It's funny. Unlike Kaji, I regard steps toward a world government and/or international order, provided it's based on humanistic and democratic principles such as those of the UN charter and Geneva conventions, as positive. Clearly this does mean that our national allegiances have to be superseded and subsumed by a greater loyalty to humanity as a whole.

Well that was my idealistic past. Now things look a lot more complicated and I realise getting us to the point where there's a real chance of a world government representing everyone fairly and equally is hugely complicated, that point is a long way off, and, even if it is reached, there's nothing to prevent splits. Nationalism is getting stronger throughout the world and respect for humanistic/democratic values seems to be diminishing.

Maybe one reason is the young generation everywhere didn't grow up in the shadow of WW2 and the Cold War nuclear threat and are therefore quicker to resort to violence? How quickly we forget.

Still one change really has stuck: the overwhelming military superiority of the United States. As a corollary its enemies have to resort to terrorist or guerrilla tactics and therefore have to justify disregard for civilian life to themselves. Extremism thrives. Humanism? Democracy?

By the way I am very far from being one of these people who claim not to have any patriotic feelings for their country of birth or that it doesn't matter.

[Trump]

I do not believe the UN will be truly successful for many many many years. The UN relies on the support and cooperation of its member countries which really have no reason to support the UN except for political reasons and propoganda. Furthermore, there are really no consequences to completely ignoring the UN.