Author Topic: Russia - worrying?  (Read 12821 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
Re: Russia - worrying?
« Reply #375 on: May 01, 2018, 08:04:AM »
   Read through this again, David and you will find all of the points you have raised in the bbc thread have already been addressed. If you don't have the time then in brief you are a little confused as to the difference between a Civil War and an invasion.
    If you think back to the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions it may help you to discern the difference.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6080
Re: Russia - worrying?
« Reply #376 on: May 01, 2018, 09:28:AM »
   Read through this again, David and you will find all of the points you have raised in the bbc thread have already been addressed. If you don't have the time then in brief you are a little confused as to the difference between a Civil War and an invasion.
    If you think back to the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions it may help you to discern the difference.

As far as I am concerend the two Russian proto states in eastern Ukraine are now seperated from Ukraine. They are states in thier own right. What we have now is a territorial dispute between Ukraine and two new Russian satellite states .The majority of people in eastern Ukraine want to live in a Russian satellite state. So I have no problem with it.

As for Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a genocidal tyrant who constrcuted the 4th largerst army in the world despite having a population of just 20 odd million. And I think its appalling that the world sat idly by and done nothing for three decades but merely "contain" the regime. It was a war of aggression for the 20% Sunni Population but a war of liberation for the 80% Shia and Kurds. It may have been poorly executed but I will always support the principle for it.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 09:29:AM by David1819 »
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
Re: Russia - worrying?
« Reply #377 on: May 01, 2018, 01:58:PM »
As far as I am concerend the two Russian proto states in eastern Ukraine are now seperated from Ukraine. They are states in thier own right. What we have now is a territorial dispute between Ukraine and two new Russian satellite states .The majority of people in eastern Ukraine want to live in a Russian satellite state. So I have no problem with it.

As for Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a genocidal tyrant who constrcuted the 4th largerst army in the world despite having a population of just 20 odd million. And I think its appalling that the world sat idly by and done nothing for three decades but merely "contain" the regime. It was a war of aggression for the 20% Sunni Population but a war of liberation for the 80% Shia and Kurds. It may have been poorly executed but I will always support the principle for it.
    The principle for the Iraq war, that you are supporting, is illegal. However bad we believe someone to be, Might is Right should never dictate foreign policy. It has brought us to where we are now with the criminal genocidal regimes being the ones doing the enforcing.
    The majority of the world is willing Syria/Russia and others to bloody the nose of the western aggressors currently running amok and trashing international law. Either our maniacal leaders are stopped or WW3 is inevitable.
    US/Western hegemony is coming to an end and in a fit of pique the permanent state of the Western powers appear willing to bring the world down with them. This is where turning a blind eye to international law gets you. By attacking Iraq and Libya we opened Pandora's Box.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6080
Re: Russia - worrying?
« Reply #378 on: May 01, 2018, 09:33:PM »
    The principle for the Iraq war, that you are supporting, is illegal.

I think we have argued this before. 

The UN security council imposed a ceasefire agreement on Iraq in Resolution 687 in 1991, In which Iraq had to accept a number of obligations and demands. Material breach of resolution 687 revived the option to use force under resolution 678.  UN resolution 1441 passed in 2002 the council determined that Iraq had failed to comply with its obligations. Consequently, the authorization to use force under Resolution 678 was revived.

Technically the invasion was perfectly legal. But you might prefer to call this a loophole. If you want to argue that the war was morally wrong because it did not have the support of the global community like it did in 1991 then that's a different matter all together.

Interestingly Operation Desert Strike in 1996 and Operation Desert Fox in 1998 were technically unauthorised as there was no UN resolution determining that Iraq had failed to comply with its obligations ceasefire agreement in Resolution 687. The 1998 operation by Bill Clinton was a blatant distraction from his impeachment scandal. In 1997 Hussein expelled members of the United Nations inspection team. So what took him so long?
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 09:50:PM by David1819 »
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
Re: Russia - worrying?
« Reply #379 on: May 01, 2018, 11:25:PM »
I think we have argued this before. 

The UN security council imposed a ceasefire agreement on Iraq in Resolution 687 in 1991, In which Iraq had to accept a number of obligations and demands. Material breach of resolution 687 revived the option to use force under resolution 678.  UN resolution 1441 passed in 2002 the council determined that Iraq had failed to comply with its obligations. Consequently, the authorization to use force under Resolution 678 was revived.

Technically the invasion was perfectly legal. But you might prefer to call this a loophole. If you want to argue that the war was morally wrong because it did not have the support of the global community like it did in 1991 then that's a different matter all together.

Interestingly Operation Desert Strike in 1996 and Operation Desert Fox in 1998 were technically unauthorised as there was no UN resolution determining that Iraq had failed to comply with its obligations ceasefire agreement in Resolution 687. The 1998 operation by Bill Clinton was a blatant distraction from his impeachment scandal. In 1997 Hussein expelled members of the United Nations inspection team. So what took him so long?
  We discussed it a page or two back and your attempts at arguing your case were laughable. Selectively quoting lawyers opinions to back up your unsupported views. The lawyers you quoted actually believed the opposite of what your context free, selectively quoted opinions attempted to claim. It was pretty desperate stuff and you were unable then as now to support your ridiculous and long discredited views.
   You are part of an ever dwindling band of apologists clinging onto this myth but you are arguing against the overwhelming consensus amongst international lawyers regarding the legality of the Iraq invasion. This is why you were reduced to misrepresenting the positions of Anthony Aust  QC amongst others. You claimed the support of Sir Menzies Campbell QC and international lawyer and then called him an opportunist or something when it turned out he believed the invasion illegal. 
   The debate over the legality has long been settled.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 11:26:PM by gringo »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6080
Re: Russia - worrying?
« Reply #380 on: May 02, 2018, 01:11:AM »
  We discussed it a page or two back and your attempts at arguing your case were laughable. Selectively quoting lawyers opinions to back up your unsupported views. The lawyers you quoted actually believed the opposite of what your context free, selectively quoted opinions attempted to claim. It was pretty desperate stuff and you were unable then as now to support your ridiculous and long discredited views.
   You are part of an ever dwindling band of apologists clinging onto this myth but you are arguing against the overwhelming consensus amongst international lawyers regarding the legality of the Iraq invasion. This is why you were reduced to misrepresenting the positions of Anthony Aust  QC amongst others. You claimed the support of Sir Menzies Campbell QC and international lawyer and then called him an opportunist or something when it turned out he believed the invasion illegal. 
   The debate over the legality has long been settled.

You have not got a leg to stand on. Thats why you are just ranting and misrepresenting my arguments. How about you actually raise the legal points and attack my argument instead of attacking me?

 

1. Resolution 678 authorized force against Iraq to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

2. Resolution 687, which set out the cease-fire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area.

3. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.

4. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.

5. Resolution 1441 determined that Iraq was and remained in material breach of resolution 687, because it had not fully complied with its obligations to disarm.

6. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 was revived.

Resolution 678 contained the authorization to “use all necessary means” No time limit on its duration had been established in the operative part of resolution.

The combined effects of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 under Chapter VII of the UN Charter render the war legal.

Simply telling me I am wrong and going round in circles attacking the poster and not the post is not going to make the Iraq war illegal and never will.




« Last Edit: May 02, 2018, 01:17:AM by David1819 »
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
Re: Russia - worrying?
« Reply #381 on: May 02, 2018, 06:46:PM »
You have not got a leg to stand on. Thats why you are just ranting and misrepresenting my arguments. How about you actually raise the legal points and attack my argument instead of attacking me?

 

1. Resolution 678 authorized force against Iraq to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

2. Resolution 687, which set out the cease-fire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area.

3. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.

4. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.

5. Resolution 1441 determined that Iraq was and remained in material breach of resolution 687, because it had not fully complied with its obligations to disarm.

6. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 was revived.

Resolution 678 contained the authorization to “use all necessary means” No time limit on its duration had been established in the operative part of resolution.

The combined effects of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 under Chapter VII of the UN Charter render the war legal.

Simply telling me I am wrong and going round in circles attacking the poster and not the post is not going to make the Iraq war illegal and never will.
   David, your grasp of the intricacies of international law surrounding the invasion is, to put it kindly, limited. Below you can read a damning critique by eminent QC., Phillippe Sands regarding the legality of the invasion and the Chilcott report:

     https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/philippe-sands/a-grand-and-disastrous-deceit

   You will find that your interpretations of the resolutions you listed perhaps lack something in understanding. If you can't be arsed to read it in full here are a few relevant sections that deal specifically with the requirement of a new resolution and legality of the invasion.

"... Even so, Chilcott devotes much of his opening statement on the legality. Distinguishing between substance and process, the inquiry concludes that "the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a basis for UK military action were "far from satisfactory." "Far from satisfactory" is a career ending phrase in mandarin speak, a large boot put in with considerable force. As late as January 2003, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, told Blair that lawful war required a further Security Council resolution, before later changing his mind - his written advice of 7 March found a second resolution "preferable" (rather than indispensable) - and then changing it again, offering a final view on 17 March: since Iraq was in "material breach" of the existing Security Council resolutions, "the authority to use force under Resolution 678 was, "as a result" revived." Taking the documents of 7 and 17 March together, Chilcott notes that on the legal view finally adopted, war would be lawful only if there was evidence that Iraq had committed "further material breaches as specified in Resolution 1441."

    The resolutions in place were well understood and debated at the time leading to millions worldwide in the biggest protests ever seen taking to the streets. At the UN the US/UK were out on a limb against the overwhelming international consensus.
    The US/UK were self evidently going to war regardless of legality and desperately searching for even a fig leaf to justify their actions. Goldsmith's advice appears, to the impartial observer, to have been in some way coerced. He was changing with the wind and under intense pressure to give "legal cover" to the already made decision to go to war.
    The argument is so strained as to be laughable. Phillippe Sands spells it out for you anyway and goes on to say:

   "He homes in on a key question: on what basis did Blair take the decision that Iraq was in further material breach? "Not clear", Chilcott answered, somewhat generously, since the evidence before the enquiry showed that Blair consulted no one but himself - not the UN weapons inspectors, not the Joint Intelligence Committee, not anyone. Playing God and weapons inspector, Blair simply made up his mind that Iraq was in material breach. "Given the gravity of the situation," Chilcott adds, "Lord Goldsmith should have been asked to provide written advice explaining how, in the absence of a majority in the Security Council, Mr. Blair could take that decision."

    This is a pretty damning indictment of the claims to legality through previous resolutions. It should also beg the question why were US/UK seeking a new resolution in the Security Council, if as you contend, the resolutions in place already justified invasion.
    When it became obvious that the US/UK did not have the support for a new resolution authorising force and had no chance of getting one through the UN, there was suddenly legal advice justifying action from the AG, albeit it secret and contrary to his previous advice. Anyway Sands goes on:

    "The report goes further in its criticism of the processes followed in obtaining a legal sign-off. Senior ministers were not consulted. "Normal practice" was cast aside: it was "unusual" for the attorney general rather than a minister to offer an explanation in parliament. Ministers, senior officials and the cabinet weren't provided with the written advice of 7 March: the cabinet wasn't told how Blair had reached his views on material breach. The cabinet "should have been made aware of the uncertainties", but was not. Goldsmith should have provided full written advice explaining the full legal basis for action and setting out all the risks of legal challenge.
    These are forceful criticisms. They are given added heft by the inquiry's failure to be persuaded by Blair and Straw's claim that France was to blame "for the "impasse" in the UN", and by it's blunt rejection of the idea that the UK had upheld the authority of the Security Council. Rather, "in the absence of a majority in support of military action we consider the UK was,in fact, undermining the Security Council's authority."

   
    You should read and consider those words carefully. There is an absolutely overwhelming consensus among international lawyers that the invasion was illegal. Your unsupported and dubious interpretations of international law and the authority contained within UN resolutions are pretty desperate stuff.

    As mentioned in previous posts, that sailed over your head, the ICJ ( International Commission of Jurists), probably the preeminent authority on international law have the following to say:

   "The invasion of Iraq was neither in self defence against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorising the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression"
    When you previously attempted to argue in favour of the legality of the invasion you selectively quoted from several lawyers in international law. The lawyers and sources that you did present actually thought the opposite of what you attempted to imply.
     Anthony Aust QC was one of the sources who you quoted "selectively". Sir Menzies Campbell, whose support you claimed but then attacked as an opportunist, despite previously considering him a reliable source, when it turned out that he was unequivocal in his opinion that the 2003 invasion was illegal.
     Elizabeth Wilmshust, legal adviser at the FCO resigned after Goldsmith reversed her legal opinion on the legality of the war. Any number of experts on international law have given detailed opinions on the illegality of the invasion.
    Against this weight of expert opinion and analysis all that you have offered is your own derisory views on resolutions about which you know nothing. There are no impartial experts arguing for the legality of the Iraq invasion and it is a dwindling, sorry band of warmongers and apologists that you are currently associating with.
    Read the link in full and from there you will be able to read the many sources cited in the full article. A who's who of experts in international law in agreement that the invasion was illegal. If you open your mind and read you may learn something.
    Kofi Annan the UN secretary general at the time declared the invasion illegal. Do you have any understanding at all of the sheer weight of expert opinion that you are attempting to argue against. I have pointed out to you previously that I am schooling rather than debating you and this remains true.
    You would be better served to go and do some reading before commenting further because your contributions so far embarrass you.
   


Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6080
Re: Russia - worrying?
« Reply #382 on: May 03, 2018, 12:48:AM »
   David, your grasp of the intricacies of international law surrounding the invasion is, to put it kindly, limited. Below you can read a damning critique by eminent QC., Phillippe Sands regarding the legality of the invasion and the Chilcott report:

     https://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/philippe-sands/a-grand-and-disastrous-deceit

   You will find that your interpretations of the resolutions you listed perhaps lack something in understanding. If you can't be arsed to read it in full here are a few relevant sections that deal specifically with the requirement of a new resolution and legality of the invasion.

"... Even so, Chilcott devotes much of his opening statement on the legality. Distinguishing between substance and process, the inquiry concludes that "the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a basis for UK military action were "far from satisfactory." "Far from satisfactory" is a career ending phrase in mandarin speak, a large boot put in with considerable force. As late as January 2003, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, told Blair that lawful war required a further Security Council resolution, before later changing his mind - his written advice of 7 March found a second resolution "preferable" (rather than indispensable) - and then changing it again, offering a final view on 17 March: since Iraq was in "material breach" of the existing Security Council resolutions, "the authority to use force under Resolution 678 was, "as a result" revived." Taking the documents of 7 and 17 March together, Chilcott notes that on the legal view finally adopted, war would be lawful only if there was evidence that Iraq had committed "further material breaches as specified in Resolution 1441."

    The resolutions in place were well understood and debated at the time leading to millions worldwide in the biggest protests ever seen taking to the streets. At the UN the US/UK were out on a limb against the overwhelming international consensus.
    The US/UK were self evidently going to war regardless of legality and desperately searching for even a fig leaf to justify their actions. Goldsmith's advice appears, to the impartial observer, to have been in some way coerced. He was changing with the wind and under intense pressure to give "legal cover" to the already made decision to go to war.
    The argument is so strained as to be laughable. Phillippe Sands spells it out for you anyway and goes on to say:

   "He homes in on a key question: on what basis did Blair take the decision that Iraq was in further material breach? "Not clear", Chilcott answered, somewhat generously, since the evidence before the enquiry showed that Blair consulted no one but himself - not the UN weapons inspectors, not the Joint Intelligence Committee, not anyone. Playing God and weapons inspector, Blair simply made up his mind that Iraq was in material breach. "Given the gravity of the situation," Chilcott adds, "Lord Goldsmith should have been asked to provide written advice explaining how, in the absence of a majority in the Security Council, Mr. Blair could take that decision."

    This is a pretty damning indictment of the claims to legality through previous resolutions. It should also beg the question why were US/UK seeking a new resolution in the Security Council, if as you contend, the resolutions in place already justified invasion.
    When it became obvious that the US/UK did not have the support for a new resolution authorising force and had no chance of getting one through the UN, there was suddenly legal advice justifying action from the AG, albeit it secret and contrary to his previous advice. Anyway Sands goes on:

    "The report goes further in its criticism of the processes followed in obtaining a legal sign-off. Senior ministers were not consulted. "Normal practice" was cast aside: it was "unusual" for the attorney general rather than a minister to offer an explanation in parliament. Ministers, senior officials and the cabinet weren't provided with the written advice of 7 March: the cabinet wasn't told how Blair had reached his views on material breach. The cabinet "should have been made aware of the uncertainties", but was not. Goldsmith should have provided full written advice explaining the full legal basis for action and setting out all the risks of legal challenge.
    These are forceful criticisms. They are given added heft by the inquiry's failure to be persuaded by Blair and Straw's claim that France was to blame "for the "impasse" in the UN", and by it's blunt rejection of the idea that the UK had upheld the authority of the Security Council. Rather, "in the absence of a majority in support of military action we consider the UK was,in fact, undermining the Security Council's authority."

   
    You should read and consider those words carefully. There is an absolutely overwhelming consensus among international lawyers that the invasion was illegal. Your unsupported and dubious interpretations of international law and the authority contained within UN resolutions are pretty desperate stuff.

    As mentioned in previous posts, that sailed over your head, the ICJ ( International Commission of Jurists), probably the preeminent authority on international law have the following to say:

   "The invasion of Iraq was neither in self defence against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorising the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression"
    When you previously attempted to argue in favour of the legality of the invasion you selectively quoted from several lawyers in international law. The lawyers and sources that you did present actually thought the opposite of what you attempted to imply.
     Anthony Aust QC was one of the sources who you quoted "selectively". Sir Menzies Campbell, whose support you claimed but then attacked as an opportunist, despite previously considering him a reliable source, when it turned out that he was unequivocal in his opinion that the 2003 invasion was illegal.
     Elizabeth Wilmshust, legal adviser at the FCO resigned after Goldsmith reversed her legal opinion on the legality of the war. Any number of experts on international law have given detailed opinions on the illegality of the invasion.
    Against this weight of expert opinion and analysis all that you have offered is your own derisory views on resolutions about which you know nothing. There are no impartial experts arguing for the legality of the Iraq invasion and it is a dwindling, sorry band of warmongers and apologists that you are currently associating with.
    Read the link in full and from there you will be able to read the many sources cited in the full article. A who's who of experts in international law in agreement that the invasion was illegal. If you open your mind and read you may learn something.
    Kofi Annan the UN secretary general at the time declared the invasion illegal. Do you have any understanding at all of the sheer weight of expert opinion that you are attempting to argue against. I have pointed out to you previously that I am schooling rather than debating you and this remains true.
    You would be better served to go and do some reading before commenting further because your contributions so far embarrass you.
   

This is a snippet of what you quoted.


"the authority to use force under Resolution 678 was, "as a result" revived." Taking the documents of 7 and 17 March together, Chilcott notes that on the legal view finally adopted, war would be lawful only if there was evidence that Iraq had committed "further material breaches as specified in Resolution 1441."

It all comes down to this very narrow point. Did Saddam Hussein breach the conditions of the ceasefire agreement?

If the answer to that question is yes. Then we move onto the next question

With Saddam in breach of the ceasefire agreement thus giving the US authorization to “use all necessary means” does this allow the US to forcefully remove the regime?

The term “use all necessary means” with no explicit conditions on what is unnecessary. Then yes the US can forcefully remove the regime.

Its my belief that Saddam Hussein had no intentions of ever fully cooperating. So regime removal was the only solution. Even if Saddam Hussein did not have WMD at the time of the invasion, he intended to rebuild them.

Saddam Hussein saw chemical weapons as a means of regime survival and was prepared to use them on both military and civilian targets if he felt threatened. As we already know.

When the Iranians made breakthroughs into Iraqi territory with Operation Dawn 8 thus Sorounding Basra. They were reppled by nerve agents killing 15,000 Iranian troops in the process. This is one of the reasons why the Americans did not push deep into Iraq in 1991 because they knew what would happen. Since Saddam Hussein saw chemical weapons as a means of regime survival the ceasefire proposals put forward to end what he called "the mother of all battles" as he called it UN resolution 678 was put to him as the "mother of all solutions" ie your regime survives if you disarm.

UN resolution 678 caused a humanitarian disaster. With much of Saddam's republican guard battered and demoralised, civilian uprisings began against the regime.


At the time, much of Iraq was in open revolt, the report notes, and the Iraqi regime was deeply shaken by the fall of Karbala to Shiite rebels. The report said the use of chemical weapons was an example of the “dire nature of the situation” and the regime’s “faith in ‘special weapons’” that it would consider using chemical weapons while coalition forces were still in Iraq.


https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_01-02/JANFEB-IraqSarin

The suppression of the uprising resulted in the exodus of over ten percent of the country's population. and 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed. While the forces that Liberated Kuwait basically sat a watched it happen.

https://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm

The only solution was regime change. I don't care how many people disagree with me. Or how much you think my rationale is "laughable". Many pundits and political leaders have expressed the view that since the United Nations Security Council has not enacted a fresh resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, the countries attacking Iraq were breaching international law by doing so. I disagree.
 
Saddam Hussein was charged with possessing prohibited weapons and perpetuating gross violations of human rights. To argue that is removal violated international law is IMO absurd. You are essentially arguing that its illegal to enforce international law and illegal to inforce international humanitarian law.

Do I have any understanding at all of the sheer weight of expert opinion that I am attempting (and succeeding) in arguing against? Yes very much so. The sheer weight of this expert opinion is so weak all it can convince to pass judgment is a quasi kangaroo court in Kuala Lumpur that does not have a UN mandate or recognition.  ;D

The International Criminal Court has passed no such judgement, despite this alleged  "absolutely overwhelming consensus among international lawyers that the invasion was illegal." That you insist has merit. But it cannot even get the case to court.  ;D

Blair is in the jurisdiction to be charged but is not because their is no case against him. (Bush is beyond reach regardless). Don't get me wrong Blair deserves to be humiliated and punished for a wide range of things. But that's not going to cloud by judgment on the Iraq issue. For argument sake If the International Criminal Court put on a show trial and threw all logic out the window and to find Blair guilty of war crime and then jailed him. He would no doubt deserve it for other things he has done, even if such ruling was technically unfair.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 12:49:AM by David1819 »
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10550
Re: Russia - worrying?
« Reply #383 on: May 03, 2018, 08:20:AM »
This is a snippet of what you quoted.


"the authority to use force under Resolution 678 was, "as a result" revived." Taking the documents of 7 and 17 March together, Chilcott notes that on the legal view finally adopted, war would be lawful only if there was evidence that Iraq had committed "further material breaches as specified in Resolution 1441."

It all comes down to this very narrow point. Did Saddam Hussein breach the conditions of the ceasefire agreement?

If the answer to that question is yes. Then we move onto the next question

With Saddam in breach of the ceasefire agreement thus giving the US authorization to “use all necessary means” does this allow the US to forcefully remove the regime?

The term “use all necessary means” with no explicit conditions on what is unnecessary. Then yes the US can forcefully remove the regime.

Its my belief that Saddam Hussein had no intentions of ever fully cooperating. So regime removal was the only solution. Even if Saddam Hussein did not have WMD at the time of the invasion, he intended to rebuild them.

Saddam Hussein saw chemical weapons as a means of regime survival and was prepared to use them on both military and civilian targets if he felt threatened. As we already know.

When the Iranians made breakthroughs into Iraqi territory with Operation Dawn 8 thus Sorounding Basra. They were reppled by nerve agents killing 15,000 Iranian troops in the process. This is one of the reasons why the Americans did not push deep into Iraq in 1991 because they knew what would happen. Since Saddam Hussein saw chemical weapons as a means of regime survival the ceasefire proposals put forward to end what he called "the mother of all battles" as he called it UN resolution 678 was put to him as the "mother of all solutions" ie your regime survives if you disarm.

UN resolution 678 caused a humanitarian disaster. With much of Saddam's republican guard battered and demoralised, civilian uprisings began against the regime.


At the time, much of Iraq was in open revolt, the report notes, and the Iraqi regime was deeply shaken by the fall of Karbala to Shiite rebels. The report said the use of chemical weapons was an example of the “dire nature of the situation” and the regime’s “faith in ‘special weapons’” that it would consider using chemical weapons while coalition forces were still in Iraq.


https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_01-02/JANFEB-IraqSarin

The suppression of the uprising resulted in the exodus of over ten percent of the country's population. and 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed. While the forces that Liberated Kuwait basically sat a watched it happen.

https://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm

The only solution was regime change. I don't care how many people disagree with me. Or how much you think my rationale is "laughable". Many pundits and political leaders have expressed the view that since the United Nations Security Council has not enacted a fresh resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, the countries attacking Iraq were breaching international law by doing so. I disagree.
 
Saddam Hussein was charged with possessing prohibited weapons and perpetuating gross violations of human rights. To argue that is removal violated international law is IMO absurd. You are essentially arguing that its illegal to enforce international law and illegal to inforce international humanitarian law.

Do I have any understanding at all of the sheer weight of expert opinion that I am attempting (and succeeding) in arguing against? Yes very much so. The sheer weight of this expert opinion is so weak all it can convince to pass judgment is a quasi kangaroo court in Kuala Lumpur that does not have a UN mandate or recognition.  ;D

The International Criminal Court has passed no such judgement, despite this alleged  "absolutely overwhelming consensus among international lawyers that the invasion was illegal." That you insist has merit. But it cannot even get the case to court.  ;D

Blair is in the jurisdiction to be charged but is not because their is no case against him. (Bush is beyond reach regardless). Don't get me wrong Blair deserves to be humiliated and punished for a wide range of things. But that's not going to cloud by judgment on the Iraq issue. For argument sake If the International Criminal Court put on a show trial and threw all logic out the window and to find Blair guilty of war crime and then jailed him. He would no doubt deserve it for other things he has done, even if such ruling was technically unfair.

Have you watched the full video of George Galloway's testimony?

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6080
Re: Russia - worrying?
« Reply #384 on: May 03, 2018, 12:56:PM »
Have you watched the full video of George Galloway's testimony?

George Galloway does not come into the equation. If he wants to bitch about Americans selling weapons to Iraq and the middle east during the Iraq-Iran war.


"If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life."


- George Galloway

Well Mr Galloway are you aware of who the largest supplier of weapons was to the middle east in that decade? 

Anyway. I've spent more than enough time on this thread.  I'm out.  8)
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 12:58:PM by David1819 »
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
Re: Russia - worrying?
« Reply #385 on: May 03, 2018, 04:36:PM »
    Your ability to comprehend is severely limited and clearly influenced by your own dogma. Your post literally falls apart after line 5 and 2 of those were quoting somebody else, although selectively, seemingly in order to give a false impression. Selective quoting is your speciality it seems:
     
    This is a snippet of what you posted.

 "the authority to use force under resolution 678 was, "as a result" revived. Taking the documents of 7 and 17 March together, Chilcott notes that on the legal view finally adopted, war would be lawful only if there was evidence that Iraq had committed "further material breaches as specified in resolution 1441."

    It all comes down to this very narrow point. Did Saddam Hussein breach the conditions of the ceasefire agreement?
 
   If the answer to that question is yes. Then we move on to the next question.


   "If the answer to that question is yes?"
   But the answer to that question was no.
   Had you bothered to use the preceding and succeeding words of Phillippe Sands, helpfully provided in my previous post, then you would have seen that the question had already been dealt with in clear and damning terms. Blair decided on his own without consultation that Iraq were in breach. Can you actually read and understand at the same time? Read the full link and any other number of expert opinion on the matter.

   "Then we move on to the next question."
   The obvious implication here is that you believe that Iraq were in breach of 1441 despite admitting yourself, without irony intended, a few lines later that they weren't. You cite not a single expert source but instead treat us to the gem. "It is my belief... blah blah".
   Who needs to read and digest the opinions of experts on international law with all it's time consuming reading, having to think about and consider things? It's much quicker and easier to take a knee jerk position based on preconceptions and dogma, isn't it David?
   What bollocks is this? Is it anybody else's belief?
   It is my belief that the invasion was illegal. It also happens to be the belief of what you haughtily dismiss, again without irony intended, with the delusional beyond words following claim:

"Do I have any understanding at all of the sheer weight of expert opinion that I am attempting (and succeeding) in arguing against. The sheer weight of this expert opinion is so weak all it can convince to pass judgement is a quasi kangaroo court in Kuala Lumpur..."

   It is impressive, if that is the correct description, that you can pack so much delusion and ignorance into so few words. You believe that you are "succeeding" in your argument. Only if you are trying to prove your ignorance and idiocy. That being case you are doing a sterling job.
   I suspect that you have done a search using the terms, "Iraq war legality", which would explain the reason why the only opinions expressed on int'l law are yours. You can't find an expert opinion that shares your view. You should ask yourself why that is. Your claim to have understanding of the opinion you are arguing against is, self evidently to any impartial reader, delusional.
   You then go onto display your lack of knowledge of how international power works with your seeming belief that the reasons the architects of the US/UK aggression have not been hauled before international courts is because of the weakness of the case. Are you really that naive and misinformed?
    One of the main routes to the ICC is blocked by virtue of the simple fact that no veto wielding member of the UNSC is ever going to agree to send themselves to the ICC. The US are not even signed up to it.
    There is no other real mechanism that would achieve this outcome because the US/UK are powerful internationally both militarily and economically and would stymie any attempts. Your ignorance and naivete in not understanding this invalidates the  half baked, knee jerk reactions you attempt to pass off as considered opinion.
     It also seems reasonable to infer from this view that you believe there are no "strong cases" of US/UK war crimes ever. All that illegal rendition, torture, invasions and millions dead must have been all done in accordance with int'l law by your warped logic. Otherwise where are the ICC. Lucky for you, David, you can sleep easy, safe in the knowledge that your government are such fine and law abiding actors on the world stage.
     Apropos of nothing you throw in a pathetic "potted history" of the Iraq/Iran war. Were you to watch the George Galloway testimony before the US senate, which Roch recommended, you would learn that the reason we didn't have much to say about the gas attacks at the time was because the US sold Saddam the gas and helped with the targeting.
     You give an explanation of UN resolutions that is patronising and shallow but is clearly your understanding. It is perhaps how a patient and informed adult might attempt to explain int'l law to a 11 year old. You just sound like the 11 year old.
     These half witted diversions are an attempt to show that you are informed and knowledgeable but only betray the fact that you have spent 15, 20 minutes searching for confirmation bias and writing any old shit, relevant or not, about Saddam, Iraq etc. in order to appear so. It hasn't worked.
     All the, unsupported by anyone but yourself, drivel that you have posted in answer to the question, "do you have any understanding of the sheer weight of expert opinion you are arguing against?" would have been more honestly and accurately summed up in a one word answer.
     No.