Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Be back in a bit.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Best Intrest of Your Country
- Thread starter Buffalo Roam
- Start date
Well, Kofi Annan was quite clear about it and since he was Secretary-General of the UN I would suspect he would know better what the UN is meant to do and how UN resolutions are meant to executed than someone like you. Someone with an agenda.
Feel free to show that the secretary-general of the UN doesn't understand the UN.
Feel free to show that the secretary-general of the UN doesn't understand the UN.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stmOn September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
He has said from the beginning the invasion did not conform with the UN charter - phrasing that was seen as a diplomatic way of saying the war was illegal.
Remember also that the USA, Britain, and Spain introduced a draft resolution for UN authorization of military intervention in Iraq. Annan warned before the invasion that "it would not be in conformity with the Charter". It became clear that sufficient votes would not be forthcoming. The draft for UN authorization was then withdrawn on the eve of the war, which went ahead without UN or UN Security Council approval.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
hypewaders, but the charter was not the Cease Fire Agreement, Yes the U.N. brokered it, and all of the Coalition Forces and Saddam signed it, so any of the signatories would have had the right to enforce the Cease Fire when it became clear that Saddam failed to live up to the Cease Fire, and here is a legal opinion from some of the best legal minds in Australia and the United States.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=242
It is perfectly legal for the US-led coalition to enforce resolution 1441.
By Darin Bartram et al - posted Friday, 21 March 2003
In their joint article published in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald on February 26, a group of lawyers espoused the thesis that a US-led invasion of Iraq would violate international legal norms proscribing the use of force and international humanitarian law regulating the way in which war is conducted.
We believe that their views are based on legal and factual premises of doubtful validity, which could undermine rather than enhance the relevance and importance of international law in world politics. Much of the present debate on Iraq is premised on the assumption, shared by the authors of the joint letter, that the Security Council has not already endorsed the use of force. An opposite and plausible case can and has been made on the basis of the wording of resolutions already adopted.
Resolution 1441 was carefully and deliberately framed in terms that could be read to permit the use of force. It was adopted under Chapter VII which allows the council to adopt mandatory action to deal with threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression.
Advertisement
The resolution says that Iraq remains "in breach of its material obligations" under previous Chapter VII resolutions, has a "final opportunity to comply" and failing compliance will "face serious consequences". It explicitly recalls Resolution 678 (1990), which authorised "all necessary means" to restore peace and security in the region and Resolution 687 (1991) which established the conditions for the cease-fire after the Gulf War.
By its terms, Resolution 1441 clearly viewed the use of force against Iraq not in isolation but rather as a continuation of measures taken in the wake of Saddam Hussein's illegal invasion of Kuwait.
Following his defeat in 1991, his regime was saved by a cease-fire granted on the strict condition that Hussein would account for and destroy every one of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, that he would cease repressing his people and that he would discontinue his support for international terrorism. Economic sanctions have already been in place for 12 years, but Iraq's "breach of its material obligations" continues despite "the final opportunity" provided by Resolution 1441. The "serious consequences" which he must thus face were understood to include the possibility of military force.
Furthermore, even if Resolution 1441 were not read to authorise military action, the use of force against Hussein's regime at this time would be legally justified on the basis of the UN Charter and the right of individual and collective self-defence, realistically interpreted.
In categorically rejecting the right of the coalition to resort to force against Iraq, the authors adhere to an overly static view of the UN Charter provisions on armed force.
The charter contemplated that the Security Council would have "primary responsibility" for maintaining international peace and security. But it did not, nor could it reasonably, expect the council to trump forever a state's inherent right to defend itself, either alone or with allies, against actual or imminent attacks. Nor could it freeze forever the manner in which such concepts as "necessity", "proportionality" or "imminence" are interpreted.
It is both reasonable and necessary, in the wake of September 11, to interpret these terms in the light of changing conditions and dangers, and especially the vastly increased threat of terrorist violence and its support by rogue states.
States cannot be required to wait for a devastating terrorist attack to actually occur before taking measures of self-defence against states. Nor should the prohibition on the use of force be interpreted to bar such use for purposes of humanitarian intervention.
The authors of the joint letter are understandably concerned that any attack on Iraq will inevitably entail the loss of innocent life. War is certainly detestable. But to argue that the use of force against Iraq must necessarily violate international humanitarian law is a major expansion of international law beyond its current limits.
Whether force has been used contrary to international humanitarian law can only be evaluated after the event and in light of all the evidence, weighing the military advantage anticipated against the foreseeable harm to civilians, according to the established principles of reasonableness and proportionality. There is no reason to presume that a breach by coalition forces of the humanitarian laws of armed conflict will occur.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of the joint letter is the warning that if Australia dares join the attack on Iraq, it may face a spate of future "war crimes" trials before the International Criminal Court.
The alarm thus sounded appears consistent with the worst fears of critics of the ICC, who argued that such a tribunal would more likely deter democracies acting in defence of international legal standards and human rights than it would a Saddam Hussein.
Finally, we believe that morally it is necessary to consider the costs to be borne in ruling out the use of force. Hussein continues to torment his people, foster international terrorism and develop an illegal arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. In addition, the authority of the Security Council under Chapter VII is being damaged.
Twelve years of resolutions and sanctions, and promising dire consequences, have not brought Iraq into compliance. When a policeman refuses to enforce the law, and gives a series of hollow "last chances", there comes a point when citizens and criminals alike lose respect for both him and the law.
Darin Bartram (partner – Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington); Joe Berinson (former attorney-general – WA); Anthony Bergin (associate professor of law – UNSW); Neil Brown QC (former attorney-general of Australia); Lee Casey (partner – Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, former legal adviser to US Department of Justice); David Flint AM (professor emeritus of law, University of Technology, Sydney); Stephen Hall (associate professor of law, City University of Hong Kong); Gary Herz, solicitor; Stan Kalinko (managing partner, Deacons Lawyers); Ian Lacey, solicitor; Mark Leibler, AO (senior partner – Arnold Bloch Leibler); Judith Levitan, lawyer; Michael Odes, QC; Michla Pomerance, (Emilio Von Hofmannsthal professor of international law, Hebrew University); David Rivkin, junior partner – Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, former legal adviser to US Department of Justice); Greg Rose (associate professor of law, University of Wollongong); Norman Rosenbaum, barrister; Jeffrey Sher, QC; Marcus Solomon, managing partner, Gadens Lawyers – Perth; Thomas Sterling, lawyer; Louis Waller (emeritus professor of law, Monash University).
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=242
It is perfectly legal for the US-led coalition to enforce resolution 1441.
By Darin Bartram et al - posted Friday, 21 March 2003
In their joint article published in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald on February 26, a group of lawyers espoused the thesis that a US-led invasion of Iraq would violate international legal norms proscribing the use of force and international humanitarian law regulating the way in which war is conducted.
We believe that their views are based on legal and factual premises of doubtful validity, which could undermine rather than enhance the relevance and importance of international law in world politics. Much of the present debate on Iraq is premised on the assumption, shared by the authors of the joint letter, that the Security Council has not already endorsed the use of force. An opposite and plausible case can and has been made on the basis of the wording of resolutions already adopted.
Resolution 1441 was carefully and deliberately framed in terms that could be read to permit the use of force. It was adopted under Chapter VII which allows the council to adopt mandatory action to deal with threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression.
Advertisement
The resolution says that Iraq remains "in breach of its material obligations" under previous Chapter VII resolutions, has a "final opportunity to comply" and failing compliance will "face serious consequences". It explicitly recalls Resolution 678 (1990), which authorised "all necessary means" to restore peace and security in the region and Resolution 687 (1991) which established the conditions for the cease-fire after the Gulf War.
By its terms, Resolution 1441 clearly viewed the use of force against Iraq not in isolation but rather as a continuation of measures taken in the wake of Saddam Hussein's illegal invasion of Kuwait.
Following his defeat in 1991, his regime was saved by a cease-fire granted on the strict condition that Hussein would account for and destroy every one of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, that he would cease repressing his people and that he would discontinue his support for international terrorism. Economic sanctions have already been in place for 12 years, but Iraq's "breach of its material obligations" continues despite "the final opportunity" provided by Resolution 1441. The "serious consequences" which he must thus face were understood to include the possibility of military force.
Furthermore, even if Resolution 1441 were not read to authorise military action, the use of force against Hussein's regime at this time would be legally justified on the basis of the UN Charter and the right of individual and collective self-defence, realistically interpreted.
In categorically rejecting the right of the coalition to resort to force against Iraq, the authors adhere to an overly static view of the UN Charter provisions on armed force.
The charter contemplated that the Security Council would have "primary responsibility" for maintaining international peace and security. But it did not, nor could it reasonably, expect the council to trump forever a state's inherent right to defend itself, either alone or with allies, against actual or imminent attacks. Nor could it freeze forever the manner in which such concepts as "necessity", "proportionality" or "imminence" are interpreted.
It is both reasonable and necessary, in the wake of September 11, to interpret these terms in the light of changing conditions and dangers, and especially the vastly increased threat of terrorist violence and its support by rogue states.
States cannot be required to wait for a devastating terrorist attack to actually occur before taking measures of self-defence against states. Nor should the prohibition on the use of force be interpreted to bar such use for purposes of humanitarian intervention.
The authors of the joint letter are understandably concerned that any attack on Iraq will inevitably entail the loss of innocent life. War is certainly detestable. But to argue that the use of force against Iraq must necessarily violate international humanitarian law is a major expansion of international law beyond its current limits.
Whether force has been used contrary to international humanitarian law can only be evaluated after the event and in light of all the evidence, weighing the military advantage anticipated against the foreseeable harm to civilians, according to the established principles of reasonableness and proportionality. There is no reason to presume that a breach by coalition forces of the humanitarian laws of armed conflict will occur.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of the joint letter is the warning that if Australia dares join the attack on Iraq, it may face a spate of future "war crimes" trials before the International Criminal Court.
The alarm thus sounded appears consistent with the worst fears of critics of the ICC, who argued that such a tribunal would more likely deter democracies acting in defence of international legal standards and human rights than it would a Saddam Hussein.
Finally, we believe that morally it is necessary to consider the costs to be borne in ruling out the use of force. Hussein continues to torment his people, foster international terrorism and develop an illegal arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. In addition, the authority of the Security Council under Chapter VII is being damaged.
Twelve years of resolutions and sanctions, and promising dire consequences, have not brought Iraq into compliance. When a policeman refuses to enforce the law, and gives a series of hollow "last chances", there comes a point when citizens and criminals alike lose respect for both him and the law.
Darin Bartram (partner – Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington); Joe Berinson (former attorney-general – WA); Anthony Bergin (associate professor of law – UNSW); Neil Brown QC (former attorney-general of Australia); Lee Casey (partner – Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, former legal adviser to US Department of Justice); David Flint AM (professor emeritus of law, University of Technology, Sydney); Stephen Hall (associate professor of law, City University of Hong Kong); Gary Herz, solicitor; Stan Kalinko (managing partner, Deacons Lawyers); Ian Lacey, solicitor; Mark Leibler, AO (senior partner – Arnold Bloch Leibler); Judith Levitan, lawyer; Michael Odes, QC; Michla Pomerance, (Emilio Von Hofmannsthal professor of international law, Hebrew University); David Rivkin, junior partner – Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, former legal adviser to US Department of Justice); Greg Rose (associate professor of law, University of Wollongong); Norman Rosenbaum, barrister; Jeffrey Sher, QC; Marcus Solomon, managing partner, Gadens Lawyers – Perth; Thomas Sterling, lawyer; Louis Waller (emeritus professor of law, Monash University).
Nice tangled rationale for international vigilantism, BR.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
hypewaders,
Nice duck of the article, in your self professed brilliance, you can't dismantle the legal brilliance of some of the top legal minds from Australia and the United States, they are the ones using legal president and fact to make the point, not me, I just use their legal opinion to support my contention that the U.S. and any other signatory to the RESOLUTION 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991, have the right to enforce the Cease Fire because of Saddam failure to live up to the Letter of the Resolution, and that no further action was need from the U.N. to enforce the Cease Fire Resolution 687.
Nice tangled rationale for international vigilantism, BR
Nice duck of the article, in your self professed brilliance, you can't dismantle the legal brilliance of some of the top legal minds from Australia and the United States, they are the ones using legal president and fact to make the point, not me, I just use their legal opinion to support my contention that the U.S. and any other signatory to the RESOLUTION 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991, have the right to enforce the Cease Fire because of Saddam failure to live up to the Letter of the Resolution, and that no further action was need from the U.N. to enforce the Cease Fire Resolution 687.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
A rather Distinguished list of Legal Minds in support of my beliefs wouldn't you say hypewaders?
Darin Bartram (partner – Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington); Joe Berinson (former attorney-general – WA); Anthony Bergin (associate professor of law – UNSW); Neil Brown QC (former attorney-general of Australia); Lee Casey (partner – Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, former legal adviser to US Department of Justice); David Flint AM (professor emeritus of law, University of Technology, Sydney); Stephen Hall (associate professor of law, City University of Hong Kong); Gary Herz, solicitor; Stan Kalinko (managing partner, Deacons Lawyers); Ian Lacey, solicitor; Mark Leibler, AO (senior partner – Arnold Bloch Leibler); Judith Levitan, lawyer; Michael Odes, QC; Michla Pomerance, (Emilio Von Hofmannsthal professor of international law, Hebrew University); David Rivkin, junior partner – Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, former legal adviser to US Department of Justice); Greg Rose (associate professor of law, University of Wollongong); Norman Rosenbaum, barrister; Jeffrey Sher, QC; Marcus Solomon, managing partner, Gadens Lawyers – Perth; Thomas Sterling, lawyer; Louis Waller (emeritus professor of law, Monash University).
Darin Bartram (partner – Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington); Joe Berinson (former attorney-general – WA); Anthony Bergin (associate professor of law – UNSW); Neil Brown QC (former attorney-general of Australia); Lee Casey (partner – Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, former legal adviser to US Department of Justice); David Flint AM (professor emeritus of law, University of Technology, Sydney); Stephen Hall (associate professor of law, City University of Hong Kong); Gary Herz, solicitor; Stan Kalinko (managing partner, Deacons Lawyers); Ian Lacey, solicitor; Mark Leibler, AO (senior partner – Arnold Bloch Leibler); Judith Levitan, lawyer; Michael Odes, QC; Michla Pomerance, (Emilio Von Hofmannsthal professor of international law, Hebrew University); David Rivkin, junior partner – Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, former legal adviser to US Department of Justice); Greg Rose (associate professor of law, University of Wollongong); Norman Rosenbaum, barrister; Jeffrey Sher, QC; Marcus Solomon, managing partner, Gadens Lawyers – Perth; Thomas Sterling, lawyer; Louis Waller (emeritus professor of law, Monash University).
How objective. Americans and Australians. members of the coalition.
How much did they get paid?
How much did they get paid?
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
spuriousmonkey, your proof that they were paid off for their opinion? a easy way to dismiss a inconvenient fact, make the accusation of being paid? Can the same be said for your side? are the people that you quote and use as reference paid? or are they totally altruistic? I bet not, How much do they get paid?
Did you ever see a lawyer work for free?
Provide us with their fees.
Provide us with their fees.
Nice tangled rationale for international vigilantism
Bufflo Roam: "Nice duck of the article"
It was intended as a succint description of your cut-and-paste. If you insist on clinging to this indefensible legal position, I'll patiently walk you through the concept of vigilantism/vigilante justice, and why there is no legal rationale for a member state or "coalition" outside the UN to exact retribution for non-compliance with UN resolutions.
In a simple analogy, should your local court charge an individual member of your community with illegal weapons violations, there are further enforcement procedures for search, arrest, detention, confiscations, etc. If for any reason (let's say impatience with the legal process) a private citizen or vigilante group were to violently take matters into his/their own hands, citizen punitive actions or attacks on the suspect would be patently illegal. Such vigilantism would in fact undermine the legal system if not prosecuted.
"you can't dismantle the legal brilliance of some of the top legal minds from Australia and the United States"
There is no legal brilliance expressed in your cut-and-paste. Such a politically-charged statement as you have dredged up, chock-full of neoconservative talking-points, does not encapsulate the collective legal legitimacy or brilliance of those named- Lawyers say stupid things all the time. Everything ascribed to a lawyer (or list of lawyers) is not law.
I could easily cut-and-paste statements by attorneys too, but it would just be a lame [enc]appeal to authority[/enc].
The question is what conforms to applicable law. It's been well established that the invasion of Iraq was in violation of the UN Charter, specifically:
"they are the ones using legal president"
There is no legal precedent cited in the statement you linked.
"I just use their legal opinion to support my contention"
It's not a legal opinion. Courts issue legal opinions. You can use it as a crutch if you must, but don't blame me for pointing out that it's legally rickety-you chose it. The more you bandy this piece of "legal" rubbish, the more it is going to get knocked out from under you.
"the U.S. and any other signatory to the RESOLUTION 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991, have the right to enforce the Cease Fire"
Says who? 687, issued not long after Desert Storm, addressed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and called for weapons inspectors to search locations in Iraq for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as weapons that exceed an effective distance of 150 kilometres. No invasion was authorized under 687.
" No further action was need from the U.N. to enforce the Cease Fire Resolution 687"
The UN did not organize and initiate the invasion of Iraq. The United States did.
Bufflo Roam: "Nice duck of the article"
It was intended as a succint description of your cut-and-paste. If you insist on clinging to this indefensible legal position, I'll patiently walk you through the concept of vigilantism/vigilante justice, and why there is no legal rationale for a member state or "coalition" outside the UN to exact retribution for non-compliance with UN resolutions.
In a simple analogy, should your local court charge an individual member of your community with illegal weapons violations, there are further enforcement procedures for search, arrest, detention, confiscations, etc. If for any reason (let's say impatience with the legal process) a private citizen or vigilante group were to violently take matters into his/their own hands, citizen punitive actions or attacks on the suspect would be patently illegal. Such vigilantism would in fact undermine the legal system if not prosecuted.
"you can't dismantle the legal brilliance of some of the top legal minds from Australia and the United States"
There is no legal brilliance expressed in your cut-and-paste. Such a politically-charged statement as you have dredged up, chock-full of neoconservative talking-points, does not encapsulate the collective legal legitimacy or brilliance of those named- Lawyers say stupid things all the time. Everything ascribed to a lawyer (or list of lawyers) is not law.
I could easily cut-and-paste statements by attorneys too, but it would just be a lame [enc]appeal to authority[/enc].
The question is what conforms to applicable law. It's been well established that the invasion of Iraq was in violation of the UN Charter, specifically:
[Preamble] armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest
[Art. 2 P4]All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
[Art. 43] All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
[Art. 46] Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
[Art. 47] The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council.
Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
[Art. 48] The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
"they are the ones using legal president"
There is no legal precedent cited in the statement you linked.
"I just use their legal opinion to support my contention"
It's not a legal opinion. Courts issue legal opinions. You can use it as a crutch if you must, but don't blame me for pointing out that it's legally rickety-you chose it. The more you bandy this piece of "legal" rubbish, the more it is going to get knocked out from under you.
"the U.S. and any other signatory to the RESOLUTION 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991, have the right to enforce the Cease Fire"
Says who? 687, issued not long after Desert Storm, addressed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and called for weapons inspectors to search locations in Iraq for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as weapons that exceed an effective distance of 150 kilometres. No invasion was authorized under 687.
" No further action was need from the U.N. to enforce the Cease Fire Resolution 687"
The UN did not organize and initiate the invasion of Iraq. The United States did.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
hypewaders
And what is your authority? are your a lawyer? I am not one, so I have my ideas, and then look to the Authority for confirmation of my opinions, and then post the information in support of my contentions, what do you have for your appeal to authority, as you have to cite authority other than your own in support of your contentions. So don't you appeal to authority?
appeal to authority.
And what is your authority? are your a lawyer? I am not one, so I have my ideas, and then look to the Authority for confirmation of my opinions, and then post the information in support of my contentions, what do you have for your appeal to authority, as you have to cite authority other than your own in support of your contentions. So don't you appeal to authority?
Sometimes I guess it beomes necessary to divert a thread somewhat in order to constructively assist in an education. But that's not primarily why we're here. That's why I had only just made an entry in the SciWiki regarding Appeal to Authority, and I pointed you there in my very last post. But in your case, a lack of understanding compounded by stubbornness has been causing the pollution of many threads. So let's have only a brief sidebar, strictly in the best interests of our country (truth, justice, and thread coherence) before spidergoat locks this one up, and we watch it sink into the cold dark non-participatory Deep.
The phrase "appeal to authority" denotes a fallacy of logic or argument, where one tries to support a point simply on the basis of the source. When you emphasized your list of lawyers, you weren't using the law to back up your argument. Instead you paraded a list of names as "A rather Distinguished list of Legal Minds in support of my beliefs", and proclaimed their opinion unassailable by myself: "you can't dismantle the legal brilliance of some of the top legal minds from Australia and the United States".
But at the moment this discussion centers on the legality of the invasion of Iraq. My quote of the applicable law is not an appeal to authority, because it is a presentation of law.
You said "here's what some lawyers say, so it's lawful".
I said "here's what the law says". That, by comparison, was not an appeal to authority, because it was a statement of verifiable fact, with the legal source provided.
If you still can't agree with me on what "appeal to authority" means, BR then start a thread on the subject, or go edit the wiki with better knowledge.
The phrase "appeal to authority" denotes a fallacy of logic or argument, where one tries to support a point simply on the basis of the source. When you emphasized your list of lawyers, you weren't using the law to back up your argument. Instead you paraded a list of names as "A rather Distinguished list of Legal Minds in support of my beliefs", and proclaimed their opinion unassailable by myself: "you can't dismantle the legal brilliance of some of the top legal minds from Australia and the United States".
But at the moment this discussion centers on the legality of the invasion of Iraq. My quote of the applicable law is not an appeal to authority, because it is a presentation of law.
You said "here's what some lawyers say, so it's lawful".
I said "here's what the law says". That, by comparison, was not an appeal to authority, because it was a statement of verifiable fact, with the legal source provided.
If you still can't agree with me on what "appeal to authority" means, BR then start a thread on the subject, or go edit the wiki with better knowledge.
Last edited:
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
hypewaders, and the proof of the logic in your argument? you own opinion, it seem that if I make a statement with out supporting evidence I am wrong in your opinion, and if I post supporting citation I am wrong in your opinion, is any body ever right other than you in your opinion, there is a lack of citation of authoritative source from you and the rest of the anti-crowd, you have this belief that all that is need is your own citation to make your point valid, well let see some authoritative citation of your claim that the U.S. doesn't have the right to enforce a Cease Fire Agreement that it is Signatory to, if the Country that is the focus of the Cease Fire Fails to Live up to the agreement? Not your oh so humble, self verification of the correctness of your opinion.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
hypewaders
This is funny, I found a site that would support your contention. But it make the same mistake that many of you do, it fails to realize that with out U.S. involvement the United Nations would cease to exist, you want to cite U.N. law but the U.N. in and of it self has violated it's own charters, is security counsel members sold arms to Saddam and then to protect continuing sales stopped enforcement of 687 and 1441, they received vouchers for the sale of Iraqi oil and then paid kick backs to Saddam, they skimmed money from the Oil for Food program, for their own pockets and the Iraqi people suffered and then they blocked enforcement provisions of 687 and 1441.
This is funny, I found a site that would support your contention. But it make the same mistake that many of you do, it fails to realize that with out U.S. involvement the United Nations would cease to exist, you want to cite U.N. law but the U.N. in and of it self has violated it's own charters, is security counsel members sold arms to Saddam and then to protect continuing sales stopped enforcement of 687 and 1441, they received vouchers for the sale of Iraqi oil and then paid kick backs to Saddam, they skimmed money from the Oil for Food program, for their own pockets and the Iraqi people suffered and then they blocked enforcement provisions of 687 and 1441.
Buffalo Roam: "hypewaders, and the proof of the logic in your argument?"
Your neocon lawyers said the UN had authorized the invasion. The UN did not, because (among many reasonns including sheer inertia) such authorization under the circumstances would have violated the UN Charter.
"you own opinion..."
Not my opinion, this is what took place. I've given you references, and it's easy enough to verify it on your own that UN procedures clearly required further deliberation before issuing an authorization for an invasion and regime change.
That such deliberations would have become effectively endless has been revealed to have been on the minds of American policymakers in the Downing Street memos and other leaks. Accordingly, the invasion was launched without UN approval, and over the objections of Security Council Members. That's now modern history, BR- not opinion.
" This is funny, I found a site that would support your contention."
Marvelous! Now repeat that action until reality dawns. If there are other similar gaps in your knowledge of history, you're now discovering how to fill them in.
"but the U.N. in and of it self has violated it's own charters..."
Shit. You're back spinning off into another tangent, just when realization was gloriously dawning.
Your neocon lawyers said the UN had authorized the invasion. The UN did not, because (among many reasonns including sheer inertia) such authorization under the circumstances would have violated the UN Charter.
"you own opinion..."
Not my opinion, this is what took place. I've given you references, and it's easy enough to verify it on your own that UN procedures clearly required further deliberation before issuing an authorization for an invasion and regime change.
That such deliberations would have become effectively endless has been revealed to have been on the minds of American policymakers in the Downing Street memos and other leaks. Accordingly, the invasion was launched without UN approval, and over the objections of Security Council Members. That's now modern history, BR- not opinion.
" This is funny, I found a site that would support your contention."
Marvelous! Now repeat that action until reality dawns. If there are other similar gaps in your knowledge of history, you're now discovering how to fill them in.
"but the U.N. in and of it self has violated it's own charters..."
Shit. You're back spinning off into another tangent, just when realization was gloriously dawning.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
hypewaders,
And how many of the security counsel members were involved with selling oil vouchers? (money for food and medicine for the Iraqi people,) skimming the profit, and paying kick backs to Saddam?, how many of the members of the security councils were selling weapons to Saddam in violation of the Cease Fire? and then failed to allow enforcement of the Cease Fire? When the enforcement agency, the U.N. Security Counsel Members are taking bribes from Saddam, and then don't enforce the Rule of Law, a United Nations Cease Fire, how can they be looked to as having any authority, the Members of the U.N. were profiting from their failure to enforce the Cease Fire on Saddam, I would call that a major conflict of interest, Racketeering, Protection, Bribery, so were is their authority to say the U.S. can't enforce a Legal Treaty of Cease Fire that they are signatories to?
"but the U.N. in and of it self has violated it's own charters..."
Shit. You're back spinning off into another tangent, just when realization was gloriously dawning.
And how many of the security counsel members were involved with selling oil vouchers? (money for food and medicine for the Iraqi people,) skimming the profit, and paying kick backs to Saddam?, how many of the members of the security councils were selling weapons to Saddam in violation of the Cease Fire? and then failed to allow enforcement of the Cease Fire? When the enforcement agency, the U.N. Security Counsel Members are taking bribes from Saddam, and then don't enforce the Rule of Law, a United Nations Cease Fire, how can they be looked to as having any authority, the Members of the U.N. were profiting from their failure to enforce the Cease Fire on Saddam, I would call that a major conflict of interest, Racketeering, Protection, Bribery, so were is their authority to say the U.S. can't enforce a Legal Treaty of Cease Fire that they are signatories to?
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
And, RickyH, nobody has named a country that in their best interest hasn't dealt as a matter of policy with the unsavory dictators of the world.
Nobody has made the case that dealing with unsavory dictators serves anyone's best interest.