Russia tests world's biggest bomb

sogood

If such is your standard of what's legal, then you might as well as to take-over your neighbour's house, given that the US never gave a fact based reason to start the war. It was lies and lies!

The legality lies with the term 'sovereign'. Iraq is a sovereign nation.

__________________
Morphed Bianchi Camaleonte IV 2006, Ridley Damocles 2006, Garmin, Mac

sogood

Actually, as much as the public opinion is way against the war for oil in Iraq, Howard govt's loss was more based on domestic agenda eg. Industrial relations, education and health, and the need for a change of fresh air. Australia's involvement in the war has been kept low key by the Howard govt with virtually no casualties up until recently. Most of the public aren't even thinking that the country is effectively at war.

__________________
Morphed Bianchi Camaleonte IV 2006, Ridley Damocles 2006, Garmin, Mac

Crankyfeet

Originally Posted by Carrera
Seems like Australians have rejected the Iraq war with those latest elections which John Howard lost.

Just another example of Mr. Carrera looking for what he wants to find and making false assumptions and interpretations based on his bias.

__________________
Originally posted by Frigo's Luggage...

"[Calling him] 'dickcheese' is the insult of a master. Some people work in oil, some people work in clay. He [thoughtforfood] works in profanity. Open your mind and enjoy its beauty."

Carrera

We had a visit to our house not oo long ago by a U.S. overseas military dude who was located at a base. One of the people I share the house with told him offhand he thought Bush was a homicidal maniac who'd bring about WW3. The American guy laughed. I don't know whether he agreed or not but he saw the funny side.

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

Carrera

Maybe you heard about this incident. I'll stick with my theory the new superpower will be China although Russia still has the technological edge:

"American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.
By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.
According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.
The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.
One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.
The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.
The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.
And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.
According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.
It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.
Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its "backyard". "

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

Biker Joe

[Deleted}
Not my fight, so I will keep my mouth shut. ;-)

Biker Joe

[[Deleted}

Carrera

James Crawford Professor of international law, Cambridge University

Was the war in Iraq legal?

"It comes down to a political judgment. If Iraq had retained weapons of mass destruction, that would have been a breach. The question was whether earlier resolutions delegated to individual countries the right to act by themselves. It's very unlikely it would have done so without express language which they used in the earlier Kuwait resolutions. Where you had quite a difficult question of assessment, the likelihood that the UN security council would have allowed countries to form their own judgment seems doubtful."


Christine Chinkin Professor of international law at the London School of Economics

Was the war in Iraq legal?

"No, because I don't believe UN resolution 1441 authorised the use of force by states. 1441, I believe, preserved the issue within the security council for the security council to deal with it. Although it talked about material breach it did not, in my view, authorise individual state action. [The war] was not self-defence under the UN charter so I don't think there was any basis for it under the the UN charter. I don't believe there's a right to pre-emptive self defence where a threat is not material."

Lord Alexander QC Chairman of the legal organisation Justice and a past chairman of the Bar

Was the war in Iraq legal?

"No. The attorney general based his argument on UN resolution 678 which was designed to enable George Bush senior to expel the Iraqis from Kuwait... Both George Bush and John Major took the view that it did not give them any authority to go to Baghdad or invade Iraq. For our government to pin their argument for the use of force on it 12 years later, in a quite different situation, seems quite contrary to the wording and spirit of that resolution.

It has always seemed a desperate attempt [to justify the war] and that without a second resolution in February-March last year, the US-British case did not have the legal basis for going to war."

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

Carrera

To be fair, one legal anaylst differs:

Anthony Aust Former Foreign Office deputy legal adviser and visiting professor of international law at the London School of Economics

Was the war in Iraq legal?

"There is a good legal argument that it was lawful on the basis of earlier UN resolutions, such as 678 passed in 1990 and 687 in 1991, and subsequent action by the security council during the next decade. Resolution 678 was still in force. To say it was no longer effective because it was 13 years old is spurious. If you follow that argument most of our domestic laws would be no longer in force. Resolution 1441 [2002] was an uneasy compromise, the outcome of seven weeks of confidential negotiations by security council members. There were statements by all the members when it was adopted, but only one, Mexico, said there would have to be a second resolution before Iraq could be attacked.

A second resolution would have been desirable to put the legal position beyond all doubt and politically, but if the issue ever came before the international court of justice, it could be argued either way with equal cogency. I have been a lawyer long enough to know you can never predict the outcome of a legal case. What is clear, however, is that there was legal justification for the government's position."

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

sogood

Not really that special. As far as I understand it, subs routinely shadow both friendly as well as potential adversary's fleet for a living. A cat and mouse game that goes on all the time since the Cold War. It's a joke for the American diplomat to jump up and down over this trivial matter, maybe it's just a response to their "loss of face". In any case, it's probably better for them to be aware of it now than to find out at some other time point. They really should thank the Chinese sub commander for pointing out their defensive deficiencies.

__________________
Morphed Bianchi Camaleonte IV 2006, Ridley Damocles 2006, Garmin, Mac

9202

Carrera,

I would guess that if 500 international law attorneys or international law experts were polled we would find a difference of "OPINION", just as you have revealed.

My point to Sogood is that having your own opinion is good and serves for healthy discussion and debate. However, when one offers their opinion as fact, the discussion and reality is distorted and becomes irrelevant.

So the answer to my request is that the case of whether or not the facts support Sogood's position just do not exist. The case has not been tried in the international courts nor is it likely to be. It will however, continue to be tried in forum debates, the media and over a pint or two.

Let's be careful to state opinion as such and not rewrite history.

Thanks

sogood

You can always find an opposing legal opinion. If a cat is black, then the obvious thing is to call it black, at least before a well paid lawyer starts to call it white.

Trying to defend Bush admin/US's actions where hundreds of thousand of innocent civilian died, all on the basis of a bunch of lies and non-existent WMD. Oh, and a late admission of the desire to grab some oil for the US. Shameful!

__________________
Morphed Bianchi Camaleonte IV 2006, Ridley Damocles 2006, Garmin, Mac

Carrera

The problem is the Iraq situation was allowed to be drawn out over way too long a period.
The main case you can make against S Hussein is he set fire to the oil wells and polluted the environment during the first Gulf War and he was funding suicide bombers in Palestine. Really, though, that should have been dealt with during the time of the first Gulf War since world opinion wouldn't have objected - there was a war going on backed by an alliance.
However, where they screwed up was by allowing the sanctions to drag on and on and then finally deciding to invade Iraq at a time when Iraq wasn't invading any other country or acting aggressively.
The reason Bush invaded Iraq was simply because, by their own admission, Iraq was a pushover for invasion. They also wanted S Hussein out since if sanctions had been lifted under S.H. he'd have sold oil to the Russian and French out of spite. America would have been pushed out of the oil business in that region and Bush was an oil man when all's said and done.
So, it was like this imagined scenario, "We can use 9/11 and the aftermath to convince the electorate S.H. was behind it and linked to Al Quaida. Let's get rid of the old regime and get someone installed who we can do business with!"
This is dangerous stuff as well as I happen to believe Islamic terrorism is a very serious threat you cannot cry wolf over. It's very dangerous to exploit situations such as 9/11 and take your eye off the real dangers. I mean, this is the same Bush who wanted to turn port security over to the Saudis and 9/11 is thought to have its roots in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.
I think he's been pretty much an outright disaster for his own country and the globe as a whole. I think he has a simplistic understanding of global situations based on a narrow minded, God inspired morality. The polls in America have him at an all time low. I'd be very surprised if he can pull of enough stability in Iraq to come out of this intact.

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

Carrera

I guess what's been done is done and it's too late to reverse what happened. Maybe we're all slipping into a Third World War since Iran has come out far stronger due to the Iraq invasion and even France doesn't want to see Iran get its hands on a nuclear weapon.
Turkey is getting close to also invading Iraq and Russia is prepared to prepare for a new Cold War, now moving missiles into Kaliningrad and upgrading its arsenal.
The French foreign affairs minister warned the world should get ready for confrontation with Iran and, at this point, it looks like a stalemate. I don't think the U.S. will invade Iran but they will probably take a crack at those nuclear facilities within a few months time.

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."