Legality of the War

[XemnasXD]

Well im sure we all know what War im talking about. I was browsing the Interweb, mainly youtube and i came across several videos questioning the legality of the Iraq War. We all know about the misdirection that led to the war. The uncomfortable circumstances of our occupation and the effect its having both here at home and over seas. After taking in the information that was given and doing a bit of research on my own ( this is how i spend my time, im single now T_T) to make sure i wasn't absorbing BS, which happens from time to time, i came to a conclusion and raised these questions.

1. U.N. is either working to support Western interest or is truly powerless to enforce its codes and laws. In the case of the former, why should non-western nations join or stay? In the case of the the latter, why should any nation join or stay in the U.N.?

2. Since the war is illegal are our soldiers commit war crimes? If your not American do yo think American soldiers are committing war crimes? If so do you think they should be punished and who would have the authorization to do so if its even possible.

3. I know it seems a bit far-fetched but do you think it would be possible that within the next 10-30 years the world could be engaged in a massive civil war ala Star Wars, you know like ppl leaving the UN to form their own organizations with there own interest causing global instability that would eventually lead to WWIII? Or is this issue going to take a back seat in Global politics and history and will simply become another thing for people to remember on Veterans Day?

I think the video that explains the illegality of the war the best is This One Its got cats in it and may seem a bit childish at first but its actually extremely well thought out, detailed, organized, explained, and its long....about 24 min long so if you don't have time look for a shorter one...

[Reise]

At this point I doubt many consider it a "war" it's more like an occupation w/insurgency.

[Morgoth]

1.Well the UN is really just the US(and has been since like the Korean War,i think), so its actions are more sided towards its interests.

2. I do not believe that they commit crime since they are fighting from the orders they've been given from "higher" people (politicians).

3. Frankly, i don't think the UN would create such division and if there is a WW3 (which i dont think (and hope) will happen)i would imagine it would be against China.

^that's just my own opinion btw...

[XemnasXD]

after WWII "I was just following Orders from a superior officer" is not an excuse to get away with being held responsible for your actions....

[Reise]

after WWII "I was just following Orders from a superior officer" is not an excuse to get away with being held responsible for your actions....

Well, lets not compare our Marines to the ones who carried out genocide.

[Morgoth]

after WWII "I was just following Orders from a superior officer" is not an excuse to get away with being held responsible for your actions....

well, yeah i guess but i mean what do u expect them to do, they signed up for the army, marines, w/e and they're gonna disobey orders?

but if you're talking about genocide, then yes i agree and they're probably disobeying orders (or maybe not...)

[XemnasXD]

after WWII "I was just following Orders from a superior officer" is not an excuse to get away with being held responsible for your actions....

Well, lets not compare our Marines to the ones who carried out genocide.

there are several other war crimes besides genocide like opening fire on a civilian ambulance, purposefully destroying hospitals, denial of food and water, etc. All of which have been used to pacify, neutralize, or subjugate Iraqi civilians.


going to bed nao....

[Reise]

after WWII "I was just following Orders from a superior officer" is not an excuse to get away with being held responsible for your actions....

Well, lets not compare our Marines to the ones who carried out genocide.

there are several other war crimes besides genocide like opening fire on a civilian ambulance, purposefully destroying hospitals, denial of food and water, etc. All of which have been used to pacify, neutralize, or subjugate Iraqi civilians.

Shit happens. A lot of that stuff they do to themselves anyway. I'd hate to live in the middle east.

[salmissra]

hmmmm long watch..will edit back later.

nice find. good video. the war is illegal but do you think the current gov't will do anything about it? i doubt it. even with the next govt, i doubt the changes will be swift either.

PS: that cat is so ANNOYING. i just wanted to tear it's eyes out lol.

PPS: there a other good vids on there too. look em up guys.

[Dian Jie]

Ehren Watada, must watch if you like discussing this issue.

Code: Select all

[tedtwilliger]

i thought u meant the war on bots..

[mahumps]

I really wonder why there's a "legal war"?

I don't believe soldiers sent to war commits war crimes unless ofcourse if they kill people without guns (civilians) or even enemy soldiers who surrendered already.

And about WW3 all I know is that with all the super weapons the world have right now, it's either it will destroy the human race and all it's cities or it will totally destroy the earth.

[hootsh]

Everyone knows its illegal no point really of discussing it...besides its not really a war like some said...its just occupation..a very very very bad (might even call it noobish) greedy form of occupation resulting in a massacre..i'm not sure whats the numbers like in your newscasts but over here its terrible.

I'm not an American and yes i think American soldiers are committing war crimes by following their Gov. on this (after all they're responsible for their actions) hundreds of thousands of people died/are dying from this war...i dont think they should be punished though i can imagine what the propaganda was like..i think those crazy as$ American politicians should be the ones getting their as$es whooped though..they dont give a damn about people's lives.

UN is and always have been supporting the US and there is nothing anyone can do about that.

I also dont think there are going to be any big wars in the next couple of decades its highly unlikely cause everyone is afraid of everyone but not afraid enough to wage war..unless something new comes up..and if you're thinking about the West vs East situation...if there is going to be a war i dont think it'll be very big..it'll be bigger than Iraq's war but not very big cause no one will help anyone, afaik everyone with a political rivalry vs the US is getting screwed politically...running short on allies.

Its human nature..we cant live in peace...there is always going to be war somewhere.

[JacksColon]

Well im sure we all know what War im talking about. I was browsing the Interweb, mainly youtube and i came across several videos questioning the legality of the Iraq War. We all know about the misdirection that led to the war. The uncomfortable circumstances of our occupation and the effect its having both here at home and over seas. After taking in the information that was given and doing a bit of research on my own ( this is how i spend my time, im single now T_T) to make sure i wasn't absorbing BS, which happens from time to time, i came to a conclusion and raised these questions.

1. U.N. is either working to support Western interest or is truly powerless to enforce its codes and laws. In the case of the former, why should non-western nations join or stay? In the case of the the latter, why should any nation join or stay in the U.N.?

2. Since the war is illegal are our soldiers commit war crimes? If your not American do yo think American soldiers are committing war crimes? If so do you think they should be punished and who would have the authorization to do so if its even possible.

3. I know it seems a bit far-fetched but do you think it would be possible that within the next 10-30 years the world could be engaged in a massive civil war ala Star Wars, you know like ppl leaving the UN to form their own organizations with there own interest causing global instability that would eventually lead to WWIII? Or is this issue going to take a back seat in Global politics and history and will simply become another thing for people to remember on Veterans Day?

I think the video that explains the illegality of the war the best is This One Its got cats in it and may seem a bit childish at first but its actually extremely well thought out, detailed, organized, explained, and its long....about 24 min long so if you don't have time look for a shorter one...

1)I don't know if I would say "west" as much as I'd say the "global north" or the "developed countries and superpowers". Sure, the rotating 15-member security council supposedly allows for some fairness, but the 5 permamnetnt members basically run the show. I would say it's compeltely powerless either, but pretty damn weak.

2)We're so afraid to think of our own soldiers as war criminals, and typically only prosecute those who do things like abu garhaib or however the **** you spell it. However, IF - and I repeat IF - this is an illegal war, I think the ones who really should be held accountable are the leaders. I personally feel this is an illegal war, and the political leadership should be held accountable for their actions. Regardless if you think our soldiers are war criminals or not (or the politicians) the fact of the matter is the US refuses to sign on to the International Criminal Court, so take that for what it's worth., you be the judge.

3)I don't think the world will be engaged in a massive civil war because the UN is weak or because of what we've done in Iraq. I think what is more likely is, if Iraq fails, the middle east could become increasingly hostile and volatile. Further, I think the superpowers are far to vested to let shit spill out of control. Money seems to trump all, and if it comes down to it, those at the top will cooperate to make sure their access to resources and foreign markets is stable. conflict does not mix well with making money (unless you're selling the guns lol) but I think you know what i mean. this is why people are SLOWLY starting to shift attention to Africa.

[ThisIsAvalon]

Theres no such thing as "legality" in wars, its just 21st century hippy talk. The US has every right to walk into any country they want and blow the shit outta them. In the end, theres always a balance of power. If that country can't defend itself, tough shit.

[JacksColon]

Theres no such thing as "legality" in wars, its just 21st century hippy talk. The US has every right to walk into any country they want and blow the shit outta them. In the end, theres always a balance of power. If that country can't defend itself, tough shit.

God I wish you would shut up. You have no clue what you're talking about. DO you have a "These Colors Don't Run" bumper sticker on your Hummer H3?

[Morgoth]

And about WW3 all I know is that with all the super weapons the world have right now, it's either it will destroy the human race and all it's cities or it will totally destroy the earth.

not necessarily, it could be similar to the cold war in that neither the US nor the USSR used atomic weapons due to their destructive power because they knew that if one nation nuked the other, the same thing would happen to them

[ThisIsAvalon]

Theres no such thing as "legality" in wars, its just 21st century hippy talk. The US has every right to walk into any country they want and blow the shit outta them. In the end, theres always a balance of power. If that country can't defend itself, tough shit.

God I wish you would shut up. You have no clue what you're talking about. DO you have a "These Colors Don't Run" bumper sticker on your Hummer H3?

Yeah okay, I know exactly what i'm talking about. Without the UN around and its "peace" efforts, the world would actually be more peaceful. Theres always going to be a balance of power in the world, even when everyone was at war. Why? Its in your countries interest to keep every other country at the same playing field. If the US decided to invade France, every other country in Europe would attack back back in the day. Now, they will wave their little "Free France" flags, and have peaceful protests on the White House lawn that wont do shit. Peace through war has worked for thousands of years, and it would keep working.


Lets take an example. Example 1:

Country 1 has 5000 troops.
Country 2 has 3000 troops.
Country 3 has 1500 troops.
Country 4 has 4000 troops.

Country 1 invades Country 3, because it wants their natural resources, it loses 1500 troops, now its at 3500 troops, but with double the land. Country 2+3 sees this, so they form a coalition and attack country 1, aggreeing to split Country 3's land. Country 1 learns its lesson, goes back to its homeland to build up more troops.


Example 2:

Country 1 has 5000 troops.
Country 2 has 3000 troops.
Country 3 has 1500 troops.
Country 4 has 4000 troops.


Country 1 invades Country 3, because it wants their natural resources, it loses 1500 troops, now its at 3500 troops, but with double the land. Country 2+3 sees this, so they petition to the UN about this. They send protesters all around, put bumper stickers on their cars, all the usual shit. Ten years later, the UN is finally finishes debating, Country 1 leaves the land after stripping it from its natural resources.

[JacksColon]

Theres no such thing as "legality" in wars, its just 21st century hippy talk. The US has every right to walk into any country they want and blow the shit outta them. In the end, theres always a balance of power. If that country can't defend itself, tough shit.

God I wish you would shut up. You have no clue what you're talking about. DO you have a "These Colors Don't Run" bumper sticker on your Hummer H3?

Yeah okay, I know exactly what i'm talking about. Without the UN around and its "peace" efforts, the world would actually be more peaceful. Theres always going to be a balance of power in the world, even when everyone was at war. Why? Its in your countries interest to keep every other country at the same playing field. If the US decided to invade France, every other country in Europe would attack back back in the day. Now, they will wave their little "Free France" flags, and have peaceful protests on the White House lawn that wont do shit. Peace through war has worked for thousands of years, and it would keep working.


Lets take an example. Example 1:

Country 1 has 5000 troops.
Country 2 has 3000 troops.
Country 3 has 1500 troops.
Country 4 has 4000 troops.

Country 1 invades Country 3, because it wants their natural resources, it loses 1500 troops, now its at 3500 troops, but with double the land. Country 2+3 sees this, so they form a coalition and attack country 1, aggreeing to split Country 3's land. Country 1 learns its lesson, goes back to its homeland to build up more troops.


Example 2:

Country 1 has 5000 troops.
Country 2 has 3000 troops.
Country 3 has 1500 troops.
Country 4 has 4000 troops.


Country 1 invades Country 3, because it wants their natural resources, it loses 1500 troops, now its at 3500 troops, but with double the land. Country 2+3 sees this, so they petition to the UN about this. They send protesters all around, put bumper stickers on their cars, all the usual shit. Ten years later, the UN is finally finishes debating, Country 1 leaves the land after stripping it from its natural resources.

Nimrod, I never challenged you on the "balance of power" and you should be smart enough to realize that. However, you said the US has every right to invade any country it wants and blow the shit outta them. That's the most arrogant and ignorant statement you've probably said on this forum.

[ThisIsAvalon]

Nimrod, I never challenged you on the "balance of power" and you should be smart enough to realize that. However, you said the US has every right to invade any country it wants and blow the shit outta them. That's the most arrogant and ignorant statement you've probably said on this forum.

Okay, if you find the truth arrogant and ignorant, so be it. If the US wanted to invade a country, they can. The only thing thats stopping them is the balance of power, which is pretty much voided by modern day pacifism. So, without the balance of power stopping them, the US has the power to do whatever they want. I'm not aggreeing with the War on Iraq or not, im just pointing out the facts. The fact that your ignoring them doesn't make me ignorant, it does the opposite.

[JacksColon]

Nimrod, I never challenged you on the "balance of power" and you should be smart enough to realize that. However, you said the US has every right to invade any country it wants and blow the shit outta them. That's the most arrogant and ignorant statement you've probably said on this forum.

Okay, if you find the truth arrogant and ignorant, so be it. If the US wanted to invade a country, they can. The only thing thats stopping them is the balance of power, which is pretty much voided by modern day pacifism. So, without the balance of power stopping them, the US has the power to do whatever they want. I'm not aggreeing with the War on Iraq or not, im just pointing out the facts. The fact that your ignoring them doesn't make me ignorant, it does the opposite.

No, now you're changing what you said. YOU specifically said that the US has every right to invade another sovereign country and basically blow the shit outta it if it wants to. This is vastly different than saying the US could if it wanted to. I have no doubt that the US COULD invade ALMOST any country and blow it to Kingdom Come (I wouldn't try it with China, and I don't think anyone in the Pentagon would either). The problem is, do we have the right to do it. Answer: NO. Further, the US is the declining hegemon in your "balance of power". The TRUTH or REALITY is that CHINA, INDIA and the EU are in a much better position globally than they ever have been and in future years I think you will see them exert more and more influence in the world. You can deny this reality, but then you'd be living in the past.

[XemnasXD]

There is no Balance of Power. If there were a Balance of power when the US invaded Iraq all the countries that didn't support the invasion should have sided with Iraq, they didn't, they're not strong enough. The FACT of the matter is right now there is a very large Imbalance of Power. The US is the most powerful country in world, capable and willing to go to war with almost any other nation. The only one that i see that could oppose us is China mostly because all the money we spend on wars we're borrowing from them. If your theory were correct the Iraq war should played out like this:

Country 1 has 5000 troops
Country 2 has 3000 troops
Country 3 has 3000 troops
Country 4 has 400 troops

Country 1 invades Country 4 with minimal loses, Country 2+3 get together and invade Country 1. Country 1 learns its lesson and backs off.

Instead Country 1 invades country 4. Country 2+3 care but not enough to do anything cause of the $$$. Country 1 successfully captures Country 4 and begins systematically stripping it of its culture, history, identity, economy, and natural resources while Countries 2+3 enjoy all the $$$ this is getting them.

The world is Unstable. 10% should not have 80% of the power. That is not balanced. In order to make it balanced 10% will have to give up power and that will not happen willingly but it will happen. All things in this world strive for stability mankind is not an exception. History has shown us what happens when Empires get too greedy or generals become too strong. Right now Country 1 is starting to lose its grip on the world. Nuclear weapons technology is becoming more widespread, its economy is going down the toilet, its running out of resources, and it can't keep up with the rest of the world. To compensate its attempting to stretch its already wanning power further. Its only a matter of time b4 it stretches itself to far and THEN things will start balancing out.

Conflict makes progress i'll agree with you that far avalon but to much conflict leads to deterioration. The only thing stopping the US from invading Europe is simply "Its not in its best interest" Europe doesn't have anything the US could use at the moment. There is nothing to stop the US however from invading most African, South American, and Middle-eastern nations and that is a serious problem....

[salmissra]

The world is Unstable. 10% should not have 80% of the power. That is not balanced. In order to make it balanced 10% will have to give up power and that will not happen willingly but it will happen. All things in this world strive for stability mankind is not an exception. History has shown us what happens when Empires get too greedy or generals become too strong. Right now Country 1 is starting to lose its grip on the world. Nuclear weapons technology is becoming more widespread, its economy is going down the toilet, its running out of resources, and it can't keep up with the rest of the world. To compensate its attempting to stretch its already wanning power further. Its only a matter of time b4 it stretches itself to far and THEN things will start balancing out.

Conflict makes progress i'll agree with you that far avalon but to much conflict leads to deterioration. The only thing stopping the US from invading Europe is simply "Its not in its best interest" Europe doesn't have anything the US could use at the moment. There is nothing to stop the US however from invading most African, South American, and Middle-eastern nations and that is a serious problem....

i agree with you completely, though i think the USA would have a hard time invading any country right now

[ThisIsAvalon]

There is no Balance of Power. If there were a Balance of power when the US invaded Iraq all the countries that didn't support the invasion should have sided with Iraq, they didn't, they're not strong enough. The FACT of the matter is right now there is a very large Imbalance of Power. The US is the most powerful country in world, capable and willing to go to war with almost any other nation. The only one that i see that could oppose us is China mostly because all the money we spend on wars we're borrowing from them. If your theory were correct the Iraq war should played out like this:

Thats actually EXACTLY what my point is. Back during the imperial times, there WAS a balance of power, there was an unwritten agreement that you wouldn't attack each others colonies, because it would have a negative impact on both powers. That usually happened, unless attacking the other person had either A) A positive impact on one country or, B) A strong alliance which would lead to A. Nowadays, this false "peace" and pacifism of the 21st century in turn creates the imbalance of power.

If it weren't for everyone being such little pussies, and trying diplomacy, the balance of power would be restored.

[Reise]

lol @ US invading Europe.

Even thinking that is foolish.

Right NOW it may seem like we can just war with anybody. But in the real world there's still congress and the UN that has to approve of it. Which means everyone has to say yes. The only reason we got into Iraq is because they believed we had reason to remove Saddam, since everybody figured he had WMD's and he wouldn't say anything about it.

[ThisIsAvalon]

lol @ US invading Europe.

Even thinking that is foolish.

Maybe not Europe, but the US has been invading countries in its "hemisphere". I bet you probally don't even know how many colonies the United States has that aren't well known, and no one is doing anything about it. Russia on the other hand, could easily take back the former USSR, and no one would do shit about it. China also could take over most of Asia, and already has been. Look at Tibet, the Dalai Lama has been preaching his "save Tibet" shit all this time, and no one has stepped in at all. If China decided to invade Korea, Taiwan, ect, no one would do anything but protest.

Right NOW it may seem like we can just war with anybody. But in the real world there's still congress and the UN that has to approve of it. Which means everyone has to say yes. The only reason we got into Iraq is because they believed we had reason to remove Saddam, since everybody figured he had WMD's and he wouldn't say anything about it.

Reasons could be made up easily. Fake an assassination attempt, and you have a reason to go to war. The UN has no real power at all, they wont do anything but sit around sucking their thumbs. Congress? Congress can't even get anything passed, much less stop a war. The whole system of electing a congressmen is corrupt, any big business can buy there way in.

[Reise]

lol @ US invading Europe.

Even thinking that is foolish.

Maybe not Europe, but the US has been invading countries in its "hemisphere". I bet you probally don't even know how many colonies the United States has that aren't well known, and no one is doing anything about it. Russia on the other hand, could easily take back the former USSR, and no one would do shit about it. China also could take over most of Asia, and already has been. Look at Tibet, the Dalai Lama has been preaching his "save Tibet" shit all this time, and no one has stepped in at all. If China decided to invade Korea, Taiwan, ect, no one would do anything but protest.

Right NOW it may seem like we can just war with anybody. But in the real world there's still congress and the UN that has to approve of it. Which means everyone has to say yes. The only reason we got into Iraq is because they believed we had reason to remove Saddam, since everybody figured he had WMD's and he wouldn't say anything about it.

Reasons could be made up easily. Fake an assassination attempt, and you have a reason to go to war. The UN has no real power at all, they wont do anything but sit around sucking their thumbs.

Well maybe somebody should do something about it.

[XemnasXD]

There is no Balance of Power. If there were a Balance of power when the US invaded Iraq all the countries that didn't support the invasion should have sided with Iraq, they didn't, they're not strong enough. The FACT of the matter is right now there is a very large Imbalance of Power. The US is the most powerful country in world, capable and willing to go to war with almost any other nation. The only one that i see that could oppose us is China mostly because all the money we spend on wars we're borrowing from them. If your theory were correct the Iraq war should played out like this:

Thats actually EXACTLY what my point is. Back during the imperial times, there WAS a balance of power, there was an unwritten agreement that you wouldn't attack each others colonies, because it would have a negative impact on both powers. That usually happened, unless attacking the other person had either A) A positive impact on one country or, B) A strong alliance which would lead to A. Nowadays, this false "peace" and pacifism of the 21st century in turn creates the imbalance of power.

If it weren't for everyone being such little pussies, and trying diplomacy, the balance of power would be restored.

"The US has every right to walk into any country they want and blow the shit outta them. In the end, theres always a balance of power."

that was your first post. we just entered the 21st century. the 20th century was plagued with 2 WW's, a Cold War, conflicts with Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam and several other rebellions and uprisings and these are only the things the US was involved in. i don't see what pacifism or large scale diplomacy your talking about thats caused an imbalance of power, i think with the help of some harder diplomacy we could get some peace and the balance of power could be restored.

[Reise]

Well lets be realistic here, do you think it's really possible for "power" to be equalized?

And why would you want that?

[ThisIsAvalon]

Well lets be realistic here, do you think it's really possible for "power" to be equalized?

And why would you want that?

Power, like anything, naturally equalizes itself. Its like "global warming", the world natually warms and cools, trying to find a state of equilibrium. The world naturally has wars and peace, trying to find a state where all countries are happy. Sooner or later, if you just let the natural cycle play out, we will end up with world peace. (Either through us blowing everyone up = world peace, or one country taking over all the rest = world peace)