User talk:Mdchachi
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and style guide pages are also useful. There is a sandbox which you can use to experiment in. If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. Angela
I see GBWR is still going on about the legality of the war--did I understand that you thought it was probably illegal? Having worked and taught in that area let me assure you it is legal, in fact more legal than most, because the procedures adhere to Geneva and Hague, where many actions sanctioned by the UN arguably do not. The basic defect of GBWR's reasoning is that he invests everything in the UN Charter. The UN is a treaty organization, not a world government. The UN Charter, for better or worse, is more a statement of principles. It is International Law only insofar as it is honored as such--that is the essence of IL. Now if I were debating the pro-UN side I would say: "sure, and the US doesn't honor it," but the killer isn't that the US, a major world power doesn't honor it (and I'm using that point for argumentation; not conceding it), but that an oligarchic dictatorship like Saddam's Iraq could ignore the UN for a decade and not honor it. The UN is on the brink of going the way of the League of Nations; the one thing that is propping it up are the powers, especially in the EU, that want it to be a counterweight to the US. If the UN survives in that role, it might become the second world power, but then it will no longer have a say in what constitutes International Law. Cecropia 20:12, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Well I don't claim to know that much about the topic but the legality of anything has a lot to do with the law being employed and who is interpreting the law. Note the multitude of 5-4 decisions coming out of our own Supreme Court. So I think the judgment could be decided any number of ways. Given the number of "scholars" claiming it to be illegal, then it seems likely to me that it is. It seems that the legality (if arguing with regards to the UN charter) depends on the characterization of the threat that Iraq posed. That characterization takes human judgment and, thus, the decision could go either way based on who the judges are. Don't you think? I used to think that jurisprudence was relatively clearcut however that viewpoint doesn't jive with all the reversed decisions we see as a case makes its way up our court system. Mdchachi 21:21, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Scholars are like engineers. You can always find one to interpret something the way you want. But let's stipulate that, according to the UN Charter, the war is "illegal." What do we do with that? International Law is not like the law of sovereign nations we are used to. It only exists insofar as it is obeyed—that is why all canons of international law supply means of redress, which, in most cases, amounts to pointing a finger and saying "you're bad," and ultimately, "if you don't like it, go to war." Sad but true.
- As I said, once again, an oligarchic dictatorship, Iraq, went to war against Kuwait, using the fig leaf that Kuwait "is rally a province of Iraq," thereby claiming it to be an internal matter. The UN disagreed, but so what? The UN doesn't have an army. It permitted the US and its allies to spend their own blood and their own treasure to do something about it. Then the war ends with an armistice. Iraq vioaltes the armistice. The UN issues a declaration. Iraq violates it again. The UN issues another declaration. Now repeat the preceding two sentences 36 times (IIRC) and when the US stands up and says "we'll do something about it" the UN defers. So UN resolutions are meaningless, and this is why it is in danger of going the way of the League of Nations. Cecropia 21:38, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Well said. I don't disagree. Questions of legality are academic for the most part and don't really matter as far as I'm concerned. More important to me, is whether or not it was the right thing to do -- for America, Iraq and the world. But, realistically, only history will tell. And even then it won't be clear because we can only surmise about the alternatives that could have been taken. Mdchachi 14:18, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- For people who get bombed the question is not academic. If you are really interested in the question you may want to read something based on thought rather than Cecropia's explanation of the world in three sentences: [1]. The only one allowed to decide whether the armistice was broken was the UN, but the UN decided that the armistice was not broken and that the conflict should be solved with continued weapons inspections. As we now know, no illegal weapons were found, Powell most probably lied to the Security Council when he presented documents that were easily proven forgeries by UN officials. If the United States decide to try to mek the United Nations irrelevant your country will further isolate itself, which hurts yourself most since you will be even unsafer as tourists, you will have problems with trade and you will have to spend even higher amounts on security than you do already. US universities already now complain that the new rules and the political situation get them in trouble to win the contest for the brightest international students as they are used to. Think about it. Message for you at George W. Bush talk. Get-back-world-respect 22:28, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've deleted your user page so that it's not blank, it's truly empty. I gathered (from your dialog with another user) that that was what you wanted. Let me know if I got it wrong and I'll undelete. Also, you might want to consider adding a link to your talk page in your signature, that would probably help minimize confusion in the future. One way to accomplish that is to make the following your "nickname" on your preferences page (top right corner of the page, right under your name):
]] | [[User talk:Mdchachi|Talk
This would make it look like my signature below. Enjoy!
--Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:56, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)