111–113 of 113 posts
The commentary of this soldier, and possibly others, would have provided some context to this incident. He supports the initial engagement, but criticizes the secondary attack on the van and a later firing of a Hellfire missile into a building. A context the Wikileaks' "Collateral Murder" campaign was sorely lacking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have never heard it parsed that way, Maktab. Interesting. So you're admitting that the invasion was illegal under international law, but that the continued occupation is legal. How does that work, exactly? You can illegally break into a house, but legally not have to leave? It's my impression that while UNSCR 1483 legitimized the governing aspect of US/UK forces, it was essentially a "you broke it, now fix it" reso…
The legality of the initial invasion is an open question, without any clearly-defined and universally-accepted answer. Without an unambiguous resolution by the UNSC or ruling by the ICJ, a debate on that topic would fill many pages and might still be no closer to a definitive answer. I definitely don't think it's possible to state outright that it was either legal or illegal. In any case it's not relevant to the ques…
You might want to read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-invasion-vi...
One last time: while the UN Security Council resolutions from UNSCR 1483 on, that you list, do not ipso facto make the occupation legal. There is not specific language declaring it to be legal, and absent that language, you cannot imply it to exist.
(By the way, as I understand it, squatters rights only are possible when you don't break the law to enter.)
I also think that Iraq is better off now, but that's an obtuse point. From the mid-1980s to September 2003, the inflation adjusted price of a barrel of crude oil on NYMEX was generally under $25/barrel. Now oil hovers over $80 and will certainly only go up. Iraq is floating on the last ocean -- the last untapped large reserves. And how many people died for the US to take control of that? Iraq's infrastructure is better now, but does that even make sense to point out?
This is my last post. It was interesting talking to you, Maktab, and I wish you all the best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The legality of the initial invasion is an open question, without any clearly-defined and universally-accepted answer. Without an unambiguous resolution by the UNSC or ruling by the ICJ, a debate on that topic would fill many pages and might still be no closer to a definitive answer. I definitely don't think it's possible to state outright that it was either legal or illegal. In any case it's not relevant to the ques…
The legality of the initial invasion is an open question, without any clearly-defined and universally-accepted answer. You might want to read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-invasion-vi... One last time: while the UN Security Council resolutions from UNSCR 1483 on, that you list, do not ipso facto make the occupation legal. There is not specific language declaring it to be legal, and absent tha…
>You might want to read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-invasion-vi....
While very persuasive (and an interesting read btw) that report still does not have the definitive weight of a UNSC resolution or UCJ ruling. And as I've said all along, the question of the legality of the original invasion is separate and irrelevant to the legality of the continued US presence in Iraq. I've been trying to avoid getting sucked into a discussion about the initial invasion only because I don't believe it's relevant to this specific discussion. That's all.
One last time: while the UN Security Council resolutions from UNSCR 1483 on, that you list, do not ipso facto make the occupation legal. There is not specific language declaring it to be legal, and absent that language, you cannot imply it to exist.
This is just it though, those resolutions (especially UNSCR 1511) are unambiguous and specific in making the presence of US-led coalition forces in Iraq legal. Your incorrect analysis of their content suggests that you don't have much experience in reading and interpreting UNSC resolutions and other instruments of international law. That's ok, but it might be worth scheduling a chat with an international law professor at a university near you if you want a deeper understanding.
(By the way, as I understand it, squatters rights only are possible when you don't break the law to enter.)
Not true, I mentioned that bit specifically because some countries have laws which enforce squatters' rights even when the initial occupation was unlawful. It makes sense though, as just because an initial action may be illegal it does not automatically render every subsequent action illegal.
I also think that Iraq is better off now, but that's an obtuse point.
I agree that it's pretty obtuse. I only mentioned it because you said that the people of Iraq will never see any of Iraq's wealth. I found that a curious statement. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.
In summary, I responded to your original post only because of one claim you made, which is that US forces are in Iraq illegally right now. The fact remains that even if you reject my assertion that the UNSC resolutions explicitly legalised the presence of US forces in Iraq under a Chapter VII mandate it still does not justify your claim that US forces are illegally occupying Iraq, because the US-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement created an entirely new and separate legal framework under which US troops remain in the country. As a treaty between two sovereign governments, the SOFA supersedes anything that came before it and is unaffected by remaining questions about the legality of the initial invasion. It just makes no sense to refer to the current presence of US forces in Iraq as an 'illegal occupation' in 2010.