Consider this:
Saddam has WMD.
Saddam has had WMD since the end of the Gulf War of 1991.
The cease-fire enacted after said war in ’91 stipulates that for it to remain in effect, he must get rid of all WMD and associated systems within 30 days.
Since he didn’t, said cease-fire is no longer in effect.
It may have taken us 12 years to get our acts together, but on that basis alone, there is legal justification for the current war.
Comments?
By: SOC - 21st March 2003 at 05:39
Good answer-we were concerned about the possible Iranian influence on post-war Iraq. Now that they’re part of the Axis of Evil…
I know the cease-fire agreement isn’t totally black and white regarding this war, but it does show that force is justified against Hussein. As for the regime change, you’re right, that is a different issue entirely.
By: Arabella-Cox - 21st March 2003 at 05:13
You misunderstand what I was trying to say…
Desert Storm was about removing Iraqi soldiers from Kuwaite. Removing Saddam or invading Iraq was not a goal of Desert Storm.
Violations of the peace agreement means that the peace agreement is null and void but that does not justify the invasion of Iraq or the removal of Saddam and his regime. That was never a goal of the original UN intervention. The fact that the US and the UK have decided this was how they wanted to proceed does not make it lawful, nor unilateral punitive actions are not for individual members of the UN to decide or implelment in its name. Remember if you are using the failure of Iraq to abide by the peace agreement to justify the war then you are also using the UN to play politics in a region that for many years has suffered from earlier western intervention. Indeed all their problems were not created by by the west but a lot were created when imperialistic Britain drew up borders and created monarchies in the region. Now the US and UK are going to go in again and install a new government. I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason the US left the Marsh Arabs and Kurds high and dry in 91 was fear that Iraq might become three countries… Kurds, Pro Iranian Shi(spelling) and Marsh Arabs to the south… the kurdish issue would be untenable for Turkey, the pro Iran issue would be untenable for the US. (I’m sure someone wouldn’t like the Marsh Arabs being happy either…)
Edit
Just to clarify I mean that a large body of people in Iraq have the same religion as the Iranians… much the same as the Russians have a similar religion to the Serbs… hense a connection, I am not suggesting that there is a large body of Persians in iraq or that there is a large body of Arabs in Iran.
By: SOC - 21st March 2003 at 04:14
Breach of the agreement meant the cease-fire would be null and void. Translation, a resumption of hostilities. May be 12 years later, but the action is legal because of the law which is still on the books.
By: Arabella-Cox - 21st March 2003 at 02:23
I thought the UN supported war had the objective of removing Iraqi forces from Kuwaite. This has been achieved. Invasion of Iraq or the removal of the leader of Iraq and his regime was never a goal of Desert Storm… otherwise there would have been no ceasefire.
This current conflict that does not have UN approval has nothing to do with the war to remove Iraq from Kuwaite.
You can say Iraq broke their agreements, and I would respect that if the US or the UK or anyone had never broken agreements before.
It has not been proven by the US or the UK that breach of the ceasefire agreements justifies invasion and regime change.
Sign In
March 21, 2003 at 12:38 am