Repercussions for illegal war?
 

So, now that we all know this "war" is going to happen, even without United Nations approval... what repercussions will the United States and it's new allies face from the United Nations?

Will we be forced out?

Possibly a penalty fee?

Maybe we'll lose important council seats?

Or will the United Nations just shake it's head and look the other way?

The UN is evil.... we must bomb them next.

Who knows?

'So far, so good, so what.'

<img src=http://www.artistdirect.com/Images/Sources/AMGCOVERS/music/cover200/drc300/c306/c306470i7t5.jpg border="1">

:winkwink:

The UN will always need our cash to burn.

how is it illegal?

besides, what options do they have? i mean, the UN kinda needs the US. they could do without, but i feel it would be even less effective.

My choice, by the way.

There will be little, if any repercussions. The United Nations doesn't have much of a back bone, has very little enforcement. "Laws" are worthless without enforcement.

One of the benefits of Bush breaking interational law is that maybe we'll never have to hear Republicans chanting "rule of law" again. Time to retire that old Clinton-era Republican favorite.

http://twash.com/temp/laugh.gif http://twash.com/temp/smiley.gif http://twash.com/temp/laugh.gif http://twash.com/temp/smiley.gif

which law is he breaking. please be specific?

Especially when we actually pay our dues. :winkwink:

In all seriousness, though, there's not much they can/will do. If they've allowed Saddam to do whatever the hell he wants for the past 12 years (much less allow genocide in Rwanda, Kosovo, etc.), what the heck are they going to do to the U.S.?

Moreover, if the War is a quick success with minimal civilian casualties, the Iraqi people are much better off than they were under Saddam, and we discover WMDs, they'll be coordinating relief efforts and aid, which is just about the only thing there somewhat good at.

those things are evil

It will further alienate the United States from the rest of the world, in particular the Middle East. Further strengthening the resolve of militant Islam and its adherents.

More Americans will die. That will be our penalty. And I welcome it with glee.

Which law if any we're breaking is debatable, which is why we aren't going for a second U.N. resolution. If we went for a second resolution that was vetoed, and we went to war, it would definitely be illegal. Without the second resolution, you could make the case either way. There's too much ambiguity.

Ahh... I see you forgot how to read today. Read the question again.

Your response has nothing to do with the United Nations. I already know what the worlds response would be, which is why I didn't ask.

what doesn't kill us only makes us stronger.

In 20 years the US will own the entire world.

:eek7

Good point.

the only way to solve that is to make radical muslim nations more moderate. They will always spit out the same rhetoric about evil america bla bla bla. heard it all before.

Might be a rough 10-15 years, but in the long run I think its worth it. Radicals are becoming too daring, and for 8 years under clinton they were not policed at all.

The UN is useless, there is no response to your question. Fayg.

He is breaking international treaties regarding sovereign states.

Iraq has rights by treaty and accepted convention to possess whatever they want...just like the USA does.

But it's not just about breaking the law, it's also about mocking it.
The USA is not invading Isreal to enforce any UN resolutions there. Bush is diminishing the USA down to the status of a banana republic bully. It will hard to mention freedom and USA in the same sentence from now on without laughing.

And no I don't hate Americans...but WTF happened down there?

Classic Album!

That was my point.

Homo.

Not necessarily. Right now, yes, we are alienated, but as I mentioned how the world views us will have a lot to do with how we handle the rebuilding of post-Saddam Iraq. Likewise, world opinion will likely also have a lot to do with what transpires during the war. Did we find WMDs? Did Saddam use chemical, biological weapons, etc.?

Hooray, a pro western puppet government in the middle east. Just what we need, another Israel. Lord knows how popular they are.

Rebuild Iraq, pushaw. Imperialism always backfires, this will be no different.

The USA as well as the UK are relying upon at least three previous UN resolutions (including the 17th resolution, 1441) which they say gives them legal authority to act as provided by certain paragraphs within each of the three resolutions. The UK is having its equivilent to our Attorney General draw up legal papers based upon these three UN resoultions, and it is my understanding that those papers will be presented to their Parliment during tomorrows Parlimentary debate.

The US dollar has been losing value on the international market ever since Bush came to power, and even as the Eurodollar is surprisingly strong. There is talk of the Euro becoming the new Global Standard, with greenbacks being relegated to just another currency.

The gulf War cost $69 billion dollars, with the allies kicking in a hefty chunk of the tab. The US paid less than $18 billion of it out of taxpayers coffers.

According to economic analysts the new war will cost a minimum of $100 billion dollars, with bridge, hospital, and oil well reconstruction and humanitarian aid threatening to push the cost into the trillions.

An illegal invasion in violation of the UNSC vote would mean the US, and solely the US, will get stuck with the bill. The US economy, already in a slump, will be hard-hit.

The US has a trade deficit with Asia and Europe, meaning more asian and european goods are imported to the US than Ammerican goods exported, so a boycott on American goods won't do much. There is a posibility, however, that the EU and pacific rim nations may place embargos on exporting to the US as retaliation for being treated as 'insignificant' by Bush. Remember, the UN is made up of member nations. To ignore UN resolutions is to say the opinions of those other nations does not matter to you.

A combination of a huge bill for the federal government in concert with several businesses going under (the war will cost 70,000 airline jobs, say the airlines, and honda dealerships, electronics stores, cell phone companies, etc. deprived of neccessary asian and european parts and products could be forced to lay off a large chunk of workforce) could push the US into a large recession, if not depression.

Furthermore, by allocating over 25% of its fighting force to a single campain the US dilutes security where it's needed - against terrorism. The last major strike was 12 guys with BOXCUTTERS. that's pretty easy to slip in under the radar of suspicion, and while the public and armed forces are distracted by a war elsewhere it'll be even easier for terrorists to hit again.

Nevermind casualties in the desert. The homefront is most in peril.

exactly.

thanks for the leftist rant. now :321GFY

Here are a couple of possibilities just to humor you:

- Pact of Paris (or Treaty for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy or Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact,1928): It made aggressive war illegal and its initiation an individual crime. The Nuremberg tribunal sentenced Nazi leaders to death for violating it.

- United Nations Charter (1945): The primary purpose of the United Nations is "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" (Preamble). Accordingly, "All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means" and "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state ..." (Article 2).

- North Atlantic Treaty (1949): "The parties undertake,as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means ... and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." Force is contemplated only when a member nation is attacked.nbsp; In any case, the parties are to carry out the provisions of the treaty "in accordance with their respective constitutional processes."


As JeremySF has said, the excuse they will try to use is the previous resolution. Of course, arguing that the previous resolution allows an attack against Iraq is even more unbelievable than Bill Clinton asking what the meaning of "is" is, but Republicans have a very short memory.

id think Saddam broke international law before Bush, just a guess though.

:glugglug

I have to do some research, but I heard someone mention that the only time we have ever got un approval for any military action was 91 gulf war and korea.

More and More of fanatik muslim fucker gonna try to blow up anything in USA,

In the muslim countries, everybody hates USA because they suport Israel in the Genocide they doing and now they attack Irak and they going to kill a lot of innocent muslim people.

France will support USA in this war if they told to Israel to Stop what they do before!

They dont give a shit about wepond of mass destruction because muslim fanatiks destroyed the New York's downtown with 19 knifes.

Are you suggesting they are two of a kind?

Get ready to get flamed by the Rush Limbaugh posse. :1orglaugh

That is the only two occasions that the UN has agreed to use military force. In the case of Korea, the Soviet Ambassador to the UN was not present on the day of the vote, or the resoultion to use force would have been vetoed.

heh.. honda makes a good share of their automobiles in the US.. i believe their big plant is in kentucky.

Puppet government? Where did I say puppet government? The ideal scenario would be to bring a federalist government to Iraq within the next couple of years, giving power and a voice the three primary ethnic groups in Iraq: the Shias, Shiites and Kurds.

There is a big debate between the White House and State Dept right now on how to handle post-Saddam Iraq. Sadly, the policy du jour in the White House will be a military government followed by power-sharing regime a la Lebanon in the 70s. If you recall Lebanon had a Christian president, a Sunni PM, and a Shia speaker of the house. The agreement disinegrated into a bloody civil war in 1975.

hey fiction why don't you give us some quotes from 1441...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Fletch XXX
id think Saddam broke international law before Bush, just a guess though.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you suggesting they are two of a kind?

Get ready to get flamed by the Rush Limbaugh posse.

DUH?? Yes, there is no doubt Saddam and Bush are two of a kind - both utter idiots and totally irrelevant on the face of this earth. It would be a serious act of humanity to blow both their brains out. Sheesh - the bullshit is beyond the absurb.

...made out of parts imported from Japan. They have assembly plants in Kentucky and Ontario to sidestep import tarrifs on complete vehicles.

absolutely. this will increase future terrorism against the US, not dampen it.