OT; afghan war illegal?

[chantaje]

Originally Posted by Meusli

Iraq yes, but Afghanistan no. They deliberately allowed terrorists to train and strike from their country, an act of war if you ask me.

after the attack the afghan gov of the time was in agreement that if the US gov bring proof that binladen was connected to the attacks they will judge him or deport him for trial in the US

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPh6Iv2GbcA

[DroopSnoot]

and why was Iraq illegal?

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by DroopSnoot

and why was Iraq illegal?

I dont consider either of them a war, they are both occupations. Iraq was
just a big mistake, never should have gone in there. Afghanistan is a policing
action.

[Meusli]

Did Bin Laden not admit the attacks on the WTC? If he went around saying he did then he most likely was responsible, plus he had the means. Also why have terrorist training camps for Al Qaede all over Afghanistan, were they some sort of holiday camps for lonely nutters?

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by DroopSnoot

and why was Iraq illegal?

Generally the 2003 Iraq invasion is seen as illegal and the Afghanistan invasion is seen as legitimate.

If you want to get technical about it, its impossible for any military action by the United States to be declared "illegal" in the United Nations as the US has veto power in the security council. Any attempt to declare a US military action illegal can simply be vetoed by the US.

On the other hand, if the 2003 invasion had been conducted by anyone other than a security council member with veto powers, the action would likely have been denounced as illegal as regime change is NOT a legitimate reason for invasion and the other claimed reason (WMD) was a fabrication based on suspect testimony gathered mainly from sources connected with Iran. Basically the Bush administration decided to invade and then went looking for legal loopholes to make the invasion legitimate.

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Generally the 2003 Iraq invasion is seen as illegal and the Afghanistan invasion is seen as legitimate.

If you want to get technical about it, its impossible for any military action by the United States to be declared "illegal" in the United Nations as the US has veto power in the security council. Any attempt to declare a US military action illegal can simply be vetoed by the US.

On the other hand, if the 2003 invasion had been conducted by anyone other than a security council member with veto powers, the action would likely have been denounced as illegal as regime change is NOT a legitimate reason for invasion and the other claimed reason (WMD) was a fabrication based on suspect testimony gathered mainly from sources connected with Iran. Basically the Bush administration decided to invade and then went looking for legal loopholes to make the invasion legitimate.

Bush and Cheney should have been arrested for war crimes!!

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

Bush and Cheney should have been arrested for war crimes!!

Seems like an odd statement

[Nephris]

Iraq was an attack war on wrong arguments (nuclear weapons ...) give nto the public. Thus the war in Iraq was and is in general understoodment and due the rights of Den Haag (?) an illegal movement towards an independant state (one can think about Iraq and Saddam what ya want).

For the same reason Serbia was called guilty and its leaders were arrested.
In a perfect world Bush & Cheyney should be send to the court in Den Haag.
For the same reason Wehrmacht generals like Manstein were send for 10 yrs to prison, although this last comparison is a kind of flawed, as several other
charges were made also, next for leading the attack war ( imho it was a preventive attack into the east, but my opinion doesnt count here)


At the end a reason for the antipathie towards US in the past years compared to the years before.

My opinion:
Hang the cowboy high.

[Wolf_Rider]

Well, some could see it as "illegal" and some don't, but correct me if I am wrong; the US Constitution does allow for The US to defend against any attack on her, perceived or otherwise, on her soil or overseas.
Soveriegn law overirides international law.

Anyways though, this topic really can't be discussed without going deeply into politics.

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Well, some could see it as "illegal" and some don't, but correct me if I am wrong; the US Constitution does allow for The US to defend against any attack on her, perceived or otherwise, on her soil or overseas.
Soveriegn law overirides international law.

Anyways though, this topic really can't be discussed without going deeply into politics.

I am reffering to the approval of waterboarding aka torture. Illegal and a war crime. Bush administration approved of torture.