You're cheering because Saddam is 'caught'... Why?

chroot

You have repeatedly implied that feel Saddam should not have been a first priority. Why don't you share that reasoning first?

It's sad, but true, that I cannot speak for my government. The administration may, or may not, have had good reason to suspect Iraq was a threat. The whole story is honestly not available to the citizens quite yet.

- Warren

BoulderHead

But this isn't what your original question asked. You have been been given an answer to what it was you wanted to know yet are not content.

GENIERE

Adam, I ask for laws, you provide me with principles and purposes of the UN Charter. As the US is a member of the UN, you may make the argument that the US violated the principles and purposes of the UN Charter, but not any supposed law. I can argue that the US and all its coalition allies acted it a manner consistent with the charter, while a few members of the UN Security Council did not.

My government interpreted UN Resolution 1441 to mean it directed the UN to retaliate against the regime of Saddam Hussein and remove him from power. I agree with the interpretation, your government agreed. You, obviously disagree.

If your argument were correct, than the UN was obligated under its charter to retaliate, by pacifist or military measures, against all offending nations, including Australia. Obviously no such retaliation occurred. A response to that could be that the UN lacked the means to retaliate against the economic and military might of the US, and certainly not against the entire coalition. It could also be that a resolution to retaliate against the coalition nations could not possibly be passed, so no member state brought it to the floor.

One thing that we can probably agree on is that the UN is quite useless as a peacemaking organization.

Adam

I did not actually say that. Pay attention. Once again, I am asking a question about the priorities of this board's users.

Adam

The UN Charter IS international law. What are you smoking? International law consists of treaties, agreements and all which are agreed to by signatory parties. If Thailand and Burma sign a treaty to share fridge magnets, that is international law. The UN Charter ia international law to the signatory parties.

Actually my government did not agree. That is why our government passed their first ever vote of no confidence, for John Howard's unsupported agreement to give our troops to the USA.

I have quoted the relevent section of the UN Charter. Please read it.

Indeed. This is one of the big problems with the UN. It's not really there to safeguard international peace and co-opertaion. It's there to safeguard the interests of the permanent members of the Security Council.

I would bet that in the next two decades, a new organisation similar to the UN will emerge, consisting mainly of developing nations, specifically aimed at protecting their interests from the UN.

For the most part, yes.

Adrian Baker

Why?

Because he was an evil monster who thought he could get away with it. (He could too when the cold war was ongoing.

Why?
I suppose the murder of Thousands of your own people is a good reason to some. A pointless war against Iran that involved a million deaths. The invasion of Kuwait, the burning of oilwells.

Why?
He inspired other ruthless men who realised thet the UN was useless and that they too could do as they wish.

Why?
He helped fund middle east terrorism and helped keep the whole area unstable. This has led to countless deaths and refused peace and freedom to millions.

Why?
Because a democratically elected goverment decided it was the best policy. Some of us believe in democracy. If we don't like what happened, we can vote them out.

Why?
Because the Iraqi people deserved better.


Why Adam do you have to ask? Why do you find fault with so many others who give good reasons?

Would you call the police for help if someone took over your house, killed your family and sold all your possesions? Shouldn't others have that right?

russ_watters

No, that is not what you asked. You simply asked why we were happy he was caught (if you don't remember, the subject line is at the top of the page). For that question, priorities are not relevant.

Perhaps the wording of the question isn't in line with the intent of the thread?

GENIERE

Call them laws, treaties, principles or whatever you want. Nothing is superior to The US Constitution in determining the legality of the activities of its government and citizens.

Section 2 of the US Constitution re: The Supreme Court

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

I, perhaps erroneously, believe that in Australia the executive branch is deemed “The Government”. The legislative branch apparently disagreed with “The Government”.

You seem driven to resort to personal attacks when others offer opposing viewpoints, the archetypical leftist tactic.

Zero

That's your tactic too, as I recall...and certainly the official tactic of the Republican Party.

FZ+

*Groan* Here we go again...

Greg: can we have a ban on all use of the word leftist/rightist/left wing etc etc? Or maybe extend the profanity filters to cover them....

Adam

Good reasons.

Tell me, why do you think other such people around the world are not being invaded, hunted?

While I have not seen any evidence that he funded terrorism prior to the invasion of Iraq (after which he openly offered money for dead US soldiers), it is true that every nation around Iraq found them a great problem.

The "democratically elected" bit is debatable. As for reasons, this one does not cut it at all. If 51% of people in Nation X decide "It's a great idea to invade Nation Y", that does not necessarily make it so. You're saying the decision is the reason.

Yep. Definitely.

Curiousity.

Well, many don't give good reasons.

Bush is not the police.

Adam

Oh, I see. You think the US Constitution applies outside the US, to those who are no US citizens. Right. Well, I'll explain it for you. It doesn't. The US constitution is for a specific geographical region, applying to a small number of people and only when within that region. International laws apply to the citizens of all signatory nations, within the regions controlled by those nations, and sometimes outside those regions as well. Get it?

Nommos Prime (Dogon)

Adam, I think your're discovering, like me, thats its quite pointless trying to have intellectual and political conversations with the brainwashed. These guys can't seem to think outside their LITTLE square they live in (be it the USA, England or Australia).
I think they truly believe that the USA and its foreign policies are good for the world. Of course, they are wrong, but they are too proud and arrogant to accept input from anybody else.
Unfortunately we are not even in the discussion.

GENIERE

Adam -
Only if a US citizen’s rights per US Constitution are not diminished.

: "We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept. We will work together with other nations to avoid complications in our military operations and cooperation, through such mechanisms as multilateral and bilateral agreements that will protect U.S. nationals from the ICC. We will implement fully the American Servicemembers Protection Act, whose provisions are intended to ensure and enhance the protection of U.S. personnel and officials."

(a) AUTHORITY- The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.

Clinton National Security Strategy excerpt:

...In some cases, such as Operation Just Cause in Panama, we may intervene unilaterally to protect our interests.

Bush (2) National Security Strategy excerpt:

...And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.

Hurkyl

...

suyver

Just out of curiosity: do you think that other nations should do this too? For example, should Pakistan invade India, before the threat is fully formed? Or what about North Korea nuking the USA before the 35000+ US soldiers stationed near the DMZ decide to cross over into the North? [?]

Njorl

Nations should also act in their own best interest. In either case, the actions you mentioned would be suicidal.

Njorl