Iraq War

[speling bee]

So "collective security" did not apply to Iraq then? Define collective security

Re-read what I posted. Collective self-defence did not apply to the second war against Iraq. Collective self-defence did apply to the British and French response to the German war of aggression against Poland. Collective security is a principle that underpins collective self-defence, but is not (in the absence of a case for collective self-defence or another legitimate reason to start a war) a legitimate reason to start a war.

So now, tell us the legal basis for the war against Iraq.

[Doggy Styles]

Re-read what I posted. Collective self-defence did not apply to the second war against Iraq. Collective self-defence did apply to the British and French response to the German war of aggression against Poland. Collective security is a principle that underpins collective self-defence, but is not (in the absence of a case for collective self-defence or another legitimate reason to start a war) a legitimate reason to start a war.

So now, tell us the legal basis for the war against Iraq.

You do have a point SB.

At the time there was a legal basis presented, relating to weapons of mass destruction, but after the event that threat was discovered to have been invented by Blair's government (et al).

[shaunbhoy]

So now, tell us the legal basis for the war against Iraq.

The removal of a dictator that was carrying out genocidal activity upon his populace, in direct contravention of a host of UN directives.

HTH

[DodgyAgent]

Re-read what I posted. Collective self-defence did not apply to the second war against Iraq. Collective self-defence did apply to the British and French response to the German war of aggression against Poland. Collective security is a principle that underpins collective self-defence, but is not (in the absence of a case for collective self-defence or another legitimate reason to start a war) a legitimate reason to start a war.

So now, tell us the legal basis for the war against Iraq.

Like you I am not a lawyer. Saddam was a threat to middle east stability and therefore your little "collective security rule" would apply.

[speling bee]

Like you I am not a lawyer. Saddam was a threat to middle east stability and therefore your little "collective security rule" would apply.

There is no collective security rule. It is a prinicple that underpins the 'collective self-defence rule', which does not apply.

[speling bee]

The removal of a dictator that was carrying out genocidal activity upon his populace, in direct contravention of a host of UN directives.

HTH

That would not a legal basis for war. The route for this is via a UN Security Council Resolution.

The state of Israel is in direct contravention of a host of UN directives, but any military attack on Israel on that basis would be absolutely illegal.

Anyway, it's all at: Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia so you pays your money etc.

If I happened to take your view, then the argument I would push is that international war is inadequate so should be ignored in these circumstances. The problem with that (apart from the legal ones) is that other states will make exactly the same case in circumstances you don't agree with.

[Doggy Styles]

Yuup.

It's muuuuch more stable without the evil bastard.

Like the garden of Eden without the apples.

[speling bee]

Like the garden of Eden without the apples.

Is God playing the role of genocidal maniac?

[shaunbhoy]

That would not a legal basis for war. The route for this is via a UN Security Council Resolution.

Tish and pish. If we wait around for the UN to come to a decision we will achieve fook all. The world's most expensive and pointless talking shop. Best ignored if you want to actually achieve change. The security council members will just vote in their own best interests.

The state of Israel is in direct contravention of a host of UN directives, but any military attack on Israel on that basis would be absolutely illegal and would be vetoed because of their cosy relationship with the US in any event

ftfy

[speling bee]

Tish and pish. If we wait around for the UN to come to a decision we will achieve fook all. The world's most expensive and pointless talking shop. Best ignored if you want to actually achieve change. The security council members will just vote in their own best interests.




ftfy

So there is no legal basis it would appear. Dodgy's original post talks about justification. If there is no legal justification then he / you must mean illegal but morally justified or illegal but justified by our own self-interest. Or perhaps something else?