Patrick O'Brian Discussion Forum

Bob Bridges
rhbridg@attglobal.net

Iraq 1: It seems to me that Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was one action and our counterstrike was a separate one, if only because of the chronology; thus when I spoke of Iraq 1 I was referring to the multinational attack on Iraq, not to Hussein's original invasion.  But I can see that it's possible to argue they're really part of the same war, legally if not exactly chronologically.

Iraq 2: Striking the emotional but otherwise non-functional term "gussied up", you speak of Iraq's violations of international law:  Again, can you cite a statute?  Warning: I expect you to mention UN resolutions and perhaps treaties to which Iraq is a signatory, and I'm poised to retort "In that case why do you refer to Iraq's violations as 'alleged'?"  So you may want to use care in selecting your examples.  You and I agree that our invasion was a war of aggression; my question is whether you can support the claim that it violated international law.

WMDs as "the" justification for toppling the Husseini government: This is an old lie (not yours, I mean, just one you insist on repeating even though you once knew better) and if you didn't retain the many other reasons for the invasion back in 2003 then I don't expect there's any point in reviewing them now.

Afghanistan: You repeat Christo's misunderstanding of which war in Afghanistan I'm referring to.  I'm not talking about the Talibani insurgency going on now, I'm talking about our overthrow of the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan back then.  That war is over—that is, the Taliban is still fighting to regain power, but we haven't been at war with the country of Afghanistan since, what, 2002?

International law: I accept your correction about the existence of international law—I didn't say it doesn't exist, but I certainly sneered as though it doesn't—but the statute you cite isn't the one I asked for.  Christo asserts that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was "in breach of International Law"; you don't have to, but do you choose to support him by citing a particular law that the UN violated by invading?  So far I haven't seen one, and none of the submissions we saw back then were any better than nothing.

On Sat Oct 31, The Last of the True French Short Bastards wrote
---------------------------------------------------------------
>"War of aggression" is as opposed to "defensive war" and "war for humanitarian purposes," and others. Gulf War I was a war of aggression begun by Saddam to seize Kuwait. Gulf War II, on the other hand, was a war of aggression gussied up as a sanction for Iraq's alleged violations of international law; it turned out afterward that the violation which was used as the justification for the war, Iraq's construction of weapons of mass destruction, had never taken place. The war in Afghanistan is a defensive war waged by the NATO alliance following an attack on one of its members emanating from Afghanistan.

>"International law" refers to obligations nations have to make their behavior conform to certain agreed-upon standards, which they have accepted by signing treaties. The terms of those treaties constitute international law, and may no more be ignored when it is inconvenient than I may ignore US law when it is inconvenient for me. Laws confer rights and obligations; treaties confer rights and obligations. They are constructed by somewhat different means, but they amount to the same thing.

>Iran, for example, has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. This means, among other things, that it may not enrich uranium beyond a certain point; and sanctions will be imposed upon it if it does, up to and including, war. You wanted someone to quote a statute, so you here you are:

ARTICLE II
>Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

On Fri Oct 30, Bob Bridges wrote
--------------------------------
>Of course Iraq 2 was "naked aggression"; what other kind of war is there?  I wouldn't have bothered to respond to that, but the other part, about "International Law" (all capitalized and everything), has been repeated in previous years and I thought I'd let yet another claimant have yet another chance to cite a statute...?

>On Fri Oct 30, Chrístõ wrote
>----------------------------
>>Iraq 2...was a war of naked aggression in breach of International Law.