well said. forget about these fools with there heads in the sand. they'd rather argue about monica, or the 2000 election results. They know nothing about the real world.
This war is illegal!
- Thread starter trader556
- Start date
THE Prime Minister was told by lawyers in his wife's legal chambers yesterday that the second UN resolution proposed by the US, Britain and Spain would not authorize war on Iraq, were it to be passed.
Lawyers from Matrix Chambers, where Tony Blair's wife Cherie practices, said that military action against Iraq would be a "clear violation of international law".
Even if the resolution overcame opposition by France, Germany and Russia and were passed by the UN Security Council, it would not sanction war, according to Rabinder Singh, QC, and Charlotte Kilroy. The Government will have been advised on the draft resolution by Lord Goldsmith, QC, the Attorney-General, after taking advice from leading international law experts at the Bar.
from British News Times Online
Hey Blair ole buddy, what's up??
Bush's main poodle, what's cooking??? cat got you tongue??
What the f%$k are you doin? getting on the enemy's side? you know, the Germans, Franks, Ruskies, Chinks, ummm and the rest 187 Nations??? Look buddy this is democracy. The vote counts so here how it goes: 14 against, 1 for the war. The 14 are wrong!! bad bad people, we got to kill em all.
I'm the one that has the friggin bigger guns and I'll kill ya all--you hear now?
pro's have it right? has he really gone mad?
http://www.willthomas.net/isbushnuts.htm
Lawyers from Matrix Chambers, where Tony Blair's wife Cherie practices, said that military action against Iraq would be a "clear violation of international law".
Even if the resolution overcame opposition by France, Germany and Russia and were passed by the UN Security Council, it would not sanction war, according to Rabinder Singh, QC, and Charlotte Kilroy. The Government will have been advised on the draft resolution by Lord Goldsmith, QC, the Attorney-General, after taking advice from leading international law experts at the Bar.
from British News Times Online
Hey Blair ole buddy, what's up??
Bush's main poodle, what's cooking??? cat got you tongue?? What the f%$k are you doin? getting on the enemy's side? you know, the Germans, Franks, Ruskies, Chinks, ummm and the rest 187 Nations??? Look buddy this is democracy. The vote counts so here how it goes: 14 against, 1 for the war. The 14 are wrong!! bad bad people, we got to kill em all.
I'm the one that has the friggin bigger guns and I'll kill ya all--you hear now? pro's have it right? has he really gone mad?
http://www.willthomas.net/isbushnuts.htm
Trader555 (yes, 555, not 556, you have just lost one of your marbles).
If you trade with the same outlook as you express in your posts then I am really sorry for you.
Don't you know that the majority of the public is usually wrong ?
Admit it, you are a loser.
freealways
If you trade with the same outlook as you express in your posts then I am really sorry for you.
Don't you know that the majority of the public is usually wrong ?
Admit it, you are a loser.
freealways
War would be illegal
We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq. The UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. There are currently no grounds for a claim to use such force in self-defence. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law. Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances.
Before military action can lawfully be undertaken against Iraq, the security council must have indicated its clearly expressed assent. It has not yet done so. A vetoed resolution could provide no such assent. The prime minister's assertion that in certain circumstances a veto becomes "unreasonable" and may be disregarded has no basis in international law. The UK has used its security council veto on 32 occasions since 1945. Any attempt to disregard these votes on the ground that they were "unreasonable" would have been deplored as an unacceptable infringement of the UK's right to exercise a veto under UN charter article 27.
A decision to undertake military action in Iraq without proper security council authorisation will seriously undermine the international rule of law. Of course, even with that authorisation, serious questions would remain. A lawful war is not necessarily a just, prudent or humanitarian war.
Prof Ulf Bernitz, Dr Nicolas Espejo-Yaksic, Agnes Hurwitz, Prof Vaughan Lowe, Dr Ben Saul, Dr Katja Ziegler
University of Oxford
Prof James Crawford, Dr Susan Marks, Dr Roger O'Keefe
University of Cambridge
Prof Christine Chinkin, Dr Gerry Simpson, Deborah Cass
London School of Economics
Dr Matthew Craven
School of Oriental and African Studies
Prof Philippe Sands, Ralph Wilde
University College London
Prof Pierre-Marie Dupuy
University of Paris
We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq. The UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. There are currently no grounds for a claim to use such force in self-defence. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law. Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances.
Before military action can lawfully be undertaken against Iraq, the security council must have indicated its clearly expressed assent. It has not yet done so. A vetoed resolution could provide no such assent. The prime minister's assertion that in certain circumstances a veto becomes "unreasonable" and may be disregarded has no basis in international law. The UK has used its security council veto on 32 occasions since 1945. Any attempt to disregard these votes on the ground that they were "unreasonable" would have been deplored as an unacceptable infringement of the UK's right to exercise a veto under UN charter article 27.
A decision to undertake military action in Iraq without proper security council authorisation will seriously undermine the international rule of law. Of course, even with that authorisation, serious questions would remain. A lawful war is not necessarily a just, prudent or humanitarian war.
Prof Ulf Bernitz, Dr Nicolas Espejo-Yaksic, Agnes Hurwitz, Prof Vaughan Lowe, Dr Ben Saul, Dr Katja Ziegler
University of Oxford
Prof James Crawford, Dr Susan Marks, Dr Roger O'Keefe
University of Cambridge
Prof Christine Chinkin, Dr Gerry Simpson, Deborah Cass
London School of Economics
Dr Matthew Craven
School of Oriental and African Studies
Prof Philippe Sands, Ralph Wilde
University College London
Prof Pierre-Marie Dupuy
University of Paris
What are these teachers of international law saying about palestinian and saudi suicide - bombers pilots ? If international low is helpless or useless when facing terrorism or reckless terroristic states like Iraq or North Korea then new laws must be created.
When Hitler was taking every country in Europe under his control one by one there were teachers of international law who advocated of not irritating Hitler.
France did not mind too much to be under Nazi ruling and successfully collaborated in exterminating Jews and other german projects.
After the end of the WW2 and 40 millions dead it seemed that people learnt some lesson. If Americans attacked the damn taliban before 9/11 there would have been a public outcry against it.
I do not want to die with a big number of people in USA just to give the moral justification to the world (especially France) to take out one jerk. As a person who lived a grate number of years under ruling of some communist jerks I can say that people deserve the ruler that they have. Hitler or Stalin would never appear in democratic society.
When Hitler was taking every country in Europe under his control one by one there were teachers of international law who advocated of not irritating Hitler.
France did not mind too much to be under Nazi ruling and successfully collaborated in exterminating Jews and other german projects.
After the end of the WW2 and 40 millions dead it seemed that people learnt some lesson. If Americans attacked the damn taliban before 9/11 there would have been a public outcry against it.
I do not want to die with a big number of people in USA just to give the moral justification to the world (especially France) to take out one jerk. As a person who lived a grate number of years under ruling of some communist jerks I can say that people deserve the ruler that they have. Hitler or Stalin would never appear in democratic society.
tell these people you are from canada, and are a canadian sympathizer, who disagrees with US policy. Everything you say flows from there.
You are anti-US, and I wish I could bitch slap you for it. You canadians need to be alot more cooperative, or you're just another mexico to the US.
The US needs NO PERMISSION to goto war against iraq. Permission???? are you folks insane?
You are anti-US, and I wish I could bitch slap you for it. You canadians need to be alot more cooperative, or you're just another mexico to the US.
The US needs NO PERMISSION to goto war against iraq. Permission???? are you folks insane?