Bizarre War-Related Hypothetical Question

[Mona Lisa]

OK, so it looks like the UN is gonna tell us to just sit back and settle down and so we're gonna invade Iraq anyway. So if I'm understanding this correctly, and feel free to jump in here and correct me at any time if I'm getting something wrong, as far as the UN is concerned that would make this an illegal war, right? Well, as I was getting ready for bed a thought that had simply never occurred to me up to this point popped into my head, and left me stunned, perplexed, and just a little befuddled. What would happen if the UN got a wild hair and actually mounted a defense of Iraq? I've tried really hard, and I still can't bring this notion anywhere close to the realm of realistic possibility, but what if? What kind of forces could they bring into play? I know neither jack nor shit about military stuff or international diplomacy, so I'd love to hear from some of you who do about this.

 

[scrymettet]

American veto.

 

[Mona Lisa]

They didn't write a loophole in to prevent the permanant members of the security council from automatically vetoing any action against them? Man, if I were Luxembourg that would scare the SHIT out of me! That's like a lifetime "get out of jail free" card for the countries who can already do whatever the fuck they want .

 

[Xstatic]

They didn't write a loophole in to prevent the permanant members of the security council from automatically vetoing any action against them? Man, if I were Luxembourg that would scare the SHIT out of me! That's like a lifetime "get out of jail free" card for the countries who can already do whatever the fuck they want .

I don't know whether they wrote in a loophole or not (although it wouldn't surprise me in the least), but they wouldn't need it in your hypothetical scenario, because the action is 'defending Iraq', not 'attacking American forces'.

Mind you, it would put the US in an 'interesting' position, wouldn't it? They'd have to explain why...

 

[Mona Lisa]

It would be quite interesting, and under other circumstances (say, a Kubrick Cold War satire) might be highly amusing to watch. But right now I'm just kinda hoping that my idiot cousin makes it home to see his baby girl for the first time, so i'm just as happy keeping things hypothetical.

 

[Xstatic]

It would be quite interesting, and under other circumstances (say, a Kubrick Cold War satire) might be highly amusing to watch. But right now I'm just kinda hoping that my idiot cousin makes it home to see his baby girl for the first time, so i'm just as happy keeping things hypothetical.

Agreed, agreed...

It has been suggested, by numerous people in numerous periods, that wars might not happen if those who gave the orders were on the front lines themselves...

A pity it's never likely to happen...

 

[someplace]

*smoochies ML!*

Hasn't the UN already sanctioned Iraq in 14-someodd resolutions? I think that would have some bearing on your scenario. I hope your cousin comes home soon too.

 

[teddybear4play]

OK, so it looks like the UN is gonna tell us to just sit back and settle down and so we're gonna invade Iraq anyway. So if I'm understanding this correctly, and feel free to jump in here and correct me at any time if I'm getting something wrong, as far as the UN is concerned that would make this an illegal war, right? Well, as I was getting ready for bed a thought that had simply never occurred to me up to this point popped into my head, and left me stunned, perplexed, and just a little befuddled. What would happen if the UN got a wild hair and actually mounted a defense of Iraq? I've tried really hard, and I still can't bring this notion anywhere close to the realm of realistic possibility, but what if? What kind of forces could they bring into play? I know neither jack nor shit about military stuff or international diplomacy, so I'd love to hear from some of you who do about this.

It would be a bit more likely if the entire UN were against us. As it stands, it's simply France, Russia, China, and a handful of second-tier nations. It's not like it's us against the world.

They'd never stand up and defend Iraq. Which begs the question of why they're going to the mat for them diplomatically.

TB4p

 

[Somme]

Of course it's illegal. I'll argue the toss with anyone who hasn't bothered to read...in fact I can drown folk with sufficient information to prove that this war is not only illegal but MOST immoral.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

There is nothing in the U.N. charter or International Law that supercedes U.S. soverienty. "Illegal" doesn't mean anything. And "Immoral" is an affected label that bespeaks an immature appreciation of the situation.

 

[The Plunger]

Of course it's illegal. I'll argue the toss with anyone who hasn't bothered to read...in fact I can drown folk with sufficient information to prove that this war is not only illegal but MOST immoral.

'


There isn't one thing illegal about continuing the fighting that ended with the 1991 Cease Fire agreement. Look at the history of the UN, two times they have had approval the rest of the time countries did whatever they felt like, regardless how the UN felt about it.

 

[Guest]

Beware the massing armies of terrorists prepared to die for Islam and to rid the world of the true evil axis - the US!

 

[JazzManJim]

Of course it's illegal. I'll argue the toss with anyone who hasn't bothered to read...in fact I can drown folk with sufficient information to prove that this war is not only illegal but MOST immoral.

You're on.

Here's my opening and closing point.

Iraq has committed multiple violations of a cease-fire agreement. As with any cease-fire agreement, the aggrieved party (or parties - in this case including any member of the Gulf War Coalition) may immediately resume hostilities. They may even do so for perceived violations of the cease-fire (in the way North Korea has threatened to consider the cease-fire which ended the Korean Conflict void if the US took military steps to curtail its nuclear program).


MonaLisa - Let's assume that the UN decides to mount a military defense of Iraq. We'll put aside the unliklihood of that happening (for whatever reason) and just say that it's going to happen. In order for the UN to do that, they'd need troops and that's the real sticking point. The UN has no troops of its own. They're dependent on nations voluntarily sending troops to support UN decisions and I can't even begin to imagine that happening.

 

[Frimost]

The UN doesn’t have its own military force; it must beg each country individually to delegate units of their armed forces under their command. So any country participating would in effect be declaring war on the US as a nation and could not hide behind a UN banner.

 

[Blindinthedark]

I think it would be much more likely that the UN would place an economic sanction against the US.

Prob be the best way to stop the war too depending if the US complies seeing as they are not now.

At this point, if the US decides to invade, then the US has become Iraq and Iraq is Kuwait a decade ago. The war is illegal no matter what the circumstance.

If it came to a military action against the US, I would think that the States would back down first to save face. Unless they wanted to nuke the world which I'm pretty sure Bush doesn't want.

 

[The Plunger]

I think it would be much more likely that the UN would place an economic sanction against the US.

Who cares? Coming from the UN it's nothing more than a paper document that doesn't carry any consequences. I'd love to see US international aide pulled.

Prob be the best way to stop the war too depending if the US complies seeing as they are not now.

Ummm, complies with what?

At this point, if the US decides to invade, then the US has become Iraq and Iraq is Kuwait a decade ago. The war is illegal no matter what the circumstance.

Not illegal, try again

If it came to a military action against the US, I would think that the States would back down first to save face. Unless they wanted to nuke the world which I'm pretty sure Bush doesn't want.

Forgive me if I am having a hard time picturing this scenerio

 

[Frimost]

The world would never fuck with us, and even if they tried to face us militarily the rest of the world combined, every single nation not counting us could pool up their military forces and they still would not have the naval and airpower assets needed to confront us. We could lose a foreign war on foreign soil but no nation has the strategic reach to successfully invade the US mainland.

Its not just the US anyway, there are other nations contributing and the war we fight was declared in 1991, we had only a tenuous conditional ceasefire in place since 1991 where Iraq broke many if not all of those conditions.

 

[Blindinthedark]

[QUOTE
Who cares? Coming from the UN it's nothing more than a paper document that doesn't carry any consequences. I'd love to see US international aide pulled ... Ummm, complies with what?
As I said the sanction would only work if the US complies which of course they won't. The US government would never let the UN influence its decisions. But if ecomonic sanctions were placed on the US as it was in S. Africa and all nations complied then the US economy, which is a globally based one, will not do well.


Not illegal, try againIt is.


Forgive me if I am having a hard time picturing this scenerio That was conjecture based on a hypothetical question. It's not likely to happen but the US can't dream of fighting the world. It would lose.

 

[8ball]

Beware the massing armies of terrorists prepared to die for Islam and to rid the world of the true evil axis - the US!

Do you really, honestly believe this statement?

 

[teddybear4play]

It is.

How can it be? We're working off of UN Resoultions 1441 and 687.

TB4p

 

[Guest]

How can it be? We're working off of UN Resoultions 1441 and 687.

TB4p

Remember what happened to UB-218?

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Remember what happened to UB-218?

No, but U-40 was sunk by depth charges.

 

[Bobmi357]

A couple of points.

This is not the first time the UN has a permanent member of the security council take military action in direct opposition to the wishes of the UN.

- China in helping Korea
- France and Britain against Egypt over the Suez Canal in the 50's
- Russia against both Hungary and Chechoslovakia (sp?)
- China's invasion of Tibet

In every one of those cases the offending nation and or nations invoked article 51 of the UN charter which states.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

I, for one, do not believe Bush has made his case for a terrorist link to Iraq, BUT I can easily see the US invoking article 51 given the circumstances of 9/11.

In regard to the issue of an american veto, I seem to recall that if a member of the security council is being placed under a proposed sanction, then they have to sit out the vote. I could be wrong about this, but even if they did try to put sanctions on the US, so what? This entire episode with the UN & Iraq has pretty much proven to the public in the US that the UN is a worthless and ineffective organization. There are already several congressmen and senators questioning why we should remain in the UN following our dealing with Iraq.

Where it will go from here no one can say, but the simple fact is, when it comes down to it, there are legal loopholes that allow for one country to attack another AND tell the UN to piss off in the same breath.

Bob

 

[Lasher]

It makes you wonder if we're coming up on that League of Nations moment for the UN where everyone realizes that its relevance is limited to those who want it to be relevant.

The UN got lucky with Korea as the Soviets were off protesting something or other and didn't vote on the resolutions that authorized intervention in that conflict or the UN may have come out stillborn in its first and only real opportunity to date for collective security.

As far as the question on this thread... The UN is too busy hightailing everyone out of Iraq to even consider tying to put in, ummm... Peace Keepers. They've already pulled out the 200 or so Bangledeshi troops that were monitoring the border between Kuwait and Iraq.

 

[mbb308]

Hypothetically, if the war is found to be illegal, who's gonna come up with the cojones to bust W as a war criminal?