Legal basis for Iraq war

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Bravo_Bravo, May 27, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I'm having ( another ) internet scarp with some Pinkoes saying that the UK should not have invaded Iraq and soldiers should not have obeyed illegal orders.

    Can somebody with a Big Brane please help me argue the case?

    Cheers

    BB
     
  2. The legality of the present situation of both US & British troops in Iraq is on very thin ice. Ask Tony & Geroge where is the WMD!!!
     
  3. The war was approved by British parliament, during a lawfull procedure. So from point of view of British laws it is absolutely legal. It is a separate question was the war legal according to so called "international law". Anyway, British soldiers must obey namely British laws.

    I doubt that your opponent would be able to prove that the war was illegal from point of view of British law. So he would have to agree with your position.
     
  4. You can hardly call it a War, Is that how Tony bLIAR & George justify it. Pull all UK troops out now I say.
     
  5. Cheers Sergey.

    My thoughts where similar to yours.

    BB
     
  6. Two separate questions: (1) "the UK should not have invaded Iraq" and (2) "soldiers should not have obeyed illegal orders".

    Your "pinko" friends should take up any concerns about question (1) with Mr Blair/HM Government/The Labour Party.

    Question (2) is a nonsense IMO. I have said this before on ARRSE, and am happy to develop it further if needed.
     
  7. We went in looking for WMD we didnt find any, Fine but look at the flip side?
    If we hadnt gone in and he had nuked his neighbours how would all the peace protesters feel then??
    We did the same with Hitler and gave him the benefit of the doubt and look where that got us!!
     
  8. I've made the point about Parliament giving legitimacy; counter point is

    "Blair deliberately and knowingly misled parliament. He is a war criminal and should be charged as such. It is now pretty evident that the US planned to attack Iraq regardless of the UN as part of Bush's neo-Con 'war on terrorism' bullshit. Blair was sufficiently arogant, egotistical and stupid to side with Bush rather than the interests of his own country. He lied to us all and should be in the dock next to Hussain."
     
  9. It's a fair cop guv.
     
  10. UK troops followed legal orders, even if the war was illeagle (excuse spelling, im drunk) B_Liar is the criminal here and we just followed his orders. However, now we have made the mess, \i do not belive we can just walk away and leave it to rot, we have a duty to at least leave with some decree of order. IJ, get real, if we left now, the place would disintergrate
     
  11. Blair may have misled Parliament - that is a separate question to the legality of the war.

    The Commons vote for war does not confer any particular legality on the war however - declaration of war and deployment of troops is within the power of the Prime Minister alone, via the Royal Prerogative. However, it does provide a certain legitimacy - and even if Parliament were misled, that legitimacy still stands.

    In terms of international law...well, that all hangs on UNSCR 1441 and the resolutions passed before & after Gulf War 1.

    sm.
     
  12. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    I hate to say it but Sergey is just about right for once.

    And they are the lawmakers....

    However..... I still can't believe that both major parties believed the 45 mins claim - bugger, even someone in half a minute couldn't believe that cr@p. THick gits
     
  13. Cheers Smiffy - cut and posted....wait, out
     
  14. It's all a sorry mess. What is interesting is that Tony Blair and George Bush are trying to extracate themselves PDQ. Both are doing shiite in their respective political polls, coincidentally, the Iraqi parliament is getting its act together, and indeed have said that the Iraqis will be able to police all but two of their provinces (queue a visit by Blair) make that all of their provinces sooner rather than later, signalling the removal of foreign troops.

    Back at home, Blair thinks - lets try and empathise with the grass-roots by actually admitting that 'yes, we've made mistakes' - well okay we forgive you and give you an extra point or so in the opinion polls for being honest for once.

    Sent down a rabbitt hole? I reckon we were, the Spanish recognise that, and now so have the Italians. Pretty soon there'll be an alliance of two, but if Blair gets the elbow.......what then?
     

  15. I read 1441 a few days ago - Its hardly "cut and dried" - Could easily be argued that its intent was for the Security Council to reconsider at the end of the deadline.

    http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

    For me the Legal side will always come down to an argument between the lawyers. The morality of it is a lot easier. Was it morally justified to get rid of Saddam ? Yes, absolutely. Full stop, no argument.

    The criminal bit comes in the attempt to do the job on the cheap. The planning of what would happen post war and the resourcing of it - in Iraq and Afghanistan. It needed a modern "Marshall Plan" but the politicians were not up for it. Misery for the locals and 10 years of internal security policing for us.