Originally Posted by ganeil
The inadvertant killing of non-combatants is not considered immoral under the Just War theory. You are correct that this has no bearing on international law but sure made a difference to me.
Can you tell me where you find a legal definition of war? The US Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war but makes no provisions for how such a declaration is to be worded. Both operations, in Afghanistan and Iraq, were clearly provided for by the Congress. Does calling the resolution an Authorization to Use Military Force rather than a Declaration of War change its constitutional character or it impact under international law?
The UN Security Council passed UNSCR 1441 in Nov 2002 unanimously. This resolution found Iraq to be in material breach of it obligations under UNSCR 687. Under 1441, the Security Council demanded Iraq provide, "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles..." and to cooperate “immediately, unconditionally and actively” with UN ispectors(UNMOVIC). The final report by UNMOVIC submitted prior to the invasion found that Iraq had NOT complied with the requirements of 1441 and therefore Iraq remained in material breach of 687. From a legal standpoint, no further UN resolution was required to resume the activities authorized by UNSCR 678 since Iraq had not complied with UNSCR 687 which suspended those activities. As a political matter, many world leaders like Tony Blair wanted another UN resolution to provide domestic political cover but the lack of one does not equate to a violation of the UN Charter or any other treaty to which the US is obligated.
Christ man, are you a freiken Robot or something???
tra, tra, tra...
This is the definition, this is the formula ...according to definition killing innocent it OK... Wake up, killing a single human as an error has no price tag on it and cannot be justified EVER! War theory??? BULL SHIT!
As for your numbers and UNSCR crap -- again, it sounds terrific, however, if it were true then we would have all nations putting efforts into this mess from the beginning and it would have been clean by now. On the other hand, it is a two-nation show pretty much and a total mess. The terrorists (or whoever) killed 3000 innocent Americans, then we killed (or sent them directly to be killed) another 4000 robots or soldiers if you will and Bush and company are only pretending they care that their families will have to live without father or mother or brother or sister.
The UN is formed simply for one reason -- so that the most powerful will not use that power to opress the rest -- every invasion would HAVE to be approved by the UN and Security Councel. This agression never was. Of course, Bush and co prepared us (or general public) very well -- French are cowards, Germans are scared, blah blah -- omitting to say -- maybe they respect the rules and the will of their own people?! Bush clearly stated -- either you're in this with us or we consider you an enemy -- basically saying I don't give a shit about any approval...
Again, you and I will probably not witness this, but one day the US (most likely) may not be this world power and others will toy with us as we're toying with them. And, unfortunately, my child, or their children may end up slaving for someone thanks to the evil doind of our generation (spending, attacking, opressing, ignorance, global warming, drilling...)