US and Poland sign missile shield deal

1) Resolution 1483 did not legalize the invasion per se. It said that the Coalition was the de facto government at that time so it could effectively manage the administration of Iraq to minimize further losses by granting them the appropriate rights.
I agree, I was just making the point that no world legal body (for lack of a better term) has found or claimed the war was illegal.
2) The US signed the UN Charter -> pacta sunt servanda principle. So it is not required for you to vote on it. The US government at that time was legally elected and had the power to sign the charter, which is an internationally binding treaty.
Yes, but only as far as the US Constitution allows.
3) A single nation or group of nations does not have the authority to enforce resolutions on its own. It absolutely needs permission by the Security Council to use force.
The US gov says it did have permission. No, I don't buy that either, but no ruling has said otherwise. (because US has veto power :lol:, yes I know)
4) Of course the US can´t be dragged before the ICC, I agree there. Because the US didn´t sign the ICC statute in the first place, so they are not subject to it. Additionally, the Iraq invasion is NOT a war crime (which is what the ICC is for), please don´t get me wrong. But the US IS subject to the ICJ, if someone decided to accuse the US. Which nobody will do, I suppose.
Well the US pulled out of compulsory jurisdiction in 1986. Yes the UNSC can force a ruling, but the US has veto power (:lol:, yes I know)
5) The UN DID pass a resolution banning the use of force without permission by the security council, in addition to 2.4 -> the Friendly Relations Declaration, which counts as codified customary law.
See (3)

Look man, I'm just saying "International law" is a somewhat silly term. See reasons above.
 
The whole point of the UN is to prevent another world war. This is done by making sure that any war goes through them first, and if they approve it, then it's acceptable (which is why we have countries from both sides with Veto powers: US and Russia for example). When a country ignores this, it severely compromises the effectiveness and reliability of the UN.

Legal or illegal, the Americans don't seem to care about the UN and its mission of preventing another World War, because of the invasion of Iraq.
 
Thanks for your answer!

Well, "illegal" was perhaps not the correct term anyway. That implies penal jurisdiction which (except for the ICC) does not exist in international law after all. And even ICJ decisions are not binding in the sense that they can´t really be enforced. But I can´t think of a proper English term right now. Perhaps something like unwarranted aggression (still undefined by the ILC though) or treaty violation (a bit over the top perhaps).

I wouldn´t say it´s a silly term, but it certainly leaves a lot to be desired. Especially the way the Security Council works. But I can´t think of something better myself... a pure majority vote when world peace is at stake would be simply crazy, but the current system where a few more or less arbitrarily chosen nations can blockade everything is not good as well. And a "weighted vote" system like in the EU wouldn´t really solve the problem.
 
I wouldn´t say it´s a silly term, but it certainly leaves a lot to be desired. Especially the way the Security Council works. But I can´t think of something better myself... a pure majority vote when world peace is at stake would be simply crazy, but the current system where a few more or less arbitrarily chosen nations can blockade everything is not good as well. And a "weighted vote" system like in the EU wouldn´t really solve the problem.

It's made like that on purpose.

Suppose that the US wants to invade a strategic country that will benefit them militarily. Russia vetoes it. All is well.

Suppose that there is a country that is genuinely evil that need to be invaded and stopped. Everyone agrees, and it's invaded. All is well.

That's how you keep the peace.
 
International law :lol:

And who gets to make International law? I don't remember voting for any International government. I don't remember there being a amendment to the US Constitution saying that the US government or the US Constitution it's self is superseded by any higher power.

You mean International treaties? Sure,.. umm maybe. The UN hasn't passed any resolution saying it was illegal. Nor have any (world) courts ruled the war illegal, see Legality of the Iraq War

Now the UN did pass resolution 1483 which some see as the UN legitimizing the war.

Now I do believe the war to be illegal. The US congress never declared war on Iraq. I just don't buy this magical International law argument that somehow supersedes the US Constitution in the US.

yes you have a say in it, at least according to the way our democracies work.....You vote for a president, president helps make international laws..as do other people
When you vote for them you should realize they have this power, because they are high ranking officals
 
It's made like that on purpose.

Suppose that the US wants to invade a strategic country that will benefit them militarily. Russia vetoes it. All is well.

Suppose that there is a country that is genuinely evil that need to be invaded and stopped. Everyone agrees, and it's invaded. All is well.

That's how you keep the peace.

I think it´s getting increasingly uneffective. One might get the impression that it´s just an instrument for the permanent SC members to further their interests. Let´s assume Iran decides to invade ... someone. Greenland, for instance. Now Russia blocks every attempt to sanction Iran because they´re getting along rather well. Basically the SC just covers the actions of the current and former superpowers. What should be done now? Back in the Korean War the general assembly decided to ignore the paralysed SC and passed a resolution on their behalf. But this isn´t a really good solution as well (majority vote) and hasn´t been done since then.

Result I: deadlock
Result II: everyone just does what he would have done without the UN anyway.
Where is the point?
 
The point is that the UN looks good on paper and in the media. But really its pretty ineffective.
 
I don't know, A1CBOZ, the NCAA is pretty bad also...well okay they got march madness right at least.
 
0,,3179636_4,00.jpg


Looks like the Polish are going to need that missile shield.
 
In exchange for providing the base, Poland would get what the two sides called “enhanced security cooperation,” notably a top-of-the-line Patriot air defense system that can shoot down shorter-range missiles or attacking fighters or bombers.

A senior Pentagon official described an unusual part of this quid pro quo: an American Patriot battery would be moved from Germany to Poland, where it would be operated by a crew of about 100 American military personnel members. The expenses would be shared by both nations. American troops would join the Polish military, at least temporarily, at the front lines — facing east toward Russia.The attacks — some witnessed by reporters or documented by a human rights group — include stealing, the burning of villages and possibly even killings. Some are ethnically motivated, while at least some of the looting appears to be the work of profiteers in areas from which the authorities have fled.
So it's not just a missile shield. Patriot batteries are most certainly meant to be used against Russia.
 
I think it´s getting increasingly uneffective. One might get the impression that it´s just an instrument for the permanent SC members to further their interests. Let´s assume Iran decides to invade ... someone. Greenland, for instance. Now Russia blocks every attempt to sanction Iran because they´re getting along rather well. Basically the SC just covers the actions of the current and former superpowers. What should be done now? Back in the Korean War the general assembly decided to ignore the paralysed SC and passed a resolution on their behalf. But this isn´t a really good solution as well (majority vote) and hasn´t been done since then.

Result I: deadlock
Result II: everyone just does what he would have done without the UN anyway.
Where is the point?

The idea is that there will be no war that will benefit one of the opposing sides (suppose West-Russia is all there is). The only way there will be such a war is if it's genuinely necessary, or if there are compromises made to make sure the benefits aren't reaped by only one side. Thus, you avoid all wars except the most humanitarian, and without political wars, you cannot prompt a world war.
 
So it's not just a missile shield. Patriot batteries are most certainly meant to be used against Russia.

yes and no, lets face the truth poland is very weak military, we have only 3 navy army ships in full operation mode, our air defenses are utterly useless and we have only 6 six f 16 we might just be a little better off then georgia but not by much, those patriots will serve as defenses not just from russia but any one else period and like i said before those patriots will not be temporary but permanent tats the only way poland would agree to the interceptor bases

any way russia is not worried about the patriots, shes paranoid about the interceptor bases which totally unreasonable, military experts have said tat it cant pose a treat to russia even the russians know tat, they simply dont want any major american presents in the region tats all and they are using the fear of the interceptor bases as an excuse
 
Actually, as far as I remember, you did the best from all other communist countries in terms of economy. Also, during this time you have built strong industry. Isolation from Western Europe meant that you had no competition from such industry powers as Germany.

Imagine if the the Czechs had been allowed to participate in the Marshall Plan. Imagine if they had been allowed to rebuild their industry to their needs and not Moscow’s. Imagine if they had been allowed to export their goods to Western markets on their terms.

You know when Soviet troops marched into Poland, they were surprised at how much better the Polish farmers were doing comparatively to themselves? Who would have guessed that kulakization was a poor, reprehensible, policy?

Similarly, when the Soviets took over the foresting industry, they totally destroyed and ruined the environment. An industry that self-regulated and maintained the forests was pushed aside by Soviet bureaucracy and ended up heavily damaging the forests and left rusting unused lumber mills across the Russian steppes.

Perhaps Russia should come to terms with the economic, cultural, and political retardation it forced upon Eastern Europe during the last half century.
 
It's made like that on purpose.

Suppose that the US wants to invade a strategic country that will benefit them militarily. Russia vetoes it. All is well.

Suppose that there is a country that is genuinely evil that need to be invaded and stopped. Everyone agrees, and it's invaded. All is well.

That's how you keep the peace.


Dude, have you forgotten about the Korean war?
 
Back in the Korean War the general assembly decided to ignore the paralysed SC and passed a resolution on their behalf. But this isn´t a really good solution as well (majority vote) and hasn´t been done since then.

No. I thought Russia boycotted the UN for the UN's refusal to recognize PRC as the legitimate government of China. Thus, Russia was unable to veto the measure to repel the North Koreans.
 
Hm. Well, there was an instance where the general assembly acted that way and I thought it was because of the Korean War. But I could be wrong, I have to look it up again in which particular event it did that. I only know for sure it DID :D.
 
And an interesting pre-invasion take on recent US and Russian moves:
CATO said:
Poking the Bear

by Ted Galen Carpenter

Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of eight books on international affairs, including Smart Power: Toward a Prudent Foreign Policy for America (2008).

Few people want to return to the animosity and tensions that marked relations between Washington and Moscow throughout the cold war. But clumsy policies by both the United States and Russia now threaten to bring back those unhappy days. The Bush administration presses for further expansion of NATO to Russia's border and is meddling in parochial disputes between Russia and its small neighbor, Georgia. For its part, the Medvedev/Putin regime shows signs of trying to cause headaches for the United States in the Caribbean.

Both governments need to back off. Condoleezza Rice dismisses the concept of spheres of influence as an obsolete notion, but that doctrine is very much alive. U.S. and Russian leaders ignore that reality at their peril.

Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of eight books on international affairs, including Smart Power: Toward a Prudent Foreign Policy for America (2008).
More by Ted Galen Carpenter

If a new cold war emerges, Washington will deserve most of the blame because of policies it has pursued since the mid-1990s. But Russia has now become needlessly provocative as well. The dark hints last week that it might station bombers in Cuba is utterly reckless. For Americans, even the possibility that Moscow might deploy a nuclear-capable weapon system in Cuba brings back memories of the most nightmarish episode of the cold war — the Cuban missile crisis. No American government would tolerate such a move — nor should it. Moscow's growing flirtation with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, an obnoxious nemesis of the United States, is less provocative but still creates gratuitous tensions.

Those moves likely reflect mounting Russian anger at U.S. policies that seem calculated to undermine Russia's influence in its own backyard and humiliate Moscow. Washington's "in your face" approach is not a recent development. U.S. officials took advantage of Russia's economic and military disarray during the 1990s to establish a dominant position in Central and Eastern Europe. Washington successfully engineered the admission of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to NATO in 1998 — over the Yeltsin government's objections. That expansion of the alliance was nonprovocative, though, compared to the second round earlier this decade that incorporated Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, entities that had been part of the Soviet Union.

NATO expansion was not the only manifestation of contempt for Russia's interests during the 1990s. So too was Western policy in the Balkans — traditionally a key region of concern to Moscow. In 1995, NATO forces intervened in Bosnia's civil war to the clear disadvantage of the Serbs, Russia's long-standing coreligionists and political allies. And then in 1999, the United States and its allies waged an air war against Serbia, ultimately wrenching away its restive province of Kosovo.

Although Russia's political elite was furious at such behavior, given the weakness of the country, they could do little except issue impotent complaints. But that situation has changed. The country is much stronger both economically and militarily than it was a decade ago, and Moscow has begun to push back. For example, it has emphasized that Washington's attempt to gain NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia crosses a bright red line and will not be tolerated.

Both Russia and the United States are engaged in grotesquely immature behavior.

Unfortunately, U.S. policy makers don't seem to grasp that the power relationship is different than it was in the 1990s. In just the past month, the Bush administration has pressed forward with plans to deploy missile-defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, a move that Russia views as an attempt to degrade the effectiveness of its strategic nuclear forces. In response, Moscow has warned Warsaw and Prague that it will target both countries for retaliation in wartime.

Washington's Balkan policy has also remained shockingly insensitive. In February, the United States and its leading European allies bypassed the UN Security Council (and hence, Russia's veto) to grant Kosovo independence. Russia responded by rallying other countries who worry about that precedent with regard to their own secessionist-minded minorities and has blocked Kosovo's entry into various international organizations. Thanks in part to Moscow's lobbying, only forty-three governments have recognized Kosovo's independence — most of them long-standing U.S. allies and clients.

Russian leaders also are showing Washington that Moscow can exploit the Kosovo precedent. In recent months, Russia has stepped up its support for Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two secessionist regions in neighboring Georgia. Unfortunately, instead of beating a graceful diplomatic retreat, the Bush administration has responded with further meddling, even dispatching one thousand U.S. troops for joint training exercises with Georgia's military.

One could scarcely imagine an issue with less relevance to genuine American interests than the political status of two obscure regions in a small country on Russia's border. Likewise, it is difficult to imagine what genuine Russian interests justify Moscow's bid to forge closer ties with the likes of Cuba and Venezuela. Both Russia and the United States are engaged in grotesquely immature behavior. We are not yet in a new cold war, but unless the two governments adopt far more responsible policies, they may soon produce that tragic outcome.
Should the US do anything? Is action too risky in this case, and should Georgia have known that their US support would be weak in the case of a Russian invasion?

I'm not sure I agree that the US shouldn't have expanded Western influence into ex-Soviet territories, but perhaps the US should not be putting too much into this conflict and focus more on Europe proper.
 
Back
Top Bottom