cleanbluesky said:
This is opinion, and again goes to demonstrate how ambiguous the case of 'legailty' regarding the war. Also, what value is there to describing something as 'illegal' if there is nothing to enforce any 'justice' and no perscribed punishment for that illegality, as well as the fact that most significant contributing countries who compose the UN refusing to comment or recognise the 'illegality' of said war...
Therefore you will forgive me if I continue to diplomatically describe the case for legality or illegality of the war as 'ambiguous'
The legality is within the framework of international convention and treaty, to which the US and UK have, historically, been strong subscribers.
It is the framework that supports and protects fair international trade agreements, the framework that guards against unfettered acts of aggression, and the framework that protects the rights of individuals to life.
There may be no explicit punishment that the US will ever realistically face, but there is a court with jurisdiction. It's no surprise that the US desists in recognising the authority of the ICC, and has sought bilateral and unilateral agreements with so many countries, that no US serviceman, representative or citizen "sent" by the US, shall ever be sent by those countries to face the ICC.
Furthermore, the US, as a nation, faces a weakening of those laws and rules that protect its other interests abroad, and they are worth substantially more than the invasion of one tinpot ME country.
The legality is the fact that the US subsribed to those laws, chose to break them, and couldn't even make a credible arguement about it.
The UN has roundly condemned the war as illegal, as have the following countries:
- Russia
- China
- Pakistan
- Morocco
- Germany
- France
- New Zealand
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Belgium
- Canada
Our own Attorney General has been categorically unable to declare the war legal.
If, by "ambiguous", you mean "misunderstood", then I forgve you, wholeheartedly.
