Dutch inquiry says Iraq war not legal

**dirtydog** · 13-01-2010, 02:33 AM

Dutch inquiry says Iraq war had no mandate

Jan-Peter Balkenende lent political support to the Iraq war

An inquiry into the Netherlands' support for the invasion of Iraq says it was not justified by UN resolutions.

The Dutch Committee of Inquiry on Iraq said UN Security Council resolutions did not "constitute a mandate for... intervention in 2003".

The inquiry was launched after foreign ministry memos were leaked that cast doubt on the legal basis for the war.

The Netherlands gave political support to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but had no military role.

The report demolishes the Dutch case for supporting the invasion, says the BBC's Europe correspondent Jonny Dymond.

It could also be taken to reinforce the international case against the Iraq war, he says.

The report accuses ministers of a selective use of intelligence reports, and says Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende "gave little or no leadership to debates over the Iraq question", which was steered by the foreign minister at the time, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

Mr Balkenende formally thanked the committee for its report, but said he needed time to study it before responding.

Political loyalty

Mr Balkenende decided to join the "coalition of the willing" assembled by US President George W Bush because, he said, Saddam Hussein had consistently flouted UN resolutions and possessed weapons of mass destruction.

The Dutch parliament opposed the decision to back the invasion.

Committee chairman, Willibrord Davids, said the Netherlands' loyalty to its alliance with the US and UK had taken precedence over the need to ensure the legality of the invasion.

The committee said there had been no UN mandate for the attack, putting the decision to join at odds with international law.

It said "the wording of [UN Security Council] Resolution 1441 cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military force".

Iraq's alleged breach of Resolution 1441, which gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations", was used by the coalition, and the Netherlands, to justify its invasion.

However, a memo from the time by Dutch foreign ministry lawyers, subsequently leaked, suggested the war was in fact illegal under international law.

The inquiry said there was no evidence to support rumours that the Dutch military took part in the invasion.

While the government has always said its military was not involved, questions had been raised because Dutch troops were taking part in exercises nearby at the time.

Dutch forces became part of the stabilisation force that was deployed to Iraq in the years after the war.

The Dutch parliament is likely now to consider whether the prime minister misled parliament, and whether to launch a formal parliamentary inquiry.

BBC News - Dutch inquiry says Iraq war had no mandate

**sabang** · 13-01-2010, 03:26 AM

Yes they should but no they won't.

The reality of international law is that it is Orwellian- some animals are more equal than others. In UN terms, these animals are the five that have permanent seats on the UN Security council (or their favoured lapdogs). They have the absolute right of veto over any UN Security council resolutions- thus rendering international law, at least as it pertains to Sovereign entities, effectively impotent.

**dirtydog** · 13-01-2010, 03:34 AM

^But if it was illegal then what they done was on par with saddam, and they hung him, time to get out the ropes for Bush and Blair I reckon

**woodenshoe** · 13-01-2010, 07:52 AM

First time in about 60 yrs the Dutch army went out to fight without a UN mandate.
That rat Balkenende and his mate de Hoop-scheffer should face the consequences.

**AntRobertson** · 13-01-2010, 08:06 AM

Good to see that the Dutch have held an inquiry to reconfirm what has been known for years.

**Agent_Smith** · 13-01-2010, 09:24 AM

Nice of them to finally get around to it after....almost 7 years.

**blackgang** · 13-01-2010, 09:56 AM

Who gives a fuck anyway?
What is the difference in Legal war and illegal war??
Does one die deader in one than the other??
What a batch of shit.

**AntRobertson** · 13-01-2010, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by blackgang

What is the difference in Legal war and illegal war??

Quite a bit actually, particularly when you're purporting to be on the side of 'Good' Vs. 'Evil', 'Freedom' Vs. 'Tyranny' and all that stuff.

**BobR** · 13-01-2010, 10:05 AM

The USA has no moral credibility whatsoever until Bush and company are turned over to an international court for a war crimes trial. Of all the theories I've heard, the most credible real reason for the war seems to be the fact Saddam was selling oil for Euros instead of dollars. If the dollar was ever replaced as the World's reserve currency the American economy would implode overnight. On the other hand, there is no longer any rational reason for the dollar to be used in that capacity. To say that the USA has abused that privilege is an incredible understatement.

America's days as a great nation are finished, now it is nothing more than a menace to the rest of the World.

**aras** · 13-01-2010, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by woodenshoe

First time in about 60 yrs the Dutch army went out to fight without a UN mandate.
That rat Balkenende and his mate de Hoop-scheffer should face the consequences.

Balkenende said on dutch tv that he did not oversee the dicision making proces in this matter because he was busy with other stuff like the budget

but he left it to the hoop-scheffer

the minister of foreign afaires lol

there are so many lies about this iraq war, a few here
saddam did let the inspectors inspect the facilities ( sometimes he played them a bit but eventually no, they inspected everything) they came with their findings just before the war that there were no mass distruction wapons etc and that the traces all indicate that it was cleaned up years a go ( this is a fact)

at last to pressure iraq even more so to be able to start the invasion, they prohibited the sale of batterie, chewing gums, tyres of bycicle and cars and a long list of just about everything ( att the time this was on cnn and never disputed ) because they could be used in a alternative manner in the sence of using toys and chewing gum to make bomb. This is possible but iraq was technologycally not that retarded not to be able to make bombs by themselves

ater inspecting all the militairy and civilian facilities, they wanted unrestricted acces to saddams palaces and a total openness in his collection of letters, notes etc etc a pure way to force him not to cooperate ( in this case which can be humuliating for anyone he didn't comply)

funny thing was saddam didn't shoot american airplaines down, whay do you think? weird

ps. saddam was a sick bastard and uday his son was worst than him. aha do you remember how many bullets were shot on the house and the bodies of saddams 2 sons and his grand son.......was it so hard to arrest them ( 2 guys and a kid against the mighty us army?!!!) with a bit gass or what ever they could have got he alive, but instead they where shot many many times and had to be fixed up so anybody could recognise them lol ( remind me of the murder of the blackpanther spokesman by us police long time ago, do'n't remember the date/name lol some of you might remember.

America has said to the dutch government that if a american citizen would be jailed by the international court in the hague, they would free him/her by a militairy operation loooooool dutch people were shocked

**aras** · 13-01-2010, 10:24 AM

bob the war had nothing to do with getting the oil or the currency used for trading it euro/dollar . The west could buy really really cheap oil in those times ( 9 dollars sometimes 10/13/14 etc edventually it went over 140. The iraqi oil was even cheaper because it was illegal/couterfit lol

No one can give a undisputed account of wat made the us to invade iraq ( come on it was not a war, just a invation and a take over ). There were many factors altogether you might say. For me the main factor would be not a rational one like oil, political stability or a power show to the world. It was a great deal of sick people wanting to wage war and change the way politics were conducted by winning a easy victory from a enemy which sounded strong and dangerous to he world. Richard pearl/ paul wolfowitz and their kind. It was a internal thing mostly in pentagong. There is no other way that i can explaine this, nobody would gain anything by even succesful completion of all this as planned, but the people who favour a more active and agressive america. the american empire let's say

good night
god bless america, and no place else loooool

**larvidchr** · 13-01-2010, 11:11 AM

It would be wrong to think that UN in all cases are the only authority to decide if a war is legal or not, since an awful lot of the country's represented in the UN is not democratic states but run by loony religious nutters and mad dictators, in the security counsel Russia and China are 2 of the permanent 5 members just to give examples of how ridiculous it is to pin all your hopes for reasonable decision making in the UN.

There are situations where the true democratic nations have to circumvent and ignore the UN, if ever the UN ended up consisting of only true democratic nations we could say that they could have a mandate to act like the decisive body in conflicts around the world, but as it is now no.

So this report from a Dutch free pot café is worth no more than propaganda supporting an enemy in difficult times, and you have to wonder what the political motives behind it really is, and how "smoke" clouded the minds of the people behind the report are, best scenario is that it will cost another lot of lives spurring on the insurgents in Iraq to renewed fighting, the timing of this report is at best insane and at worst deadly for some.

**Butterfly** · 13-01-2010, 11:18 AM

2003 would be remembered by all as the year the Western democracies have jumped the gun and acted like little rogue dictatorships, with the UK and the US leading the charge

if I was British, I wouldn't be too proud

**larvidchr** · 13-01-2010, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by BobR

The USA has no moral credibility whatsoever until Bush and company are turned over to an international court for a war crimes trial. Of all the theories I've heard, the most credible real reason for the war seems to be the fact Saddam was selling oil for Euros instead of dollars. If the dollar was ever replaced as the World's reserve currency the American economy would implode overnight. On the other hand, there is no longer any rational reason for the dollar to be used in that capacity. To say that the USA has abused that privilege is an incredible understatement.

America's days as a great nation are finished, now it is nothing more than a menace to the rest of the World.

That would have to include the leaders of United Kingdom- Australia- Denmark- Poland and Spain + the 36 country's that became involved in the occupation after the invasion itself like Norway-Thailand- Holland-Italy-Hungary-Slovakia-New Zealand- Portugal, it is just not going to happen.

**mao say dung** · 13-01-2010, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by BobR

America's days as a great nation are finished, now it is nothing more than a menace to the rest of the World.

Is there an English word for the heady mixture of Schadenfreude, wishful thinking and dumber'n'hammers that this little text represents? I wish there were.

**Norton** · 13-01-2010, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by dirtydog

Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende "gave little or no leadership to debates over the Iraq question"

Jan-Peter was just part of the overwhelming majority of leaders guilty of this.

**dirtydog** · 13-01-2010, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by blackgang

Who gives a fuck anyway? What is the difference in Legal war and illegal war?? Does one die deader in one than the other?? What a batch of shit.

Quite right blackgang, I think we should consider those poor Saudies who died during 9/11 as war heroes, oh, you mean that was a terrorist action? So on your thinking terrorist actions are wrong? erm, so what was Bush and Blairs thing then?

**Perota** · 13-01-2010, 11:43 AM

Who is responsible for the war in Iraq ? It is simple, who profits more for this war?

Easy : Iran !

- Iraq has always been Iran's sworn enemy
- Once the west is busy fighting Iraq, it has no more resources to fight with Iran
- This war unites the Muslim world against the west
- This war can't be won, the western armies lost all credibility for future conflicts
- This war can't be won, the west won't support an other war against Iran
- And last but not least, one of Bush lead adviser has since defected to Iran

**Butterfly** · 13-01-2010, 11:54 AM

The Iraq war did provide all the time they needed for Iran to produce WMD,

oh the irony !!!

**The Muffinman** · 13-01-2010, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by dirtydog

^But if it was illegal then what they done was on par with saddam, and they hung him, time to get out the ropes for Bush and Blair I reckon

Can we please add Cheney and Rumsfeld to that list too?

And if they need someone to kick the chair from underneath them, I'm available.

**blackgang** · 13-01-2010, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by dirtydog

Originally Posted by blackgang Who gives a fuck anyway? What is the difference in Legal war and illegal war?? Does one die deader in one than the other?? What a batch of shit.

Originally Posted by dirtydog

Quite right blackgang, I think we should consider those poor Saudies who died during 9/11 as war heroes, oh, you mean that was a terrorist action? So on your thinking terrorist actions are wrong? erm, so what was Bush and Blairs thing then?

Just as I said, who gives a fuck anyway, they were killing each other before the WAR and are still doing it today, and Yes, Iran is the only one that has profited from it,
So what does it make any difference, and where is any thing being done any differently now that the Admin has went to the other side, things still run the same way and every one is guilty, so why point fingers,, sounds like the Fickle Finger in Thai news.

**Marmite the Dog** · 13-01-2010, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

if I was British, I wouldn't be too proud

I would be inclined to agree if I didn't have the fact that Britain civilised the world to fall back on.

**larvidchr** · 13-01-2010, 02:29 PM

Some of the world

**Butterfly** · 13-01-2010, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

if I didn't have the fact that Britain civilised the world to fall back on.

that was a long time ago, and once you even were the bitch for France, so better to forget the past sometimes

**Humbert** · 13-01-2010, 02:45 PM

I can think of nothing that would stir up divisivness more in the U.S. and Britain than putting these guys on trial. A trial would serve no purpose except to inflame emotions on both sides. Hopefully people will focus more on the present than the past.

View Poll Results: Should Bush and Blair face trial as war criminals?

Thread: Dutch inquiry says Iraq war not legal

Thread Tools

Display

Dutch inquiry says Iraq war not legal

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions