KrustyKidd

Wondering where the quote of him saying that they ought to pull out was. Read the article and he only says better planning and how troops may not be heros to the Iraqi people anymore sort of thing. Links please. http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.as...m=10&y=2006 There. Still asking for the quote. There is none of him saying that. So not there.

You misread the War on Terror totally as the objective is not ot make it safer in the here and now but to safeguard it for future generations so they won't have to face a nuclear armed Islamic Jihadist armed world. What we face here today is nothing to what our children and grandchildren would face if we did nothing.

And when did the UNSC say that they did not empower the US to invade Iraq? I think these people ought to be taking their bitch up with the council as they were the ones who gave the order and authorized the action. Make it official rather than heresay. Make a resolution. Never stopped them before so what makes this case so special. You cited fear of the US but we all know that is unfounded as you gave France as your example and I shot that one out of the water with a link. It's the only body that can say that's not what it meant when it gave the authorization. Any other body is only mindreading if it attempts to try it. And hundreds of better qualified ones supporting it. I beg you to name yours and supply a link to them. The ones who have been put forth to me paled in comparrison to the ones the goverments used. In anticipated absense of a link from you I will supply you with some. Here, Left Wing supporting lawyer — Carl Messineo, Attorney, Partnership for Civil Justice Next Keir Starmer QC is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers specialising in international human rights law A quick google revealed he loves socialists and sways well away from international law specialization and in the ‘Mclibel’ case which took over seven years, one wonders how he is able to know a damm thing about international law.. Mclibel The Socialist Scholar And, some of my supporting legal people. May as well throw the Lord into that group too. He gave a damm good case, even if he started to back track later. One of Mine - Lord Goldsmith William H. Taft IV John C. Yoo Fredrick Lee Kurgis Security Council Resolution 1483 on the Rebuilding of Iraq A few more legal people can be added to this list as well - the lawyers of over 45 heads of state and their legal teams. All focused on one thing - keeping their leaders out of the docket at the Haugue beside Cigarette Girl and Milosivik. No kidding, you gloss over facts. That's why you don't have any as you have no idea of what one is do you? The US has been condemed for eight actions in the past fifteen years as I listed above and condemed for at least one of them. All brought forward by the UNSC. As well, a member talking as a single member is nothing. The UNSC made a resolution as an entire body. That entire body has to rule that is not what they meant in order to make it not legal or illegal. Good luck Bradco. You wished to talk legalities, instead you come out with 'this guy said this and that' about a world council ruling and expect that it will mean a damm thing legally. Nope. It is a court as it decides what to do about problems and it did decide that member states were autorhized to do whatever was need. If you have a problem with legality then you should be taking it up with them as they were the ones who gave the go ahead as a body. Here's a link as you as per usual have none. The rest of your post was rambling so I won't respond.

Slow down a bit please. One of the main basis for presidential elections and US politics is that a presient may only have two terms. Bush is halfway though his second now so there won't be another. Thanks.

Wondering where the quote of him saying that they ought to pull out was. Read the article and he only says better planning and how troops may not be heros to the Iraqi people anymore sort of thing. Links please.

The USNC is a court Myata, the highest on the planet and, they don't believe the US acted illegaly. In short, nobody with authority has even said a crime has been commited. So, it is legal and, certainly not illegal. Hence, all your's and Bradco's professor's grandiose plans and theories of who will be tired if 'this' and 'that' occurs is just what they are - dreams and fantasies without any basis of reality. I take it you were so intent on bolting for the door from your losing argument that you didn't bother to finish the sentence and the word you meant to add was 'unknown or undecided?' How about the option that they were approved, accepted, qualified by the UNSC and other postives that you cannot accept as it does not play with your beliefs. Therefore, any belief, no matter how much evidence and facts counter them cannot be real. You will note that I have supported all my contentions, beliefs and theories with links and news articles. You and Bradco had not one stinking link on this entire thread. Not one. In the place of an actual argument with proof you both go for the 'agree to disagree' and some song and dance of how there is no legal body able to deicde this when there is concilliatory posts to not look like fools. Well, both of you are wrong and can't come to grips with it. I'm not looking for you to say 'Krusty, damm you are right and I was wrong' but at least you can stop lobbing softball arguments out of desparation at me. It wastes not only your's and my time but bandwidth and reader's time as well.

Jdobbin JBG origionally said; Then you said; Then I said; This means that the heads of state for over ninty countries have aided the US in this endeavor. Not the UNSC. Basicly what I am saying in response to your post about the General is agreeing with JBG in that the military, intelligence and strategic portions of the invasion could have gone a lot better than they did, the overall rationale and objective is a good one and is widely supported. Bradco What's interesting is that so many on the right are quick to say Saddam was a key in the war on terro but really, he had nothing to do with it save being a dictator in the wrong place at the wrong time with a target painted on his head. Pretty much the US required a key piece of real estate with which to pressure Saudi Arabia with and, the options were few save, a dictator who was so vulnerable to action (as in fourteen resolutions all promising force if he did not comply) and invading Saudi Arabia itself to take on Al Queda there as the Saudis refused to take on this unpleasant task was not even an option. As well, but very secondary was the pain in the ass which Saddam was. Playing cat and mouse games while children died on CNN and drawing attention to himself while the US footed the bill was and, if played out long enough would have seen sanctions lifted and him up to the old games again of invasion and WMD aquisition. In order to focus on terror and Jihadists, Saddam was more of an asset gone than in power. The Iraqi people themselves are an asset int e WOT in that democracy is the wooden stake to their heart. A Jihadist can find recruits much easier in repressive societies who have no outlet for disention other than radicalism whereas in a democratic one, people find much easier ways to express themselves and, have a life and choices other than all or nothing. Hence, the side benifit of creating a democracy which is Arabic and Muslim which powers itself by oil would be an example to other nearby countries that Jihadists find a nest in.

The heads of state for over ninty countries agree as does the UNSC.

I imagine you would have it all under control. Been a long time since I heard the left come up with an actual plan rather than bitching so, go ahead - shoot. What? That the US did not find the weapons that the entire planet thought Iraq posessed? Oh, just wondering, how come people never blame Saddam Hussein for any of the death and carnage whatever number you come up with? I mean, all he had to do was file the correct paperwork, allow immediate and unconditional inspections and adhere to some decade plust resolutions. Don't think that maybe he might have been able to avert this? I sure do, so, he is responsible for any deaths that occur, not Bush. Yes he does. A lot freer than they used to be and, they understand that this is a painful gestation period that will ultimately end. That's why people risked life and limb to vote on so many occasions.

A trick. Oh those clever people on the UNSC. What the dvil are you talking about here? No, I will simply say that there has been no crime commited as the body who can make the ruling allowing for action has not protested the action as not being what they meant in their last resolution, much less declared it anything out of the ordinary. As it stands, this would make it legal for, as we all know, when things are not persued as out of the ordinary and rectified, they can be contrued as what the body ruled to begin with. So, unless you are saying the UNSC is a counterfit body incapable and courrupt and unfit to make rulings of any kind then, we would have to assume they were competent and, made the resolution in the best manner possible. The lack of their protesting, ruling, condemnation would only leave one to conclude that they approve of the action the US took. Yes, it would be difficult to convict sombody who has commited no crime.

Ya really. Had some clown a few weeks ago saying he was so afraid the Bush admin wasn't doing it's job to stop terrorists from shipping crap via containers. Then a bunch of idiots come in from time to time telling us how airport security isn't worth a plugged nickle. You are right though, there is no such thing as terrorists targeting us. You are not in line for national security advisor are you?

No kidding. Surprised they didn't incorporate crow feet and lizard bones to come up with the figure. The ones every country on the UNSC thought were there? Saddam should have complied easily then but he did not. However, it must bring joy to your heart how the sanctions have been lifted and one hundred thousand babies a year can now live, the mass graves opened and now three hundred thousand people will not be killed again and nor will he invade another country killing a million and a half people doing it. Invent a time machine and what? Coddle Saddam? This is rich!! Yes, democracy in which 65% of the people vote for a government is not liberty. In Canada here, we are under tyranny in comparrison. Point being, the US has liberated them and, is helping prop up a weak government voted in by the people against a minority that wishes to create chaos to their own advantage. You thnk in the here and now, think thirty years down the road when Qusay would be ruling the place instead. How many would he have killed?

Bradco No. Two of those resolutions were tabled during his terms. The condemnation was during his fathers term. You are right though in that "my argument isnt back up by pure facts and is weak in that respect but is based on logical hypothesis." Good for you. Really? So, in ordeer to make this actin illegal we have to move into the tin oil hat club with you. OK, I'll work with you, just as long as I get to bring out fantasy role playing and call it an argument too. Do you base anything on fact or is this simply an emotional thing for you? Frances power plays against the US Yes indeed, they have a lot to lose. So much they worked against the US in the UNSC, EU and independently. Why the French made sure that 1441 was a mandate for the US to act legally by invading Iraq? Simple. They never thought the US would actually act. So, I take it you have finished the actual legal argument and now agree that it is by default legal?

Duplicate post

Told you before, the UNSC is not afrasid to do this as it is the first step in making somthing illegal as in the UNSC's motion to make a resolution I didn't quote you, I asked if you had proof that the US controlled the UNSC. I take it scince you came back with mock indignation you don't. So, that would seem that the UNSC, if they had any inclination to deem the US action in invading Iraq not to be what they mandated, would at least condemn it. As per the other things and ivasions the US has done as recently as 2003. Another point that is almost farcical is you are now saying the UNSC is not impartial. As soon as you broght forward that argument I wondered how you could even argue that the US did not act according to resolution 1441. So, in this argument, the US acted against the wishes of a comical or inept body who can't rule on anything the way it should be ruled on? Is this your way of bowing out of the argument?

I only ask for relevent facts for you to back up your arguments. Instead, you come up with hypothises and theory in a mini opinion column form. So, if they are that scared of the US then why did they make eight resolutions against it? You dance around that fact and still maintain that the UNSC would never condemn the Iraq Invasion out of fear. You do your argument no justice by repeatedly saying the UN is afraid of the US all the while they actively work against it when it suits them. So, if the only body able to determine if the invasion was illegal does not even show formal displeasure when we know it does to the USA on other matters all the time, , why would you, as a poster on a forum feel you have a point when you can't even back up your argument with fact?

No, that is not comical at all as I have proof whereas you have suspicion and hypothetical rational. The first step in making the invasion illegal is for that body to condemn it. As we know, that body is not beyond condeming US actions as they did multiple times before. Also, were there to be a court that could decide this particular matter, the UNSC would empower that body. And last, if there were a body, the USNC would become a witness and testify for, or against the USA. In any case, the UNSC like it or not, is the key to making this action illegal. Now, as for highly controlled, please explain how they are controlled by the US. You never give proof. Here is mine; I know the US could not push through the last resolution they wanted, that France, Germany and Russia were working against them and that the US has had eight resolutions put forth against them so please, tell us all how the US controls that body. So, you have proof to support your claim the US controls the UNSC?

What is somewhat comical is that just this has occured, eight times in the last fifteen years proving you wrong in very few words. Perhaps if Saddam knew the UNSC resolutions had teeth in them he would have peacefully complied. However, his preying on other's weaknesses and addiction to Anti War demonstrations on CNN gave him the surity the US would once again cow to the spinlessness of people who would give him opportunity after opportunity to wiggle more time. It is this inconsistancy that makes for very dangerous politics as we have seen. Had the UNSC been harsher, then war would have been a certainty and the paradox being, ultimitely not necessary.

Bullshit. You yourself said not two posts ago that "Despite desperate hand wringing, the liberation team fails to obtain a mandate for invasion from the Security Council (or in fact even secure majority in the vote)." So, it seems to me that the US has enough enemies on the USNC who could've easily tabled a motion or resolution simply condeming the US invasion of iraq. And, found it in violation of the UN resolutions pertaining to Iraq 660 - 1441 and, after it gets vetoed by the US with a majority against the legal proceedings can take place. All the way from Cindy Shithead to Michael Fatzoid suing Bush for everything from the sacking of Rome to poor dead Jihadists who die from firefights in Falujiah so don't fall back on that crap to mold your new erroonious argument. Condemnations have been done before in the above mentioned rersolutions pertaining to US actions so what stopped it in this particular case? Fear? France, Russia and Germany tied the US's hands at the UN while reaping billions off Saddam in the process. All the while France attempting to graft a political unit out of an economic EU with them at the helm while Germany was gaining votes for reelection on a wave of anti US sentiment. So fear is not a factor there. Legality is. They know it''s so damm ambiguious they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. (sniff) That was so ..so .. beautiful. Will the trial be held on a day when Bush's numbers are up ... or down and, will biased people be disqualified from being jury or just anti war types in general allowed to conveene?

Stumbling Into War They did it so they could have a world consensus in the War On Terror. If it is just them and the UK of course Jihadists will think they have an isolated foe rather than a world wide movement opposing them. As for the French feeling threatened, I think not, as it was they who opposed the US after they promised to support them. Simply so they could turn their EU posture into a political unit with them at the helm on pure anti Americanism. It refers to them then actually spells out the terms 'any means necessary' recalling it so that everybody reading the resolution knows that they still are iauthorized to do just that if Iraq does not comply with this particuklar resolution which, to any person would mean that it is intended to mean that it is still in effect, then uses terms such as 'final opportunity' 'serious counsequences' and all. Tell me, what terms do you think they would have used had they meant to give the members the authority to use whatever means necessary to ensure Iraq complied with 1441 and all previous as well as all subsequent resolutions? 'We're gonna let the the US kick your ass or else?' You are aware of course that that resolution was never tabled right? Gee, they never did before. No offense intended whatsoever but you seem to be seriouly lacking in facts on this particular thread relying instead on heresay and speculation. 70 resolutions vetoed by the USA My cleaning lady doesn't think so, either does the town drunk and that, dear friend, is about as much as what any court other than the UNSC (with or without the US throwing their weight around) is worth to decide that argument. If those ambassadors intended for the resolution to be what they said it was supposed to be, then I'm sure, they would have written it that way instead of crying about it later how they meant 'this' and 'that.'

Respected kudos to Black Dog, Craig Rread, Lonius, August, Hugo, Honorable mentions to; Argus, Figleaf, Dancer, Monty, Leafless, River, Newbie, Army Guy, lost&outofcontrol, Michael Hardner,scriblett, SirRiff and of course, the immortal Humpty McSaddle.

No, I never said that so please stop putting words into my mouth. What I said was that the only body able to rule on this matter has not. That being the USNC. As for the US vetoing it, that is meaningless up to the point that we are at as you think that it would be illegal if the US could not veto it but, nobody has even brought it forward to let their feelings or beliefs be known. Whether the US will veto it or not has nothing to do with whether it is tabled or not. For example, the USNC condemened the US invasion of Panama, the Israeli Invasion of Lebannon and the USSR's invasion of Afganistan - all of which were vetoed. So, why is the USNC not condeming the invasion of Iraq? It certainly has nothing to do with it possibly being vetoed. More than likely they feel that the wording in 1441 is not as ambiguous as you seem to think it is. And yes, the action by default is legal until proven illegal. Unless of course, the justice system that the free world adopts has changed overnight to suit this case (innocent until PROVEN guilty). You want to make this illegal, as Myata says, bring it to court and prove it. Until then, you won't get a conviction or prove that it is illegal so therefore, under innocent until proven guilty, it is legal or, at least argueably legal. However, definitely not even close to being illegal rather, hypotheticlly illegal (if certain things fell into place and certain bodies conveened etc. and backtracked saying that is not what they meant when they put 'this' 'that' way when they said that, this and so on) Even if the US did not veto this hypothetical resolution, they would more then likely be able to prove that the wording was so permissive that it could easily be contrued to be a mandate for any means necessary. Hmm, there is that phrase again. Any means necessary. Not later, not after we conveene, not when the moon begins the next cycle but by whatever means necessary, get Iraq to comply. And how do you know that it was murder or accidental unless you bring it to court? Link please. The argument for invasion is at least equally strong. You can bet that lawyers for every head of state involved made damm sure their bosses would not end up sharing a docket beside the late Milosivik. The point? To show the US that they believe the US is wrong and, be on record saying it. When the US is condemned for actions like any other nation, they don't throw a hissy fit and leave. Surely you are not suggesting that the entire UN is terrified of the USA are you? If so, why did the US not simply force the resolution they dreamed of instead of going through these hoops and hurdles?

Well then, for once you understand then. It was not illegal as there has been no argument by a qualified body. Well, maybe. This has merit, the legal or should I say the illegal argument has none whatsoever.

The US was given the responsibility and authorization to ensure that they used any means necessary to ensure Iraq complied with 1441 which was Iraq's last chance. Iraq dropped the ball and the US acted. Glad you have a case for as we all know, the UNSC is not afraid to condem an action when they feel it illegal but did not in this case. And,. why you might hypothicize that it was illegal, the people who can actually bring this case forward and make a ruling have not even bothered, leaving it legal by default. So, I observe that you and Myata quickly shift gear into a moral argument as you know you have no basis with which to make a meaningful legal one as in this case, it remains legal until proven not. Then once again, it has to be ruled illegal from that position.

Wrong. Blix said that cooperation was not immediate and unconditional. Two things which Iraq had to be in order to be in complience with their last and final opportunity as per the wording of 1441. Majority of the UNSC? Sorry, 1441 was unanomously passed and the second resolution was shown to be approved by eight of the members but, lacked the ninth. It also was going to be vetoed by France certainly which was why it was never tabled. So, therefore, it certainly wasn't a majority opposed but rather a minority. Maybe it could have and maybe Saddam would have done what he did so many times before and stall, inhibit and offer conditions. In any case, he was in violation of his last and final opportunity. So having lost your legal arguments, you now move into a moral one I take it?