Is the Iraq war illegal?

Billo_Really said:

It also says the matter is to go back to the SC for assessment.

Click to expand...

Yes.
We did that.
Whats your point?

This clause doesnt create the requirement for any additional resolutions before the threat in Para 13 is carried out.

kal-el said:

Since you guys seem so adament in defending this invasion, and keep asking what happened to the WMDs Saddam "supposedly" had in 1998, can any of you offer proof that he did indeed have them?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry.... are you claiming that Bill Clinton, and Tony Blair lied in december of 1998 when they made the case for attacking Iraq?

Seems that way.

Billo_Really said:

There what is? And we haven't gone thru anything regarding your proof. Because you haven't provided any.

Click to expand...

I suggest you read the substantive clauses in UNSCR 1441.

They clerly indicate that the UNSC holds Iraq as a threat due to its non compliane with the relevant UN resolutions, including those that require Iraq to disarm.

This shows that the UNSC as a whole thought that Iraq had WMDs.

Billo_Really said:

Does anyone recognize this? Do you know the significance of this?

What this says here is that International Law and the Articles of the Geneva Convention and United Nations shall be considered as the supreme law of the land in equal standing with the United States Constitution. This is what our Constitution is saying. So for anyone who thinks we do not have to follow international law, you are wrong! According to the Constitution, any treaty we ratify, shall be treated as the law of our land.

Click to expand...

Psst...
This may be a shock to you, but:

-The UN isnt the sole source of international law;
-The creation of the UN did not suddenly invalidate any prior International law.

Without -any- UN resolutions regarding the matter, the US and her allies still have the right, under international law, to act in their own defense , and therefore still had the right to go into Iraq.

Appendix I of the report showed that the weapons that had been destroyed before inspectors left in 1998 had, in almost all cases, been declared by Iraq and the destruction had occurred before 1994

Click to expand...

So...
Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, et al-
They DID lie. According to you, anyway.

Odd how only GWB gets put on the spot for it.

IRAQ preemptive strike is breaking UN rules signed by the USA
going against that rule in manner of seach and leave is one thing going in there and killing 100,000 civilians and setting up long term occupancy is a matter for the american people to decide not the govt as to wether it is legal
or not
the govt, today is not doing what the people want I assure you that
going into iraq and staying there is not a war on terrorism .
It is a preemptive war on humanity
the world aliance that bush has is an aliance of unwilling partners
at the UN they are not seen as with the majority of the people
and if one member should speak up
well how dare they stand against america's oil grab
american zionist christians will want your head for that
oh I forgot you bring democracy to Iraq and what about your democracy it is faded since the war on terror
yet you bring these people democracy
hmm funny story ought to sell it as a fiction to Hollywood
make a nice fiction comedy
how bush and his stooges pulled the wool over your eyes
AMERICa cold clocked by the bush steam roller
HAVE to hand it to the guy hes a brite lite when it comes to war mongering and terror
bush owns you now duck and cover and get plenty of plastic and duct tape
he means to nuke the crap out of you america
watch out that America is not his target of conquest and beware he does not fall to low in the rating polls as he may feel the need to do just that
in order to continue the war on terrorism in IRAN/Syria
oh how convenient all the islam anti jew states will be given democracy
the scofield bible readers must be happy
the rapture is at hand

M14 Shooter said:

I'm sorry.... are you claiming that Bill Clinton, and Tony Blair lied in december of 1998 when they made the case for attacking Iraq?

Seems that way.

Click to expand...

Of course, this war was long-scheduled. It was irrelevant whether Sadaam was a threat or not (which he wasn't),or whether he was in posession of WMDs (which he wasn't). They already knew (well I don't know about Blair, but Bush was obcessed with regime change), that Iraq was going down, they just had to sell it to their perspective public's,that's all.

100 mega ton bunker busters ready? check
*@nd airborne IRan terror squad ready ? yes sir!
Attention
forward march
NO MERCY !
hup 2 three 4 !

kal-el said:

Of course, this war was long-scheduled. It was irrelevant whether Sadaam was a threat or not (which he wasn't),or whether he was in posession of WMDs (which he wasn't). They already knew (well I don't know about Blair, but Bush was obcessed with regime change), that Iraq was going down, they just had to sell it to their perspective public's,that's all.

Click to expand...

LOL
Thats a pretty broad and wide-ranging conspiracy theory you have going.
Its amazing what hoops you people will jump through to justify your irrational hate for GWB.

Note:
Regime change in Iraq became the official policy of the US in 1998.

M14 Shooter said:

LOL
Thats a pretty broad and wide-ranging conspiracy theory you have going.
Its amazing what hoops you people will jump through to justify your irrational hate for GWB.

Note:
Regime change in Iraq became the official policy of the US in 1998.

Click to expand...

Yes, but bringing chaos, ravaging the country, killing well over 30,000 civilians, and having almost 2,000 of our troops killed was not.

Its amazing what hoops you people will jump through to justify your irrational love for GWB.

kal-el said:

Yes, but bringing chaos, ravaging the country, killing well over 30,000 civilians, and having almost 2,000 of our troops killed was not.

Click to expand...

Ah.
Regime change is OK - so long as its cheap.

And lying about going to war is OK, so long as it doesnt cost too much and not too many people die.

Good thinking.

M14 Shooter said:

Ah.
Regime change is OK - so long as its cheap.

And lying about going to war is OK, so long as it doesnt cost too much and not too many people die.

Good thinking.

Click to expand...

Now you are getting the moral of the story.:2razz:

kal-el said:

Since you guys seem so adament in defending this invasion,

Click to expand...

What, are you kidding? This is a website called "Debate Politics" and a thread called (in the form of a question) "Is the Iraq war illegal?"

If you don't want a debate on that question, I suggest you may, possibly, be on the wrong message board.

and keep asking what happened to the WMDs Saddam "supposedly" had in 1998, can any of you offer proof that he did indeed have them?

Click to expand...

Dude, look at my posts above. The actual Kal-El would have snapped you in half for your insipidness a long time ago.

It astounds me, continually, that because you people hate Bush as a first principle, you will bend over backwards to ignore or spin away evidence implicating a brutal, murderous dictator.

Billo_Really said:

I've also posted comments from the very guy who's job it was to run the show regarding inspections. I also provided the source. So what the hell are you talking about?

Click to expand...

As did I, and I linked to the actual text of his report, not a story about his report.

Go back and read it.

The NIE never states that Iraq has WMDs or poses a threat to the U.S. Any time after October 1, 2002, anyone making the claim that Iraq had WMDs or posed a threat to the U.S. either had read the report and then lied or had not read the report and based their statements on the statements of others.

It's amazing the facts you guys will ignore to justify your pre-concieved notions. It dosn't matter what I present, since you are already programmed to beleive a certain thing.

Billo_Really said:

There what is? And we haven't gone thru anything regarding your proof. Because you haven't provided any.

Click to expand...

I see. You must have activated some kind of option in your user preferences which blocks posts that you don't want to see . . . because they're pretty long, and you'd have to be blind to have missed them.

kal-el said:

The NIE never states that Iraq has WMDs or poses a threat to the U.S. Any time after October 1, 2002, anyone making the claim that Iraq had WMDs or posed a threat to the U.S. either had read the report and then lied or had not read the report and based their statements on the statements of others.

It's amazing the facts you guys will ignore to justify your pre-concieved notions. It dosn't matter what I present, since you are already programmed to beleive a certain thing.

Click to expand...

Oh? Look at posts #238 and #240.

I wouldn't be throwing stones at the glass houses of "pre-conceived notions" too cavalierly, my very young friend.

kal-el said:

Now you are getting the moral of the story.:2razz:

Click to expand...

Thats what I thought.
Its not about lies or war or anyting else.

Its about your bigoted, partisan hatred.

M14 Shooter said:

Thats what I thought.
Its not about lies or war or anyting else.

Its about your bigoted, partisan hatred.

Click to expand...

Lies? The whole administration was caught in the terryfing cycle of lying. They had to lie to cover up their original lies. Here is a Congressional database of lies: http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/

And, for the record, no its not, it's about a despicable,shameless liar, who decieved America into a not-needed war.

Harshaw said:

Oh? Look at posts #238 and #240.

I wouldn't be throwing stones at the glass houses of "pre-conceived notions" too cavalierly, my very young friend.

Click to expand...

I know that you want so desperately to vindicate Bush or justify the invasion that you will latch on to any little that might accomplish those goals, but the simple truth remains that you cannot.

You are casting about in the darkness, grabbing onto anything you can, only to have it refuted by the facts.

I know that it is hard sometimes to face reality and accept it. You feel that if you do, then you will somehow be complict in those lies or wrongdoings; you will not be.

The best thing to do once you accept the facts of the situation is to do everything you can to fight against the lies, deception and corruption.

kal-el said:

Lies? The whole administration was caught in the terryfing cycle of lying. They had to lie to cover up their original lies. Here is a Congressional database of lies: http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/

Click to expand...

A "Congressional database of lies"?

:rofl

You link to a Democratic Party website!

And, for the record, no its not, it's about a despicable,shameless liar, who decieved America into a not-needed war.

Click to expand...

It's funny that you haven't answered the question about Clinton's war on Yugoslavia.

kal-el said:

I know that you want so desperately to vindicate Bush or justify the invasion that you will latch on to any little that might accomplish those goals, but the simple truth remains that you cannot.

You are casting about in the darkness, grabbing onto anything you can, only to have it refuted by the facts.

I know that it is hard sometimes to face reality and accept it. You feel that if you do, then you will somehow be complict in those lies or wrongdoings; you will not be.

The best thing to do once you accept the facts of the situation is to do everything you can to fight against the lies, deception and corruption.

Click to expand...

Address the actual substance of the posts, or don't bother. These are not spinned stories; I linked directly to the actual text of Blix's report to the Security Council in January, 2003, and the actual text of both Res. 1441 and Res. 687.

Are these, too, "lies"?

kal-el said:

Lies? The whole administration was caught in the terryfing cycle of lying. They had to lie to cover up their original lies. Here is a Congressional database of lies: http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/

And, for the record, no its not, it's about a despicable,shameless liar, who decieved America into a not-needed war.

Click to expand...

Thats why you're so quick to voice your hatred for Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, Blair, Chirac...

Harshaw said:

A "Congressional database of lies"?

:rofl

You link to a Democratic Party website!

Click to expand...

Rice, Rummy, Georgie, Dickhead,and Powell told 161 lies to sell the war to the world in the build up to the attack on Iraq.
the cost of each lie in death and money is more than:
10 coalition forces (>1,610 killed)
100 Iraqi citizens and (>16,000 killed)
a $1 billion (> $161 billion spent)
powerful lies

It's funny that you haven't answered the question about Clinton's war on Yugoslavia.

Click to expand...

What? Is it a quagmire? Did we lose the lives ofover 1,900 US soliders?

kal-el said:

Rice, Rummy, Georgie, Dickhead,and Powell told 161 lies to sell the war to the world in the build up to the attack on Iraq.
the cost of each lie in death and money is more than:
10 coalition forces (>1,610 killed)
100 Iraqi citizens and (>16,000 killed)
a $1 billion (> $161 billion spent)
powerful lies

Click to expand...

:2wave:

What? Is it a quagmire? Did we lose the lives ofover 1,900 US soliders?

Click to expand...

When the topic is "Is the Iraq war illegal," it's a pretty germane question to ask those who argue that it is.