That there was a cease-fire on 3-3-91 is a matter of historical record.Until you provide a link to a cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, I am going to assume you are lying.
My post is clear, as are the desctiptions of the threats.You aren't even able to outline what these threats were, instead resorting to saying "I already said it, but I'm not showing you where!"
That there was a cease-fire on 3-3-91 is a matter of historical record.
You can assume I am lying about that, but that just points to dishonesty on your part.
My post is clear, as are the desctiptions of the threats.
Now, if you want to put your fingers in your ears and yell "I can't hear you!" -- well, there's not much I can do about that.
Theres no concession necessary, as we're both right.Harshaw already covered this one by further elaborating on my assertion:
The terms were set forth in Res 686 and signed by the US, et al, and Iraq on 3/3/91. It was formalized in Res 687 in April.
You made the claim that the US and Iraq have signed a separate cease-fire agreement outside of UNSCR687 (and 686, if you want to get fussy); this is obviously false.
Do you want to concede now?
False premise, that I need to do so, and that the quotes I provided do not illustrate the threat, as expressed by those who were aware of the information regarding same.Actually, I'm asking you to formulate your own argument instead of posting a list of quotes, but you are apparently unable to do that.
Theres no concession necessary, as we're both right.
Goobieman said:You've been shown that a cease-fire was signed between the earring parties directly, seperate from any UN action to that effect.
So, thus far, you dont have a thing to support your idea that the war is illegal.
There was, and I am not. When the cease-fire was signed on 3-3-91, it was directly between the warring states, not the warring states and the UN.No, you were wrong. You claimed that there was a separate cease-fire agreement between the US and Iraq. There was no separate cease-fire agreement. Hence, you are wrong.
Aside from the fact that you haven't shown that UNSCR687 was still the relevant, controlling insturment...It was a violation of both UNSCR687 and the UN Charter. Thus, it was a violation of international law.
There was, and I am not. When the cease-fire was signed on 3-3-91, it was directly between the warring states, not the warring states and the UN.
Aside from the fact that you haven't shown that UNSCR687 was still the relevant, controlling insturment...
It was NOT in violation of OTHER international law, however, and therefore NOT illegal.
Falsse premise -- that it might not be available on the web in no way means it doesnt exist, and a link from the internet is not the only way of proving that it does exist.Where is this independent cease-fire that you keep referring to? If there was a cease-fire agreement signed that is unrelated to UNSCR686 then you are going to have to provide it, or you don't have a leg to stand on.
Ah -- trying to avoid the issue. Nice try.Let's focus on one thing at a time, as you are clearly unable to handle too much input.
It doesn't matter if it turned out to be factual or not. It only matters what the IC believed at the time and what they were telling our leaders.
I hate the Iraq war, and I think it was a poor decision in light of what Bush knew at the time, but I agree with sazerac that there was some evidence that Hussein was a threat to the U.S. in at least some capacity.
Yes it was debunked. Wish I had more time right now, like I said, later I'll post up.
But why Iraq, Right? Go back and remember the time... the URGENCY, the NEED to get in there ASAP. It just doesn't jive, especially since troops were already in Afghanistan, the right place to be. Not even the most left tree-hugging hippies disagreed with that.
When I first heard the mention of Iraq, my first through was "WTF? What did that come from?" The notion was sold on a mourning population who rightly wanted revenge on those who committed and planned 9/11. The timing had to be right, and the Bush Administration succeeded.
We always knew Iraq posed a threat (Gulf War???). We also know Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Saudia Arabia, China, and Russia pose a threat.
The point is are the threats worth acting on? Previous leaders didn't think so. Bush and his admin felt evidence had presented itself that the known threat of Saddam was NOW worth acting on. Or they just required less evidence to attack people then the Democrats do.
Nice to know your President told you the "truth"
Bush's little bitch Blair lied, he said it was dangerous for Iraq to still be there because of WMD's which has resulted in the death of 158 soldiers ... for what? A pack of bull**** lies. We should have been in Afghanistan not Iraq.
Well such a shame what happened to Saddam can't happen to the duo :roll:
Democrats don't even need congressional approval to attack people the elite are above the law.
I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you liking letting Bush's tax cuts expire to invading Iraq?
Saddam was sponsoring terrorism against the United States right up until the fall of Baghdad, it is no longer debatable.
That may be true but there was no link to 9/11 -
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?