- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 27,101
- Reaction score
- 12,359
- Location
- Granada, España
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Kind of what many people always maintained...
BBC News - Iraq inquiry: Former UN inspector Blix says war illegal
...an illegal war against an illegal regime in which no one emerged with their ethics intact. Does this put an end to the debate?
Kind of what many people always maintained...
BBC News - Iraq inquiry: Former UN inspector Blix says war illegal
...an illegal war against an illegal regime in which no one emerged with their ethics intact. Does this put an end to the debate?
Good thing this guy is a "former" UN inspector. Honestly I don't trust the UN as a credible source anymore. It seems they are too preoccupied with "strongly condemning the actions of Israel" and bashing any action that America does. I somewhat believe the idea of international laws are silly, especially laws that regulate war.
So where are those WMD's?
Whether or not I agree with the Iraq war, there is no such thing as an "illegal" war.
I have one thing to say on this subject. And then despite all the partisan hackery that shall ensue in the next few days on this subject, I shall attempt to stop myself from talking anymore in this thread. So *drumroll*
the burden of proof was on the hanged rat to prove he didn't have any, not on the US to prove he did.
So where are those WMD's?
I'm not sure, why don't you ask some of these Democrats who also believed Saddam had WMD's If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0 - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)
how would he have proved that negative?
show us what you learned in law school about proving a negative
You're right if you believe that agreements made hold no legal bearing.
how would he have proved that negative?
show us what you learned in law school about proving a negative
You know, the snopes response to this has been posted many times. Why can't anyone remember that many of these comments are out of context?
the burden of proof was on the hanged rat to prove he didn't have any, not on the US to prove he did.
You're right if you believe that agreements made hold no legal bearing.
Yea well the relationship of nations is sort of anarchist.
So no, they don't have any real legal binding.
With this issue, it doesn't matter if you support or don't support the Iraq war.
The facts are that no one has the gall to enforce it, if it is illegal.
International "law" can be disregarded at will and no one will do anything about it.
snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes
Snopes confirmed that these quotes were real, and then provided their contexts. You can see with many of them that Democrats did indeed believe that Saddam had or most likely had WMDs. I shouldn't have used a partisan right wing source for the quotes, and I mussed apologize for that. However, many Democrats were concerned about Saddam along with many in the international community. I can remember which nations believed that Saddam had WMDs or most likely possessed them, but I am pretty sure they included the UK, Australia, and other nations that aided us with their troops. If this war is truly illegal, than should the nations who have helped us also be charged with war crimes?
Of course they can't enforce it, but that doesn't mean it is illegal. Those are two very different issues. Now, does our word mean anything? When we sign agreements, does it count? And if our word is meaningless, who should trust us?
No it doesn't count.
There is nothing anyone can do, it's meaningless fluff.
Legally is nonexistent when it can't be enforced.
That is the real world.
So, any bully who can get away with it is above the law. Noted.
Now, I asked a few more questions.
There have been plenty of bullies that get away with anything they want.
No one does anything about them.
Our word is meaningless, yes.
When we sign agreements it counts unless we don't want it to.
There is no real 100% trust, it's an issue by issue thing.
Anyone that believes otherwise is delusional.
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?