Ain't that Mac sumpin' though. Like having a discussion with a grapefruit. Don't put nothin' in and crap still comes out. No-brainer comes to mind. I don't know why!
Show that it has been proven in international court, or show the UN declaration that the invasion was illegal.
Once again, "proven" does not mean "proven in court"
Even the wingnuts agree
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...grilled-gun-inquiry-says-he-won-t-resign.html
Uhm, yes it does...if you are using it as proof. If it's not proven then it is conjecture, rumor, etc.
Umm, no it doesn't
But go on believing that OJ is innocent
Ah, the court of public opinion is good enough, huh? Guess you don't much mind innocent people being put to death, so long as enough people think they're guilty.
Guess you think OJ was looking for the "real" killer out on those golf courses
And I guess you think the word "person" does not apply to the unborn because that's what the Supreme Court decided
Simple yes or no question.
Focus...let's keep on the subject. Because the war is unpopular, ill-concieved, poorly timed, and of questionable justification vs cost, doesn't mean it was illegal. and it doesn't mean Bush lied. There are plenty of UN resolutions that can be argued to legitimize the invasion. Those arguments are as valid as the arguments against in my opinion.
Focus on the hypocrisy and dishonesty of your argument
You're dishonestly arguing that it's the courts decision that counts, even though you don't believe that, as proven by your repeated claims that the court was wrong to decide that the unborn are not "persons"
So which is it? Is what the court says "proven", or is it "wrong"?
Or is it just "whatever is most convenient to the argument mac is making at the moment?"
It violated UN Charter.Yeah, 60+ years...we're still in Germany and Japan.
What international body has deemed the war illegal? Has the UN pursued action against the US? Has Iraq sued in international court?
In that case, I think it's wrong and I disagree with the decision. But it's the court's decision that counts, isn't it?
So you agree that a courts decision can be wrong?
Ergo, a courts decision is not something you consider proof, even though you are now dishonestly claiming that a courts decision is not only proof, but the ONLY proof.
It violated UN Charter.
Sure I believe a court can be wrong, but there's is a process for that...involving court.
Is a court decision proof?
Until overturned or rescinded.
"Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." President Clinton ~ February 1998.
In 1998, and Clinton didn't invade. He got Saddam to destroy his WMDs and dismantle the WMD programs without invading.
If a court decision is "proof", then how can it be "wrong" (as you have claimed many times in the past wrt Roe v Wade)?
Do you believe that things that have been proven are wrong?
What do you base "he got Saddam to destroy his WMDs"? For all you know, they were destroyed or moved a day before the invasion. Regardless, if that were true, why was the ACT still active?
It can be ethically wrong, or a misapplication of law.
In which case, it's appealed. However, until successfully appealed, it's law. Are you really going to try to disassemble the rule of law in order to make something illegal? If the coart has no authority, and if something is illegal because just anyone thinks it is....what's the court system for, actually?
Because UNSCOM and every other inspector said so.
They said that before the 2003 Invasion of Iraq?
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?