The TRUTH is that there was a cease-fire the terms of which were agreed to by both sides. The TRUTH is that one side was in continued violation of these terms for almost 12 years. The TRUTH is that a cease-fire is broken once terms of it are broken. Game back on.Originally posted by: LunarRay
To abide by the rule of law at times is frustrating but, it is all we have. It is what we stand for. Liberty is sustained by the rule of law. Ill gotten gains are not gains in truth. They are gains forged out of weakened metals... they will fall apart when tested...Originally posted by: RDWYTruckDriver
Was all the UN resolutions on Iraq for the past 12 years only to " contain " Saddam ? I thought he was supposed to " comply " with these resolutions ..... did he ? Would he have ? How much longer should the US and it's Allies have " waited " ?I would say Iraq was contained sufficiently to prevent Saddam from creating havoc
We should have waited until what we did was supported by truth... and even without the rule of law the truth would have won out.. Because truth will always be supported by the rule of law and the rule of law by truth.
Whether you like it or not that is the case. It IS that simple and all the Resolutions regarding Iraq subsequent to the cease-fire resolution called that agreement out and supported it. Now you can turn a blind eye to it if you wish but I and others won't. If you break your agreements you should expect punishment if such was setup in the original agreement.
HDJ1 - does following through with UN resolutions and original agreements not constitute following the rule of law? I wonder what you call not following through with resolutions?...I call it coddling, appeasement, and weakness. To each his own though.