U.S. seeks multinational Iraq force (Finally)

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUYNo. If these countries really want to do the right thing and help the people of Iraq then they will help out willingly - no matter what their position on attacking Saddam was. You can keep spouting your based on "false evidence of WMD.." line but it won't change the reasons we attacked, of which there were many. You can cling to the WMDs if you wish but it just shows your partisan hatred and ignorance of reality.
Bush doesn't expect any one to "clean it up for him" - he does(as do I) expect though that if people are willing to help the people of Iraq rebuild their nation after 30+ years of Saddam's rule - they should do so willingly and in my opinion without an UN resolution. So no there is nothing wrong with Bush asking for more international presence...isn't that what you people wanted more of? Is your partisan hatred of Bush clouding what is "the right thing to do" for the Iraqis?

CkG

If only Cad could paint a big smiley face on Iraq like he does his posts here in P&N... By the way Cad, I think the "lie about WMDs" is the new "lie about blowjob." Man, after hearing both of those over and over, it gets so tiring. Doesn't it? I can tell you're sick of it. But hey, where were you when those bastards were yelling it in 1999? Yes, where were you?

Oh, and about the U.N. -- they're willing to help. They have been. It's the U.S. that doesn't want them there. For the millionth time already. Geeze. So, yes, they've been perfectly willing to do the "right thing" only the U.S. doesn't like sharing the sandbox with kids who don't agree...

No, that is wrong. The US will accept the help of those that wish to help Iraqis - not those who wish to take over the control of the war. If they wish to help they will be under the direction and leadership of the Coalition. The Coalition is in charge of this war and are taking the heat for it and will provide the leadership necessary to help Iraq rebuild after the 30+ years of oppression since the UN didn't seem to want to act...for years

The lie about a BJ, DealMonkey, was one person's actions(well two) but IF the whole WMD issue is proven to be a lie it isn't just 1(or2) people - it is a whole world that was "wrong" since the UN and the rest of the world supported sanctions against Iraq for not providing proof it did not possess them. Different circumstances indeed - but yes, none the less it is tired rhetoric. Oh wait - I thought we couldn't compare Bush's actions to Clinton's......or is it just OK for certain people to do it But anyway if you wish to know my position in 99, it was one of embarrassment - both ways. Embarrassed that the Leader of our Nation was being adulterous and immoral in the whitehouse. Embarrassed that he also lied to his wife/family, a court, and the nation in such a blatant manor. And finally I was embarrassed at the actions of those who kept making political hay by continuing the embarrassment and making a world-wide spectacle of the issue. So yes - I was appalled at ALL those involved in 99 so your little dig hit rock

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, are you saying Bush is against this resolution?

No, read my post again. I clearly stated "and in my opinion without an UN resolution". I feel Bush did not want to have to go the the UN to get more help as if these countries really "want" to help they would do so on their own, but since they haven't, he seems willing to go the route of the UN to appease these nations. IMO that isn't and shouldn't be neccessary...IF these countries REALLY do want to help the Iraqi people.

CkG

<<Bush doesn't expect any one to "clean it up for him" - he does(as do I) expect though that if people are willing to help the people of Iraq rebuild their nation after 30+ years of Saddam's rule - they should do so willingly...>>

So would you say this proposed resolution is just a tool to 'increase' their willingness?

Yes, but my point is that if they REALLY WERE willing to help the Iraqis, then they wouldn't and shouldn't need the UN to pass a resolution to validate their willingness. Call me idealistic I guess but morals are morals and principles are principles and I don't need someone to validate them everytime I wish to act on one of them.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, are you saying Bush is against this resolution?

No, read my post again. I clearly stated "and in my opinion without an UN resolution". I feel Bush did not want to have to go the the UN to get more help as if these countries really "want" to help they would do so on their own, but since they haven't, he seems willing to go the route of the UN to appease these nations. IMO that isn't and shouldn't be neccessary...IF these countries REALLY do want to help the Iraqi people.

CkG

<<Bush doesn't expect any one to "clean it up for him" - he does(as do I) expect though that if people are willing to help the people of Iraq rebuild their nation after 30+ years of Saddam's rule - they should do so willingly...>>

So would you say this proposed resolution is just a tool to 'increase' their willingness?

Yes, but my point is that if they REALLY WERE willing to help the Iraqis, then they wouldn't and shouldn't need the UN to pass a resolution to validate their willingness. Call me idealistic I guess but morals are morals and principles are principles and I don't need someone to validate them everytime I wish to act on one of them.

CkG

Unlike the U.S., the other member-countries of the UN Security Council ACTUALLY abide by International Law. What you call "idealistic," the rest of the world calls unilateral and impetuous. But I forgot Cad, it's OK in your mind to ignore the law as long as it fits with your particular ideology or ambitions. Add up all of those "morals and principals" you're always talking about and some people would call it a crusade.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, are you saying Bush is against this resolution?

No, read my post again. I clearly stated "and in my opinion without an UN resolution". I feel Bush did not want to have to go the the UN to get more help as if these countries really "want" to help they would do so on their own, but since they haven't, he seems willing to go the route of the UN to appease these nations. IMO that isn't and shouldn't be neccessary...IF these countries REALLY do want to help the Iraqi people.

CkG

<<Bush doesn't expect any one to "clean it up for him" - he does(as do I) expect though that if people are willing to help the people of Iraq rebuild their nation after 30+ years of Saddam's rule - they should do so willingly...>>

So would you say this proposed resolution is just a tool to 'increase' their willingness?

Yes, but my point is that if they REALLY WERE willing to help the Iraqis, then they wouldn't and shouldn't need the UN to pass a resolution to validate their willingness. Call me idealistic I guess but morals are morals and principles are principles and I don't need someone to validate them everytime I wish to act on one of them.

CkG

Unlike the U.S., the other member-countries of the UN Security Council ACTUALLY abide by International Law. What you call "idealistic," the rest of the world calls unilateral and impetuous. But I forgot Cad, it's OK in your mind to ignore the law as long as it fits with your particular ideology or ambitions. Add up all of those "morals and principals" you're always talking about and some people would call it a crusade.

What is this "international law" that prevented them from helping us now? and if there is a law preventing them from helping us, why can the UN dictate when they can/can't follow theses supposed "international laws" you imply exist?

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
No, that is wrong. The US will accept the help of those that wish to help Iraqis - not those who wish to take over the control of the war. If they wish to help they will be under the direction and leadership of the Coalition. The Coalition is in charge of this war and are taking the heat for it and will provide the leadership necessary to help Iraq rebuild after the 30+ years of oppression since the UN didn't seem to want to act...for years

So let's see, the U.S. acts unilaterally in Iraq - essentially telling the U.N. to pound rocks. Now, we've got Powell back at the Security Council asking for help? Do you remember all those conservatives railing about how "useless" the U.N. is and how ineffectual the U.N. is? I remember that attitude was very prevalent here at P&N. I don't suppose you see the hypocrisy, do you? Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of Int'l assistance in Iraq, in fact I think we need it. However, why shouldn't the U.N. have some say-so in the rebuilding process? That only seems fair.

The lie about a BJ, DealMonkey, was one person's actions(well two) but IF the whole WMD issue is proven to be a lie it isn't just 1(or2) people - it is a whole world that was "wrong" since the UN and the rest of the world supported sanctions against Iraq for not providing proof it did not possess them. Different circumstances indeed - but yes, none the less it is tired rhetoric. Oh wait - I thought we couldn't compare Bush's actions to Clinton's......or is it just OK for certain people to do it But anyway if you wish to know my position in 99, it was one of embarrassment - both ways. Embarrassed that the Leader of our Nation was being adulterous and immoral in the whitehouse. Embarrassed that he also lied to his wife/family, a court, and the nation in such a blatant manor. And finally I was embarrassed at the actions of those who kept making political hay by continuing the embarrassment and making a world-wide spectacle of the issue. So yes - I was appalled at ALL those involved in 99 so your little dig hit rock

Where were you Cad, in '99? Where were you? I don't remember you yelling and shrieking about the "lie about blowjob" fiasco? Where was the outrage, Cad? See, I know you were offended by Clinton's sexyness - but you know it's not a crime to be adulterous, is it? I know you conservatives are so concerned about where everyone's putting their dicks, only now, people seem to be more concerned where we're putting our bullets. Hmmm, I guess they aren't so similar after all, are they?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

NO WAR FOR OIL!

BUSH IS A LIAR!

ILLEGAL WAR!

WHERE ARE THE WMD?

NO WAR FOR OIL!

Thanks galt, it's about time you came around.
That about sums up our situation.

No problem, buddy. I feel like part of the "in-crowd" now! ...glad to be a part of the global community again.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
No, that is wrong. The US will accept the help of those that wish to help Iraqis - not those who wish to take over the control of the war. If they wish to help they will be under the direction and leadership of the Coalition. The Coalition is in charge of this war and are taking the heat for it and will provide the leadership necessary to help Iraq rebuild after the 30+ years of oppression since the UN didn't seem to want to act...for years

So let's see, the U.S. acts unilaterally in Iraq - essentially telling the U.N. to pound rocks. Now, we've got Powell back at the Security Council asking for help? Do you remember all those conservatives railing about how "useless" the U.N. is and how ineffectual the U.N. is? I remember that attitude was very prevalent here at P&N. I don't suppose you see the hypocrisy, do you? Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of Int'l assistance in Iraq, in fact I think we need it. However, why shouldn't the U.N. have some say-so in the rebuilding process? That only seems fair.

The lie about a BJ, DealMonkey, was one person's actions(well two) but IF the whole WMD issue is proven to be a lie it isn't just 1(or2) people - it is a whole world that was "wrong" since the UN and the rest of the world supported sanctions against Iraq for not providing proof it did not possess them. Different circumstances indeed - but yes, none the less it is tired rhetoric. Oh wait - I thought we couldn't compare Bush's actions to Clinton's......or is it just OK for certain people to do it But anyway if you wish to know my position in 99, it was one of embarrassment - both ways. Embarrassed that the Leader of our Nation was being adulterous and immoral in the whitehouse. Embarrassed that he also lied to his wife/family, a court, and the nation in such a blatant manor. And finally I was embarrassed at the actions of those who kept making political hay by continuing the embarrassment and making a world-wide spectacle of the issue. So yes - I was appalled at ALL those involved in 99 so your little dig hit rock

Where were you Cad, in '99? Where were you? I don't remember you yelling and shrieking about the "lie about blowjob" fiasco? Where was the outrage, Cad? See, I know you were offended by Clinton's sexyness - but you know it's not a crime to be adulterous, is it? I know you conservatives are so concerned about where everyone's putting their dicks, only now, people seem to be more concerned where we're putting our bullets. Hmmm, I guess they aren't so similar after all, are they?

Did you read anything I posted? I DON'T SUPPORT HAVING TO GO BACK TO THE UN. Anyone who needs the UN to help them decide that their willingness to help the Iraqis is OK, is weak.

Now as your asking where my outrage was - did you just ignore my post? I told you of my embarrassment on both sides. I was not part of an "outrage" movement then and I'm not now either. My position is solid. But, I guess you really do know me better than myself though

BTW - I do know that adultery is against the law in DC.

and double BTW - I thought bringing up Clinton was "living in the past" or is it OK for certain people. Seems to me that you are using Bush's actions to justify Clinton's

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
No, that is wrong. The US will accept the help of those that wish to help Iraqis - not those who wish to take over the control of the war. If they wish to help they will be under the direction and leadership of the Coalition. The Coalition is in charge of this war and are taking the heat for it and will provide the leadership necessary to help Iraq rebuild after the 30+ years of oppression since the UN didn't seem to want to act...for years

So let's see, the U.S. acts unilaterally in Iraq - essentially telling the U.N. to pound rocks. Now, we've got Powell back at the Security Council asking for help? Do you remember all those conservatives railing about how "useless" the U.N. is and how ineffectual the U.N. is? I remember that attitude was very prevalent here at P&N. I don't suppose you see the hypocrisy, do you? Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of Int'l assistance in Iraq, in fact I think we need it. However, why shouldn't the U.N. have some say-so in the rebuilding process? That only seems fair.

The lie about a BJ, DealMonkey, was one person's actions(well two) but IF the whole WMD issue is proven to be a lie it isn't just 1(or2) people - it is a whole world that was "wrong" since the UN and the rest of the world supported sanctions against Iraq for not providing proof it did not possess them. Different circumstances indeed - but yes, none the less it is tired rhetoric. Oh wait - I thought we couldn't compare Bush's actions to Clinton's......or is it just OK for certain people to do it But anyway if you wish to know my position in 99, it was one of embarrassment - both ways. Embarrassed that the Leader of our Nation was being adulterous and immoral in the whitehouse. Embarrassed that he also lied to his wife/family, a court, and the nation in such a blatant manor. And finally I was embarrassed at the actions of those who kept making political hay by continuing the embarrassment and making a world-wide spectacle of the issue. So yes - I was appalled at ALL those involved in 99 so your little dig hit rock

Where were you Cad, in '99? Where were you? I don't remember you yelling and shrieking about the "lie about blowjob" fiasco? Where was the outrage, Cad? See, I know you were offended by Clinton's sexyness - but you know it's not a crime to be adulterous, is it? I know you conservatives are so concerned about where everyone's putting their dicks, only now, people seem to be more concerned where we're putting our bullets. Hmmm, I guess they aren't so similar after all, are they?

Did you read anything I posted? I DON'T SUPPORT HAVING TO GO BACK TO THE UN. Anyone who needs the UN to help them decide that their willingness to help the Iraqis is OK, is weak.

Now as your asking where my outrage was - did you just ignore my post? I told you of my embarrassment on both sides. I was not part of an "outrage" movement then and I'm not now either. My position is solid. But, I guess you really do know me better than myself though

BTW - I do know that adultery is against the law in DC.

and double BTW - I thought bringing up Clinton was "living in the past" or is it OK for certain people. Seems to me that you are using Bush's actions to justify Clinton's

CkG

Nah, I was just demonstrating how stupid it looks when you do it. That answer covers all of your questions

 

[Tab]

Dealmonkey, can you show me war the US declaring war on Iraq go agaisnt international law? Thanks in advance

 

[povertystruck]

If the U.S. really believed in democracy for Iraq elections of some kind by the people not the U.S. would be started now.

Now why would the U.S. not want democracy for Iraq? Simple shiite majority aprox. 60% of the population.


Why does the U.S. not want the shiites to run the country? Iran is mostly shiite( i maybe wrong but im pretty sure).

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: povertystruck
If the U.S. really believed in democracy for Iraq elections of some kind by the people not the U.S. would be started now.

Now why would the U.S. not want democracy for Iraq? Simple shiite majority aprox. 60% of the population.


Why does the U.S. not want the shiites to run the country? Iran is mostly shiite( i maybe wrong but im pretty sure).

Very repressive goverment.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Dealmonkey, can you show me war the US declaring war on Iraq go agaisnt international law? Thanks in advance

It's been covered on numerous occasions here in P&N. Go look it up for yourself, last time I checked my name wasn't "Google." Let me reverse the situation: Show me where the U.S. had U.N. authorization to go to war. Why do you think the U.S. went to the U.N. in the first place? To get a resolution authorizing war. Don't be purposely obtuse.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Tabb
Dealmonkey, can you show me war the US declaring war on Iraq go agaisnt international law? Thanks in advance

It's been covered on numerous occasions here in P&N. Go look it up for yourself, last time I checked my name wasn't "Google." Let me reverse the situation: Show me where the U.S. had U.N. authorization to go to war. Why do you think the U.S. went to the U.N. in the first place? To get a resolution authorizing war. Don't be purposely obtuse.

It has been discussed? Then it shouldnt be that hard to find it then. Your the one who claimed this is agaisnt international law. Anyone would assume you would have proof to back this up, do you not? If you dont, why should anyone assume your telling the truth? Who says the US even needs authorization to goto war?

 

[Gaard]

<<Who says the US even needs authorization to goto war? >>

Not Bush.

 

[Zebo]

Screw Bush. He did'nt want the UN consensus to go in to Iraq nor the UN countries companies to make any dollars off lucrative contracts to rebuild, why in the hell should they help now? Spend money, get killed, no reward. Blah. Only a sucker would fall for that.

 

[DealMonkey]

Here you go, Tabb. I refer you to Article 2, Section 4, of the UN Charter:

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Screw Bush. He did'nt want the UN consensus to go in to Iraq nor the UN countries companies to make any dollars off lucrative contracts to rebuild, why in the hell should they help now? Spend money, get killed, no reward. Blah. Only a sucker would fall for that.

Actually, he wanted it very much. If France hadn't have been so vocal about not supporting a war, he (Bush) would've asked for the UN's approval before we launched. However, because he knew he wouldn't receive the necessary votes to get a UN thumbs up he decided that any UN approval was unnecessary. Now, before it became clear that he wouldn't get the support he wanted from the UN, why the big push to get their approval? It's not because he knew that for the US to attack someone for breaking an agreement with the UN he should probably first get the approval of the UN, is it?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
No question, BOBDN, that regime change in the US ought to be a requisite for UN reinvolvment in Iraq?

Winston, if the UN sinks in the quicksand of Iraq that will be no problem because we can always blame them for being weak. I kind of think that's the idea anyway.

No, Moonbeam, no question. Bush has to go. His lies and the lies of his administration have led to an invasion which destabilized the entire world, led to the alienation of our closest allies, cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and will have us stuck in this quagmire for years to come. As well as playing right into the hands of the terrorists we're supposedly at war with.

Bush must go. He lied about the threat Iraq posed and AFAIK lying about national security matters is an impeachable offense. Especially when those lies lead to the situation we find ourselves in in Iraq today.

Sorry about that question mark, BOBDN. It wasn't supposed to be there. I agree 100% that Bush should go as a prelim to UN involvement.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Here you go, Tabb. I refer you to Article 2, Section 4, of the UN Charter:

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

The purpose for the UN is to:
"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;" -Chapter1 Article 1.1

It seems to me that the UN failed to do this in regards to Iraq. Infact the UN declared Iraq to be a security threat to it's area and a threat to international peace, did it not? Infact didn't the UN call on the US and others to restore peace to that area a while ago and put stipulations on what needed to be done to secure the peace? If that wasn't done or enforced by the UN then we have every right and responsibility to do it ourselves or so says the UN charter

The legality of the war can be debated forever as the laws which you bring up and the ones that LunyRay bring up can be interpreted in different ways. I see the UN's call to enforce the peace in the area as enough "legality" for our action since Iraq did not take the proper steps to secure the peace as laid out by the UN in the cease-fire resolution agreement.

CkG

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Zebo
Screw Bush. He did'nt want the UN consensus to go in to Iraq nor the UN countries companies to make any dollars off lucrative contracts to rebuild, why in the hell should they help now? Spend money, get killed, no reward. Blah. Only a sucker would fall for that.

Actually, he wanted it very much. If France hadn't have been so vocal about not supporting a war, he (Bush) would've asked for the UN's approval before we launched. However, because he knew he wouldn't receive the necessary votes to get a UN thumbs up he decided that any UN approval was unnecessary. Now, before it became clear that he wouldn't get the support he wanted from the UN, why the big push to get their approval? It's not because he knew that for the US to attack someone for breaking an agreement with the UN he should probably first get the approval of the UN, is it?

If you want it you work in the agreed framework of the UN. He did'nt acted instead like a two year old at the grocery store whos mommy would'nt buy him bubble gum and threw a tantrum or stole it anyway. Anyway it's stupid for UN countries to fix baby bushes mistakes. Accept responsiblity for once in your life bush and deal with it.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


It seems to me that the UN failed to do this in regards to Iraq. Infact the UN declared Iraq to be a security threat to it's area and a threat to international peace, did it not? Infact didn't the UN call on the US and others to restore peace to that area a while ago and put stipulations on what needed to be done to secure the peace? If that wasn't done or enforced by the UN then we have every right and responsibility to do it ourselves or so says the UN charter

At the time the US went to war the UN did not consider Iraq to be a threat which warranted military action. The UN was interested in conducting inspections to confirm that they were not a threat. The UN did not fail to do anything, in fact it looks like they were right and Bush was extremely wrong.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The purpose for the UN is to:
"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;" -Chapter1 Article 1.1

It seems to me that the UN failed to do this in regards to Iraq. Infact the UN declared Iraq to be a security threat to it's area and a threat to international peace, did it not? Infact didn't the UN call on the US and others to restore peace to that area a while ago and put stipulations on what needed to be done to secure the peace? If that wasn't done or enforced by the UN then we have every right and responsibility to do it ourselves or so says the UN charter

The legality of the war can be debated forever as the laws which you bring up and the ones that LunyRay bring up can be interpreted in different ways. I see the UN's call to enforce the peace in the area as enough "legality" for our action since Iraq did not take the proper steps to secure the peace as laid out by the UN in the cease-fire resolution agreement.

CkG

I wouldn't expect any less from you Cad. You prove time and time again that laws are only to be enforced as long as you agree with them. Unforuntately, that's recipe for anarchy, wouldn't you agree? What's the point in having laws if you don't follow them or if certain persons or countries are 'above' them?

Fact is, if you go around pointing to U.N. resolutions concerning Iraq as justification for invading Iraq, you're a complete hypocrite. The U.N. never authorized force against Iraq. Period. Therefore it violates International law for the U.S. to do so.

Your selective observance of the law when politically or ideologically expedient to do so, is troubling Cad. Very troubling indeed. You should pull that red-white-and blue ribbon down as your avatar considering you don't believe in the rule of law, one of the primary foundations of our country.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The purpose for the UN is to:
"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;" -Chapter1 Article 1.1

It seems to me that the UN failed to do this in regards to Iraq. Infact the UN declared Iraq to be a security threat to it's area and a threat to international peace, did it not? Infact didn't the UN call on the US and others to restore peace to that area a while ago and put stipulations on what needed to be done to secure the peace? If that wasn't done or enforced by the UN then we have every right and responsibility to do it ourselves or so says the UN charter

The legality of the war can be debated forever as the laws which you bring up and the ones that LunyRay bring up can be interpreted in different ways. I see the UN's call to enforce the peace in the area as enough "legality" for our action since Iraq did not take the proper steps to secure the peace as laid out by the UN in the cease-fire resolution agreement.

CkG

I wouldn't expect any less from you Cad. You prove time and time again that laws are only to be enforced as long as you agree with them. Unforuntately, that's recipe for anarchy, wouldn't you agree? What's the point in having laws if you don't follow them or if certain persons or countries are 'above' them?

Fact is, if you go around pointing to U.N. resolutions concerning Iraq as justification for invading Iraq, you're a complete hypocrite. The U.N. never authorized force against Iraq. Period. Therefore it violates International law for the U.S. to do so.

Your selective observance of the law when politically or ideologically expedient to do so, is troubling Cad. Very troubling indeed. You should pull that red-white-and blue ribbon down as your avatar considering you don't believe in the rule of law, one of the primary foundations of our country.

Did the UN Authorize force in the Ivory Coast? I am sure their are many situations besides the US in which these rules where ignored. Not that I am saying that is right, but the UN needs some fixing.

 

[Gaard]

CAD - <<If that wasn't done or enforced by the UN then we have every right and responsibility to do it ourselves or so says the UN charter>>

Which Article in the charter says this?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The purpose for the UN is to:
"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;" -Chapter1 Article 1.1

It seems to me that the UN failed to do this in regards to Iraq. Infact the UN declared Iraq to be a security threat to it's area and a threat to international peace, did it not? Infact didn't the UN call on the US and others to restore peace to that area a while ago and put stipulations on what needed to be done to secure the peace? If that wasn't done or enforced by the UN then we have every right and responsibility to do it ourselves or so says the UN charter

The legality of the war can be debated forever as the laws which you bring up and the ones that LunyRay bring up can be interpreted in different ways. I see the UN's call to enforce the peace in the area as enough "legality" for our action since Iraq did not take the proper steps to secure the peace as laid out by the UN in the cease-fire resolution agreement.

CkG

I wouldn't expect any less from you Cad. You prove time and time again that laws are only to be enforced as long as you agree with them. Unforuntately, that's recipe for anarchy, wouldn't you agree? What's the point in having laws if you don't follow them or if certain persons or countries are 'above' them?

Fact is, if you go around pointing to U.N. resolutions concerning Iraq as justification for invading Iraq, you're a complete hypocrite. The U.N. never authorized force against Iraq. Period. Therefore it violates International law for the U.S. to do so.

Your selective observance of the law when politically or ideologically expedient to do so, is troubling Cad. Very troubling indeed. You should pull that red-white-and blue ribbon down as your avatar considering you don't believe in the rule of law, one of the primary foundations of our country.

Oh, are you sure you want to say "The U.N. never authorized force against Iraq. Period."? You best check your history my boy. And this "history" you choose to ignore is part of the reason for the legality of this war. There is no hypocracy here - I don't understand why you keep saying I am such because the very fact that Iraq didn't follow the UN's resolutions is why we revert back to the original cease-fire. My reasoning is rock solid on this even if you or others don't think that interpretation is correct. There is no hypocracy and there is no "selective observance" - your desire to try to paint it as such is laughable to the extent I have ignored it until this point and will continue to do so after this comment. If you wish to discuss the legality I would be more than willing to do so in a different thread as I have in the past with luny, but to keep filling this thread with unproven allegations of illegal activity is worthless and takes away from the discussion of adding MORE international troops.

CkG