Discussion in 'Politics' started by JRK, Sep 7, 2011.
there are some on this message board who think they do
can some-one explain this to me?
While Obama is in office, yes they do.
they will in response to 2012 elections
The US of A is still it's own country. We do work with and control the UN, but it does not control the US of A.
why is it there are some here that claim the invasion to Iraq was illegal because the UN did not tell us it was ok?
I imagine it would have to do with the power treaties hold, and the fact that as signatories of the UN charter and members of the security council, at least some of the UN mandates or resolutions can be considered to be treaty agreements entered into by the US.
I don't know what the actual legalities involved are, this is just my attempt to explain why someone might say what is in the quote.
beats me. it was legal. lots of really stupid things are.
I really feel we have missed one of the greatest accomplishments in this countries history. Saddam did not hold up to his part of the deal
would we have evr known that?
the UN claimed there was no WMDs left, for years
I guess even with the US going with out the UNs approval, after the fact come to find out Saddam was not in compliance, no matter how old the munitions found were and with the small mountain of yellow cake
62% of the Iraqi people voted in there last election
Saddam is gone and Iraq is some what stable right now and with 6 in 10 voting it has to be sign it will be for a long time
That was never at issue.
It was alleged Iraq was involved in 9/11, or at the very least directly involved in terrorism. The invasion of Iraq was predicated on that allegation and sold to the American people as a necessary act of defense. No evidence was ever found supporting those allegations, however, and the Bush Administration knew all along there was no evidence. Since Congress authorized the war based on falsified information, the invasion was consequently illegal given the fact America was in no way threatened by Iraq.
That Iraq may have been out of compliance with regard to UN sanctions was never established, and the yellow cake discovery dated back to before the First Gulf War and UN involvement. And had lack of compliance been documented, the wholesale invasion of Iraq and destruction of the regime wasnt a justified response.
That Saddam is gone and the country relatively stable doesnt mitigate the fabricated justification for the war per the rule of law, the ends indeed never justify the means.
The irony of this, of course, is that the NFZ established by GHWB after the First Gulf War was working perfectly: Saddam posed a threat to neither his people nor neighbors. Saddam acted as a keystone holding up an edifice keeping the radical Shi'ite factions in Lebanon and Iran apart until GWHBs idiot son destroyed this well-crafted balance of power in the unstable ME.
The invasion of Iraq, therefore, had nothing to do with 9/11, terrorism, or Saddam, it had to do with expanding American influence in the ME whose sole purpose was economic exploitation and the creation of American hegemony in a part of the world rich in oil.
As to the OP, as noted it seems a reference to international law and treaties. However no serious or knowledgeable opponent of the invasion of Iraq would make the argument that the action was illegal solely due to UN policy.
The invasion of Iraq was illegal because the Bush Administration knowingly lied to Congress, aware of the fact there was no evidence of Saddams involvement in 9/11 or terror.
While reasonable people disagree on the remedy, the facts don't change. Saddam was a state sponsor of terror. He harbored Abu Nidal, sent reward money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and he offered safe harbor to Al Qaeda. Immediately after the US invaded Afghanistan and routed Zarqawi's training base, he set up shop in Iraq.
Saddam was doing an end run around the UN sanctions with his Oil For Food scam.
Saddam was in possession of binary chemical agents. These were not the "old and useless" munitions, these were powerful weapons with very long shelf-lives that were capable of causing massive casualties.
As I said, reasonable people can disagree on the remedy. The justification for the invasion was there and it worked.
Separate names with a comma.