E
eric
Guest
No bry, when people constantly change the focus of a debate to suit their purpose no good debate can insue.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Originally posted by eric
I'm not debating what could have been done. Let us not lose site of the original debate, which was did we have the legal right to invade, I think you have answered this question.
Point to the material breach he is reffering too.
Originally posted by SLClemens
Thankfully, though, some of our soldiers have the guts to tell it like it is, unlike Blair and Hoon, suckers extraordinaire.
Would you say they weren't justified?Gosh, our entire army would be engaged right now fighting Indians if they took the same stance on every minor treaty violation we've made!
Debate can not be limited to yes or no answers. You should be big enough to realize that the "legality" of the invasion is dependent on much more than whether or not Iraq was in violation of the resolutions.
Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
Perhaps not, but you cannot have a real debate if you keep
dodging questions. The legality of the invasion depends
upon what the laws state.
The argument was that the action of the United States
was illegal because it was pre-emptive.
It seems to me we've discovered that it was not.
not enough in violation
Originally posted by eric
but by the letter of the law we were legally justified in our actions. Come and join the real world.
Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
Why not have the UN draft a resolution?
Because we preferred a working solution to lip service.
The U.N. is an organization which will not enforce its own
resolutions. What good is that?
Originally posted by SLClemens
So if Saddam had certain missiles that were illegal, why not draft a UN relosution demanding that these be destroyed?
Originally posted by jimnyc
It was in the resolution:
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;
And they didn't destroy them after 12 years. In fact, in an earlier article I had posted here it was told that Saddam knew and purposely refused. I believe this was brought to his attention by Aziz (sp?)
Originally posted by SLClemens
If saddam retained Scuds from 12 years ago, where are they now? If the missiles he produced subsequently had a range marginally greater than 150km, why not let the UN destroy them, as they were doing? Why did this only become a serious concern this year? And why is this the justification now when before the war it was WMDs?
Originally posted by jimnyc
Who mentioned scuds?
So on the eve of war, 11 3/4 years after they were compelled to destroy such weapons, we should continue to play their games?
I'll use your words now! You guys who constantly say the war was based solely on WMD are sickening! That was just one part of a VERY long list. I'll grant you the fact that it was an integral part, but in my eyes everything was justified without WMD.
Originally posted by eric
Bry you try and turn everything into a philosophical debate. Some things are just plain black and white. Rest assured if you sign a contract with my company and do not hold to the terms. We will sue you under an action of specific performance and you will uphold the terms or you will render damages, I have been involved in this senario time and time again, and let me enlighten you the preciding judge allways goes by the contract, plain and simple.
Now foreign affairs may no be this clean cut and you can argue what we should have done but by the letter of the law we were legally justified in our actions. Come and join the real world.
Feel free to leave out piddling phrases like these. The scope of the real world is not exhausted by your business courts.Come and join the real world.