Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?

[idb]

And if their 'legal' disagrees with another country's 'legal'?

Oh? Were you under the impression that France and China had input on US laws?

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

What if Saddam had advice that he was within his rights to do what he was doing.

Who cares?

Here is a document that will shock and confound you, yet might explain the whole thing.

U.S. CONSTITUTION

Crikey, I don't remember mentioning any other country having influence on US laws, but it's clearly OK to you that the US have influence on other's laws.

I don't see anywhere in the constitution that says that it applies to any country other than the USA.

 

[freedombecki]

So, because the US gummint said the invasion was legal that makes it legal?

Yes.

That's how the whole "legal" thingy works.

The president + legislators determine what is legal.

And if their 'legal' disagrees with another country's 'legal'?
What if Saddam had advice that he was within his rights to do what he was doing.

What if Saddam had 16 UN resolutions against what he was doing, idb?

 

[DiamondDave]

So, because the US gummint said the invasion was legal that makes it legal?

Yes.

That's how the whole "legal" thingy works.

The president + legislators determine what is legal.

And if their 'legal' disagrees with another country's 'legal'?
What if Saddam had advice that he was within his rights to do what he was doing.

Sorry Charlie.. we don't have some new world order where we have to answer or collapse our sovereignty.. what we did was legal and justified

 

[idb]

I love how little idiot BlindBoo sends a mini-neg-rep saying this is nonsense.... when it is easily proven.... you see.. there was more than WoMD in the resolution

Iraqi War Resolution - Text of Iraq Resolution and Roll Call Vote Authorizing War In Iraq

So... shut the **** up idiot... you're pwned

So, because the US gummint said the invasion was legal that makes it legal?

There is NOTHING illegal... It was a military action (not a war) that was legally signed off on... and no, there was more than WoMD in the justification...

So now we know you're an idiot as well

I'm sure everyone victimised by the US feels better that it was a 'military action' rather than a 'war'.

And some of the justification was that it was in support of the United Nations resolutions.
But...the UN never asked for the invasion (sorry, 'military action'), so how can that be a legal justification?

 

[idb]

Yes.

That's how the whole "legal" thingy works.

The president + legislators determine what is legal.

And if their 'legal' disagrees with another country's 'legal'?
What if Saddam had advice that he was within his rights to do what he was doing.

What if Saddam had 16 UN resolutions against what he was doing, idb?

Then the UN would have passed a resolution authorising an invasion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And if their 'legal' disagrees with another country's 'legal'?

Oh? Were you under the impression that France and China had input on US laws?

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

What if Saddam had advice that he was within his rights to do what he was doing.

Who cares?

Here is a document that will shock and confound you, yet might explain the whole thing.

U.S. CONSTITUTION

Crikey, I don't remember mentioning any other country having influence on US laws, but it's clearly OK to you that the US have influence on other's laws.

I don't see anywhere in the constitution that says that it applies to any country other than the USA.

So, you're on drugs then?

And if their 'legal' disagrees with another country's 'legal'?

Crikey, I don't remember mentioning any other country having influence on US laws,

 

[freedombecki]

And if their 'legal' disagrees with another country's 'legal'?
What if Saddam had advice that he was within his rights to do what he was doing.

What if Saddam had 16 UN resolutions against what he was doing, idb?

Then the UN would have passed a resolution authorising an invasion.

Saddam Hussein decided to undo the American win in Afghanistan in 2002. On the day America was victorious over al Qaeda and Taliban, Saddam sent a dozen jumbo jets to Kabul at midnight that night that removed over a thousand of them so they would avoid facing war crimes and other amenities of murdering thousands of people until America stopped them. The Jumbo Jets arrived a few hours later in Baghdad. We tracked them, and there is no mistake what happened after that. Saddam set them up in more camps near the airport and gave them full run of his land with privileges. He rewarded families of the 9/11 hijackers with remunderative amounts that are staggering when you think of the evil these murdering monsters did here.

The United Nations does not prevent countries from defending themselves from terrorists and criminally-bent haters. When the threat transferred to Iraq, that's when we developed a 41-nation coalition against Saddam Hussein which grew to 80 later on.

We had every right to stop Saddam Hussein from giving succor and power to these anti-American criminals, and we did. His own people tried, convicted, and executed him for war crimes he did.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then the UN would have passed a resolution authorising an invasion.

The UN doesn't rule the USA, much to your chagrin, we are a sovereign nation. We operate under the US Constitution, which grants the authority to go to war to congress, which in the case of Iraq, made that decision. Bummer that US law doesn't meet with your approval. You can always try and impose your will with force of arms..

Good luck with that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

well I hate too put you on ignore also but you are not giving me much choice here
he is not slandering your name nor is he lying about you on a public forum
Jake, you might want to take the hint "public" "slander"

Jake slanders me all the time. I just don't care. No one takes him seriously. He's a buffoon, a clown. Someone to be laughed at.

He is ill my friend You are correct, I just will never understand it people like Jake need help

You two are simply upset that I hold the mirror up to you when you begin your nonsense and you start screaming I am picking on you. Oh, my! Poor babies.

So, up to $3 trillion later, an Iran and Iraq that are chummy and not our friends, a broken economy, and you two want to talk about the merits of progressive right-wing neo-con imperialism?

And you crybaby to me. Priceless, simply priceless.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then the UN would have passed a resolution authorising an invasion.

The UN doesn't rule the USA, much to your chagrin, we are a sovereign nation. We operate under the US Constitution, which grants the authority to go to war to congress, which in the case of Iraq, made that decision. Bummer that US law doesn't meet with your approval. You can always try and impose your will with force of arms.. Good luck with that.

The USA, its leaders, and its citizens are subject to international laws of war. We had no legal charter from the UN to wage war on Iraq, none, so all the chanting about UN resolutions means absolutely zilch. Where did you ever think we were different than everybody else?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The USA, its leaders, and its citizens are subject to international laws of war.

Well, then I think you should personally enforce them. March right up to DC and arrest Obama for the Libya thing, he got no permission from our UN Overlords for that.

We had no legal charter from the UN to wage war on Iraq, none, so all the chanting about UN resolutions means absolutely zilch. Where did you ever think we were different than everybody else?

{Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; }

U.S. CONSTITUTION

You have to defeat the above document prior to your dream becoming a reality.

 

[Nic_Driver]

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

Bush's invasion was against international law and didn't have UN justification.

The authorization to use force had qualifiers, "If Saddam didn't do XXXX, then Congress approves the use of force."

Saddam was in the process of compliance when Bush invaded and according to the UN, the invasion was not authorized.

Saddam's cooperation with inspectors at the time of the invasion means the invasion didn't follow the requirements of Congress either and failed even that legal litmus-test.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uncensored, you are talking exactly as did Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, our militia freaks and so on ~ we don't have to observe the Rule of Law if we are mighty enough to ignore it.

Think so? Soon or later, one of the senior Bushies will be stupid enough to wander into a part of Europe that is not going to give her or him back. Most Americans will not support a war to bring back a war criminal.

 

[Nic_Driver]

The USA, its leaders, and its citizens are subject to international laws of war.

Well, then I think you should personally enforce them. March right up to DC and arrest Obama for the Libya thing, he got no permission from our UN Overlords for that.

We had no legal charter from the UN to wage war on Iraq, none, so all the chanting about UN resolutions means absolutely zilch. Where did you ever think we were different than everybody else?

{Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; }

U.S. CONSTITUTION

You have to defeat the above document prior to your dream becoming a reality.

Really?

Did Congress declare war?

 

[idb]

Oh? Were you under the impression that France and China had input on US laws?

Sorry, doesn't work that way.



Who cares?

Here is a document that will shock and confound you, yet might explain the whole thing.

U.S. CONSTITUTION

Crikey, I don't remember mentioning any other country having influence on US laws, but it's clearly OK to you that the US have influence on other's laws.

I don't see anywhere in the constitution that says that it applies to any country other than the USA.

So, you're on drugs then?

And if their 'legal' disagrees with another country's 'legal'?

Crikey, I don't remember mentioning any other country having influence on US laws,

Sorry, I'm obviously not high enough cos your point still went over my head!

 

[idb]

Then the UN would have passed a resolution authorising an invasion.

The UN doesn't rule the USA, much to your chagrin, we are a sovereign nation. We operate under the US Constitution, which grants the authority to go to war to congress, which in the case of Iraq, made that decision. Bummer that US law doesn't meet with your approval. You can always try and impose your will with force of arms..

Good luck with that.

Try to follow the thread of the discussion.
It isn't that hard.

 

[idb]

Then the UN would have passed a resolution authorising an invasion.

The UN doesn't rule the USA, much to your chagrin, we are a sovereign nation. We operate under the US Constitution, which grants the authority to go to war to congress, which in the case of Iraq, made that decision. Bummer that US law doesn't meet with your approval. You can always try and impose your will with force of arms.. Good luck with that.

The USA, its leaders, and its citizens are subject to international laws of war. We had no legal charter from the UN to wage war on Iraq, none, so all the chanting about UN resolutions means absolutely zilch. Where did you ever think we were different than everybody else?

Wot he said...

 

[Wry Catcher]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

YEP, you're missing quite a bit. 4,500 hundred dead Americans, more than twice that amount seriously wounded, and many more suffering the effects of PTSD; an economy in free fall, millions spent on a war of choice, and not one cent spent on repairing an aged and crumbling infrustructure here at home.

Yeah, you're missing quite a lot, but you're too dumb and too partisan and too dishonest to admit it.

 

[kaz]

Uncensored, you are talking exactly as did Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, our militia freaks and so on ~ we don't have to observe the Rule of Law if we are mighty enough to ignore it.

Think so? Soon or later, one of the senior Bushies will be stupid enough to wander into a part of Europe that is not going to give her or him back. Most Americans will not support a war to bring back a war criminal.

And when a Marxist wins the White House and commits the same crimes, you call him Mr. Nobel Prize winner. Yet a "Republican" such as yourself still only objects to the Republican who did it, odd...

 

[DiamondDave]

So, because the US gummint said the invasion was legal that makes it legal?

There is NOTHING illegal... It was a military action (not a war) that was legally signed off on... and no, there was more than WoMD in the justification...

So now we know you're an idiot as well

I'm sure everyone victimised by the US feels better that it was a 'military action' rather than a 'war'.

And some of the justification was that it was in support of the United Nations resolutions.
But...the UN never asked for the invasion (sorry, 'military action'), so how can that be a legal justification?

Idiot.. the UN is not the end-all-be-all world government that negates our sovereignty... that are set up as humanitarian and to settle disputes diplomatically when possible,,, they are not where the buck stops