Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
How is it silly? Are any of the analogies less true than yours?
|
TFPolitics is infamous for overblown analogies. I was using the analogy to explain that while intent may be noble, action was illegal. You analogy proved what? That my analogy was simple? That's what analogies are for. They cimplify concepts in order to try and clarify them. Now read yor analogy. It doesn't simplify anything. Also, if you're going to get into more direct detailed comparisons, we have to also make clear that, in this analogy that grows, you told your bneighbor that if he attacked his children that you wouldn't call the police or interferem in any way, and when he did finally attack his kid, then you came over and beat the living crap out of him. You also failed to mention that when he attacked his kid, the neighborhood decided to boycot selling him stuff at the grocery store and one of his kids starved to death and he lost a lot of his power over his household. When we finally did go over to shank him, he had lost almost all his ability to hurt his children.
You see how silly this can get? The analogy had a job to do, and it was done. Stretching it too much makes the analogy itself leave reality, and then what purpous does it serve?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
And yes, we had legal right to invade Iraq. 7 UN Resolutions all pronounced a threat of military action if he did not comply. Or are you talking about our Constitution? The Tonkin Gulf Resolution pretty much takes care of the legal ground for that argument, which is why the President keeps having to ask Congress for more money.
|
We're not the UN. The UN has to decide as a whole body if it wants to take action against someone or something. The US is a soverign nation and does not have legal authority over Iraq. As I stated clearly above:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willrave, the merciful
... under the UN charter, which the US has signed in good faith, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is allowed: in collective or individual self-defence against and actual or imminent armed attack, or when the Security Council has allowed the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of the circumstances existed in 2003, therefore the action of invading was unlawful. Read Article 51 of the UN Charter for yourself.
|
As for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, well guess what, we're right back in Vietnam again. Maybe we can learn from history next time, though I don't hold out much hope. We signed the UN Charter in 1945 and by so doing agreed to all rules included in said charter. One very important rule has been broken and as such, we have breached our agreement with the UN.