Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
That's not how this works. The UN had to rule that they haven't ceased, then everyone votes, then, if it passes, everyone gets to invade. That's not how it happened. The US doesn't just get to say, "No fair, they are breaking the rules!" and then invade. Think back to what was necessary for Desert Storm. I realize I was 8 when it happened, and probably more concerned with Duck Tails, but I've had a chance to look back and study a bit. Also, I love Duck Tails.
|
Yes, the US can just say, "No fair, they are breaking the rules!" and then invade. We were a party to the ceasefire agreement as well. If it has been voided through the actions of one party, then the other party is no longer responsible to the terms.
Quote:
|
Yes, it was a stunt. Yes, the Iraqi's didn't hold to the cease fire....but it's very likely that they destroyed all of their serious weapons over a decade ago. They weren't a threat.
|
This is true, but from a legal perspective it is irrelevent.
Quote:
|
The UN said no to invading Iraq in 2002, so that's not true. Powell tried to push an invasion back in Feb of 2003 and then withdrew it when they realized it was going to fail. This was when the security council procedures, the reason the invasion is illegal, went out the window. By ignoring the procedures that are a part of being in the UN, we acted outside of their backing.
|
No, we interpreted prior resolutions as giving us the right to legally invade Iraq.
UN1441 states:
Quote:
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
|
AND
Quote:
|
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
|
Here is a complete text:
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement
Quote:
|
Neither exist. We weren't under attack or under the threat of attack (OBVIOUSLY), and resolution 51 was an armed response of the attack on Kuwait. There was a termination of hostilities, back in 1991, and thus a new resolution was necessary for an invasion to be legal.
|
But there was no termination of hostilities, only a ceasefire. So both conditions still existed in 2003.
It's not a strawman, will. This administration has done a lot of shitty things, Hell, I'll even go so far as to agree with Carter. But they are not even in the same ballpark as the Nazis, not even close. To suggest they are is to trivialize the evil of the third riech.