Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
That would be cool, if those international laws were clear and unequivocal. They are not.
|
how much of the UN charter have you read? its preaty clear to me. read:
http://www.un.org/law/index.html if you have like 50 hours to spare.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
and sending in the UN will only get them slaughtered...)
|
teh UN is a formidable force, the UN has no troops but it draws from all its members, (mainly the US)
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
The world isn't as simple as that. There is no world policeman that actually does something, and countries are not people. Just as an example: Who will "arrest" the US for attacking Iraq?
|
The UN is the world’s policeman, we need the US to stop policing the world with its unilateral view and start to accept that the world does think differently than the US.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
The US is part of the UN, and was the main party in the '91 coalition. They most certainly do have jurisdiction over the cease fire. And the US did *not* know exactly where the weapons were, and couldn't bomb them if they did. That would have been an act of war, which wasn't allowed by the UN, was it? Clinton did the same in '98, but apparently that was different. Clinton even launched a similar air-strikes-only war in Kosovo, which also was illegal, according to 4thTimeLucky. So, sorry, can't do that, sir.
|
no the US does not have juristiction, the agreement was signed by the UN, the US is a member there of but does not speak for it.
and again the Administration Said that they know where the weapons are
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
It doesn't work that way. Iraq didn't cooperate with the inspections, and certainly would not have agreed to massive numbers of inspectors and constant over-flights. In theory it might sound nice, but in practice it wouldn't have happened. That's basically the end of that story; please stick to realistic options.
|
If Iraq did not agree to more inspectors, then it would be appropriate to move on stronger methods, but until we tried it we would not know whether it would work or not.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, not the Germans (duh!). It was only because the Germans declared war on the US that you attacked them; had they not done so, it would have been infinitely more difficult for Roosevelt to join the war in Europe.
|
I did not say that the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor (duh!), I did say the Japanese. Please do not try to discredit me with simple mistruths. And it was because Germany and Japan were allied that we also attacked Japan, not to mention that we saw that Germany could possibly conquered the world if left unattended.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
Just an example of technicalities: in WW1, Mexico could *never* have successfully attacked the US, so why would you go to war over such a silly telegram, which might even be false? Can you prove that the Germans actually send the thing, or might it have been a US conspiracy? The Lusitania was sunk by German submarines, which might have been a reason to fight, were it not for the fact that the ship was (secretly) used to transport weapons... These technicalities and doubts would have been enough to keep you out of the war. [/B]
|
The Mexicans could have done serious damage to our southern border, taking us away from a war in Europe which intern; Germany (once dealing with England a France) would come and help the Mexicans.
Further I would ask that you not tell me what I would think and do, it is quite rude.