First, Sparhawk, the WMDs were *not* the only reason for the war, and nobody I know ever thought they were. I don't think any US politician ever said that they were the sole reason for going to war. Thus, the humanitarian reason does not "replace" the WMD reason at all.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dilbert1234567
[B]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.
|
As I already stated quite a few times, the UN charter IS NOT THE INTERNATIONAL LAW. It is *PART* of the international law system. There are many more treaties and agreements that also are part of international law, and every single UN resolution is *also* international law. Often, at least some of these "laws" can be used by either side of an argument to support their cause, if only because they "laws" are vague.
Quote:
|
teh UN is a formidable force, the UN has no troops but it draws from all its members, (mainly the US)
|
sure... in theory, the UN is a formidable force; in practice, it almost never is. In Korea it was a big force, but it was almost beaten by the Chinese; in the '91 gulf war it was a big force indeed. That's about it, really. The rest of the time, the UN is pretty impotent.
Quote:
|
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.
|
The UN is a policeman without power, dependent on the "citizens" to form a lynch mob everytime a "criminal" does something bad. Furthermore, every time, this lynch mob has different rules and regulations, usually making them less potent than they might be.
The US is the most powerful country on this planet, and as such, it can take what it wants, and pretty much do what it wants. In theory, it would be nice if they were to listen to the rest of the world, but if they don't there's not much you or I can do about it. Might does indeed make right here.
Quote:
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."
|
Do you have any idea how big this area can be? Do you suggest the US should have bombed each and every shed that might contain WMDs? What about the countless hidden undergrond bunkers the Iraqis were said to have? How the hell do you bomb those? Besides, bombing anything at all would be AN ACT OF WAR, which was a bad thing, remember? (And if you're going to war anyway, you at least need ground forces to check the results of the bombings...)
Quote:
|
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.
|
We tried that game for 12 years. We already attacked them several times, and it did not work.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I did not say that you said that. I just pointed out the obvious... Hence the "duh". I was talking about the war in Europe, by Germany, and you bring on Japan attacking Pearl Harbor.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Bullshit. The Mexicans couldn't have done anything. They were beaten into submission in the previous century, and the difference in military power had only grown since then. They would have been destroyed in a war, and they (and everyone else) knew that. Germany was in no position to "deal with England and France" at all - they would have been lucky if they could maintain the pressure, but it was unlikely they could ever "win" the trench warfare. They had already tried that for some 3 years... Besides, even *IF* the Germans could have won, how do you propose they conquer the UK (with it's navy still pretty much intact), and even cross the Atlantic Ocean to conquer the US? The whole scenario is just incredibly unlikely.
Oh, and I think you're mistaken in assuming I say what you think and do. That, as you say, would indeed be rude.