Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not only won't you call her on calling our troops mass murderers and terrorists but you defend her. Par for the course. I suggest you read what was written and COMPREHEND the intent. You are capable of that I assume? Or shall we off on another of your wild games of play the monkey in the tree with words and meanings again?
Iraq was and is a WAR. The only way a war becomes ILLEGAL is when one side beats the other and has a trial afterwards. The Invasion of Iraq was totally legal in all aspects of the US laws, customs and Constitution. It continues also legally under all laws and rules regulations and policies of the US, to include the Constitution.
posted by dillo
Why waste a bunch of words when I can communicate with just a few. Seriously-if the war is illegal, what penalty does the US have to pay?
LMAO--When was the last time the world ever thought that the US held the moral high ground ? We are capitalistic, degenerate, fat, lazy, greedy pigs as far as they are concerned. Ask Ruby--she had to get the hell outta here it sucks so much.
I was not defending her, I was attacking your comment which was incredibly stupid.
Umm no. There are many ways for a war to be illegal.
The war is illegal, and there will be no official "penalty". For better or worse countries around the globe get away with illegal actions all the time. For the same reasons that other countries who do illegal actions won't get punished, the US won't get punished as well.
LOL, and just who gets to decide what is ILLEGAL for a Nation? Ohh wait, I remember, anyone with the power and ability to use it that can enforce THEIR belief on another nation. According to your definition that makes any nation doing so committing an illegal act.
There is no Power above a nation, save a coalition of nations. And the only power they have is that which they are WILLING to enforce with armed might.
Iraq was and is a WAR. The only way a war becomes ILLEGAL is when one side beats the other and has a trial afterwards. The Invasion of Iraq was totally legal in all aspects of the US laws, customs and Constitution. It continues also legally under all laws and rules regulations and policies of the US, to include the Constitution.
Please do be specific, provide one shred of legal evidence under US law , the Constitution or our treaties, that make the invasion of Iraq illegal.
When you manage to raise that UN army and conquer the USA then you can make any ridiculous claim you want.
UN Charter, Article 2, paragraph 4:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state
UN Charter Article 51:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations”
Article VI, US Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
"International law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone, and this would have been morally unacceptable“ - RICHARD PERLE, Nov. 2003
.http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
"Please do be specific, provide one shred of legal evidence under US law , the Constitution or our treaties, that make the invasion of Iraq illegal."
Here you go:
Notice the shall refrain clause. This is NOT the equivalent of should refrain. It is an outright legal Prohibition on aggressive, offensive war. This means its illegal to attack a sovereign state who is a fellow signatory to the UN Charter (like Iraq was). The UN Charter was intended to lay down a legal framework against all war (except in self-defense), because of the devastation of the first two world wars.
An exception to the UN Charter prohibition against war, is when a nation acts in its self defense:
Obviously, when the US attacked Iraq, we were under no threat of attack, imminent or otherwise, from them. It turns out they didnt even have the capacity to attack the United States.
Now, some NeoCons will say at this point: So What? Who cares about the UN Charter? We dont have to follow it!
Wrong. The US Constitution requires us to abide by ALL international treaties that we sign. If we dont like the treaties, we can withdraw. But, we havent withdrawn from the UN Charter. We are still a signatory to it, so we must abide by its conditions. Conditions we AGREED to.
This means that we are Constitutionally obligated to abide by the terms of any treaty we sign, until such time as we decide to withdraw from the treaty.
Makes sense. If we just abided by the terms of treaties that we signed, if and when we felt like it - on a whim, if you will - who would ever sign a treaty with us? We would be considered liars and deadbeats. This makes a contractual obligation on us to abide by treaties we sign.
Finally, one of Bushs own top architects of the war, clearly felt that Bushs war was illegal:
Here, Perle admits Bushs war was illegal under international
"Please do be specific, provide one shred of legal evidence under US law , the Constitution or our treaties, that make the invasion of Iraq illegal."
Here you go:
Notice the shall refrain clause. This is NOT the equivalent of should refrain. It is an outright legal Prohibition on aggressive, offensive war. This means its illegal to attack a sovereign state who is a fellow signatory to the UN Charter (like Iraq was). The UN Charter was intended to lay down a legal framework against all war (except in self-defense), because of the devastation of the first two world wars.
An exception to the UN Charter prohibition against war, is when a nation acts in its self defense:
Obviously, when the US attacked Iraq, we were under no threat of attack, imminent or otherwise, from them. It turns out they didnt even have the capacity to attack the United States.
Now, some NeoCons will say at this point: So What? Who cares about the UN Charter? We dont have to follow it!
Wrong. The US Constitution requires us to abide by ALL international treaties that we sign. If we dont like the treaties, we can withdraw. But, we havent withdrawn from the UN Charter. We are still a signatory to it, so we must abide by its conditions. Conditions we AGREED to.
This means that we are Constitutionally obligated to abide by the terms of any treaty we sign, until such time as we decide to withdraw from the treaty.
Makes sense. If we just abided by the terms of treaties that we signed, if and when we felt like it - on a whim, if you will - who would ever sign a treaty with us? We would be considered liars and deadbeats. This makes a contractual obligation on us to abide by treaties we sign.
Finally, one of Bushs own top architects of the war, clearly felt that Bushs war was illegal:
Here, Perle admits Bushs war was illegal under international
Wrong as usual. The justification WAS a threat to the United States. Iraq routinely fired on American Aircraft, THAT is an act of WAR. Iraq failed to meet the requirements of a ceasefire that it agreed to ending the first war. Giving all legal grounds for us to enforce the agreement.
Neither of those conditions violate the UN Treaty. Further the purpose of the war was to eliminate a threat to our country via the leadership of the Country. Aggression and Conquest only be applicable until or unless Saddam Hussein meet the requirements of the ceasefire and all UN mandates against him or surrendered his control of the Country.
We established a UN presence in Iraq as soon as they were willing to come, we established supervised and encouraged free open elections for the Iraqis to establish their own Government and only remain to train and equip said Government so that it can take over its responsibility to provide internal and external security.
Hey guns ... when you get to the part where she's full of shit and not worth arguing with you'll feel MUCH better.
Wrong as usual. The justification WAS a threat to the United States. Iraq routinely fired on American Aircraft, THAT is an act of WAR. Iraq failed to meet the requirements of a ceasefire that it agreed to ending the first war. Giving all legal grounds for us to enforce the agreement.
Neither of those conditions violate the UN Treaty. Further the purpose of the war was to eliminate a threat to our country via the leadership of the Country. Aggression and Conquest only be applicable until or unless Saddam Hussein meet the requirements of the ceasefire and all UN mandates against him or surrendered his control of the Country.
We established a UN presence in Iraq as soon as they were willing to come, we established supervised and encouraged free open elections for the Iraqis to establish their own Government and only remain to train and equip said Government so that it can take over its responsibility to provide internal and external security.
Absolutely incorrect which is WHY the UN would NOT sanction an invasion.
Iraq was not a threat and you can keep trying to pretend they were but the world knew it wasnt before AND after the invasion. Trying to cling to lies that have already been clearly debunked just isnt very smart.
The best comedy line of all in your post was the one about how we supervised free open elections for the Iraqi people...an election that contained only options that the US approved of. Elections under foreign occupation? Yea, I just bet you wouldnt view elections supervised by the Chinese while the US was under Chinese occupation after being shocked and awed by the Chinese as even CLOSE to legitimate would ya?
Or maybe just admit to being too cowardly to admit you cant refute the FACTS.
The US as a terror nation? Your defense of totalitarians knows no bounds. You defend Noriega, Chavez, and Saddam, saying they should be safe from terrorist US invasion. Cancer should be safe from medicine. Evil should be allowed free reign. How dare the terror nation intervene? In the "Introductions" thread you said some would consider you a "flaming Liberal." After reading some of your posts, I do not consider you a liberal. Rather, you are an extremist from somewhere far left of Left. It was wise of you to move to gutless Sweden, a nation that did not even have the courage to fight the Nazis in WW2. You should do well there.You get upset by what I say but YOU CANT REALLY deal with the supporting facts I GIVE to make my point. I have a basis for what I say and I give it, you cant seem to refute those facts. I guess thats why you keep trying to get someone with intelligence to do it for you and must be why you keep trying to get the liberals to do it for ya huh?
Our invasion of Panama was an aggressive act of war..that makes us terrorists. We overthrew Arbenz in Guatemala...that makes us terrorists. We supported the contras, that makes us terrorists...and there is sooooooo much more.
We staged a coup against Venezuela in 2002 as well..that makes us terrorists. If another nations govt staged a coup against our govt we wouldnt hesitate to call them terrorists would we? If someone invaded our nation to change our regime, we would view them as terrorists who are interferring in our self-determination rights and would feel PERFECTLY justified in resisting, in fact, those cooperating with the invading govt/nation would be viewed as traitors (in a very legal sense).
We invaded Iraq without ANY justification...it wasnt self defense, we werent facing any imminent threat. How many Iraqi civilians have died due to our invasion? Isnt the body count high enough to call it mass murder?
The US as a terror nation? Your defense of totalitarians knows no bounds. You defend Noriega, Chavez, and Saddam, saying they should be safe from terrorist US invasion. Cancer should be safe from medicine. Evil should be allowed free reign. How dare the terror nation intervene? In the "Introductions" thread you said some would consider you a "flaming Liberal." After reading some of your posts, I do not consider you a liberal. Rather, you are an extremist from somewhere far left of Left. It was wise of you to move to gutless Sweden, a nation that did not even have the courage to fight the Nazis in WW2. You should do well there.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The CIA is acknowledging for the first time the extent of its deep involvement in Chile, where it dealt with coup-plotters, false propagandists and assassins.
Arbenz was elected President of Guatemala in 1950 to continue a process of socio- economic reforms that the CIA disdainfully refers to in its memoranda as "an intensely nationalistic program of progress colored by the touchy, anti-foreign inferiority complex of the 'Banana Republic.'" The first CIA effort to overthrow the Guatemalan president--a CIA collaboration with Nicaraguan dictator Anastacio Somoza to support a disgruntled general named Carlos Castillo Armas and codenamed Operation PBFORTUNE--was authorized by President Truman in 1952.
Cowardly? How about I can easily refute ANY of your bullshit. What would be the point? You'll have some dishonest. unrealistic, lying/twisted argument you'll try to sell no matter what I say.
I'm glad you moved out of the US. I just wish everyone like you would follow your lead.
here you go again with YOUR bald faced lies. The UN APPROVED the election process.... are you now claiming THEY were in on it?
If you can easily refute the facts, then do so. Tell me why overthrowing others govts to support our own economic policies is ok to do...tell me why it would be ok for another nation to take over our govt and install a dicator to favor their own economic policies. Why would it be ok for them to assisinate our leaders and other govt officials, why would it be ok for them to assisinate americans who opposed their plans for our lives? You seem to think its ok for us to do to others. Keep in mind the information is coming from our own declassified CIA documents.
I wont hold my breath, you will just make excuses on why you wont refute them but assure me that you could if you wanted to.
Wrong as usual. The justification WAS a threat to the United States. Iraq routinely fired on American Aircraft, THAT is an act of WAR. Iraq failed to meet the requirements of a ceasefire that it agreed to ending the first war. Giving all legal grounds for us to enforce the agreement.
Neither of those conditions violate the UN Treaty. Further the purpose of the war was to eliminate a threat to our country via the leadership of the Country. Aggression and Conquest only be applicable until or unless Saddam Hussein meet the requirements of the ceasefire and all UN mandates against him or surrendered his control of the Country.
We established a UN presence in Iraq as soon as they were willing to come, we established supervised and encouraged free open elections for the Iraqis to establish their own Government and only remain to train and equip said Government so that it can take over its responsibility to provide internal and external security.
The 1991 ceasefire was between the UN and iraq. NOT the united states and Iraq. The first Gulf war was a UN war, comprised of over 60 nations, and hundreds of thousands of troops from UN member states. Remember? Ergo, only the UN security council had the legal authority to determine if Iraq's compliance or non-compliance with the ceasefire treaty was an adequate reason to invade. You, Bush, or Cheney had no legal standing to determine unilaterally if alleged non-compliance with the UN ceasefire treaty were grounds for an invastion.
One of the architects of the war, indicated the invasion was illegal: Richard Perle.
