How can you say we had no right, when is clearly written within the text of the original cease fire, that America will re-engage Iraq, if any of the listed restrictions are violated. They were in violation for over ten years, not to mention firing on our planes on a daliy basis, which was stricktly prohibited within the text of the UN's resolution on Iraq. You have no leagal, domestic or international ground to make such a claim, that America had no right to go into that country. It's absolutly obsurd for someone to speak on this issue without understanding the terms of the original cease fire. It was not a treaty, it was not a promise, it was a cease fire. International law, holds all grounds of a cease fire, as exactly that, a break in the fighting. Not an end, and everyone who understands that, also understands America had every legal right to re-invade Iraq, based on such a document. Now you go off and ramble over 'innocent until proven guilty', please don't try that parlor trick on me, it only works on the misinformed. You are the one who is misinformed here, you claim there was no evidence, well ignorance shines through once again here. Read the UN's resolution on Iraq, both after the orinigal gulf war, and prior to our chucking of the cease fire. The UN documents the weapons of mass destruction within that text, and also has video archives of recovered weapons after the original cease fire. Saddamn never denies these weapons as the documents reflects by the UN order for him to destroy said weapons. Saddamn was required to give proof beyond a doubt that ALL weapons had beed destroyed. This was mandated by the UN, and this documented proof of destruction was never delivered to the UN. The UN scolded Saddam for this lack of documentation, right up until the US re-invaded Iraq. So where do you get off and try to tell us that America was wrong, and that there is no proof. The lack of information in your head, is only proof of your ignornace on this subject, so again, please understand your feelings and the factual information that is well documented, (if you open you eyes and look) are in direct contrast. I understand people may feel as if we had no right, but when you look at it on paper, it's balck and white, not grey. I suggest you actually get some education on this matter, before you open your mouth on an issue, certainly in the real world. I know it's easy to be less than informed on the internet, but if you ever plan on politically debating someone in public, I can assure you, it will be a most embarresing display. Not only did these weapons exist, they were used by Saddamn and nobody with a clue, denies that. So unless it's in America's best interest to turn a blind eye to such a threat, our country is going to respond accordingly. If we had done nothing and one of those weapon made it into your back yards, then the entire world would be up in arms asking the US, why did we not act sooner! So please, just keep emotion out of this debate and try to understand that there is more going on than the public is willing to accept. Why? Becasue most rather be feed false information than actually research and take the time out of thier busy day to make an educated analysis of the situation. Iraq publically addressed it's population on multiple occasion prior to our invasion the second time. Within those broadcasts, Saddamn and his sons have called on their poeple to commit crimes against Americans all over the world. The broadcasts ask that they kill Americans, military or civlian, women or children. Iraq did pose a threat, when a figure head of an enemy state calls for the death of another countires citizens, that is an act of war! When Iraq fired on our pilots patroling the regions the UN set as to protect the kurds, that is an act of war. When Saddamn does not meet the requirements of the original cease fire and UN resolutions, that my firend in a blantant act of war. The US, did not have to approach the UN, yet we did. We are not bound by the UN we can act on our own behalf, the UN was approached as a means to handle this problem by avioding war. We knew the clock was ticking and wasted too much time relying on the UN to handle this. That is why we went in without UN backing, the cease fire allowed us that opiton regardless of the UN's stance on the issue. Honestly the UN is a bgi part of the problem, I have no respect for the UN. If you think the UN is morally correct, then you realy do not know much about it, or those that control it. I hope we pull out of that pathetic organization, I am all for a United Free Nations...
Please get some insight into the inner workings of the UN...
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by serb
