More American War in Iraq?

@BillRM,

The abysmally ignorant coward, Bill, asks for proof. The guy who has avoided myriad proof.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Of course it was illegal, I'm amazed we're still having this conversation with some idiots.

Bush (and Blair) could not get a UN resolution to invade, so it was illegal, end of.

2 Replies

America is responsible of all this voilence and insecurity of this region. America started all this by attacking in Iraq. Now its american responsibility to stable these countries as these were before war. So throw more money of american people's taxes. And aslo sacrifice more soldiers.

0 Replies

What? Iraq war was illegal? Then why did you kill millions of women, children and innocent people in this war? Now decide who is terrorist? Why did american govt. do this? Guys, go to iraq and see with your own eyes. They are also humans as you. You are living with your families happily, but they are not. Because they have lost their families in this war. They don't know where from bullet come and cross their body.
Americans think please. Iraq, afganistan, pakistan became most voilated countries after the war of america. Who is responsible?

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Odd as I do not remember the US granting any powers to the UN over the US war making powers or any need to have a UN resolution for that matter to make it "legal".

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You don't understand international law, there's nothing odd about that. The only legal wars are ones of self defence, or where you've been invited in by the legitimate government to help deal with insurgents or an outside force, or if there is a UN resolution authorising force.

The invasion of Iraq did not satisfy any of those conditions. Some have argued that the original UN resolution did satisfy such conditions, but if that were the case why bother going for a second?

The war was illegal, but America is still the most powerful country in the world, which is why nobody bothered taking them to court.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

There is no world government as the UN is surely not that to be able to judge if the US actions was or was not legal.

Declaring that the US actions illegal or not is completely meaningless in a legal content.

We have so call war crimes trials at the end of WW2 but they was just the victors putting a PR face on what they was going to do in any case.

In my opinion, we should had just done what the Russians wished to do and placed then again a wall and shoots them.

Maybe someday we will have a real world government with a real legal system and real courts and so on but such does not exist as of now.

Stating that a nation actions in illegal until then is completely meaningless.

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

PS- I say the same to all western leaders, GET OUT!

And yet the only leader you addressed was the U S of A leader.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Declaring that the US actions illegal or not is completely meaningless in a legal content.

You've got that all wrong, Bill. In the legal context, the USA was/is guilty if war crimes. Because the USA is a rogue nation, no different than the mafia, but obviously so strong that it can act, as it always has, with impunity, there is no one to hold them to account.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

Quote:

And yet the only leader you addressed was the U S of A leader.

The top gangster always gets top billing, Rabel, but you know that. You're just trying to make excuses for your ultra criminal government.

That's despicable, but you also already know this about yourself.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

You don't have to have world government to have international law. A series of treaties exists. The UN was Roosevelt's brainchild, America held define what makes a war legal.

Like I said, you don't understand international law, as is evidenced in your weird tangent into world government nonsense.

I've explained why the Iraq war was illegal, and I'm not wasting any more time stating the bleeding obvious to a paranoid fruitcake who wants to waste time berating against a non existent world government.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

IZZY once more time saying we had broken or anyone else had broken international laws is meaningless as long as there is no courts to make such findings and no enforcement means to back up any such courts rulings.

If you ever run out of toilet paper I would suggest using your copy of international laws in it place as neither the laws or the paper it is printed on have any higher uses or purposes.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait it was not the rulings of the UN that got him out of Kuwait it was the US and to the UK military forces that did that job and without that military forces he still would be sitting in Kuwait.

When Russia just invaded and took over some of the territories of Ukraine as no one was willing even to think of engaging Russia with military force it was a done deal.

To sum up laws are not laws when there is neither courts or enforcement behind them they are just worthless words.

1 Reply

Quote:

Article quote: The Guardian, Wednesday 15 September 2004 21.28 EDT
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

The United Nations are a bunch of hand-wringing pol-correct washerwomen and Kofi Annan was a pinko pal of commie terrorist Nelson Mandela-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kofi_Annan

Fact is Saddam was suspected of having WMD's and he was inciting terrorism, and if he'd kept his trap shut America wouldn't have had to go in and get him-
"Does America realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?" (Saddam Hussein, September 29, 1994)
"Oh sons of Arabs and the Arab Gulf, rebel against the foreigner...Take revenge for your dignity, holy places, security, interests and exalted values" (Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999)

So the idea of having to get the UN's permission to go to war is ludicrous as GW Bush rightly pointed out later- "America will never seek a permission slip to defend herself"

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Spoken like a true criminal. Just because a law can't be enforced doesn't mean it can't be broken. If America had obeyed international law and not invaded Iraq Putin would have been less bold in his dealings with Ukraine.

It's cause and effect, and you want to make it even worse.

2 Replies

Considering that Iraq sent Scud missiles into Israel, during the first Iraq war, the benefit of the second Iraq war might just be to make sure that Iraq doesn't again show their contempt for Israel's "minding its own business," by sending in Scuds again, when it would have suited Iraq. Or put more succinctly, if Scuds were fired at Israel again, Israel might not hold back from retaliation, as they did the first time. We might have been preventing a real conflagration? It might have little to do with international law, but keeping a lid on all out war? To believe we are given the entire picture is foolish, in my opinion. By the way, does Israel have nukes? It has been said that Israel has a Masada complex. People who do not understand the mindset of Israel might not be making the best assessment of what the situation demanded.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

If America had obeyed international law and not invaded Iraq Putin would have been less bold in his dealings with Ukraine.

LOL you would need to be brain dead to think that hmmmm......oh it is you after all.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

It has everything to do with international law, Foof, but the USA, the top rogue nation has no respect for the rule of law, or for that matter, other people's lives. Of course you are alright with that.

0 Replies

My main criticism of the USA is that its been pouring cash and super-duper weaponry into Israel for many years.
Why? What has Israel ever done for America?
And it makes America a target of terrorists for being Israel's friend.
Don't the American taxpayers mind that their cash is going to Israel?

Israel is a nuclear power so she doesn't need help anyway. She wanted to nuke Baghdad when Saddam fired Scud missiles into Israel, but America talked her out of it.
As long as Israel wants US cash, she'll have to keep doing what America tells her.
For example she currently wants to wipe out the Iranian nuclear plants, but America says "You can't".
So Israel will never have a free hand to defend herself as long as she lets herself be controlled by the US.

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

Why? What has Israel ever done for America?

Support it in its lying mendacious ways at the UN and around the world.

Quote:

And it makes America a target of terrorists for being Israel's friend.

The USA makes itself the target of freedom fighters from around the world, people who are tired of the USA raping and pillaging their lands and killing their children.

Both the USA and Israel have free hand in committing heinous crimes because they are both lawless, rogue nations.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Spoken like a true criminal. Just because a law can't be enforced doesn't mean it can't be broken. If America had obeyed international law and not invaded Iraq Putin would have been less bold in his dealings with Ukraine.

It's cause and effect, and you want to make it even worse.

You appear to entertain very curious concepts of cause and effect.

It appears rather obvious that "a law that can't be enforced" is very likely to be broken. Hardly worth noting at all. Indeed Bill's point was that such a law is no law at all. Your "criticism" is an oddly reflexive repitition of his statement.

It would also be interesting to hear your cause & effect analysis of the connections between the U.S.Invasion of Iraq and the Russian intervention in Ukraine. Shall we also consider the connections between the creation of the British Empire with Hitler's attempt to conquer Europe?

1 Reply

More American War in Iraq?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know