I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

cause the bible tells me so.

If you're waiting for the UN to come and save humanity, you have more faith than you let on, Frank.

Do you believe that the UN is able to make a war legal or illegal, justifiable or unjustifiable?? I don't.

The UN is a voluntary organization in which we participate as a matter of choice. We or any nation can withdraw at any time as we or they may choose and without penalty. We subject ourselves to its will only to the degree we may choose, just as do other nations.

Our participation in the war was done in accord with the prescriptions in our constitution. Therefore it was legal. Period.

Whether or not it was justifiable is an individual determination based on your personal standards and interpretation of the facts.

If you're waiting for the UN to come and save humanity, you have more faith than you let on, Frank.

I hate to guess at what "implied question" you think is present in Revel's post, and I'm amazed that you would think I would try and answer "implied" questions.

Unfortunately, the UN is heavy on talk and light on action. It seems a lot of criticism of Bush is he stresses action over talk.

Following that logic, one could just as easily say that any criminal act is justifiable or not based solely upon one's personal standards and interpretation of the facts. I'm sure that even you do not believe that.

Because, the US govt believes the UN serves a purpose in the world scene. The US really does want the UN to be successful and perform its intended goals.

On the other-hand, we can not allow corrupt members of the security council decide what is best for the defense of the US. We tried to get the UN on our side of the Iraq war. But, it turns out that [..] countries [..] opposed our efforts and they had veto power in the UN.

Are you suggesting that someone on trial for murder for shooting someone might not be properly acquitted based upon the jury's interpretation of the facts of the case, and their assessment that the defendant was justified in shooting the deceased in self-defense.

Let me give you a hypothetical, Joe: Are you suggesting that someone on trial for murder for shooting someone might not be properly acquitted based upon the jury's interpretation of the facts of the case, and their assessment that the defendant was justified in shooting the deceased in self-defense.

Let me give you a hypothetical, Joe: Are you suggesting that someone on trial for murder for shooting someone might not be properly acquitted based upon the jury's interpretation of the facts of the case, and their assessment that the defendant was justified in shooting the deceased in self-defense.

McGentrix wrote:

Because, the US govt believes the UN serves a purpose in the world scene. The US really does want the UN to be successful and perform its intended goals.

On the other-hand, we can not allow corrupt members of the security council decide what is best for the defense of the US. We tried to get the UN on our side of the Iraq war. But, it turns out that [..] countries [..] opposed our efforts and they had veto power in the UN.

Oh yeah, I see the logic.

You really want the UN to be successful. Do its job and all that. Unless it turns out the other members dont actually agree with you on what that job is, and threaten to, you know, stand by their position and use their veto power and everything. I mean, the veto power was given to those SC members back when the UN's intended goals were formulated of course, but you know - its not like they were actually supposed to use it or anything - I mean, not against you, anyway. Because then you "have" to ignore the whole body - no choice there, obviously, you see. In fact, if that UN is not agreeing with you on something you consider so important, its obviously not performing its intended goals. Living proof! Cause its intended goals are helping the US along in any intervention it sees fit, I mean, assenting to any interpretation of UN resolutions the US decides to make. Right, er, or - huh?

Deal with it. A large majority of Security Council members, including both some involved in OFF fraud and a bunch not involved with it at all, thought your proposed Iraq war was a foolish, at the time unnecessary war, proposed under misleading pretentions on the basis of shaky evidence. They said as much back then. Now I'll leave it up to you to look at how the war proceeded and what happened with the WMD case the US tried to persuade those SC members of back then, and re-evaluate what they said back then in that light. But the point is, the UN is a collective body of the world community. If a clear majority of 'em, from different continents, of different cultures and ideologies, with and without OFF entanglements, thought the UN resolutions they authored collectively did not justify the war the US said they did, then thats their call. The US did not write those resolutions; the UN community did. Its their call to judge on its proper interpretation, just as its the US Supreme Court's ultimate call to judge on the proper interpretation of American law, not some state judge who claims to know better. When it then overwhelmingly disagrees with you, its not evidence that its not "performing its intended goals"; its that, gasp, they disagreed with you about how those goals applied to the current situation.

Now either you accept the authority of UN resolutions and then you get to use them as an argument in your justifications; but then you have to stand by them when it turns out they dont actually turn out to read the way your rogue interpretation would have 'em be read too. Or you dont give a ****, but then please spare us your sanctimonious references to how you were just executing the will of the UN (just they didnt know it, you see), as well. Think thats what revel was getting at there.

Ticomaya wrote:

Let me give you a hypothetical, Joe: Are you suggesting that someone on trial for murder for shooting someone might not be properly acquitted based upon the jury's interpretation of the facts of the case, and their assessment that the defendant was justified in shooting the deceased in self-defense.

Read again what I wrote, Ticomaya: I said that, "following that logic, one could just as easily say that any criminal act is justifiable or not based solely upon one's personal standards and interpretation of the facts." In other words, applying georgeob1's logic to your hypothetical, it would be the jurors' personal standards that determine if the defendant is guilty of murder or if his action was justifiable. As I'm sure you're aware, that is simply not the case: jurors who use their subjective personal standards rather than the objective standards set forth in the law are acting contrary to their instructions.

In the same way, it is not a matter of personal standards that determines whether the US broke its treaty obligations. Rather, it is a matter of law.

Point taken about the juror's personal standards not being applicable, but I was focusing on the interpretation of the facts of the case and applying them to the law (not their "personal" law). The jury is charged with interpreting the facts in each individual case. Thus, the best I can say is he was "half-right."

But again, I was looking at if from the perspective of a domestic criminal matter, not where the US is accused of breaking a treaty. As nimh asked, who is the jury in such a case? Let me tell you this: it isn't going to be the UN.

Please identify the portion or portions of those resolutions that gave the US the legal right to invade Iraq.

McGentrix: You've already stated that you are too tired to look up the relevant resolutions yourself, yet that hasn't seemed to stop you from citing them as justification for the US invasion. Now, I can understand your irresolution with regard to the UN resolutions: after all, why rouse yourself from your languor to find the evidence for your assertions when it is so much easier to make those assertions sans evidence.

But you've said that "the UN resolutions previously given gave the US legal right to invade Iraq and dethrone Saddam." The Bush administration cited three UN resolutions as providing justification for the invasion: UN Security Council resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. For your benefit, here are direct links to all three of those resolutions (all in .pdf format):

UNSC Resolution 678
UNSC Resolution 687
UNSC Resolution 1441

Please identify the portion or portions of those resolutions that gave the US the legal right to invade Iraq.