Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

I notice none of the Bush bashers have yet answered my question,so I will ask it again...

IF the war in Iraq is an "illegal war",like the left likes to claim,what court has ruled such?
What court,with authority to rule on US actions,has ruled that the war in Iraq is illegal?

And,can any of you provide a linkto that ruling?

I notice none of the Bush bashers have yet answered my question,so I will ask it again...

IF the war in Iraq is an "illegal war",like the left likes to claim,what court has ruled such?
What court,with authority to rule on US actions,has ruled that the war in Iraq is illegal?

And,can any of you provide a linkto that ruling?

mysteryman wrote:

I notice none of the Bush bashers have yet answered my question,so I will ask it again...

IF the war in Iraq is an "illegal war",like the left likes to claim,what court has ruled such?
What court,with authority to rule on US actions,has ruled that the war in Iraq is illegal?

And,can any of you provide a linkto that ruling?

Let me answer your question with another question in response: is every action a nation takes completely legal until a court rules otherwise? For example, was the Iran-Iraq war legal? Was the North Korean attack on South Korea legal, because no court ruled otherwise? Was the Bosnian genocide legal? Did Russia have the right to invade Afghanistan?

Or does a violation of an international treaty to which the nation is party not matter because no court rules on it? Does Iran have the right to produce nuclear weapons in violation of UN resolutions? Does Syria have the right to invade Israel?

mysteryman wrote:

I notice none of the Bush bashers have yet answered my question,so I will ask it again...

IF the war in Iraq is an "illegal war",like the left likes to claim,what court has ruled such?
What court,with authority to rule on US actions,has ruled that the war in Iraq is illegal?

And,can any of you provide a linkto that ruling?

You're not going to get and answer MM because it's a stupid question.
To put it another way, what German court ever ruled that Hitler's invasion of Poland was illegal?

I do not fault him for his reasons for the war in Iraq. He and his military advisors made a serious mistake in bending to political correctness pressures from the Left. They should have gone in with overwhelming force and completed the job quickly and efficiently. They didn't, but it was their methodology, not their motives that are questionable.

President Bush is a man of principle and conviction and, unlike the average run of the mill politicians, he is not as subject to being swayed by political expediency or the public opinion pushed in the headlines that morning. People who appreciate honesty in their elected officials admire that.

Then what FOREIGN court has ruled the war illegal?

Has the world court that the left supports?

Have there been ANY UN resolutions calling the war illegal?

The answer to those questions is ???????

I admire the fact that you managed to put these two paragraphs in one and the same post:

Foxfyre wrote:

I do not fault him for his reasons for the war in Iraq. He and his military advisors made a serious mistake in bending to political correctness pressures from the Left. They should have gone in with overwhelming force and completed the job quickly and efficiently. They didn't, but it was their methodology, not their motives that are questionable.

Foxfyre wrote:

President Bush is a man of principle and conviction and, unlike the average run of the mill politicians, he is not as subject to being swayed by political expediency or the public opinion pushed in the headlines that morning. People who appreciate honesty in their elected officials admire that.

And the point is that you cannot even see the contradiction in what you're saying. You're the anthropomorphic personification of a neoconservative voter.

Please cite the UN resolution forbidding or condemning the US invasion of Iraq. We can cite--what was it fourteen?--UN resolutions making requirements of which Iraq refused to comply.

And no, we didn't invade Iraq for those reasons. Our reasons were included in those 14 resolutions and that was also our authority to act. And it was those 14 resolutions that prevented the UN from saying no, we couldn't do that.

[And still, America had no UN mandate to go into Iraq. If you are reasoning that because of the UN resolutions against Iraq, America was somehow justified to unilaterally invade Iraq, then it would be just as reasonable to assume that Russia would be equally allowed to invade Israel because of the UN resolutions condemning Israel for its actions.

And still, America had no UN mandate to go into Iraq. If you are reasoning that because of the UN resolutions against Iraq, America was somehow justified to unilaterally invade Iraq, then it would be just as reasonable to assume that Russia would be equally allowed to invade Israel because of the UN resolutions condemning Israel for its actions.

old europe wrote:

[And still, America had no UN mandate to go into Iraq. If you are reasoning that because of the UN resolutions against Iraq, America was somehow justified to unilaterally invade Iraq, then it would be just as reasonable to assume that Russia would be equally allowed to invade Israel because of the UN resolutions condemning Israel for its actions.

That's some retarded reasoning there.

old europe wrote:

I admire the fact that you managed to put these two paragraphs in one and the same post:

Foxfyre wrote:

I do not fault him for his reasons for the war in Iraq. He and his military advisors made a serious mistake in bending to political correctness pressures from the Left. They should have gone in with overwhelming force and completed the job quickly and efficiently. They didn't, but it was their methodology, not their motives that are questionable.

Foxfyre wrote:

President Bush is a man of principle and conviction and, unlike the average run of the mill politicians, he is not as subject to being swayed by political expediency or the public opinion pushed in the headlines that morning. People who appreciate honesty in their elected officials admire that.

And the point is that you cannot even see the contradiction in what you're saying. You're the anthropomorphic personification of a neoconservative voter.

Baloney. There is absolutely no contradiction of any kind in the two statements.

McGentrix wrote:

old europe wrote:

[And still, America had no UN mandate to go into Iraq. If you are reasoning that because of the UN resolutions against Iraq, America was somehow justified to unilaterally invade Iraq, then it would be just as reasonable to assume that Russia would be equally allowed to invade Israel because of the UN resolutions condemning Israel for its actions.

That's some retarded reasoning there.

Why exactly, McGentrix?

old europe wrote:

And still, America had no UN mandate to go into Iraq. If you are reasoning that because of the UN resolutions against Iraq, America was somehow justified to unilaterally invade Iraq, then it would be just as reasonable to assume that Russia would be equally allowed to invade Israel because of the UN resolutions condemning Israel for its actions.

For almost the entirety of human history, wars have been fought merely because one side wanted something the other side had. This war was motivated by self-defense, that is, not allowing an evil, imperialistic madman to develop WMD, which there seemed a significant probability that he was still working on. Any country which gives the international community veto power on its use of its military is foolish in the extreme.

McGentrix wrote:

old europe wrote:

[And still, America had no UN mandate to go into Iraq. If you are reasoning that because of the UN resolutions against Iraq, America was somehow justified to unilaterally invade Iraq, then it would be just as reasonable to assume that Russia would be equally allowed to invade Israel because of the UN resolutions condemning Israel for its actions.

That's some retarded reasoning there.

Why exactly, McGentrix?