Originally posted by .:b-me:.
look rorix, its really sweet that you believe in the war as much as you do. blind faith is really.....uhm.....sweet....
Thanks. I think your anti-Americanism is just as cute.
its not as black and white as you would like it to be.
I should be saying the same thing to you. But I didn't. Why? Because you're not actually making a point, just filling up space so it looks like you've said more and responded to my points when you haven't.
and the un secretary general, kofi annan, who somehow i think know a tad wee bit more on the situation than yourself, says unilateral action taken outside the Security Council would not conform to the UN charter.
I'm not going to respond to this until you post a quote, rather than a vague paraphrase.
The UN charter allows military action in self-defence and that can include a pre-emptive strike - but only if there is an imminent threat.
iraq was not an imminent threat.
So all UN peace keeping operations, which I'd think fell under 'military action', were self defence or a response to an imminent threat? I don't think so.
BTW: You still haven't justified why the US should invade Zimbabwe.
Ha, 'democracy' invading a dictatorship... I don't understand how Bush thought it would work...? Any opinions?
Kind of like it does right now. You know, given that power was turned over as recently as like yesterday, I thought you would know this.
How are they not ignoring the UN? If they did not have to 'go back to the Security Council' then why did they do it?
Oh, do you have a link to a Security Council resolution that says "The Coalition is not allowed to invade Iraq"? I didn't think so.
One can only speculate why US/UK went back to the Security Council, but I'd assume it's because they wanted a united front against Iraq, and asumed that any reasonable administration would agree that Saddam needed to be removed and threats made in Security Council resolutions should be carried out.
Part of Bush having to prove this war to the world, by showing that he has the power to ignore the UN and not be repremanded for it.
This sentence doesn't make sense. Please rephrase.
I don't understand how you can agree with this war, considering current circumstances with human rights violations, alone, is enough to not support the war.
I guess maybe that I'd prefer to be alive and be sexually humilated by a rogue group of American soldiers than dead. But hey, personal preference.
Haha silly me, yes the Gulf War, I didn't claim absolute knowledge about either the cold war, the gulf war or the current war... it was just a statement.
Well, if you're trying to say that cleaning up the mess that should have been done in the Gulf War was a motive, then yes, I'd agree.
Maybe I was too general with that one. The point being, is that no WMD's were found.
Osama hasn't been found either. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
Saddam had WMD. No-one's denying this. Now, Saddam has claimed to have ridden himself of these weapons, so if you trust him, that's your choice. Now, as we remember, Saddam only let in weapons inspectors to Iraq when war with the Coalition seemed inevitable, which seems rather suspicious. What did he have to hide?
So, the prewar case for weapons (as far as I can remember, there was probably more suspicion over certain sites and so on) drew on precendent and Saddam's curious behaviour. It was good enough to convince most in various intelligence organisations around the world (although many of these organisations were under political pressure, I'm sure). Now, assuming that you have some higher moral standard where you believe you must be absolutely sure of WMD before the invasion is justified (rather than just a reasonable belief, which I'd prefer) you may ask, where did the weapons go? Ignoring the possibility that they are somewhere in Iraq still, as it does take a while to search the entire country (think of how long it took to find WW2 criminals), there was a large pickup in truck traffic to Syria immediately before the war began. Now, we've got a sarin gas shell turning up, and missile parts in scrapyards around the world. HmmmMMmmm.
Are you saying that the production of nukes has been ended since the 'costly invasion of Japan'? I think not, Bush would not have entered into such a war without the fire-power to do so.
Oh no, I'm not saying that. I just thought that, y'know, you might have been discussing America's nuclear weapons to make a point. Since we were on the topic of the use of WMDs, I thought you might be referring to the only two times America has used it's nuclear weapons. I guess not - what did you have in mind?
come out and play...
me likey debating...
OK. Since you're flirting, can I have a pic
?
