Originally Posted by Publius Infinitum

OH! ROFLMNAO… I see the problem; you feel that the UN and its charter equate to legal statute… and apparently that the US forfeited its sovereignty and the rights and duty inherent in that sovereignty when it formed the UN and agreed to abide by the guidelines set forth in its' charter.
ROFL…

Originally Posted by Anikdote

Moreover we as a sovereign nation require no approval from any entity to act in our own best interests. The UNSC does not guide or mandate our actions and we are accountable to no international ruling body.

Originally Posted by Bobcat1

You really don't know what you are talking about.

The terms of the ceasefire following Desert Storm required Iraq to adhere to a No-Fly Zone over the Kurdish region of Iraq. It required Saddam to fully disclose all of his WMD programs and munitions. He did neither. It's simple math, and the legality of the war has nothing to do with how the invasion was sold to the American public.

Originally Posted by Publius Infinitum

What makes sense is how you and the balance of the leftist on this board can't comprehand simple reason.

The UN is not a world government. It is never goign to be a world government. The UN therefore has no authority which might encumber anyone, BECAUSE the UN has no POWER... the sole source of power in the UN is the US...

Being a member of the UN does not provide that any member state forfeits it's sovereignty; it merely agrees that given the best of circumstances that each member will abide by the guidelines advanced in the Rules established by the UN and under which they operate.

The US invading Iraq is not a violation of ANY UN rule, PERIOD. 1441 laid down the requirements Iraq had to meet to avoid the certain consequences, the US merely carried out those consequences and did so in alliance with a US lead, but international coalition.

Iraq was in material and continuous breach of numerous UN sanctions and when Iraq failed to meet its obligations by the date certain deadline laid down by the UN, the US acted to execute US law and change the regime of Iraq, as well as enforce UN sanctions...

Of course, there is no conclusive evidence that Iraq was directly involved in 9-11; but its 30 year history of using terrorists as proxies against its enemies, along with its beligerent refusal to reject Islamic terrorism and comply with 1441, left the US no choice but to put a boot in their @$$, because it is after all... "The American Way..."

So this feeble attempt to equate the US action to the actions of others is absurd on its face and serves only to promote the interests of the enemies of America...

Originally Posted by Anikdote

Moreover we as a sovereign nation require no approval from any entity to act in our own best interests. The UNSC does not guide or mandate our actions and we are accountable to no international ruling body.

Originally Posted by Daybreaker

Okay. I'm with you there.

But isn't it also true that if we, as a sovereign nation, agree to a treaty or pact or some other kind of honest contract, we're supposed to follow it? We agreed to it, of our own free will, by our own choice, most likely in our own self-interest.

Is that also true?

Originally Posted by Publius Infinitum

The UNSC does not establish Law... it has no basis in authority and no power, beyond collective sanctions, by which to enforce any law that it may presumptuously try to enact.

Originally Posted by submarinepainter

I ask that you read this article , I believe this person is so full of hate for the USA , unbelievable! Caution it has bad Language .

(*)(*)(*)(*) THE TROOPS
A Beastly Opinion


By Ian Murphy

So, 4000 rubes are dead. Cry me the Tigris. Another 30,000 have been seriously wounded. Boo (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hoo. They got what they asked for—and cool robotic limbs, too.

Likely, just reading the above paragraph made you uncomfortable. But why?

The benevolence of America’s “troops” is sacrosanct. Questioning their rectitude simply isn’t done. It’s the forbidden zone. We may rail against this tragic war, but our soldiers are lauded by all as saints. Why? They volunteered to partake in this savage idiocy, and for this they deserve our utmost respect? I think not.

The nearly two-thirds of us who know this war is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) need to stop sucking off the troops. They get enough action raping female soldiers and sodomizing Iraqi detainees. The political left is intent on “supporting” the troops by bringing them home, which is a good thing. But after rightly denouncing the administration’s lies and condemning this awful war, relatively sensible pundits—like Keith Olbermann—turn around and lovingly praise the soldiers’ brave service to the country. Why?


The rest of this idiots ranting are here

http://www.buffalobeast.com/126/(*)(...an.Murphy.html

Originally Posted by Publius Infinitum

Of course with recruiters all over the nation hitting the well higher than normal quotas and re-enlistments at all time highs, that should tell you how the nation feels about the war, without regard to radical leftist propaganda to the contrary...