Im a liberal, and if you go back a few pages you will see that I disagreed very strongly with what some people in here are saying negatively about the troops.

When you make ignorant comments like this you have just as much credibility as these morons who are bashing on the brave men and women who serve.

__________________
"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments"

--George Washington

"Never spend your money before you have earned it."

--Thomas Jefferson

"One man with courage is a majority."

--Thomas Jefferson

You must have missed some parts of those chapters Bugposted yesterday. It says that if a member is a party to it, they can not vote. So we could not veto it.

__________________
ACHIEVEMENT
“Doing a good job in this place is kind of like peeing your pants while wearing a dark suit. You get a warm feeling, but no one notices..”


Http://www.nationalgunforum.com

No - nothing negates Article 51:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

And if Iraq were ever to carry out an armed attack against the USA or Australia or the UK or anyone else, then those countries would be well within their rights to exercise their right of self-defence.

But of course, Iraq did not carry out an armed attack against the USA or Australia or the UK or anyone else in 2003. Those countries invaded illegally without provocation.

I don't understand what you mean by "Note the first part of my post.". I addressed all of your last post


And you ask If it were illegal, where are the sanctions against the US? It is because - as we have already determined - it is the UN Security Council that has the power to determine what is or is not illegal under Article 39. As you may recall - the USA and the UK are both permanent members of the UNSC with the power of veto. That is why there have been no sanctions against the illegal invaders.

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

We have already established that they did attack us, both through surrogates and in firing on our planes.

No you did not. I am talking about where I was talking about sovereignty.


You don’t even read your own sources do you? It plainly states that we would have no vote in a matter such as that.

__________________
ACHIEVEMENT
“Doing a good job in this place is kind of like peeing your pants while wearing a dark suit. You get a warm feeling, but no one notices..”


Http://www.nationalgunforum.com

I read the link you provide, and really I don't find anything that supports your conclusion that the coalition entered Iraq primarily for oil. The fact that this planning occured before 9-11 does not necessary indicate that a decision had been made to go to war against Iraq at that time. In addition, the report records the views of a number of private individuals who had no part in the decision-making process. That the war had a lot to do with oil, of course, is a given, but that's still a long way from saying the any country wanted to steal Iraq's oil. But the plans described by these individuals, for the privatization of Iraq's oil and for the circumventing OPEC, it seems to me, could also be explained as just common sense contingency planning. I'm sure the government has plans for drilling in ANWAR, but has not decided to take action on that decision.

LOL
...

AS Has been pointed out many times, Iraq was an overt proponent of international terrorism for 30 years prior to 911. In that Iraq refused to comply with US & UN demands to prove they were not stocking and producing and CBW and to distance themselves from international terrorism, the only reasonable conclusion was that Iraq was a biligerent; thus it was incumbent upon the US to follow US law and dispatch the Iraqi regime on the basis that Iraq was a clear and present danger to US security.

You not agreeing with that reasonable conclusion is irrelevant; your assertion that your own conclusion is fact has been discredited by your own failure to post factual evidence which reasonably leads to support of that conclusion. *edit*

In order to get sanctions there must be a resolution. Members can vote on resolutions against them. If you look there are no resolutions against the US because the US vetoed them.


Like I said before, if the US commits a crime that is described in international law, who do they answer to?

__________________
America's Enemies Are Not Mine

All wars represent a failure of diplomacy

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts.

I never said they entered Iraq primairly for oil. It is just one of many reasons.
Well there was also the part where Richard Clarke mentioned that Donald Rumsfeld was trying to see if there was anyway 911 could be blamed on Iraq.
Exactly. If these people were a part od the decision process there might not have been an Iraq invasion.
Then why did you ask me to prove it?
I never said they wanted to steal it. We've been through this before.
To make these plans before 911 along with the statements made in the PNAC (we need another Pearl Harbour) is good reason to be suspicious about the motives of this war.

__________________
America's Enemies Are Not Mine

All wars represent a failure of diplomacy

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts.

[quote=Tuatara;522821]In order to get sanctions there must be a resolution. Members can vote on resolutions against them. If you look there are no resolutions against the US because the US vetoed them.[/qutoe]

Where do you get that from?

__________________
ACHIEVEMENT
“Doing a good job in this place is kind of like peeing your pants while wearing a dark suit. You get a warm feeling, but no one notices..”


Http://www.nationalgunforum.com

Motives for war all laid out innumerable times by Bush.You are acting like the forthought to remove Saddam from power was a neocon invention.It was no secret ,going back for years(see Bill Clintons Iraqi liberation act of 199.Your constant assertions that Saddam never provoked the US is laughable.Maybe youre just using the wrong word for what you really mean but he certainly provoked the US on a consistant basis.The right to wage war against enemies, in the hands of the UN, also hysterical.

You ran from the EV1 conspiracy you seemed so sure of yourself with ,at least address how Iraq firing anti aircraft missles (which were banned under UN sanctions) at coalition planes not provoking the US? Save the 'missles were harmless' or 'fly zones illegal anyways' garbage. Saddam by ordering these attacks were meant to PROVOKE a response.

__________________