Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Chevalerous

---

Well if you stop to watch your propaganda news you would know that things aren't that pretty!

Seems you pay more attention to my propaganda news than I do.

Keep on believing the hype.

Please remind me, what is the purpose of illegally invading and occupying Iraq, and the US military objective in Iraq ?

I watch almost all news channels of the world here in Europe in four different languages - uncensored mind you!

And I am comparing these news broadcasts with the same American versions which are heavily censored and twisted - and you tell me what to believe?

FOX NEWS?

My dear neocon friend! - jam321 (nice handle/code name)

You said:

"Anyways, can't give you a purpose on any illegal invasion because there wasn't one."

"Now we did legally invade Iraq. Care to talk about that legal invasion?"

Well you are certainly lying here, or You're honestly mistaking yourself!?

The Iraq war was certainly according to International Law Illegal, and more so even Illegal to US laws because the administration failed to give the proofs and evidence to congress on the eve of the war.

Lets take a look what the neocon grandmaster himself said shall we?:

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone"

Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office. Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal. And We The People are not under any legal or moral obligation to pay for it, let alone let our kids be killed in it.

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

And his intervention at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that the war was legitimised by security council resolutions

Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal

Blair's defense is bogus, says the former UN weapons inspector - by Anne Penketh in Stockholm and Andrew Grice

The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair.

Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.

Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, revealed that the Government had assumed, until the eve of war in Iraq, that it needed a specific UN mandate to authorize military action.

Mr Blix demolished the argument advanced by Lord Goldsmith three days before the war began, which stated that resolution 1441 authorized the use of force because it revived earlier UN resolutions passed after the 1991 ceasefire.

Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire

He said to challenge that interpretation would set a dangerous precedent. "Any individual member could take a view - the Russians could take one view, the Chinese could take another, they could be at war with each other, theoretically," Mr Blix said.

Mr Blix, who is an international lawyer by training, said: "I would suspect there is a more skeptical view than those two A4 pages," in a reference to Clare Short's contemptuous description of the 358-word summary.

It emerged on Wednesday that a Foreign Office memo, sent to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the same day that Lord Goldsmith's summary was published, made clear that there was no "automaticity" in resolution 1441 to justify war.

Asked whether, in his view, a second resolution authorizing force should have been adopted, Mr Blix replied: "Oh yes."

I have been widely but wrongly depicted as deeply involved in the making of administration policy, especially with respect to Iraq. Facts notwithstanding, there are some fifty thousand entries on Google in which I am described as an “architect,” and often as “the architect,” of the Iraq War. I certainly supported and argued publicly for the decision to remove Saddam, as I do in what follows. But had I been the architect of that war, our policy would have been very different.

Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by Silver Shadow

---

That's BS.

The UN has nothing to do with nation's ability to wage war.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Chevalerous

---

You want to debate. I'm for it. But you bringing in name calling serves no purpose.

How about some common sense and respect toward each other?

No lies- No mistake.

Article number one you presented-

Don't you find it odd that it took him a year to grow a conscious? I mean the war didn't actually start off as good as everybody hoped it would. This guy has been distancing himself ever since.

I have been widely but wrongly depicted as deeply involved in the making of administration policy, especially with respect to Iraq. Facts notwithstanding, there are some fifty thousand entries on Google in which I am described as an “architect,” and often as “the architect,” of the Iraq War. I certainly supported and argued publicly for the decision to remove Saddam, as I do in what follows. But had I been the architect of that war, our policy would have been very different.

thinkprogress.org...

Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

No Congress mentioned in text below. Only has to report to Speaker of House President Pro Temp. And nowhere in section one or 2 does it says he has to prove anything. All Bush had to show was his determination.

This resolution is LEGAL.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

uspolitics.about.com...


Hans Blix is not a US citizen. Once again, the resolution our Congress passed is legit.

Has any of the world international organizations like the UN, NATO, War Crimes Tribunals, etc. OFFICIALLY declared the Iraq war illegal?

I thought not.


[edit on 1-11-2009 by jam321]

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Chevalerous

---

A very cute, very fluffy, warm and fuzzy post. For all that, and for all the verbiage set forth in it, not ONCE, not in ONE SINGLE PLACE, was there a solid reference to any law that had been broken, which would make the wars "illegal".

The UN decleared the war Illgal - read Annan's statement in the liks I posted!

Doesn't matter now, but according to us in the rest of the world the war is illegal!

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by Silver Shadow

---

No, the UN has no real international power.

The UN is like a toothless old woman. Yaps a lot, but nothing to be concerned with.

The UN doesn't have any authority EXCEPT to "approve" an action, but as we can all see, every few months, atrocities, or attacks occur somewhere.

Resolutions have no teeth.

The root word in "enforcement" is the word force.

Nations determine the requirement for war. And then go about it.

NOT the UN.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Chevalerous

---

The UN decleared the war Illgal - read Annan's statement in the liks I posted!

Don't tell me what Annan said or declared. He is but one voice of the UN or was.

Show me the actual resolution that the UN drafted up declaring the war as illegal and what consequences they think the US should pay.

7 years and counting and I haven't seen one yet.

Doesn't matter now, but according to us in the rest of the world the war is illegal!

In Texas, we call those opinions and those come a dime a dozen.