Kofi :Iraq war was illegal

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Buddy Grant

That's not going to happen, in spite of what all you naysayers say I suspect things are really improving out there. But regardless, no matter how bad the situation in the entire middle east goes as a result of the Iraq war, at least Saddam has been removed from power, as he should rightly have been 14 years ago. These troublemakers in Iraq are mostly Saddam hardliners, outside terrorists, and prisoners that Saddam let out just before the war. They're letting out some steam, that's part of freedom after all, and you can't expect to make pudding without breaking a few jars.

Don't be putting me in boxes, son.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Whatever one thinks of the Iraq war, the United States (or any other country) does not, nor will it ever, need permission from the U.N. or any other country(s) to use force as it sees as appropriate in defense of its national security.

Debate all you want about whether this war was appropriate, or had anything to do with national security, or was right/wrong, whatever. But the implication here is just plain wrong.

But where is the line, who decided which country is "doing good" in invading and which country is doing the "illegal" when invading?

What if Saddam Hussain had used his weapons of mass destruction in an attack in te USA and claimed he's afraid of Bush going to attack someday, wouldn't that just sound very similair to what the same defense the goverment of the USA has stated?

Who's right, who's wrong? Mass-murder Saddam because he's got weapons he shouldn't have accoring to international agreements, or Bush who attacks Saddam with similair weapons, because Saddam is breaking the rules, even if Bush has to break the same rules?

It's not a matter of self defense, it's a matter of doing excatly the thing you say you want to avoid.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

But where is the line, who decided which country is "doing good" in invading and which country is doing the "illegal" when invading?

What if Saddam Hussain had used his weapons of mass destruction in an attack in te USA and claimed he's afraid of Bush going to attack someday, wouldn't that just sound very similair to what the same defense the goverment of the USA has stated?

Who's right, who's wrong? Mass-murder Saddam because he's got weapons he shouldn't have accoring to international agreements, or Bush who attacks Saddam with similair weapons, because Saddam is breaking the rules, even if Bush has to break the same rules?

It's not a matter of self defense, it's a matter of doing excatly the thing you say you want to avoid.

Do you even need to ask that question here? Of course Saddam would be the evil one doing it for the wrong reasons, if anyone invaded or attacked us they'd be labeled "terrorists" yet when we do it we're "liberating a country" or some other BS. It all ties into the "We can do anything we want and should have no consequences" line of thinking a lot of people in government (both sides) and around here have.

[Dutch]

Of course in order to continue this, you have to forget every thing Iraq has done that lead up to the invasion. And sadly enough, that is exactly what has happened to generate this debate.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Of course in order to continue this, you have to forget every thing Iraq has done that lead up to the invasion. And sadly enough, that is exactly what has happened to generate this debate.

No matter how you want to spin it, they still did nothing to force us to "protect ourselves". If anything, the invasion caused the distribution of WMDs to places unknown (if he still had any)