I thought there were 15+ documented violations of the cease fire agreement since 1991? I mean independently verified, by the UN, violations that had nothing to do with WMD's. This is what I'd always heard and read. Didn't Iraq kick the inspectors out entirely 5 or so years back? That's an obvious violation.
Let's be clear: I'm not justifying our invasion. But from everything I've seen, it WAS legally justified by the terms of the previous cease fire. On 6/23/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is the fuzzy part to me: yes we can invade if you *think* Iraq > has broken their promise. But they didn't. Our claim was that they > had WMD despite the fact that UN weapons inspectors had not finished > their job. > > (in a sense you could say we weren't in the right to invade until > after the inspection report, correct?) > > So, we say they violated the treaty and invaded, but we were wrong. > Now what's legal? Do we have to get out since we were wrong? If we > stay doesn't it make it an illegal occupation? That is, we said they > violated the treaty but we were wrong. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:210088 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
