F*** that. We had plenty of authority to invade, going back to the original invasion of Kuwait. We could have done it then, but Bush 41 was afraid that the coalition would fall apart if he did. Plus, it turns out that Saddam was prepared to use chemical weapons on our troops had they invaded, so for the sake of the hundreds of thousands of Americans on the ground at the time, I am glad we didn't invade back then.
On 6/23/06, Gruss wrote: > > > gMoney wrote: > > International law is relevant....only not in this application. As > someone > > pointed out, the US, and any other member nation with whom Iraq signed > the > > cease fire after the first Gulf War, would be well within their rights > under > > international law to attack Iraq for breaking their promises. > > > > 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. > -- --------------- Robert Munn www.funkymojo.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:210104 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
