No man, wrong treaty. He's talking about the cease fire that they signed after the first war.
It specified that they allow inspectors in, and that they discontinued hostilities. They fired upon multiple American aircraft and they didn't allow the inspectors in, that was enough. > -----Original Message----- > From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 11:23 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Tim, what's your thoughts on this? > > > 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. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:210108 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
