Iran massing troops on Iraq border

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Michael
LunarRay - It has already been brought to the US legal system and determined that President Bush had authority under US law and our Constitution to start the war. If you're going to argue treaties and international law and such say it is not legal then we're not going to agree. They're not enforceable.

So, yes, under the powers the President has as Commander-in-Chief under the Constitution and subsequent laws and as further given authority by the House and Senate of the American people, the war was and is legal under US law.

Moonbeam - What other sovereign nations decide to do to defend themselves is their choice. Should the USA determine that this is a threat to the USA or should the UN actually act on something and decide that it should be stopped, then we would get involved. We're not monkeys, we're human beings, so the rest of your attempt to seem erudite is moot.

Michael

Translation: I am a monkey and I feel stupid. I don't like feeling stupid because smart gets all the praise. I am stupid and can't be smart but maybe I can look like I am. I am now a stupid phony monkey. When I look out of my stupid phony monkey eyes I see, oddly enough, nothing but stupid phony monkeys. Moonbeam is a stupid phony monkey but not me. That makes me feel much better. How was that for erudite?

 

[Michael]

MoonTroll



DealMonkey

Show me the effective track record where these international organizations have really made a difference and I'll buy into your whining. The League of Nations sure stopped WWII. The UN did a great job after that in preventing all wars. Well, actually, that didn't happen. Whenever force has had to be projected, the USA has borne the bulk of it. For the most part, they have only worked because the consequences were too dire for one of the parties to not use them. One Bush statement that I'm still 100% behind is that UN actually has to make their resolutions mean something. In general, they mean wasted time, money, and a contribution to global warning because of all the hot air generated.

I'm just a nobody typing my opinion on an Internet message board. When it is really me making the decisions, then I'll care more.

Michael

 

[LunarRay]

Michael,
I don't doubt that the organizations are lacking to those who would like immediate action at all times. The fact is that the UN is us and a bunch of other nations. It is up to this body to act consistent with the need. We and others have SC veto but, we cannot push an agenda with out consensus. This is how it should be, I think.
It is as strong or as weak as the members make it. If we don't intend to use is as it is designed then we should opt out. Opt out of the requirement to follow its pronouncements and resolutions.. it is us who enforces them anyhow.. us and the other semi and super powers that can afford to send armed troops and equipment to and in the agreed manner.
We are a nation of laws and we shout at the top of our lungs that freedom is secured by our laws. To by pass law to enforce and install another law seems wrong to me.



edit... what does " " mean as in your post response to moonbeam?

 

[Michael]

: cookie : is feeding the troll without actually replying and wasting bandwidth. MoonTroll may think that he's being enlightened by calling me a monkey. I find it to be an insulting troll and a waste of time. It's even inaccurate in scientific terms as we're much closer to apes than monkeys.

I use : cookie : instead of simply ignoring him (he is one of the few posters I would have on ignore if the feature existed) to acknowledge the fact that I consider his post to be a troll. Many members would be banned for calling another member a stupid monkey, which he did in his reply directly addressed to me.

Michael

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Michael
: cookie : is feeding the troll without actually replying and wasting bandwidth. MoonTroll may think that he's being enlightened by calling me a monkey. I find it to be an insulting troll and a waste of time. It's even inaccurate in scientific terms as we're much closer to apes than monkeys.

I use : cookie : instead of simply ignoring him (he is one of the few posters I would have on ignore if the feature existed) to acknowledge the fact that I consider his post to be a troll. Many members would be banned for calling another member a stupid monkey, which he did in his reply directly addressed to me.

Michael

Actually Michael thought he could insult me by calling my post moot and simply an attempt to sound erudite, when in fact is was quite a colloquial post and showed not a trace of pretension. He was actually upset that somebody could possibly question his lack of moral judgment and needed to troll out an insult to ward off the evil eye. His words were:

"We're not monkeys, we're human beings, so the rest of your attempt to seem erudite is moot."

Michael clearly is a literal thinker gifted with little in the way of charitable imagination in that he could not see that I didn't say we were monkeys. What I said was that monkeys have a greater sense of morality than some people because they understand fair play as science has recently discovered. And like he admits we are closer to apes who are advanced over monkeys making it doubly odd. He likes to call me a troll in the hopes that by repeating something over and over again it will acquire legitimacy. It is a form of trolling.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Michael
Show me the effective track record where these international organizations have really made a difference and I'll buy into your whining. The League of Nations sure stopped WWII. The UN did a great job after that in preventing all wars. Well, actually, that didn't happen. Whenever force has had to be projected, the USA has borne the bulk of it. For the most part, they have only worked because the consequences were too dire for one of the parties to not use them. One Bush statement that I'm still 100% behind is that UN actually has to make their resolutions mean something. In general, they mean wasted time, money, and a contribution to global warning because of all the hot air generated.

I'm just a nobody typing my opinion on an Internet message board. When it is really me making the decisions, then I'll care more.

Michael

Well, you're certainly right about that last thing. No you're right Michael, let's buy into your defeatest attitude, because if America can flip off the rest of the world and bomb whomever we wish for no reason whatsoever, then certainly we're forging the best possible example for the rest of the world. Isn't that about the gist of it? Nobody's elses opinion matters except ours. Let's not try to solve our international problems diplomatically and peacefully. It's time to stop talking and time to start bombing.

Did you conveniently forget the first Gulf War? Operation Desert Storm? In which a true world-wide coalition formed under UN authority to force Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait. Had the threat from Iraq been anywhere near as clear 12+ years later, certainly the world and the UN would have united again.

Instead, a flimsy case for war was made by the Bush administration with no supporting evidence whatsoever. As expected, it hardly convinced anyone. Except the pathetic hangers-on and countries hard up for cash.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Michael
Show me the effective track record where these international organizations have really made a difference and I'll buy into your whining. The League of Nations sure stopped WWII. The UN did a great job after that in preventing all wars. Well, actually, that didn't happen. Whenever force has had to be projected, the USA has borne the bulk of it. For the most part, they have only worked because the consequences were too dire for one of the parties to not use them. One Bush statement that I'm still 100% behind is that UN actually has to make their resolutions mean something. In general, they mean wasted time, money, and a contribution to global warning because of all the hot air generated.

I'm just a nobody typing my opinion on an Internet message board. When it is really me making the decisions, then I'll care more.

Michael

Well, you're certainly right about that last thing. No you're right Michael, let's buy into your defeatest attitude, because if America can flip off the rest of the world and bomb whomever we wish for no reason whatsoever, then certainly we're forging the best possible example for the rest of the world. Isn't that about the gist of it? Nobody's elses opinion matters except ours. Let's not try to solve our international problems diplomatically and peacefully. It's time to stop talking and time to start bombing.

Did you conveniently forget the first Gulf War? Operation Desert Storm? In which a true world-wide coalition formed under UN authority to force Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait. Had the threat from Iraq been anywhere near as clear 12+ years later, certainly the world and the UN would have united again.

Instead, a flimsy case for war was made by the Bush administration with no supporting evidence whatsoever. As expected, it hardly convinced anyone. Except the pathetic hangers-on and countries hard up for cash.

The notion that you do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a pretty deep concept, DM, for people who are arrogantly convinced that Karma has stopped for them.

 

[Michael]

DealMonkey - The first Gulf War was almost 100% American military. It was also a war for Oil far more than the current Iraq war. After the fighting was over, there was a fair amount of money paid in by the partners, but it was a US war with more UN cover. Exactly my point, the UN needed and needs the USA's military might to enforce the doctrine.

I don't have a defeatist attitiude, I'm simply able to recognize what has failed and what has worked. For the most part, the UN is a failure.

I also reject your assesrtion that the USA bombed whomever they wished for whatever reason. I guess Great Britain is a lap dog of the USA by your estimation as well? The case was so flimesy that the vast majority of the House and Senate voted for it and the Clinton administration not only attacked Iraq when they were in power but supported

MoonTroll

You have no idea who the fsck I am, and what and how I think. You practice pop pschology like the retard that just wrote the book on Bush? You're a pathetic, sniveling troll. You claim to mean all these different things in your posts and to be oh so superior in your advanced thinking than the rest of us monkeys. You don't impress me in the slightest. If you weren't so "special" you would have been banned ages ago.

Michael

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Michael
DealMonkey - The first Gulf War was almost 100% American military. It was also a war for Oil far more than the current Iraq war. After the fighting was over, there was a fair amount of money paid in by the partners, but it was a US war with more UN cover. Exactly my point, the UN needed and needs the USA's military might to enforce the doctrine.

I don't have a defeatist attitiude, I'm simply able to recognize what has failed and what has worked. For the most part, the UN is a failure.

I also reject your assesrtion that the USA bombed whomever they wished for whatever reason. I guess Great Britain is a lap dog of the USA by your estimation as well? The case was so flimesy that the vast majority of the House and Senate voted for it and the Clinton administration not only attacked Iraq when they were in power but supported

MoonTroll

You have no idea who the fsck I am, and what and how I think. You practice pop pschology like the retard that just wrote the book on Bush? You're a pathetic, sniveling troll. You claim to mean all these different things in your posts and to be oh so superior in your advanced thinking than the rest of us monkeys. You don't impress me in the slightest. If you weren't so "special" you would have been banned ages ago.

Michael

There was a whole lot more International participation in th Gulf War then there is now.

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: conjur
Iran massing troops on Iraq border

I say, bring them on...

 

[etech]

Iran massing troops on Iraq border

Has Iran invaded Iraq yet? What happened to all of those troops MASSING on the border?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Hee, hee, those silly Iranians are falling into our trap. Let them mass more troops, the more the better. It just makes it that much easier to take them out.

Ayatollah of Rock n Rolla!

GWB is a freaking genius!!!

oh yeah just like having all the terrorist go to iraq makes em esier to fight too. Talk to the 800-some happy soldiers that came back in boxes.... they had gay time fighting those terrorist in iraq

motion to set the quoted as the most ignorant post of the year....

Oh yeah I wouldn't blame Bush for this either. Thought Iran should''ve and should be of concern, Ayatollah would have to be smoking crack to think that UN and Nato will let him invade a soon-to-be-sovereign nation.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Michael
DealMonkey - The first Gulf War was almost 100% American military. It was also a war for Oil far more than the current Iraq war. After the fighting was over, there was a fair amount of money paid in by the partners, but it was a US war with more UN cover. Exactly my point, the UN needed and needs the USA's military might to enforce the doctrine.

Michael, I seem to remember that there were Divisional or at least Regimental sized participants from many nations and funding from those who didn't send troops. But, more importantly is the notion that the UN is something it is not.. It is the US and all the members. It is not some separate entity that is ineffective any more than what we allow it to be.. we and the rest of the world. Effectiveness cannot be measured by our standards alone. We are but a small part of the world's population.

I don't have a defeatist attitiude, I'm simply able to recognize what has failed and what has worked. For the most part, the UN is a failure.

I also reject your assesrtion that the USA bombed whomever they wished for whatever reason. I guess Great Britain is a lap dog of the USA by your estimation as well? The case was so flimesy that the vast majority of the House and Senate voted for it and the Clinton administration not only attacked Iraq when they were in power but supported

The nation with the biggest stick gets to call the shots, usually. The one with the biggest stake in jeopardy. We tend to put at risk much more so it only stands to reason that we control... What we bomb in the process of executing the war agenda is based on what logic they use. Clinton has not to do with either of the Iraqi ventures. You may say he should have done something but, is it not possible that he could not get a concensus to act in much the same manner Bush could not. And, Clinton was not about to violate UN efforts by invading?

MoonTroll

You have no idea who the fsck I am, and what and how I think. You practice pop pschology like the retard that just wrote the book on Bush? You're a pathetic, sniveling troll. You claim to mean all these different things in your posts and to be oh so superior in your advanced thinking than the rest of us monkeys. You don't impress me in the slightest. If you weren't so "special" you would have been banned ages ago.
Michael, you misread Moonbeam. He draws analogy betwix monkeys and humans and how the one can exist without formal communication skills while the other uses those skills to save its ego from attack when it seeks to defend a POV that is under attack. The former has no ego attributes manifested in behavior but rather, just relies on genetic understanding of right and not right to sort out its differences. And, his posts in this matter are, IMO, not an attempt to impress but, rather to indicate an observation. At the time we were talking about the meaning of words we were using and why the debate sought to go around and around the barn. Monkeys don't do that. They battle the foe cuz it was right to do so.

Michael

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Michael
DealMonkey - The first Gulf War was almost 100% American military. It was also a war for Oil far more than the current Iraq war. After the fighting was over, there was a fair amount of money paid in by the partners, but it was a US war with more UN cover. Exactly my point, the UN needed and needs the USA's military might to enforce the doctrine.

WRONG. U.S. troops represented 74% of 660,000 troops in the theater of war. The remainder consisted of soldiers from 34 countries: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States itself.

As for "the UN need(ing) ... the USA's military might to enforce the doctrine" that would be fine if the UN had authorized such actions. They most certainly didn't. If the US wants to enforce UN resolutions, fine. Let's allow the UN to decide when military action is needed. Let's also be consistant and enforce ALL UN Resolutions, not just the ones we find politically expedient. There are a number of UN Resolutions against Israel that we never even pretend to enforce.

I don't have a defeatist attitiude, I'm simply able to recognize what has failed and what has worked. For the most part, the UN is a failure.

In your opinion. And it probably won't change either given that you seem to believe that outright military action alone solves international issues.

I also reject your assesrtion that the USA bombed whomever they wished for whatever reason. I guess Great Britain is a lap dog of the USA by your estimation as well? The case was so flimesy that the vast majority of the House and Senate voted for it and the Clinton administration not only attacked Iraq when they were in power but supported

Okay, let's go back and examine the Gulf War I since it's the most relevant to OIF:

Within hours of the initial invasion, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 660, condemning the invasion and demanding a withdrawal of Iraqi troops. On August 6, the Security Council passed Resolution 661, placing economic sanctions on Iraq and, on November 29, Resolution 678 was passed, giving Iraq a withdrawal deadline of January 15, 1991, and authorizing "all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660".

Back then, the UN gave full cover for the international coalition to move in and liberate Kuwait. Fast forward to now and G Dubya received no such international cover from the UN before invading Iraq. It's an important distinction because international legitimacy depends on the UN's approval. Without it, we're seen as going it alone. We're also setting a bad example for other nations, but I already covered that.

Regarding your points about England -- yes I believe they are our lapdog. Sit boy, sit. Good doggy.

The Congress wrote a blank check for war, even though they believed Dubya would secure International cover for any potential action from the UN first, and even though they probably were so cowed by FUD post-9/11 that they would have voted to nuke the entire planet if it "made us safer." Yes, I blame Congress too -- they have the responsibility of oversight and an even greater responsibility per the war powers act. They failed as well IMO.

And finally, who cares what Clinton thinks?

 

[hokiezilla]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Oh boy...what fun we have to look forward to if we pull out soon.

Thanks again, George "Fvcking Idiot" Bush.

:roll: Yeah - I suppose it's now Bush's fault Iran looks to be power hungry?

They will be dealt with...unless john "fvcking appeaser" kerry gets elected.

CkG

Tell US how America will deal with them? Tell me IRan doesn't already have Nucular (bush speak) weaponry of some kinds?

Tell us that Iran does not already have Terrorists inside the USA waiting to strike??

The NEOCONVICTS really SCREWED THIS COUNTRY FOR YEARS AND YEARS TO COME

They created more terrorists than any administration in the history of mankind.

You sound like a walking vagina. Some of you clowns are so naive it's funny. It doesn't matter what we do, they will target us. We were a target before President Bush and "the neocons" ever sniffed the White House. I think it should be apparent to even the most imbecilic that President Clinton bent over backwards to show good will towards those of the Muslim faith. His policy accomplished nothing but demonstrate (intended or not) that we were weak and unwilling to take action in the face of their barbaric acts.

President Clinton did make the very decent gesture of committing US military forces in Kosovo. The aim was to stop the genocide being committed by Milosevic against Kosovo's Muslim population. Yet during his tenure we were attacked repeatedly. His reaction in almost every case was flaccid. What did that get us? The Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the WTC bombing, and finally 9/11.

We could kiss their collective unwashed terrorist asses until the stars burn out and they would still find a reason to attack us. These a**holes are barbarians. You can't reason with them. They are stuck in the fvcking dark ages and you clowns want to "reason" with them. You cannot reason with one who is by definition unreasonable and forever outside the bounds of civilized man.

 

[LunarRay]

Dealer,
Regarding the Joint Congressional Resolution and War Powers Act authority submitted by The President back in Oct '02. Congress, as you know - I know, votes what is politically right and that is not always what is the right thing to do. Remember, in election years the House and Senate may vote Donald Duck a favorable sense of the Congress accolade.
The Resolution contained UN language from the Failed Draft and 1441 among others. But, the point I'm trying to make is simply getting Congressional approval to go to war does not give legal sanction in the World community. Iraq's Saddam may have gotten his Parliment to authorize invasion of Kuwait.. using logic one could argue that made the venture proper. If the US can why can't they..?

 

[Michael]

DealMonkey - Please go and look at who actually fought in the first Gulf War vs. sending "troops" over. You'll find that the USA did more than the 74% troop numbers show. 74% is still the vast majority of the troops sent. I would have to add up the numbers in the current Iraq war, but I don't think that the USA contribution is much different than the 74% of the first war.

I mentioned Clinton only because of the Bush lied and all Bush's fault bleating. Selective memory is in place as the belief that Iraq had WMD and was a serious threat was wide-spread, bi-partisan and included members of the immediately preceeding administration that also attacked Iraq during their term.

LunarRay - You and I have a fundamental matter in which we disagree. The USA does not need "legal sanction in the world community". The President was authorized under US law to take the action he did. The point that Iraq had their own local authorization to go into Kuwait is a red herring. Let us ignore the fact that it was a dictatorship and such approval was simply the will of the leadership. The rest of the world did not agree and acted by using force. As this has not happened to the USA (there is no coalition of countries massing forces to free Iraq, there are no UN Security council resolutions being passed denoucing the invasion and insisting that the USA leave, there are no trade embargos targeting the USA, etc), I find it hard to agree with your assertion that the war was illegal.

I have not seen any sign of any significant world body taking action to declare the US war on Iraq "illegal". Not even the Arab League has done so. Maybe it makes for an interesting illtelectual debate, but it isn't even close to being a fact.

As for the MoonTroll that you are so in love with that you changed his name to ape him, you're adding meaning beyond what he wrote. Read what he wrote (and writes) without the filter of adding extra meaning to it. He likes to pretend to have deeper meaning behind his posts when he actually is an insulting ass. There is no doubt that he called me a monkey and tried to put his own meaning on what I wrote. He has long been the worst and most consistent troll on this board.

Michael

 

[LunarRay]

Hokiezilla,

It doesn't matter what we do, they will target us. We were a target before President Bush and "the neocons" ever sniffed the White House. I think it should be apparent that President Clinton bent over backwards to show good will towards those of the Muslim faith. His policy accomplished nothing but demonstrate (intended or not) that we were weak and unwilling to take action in the face of their barbaric acts.

President Clinton did make the very decent gesture of committing US military forces in Kosovo. The aim was to stop the genocide being committed by Milosevic against Kosovo's Muslim population. Yet during his tenure we were attacked repeatedly. His reaction in almost every case was flaccid. What did that get us? The Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the WTC bombing, and finally 9/11.

We could kiss their collective unwashed terrorist asses until the stars burn out and they would still find a reason to attack us. These a**holes are barbarians. You can't reason with them. They are stuck in the dark ages and you want to "reason" with them. You cannot reason with one who is by definition unreasonable and forever outside the bounds of civilized man.

amended

There are a few different rational POV to consider as well as the methodology best to be used to deal with the terrorist aggression. IMO

My focus is to do with the Rule of Law. It is always the Rule of Law that supports the actions and inactions of those in power. In this case it is the International Law and the UN that is in the focus. I argue that we must follow the world body in dealing with other sovereign nations.
The terrorist is not always part of a nation or even supported by the, in this case, the Muslim teachings or its followers. It is true you cannot 'talk' with this type of terrorist. Where 'talk' is diplomacy in a formal manner. Maybe a less formal meeting of the minds would result in understanding why they seek to target the US and friends. What is it we need to do to eliminate the threat against us. Keeping in mind that it is no more barbaric to act as they do than to drop enormous bombs in their cities... they have less sophisticated equipment but, the result is the same... it is a war.
OBL was our friend against the USSR and now our enemy. Maybe it is possible that our intervention in their part of the world was a mistake. Maybe they don't like a gift of freedom from the infidel... the devil's temptation. Maybe we cannot win in this kind of adventure and shouldn't try. Maybe we should let them do as they do right or wrong according to our thinking.
The most righteous of quests must consider the reality of its affect and weigh it against the cost.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Michael
DealMonkey - The first Gulf War was almost 100% American military. It was also a war for Oil far more than the current Iraq war. After the fighting was over, there was a fair amount of money paid in by the partners, but it was a US war with more UN cover. Exactly my point, the UN needed and needs the USA's military might to enforce the doctrine.

I don't have a defeatist attitiude, I'm simply able to recognize what has failed and what has worked. For the most part, the UN is a failure.

I also reject your assesrtion that the USA bombed whomever they wished for whatever reason. I guess Great Britain is a lap dog of the USA by your estimation as well? The case was so flimesy that the vast majority of the House and Senate voted for it and the Clinton administration not only attacked Iraq when they were in power but supported

MoonTroll

You have no idea who the fsck I am, and what and how I think. You practice pop pschology like the retard that just wrote the book on Bush? You're a pathetic, sniveling troll. You claim to mean all these different things in your posts and to be oh so superior in your advanced thinking than the rest of us monkeys. You don't impress me in the slightest. If you weren't so "special" you would have been banned ages ago.

Michael

M: "You have no idea who the fsck I am, and what and how I think."

Really? Well I can tell from that that statement you have little in the way of self knowledge. I know you as well as I know me because we are all the same. You just like to call something Pop psychology to fend off any inkling of the value or real introspection for fear of what you'll find, me looking out at you. I know you like the back of my hand. I is you. I'm a pathetic, sniveling troll because that's how you feel about yourself and why you won't look inside. I really and truly did mean all those wonderful things just as LunarRay was easily able to lay them out and there's nothing so superior or advanced in my thinking over the rest of us monkeys except for the fact that you're somehow unconsciously impressed by me and are feeling inferior because of that. Could be the reason I'm so brilliant and insightful is I don't got most of my ego thoughts worrying about whether I impress anybody and just say what I see. I don't got no need to impress you. I'm already as fantastic as can be. And don't forget, I am you.

 

[DealMonkey]

Oh Michael, I almost forgot to mention: After you add up all of the international monetary contributions to fund Op Desert Storm, that war was practically FREE! I'm sure you can see the benefit to having a REAL coalition that helps defray the costs of the war and the occupation as opposed to now where WE foot the bill AND we have to buy off other nation's support.

Big, big difference. Anyone who was remotely fiscally conservative should immediately sense the benefits of building a true international consensus on these sorts of issues.

As for the ins and outs of the politics running up to OIF and whether the UN is relevant or not, etc., etc. it's all been hashed out here many, many times before. Further, no one is changing their opinion at this point anyway. So I'd rather not waste my breath rehashing it. No offense to you or anything, but I've been trying not to get sucked into these same old debates over and over.

I guess we can agree to disagree on some of these points.

 

[LunarRay]

Michael,

LunarRay - You and I have a fundamental matter in which we disagree. The USA does not need "legal sanction in the world community". The President was authorized under US law to take the action he did. The point that Iraq had their own local authorization to go into Kuwait is a red herring. Let us ignore the fact that it was a dictatorship and such approval was simply the will of the leadership. The rest of the world did not agree and acted by using force. As this has not happened to the USA (there is no coalition of countries massing forces to free Iraq, there are no UN Security council resolutions being passed denoucing the invasion and insisting that the USA leave, there are no trade embargos targeting the USA, etc), I find it hard to agree with your assertion that the war was illegal.

I have not seen any sign of any significant world body taking action to declare the US war on Iraq "illegal". Not even the Arab League has done so. Maybe it makes for an interesting illtelectual debate, but it isn't even close to being a fact.

As for the MoonTroll that you are so in love with that you changed his name to ape him, you're adding meaning beyond what he wrote. Read what he wrote (and writes) without the filter of adding extra meaning to it. He likes to pretend to have deeper meaning behind his posts when he actually is an insulting ass. There is no doubt that he called me a monkey and tried to put his own meaning on what I wrote. He has long been the worst and most consistent troll on this board.

Michael

I opine the US does need approval beyond the US Congress to carry out war acts in another nation. It must and does rely on UN Article 51 currently for its Iraqi invasion. So at least the US government thinks it does.
I agree the World body has not sought remedy against the US in this matter. I've said that over and over. It is an allegation of an illegal act that has not been made in the World Court. It is still to be litigated in the legal sense but, in the common sense court of public opinion it has and it seems to me the evidence is overwhelming and against our actions.

Regarding the comments to me regarding Moonbeam's post. And I quote... "Monkeys know fair play genetically, but human beings, owing to the fact that right and ego are often at odds, like to question the meaning of words, pretending thereby, to be innocent of their true inner knowledge and pretending to themselves to be decent." It seems obvious that what is said and what I said regarding it are similar in context and value. It is what I intended in any event.
The other bits I'll let pass on.. except to say that I changed MY name to better identify with him. And, I love everyone and especially someone as decent a person as Moonbeam.

 

[Michael]

DealMonkey - The difference is that we both agree that it is a bonus to get the "free" war, but I think that paying is fine if you think it is a real threat to the USA. I belive that Iraq was a threat and the invasion was justified. I think the monies being spent now will save even more in the long run.

Michael

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Michael
DealMonkey - The difference is that we both agree that it is a bonus to get the "free" war, but I think that paying is fine if you think it is a real threat to the USA. I belive that Iraq was a threat and the invasion was justified. I think the monies being spent now will save even more in the long run.

Michael

You can believe all you want, but that doesn't change the Truth: Iraq was no Threat to anyone. Hell, it couldn't even control a large part of its' own territory.

 

[Michael]

sandorski - Iraq needed constant montitoring and attacks since the Gulf War to keep it in check and you say it was a theat to nobody? They constantly supported terror stikes on Israel. Are you irrational?

Michael

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Michael
sandorski - Iraq needed constant montitoring and attacks since the Gulf War to keep it in check and you say it was a theat to nobody? They constantly supported terror stikes on Israel. Are you irrational?

Michael

Irrational? No, that "support" was the same "support" given by practically all Mid-East governments, that is Money to the Families of Suicide Bombers, not the Bombers themselves.

What threat was Iraq? Have they attacked anyone outside of their borders since the Gulf War? Have they threatened any of their Neighbours since then? Were Iraq's Neighbours feeling threatened?