I am not here to fight a court battle. Not here to come up with proof etc.
Yes you are (after a fashion)... an international court. That's one of the requirements of being a participant on this thread; that you document the rationale behind your opinions.
And you SHOULD WANT TO DO THIS, unless your idea of a discussion is some kind of Foreign Relations focused "Jerry Springer" forum (and I'm not into that).
This is also not a forum for people to spread unsubstantiated diatribes, and/or, outright lies. And the fact that Bush NEVER stated Iraq was an imminent threat is a glaring example of how dysfunctional some people's perspectives are.
The closest thing Bush said to that was merely that WE SHOULDN'T WAIT until Iraq is an imminent threat.
The UNSC did not give Bush the mandate to invade Iraq.
Another half-truth, if not outright lie. To declare Iraq in material breach is the same as Iraq having violated the truce/cease fire accord that halted hostilities.
Was Iraq in material breach of its cease fire obligations according to the UN? Yes.
Did they remedy that breach and come into full compliance? NO
Does such a violation nullify the truce/cease fire agreement in fact, and in principle? YES
Did the UNSC make every peaceful attempt to force Iraq to comply with 17 binding resolutions? YES
Was there any other viable recourse to bringing Iraq into full compliance given its deceitful and non-cooperative history over the past 12 years? NO
Reinstituting a flawed and failed "inspection" program would accomplish nothing. We still have 6,000 UNACCOUNTED FOR Chemical warheads floating around out there. I don't EVEN believe that Saddam destroyed them because there would have been intelligence indicators from such a massive demilitarization program.
Why is it so difficult for folks like you to admit that the US foreign policy failed miserably.
Maybe because your arguments, and others like you, are so weak and unconvincing?
For one, how do you define success and failure?
Is it failure for the UNSC to issue "hollow" binding resolutions it never intends to enforce?
What if we have a Justice system that operated that way? Would you claim the vigilantes were "failing miserably" because they find themselves forced to do the Court's job for them?
What I think will happen very soon is that countries like SA, Turkey etc. who were free of bombings, will soon start to say that it is because of the US adventure that they are being attacked and the rest of the world will develop anti-US sentiments even more.
Free for how long? Methinks you really can't fathom the magnitude of the problem this world is facing from Islamo-Fascist militants.
This didn't just spring out of nowhere. Islamo-Fascism has been making creeping inroads for decades, and more aggressively so over the past 10-15 years.
Why did Al-Qaeda target Turkey? They didn't participate in the Iraqi invasion, nor do they have any troops there. Their population was overwhelmingly against attacking Iraq..
But yet, they still get car-bombed...
You need to understand something about the Turks. They dealt with terrorism for decades from the PKK. The response that occurred was that the military became dominant in that society in order to maintain security.
This is what I believe is going to happen again, pushing the military, once again, to the forefront. And the military is not like the current Turkish civilian government. They have a very strong secular tradition and are generally pro-US.
This is politics and it is not black and white as you think it is.
Not for people who are deliberately seeking to revise or ignore history and to make up their rules as they go along..
People like you pay lip-service to the International Law. You only pay attention when it gives you a chance to bash on either Bush, or the entire US.
Hawk |
