While you may have refuted it that doesn't mean you're correct.
I don't see a comeback from you as to why I would NOT be correct, though. Hence, my point stands - Iraq entered the ceasefire with the UN (not the US), the sanctions were imposed by the UN (not the US), and if they were violated, it was the UN (not the US) that could LEGALLY take military action against Iraq.
Iraq violated the 1991 cease fire agreement - Period. That's all we needed to justify another invasion.
No.
Please don't make me think you don't even understand what I am saying.
The situation is that of a vigilante, and as such, is illegal. UN was and is the only legal counterparty to Iraq who could take military action. The UN said it was not a good idea to invade Iraq, that sanctions should continue. Illegally, the US invaded Iraq on its own.
Basically, it's the situation of the courts sentencing a criminal to ten years in prison, and some guy thinking he wasn't punished enough, putting a bullet in his head.
Don't tell me you think it's OK to kill criminals if you feel the courts have not punished them appropriately.
Iraq violated the 1991 cease fire agreement - Period. That's all we needed to justify another invasion |
