I made clear, several times, that my use of 20 years was because the post I was referring to was talking about Reagan vs. Bush invasions.
That is not what I am reading here. You are quite explicitly explaining the reason for your "20 years" time limit right here:
>>>One reason to limit the point to the last 20 years is that WMD have been used for millenia, but international law banning their use is fairly recent<<<
Message 19768459
When I asked which "international law" you were referring to, you said:
>>>You could start with the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925. If you want to go more recent, move fifty years to the Convention on the Prohibition on the Stockpiling of Toxin Weapons.<<<
Message 19776766
To that, I have pointed out that:
(1) A treaty in 1925 cannot be a reason to limit the discussion to the past twenty years
(2) Iraq signed but did not ratify that Convention. Therefore, any argument on why Iraq should be invaded because it did not abide by this Convention would be like invading US because it does not follow Kyoto.
siliconinvestor.com
And to all that, your reply is a bunch of personal attacks. "You are this, you are that" yada yada.
Basically, once again, you have resorted to ad hominems as soon as you realize you are being backed into a corner.
How is THAT "honest discussion"? |
