Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: stockman_scott who wrote (164076)	6/11/2005 10:16:39 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) of 281500

"We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in: 1. the right of individual or collective self-defence 2. if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe 3. or authorised by the UN Security Council.... "Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point. [EC: edited enough to make a person gag on the Bush/Bliar lies] ========= So, at this time Blair needed the UN. He must have gotten 'further legal advice' on the first two justifications in terms of IMMEDIACY and PROPORTIONALITY. Therefore, the WMDs were IMMEDIATE. Therefore, the WMDs were huge (nukes) so regime change was PROPORTIONAL to their threat. OMG. What human drivel these people are.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next