Evidence of complete baselessness

[seinfeldrules]

The conditions for the cease-fire in that resolution (and subsequent resolutions) imposed obligations on Iraq with regard to the elimination of WMD and monitoring of its obligations. Resolution 687 suspended, but did not terminate, the authority to use force in resolution 678. Nor has any subsequent resolution terminated the authorisation to use force in resolution 678.

Doesnt that statment mean that we already had justification to invade? Saddam had pulled the plug numerous times.

 

[CptStern]

The conditions for the cease-fire in that resolution (and subsequent resolutions) imposed obligations on Iraq with regard to the elimination of WMD and monitoring of its obligations. Resolution 687 suspended, but did not terminate, the authority to use force in resolution 678. Nor has any subsequent resolution terminated the authorisation to use force in resolution 678.

Doesnt that statment mean that we already had justification to invade? Saddam had pulled the plug numerous times.

no, look at the date:

March 7th 2003 ...10 days before the invasion

the legal advice is saying their is NO LEGAL BASIS for invading ...the resolution you're referring to gives them authorization if he doesnt comply but he WAS complying ...look, here's everything that happened right up to the invasion


here's the day after the beginning of the invasion: March 18 2003


"Bush sends a letter to Congress justifying the invasion of Iraq. First, he has determined that further diplomacy will not protect the US. Second, he is “continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” [White House, 3/18/03] This mimics language from a bill passed by Congress in October 2002, which granted Bush the power to declare war against Iraq if a link with the 9/11 attacks is shown and several other conditions are met. [White House, 10/2/02] But there is no evidence linking Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, a simple fact that even Bush has acknowledged "


none of his justifications hold up legally according to his own advisors

1. self-defense (clear and imminent)
2. Humanitarian
3. authorization by Security council

 

[No Limit]

The conditions for the cease-fire in that resolution (and subsequent resolutions) imposed obligations on Iraq with regard to the elimination of WMD and monitoring of its obligations. Resolution 687 suspended, but did not terminate, the authority to use force in resolution 678. Nor has any subsequent resolution terminated the authorisation to use force in resolution 678.

Doesnt that statment mean that we already had justification to invade? Saddam had pulled the plug numerous times.

None of those resolutions gave authority to attack. But you are drifting away from the main question. I already asked you to show me where encarta drew that conclusion, it was misleading. So Blix said he wanted 6 months to disarm; Bush said a few months before that to congress he would do everything he could to avoid war. So why didn't he give those months to Blix? I hate to repeat this question over and over.

 

[No Limit]

here's everything that happened right up to the invasion

Great link, bookmarked.:thumbs:

Shows what most open minded people already know, Bush was set on attacking Iraq from the very beginning.

 

[Foxtrot]

Great link, bookmarked.:thumbs:

Shows what most open minded people already know, Bush was set on attacking Iraq from the very beginning.

Hah, you don't consider yourself open minded do you?

 

[No Limit]

Hah, you don't consider yourself open minded do you?

You are no different than a troll, posting nonstop flame bait. Just leave already :sniper:

 

[Foxtrot]

You are no different than a troll, posting nonstop flame bait. Just leave already :sniper:

Ouch, that is pretty funny coming from you.

 

[CptStern]

foxtrot No Limit is right, you're not contributing to this thread in any meaningful way

 

[Tr0n]

See...I'm open minded.

None of you are.

So I win.GG.

 

[Foxtrot]

foxtrot No Limit is right, you're not contributing to this thread in any meaningful way

And No Limit was with that statement? Sounded more like trolling to be.

 

[CptStern]

yes but look at the other posts he made in this thread

 

[Foxtrot]

yes but look at the other posts he made in this thread

Great, but those aren't what I am questioning.

 

[No Limit]

Ignoring Foxtrot is anyone going to reply to my simple question.

I know Glirk and Foxtrot read the question but refuse to answer it. Seinfeld you tired but please come back and reply to my follow up. Like I said, I am sick of people supporting lies when people are dying daily for those lies.

 

[Chris D]

You're all bickering again.

Closed.