azimuth - 11/29/2005 6:10 PM
kvining - 11/29/2005 11:55 AM
azimuth - 11/28/2005 10:29 PM
Shane - 11/28/2005 10:10 PM
azimuth - 11/28/2005 8:58 PM
Syracuse315 - 11/28/2005 9:02 PM
azimuth - 11/28/2005 8:52 PM
GermanStar - 11/28/2005 8:20 PM
You're right. Poland was a much greater threat to Germany than Iraq was to the U.S., by virtue of proximity alone.
If Iraq had ties to terrorist activity, would that make them a threat to the US in a post 9/11 world?
Yes it would have. Too bad they didnt have a terrorist link.
What kinds of things do terrorists do? Specifically, what have their methods been in Israel, Jordan, UK and Spain?
And the vast majority of 9/11 terrorists were Saudi's. Logic holds we should have invaded that country not Iraq. Face it, we invaded Iraq not for terrorist reasons but for oppurtunistic reasons revolving around black gold.
Listen, I'm not a fan of how we got there either. I do think that Iraq was an easier target to topple and one the UN would more likely authorize. Remember, the UN did give governing authority to the US and the UK before we entered Iraq and unseated Saddam.
That is simply not true, azimuth. The governing authority for Iraq was the UN Security Council. In order to act under UN authority, we had to get their approval. We were unable to. The UN wished to wait for a final report from the UN Weapons Inspectors, asking for six more weeks to categorically prove there assertion that Iraq had no WMDs . We refused to, and attacked on our own, without authority, and without the consent of the UN. It was an act of war criminals and has left a stain as dark as the ones left by Hitler on us.
I stumbled on a timeline in Wikipedia that stated what I repeated. I'll double check with another source. Thanks for the heads up
Here is an analysis:
Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan
Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday September 16, 2004
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."
He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."
Mr Annan has until now kept a tactful silence and his intervention at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that the war was legitimised by security council resolutions.
Mr Annan also questioned whether it will be feasible on security grounds to go ahead with the first planned election in Iraq scheduled for January. "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now," he said.
His remarks come amid a marked deterioration of the situation on the ground, an upsurge of violence that has claimed 200 lives in four days and raised questions over the ability of the interim Iraqi government and the US-led coalition to maintain control over the country.
They also come as Mr Blair is trying to put the controversy over the war behind him in the run-up to the conference season, a new parliamentary term and next year's probable general election.
The UN chief had warned the US and its allies a week before the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate the UN charter. But he has hitherto refrained from using the damning word "illegal".
Both Mr Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, claim that Saddam Hussein was in breach of security council resolution 1441 passed late in 2002, and of previous resolutions calling on him to give up weapons of mass destruction. France and other countries claimed these were insufficient.
No immediate comment was available from the White House late last night, but American officials have defended the war as an act of self-defence, allowed under the UN charter, in view of Saddam Hussein's supposed plans to build weapons of mass destruction.
However, last September, Mr Annan issued a stern critique of the notion of pre-emptive self-defence, saying it would lead to a breakdown in international order. Mr Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorising war against Iraq. Mr Blair and Mr Straw tried to secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to the war but were unable to convince a sceptical security council.
Mr Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.
Here is an in-depth discussion of the legal issues: