NationStates Jolt Archive

The vast majority killed by Saddam died in his campaign against the Kurds in the 80's. A second campaign was made impossible by the no fly zone.

I largely agree with you, but...

The no-fly zone did dick. It grounded fixed-wing aircraft, only. Consequently, American pilots patrolling the NFZ got front row seats to Iraqi Hinds strafing columns of refugees trying to escape Saddam's crack down on the Kurds and others who rebelled against Saddam following Gulf War II.

I largely agree with you, but...

The no-fly zone did dick. It grounded fixed-wing aircraft, only. Consequently, American pilots patrolling the NFZ got front row seats to Iraqi Hinds strafing columns of refugees trying to escape Saddam's crack down on the Kurds and others who rebelled against Saddam following Gulf War II.

Give the Kurds spud cannons. That would have shown those Hind pilots not to mess around!

If WMD were the ONLY reason then you have a case but u don't have a case because there was more than one reason for this war.

Like what ? Removing the leader of a sovereign nation from power because you dislike the way he runs his country ? Punishing someone for a terrorist attack he had nothing to do with ? Obtaining control over a significant part of the worlds oil supply ?

Actually that last reason is IMO quite valid, as I have said before. But most supporters of the US government tend to vehemently deny "they went in for the oil" for some reason. Bu in any case, it was not the officially advertised reason.

I largely agree with you, but...

The no-fly zone did dick. It grounded fixed-wing aircraft, only. Consequently, American pilots patrolling the NFZ got front row seats to Iraqi Hinds strafing columns of refugees trying to escape Saddam's crack down on the Kurds and others who rebelled against Saddam following Gulf War II.

Actually I believe you are referring to the infamous aftermath of the first Gulf war, where helicopters were indeed used to crush the southern Shia uprising, due to an oversight. I'm actually talking about the Kurdish territories in the North, which were effectively independent of Saddam post Gulf 1.

*snip*

the war wasn't about oil Squeaky Rat. About time the left gets off that kick. No one is buying it.

the war wasn't about oil Squeaky Rat. About time the left gets off that kick. No one is buying it.


So what was the single greatest cause of:

1.) The 2003 Invasion of Iraq?

and

2.) The Gulf War?

So what was the single greatest cause of:

1.) The 2003 Invasion of Iraq?

Not Oil.

2.) The Gulf War?

Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait.

Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait.

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2932nd meeting, by 14 votes to none, on 2 August 1990

The Security Council,

Alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 by the military forces of Iraq,

Determining that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,

Acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;

2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;

3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;

4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps to ensure compliance with the present resolution.

Funny that the UN made no mention of the invasion being illegal when they condemned it. You would have thought that they might have mentioned such a minor detail.

Whence the illegality?

Funny that the UN made no mention of the invasion being illegal when they condemned it. You would have thought that they might have mentioned such a minor detail.

Whence the illegality?

If it wasn't illegal, the UN wouldn't have condemned it.

It seems to me that this thread has gone very far out of control. The U.S.A. is at war with the insurgents currently in Iraq. One of our soldiers killed an insurgent with a very good and lucky shot. I think that we should just say good job and kudos to the sniper.

If it wasn't illegal, the UN wouldn't have condemned it.

So, on what grounds was it illegal?

So, on what grounds was it illegal?

That they invaded for one. Who authorized the invasion of Kuwait?

It seems to me that this thread has gone very far out of control. The U.S.A. is at war with the insurgents currently in Iraq. One of our soldiers killed an insurgent with a very good and lucky shot. I think that we should just say good job and kudos to the sniper.
Everybody already involved in this debate is going to ignore you (and me :)). I only read the first page of this thread and then I clicked on the last, to see how has it developped. I should have known it would turn into a yet another discution about the war in Iraq. :p

Elgesh']Well, there we differ. I call shooting out of the specified range, at an obscured target, into a hospital on a 'million-to-one chance' of hitting who you aimed at a stupid risk. The act of shooting into a hospital is itself a risk, but an acceptable one under the apparent circumstances. What's stupid is increasing the risk when you don't have to.

Did you ever stop to think that the Sergeant in question was being modest by saying it was a lucky shot that he would be hard pressed to replicate? :sniper:

It was a proportional response to the insurgent target. The military would have been within international law to fire a tank round into the room the insurgent was in, but that would have been bad press.

International law protects places like hospitals because of the risk to innocents. The insurgent violated international law by using the hospital as a hide site and placed all the innocents inside it at risk by removing the hospital's protection through his actions. Any innocents killed in a US response would have been the fault of the insurgent. That is not word-smithing or twisted logic, that is the way the law works. Had he survived and been captured, it would have been the insurgent and not the US military that could have been tried as a war criminal for any civilian deaths in the hospital.

Individuals in the US military may violate international law in rare occasions [hundreds of thousands have served in Iraq with the number of bad apples being a mere handful], but the US military recognizes the Geneva and Hague conventions on war. Human shields, executing prisoners, using protected sites as bases; and we get the bad press.

Lord Jimbo
God-Emperor of Jimbolandistan

'The best thing for opening a closed mind is a crowbar'

If it wasn't illegal, the UN wouldn't have condemned it.

True. They probably would have asked for Hush money too!

Oh wait, they did.....


Eutrusca is my hero..

One hell of a shot, it was: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/01/wirq01.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/01/ixnewstop.html)

Gazing through the telescopic sight of his M24 rifle, Staff Sgt Jim Gilliland, leader of Shadow sniper team, fixed his eye on the Iraqi insurgent who had just killed an American soldier.

His quarry stood nonchalantly in the fourth-floor bay window of a hospital in battle-torn Ramadi, still clasping a long-barrelled Kalashnikov. Instinctively allowing for wind speed and bullet drop, Shadow's commander aimed 12 feet high.

A single shot hit the Iraqi in the chest and killed him instantly. It had been fired from a range of 1,250 metres, well beyond the capacity of the powerful Leupold sight, accurate to 1,000 metres.

"I believe it is the longest confirmed kill in Iraq with a 7.62mm rifle," said Staff Sgt Gilliland, 28, who hunted squirrels in Double Springs, Alabama from the age of five before progressing to deer - and then people.

"He was visible only from the waist up. It was a one in a million shot. I could probably shoot a whole box of ammunition and never hit him again."

Wow, this guy is good.

thats quite impressive

That they invaded for one. Who authorized the invasion of Kuwait?

Authorisarion is not required for an international act to be legal.

Allowing that it was an illegal act, then why the intervention when tens of other condemnations were issued the same year to other nation? In other words, what made the invasion of Kuwait so special that it needed foreign military to resolve it?

It seems to me that this thread has gone very far out of control. The U.S.A. is at war with the insurgents currently in Iraq. One of our soldiers killed an insurgent with a very good and lucky shot. I think that we should just say good job and kudos to the sniper.

Although it was a good shot, the rest would imply that I approved of the invasion in general, and that would not be the case.

Individuals in the US military may violate international law in rare occasions [hundreds of thousands have served in Iraq with the number of bad apples being a mere handful], but the US military recognizes the Geneva and Hague conventions on war. Human shields, executing prisoners, using protected sites as bases; and we get the bad press..

Unless of course it suits the US government otherwise to do so. It also supports regimes that do otherwise, and on occasion uses them to do what it won't dirty its hands with. Hence the "special renditions" and prisons in various countries. The CIAs practice of not revealing who it has in custody is also a breach. Likewise the US of "security firms" is very dubious. I have no doubt that soon local forces will begin to operate in a fashion reminiscent of South America in the 1980's.

Likewise if we look at the recent past, the entire covert war against Nicaragua was a breach of about every convention there is, and the subsequent condemnation of it is the root of most of the Neo-conservative hatred of the UN.

I do recognise that many, if not most, on the ground in Iraq are doing what they think is right, or trying to, but thats an impossibility overall, when their government is entirely wrong.

So, on what grounds was it illegal?

Kellog-Briant pact of 1928


HA!

Kellog-Briant pact of 1928


HA!

Iraq didn't gain independence until 1932, and once it had gained independence was no longer bound by any pacts signed by the British Empire whilst it was still a part of it.

Iraq didn't gain independence until 1932, and once it had gained independence was no longer bound by any pacts signed by the British Empire whilst it was still a part of it.

shhh.............. your ruining the joke.

shhh.............. your ruining the joke.

I'm just waiting for someone to start asking if the invasion of Kuwait was actually illegal then why isn't the then Iraqi head of state now being tried for launching a war of aggression... or, indeed, why wasn't he pursued for such during the Gulf War?

Authorisarion is not required for an international act to be legal.

And now you have just stated that the US invasion of Iraq is not illegal. Congratulations

Allowing that it was an illegal act, then why the intervention when tens of other condemnations were issued the same year to other nation? In other words, what made the invasion of Kuwait so special that it needed foreign military to resolve it?

The big reason was that the Kuwaiti government in exile asked the United States and the UN to intervene on their behalf. Saudi Arabia also asked for assistance because they feared that they were next.

And now you have just stated that the US invasion of Iraq is not illegal. Congratulations


No, certain actions can be carried out within international law without being illegal. However the invasion of Iraq wasn't one of them. No WMD, no immediate threat, no nada.

No, certain actions can be carried out within international law without being illegal.

Your right. However, your overlooking the fact that a cease-fire was broken. Under International law, what the US did was legal because once a cease-fire is violated, war resumes where it left off.

However the invasion of Iraq wasn't one of them. No WMD, no immediate threat, no nada.

Just a violation of a UN cease-fire but I guess that's unimportant. Nice back out of BWO's statement.

No, certain actions can be carried out within international law without being illegal. However the invasion of Iraq wasn't one of them. No WMD, no immediate threat, no nada.

The Commander in Cheif can supercede International law when he wants to :D. Who's going to actually punish the US? I mean, c'mon.....

One hell of a shot, it was: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/01/wirq01.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/01/ixnewstop.html)

Gazing through the telescopic sight of his M24 rifle, Staff Sgt Jim Gilliland, leader of Shadow sniper team, fixed his eye on the Iraqi insurgent who had just killed an American soldier.

His quarry stood nonchalantly in the fourth-floor bay window of a hospital in battle-torn Ramadi, still clasping a long-barrelled Kalashnikov. Instinctively allowing for wind speed and bullet drop, Shadow's commander aimed 12 feet high.

A single shot hit the Iraqi in the chest and killed him instantly. It had been fired from a range of 1,250 metres, well beyond the capacity of the powerful Leupold sight, accurate to 1,000 metres.

"I believe it is the longest confirmed kill in Iraq with a 7.62mm rifle," said Staff Sgt Gilliland, 28, who hunted squirrels in Double Springs, Alabama from the age of five before progressing to deer - and then people.

"He was visible only from the waist up. It was a one in a million shot. I could probably shoot a whole box of ammunition and never hit him again."

Wow, this guy is good.


Ya, it goes to show the skill that this person had, and the great training that the US put him through!

Ya, it goes to show the skill that this person had, and the great training that the US put him through!
At killing people. Wow, I am so less-than-impressed.

Ya, it goes to show the skill that this person had, and the great training that the US put him through!


I agree. US trained snipers are some of the best out there. Israelis are a close second, but only because they get more real world training.

And now you have just stated that the US invasion of Iraq is not illegal. Congratulations

So you agree that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal then hmmm? Obviously if the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was illegal because it lacked UN approval, then the invasion of Iraq by the US is just as equally illegal. You can claim ceasefire violations all you like, but I can easily point out that the US also performed bombings and other airstrikes also in violations of said ceasefire. It didn't escalate into an invasion however. And the fact that it was only after more than 10 years that such an invasion materalized is no more legal than the double jeapordy of trying a man for the same crime a second time after he was let go the first time.

You can't have your cake and eat it Corny. So which one are you? Double faced hypocrite or just plain silly?

The Commander in Cheif can supercede International law when he wants to :D. Who's going to actually punish the US? I mean, c'mon.....

Well, for one, the rest of the world. Even in the face of economic collapse, the US would face devastation if it was suddenly sanctioned in the same way that Iraq was.

Or it could really give Russia the big finger and start WWIII. Sure, the Russians lose too, but so does the US. Punishment enough.

Has anyone mentioned White Feather's one-mile kill with a .50 cal? You have to feel that kind of distance.

SSG Gilliland has made one hell of a shot. With the urbanized warfare our boys are currently facing, he might actually have a chance at Hathcock's record. Concealment in a cityscape is not very complicated, same with the jungles of Vietnam.

The Remington 700 (Civilian version the Army's M24 and the Marine Corps' M40 is based off of..) is an excellent weapon. I just wish they'd start standardizing .300 WinMag as the sniper round of choice.

And now you have just stated that the US invasion of Iraq is not illegal. Congratulations

No, at best I have identified a grey area where the legality or legality of certain actions is in doubt: a condemnation does not necessarilly indicate that something is illegal, whereas the lack of a condemnation does not indicate that something is legal.



The big reason was that the Kuwaiti government in exile asked the United States and the UN to intervene on their behalf. Saudi Arabia also asked for assistance because they feared that they were next.

So, if we accept that the invasion of Kuwait was illegal, why isn't the instigator standing trial for launching such a war of aggression?

The big reason was that the Kuwaiti government in exile asked the United States and the UN to intervene on their behalf. Saudi Arabia also asked for assistance because they feared that they were next.

What made the US and allied forces respond specifically to the Kuwaiti government's request? We appear to have determined that the throwing of premature babies from incubators had fuck all to do with it, so what made this request for assistance be heard?

I agree. US trained snipers are some of the best out there. Israelis are a close second, but only because they get more real world training.



The British are Hands down THE best snipers in the world, (Royal Marine Commando's) Period. They invented the game, they invented the Ghille suit(Ghille was a term for Scottish Game warden i believe)



Yes my Army is good, Israeli's are probably better.

The difference between the US army and the rest of the world is that were very good across the board, we aren't excellant, but very good. While other nations armies tend to be better at one thing or another, while we maintain this level training with such a large force.

Your right. However, your overlooking the fact that a cease-fire was broken. Under International law, what the US did was legal because once a cease-fire is violated, war resumes where it left off.

Just a violation of a UN cease-fire but I guess that's unimportant. Nice back out of BWO's statement.

Well again I don't know where you're getting this "cease fire" business from, because the Brits don't mention it at cabinet level at all. Were I you, I'd start singing a different tune.

I agree. US trained snipers are some of the best out there. Israelis are a close second, but only because they get more real world training..

Yes, those Arab children really put them through their paces, with the way they dart about in the school yard......

hahaha, right on brother

So you agree that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal then hmmm?

Where did this come from? We had perfectly valid reasons for going in and we did it through the International process. Iraq did not go through the international process when they invaded Kuwait. That made Iraq's invasion of Kuwait illegal whereas this war is not.

Obviously if the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was illegal because it lacked UN approval, then the invasion of Iraq by the US is just as equally illegal.

To borrow BWO: Authorisarion is not required for an international act to be legal.

You can claim ceasefire violations all you like, but I can easily point out that the US also performed bombings and other airstrikes also in violations of said ceasefire.

Acts of self defense. Unless your talking about the 1998 Operation Desert Fox Campaign but then, some could say that we were justified there because of Hussein's LACK of cooperation.

It didn't escalate into an invasion however. And the fact that it was only after more than 10 years that such an invasion materalized is no more legal than the double jeapordy of trying a man for the same crime a second time after he was let go the first time.

And yet, Hussein has constently violated the cease-fire over those 10 years. Sorry but I will not tolerate a nation who violates a cease-fire to get away with it. Finally we have a President who decided to take the bull by the horns and do something about it.

What made the US and allied forces respond specifically to the Kuwaiti government's request? We appear to have determined that the throwing of premature babies from incubators had fuck all to do with it, so what made this request for assistance be heard?

When a nation asks for help from the International Community, YOU GIVE IT!!!!!

So, if we accept that the invasion of Kuwait was illegal, why isn't the instigator standing trial for launching such a war of aggression?

Because the Iraqis have more important crimes to try him for and also, Kuwait is not a party to the ICC.

Well again I don't know where you're getting this "cease fire" business from, because the Brits don't mention it at cabinet level at all. Were I you, I'd start singing a different tune.

You don't know about the Cease Fire Resolution?

Where did this come from? We had perfectly valid reasons for going in and we did it through the International process. Iraq did not go through the international process when they invaded Kuwait. That made Iraq's invasion of Kuwait illegal whereas this war is not.

Oh? And what international process was this hmmm? What kind of agreements or statutes were cited when the invasion took place? Will you use the same argument that was used in the first gulf war? That it was asked of the international community? By who exactly?


Acts of self defense. Unless your talking about the 1998 Operation Desert Fox Campaign but then, some could say that we were justified there because of Hussein's LACK of cooperation.

Sorry, but that's not an excuse. Lack of cooperation is not an excuse for war. Otherwise, Canada would have every right to start bombing America because it failed to follow trade agreements. Heck, every other country in the UN who wasn't bribed into going into Iraq could also bomb the US for "lack of agreement"


And yet, Hussein has constently violated the cease-fire over those 10 years. Sorry but I will not tolerate a nation who violates a cease-fire to get away with it. Finally we have a President who decided to take the bull by the horns and do something about it.

Cease fire violations that you admit that the US has also done with operation desert fox. Not to mention that so far as timing goes, the Highway of Death could also have been a result of the same cease fire violation by the US. One which pretended that the cease fire never happened since the administration puportedly wanted to go for a full scale invasion but for some reason stopped at the last moment.

So why do you tolerate America? Because you live in it?

Where did this come from? We had perfectly valid reasons for going in and we did it through the International process.


....no, because the US acted "outside the charter" and that means illegally and most definetlyoutside the international process. You could argue that this was nesseccary, which is a common position, but to say it was actually by the numbers is not actually true.

And yet, Hussein has constently violated the cease-fire over those 10 years. Sorry but I will not tolerate a nation who violates a cease-fire to get away with it. Finally we have a President who decided to take the bull by the horns and do something about it.

Again with the cease-fire shite.....I'm going to quote something here

"The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change. "
23rd July 2002 Prime Ministers Meeting (http://memoryhole.freedomunderground.org/downing/rycroft020723.html)

Thats the British Government at Cabinet level. Do you see the words "ceasefire" there? No, because ceasefires had nothing to do with it.

When a nation asks for help from the International Community, YOU GIVE IT!!!!!.

Unless they're Rwandan, or Palestinian, or Chilean, or East Timorese.....

Sorry but I will not tolerate a nation who violates a cease-fire to get away with it..

You personally? o well thats different. If YOU don't tolerate it, then obviously.....just as a matter of interest, when did you take over the planet as your personal fiefdom, O Great One? Are you he who is "Dubya" posting here as a bit of a laugh?

Believe what you all will. I don't honestly care. Those of us who actually have studied this know that this is 100% legal and know the reasons for this war and it ain't about oil as those who are against the war think.

There are more reasons for this war as well that don't include WMD and they are spelled out in the APproval to use force in Iraq.

To the sniper, kudos. Keep up the good work in defending the freedom of the Iraqi People. Come home safely.

Because the Iraqis have more important crimes to try him for and also, Kuwait is not a party to the ICC.

Trying him for the deaths of 143 people in one village is more important than trying him for the deaths of the thousands of Iraqis who were killed directly by his war of aggression? Why?

Believe what you all will. I don't honestly care. Those of us who actually have studied this know that this is 100% legal and know the reasons for this war and it ain't about oil as those who are against the war think.
There are more reasons for this war as well that don't include WMD and they are spelled out in the APproval to use force in Iraq.



More crap. There was no "approval" given. The US decided to act outside of the UN charter. You have provided no external references for your "cease fire" nonsense, and I daresay the same will be true of this supposed "approval".
Its the kind of thing typical of flag-waving school boys.

And was about a number of things, by the way, of which oil was one. The Iraqi people weren't in the reckoning one way or the other.

Believe what you all will. I don't honestly care. Those of us who actually have studied this know that this is 100% legal and know the reasons for this war and it ain't about oil as those who are against the war think.

Of course. International law is not legally binding. There isn't a court on earth that would hold international law above a sovereign nation's law. What's more, there are few courts to enforce such laws and even they require the permission of the nation in question to enforce it.

Trying him for the deaths of 143 people in one village is more important than trying him for the deaths of the thousands of Iraqis who were killed directly by his war of aggression? Why?

This is only round 1!

This is only round 1!

Yes...in the mean time have you found any outside reference for your "approval" claim " or will we just note it as "Source - Cornelius' Arse"?

Yes...in the mean time have you found any outside reference for your "approval" claim " or will we just note it as "Source - Cornelius' Arse"?

The Security Council Condemned the invasion and approved the resolution o oust him from the nation. That's all the proof I need to know that it was illegal.

Believe what you all will. I don't honestly care. Those of us who actually have studied this know that this is 100% legal and know the reasons for this war and it ain't about oil as those who are against the war think.

And of course Pat Robertson believes god speaks to him personally every night. Doesn't make it true of course, but he believes it. Cornster, your track record on these forums is hardly the epitome of serious research and logical argument. Maybe you believe that much, but it sure doesn't neccessarily mean it's true.

As for the security council, show me exactly where they specified "approve the use of invasion to enforce regime change"

And of course Pat Robertson believes god speaks to him personally every night. Doesn't make it true of course, but he believes it. Cornster, your track record on these forums is hardly the epitome of serious research and logical argument. Maybe you believe that much, but it sure doesn't neccessarily mean it's true.

And I dn't listen to Pat Roberts so that doesn't work on me. As to your last comments, as stated before, I don't necessarily care. I have studied both wars and know that this war was justified on many grounds. I don't care if you believe them or not but that doesn't make the facts that are there any less true.

As for the security council, show me exactly where they specified "approve the use of invasion to enforce regime change"

I could go into the reasons why but knowing you, it wouldn't do an ounce of good.

And I dn't listen to Pat Roberts so that doesn't work on me. As to your last comments, as stated before, I don't necessarily care. I have studied both wars and know that this war was justified on many grounds. I don't care if you believe them or not but that doesn't make the facts that are there any less true.

Just like I think your facts are sometimes skewed or outright irrelevant to the argument at hand no doubt. We won't get anywhere this way.


I could go into the reasons why but knowing you, it wouldn't do an ounce of good.

Reasons why? I asked for a specific statement in a signed document that would have approved an invasion. Where is it? I didn't ask for why such a document exists. I'm asking for you to show it to me and the relevant statement.

Don't dodge it with "wouldn't do any good" blather.

Just like I think your facts are sometimes skewed or outright irrelevant to the argument at hand no doubt. We won't get anywhere this way.

How much military history have you actually studied?

How much military history have you actually studied?
This might well count as a version of the "Appeal to Authority" Fallacy, I'd wager.

This might well count as a version of the "Appeal to Authority" Fallacy, I'd wager.

He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.
Repeat what?

Go to war on unproven allegations, unilaterally, and then afterwards try and justify it by quoting the excuses by those who made the mistake again and again?

For that I guess we'd first have to accept that a mistake was made, rather than continue to hold on to ridiculous notions of our own infallibility.

Repeat what?

The mistakes of the past.

Go to war on unproven allegations, unilaterally, and then afterwards try and justify it by quoting the excuses by those who made the mistake again and again?

Don't let ur prejudices get in the way of all the facts.

For that I guess we'd first have to accept that a mistake was made, rather than continue to hold on to ridiculous notions of our own infallibility.

Who said we made a mistake?

December 9, 2005 (CNN)
While interviewing an anonymous US Marine on his sniper skills, a Reuters News agent asked the soldier what he felt when shooting members of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The soldier shrugged and replied, "Recoil."

The Security Council Condemned the invasion and approved the resolution o oust him from the nation. That's all the proof I need to know that it was illegal.

We would appreciate just talking about the US invasion of Iraq, for the most part. Your lack of understanding about other matters is more than we can take at the moment.


And I dn't listen to Pat Roberts so that doesn't work on me. As to your last comments, as stated before, I don't necessarily care. I have studied both wars and know that this war was justified on many grounds. I don't care if you believe them or not but that doesn't make the facts that are there any less true.
.

Oddly, this next bit could be addressed to either Pat Roberts or you....

You have failed to properly reference any source outside your arse for these various claims - not even linked to the reasons Bush gave for the war. Thats truly abysmal. Really. You havent a fucking clue, do you?


This might well count as a version of the "Appeal to Authority" Fallacy, I'd wager..

Indeed, made all the more pathetic by the truly dire state of his own grasp of the situation. I never thought I'd see the day when I wished somebody would spew the party line, but rather that than this "Lookit me, I'm right because I said so" shite.

He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

Ergo Gulf War (I) and Gulf War (II)?

How much military history have you actually studied?

Enough to know that you're trying to throw up a smokescreen of pathetic diversions to avoid my question at hand. Which was to provide the relevant statement that you yapped about but never actually showed.

Come on cornster, put your money where your mouth is.

Or maybe you're broke?