NationStates Jolt Archive

Actually it did have something to do with the UN Cease-fire. It also had a humanitarian aspect as well. This is all a matter or public record. Also, I do know about international law as well as the UN. It is not a matter of public record. It is HIGHLY debatable and it will be debated for generations to come. Your opinion does not constitute a consensus.

Oh get off it Canada6. I don't care if he had anything to do with 9/11 or not. You should care.


Bush a few years ago...

The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Bush a few days ago...

First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.

Its quite notable how an overloading of mixed messages and tongue tied wording can end up broadly producing the intended effect in the American public opinion. Some would even go so far to call this a true art form. I think its a deliberate mockery of many things. Democracy included.

Sorry but care to show me in 1441 where it states that we needed a 2nd resolution to launch the war? There isn't one.Wrong again Corny.

Under the Rules of Armed Conflict, we do not need ANYONE'S permission (outside of the president) to resume military operations against a nation that has violated the ceasefire.
There was no ceasefire violation according to the UN.

Under International Law, once a nation has violated a cease-fire, war picks up where it left off, regardless of international bodies. This law has been around a hell of a lot longer than the United Nations has been around.
This does not apply to Iraq.

As to Mr. Blix, I honestly don't care what he has to say about Iraq right now.
It isn't a matter of whether you care or not. He certainly has far more qualifications that you.

Right now, I'm waiting for all the Iraqi papers that were released to be translated into English to read.
And who scooped those "iraqi papers"? The US!! :eek:

Oh and one of those papers that were already translated proved that he never turned over Kuwati prisoners as they were used as human shields.
Want to discuss the "Highway of Death"?

Failure to hand over Kuwaiti POWS is a violatoin of the Cease-fire agreement of Resolution 686 which means that we had clear authority to go back in there since he violated the terms of the cease-fire.
Resolution 686 predates Resolution 1441. Nice try and get of the ceasefire violation nonsense because it does not apply. Capeche???

Not only is Corneliu ignorant of UN and international law but he is one of those sad individuals that believes that the War in Iraq had something to do with UN cease-fire protocols to begin with.
It doesn't!!

I wouldn't be surprised to find out he also belongs to those 40% of Americans that still believe Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.
Enquiring minds would like to know!! :D

Actually it did have something to do with the UN Cease-fire. It also had a humanitarian aspect as well. This is all a matter or public record. Also, I do know about international law as well as the UN.
Ya know International law huh? As well as Koffi Annan?

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

The thing with Corneliu is that international law or the UN charter does not matter. It only matters when it serves the interests of the US. It's this amorality in how the neoconservatives conduct their foreign policy that makes them immoral, sick and decrepit.

Niamen, you're a piece of shit

The thing with Corneliu is that international law or the UN charter does not matter. It only matters when it serves the interests of the US.
Absolutely. I have noticed this often.

It is not a matter of public record. It is HIGHLY debatable and it will be debated for generations to come. Your opinion does not constitute a consensus.

Actually it is a matter of public record. Its been stated by everyone including the resolution to use force on Iraq that was passed by the US Congress.

You should care.

I don't. He needed to go and he's gone. Period.

Ya know International law huh? As well as Koffi Annan?

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

Opinion! Next!

The thing with Corneliu is that international law or the UN charter does not matter.

Actually, I care more about International law than I do the UN. that is why the Iraq War is completely legal. As stated earlier, we both can go about this back and forth but the thing is, it don't matter.

Why don't we just agree to disagree and move on.

Actually, I care more about International law than I do the UN. that is why the Iraq War is completely legal.
Completely legal huh?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9451390&postcount=258

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10505073&postcount=144

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9853402&postcount=129

You care about International law? Isn't carpet bombing a violation of those laws?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9859455&postcount=191

Yeah? Well, that's unfortunate.
Quite. ;)

Opinion! Next!


There are facts (those thing with which you have an obsession of late) in post 246 on this thread, in the form of two documents, which you have yet to address. I await your response.

President Bush said that:

"The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.'''
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661
From the same link that you provided, more info. This comes from Robin Cook a British MP discussing the possible invasion of Iraq:

Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?

It is 3 short pages long. I suggest reading the whole article (http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=499).

Excellent information indeed!!

:upyours: FINALLY! I thought we'd never get serious with the terrorists.


Are there any then?
Maybe they're just freedom fighters.

There are facts (those thing with which you have an obsession of late) in post 246 on this thread, in the form of two documents, which you have yet to address. I await your response.

Sorry but I really see nothing of substance in these links. Nothing!

The fact remains, and why people are arguing this I never know as it was even in the Iraqi papers that were released, is that he violated 686. By violating this article, I don't know how many times I have to quote I.L. on this, Paragraph 4 stiplulates military action.

Also under I.L., again this is another fact that people ignore, once a cease-fire is violated, war resumes where it left off.

That is a 100% fact.

Why don't we just agree to disagree.

Sorry but I really see nothing of substance in these links. Nothing!

The fact remains, and why people are arguing this I never know as it was even in the Iraqi papers that were released, is that he violated 686. By violating this article, I don't know how many times I have to quote I.L. on this, Paragraph 4 stiplulates military action.

Also under I.L., again this is another fact that people ignore, once a cease-fire is violated, war resumes where it left off.

That is a 100% fact.

Why don't we just agree to disagree.
You want to "agree to disagree" because you don't have any proof period.

You don't see any substance in any links that go against your opinion, which just happens to be every link. Even your "boots on the ground" stories have been shot down on numerous occaisions. You cannot win this debate because you are wrong.

actually we need a V-Day

That would be nice too.

Niamen, you're a piece of shit

Thank You, dear. I try...

Sorry but care to show me in 1441 where it states that we needed a 2nd resolution to launch the war? There isn't one.
Wrong answer:

From UN Resolution 1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm):

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

Under the Rules of Armed Conflict, we do not need ANYONE'S permission (outside of the president) to resume military operations against a nation that has violated the ceasefire.
Proof please that supports this statement.

Under International Law, once a nation has violated a cease-fire, war picks up where it left off, regardless of international bodies. This law has been around a hell of a lot longer than the United Nations has been around.
Please quote the relevant section of the International Law that you are referring to.

Failure to hand over Kuwaiti POWS is a violatoin of the Cease-fire agreement of Resolution 686 which means that we had clear authority to go back in there since he violated the terms of the cease-fire.
UN Resolution 1441 incorporates Resolution 686, but certainly was not actionable as long as 1441 was in force, and being resolved.

Besides, what are you doing suggesting that any UN Resolutions give the US justification for unilateral action? Do you remember this from a post awhile back?

We did it right and proper. We don't need a stickin' UN Resolution to tell us we can go to war. It goes to that Soveriegnty thing again.

Sorry but I really see nothing of substance in these links. Nothing!


Could you explain why a cabinet level document has no "substance" please? (and yes, its been verified as genuine).

Likewise the minutes of that meeting?

The memo first though.

From the same link that you provided, more info. This comes from Robin Cook a British MP discussing the possible invasion of Iraq:
!!

Cook stated that when he had been British foreign secretary that he had seen no evidence to suggest that Iraq was a threat, and that no new evidence had come to light between the time he left the job, and the move towards war. What had changed, he observed, was the man in the job of President of the US.

Dead before his time. He was the chief dissenter in the Brit labour party, having resigned from cabinet over the war.

The full text of Robin Cooks resignation speech, for those who may not have read it before (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm)

And I note Cornelieu has not yet graced me with an explanation of his "no substance" remark......

Cook stated that when he had been British foreign secretary that he had seen no evidence to suggest that Iraq was a threat, and that no new evidence had come to light between the time he left the job, and the move towards war. What had changed, he observed, was the man in the job of President of the US.

Dead before his time. He was the chief dissenter in the Brit labour party, having resigned from cabinet over the war.
His resignation speech (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm)clearly points out the importance that was attached to obtaining a second resolution to go to war with Iraq.

I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.

I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.

But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.

Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

The full text of Robin Cooks resignation speech, for those who may not have read it before (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm)

And I note Cornelieu has not yet graced me with an explanation of his "no substance" remark......

Robin Cook should have been listened too more often.

I thought we went by a guilty until proven innocent principle?

We can tell they are insurgents easy enough, heck, they'll tell you that, but I don't see how you can claim that they are terrorists before you can prove that they have personally been responsible for the killing of civilians.

An insurgent needs a trial before he can be called a terrorist.
Individuals can't be identified as insurgents or terrorists until after trial. What we do know is that there is a terrorist movement in Iraq which attacks civilian targets.

9. Tear the wall down, and voila! the ME is finally safe!
:p
We might as well just create world peace by killing everyone on earth. It's not like we lack the technology.

Sorry but I really see nothing of substance in these links. Nothing!
You have made 40 posts in this thread and how many links have you provided?

You have provided the sum total of one lousy link. :eek:

Perhaps you can provide some proof to go along with your overstated opinions next time?

The full text of Robin Cooks resignation speech, for those who may not have read it before (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm)

And I note Cornelieu has not yet graced me with an explanation of his "no substance" remark......
He has a tendency to disappear when the heat is on. :eek:

He has a tendency to disappear when the heat is on. :eek:
The heat is on, on the street
Inside your head, on every beat
And the beat's so loud, deep inside
The pressure's high, just to stay alive
'Cause the heat is on

Oh-wo-ho, oh-wo-ho
Caught up in the action I've been looking out for you
Oh-wo-ho, oh-wo-ho
(Tell me can you feel it)
(Tell me can you feel it)
(Tell me can you feel it)
The heat is on, the heat is on, the heat is on
the heat is on Oh it's on the street , the heat is - on

Oops, sorry, sorry... :cool:

He has a tendency to disappear when the heat is on. :eek:

I already said and I quote myself:

Why don't we just agree to disagree.

What part of this doesn't slip in?

I already said and I quote myself:

What part of this doesn't slip in?
You stated that to Nodinia, and Canada6, and I addressed that matter:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10624348&postcount=267

Despite numerous links that shoot down your opinions, you tend to discount those links, no matter how credible they are, and continue with your rhetoric to the point that you offer to "agree to disagree" or you outright disappear.
When you re-appear, you continue with the same rhetoric/opinion, rarely as in almost never do you offer links that support your argument.

In the same vein, you still haven't answered my last post to you and I was clearly stating a fact that you tend to disappear when the heat is on.

BTW, if you are feeling adventurous, you can always answer the post in my signature. :D

I fail to see whats so hard about detailing your opinion with reference to the documents in question, Corneliu. I'm a bit tired of you expressing the same crap every time the subject comes up despite having either been proved wrong or having just put your tail between your legs and run off the last time. If you're just doing this "for the laugh" (ie attention whoring) then I suggest therapy. If you are actually serious, its time to start putting up or shutting up.

I fail to see whats so hard about detailing your opinion with reference to the documents in question, Corneliu. I'm a bit tired of you expressing the same crap every time the subject comes up despite having either been proved wrong or having just put your tail between your legs and run off the last time. If you're just doing this "for the laugh" (ie attention whoring) then I suggest therapy. If you are actually serious, its time to start putting up or shutting up.
Some people have shall we say a history about their style of debate. Some will try in earnest to post factual material and when challenged will provide the necessary proof. Others will offer opinions and rhetoric and when challenged to post proof, they are simply unable or extremely reluctant to do so. Corny tends to fall in the latter grouping. He also tends to dismiss links to factual material, often claiming that they are only opinions and/or refuting the material supplied solely on his opinion/rhetoric, rarely providing a link to support his argument.

Take this thread for instance, Corny has made 41 posts and has used only 1 link, even though he has been challenged many times and has been provided many links by the other posters. I think that speaks volumes about his "style" of confrontation. I wouldn't call it debate because it really doesn't qualify?

I've noticed that allright. While the absence of "Worldnet news" is to be commended, such a complete lack of facts or reference to existing documentation is not. The question in my mind is whether or not hes actually serious, or this is "roleplay" (or trying to gain the attention his parents didn't give him).

I've noticed that allright. While the absence of "Worldnet news" is to be commended, such a complete lack of facts or reference to existing documentation is not. The question in my mind is whether or not hes actually serious, or this is "roleplay" (or trying to gain the attention his parents didn't give him).

So because I do not use links, you think I'm lying uh? Links can prove anything.

As to you last statement, I am serious. I know what International Law is on this issue, I know what the Law of Armed Conflict says on this issue. I know what the US Congress has said on this issue. I do not need links to back up my assertions. Just International Law (which I have used) that you all seem to ignore because it is not from the United Nations but from Custom which is recognized as International law.

Also, my parents gave me all the attention that I wanted. Now you 2 go ahead and talk about me behind my back if ya like because I am done arguing with people who do not like people who are on the opposite side of an issue. I went the diplomatic route in saying that we should agree to disagree but I guess you all do not subscribe to that issue.

Go on and think you won because you have not. You all belittle those who support this war for various reasons and that is why alot of people drop out of debates. Its not because of evidence, its because no one listens to eachother. I presented a clear cut reasons why we are in there and all I get in return is grief. No wonder I'm trying to get myself weened off of here. I rather debate with people in a constructive manner, without all the belittling. I get more intelligent debates in my college classrooms than I do here and my professors actually listen and concede points just as I do to them when they make points.

So go on. I'm going to re-iterate this one more time then I'm gone.

Why don't we all just agree to disagree and move on.

Agree to disagree and move on is the right spirit. I've actually added an extra step to that. I called you an idiot and then agreed to disagree. :D

Agree to disagree and move on is the right spirit. I've actually added an extra step to that. I called you an idiot and then agreed to disagree. :D

I know you did but I choose to ignore it.

So because I do not use links, you think I'm lying uh? Links can prove anything.
Then why do you ask for others to post "proof"? You always ask for proof, but rarely and I do mean rarely do you post "proof" via a link. Sorry, but many are not prepared to just except your statements as fact, especially when others can actually refute your opinions with "facts".

As to you last statement, I am serious. I know what International Law is on this issue, I know what the Law of Armed Conflict says on this issue. I know what the US Congress has said on this issue.
You state that you know the various International Laws but when you are asked to quote chapter and verse, you are unable to do so.

I do not need links to back up my assertions.
We should just except your word as gospel? We have to "prove" our "assertions", but you don't? I hate to break it to you, but you are not as intelligent as you want us to believe. Yes you do need "proof" to back up your assertions.

Just International Law (which I have used) that you all seem to ignore because it is not from the United Nations but from Custom which is recognized as International law.
Could you please provide some examples of these "Customs" that are recognized as "International Law" but do not eminate from the UN?

Also, my parents gave me all the attention that I wanted. Now you 2 go ahead and talk about me behind my back if ya like because I am done arguing with people who do not like people who are on the opposite side of an issue. I went the diplomatic route in saying that we should agree to disagree but I guess you all do not subscribe to that issue.
This is not about whether someone likes you or not Corny, this is about your debating "style", which quite frankly is not up to snuff!!

Go on and think you won because you have not. You all belittle those who support this war for various reasons and that is why alot of people drop out of debates.
I do believe that people drop out of debates because their arguments are seriously flawed or are not presented properly. On the whole, you tend to support George Bush, who doesn't happen to be a very popular guy at the moment. Therefore you should be prepared to receive flak. If you feel "belittled" that is your problem?

Its not because of evidence, its because no one listens to eachother.
It is all about evidence and right now, the evidence doesn't look too good for your guy. If you want to defend him, be prepared for flak.

I presented a clear cut reasons why we are in there and all I get in return is grief.
Recently, you stated that the main reason the US was in Iraq, was to overthrow Saddam. Nobody is buying that. That is the fall back position that the apologists use because 4 inspection teams could not find any of those WMD or any links to Al-Queda that your guy was claiming.

No wonder I'm trying to get myself weened off of here. I rather debate with people in a constructive manner, without all the belittling.
However, you are not debating in a "constructive manner", and if anyone seems to be leading the ad hominem parade, it is you. It is you that tries to dictate that your facts are the only facts. Here is a small sample of your debating "style"

Due try to keep up with the news.

I'm still not seeing anything resembling facts coming from you. Now do you have real facts our just more dribble?

So in other words, you have no facts to back up your statements. Thanks.

And what do you have as facts to back this claim up?

Oh my God. You can't believe what you are saying do you?

I can see that you do not believe in facts do you Bogmarsh?

Forget it USMC. These people have no clue as to the real situation on the ground.

Not my problem you do not care for the facts of the case.

Now do you have facts or just more friggin opinions?

Now I'll call bullshit. They were told to get out of Falujah CH. This I know for a fact.

So now I'll ask you for your facts.

I know my claims are fact based unlike your which are opinion based.

May I see proof of this please?

Your evidence?

I rely on facts. You rely on opinions.

So I have caught you lying through your teeth.

Sorry but I really see nothing of substance in these links. Nothing!

Utter B.S.

That's because you don't like the true facts that I have been using. This stuff cannot be argued.

I have used nothing but facts. They are just facts that just destroy everything that is being said against it. I don't need any links to know that they are facts.
You call the above debating in a "constructive manner"? I sure as hell don't and neither do many of the other posters here. You seem to survive on belittling others. For the most part, your "facts" are not worth the powder to blow them to hell. And now you want to make us all feel guilty for not buying your debating "style". Sorry....no dice.

I get more intelligent debates in my college classrooms than I do here and my professors actually listen and concede points just as I do to them when they make points.
Another little ad hominem before you go poof once again huh? I think us lesser lights will be able to survive if you decide to spend more time debating with your "more intelligent" collegians. Enjoy!! :D

So go on. I'm going to re-iterate this one more time then I'm gone.

Why don't we all just agree to disagree and move on.
Does the above statement mean that we will be seeing more of your puppets now and less of Corny? :rolleyes:

*CanuckHeaven adds post to Popping Corn.

US is actually the largest terrorist

US is actually the largest terrorist

I hear obesity's on the rise over there, but that's still a bit harsh.

So because I do not use links, you think I'm lying uh? Links can prove anything.

As to you last statement, I am serious. I know what International Law is on this issue, I know what the Law of Armed Conflict says on this issue. I know what the US Congress has said on this issue. I do not need links to back up my assertions. Just International Law (which I have used) that you all seem to ignore because it is not from the United Nations but from Custom which is recognized as International law.

Also, my parents gave me all the attention that I wanted. Now you 2 go ahead and talk about me behind my back if ya like because I am done arguing with people who do not like people who are on the opposite side of an issue. I went the diplomatic route in saying that we should agree to disagree but I guess you all do not subscribe to that issue.

Go on and think you won because you have not. You all belittle those who support this war for various reasons and that is why alot of people drop out of debates. Its not because of evidence, its because no one listens to eachother. I presented a clear cut reasons why we are in there and all I get in return is grief. No wonder I'm trying to get myself weened off of here. I rather debate with people in a constructive manner, without all the belittling. I get more intelligent debates in my college classrooms than I do here and my professors actually listen and concede points just as I do to them when they make points.

So go on. I'm going to re-iterate this one more time then I'm gone.

Why don't we all just agree to disagree and move on.

We arent referring to some badly html'ed page by a tinfoil hat lunatic, or the news outlet owned by the Pentagon with "articles" written by Cheney and crayon illustrations by Bush. Personally I'm referring to specific documents that were written to, by, or for the people involved ie the British, the Americans etc. Its fairly obvious to most if not 99.99% of people here that a document that details the discussions of a government about a war are vital to understanding why that government went to war. By your "logic" a memo entitled "why I bombed I-rak" by GW Bush is irrelevant. Even if such a thing existed, and was filled with lies and half truths on his part, its still relevant in one way or another.

The only reason I can see that you avoid these things is this - you know you're wrong, and know you have no answer. This of itself isnt a problem - its that you'll come back and do as you have above - post the same old factually incorrect irrelevant shit, without having dealt with the refutations that were thrown at you a number of times before. And lecturing about how your proffessors "concede points" while you stick your proverbial fingers in your ears and scream "I wont listen to this", or your eyes and say "I wont read that, I wont deal with that" is being more than a little hypo-fucking-critical.

Now if you want to "move on" then do so, but don't keep coming back to the same subject and spouting the same shit that got you a resonse you ran from the last time. In short, you havent put up, so its time to shut up.

Could you please provide some examples of these "Customs" that are recognized as "International Law" but do not eminate from the UN?

While I diagree with Cornelius understanding of "the Law of Armed Conflict" which he refeers to, especially his description of the consequences if a cease-fire agreement is violated, he is right when he says that a large part of international law is derived from international customs.

International law has three primary sources: international treaties, custom, and general principles of law. Customary international law is derived from the consistent practice of States accompanied by opinio juris, i.e. the conviction of States that the consistent practice is required by a legal obligation. Judgments of international tribunals as well as scholarly works have traditionally been looked to as persuasive sources for custom in addition to direct evidence of state behavior.

Wikipedia has two relatively short articles on the matter you could look at, found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_international_law) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law).

While I diagree with Cornelius understanding of "the Law of Armed Conflict" which he refeers to, especially his description of the consequences if a cease-fire agreement is violated, he is right when he says that a large part of international law is derived from international customs.
I fully understand that many customs are incorporated into International Law(s), but Corny when pressed to provide chapter and verse of said laws in relation to Iraq, he could not or refused to respond. I refer you to these posts:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10624916&postcount=270

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10618551&postcount=235

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10618970&postcount=239

Just International Law (which I have used) that you all seem to ignore because it is not from the United Nations but from Custom which is recognized as International law.

I know what International Law is on this issue, I know what the Law of Armed Conflict says on this issue. I know what the US Congress has said on this issue. I do not need links to back up my assertions. Just International Law (which I have used) that you all seem to ignore because it is not from the United Nations but from Custom which is recognized as International law.
Corny somehow thinks there is a disconnect between the UN and International Laws. Even the Geneva Conventions are interlinked with the UN. The bottom line is that Corny makes assertions that the US can act outside of these "customary laws" with impunity. The fact that the UN did not take action against the US for their "illegal" invasion of Iraq, does not mean that the US did not in fact violate International Laws.

*snip*
Hmm... Ok, I see what you mean.

While I diagree with Cornelius understanding of "the Law of Armed Conflict" which he refeers to, especially his description of the consequences if a cease-fire agreement is violated, he is right when he says that a large part of international law is derived from international customs.

International law has three primary sources: international treaties, custom, and general principles of law. Customary international law is derived from the consistent practice of States accompanied by opinio juris, i.e. the conviction of States that the consistent practice is required by a legal obligation. Judgments of international tribunals as well as scholarly works have traditionally been looked to as persuasive sources for custom in addition to direct evidence of state behavior.

Wikipedia has two relatively short articles on the matter you could look at, found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_international_law) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law).

Whereas I see where you're coming from, this is not the first time this has come up (or the 2nd, 3rd or 4th either). Cornilieus defence of the invasion is in essence a "straw man" in that none of the main parties to the war give it as a justification. Secondly, if you get into the minutiae of International law, you're actually discussing precedent and are two steps removed from what actually happened. Its just a tactic to evade discussion of reality and a fairly pathetic one at that. If hes in college hes old enough to know better.

YES!!! Shoot the Terrorists dead!:mp5: :sniper: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:
You're the one who should be shot.