In light of recent developments in Ukraine/Crimea the issue of the violation of international territorial borders has come up. So I’d like anyone to tell me if any of these statements are not true:
When Senator John Kerry voted in 2002 to authorize the use of military force against Iraq if necessary, Saddam Hussein was in clear and obvious violation of international law for not having UN inspectors inside Iraq to verify the presence or absence WMD.
In the wake of 9/11/01 it was lawful under international law to threaten Iraq with the use of military force in order to get the UN inspection prcesss resumed and to enforce UN Resolutions regarding Iraq.
By January 1 2003 the inspections were resumed.
It then became a violation of international law to force the inspectors to leave so that Iraq could be bombed and invaded.
You don’t get to invade a country just because it’s in violation of international law. Without a UNSC resolution approving the use of force, you are in violation of international law by invading a country that is not an imminent threat to your own country.
If you want to argue that Iraq in 2002 was an imminent threat to the US, knock yourself out. Even Bush didn’t do that-- he created a new doctrine that said we didn’t have to wait for an imminent threat. We all saw how that turned out.
I’ll also note that it’s almost unbelievable to me that you would start this thread. Just can’t help yourself, can you?
Oh, and it should be noted that the OP left out the actual context where this has come up. On the talk shows today, Kerry said:
“You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text,” Kerry said on CBS’ “Face The Nation.”
Many of us choked on our breakfast as we heard this from him, remembering his vote in favor of the Iraq AUMF in Oct 2002, which was in the 21st century.
Exactly you do not get to invade a country because it is violation of international law. And it is more exactly to say that you do not get to invade a country that is not in violation of international law or its violations are on hold pending the outcome of UN WMD inspections.
And you definitely do not get to take out a dictator, ***" who is a plague on his people and on humanity as a whole." *** without UNSC without a UNSC Resolution. (See your quote below)
I am not arguing that Iraq was an immanent threat in 2002. I am arguing that it was in violation of international law and in defiance of UNSC Resolutions. Is that a fact or I it not a fact?
So you cannot state that any of these questions are not true? Is that correct?
( ) When Senator John Kerry voted in 2002 to authorize the use of military force against Iraq if necessary, Saddam Hussein was in clear and obvious violation of international law for not having UN inspectors inside Iraq to verify the presence or absence WMD.
( ) In the wake of 9/11/01 it was lawful under international law to threaten Iraq with the use of military force in order to get the UN inspection prcesss resumed and to enforce UN Resolutions regarding Iraq.
( ) By January 1 2003 the inspections were resumed.
( ) It then became a violation of international law to force the inspectors to leave so that Iraq could be bombed and invaded.
Yes you brought Iraq up… then told me I should not hijack the thread by presenting you with the facts.
So here the facts can be debated without hijacking that thread that you tried to do.
Can you deny any of this is true:
( ) When Senator John Kerry voted in 2002 to authorize the use of military force against Iraq if necessary, Saddam Hussein was in clear and obvious violation of international law for not having UN inspectors inside Iraq to verify the presence or absence WMD.
( ) In the wake of 9/11/01 it was lawful under international law to threaten Iraq with the use of military force in order to get the UN inspection prcesss resumed and to enforce UN Resolutions regarding Iraq.
( ) By January 1 2003 the inspections were resumed.
( ) It then became a violation of international law to force the inspectors to leave so that Iraq could be bombed and invaded.
So far I’d say you can’t.
The issue is not whether it’s OK to “threaten” to attack someone. I’m not aware of any international law that says you can’t do that.
The issue is Russia invading Ukraine and Kerry lecturing Putin about not invading countries on a “trumped up pre-text”. Russia did not just threatening to invade Ukraine-- they invaded. The US did not just threaten to invade Iraq-- we invaded. Said invasion being approved by Senator Kerry in Oct 2002.
Sorry, but you’re just wrong again as has been proven in all the other threads you started on this subject.
“It was clear to me” John Mace wrote, “that S.H. did his best to violate the letter and the spirit of that disarmament plan, and therefore the US was justified in invading.”
Four months after the sovereign territory of Iraq was attacked when Bush and apparently John Mace decided to justifiably do it:
Nope. I didn’t tell you not to. I suggest you might want to think twice about doing so in order to avoid being suspended again or banned. Just some friendly advice. But apparently you aren’t concerned about that.
There was no false pretext when Kerry voted. Saddam Hussein was in violation of international law in October 2002 - there were no inspectors on the ground inside Iraq. That is a fact. .
You do not get to change or avoid the context of this string of posts.
There was no ‘trumped up pretext’ in 2002. There is trumped up pretext in 2003 when UNSC inspectors were in Iraq meaning Iraq was in compliance with the most recent UNSC resolution regarding Iraq.
Just a fact.
You have not denied one fact I have presented.
Kerry’s statement on CBS Face the Nation is not ironic when you know the context. And now you know the context.
So because the United States did something bad we should ignore the concept of opposing, collectively, wars of aggression? A concept started in the wake of WWI and more firmly spelled out in various agreements after WWII? Is that the argument we’re making?
This is fine here. I’ve asked you several time to state if these questions are true or false and you cannot or will not respond. That has to be because they are all true.
) When Senator John Kerry voted in 2002 to authorize the use of military force against Iraq if necessary, Saddam Hussein was in clear and obvious violation of international law for not having UN inspectors inside Iraq to verify the presence or absence WMD.
( ) In the wake of 9/11/01 it was lawful under international law to threaten Iraq with the use of military force in order to get the UN inspection prcesss resumed and to enforce UN Resolutions regarding Iraq.
( ) By January 1 2003 the inspections were resumed.
( ) It then became a violation of international law to force the inspectors to leave so that Iraq could be bombed and invaded.
Where on earth did you get that to be my message here.
Several were mocking Kerry’s statement on CBS Face the Nation. I simply pointed out that John Mace’s mockery is based upon nothing because there was no false pretexts when Kerry and others voted to authorize military force if Iraq did not let the inspectors back in.
Where does your commentary come from?
Do you think any of these question are not true?
( ) When Senator John Kerry voted in 2002 to authorize the use of military force against Iraq if necessary, Saddam Hussein was in clear and obvious violation of international law for not having UN inspectors inside Iraq to verify the presence or absence WMD.
( ) In the wake of 9/11/01 it was lawful under international law to threaten Iraq with the use of military force in order to get the UN inspection prcesss resumed and to enforce UN Resolutions regarding Iraq.
( ) By January 1 2003 the inspections were resumed.
( ) It then became a violation of international law to force the inspectors to leave so that Iraq could be bombed and invaded.
Those questions have nothing to do with the situation in Ukraine. You just want to revisit your unique interpretation of history wrt the Iraq War-- something we all showed you was ridiculous in your other threads on the exact same subject.
We have several threads involving hundreds of posts on this topic. If you have failed to persuade anyone of your idiosyncratic beliefs by now, NotfooledbyW, going over the same topic for the nth time is not going to improve your record.
It may, however, provide evidence that you are a one trick pony which could get your posting privileges removed.