Was the invasion of Iraq illegal?

The fact is there was always violence in Iraq. Long before the US showed up there was violence and murder in teh street. Most of it caused by it's leader. When the US entered the picture the violence wasn't some new thing that everyone was suddenly shocked to wake up to. The biggest difference between the violence of old and the violence of present day is that the violence of present day will achieve a positive change in that country, while the violence of old was meant to maintain the same dictatorship. Unable to change because of fear and death.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Frobozz
Hahahaha. Wow dude. Either Russia is a European country or it is not a european country. History doesn't talk about Russia invading from Europe, it talks about Russia INVADING EUROPE. You do not read that Napolean took his forces into the northern European nation of Russia, you hear that he took his army into the frigid Asian nation of Russia.. etc etc.

---

Now, it is the first time that I hear that Russia is not European. You could argue that Siberia could geographically be considered Asian, but politically Russia has always been European, in particular the area around Moscow that is the one that Napoleon attacked.

Can you give me the reference of that book where it says that Napoleon took his army to the Asian nation of Russia. I would write to the editor to reconsider.

Salimar

I wonder... exactly what relevance is it what continent Russia is on? It is where it is. I've always been taught that it lies on both continents, but once again, it doesn't matter.

(Posted by Jarkis) Anyhow. I see it pointless arguing whether in fact, Iraq was invaded illegally or legally. What matters is how to solve the violence that is tearing up through Iraq. And since USA has been deemed responsible. She and her allies have to fix Iraq... And the hostage crisis. So its kind of late to pull-out of Iraq right now huh? Haha... off topic a bit.

The USA deemed responsible??? Gilgamar has already answered that for me. Yes, it's a given that we have to stay there and fix the mess. But it is VERY important whether the invasion is considered illegal. I'm probably gonna catch a lot of flack for this, but bear with me.

In the American Civil War, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1864. Legally speaking, it did absolutely nothing. Lincoln had no legal authority to free slaves in the CSA; however, it DID cause more uprisings and more important, killed any European support the South had.

Fast forward to today. Kofi declares the invasion illegal. We have pretty much established he's full of shit. But, it WILL have a political influence on our allies, our enemies, those undecided, even our own people. No one wants to support an illegal invasion of another country, and we have also proven that a lot of people are too damn lazy to do their own research and find the truth.

Why is the UN sitting on its collective ass? I think Ari nailed it on the head. They're hoping we pull out so their own scandal doesn't come to the forefront.

And as a statement on the true state of the Iraq conflict, I just have to say that Michael Moore and Al-Jazeera are so alike it's sickening. The attacks you see on TV are only because they're on TV. My friends told me that they took it easy until they saw Al-Jazeera setting up. Then they knew something was about to happen. They only want to show the bad to discredit the US. The beheadings? Mere politcal tools. They're desperate and they're trying to sway public opinion. And they don't mind killing a few people to do this. They place no value on human life, not even their own. This is EXACTLY why we can't leave. But as a whole, the country is fine. The people love us, and most of what the military does in Iraq is assist its people with feeding and building. Just as you can't trust Moore's snippets, so can't you trust the media for its clips. You wanna know what's really going on? Ask a soldier.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lebeau
You wanna know what's really going on? Ask a soldier.

---

This is quite possibly the best advice in this entire thread.

Kofi is a fucktard.
The media are fucktards.
The ones doing the beheadings are fucktards who commit atrocities so that weak-willed people will scream out "Stop the violence!"

I can't believe this thread has even lasted this long. The only reason why people hear about beheadings, car bombings, etc... is because those are the things that draw our attention.

"And today in world news, a handful of Iraqi children gave US Soldiers some flowers they found growing by the roadside..."

Or:

"Today in world news, three more are dead after a a suicide bomber detonated an explosive device in a crowded market square."

Now, which one do you think would make the headlines?

Ask a soldier what it's like over there. No, they probably don't want to be there, but they understand why and they know that it's for the best.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gilgamar
This is quite possibly the best advice in this entire thread.

Kofi is a fucktard.
The media are fucktards.
The ones doing the beheadings are fucktards who commit atrocities so that weak-willed people will scream out "Stop the violence!"

I can't believe this thread has even lasted this long. The only reason why people hear about beheadings, car bombings, etc... is because those are the things that draw our attention.

---

You know, the whole suicide bombing and attacking US/coalition soldiers thing would have ZERO effect if that fucking media wouldnt report it. If no one reported what was going on with these boring beheadings then whatever these terrorists did would have NO effect. We could cancel the whole effect of kidnappings and behadings and 'win' this war so much easier if we stopped the media from reporting what was going on. The energy of these terrorist forces would wear out real quick if no one reported the murderous things going on.

-tharun

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tharun
You know, the whole suicide bombing and attacking US/coalition soldiers thing would have ZERO effect if that fucking media wouldnt report it. If no one reported what was going on with these boring beheadings then whatever these terrorists did would have NO effect. We could cancel the whole effect of kidnappings and behadings and 'win' this war so much easier if we stopped the media from reporting what was going on. The energy of these terrorist forces would wear out real quick if no one reported the murderous things going on.

-tharun

---

Excellent point. This is precisely why Aj Jazeera is obviously a terrorist sympathizer. Furthermore, this is why it is utterly repugnant that Canada has chosen to allow Aj Jazeera to be broadcast there (when they actually exclude Fox News).

yeah, and nobody would know about Abu Ghraib.

How dare they challenge the coalition's moral superiority!!

Not that I'm defending anyone as far as the Abu Ghraib is concerned... I think that everyone involved should get their appropriate punishment. Their biggest violation in my eyes was being stupid. "Gee, let's take pictures and leak them to the media." Was what they did right? No, not in the situation most people who judge them are in. However, they are in a wartime environment. If my soldiers' lives depended on me embarrassing a prisoner and violating Geneva Conventions, I'd do it, but the media would never know. It's easy for us to judge them on this side of the ocean. In retrospect, yes, it was wrong, but a decision was made on many levels. I'd rather the wrong decision be made than none at all.

However, the point is simply this. It ain't none of our damn business. If no one knew about Abu Ghraib but CID and other necessary authorities, what would have changed? The terrorists that beheaded Nick Berg would have used another excuse. That's all that would be different.

As far as "moral superiority" is concerned, you're damn mother fucking right we're superior! I see a mere embarrassment of EPW's as nowhere even CLOSE to beheadings. Oh whooptie-fucking-doo, they were embarrassed. Let me cry a fucking river for the poor prisoners who WILL get to see their families again!

On the other hand, Tharun, it would have an effect. First off, the families need to be notified but on the news is hardly proper. Second, Al-Jazeera would still report it and it would still be circulating on the internet, even if American media didn't report it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lebeau

As far as "moral superiority" is concerned, you're damn mother fucking right we're superior! I see a mere embarrassment of EPW's as nowhere even CLOSE to beheadings. Oh whooptie-fucking-doo, they were embarrassed. Let me cry a fucking river for the poor prisoners who WILL get to see their families again!

---

Well said.

If an American takes a picture of a naked POW (who was actually a captured combatant), it is a Nuremburg-esque atrocity.

When Islamic terrorists behead innocents for kicks its "the result of us making them hate us so much."

What a crock.

Did you know that President Bush signed a directive back in February saying that Taliban soldiers didn't qualify as POWs.
They were called "unlawful combatants", which was designed to go around the Geneva convention. The idea was that Afghanistan wasn't a functioning state, and as such, the Taliban wasn't a functioning government, therefor, their previous adherance to the Act would be interpreted as null and void.
When you're no longer protected by the Convention, it's an opportunity for torture. (Not that the Taliban wasn't doing that already to their own people)

Bush finally decided to uphold the convention, until he decided otherwise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

If Bush is willing to do this in Afghanistan, why the hell wouldn't he do it in Iraq? Was every prisoner in those photos an enemy combatant?

read Article 3 of the Geneva Convention
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Do you seriously think that the media should be taken away from war zones?

Frankly, I'm shocked at some of the opinions expressed on this forum.