Tiger Al 0 Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law. But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger12 46 Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 key phrase in those statements, "it was the right thing to do". Going by "international law" we should not have stopped Hitler either. Again it amazes me how people think that getting rid of an evil dictator who imprisoned and murdered kids was the wrong thing to do. Guess the world was better off with somebody like this in power and letting all those terrorists continue to train and be funded under the table by him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CShine 0 Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Going by "international law" we should not have stopped Hitler either. Bald-faced lie. Hitler declared war against us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger12 46 Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Going by "international law" we should not have stopped Hitler either. Bald-faced lie. Hitler declared war against us. Please explain how that is a bald faced lie for one thing because apparently you have a weird definition of what an out right lie is. How did Hitler declare war on us? He was attacking our allies. So Saddam helping fund and train the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 is not what you condsider a declaration of war? Do you think it was wrong to get this evil man out of power? Did you forget that he has already invaded an ally before and had plans to try to invade Saudia Arabia also. What would stop him from trying again? Would you have rather waited for him to invade a few countries and murder more innocent people as Hitler did before we stopped him? Apparently so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted November 21, 2003 Author Share Posted November 21, 2003 So Saddam helping fund and train the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 is not what you condsider a declaration of war? Sorry ranger, you did it again. had plans to try to invade Saudia Arabia also. First I've heard of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CShine 0 Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Going by "international law" we should not have stopped Hitler either. Bald-faced lie. Hitler declared war against us. Please explain how that is a bald faced lie for one thing because apparently you have a weird definition of what an out right lie is. How did Hitler declare war on us? I see you are ignorant of history. So I was wrong. You weren't lying. You just don't know what you're talking about. Hitler formally declared war against the United States four days after Pearl Harbor in a Dec. 11, 1941 speech to the Reichstag (the German parliament). He did this in the mistaken belief that Japan would reciprocate by declaring war on the Soviet Union. There had been no combat of any kind between the U.S. and Germany prior to Hitler's Dec. 11th declaration of war against us. Feel free to google away and read the truth, or just click the link below to read all about it. We didn't start shooting at Hitler. He came after us. http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/us_war.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 We all know that the German decleration of war was a formality. The US was technically a neutral but suppling arms, ships and every supply it could get across the sea to Britain well before Dec 11, 1941. I am sure some lawyer can easily find some international laws we were breaking in 1940, but that is not important, what is important is that Roosevelt was doing the right thing, just like George Bush did the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted November 21, 2003 Author Share Posted November 21, 2003 We all know that the German decleration of war was a formality. The US was technically a neutral but suppling arms, ships and every supply it could get across the sea to Britain well before Dec 11, 1941. I am sure some lawyer can easily find some international laws we were breaking in 1940, but that is not important, what is important is that Roosevelt was doing the right thing, just like George Bush did the right thing. Sorry, I got here kind of late. When did you cover the part where Iraq attacked us or one of our allies? Oh...they didn't? Then you're comparing apples to bulls**t!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 I am talking about our "participation" in the European War before Dec 7. What I am trying to say is that Roosevelt pushed the boundaries of "international" law between 1939 and 1941, and Bush pushed the boundaries of "international" law in 2003. Obviously the situation with Britain in 1939 is different than Iraq and the Middle East in 2003. But, we could just as easily have ignored Britain's plight in 1939 as you want to ignore Iraq in 2003. That wouldn't have made the world a better place. Both Presidents were doing the right thing, as history proved for Roosevelt, and will prove for Bush, if Dean isn't elected and screws it all up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Going by "international law" we should not have stopped Hitler either. Bald-faced lie. Hitler declared war against us. Please explain how that is a bald faced lie for one thing because apparently you have a weird definition of what an out right lie is. How did Hitler declare war on us? He was attacking our allies. So Saddam helping fund and train the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 is not what you condsider a declaration of war? Do you think it was wrong to get this evil man out of power? Did you forget that he has already invaded an ally before and had plans to try to invade Saudia Arabia also. What would stop him from trying again? Would you have rather waited for him to invade a few countries and murder more innocent people as Hitler did before we stopped him? Apparently so. So Saddam helping fund and train the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 is not what you condsider a declaration of war? Even though Bush and co. impled as much before selling us a cock and Bull story about Saddam and Al Queda, no one has found any links that remotely tie the two together. Bush had closer ties to the Bin Laden's than Saddam Hussein. He actually allowed 20+ Bin Ladens to flee this country just days after the 9-11 attacks. Shouldn't we have at least interrogated them since it was THEIR family and THEIR country (15 of 19 attackers were Saudis) that attacked us? Do you think it was wrong to get this evil man out of power? Should we use our military to invade every dictatorship in the world? Of course not. Not even counting the evil dictatorship that controls Saudi Arabia, we're developing plans to start buying oil from another of the world's most evil dictators!! Did you forget that he has already invaded an ally before and had plans to try to invade Saudia Arabia also. What would stop him from trying again? He had already been removed from Kuwait and sanctioned by the United Nations. He had already dismantled all of his WMD and was in compliance with UN provisions of his surrender. Would you have rather waited for him to invade a few countries and murder more innocent people as Hitler did before we stopped him? Apparently so. Whereas Germany was a world power bent on conquering the world, we had already shown during the first Gulf war that the Iraqi army was no threat to us or the region. Because of sanctions and weapons destruction, they were much weaker this time than they were before. Regardless of Bush administration lies, they were NOT an "imminent threat". They didn't have WMD!! They had never tried to buy yellowcake from Africa. They had not purchased aluminum tubes for a nuclear centrifuge and there were NO ties to Al Queda or the terrorists that attacked our nation on 9-11!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.