Originally posted by JodieG
It is.
We could go on like this all day
![Smile :) :)](/styles/default/xenforo/vbSmilies/Normal/smile.gif)
You won't be swayed by facts so have it your way.
Originally posted by JodieG
It is.
Originally posted by Tupac_
look right
saddam has ******* years to attack us if he wanted but did he??
no he ******* didnt
the way u act its like u dont value ur life
i rest my case yeh
Originally posted by dirtydog
We could go on like this all day
You won't be swayed by facts so have it your way.
Originally posted by IndyModeOCHW
My cousin is in the middle east - he realized and has told me that he knows just because I don't agree with his boss doesn't mean I don't support him and his mates. And my cousin isn't the smartest cookie - so if he realizes that - surely the majority of our troops can![]()
Originally posted by JodieG
Lmao I won't even comment until you say something sensible.
Originally posted by dirtydog
I would imagine the support for war is well over 50% in the country, and will rise once war proper gets underway.
But why is that?
I picked up a copy of yesterday's Sun paper today, and it is full of naked propaganda and lies.. it states for a fact that Bin Laden and Saddam are linked - offers no proof, just states it as an accepted fact, like saying Blair is the PM. Millions read that paper. I expect other pro-war papers have the same spin and lies.
If I thought Saddam and Bin Laden were linked, and without removing Saddam we would be attacked, I would support the war! But of course that isn't the case at all - it's just a lie concocted by Bush, repeated by Blair and the pro-war press, to make people support the war. They know most people are gullible and will believe what they are told by them, at face value, like sheep.
Originally posted by JodieG
I don't think we can assume though.
Originally posted by JodieG
You're the one not swayed by facts, but then I'm sure you know better than the attorney general and the government.
The prohibition of the use of force is a foundational rule of international law. Only two exceptions are permitted: the use of force in self-defence, or with the express authorisation of the UN security council exercising its powers under chapter VII of the UN charter.
Iraq has not attacked the US, the UK or their allies, nor is there any evidence that it is about to do so. Force may only be used in self-defence in response to an actual or (according to some commentators) an imminent armed attack. Therefore any arguments based on self-defence fail. What the US national security strategy has advocated are pre-emptive attacks on countries which may threaten the US. The use of armed force in such circumstances is contrary to international law.
Originally posted by Tupac_
u say im on the other side of sensible look at ur speeches...hahaha u crack me up![]()
Originally posted by dirtydog
The attorney general is a Labour peer and Blair's friend.. and the government are hardly gonna come out and say the war is illegal are they.
It is legal in international law to fight in self defence, not to attack another country which has not attacked nor threatened you, nor to remove its leader and institute 'regime change'.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4624520,00.html
[/B]
Originally posted by JodieG
It doesn't make it illegal, it is going ahead because it is legal, even our attorney general said the same thing.
Originally posted by MAD_BANDIT
does that mean that if he said the sky was coverd in polka dots, and the moon was made of sheese you would believ him?
ok,
list of people who think it is illegal. this is a quicl list, but you get the idea....
here
here
here
here
british lawyers
concern our troops will take the flak for blair
The UN Charter says: "All members shall refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". It says force may only be used in self-defence or if approved by the Security Council.
Originally posted by JodieG
Yes that's right I do. Doesn't it occur to you that maybe Hussein was getting ready to attack? Don't you wonder why he wouldn't disarm? Asking if I value life is why I think you're not sensible, it's as if you can't think of anything else to back up your arguement so you resort to other tactics.
Originally posted by MindYerBeak
There is dispute about 1441. The solicitors can't agree one way or the other, yet the tree huggers insist it was violated.
Originally posted by JodieG
Yes that's right I do. Doesn't it occur to you that maybe Hussein was getting ready to attack? Don't you wonder why he wouldn't disarm? Asking if I value life is why I think you're not sensible, it's as if you can't think of anything else to back up your arguement so you resort to other tactics.
Originally posted by BuckEye
Sorry, off forums with work. Will respond to a few if I can.
So you're sugesting we go to war with countries because we don't know their motives? Who shall we attack next because we don't know it's NOT justified?
jeez
S
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,