Iraq invasion not illegal (1 Viewer)

[paper cup]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/16/1095221696994.html?from=top5
^idiot.

 

[Cape]

I think that he needs to learn what the united nations was actually estabilshed for!!

 

[Kulazzi]

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time."

neither do I...........but it may happen *sigh*

 

[nick1048]

I wish that there will be consequences for actions taken although when you have half the owrld ur your ass (Australia included) that is a highly unlikely circumstance

 

[Jago]

what is it with you and newspaper articles..

 

[Ziff]

what is it with you and newspaper articles..

Because that's basically this forum - discuss issues, argue about stuff. The basis is usually newspaper articles.

If you read op-ed columns, which I doubt, you'll realise that a large portion of discussions and arguments are based on books, literature, articles and newspaper articles.

 

[thorrnydevil]

Like Johnny said, the UN is a great organisation. I think that while ever the UN has its 5 pernament SC members and they can veto ANY decision then its useless. The UN was created 50 years ago, it needs to updated, majorly.

 

[Kulazzi]

so you think the war in iraq was legal?

 

[thorrnydevil]

so you think the war on iraq was legal?

In regards to the rules of the UN Security Council - No.
Is it justified - Yes.

And please...War IN Iraq...not War ON Iraq.

 

[Kulazzi]

sorrrryyyyy.................there. It's been edited. Oh, and for once, I agree with you.

 

[thorrnydevil]

sorrrryyyyy.................there. It's been edited. Oh, and for once, I agree with you.

You agree with me on what exactly?

 

[Ziff]

We've had the "UN + veto power = arse" discussion before

 

[thorrnydevil]

We've had the "UN + veto power = arse" discussion before

When? I must have missed it.

 

[Ziff]

You know, the thread where you confused France with Russia?

http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?t=39290

 

[thorrnydevil]

You know, the thread where you confused France with Russia?

http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?t=39290

OK...thats right.

 

[Jago]

Because that's basically this forum - discuss issues, argue about stuff. The basis is usually newspaper articles.

If you read op-ed columns, which I doubt, you'll realise that a large portion of discussions and arguments are based on books, literature, articles and newspaper articles.

she's like this on msn as well.

p.s. hello cb, i see you online

 

[paper cup]

she's like this on msn as well.

p.s. hello cb, i see you online

what is wrong with being well informed and up to date on current issues?
my legal teacher told me to read papers so i do. shut up!!!
oh and hello dear, nice of you to snub me yesterday.
please continue your discussion at hand, I'll be here on the fence watching asquithian and ziff argue for me.

 

[Jago]

i've told you before, i don't usually notice when people come online, and since i have mp3s on most of the time i don't notice the sign in sounds too.

Here's an idea. If you wanted to chat, start the convo.

 

[paper cup]

i've told you before, i don't usually notice when people come online, and since i have mp3s on most of the time i don't notice the sign in sounds too.

Here's an idea. If you wanted to chat, start the convo.

oh, someone's touchy today. I will do so.

 

[tWiStEdD]

bah.
the UN is a paralysed body.

International treaties, laws, conventions, agreements, decisions are not enforceable. Until such time as they are, the UN will be essentially useless.

I lie to an extent. It is not useless, not at all. In the context of the time (1945, when it was created) it was invaluable. In this day and age, with the rise in terrorism and the pride that countries have in their decision making ability domestically and instigated, by the aforementioned country, internationally. Until national sovereignty is given up to an international body and before this international body has its own borders and army, the UN will continue to be a paralysed body.

Howard is right on that point. countries can do what they want and claim that sovereignty protects them from the conclusions reached by anyone other sovereign state or international body (read: UN).

As for the invasion of Iraq... well i'm against the war on terror, and i'm against the Iraq war.
I dont know how you distinguish between war IN Iraq and war ON Iraq. War in Iraq means war on Iraq, but war on Iraq does not mean war in Iraq.

I, personally, believe in sovereignty but i also see a future for international law and international bodies. I believe it to be the course we will inevitably take, if we do not blow ourselves up first.