weapons and a tribute

[lizard]

just about every day I check out
http://www.strangecosmos.com
http://www.geetrish.com
http://www.ilovebacon.com

the 2nd two usually aren't updated until around lunchtime EST.

 

[Yetti]

 

[Chromatose]

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/5472430.htm

 

[Yetti]

THIS IS NOT AN ILLEGAL WAR.Look … you appeasement types out there … find another argument. The coalition action against Saddam Hussein is not a violation of the United Nations Charter and is not a violation of international law. To understand this you will need to stop beating your gums and sit down to read. More specifically, read United Nation’s Security Council resolutions 678, 687 and 1441.Resolution 678 was passed shortly after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. This resolution orders Saddam to withdraw his troops from Kuwait and to recognize the pre-established international border between Iraq and Kuwait. Resolution 678 also says that any member state can use military force to enforce the requirements of this resolution or any subsequent resolution dealing with Saddam. Now .. go on and read Resolutions 687 and 1441, both dealing with demands for Saddam’s disarmament. Both of these resolution make specific reference to and reaffirm Resolution 678. Those of you who did not attend government schools can understand, then, that the United States and Great Britain, both being member states of the United Nations, are completely within their legal rights to use military force against Iraq and Saddam Hussein to enforce the provisions of Resolution 1441.

 

[ForbiddenAngel]

 

[Yetti]

damn straight FA

 

[Chromatose]

THIS IS NOT AN ILLEGAL WAR.Look … you appeasement types out there … find another argument. The coalition action against Saddam Hussein is not a violation of the United Nations Charter and is not a violation of international law. To understand this you will need to stop beating your gums and sit down to read. More specifically, read United Nation’s Security Council resolutions 678, 687 and 1441.Resolution 678 was passed shortly after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. This resolution orders Saddam to withdraw his troops from Kuwait and to recognize the pre-established international border between Iraq and Kuwait. Resolution 678 also says that any member state can use military force to enforce the requirements of this resolution or any subsequent resolution dealing with Saddam. Now .. go on and read Resolutions 687 and 1441, both dealing with demands for Saddam’s disarmament. Both of these resolution make specific reference to and reaffirm Resolution 678. Those of you who did not attend government schools can understand, then, that the United States and Great Britain, both being member states of the United Nations, are completely within their legal rights to use military force against Iraq and Saddam Hussein to enforce the provisions of Resolution 1441.

Being a UN resolution, wouldn't the Security Council be the ones who make the decision of whether or not a breach of 1441 has occured? The US is not waiting for this, but yes, 1441 does not state they have to, because like most of these resolutions, are vague enough to be pulled out as excuses in times of need, and as tools for appeasement.
So then if they use the Resolution 687/678 route, wasn't that initiated for stepping in to protect the peace between terrorism in Middle Eastern nations themselves? By saying the US is in danger following this, and "pre-emptive self-defense of Terrorism" is needed, this is where illegality comes in. Just an excuse. Why make rules just to enforce them onesidedly?

Something needed to happen regardless, but if they cut back on the bullshit, then there'd be a lot less pointless arguing going around about topics not related to the truth.