|
Karnal
|
Secret Wars wrote on Sep 27 th, 2017 at 10:53pm: Karnal wrote on Sep 27 th, 2017 at 10:44pm: Secret Wars wrote on Sep 27 th, 2017 at 10:23pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 27 th, 2017 at 10:01pm: Secret Wars wrote on Sep 27 th, 2017 at 9:57pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 27 th, 2017 at 9:50pm: Secret Wars wrote on Sep 27 th, 2017 at 7:35pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 27 th, 2017 at 7:22pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27 th, 2017 at 6:36pm: what I always find utterly hilarious is that opponents of the Iraq War, and apologetics for Islam, always ignore the crimes of the genocidal Hussein family because at least the secularists kept stability in the country and stopped insurgencies from crazy religious nutters. Do you realise that you are literally arguing a genocidal maniac who killed 2+ million was a better option than a Islamic cleric/imam leading Iraq? So much for Islam being so wonderful. Oh, I've always said that Saddam had to go. It just needed the right cassis belli, rather than the lies that Bush and Co. created to justify their silly invasion of Iraq. The best point would have been in 1991 when Bush junior's father had the opportunity but didn't take it. Bit of a cleft stick there, caught between what the supporters of the Coalition wanted and what was best for the Iraqi people. Not a cleft stick, they had permission from the UN, as if that matters, but more importantly, a coalition of middle eastern partners to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, not permission to engage in regime change and invade Iraq. Bush Senior had a good relationship with Prince Bandar and knew what was what and what the coalition would sustain. None of this is mysterious but it baffles the crap out of you. Out of a matter of interest can you quote to me the Security Council resolution that allowed for the toppling of Saddam Hussein from the presidency of Iraq? I'd like to know it. Of course, failure to do so indicates what about your claims? Out of a matter of interest can you quote to me what I wrote that led you to think I said anything like that. I reread what I wrote and nothing says anything like that. Oh, dear, you are rather blind, aren't you? "they had permission from the UN". "Permission" must come from a UN Security Council resolution, that is the only "permission" the UN can provide to armed conflict. So, which resolution was it? Which number? When was it debated and who voted on it? Tsk, tsk.  You idiot, read them whole sentence, it is perfectly accurate and not at all difficult to understand, "they had permission from the UN, as if that matters, but more importantly, a coalition of middle eastern partners to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, not permission to engage in regime change and invade Iraq." They did have permission from the UN, there was a coalition, that coalition included Middle Eastern Countries which would have collapsed if invasion and regime change was attempted. The Coalition was an exercise in arse-covering. The invasion of Iraq was completely illegal, as the long-awaited judicial British report into Iraq pointed out. The US established a dangerous precedence. Putin is now crowing that his entry into the Ukraine - unlike the invasion of Iraq - was legal. Putin was invited by his Ukrainian puppet leader to provide "security" - just as the South Vietnamese government invited the US into Vietnam. The illegal invasion of Iraq was hardly unprecedented, but it was a very public snub to the rule of law, or treaty law to be exact. Today, all a rogue leader has to do is reference the invasion of Iraq as a justification for whatever invasion they feel like doing. I was responding to Brian's cleft stick statement in which he was referring to the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait, I suggest you both go back and reread what I posted and what it was in reponse to, hell I even mentioned cleft stick and it was directly under his post. I have highlighted it above to further assist th comprehension challenged. I even mentioned Bush Senior, sheesh, also I suggest both you dills Google Prince Bandar you both might learn something. Good-o. Your use of the term "coalition" fooled me.
|
Forum
Pages: 
spineless apologetics (Read 350849 times)
