NOW YOU GET MAD?

*sigh..* technical touche..

the "1990 Security Council Resolution 678 authorised force against Iraq, which was suspended but not terminated by the 1991 Resolution 687, which imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. A material breach of resolution 687 would revive the authority to use force under resolution 678. In Resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 687 because it had not fully carried out its obligations to disarm".

The al-Samoud missiles found in iraq had range capabilities that were illegal. Only 29 out of a hundred would ever be verified destroyed. A fight drone that was not reported was also found.

It was not illegal. The U.S. did not sign the treating recognizing International Court Jurisdiction and thus could not violate international law. It was not wrong, the U.S. attempted to put an end to domestic atrocities taking place there internally. Those were the obvious results regardless of any ulterior motives by the Bush Administration.

YMRA, Obama is a baby boomer. Some consider him a member of Generation Jones, but the majority recognize baby boomers as being born between 1946-64.

 

Also Iraq for better or worse kept Iran in check.

 

Great post G.L.!!

 

Which is a point I made previously, but let me hit another one of your points that will make this one a bit more clear.

And there it is....

On the one hand one can not use the violation of UN resolutions as a justification to wage war, and then in the very next breath claim that US is not bound by International Law of which the UN is the primary mediator. The US went to war on the premise that it was acting FOR the World body..........the UN.

Its arrogance and pretending to be the world Police force, in the end, we lost far far more than we will ever gain. AND....we will return to Iraq (trust me) on this one.

 

tHE U.S. can inforce UN resolutions when those parties violating said resolution do so in a matter of potential or actual offense against U.S. territory or interests. The U.S. can inforce UN laws and not be suseptable to them. When resolutions were violated I believe that the Security Council did not need to reaffirm or confirm the violation in the same way that police don't need the D.A.'s office to give the green light for every arrest.

It still has not been clarified if automaticity exists in regards to enforcement of broken resolutins even though permanent members of the Sec. Council have spoken out in oppisition to automaticity. Even then, that view was only stated by half the council membership. However, that in itself means nothing do to veto power and veto rules.

The U.S. could argue that its defending itself based on UN finding and the hostilities existing between Iraq and the U.S. following the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or the U.S. can argue that the UN resolution never ceased being active following the 1991 War but was simply un-inforced.

 

Tax breaks for the wealthy may not be 100%. but you have to consider that is encouragement. Be pause more than 90% of US wealth lies with the wealthy, when they make a 'move,' it has the possibility of being beneficial for others. It's hard to understand the far reaching capabilities that those types of deals and investments have unless you are in that top echelon.