A Nobel for Defeating Cheneyism
- Thread starter kelvin070
- Start date
Wake me when you dare to answer exactly what Dear Leader has done to deserve a nobel prize. And no being able to effectively lie to the American people well enough to get elected is not it. :sleep:
Enjoy your sleep, dont think too much into it.
every time you respond to him you encourage this type of bullshit.
I agree, he didn't deserve the Nobel Peace prize. I can think of a few people in the last century who deserved it a lot less though. Please tell me what he's lies about that goes beyond the realms of the lies other USA Presidents or world leaders have told. Lets face it, they all lie. Do they all enter illegal wars and bomb the shit out of civilians of other countries, unnecessarilly though, like you last President? (Republican, wasn't he?)
Not to defend Bush, but "bombing the shit out of civilians" is an undeserved criticism. The number of civilian casualties in Iraq pales in comparison to any war waged by any nation in this century.
It was an illegal war though
Every military action since WWII has been "illegal"
How do you figure?
No declaration of war by US Congress
Dosen't UN approval count to you then?
Absolutely not. The UN, IMO, has NO legal authority for anything. It's a completely worthless institution.
And if the UN is YOUR criteria for what is "legal" - then the US DID have UN authorization to use force against Iraq for violating their sanctions.
Last edited by a moderator:
That was the opinion of one man who has proven to be corrupt and unworthy of his position.
I don't feel like digging it all up right now, but I have closely examined all of the resolutions from the time in a forum debate a while back. It's pretty specific the conditions that Iraq was to be held to, and military action was specifically mentioned as a possible reprecussion for non-compliance. The fact that Annan thought IN HIS OPINION that an additional resolution was necessary was his ego speaking, and other member sof the Security Council did not share his opinion.
An again, for an organization with no authority to enforce "legality" - it's laughable that he chose to use that term. The UN is not, and never has been, a source of "law." So how can they dtermine something to be "illegal?"
Last edited by a moderator:
Well you better start digging why that is wrong or you dont really have a leg to stand on in this argument. 
Well you better start digging why that is wrong or you dont really have a leg to stand on in this argument.
Just read the resolutions. I don't feel like researching them right now.
You posting Kofi Annan's opinion isn't exactly a rock-solid argument. Hell, he had to be pressed into even saying it.
Your argument is a hell of a lot less solid if you cant back it up. :thumbup:surrender
There IS no argument. I can't refute an opinion. It's pointless. Post some facts and I'll challenge them.
And just to PLEASE you, here's language from UN 1441
.If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security.
That's pretty fucking cut and dried, wouldn't you say?
.If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security.
That's pretty fucking cut and dried, wouldn't you say?