• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was the War in Iraq worth it?

Was the War in Iraq worth it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 19.6%
  • No

    Votes: 86 80.4%

  • Total voters
    107
No we don't need a court to know something is wrong, and you can also read the resolutions that imply it was legal. Hell, it being legal still wouldn't make it "right".

Really, no, you can't. Not honestly. Sure, someone will try to convince you of that, but it would be a disahonest effort. We did not have the security council mandate, and we were not facing imminent threat. Coalition of the willing means we were outside the UN. So, no, no one can honestly read it differently.
 
Really, no, you can't. Not honestly. Sure, someone will try to convince you of that, but it would be a disahonest effort. We did not have the security council mandate, and we were not facing imminent threat. Coalition of the willing means we were outside the UN. So, no, no one can honestly read it differently.

Like someone convinced you it was illegal...or you convinced yourself. There are interpretations to be made due to the widely varying resolutions that apply. That's why courts decide if someone has broken a law, not the average Joe, not the police, not Judge Dredd.
 
Like someone convinced you it was illegal...or you convinced yourself. There are interpretations to be made due to the widely varying resolutions that apply. That's why courts decide if someone has broken a law, not the average Joe, not the police, not Judge Dredd.

No, the text is relatively clear. The courts decide if we ahve evidence that you were going 150 mph in 65mph zone. Not rather going 150 mph in 65 mph is speeding. Here we have the document (the speed limit) and we have the our actions (the clocked speed). So we have the evidence and the law. As it won't go to court, we can, should, and have looked at both. You have suspend disbelief not to see it.
 
No, the text is relatively clear. The courts decide if we ahve evidence that you were going 150 mph in 65mph zone. Not rather going 150 mph in 65 mph is speeding. Here we have the document (the speed limit) and we have the our actions (the clocked speed). So we have the evidence and the law. As it won't go to court, we can, should, and have looked at both. You have suspend disbelief not to see it.

I have not suspended disbelief. There are UN resolutions dating back to just after the first Gulf War that can be interpreted to have authorized the invasion. Simple. Regardless, it was a bad idea, though not illegal.
 
The US and UK governments, stated that the invasion was entirely legal because it was already authorized by existing United Nations Security Council resolutions and a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities, and were acting as agents for the defense of Kuwait in response to Iraq's 1990 invasion. The War was ok because we were protecting Kuwait from an invasion 14 years prior?
 
The US and UK governments, stated that the invasion was entirely legal because it was already authorized by existing United Nations Security Council resolutions and a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities, and were acting as agents for the defense of Kuwait in response to Iraq's 1990 invasion. The War was ok because we were protecting Kuwait from an invasion 14 years prior?

Yes indeedy, these people should be selling cars. Just driven to church by a little ol' lady, downhill in both directions.
 
I have not suspended disbelief. There are UN resolutions dating back to just after the first Gulf War that can be interpreted to have authorized the invasion. Simple. Regardless, it was a bad idea, though not illegal.

No, they cannot. Not remotely. You do have to suspend disbleif to believe that they do. I again point to the fact that the definition of the coalition of the willing itself means outside the UN. You cannot argue, honestly, that the invasion was authorized by the UN.
 
The US and UK governments, stated that the invasion was entirely legal because it was already authorized by existing United Nations Security Council resolutions and a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities, and were acting as agents for the defense of Kuwait in response to Iraq's 1990 invasion. The War was ok because we were protecting Kuwait from an invasion 14 years prior?

What was that about what reasonable people would believe?
 
No, they cannot. Not remotely. You do have to suspend disbleif to believe that they do. I again point to the fact that the definition of the coalition of the willing itself means outside the UN. You cannot argue, honestly, that the invasion was authorized by the UN.

The authorization of force using military means was authorized under UN Resolution 1441. It's fairly well documented as are the prior and subsequent resolutions with regards to Iraq.
 
The authorization of force using military means was authorized under UN Resolution 1441. It's fairly well documented as are the prior and subsequent resolutions with regards to Iraq.

you are wasting your breath (metaphorically). He doesn't want to believe, and so he doesn't.
 
The authorization of force using military means was authorized under UN Resolution 1441. It's fairly well documented as are the prior and subsequent resolutions with regards to Iraq.

No. That is incorrect. It did not authorize the invasion of Iraq.

Before the meeting took place, French president Jacques Chirac declared on March 10 that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the U.S. and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a "second resolution" was effectively abandoned at that point.

In the leadup to the meeting, it became apparent that a majority of UNSC members would oppose any resolution leading to war. As a result, no such resolution was put to the Council.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not only that, but it was not that the US could act when the US saw fit. A UN resolution is decided by the UN, not the US. Once the US said we will do it without the UN, with a coalition of the willing, they were no longer operating under any UN resolutions. They acted outside the UN, on their own authority, violating their agreement.
 
No. That is incorrect. It did not authorize the invasion of Iraq.
I clearly and succinctly said it authorized military force. At least pay attention.

Not only that, but it was not that the US could act when the US saw fit. A UN resolution is decided by the UN, not the US. Once the US said we will do it without the UN, with a coalition of the willing, they were no longer operating under any UN resolutions. They acted outside the UN, on their own authority, violating their agreement.
You want to live in your own reality - that's cool. But there are multiple resolutions that identify exactly was was voted on at the UN, and who authorized it (Security Council). I'm not going to argue settled and agreed upon history because you don't want to accept it as reality... it's there for all to read.


cpwill said:
you are wasting your breath (metaphorically). He doesn't want to believe, and so he doesn't.

I'm doing it more to just push buttons than anything else... re-litigating the UN resolutions for Iraq with Boo is akin to convincing a person who thinks they are Abraham Lincoln that they're not. I do enjoy, at some level, watching the thought process and outright denial though, sad to say.
 
Allow me to add this:

On the other hand, members of the Security Council have not acquiesced in using force in connection with Iraqi weapons inspections. The ceasefire resolution declares that sanctions will remain on Iraq until inspectors certify it is free of weapons of mass destruction. The debate since 1991 has been about lifting or leaving the sanctions, not whether states should be able to use military force to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and the means to produce them[4]. No acquiescence has occurred to allow force for enforcing weapons inspections, and certainly none has developed to authorize ousting Saddam Hussein.

This conclusion was underscored when President Bush acknowledged as much in his speech to the UN on September 12[5]. He said the US would pursue the necessary resolutions in the Security Council, meaning that new resolutions, authorizing force, would be necessary before the US or any other country could carry out lawful enforcement action in respect to any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Resolution 1441 provides no new authorization for using force. It states in paragraph 12 that a meeting of the Security Council will be the first step upon a report by inspectors that Iraq has obstructed their activities. Consequences will follow a meeting. Syria has confirmed that it received a letter from US Secretary of State Colin Powell "in which he stressed that there is nothing in the resolution to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq."[6] Thus, if and when a meeting is called, Security Council members will have an opportunity to state their assessment of whether serious consequences are called for or not.

(snip)

In conclusion, Resolution 1441 is designed to ensure that Saddam Hussein does not have weapons of mass destruction nor the capability to produce them. If applied reasonably by the Security Council, consistently with principles of international law, it is possible for Saddam to comply. To that extent, the resolution is not a cynical exercise to provide legal cover for a US invasion. Indeed, it requires restraint on the part of the US, too. The resolution weakens US arguments of authority to use force under prior resolutions, in the face of material breach or to pre-empt threats. However, Resolution 1441 does open the door for Security Council authorized action, including force, should Saddam fail to comply in good faith.



JURIST - O'Connell: UN Resolution 1441 - Compelling Saddam, Restraining Bush
 
The US and UK governments, stated that the invasion was entirely legal because it was already authorized by existing United Nations Security Council resolutions and a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities, and were acting as agents for the defense of Kuwait in response to Iraq's 1990 invasion. The War was ok because we were protecting Kuwait from an invasion 14 years prior?

Actually the application of that reasoning was Saddam's positioning of troops near the Kuwaiti border in 2001-2002, not an invasion 14 years prior.
 
I clearly and succinctly said it authorized military force. At least pay attention.

Not sure why you think that matters? But OK.


You want to live in your own reality - that's cool. But there are multiple resolutions that identify exactly was was voted on at the UN, and who authorized it (Security Council). I'm not going to argue settled and agreed upon history because you don't want to accept it as reality... it's there for all to read.

Not honest ones. And while you may want to push buttons, and more power to you, the debate is about whether the invasion was authorized by UN resolution 1441. Such cannot b argued reasonably.
 
No, they cannot. Not remotely. You do have to suspend disbleif to believe that they do. I again point to the fact that the definition of the coalition of the willing itself means outside the UN. You cannot argue, honestly, that the invasion was authorized by the UN.

And you have to stick your fingers in your ears and sing the National Anthem to ignore that they can be interpreted to do just that. I'm not saying it's a correct interpretation, I'm saying it's an interpretation. This dissonance is why courts exist. :shrug:
 
Not honest ones. And while you may want to push buttons, and more power to you, the debate is about whether the invasion was authorized by UN resolution 1441. Such cannot b argued reasonably.
It's only unreasonable to you in your reality. To the rest of us, it's not only reasonable but historical fact - settled history. Sure it went around the Constitution... but that doesn't make the authorization of force any less real.
 
And you have to stick your fingers in your ears and sing the National Anthem to ignore that they can be interpreted to do just that. I'm not saying it's a correct interpretation, I'm saying it's an interpretation. This dissonance is why courts exist. :shrug:

No. I provide evidence. We can make things up I suppose, say any while thing, and then say charge me. I suppose that works to some extent. But agian, Bush moved outside the UN. A coalition of the willing is by definition outside the UN. So, no, there is no disagreement of the type you suggest. If the US was within the UN, there would have been no coalition.
 
It's only unreasonable to you in your reality. To the rest of us, it's not only reasonable but historical fact - settled history. Sure it went around the Constitution... but that doesn't make the authorization of force any less real.

Different subject. Which is usually what happens on your side here. You can't show UN authorization, knowing it really didn't exist, so you swing around. I have seen it before. But the argument here is that it was authorized by the UN. We can deal with that other question later.
 
No. I provide evidence. We can make things up I suppose, say any while thing, and then say charge me. I suppose that works to some extent. But agian, Bush moved outside the UN. A coalition of the willing is by definition outside the UN. So, no, there is no disagreement of the type you suggest. If the US was within the UN, there would have been no coalition.

Oh say can you seeeeee........
 
Oh say can you seeeeee........

I guess that's the best you can do. Much easier than addressing the link or the point. :coffeepap
 
I guess that's the best you can do. Much easier than addressing the link or the point. :coffeepap

I've been addressing the point, and you've been ignoring it. The point is, you can call it illegal all you want, but you can't prove it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom