they didnt have to it wasnt the UN who went to war with Iraq, it was the U.S, GB, and the rest of the coalition.
Not true -- he seems very focused on African Aid, ending world hunger and exporting Democracy to every nation worldwide. I think George W. Bush is a product of the times. It's our belief that liberal democracy and capitalism will save us, as well as our tolerance for sundry forms of theism, that empowers him. You wanted freedom? You got it: the face of it is George W. Bush. Now what do you want?
Dude, you cant be fucking serious. ahahahahaha holy hell damn i wish i could sig quote right about now. how colbert of you
this arguement shows you are beaten; you seek to undermine the orgonisation that provides the law, instead of sticking to your origional argument, which stated no law was broken.
i'll admit i'm beaten if i think i am. Iraq broke the agreements which it made with the UN after the first Gulf War. This could have given the UN the authourity to go to war, but that's not what the UN does. Since the UN itself wasn't going to war, why should it have to approve what its member countries do? The armies of the member countries are not the armies of the UN. The UN has their own peacekeeping force. Since every single political person in the US who had to vote for the war voted for it, no laws were broken. but really, even going on my last argument, this war is completely legal. The UN shouldnt even be in existence anymore -- they've proven their uselessness and corruptness. therefore the only people who would have to approve the decision are the members of congress and the house of representatives -- which every single person did. and yes, the us obviously has recognised iraq's sovereignty, but that doesnt mean that the U.S. cant renege and change past laws and treaties. it happens almost every day in this country and in legal systems around the world. if it werent for this reneging things such as slavery would still be legal.