USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows 6/10 Let's Invade Iraq

andynbg · Mar 17, 2003

SSI
I think this maybe different this time. The longer it takes, the more cassulaties you have the more the public questions the cause? you can not compare a war to 9/11. this war will be started by the USA by breaking the . international law. 1441 means nothing
what bush blair and aznar are starting is a violation of the international law.
since 1945 it is forbidden to start any offensive war. furthermore when you have a ceasefire agreement with a country it is strictly forbidden to attack this country.
article 51 of the un charta does not work as well as it only allows a offensive war against a country when an attack against the own country is approaching.
furthermore it is not possible to start a war due to the fact that the us is speaking of a material breach. in that case you need a new resolution and prior to that the un has to determine that.
so if it would not be bush or blair starting such a war any other person would be treated as a war criminal.
In case the pulic would be aware of these facts i would say yes the vote would be totally different

Guest · Mar 17, 2003

Who enforces international law??

- - -
"This is the business we've chosen." - Hyman Roth

SSI · Mar 17, 2003

i agree this is not about 9/11... its about Sadaam Huessien not living up to resolution 1441.. that resolution was passed unanimously.. several precedents have been set to wage war without the UN approval,, Chechneya, Falklands, Serbia to name a few.. what if its a very quick war with great results,, bandwagon jumpers will be climbing on,,, did you see France trying to back up today,,, saying America was on their minds and in their hearts, saying they thought of the US as brothers, and they actually had a love for the US, this was merely a diplomatic disagreement.. Looks also like Wall street is viewing this favorably..

The People's Champ

andynbg · Mar 17, 2003

the security council with resolutions. use of force is only the last possibility.

SSI · Mar 17, 2003

in other words, a smack on the wrist is coming..

The People's Champ

radiofreecostarica · Mar 17, 2003

SSI,

while bloodshed occurs in the bible, a warning to the aggressor is also takes place throughout: David vs. Goliath, Jonah vs. the Whale, Jesus vs. Herod etc.
I think you might want to rethink your philosophy on warfare.

SSI · Mar 17, 2003

maybe you should rethink who the agressor here is.. He should not have been allowed to stay in power after the last war.. --- appreciate the discussion just dont agree with you.. Have you thought about what Christ will do at his coming,, let me re-phrase that -- what the bible says will happen at his coming.. read revelations..

The People's Champ

radiofreecostarica · Mar 17, 2003

Answer one question before you broach The Apocalypse of St. John:
How do you justify advocating bloodshed vs. believing in the "good news" of jesus christ?

SSI · Mar 17, 2003

i am not advocating blood shed, i wish this could have been avoided.. but i dont believe in Peace at all costs.. nor do i think the bible teaches - peace at all costs.. i happen to think the people of Iraq will be better off when the tyrant is gone.. why do you want Sadaam to remain in power to oppress the people of Iraq.. and by the way read what Jesus told his disciples to do -- when the people rejected the good news.. i wont go into that as i dont want to make this Islam vs. Christianity.... so are you saying Peace at All Cost..

The People's Champ