Issue in Iraq - Updated Again!

[Guest GhostRanger]

Easy: CNN, FoxNews, and the BBC. Arguably the three most biased Western news stations.

 

 

 

I don't trust news networks...ever. Spins are always added to get ratings over here, and each tries to spin in the way of the Producer's opinions. They are nice places to get facts, but to base an opinion you need to do research on both sides.

 

 

 

Wow, I respect you now. CNN, Fox and BBC are probally the most anti-arab stations I have ever seen.

 

 

 

What do you know about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I'd like to find out about your wonderfully-balanced perspective. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

What would you like to know? I know lots about how Israels stomp on Palestinians.

 

 

 

And you would like us to believe you are an unbiased source of information?

[Barihawk]

Easy: CNN, FoxNews, and the BBC. Arguably the three most biased Western news stations.

 

 

 

I don't trust news networks...ever. Spins are always added to get ratings over here, and each tries to spin in the way of the Producer's opinions. They are nice places to get facts, but to base an opinion you need to do research on both sides.

 

 

 

Wow, I respect you now. CNN, Fox and BBC are probally the most anti-arab stations I have ever seen.

 

 

 

And Al Jhazeera is not the most anti-Western news service in the world? At least the few of us actually doing research for you care enough to spell things like Al Jhazeera right.

[Kryptic]

Easy: CNN, FoxNews, and the BBC. Arguably the three most biased Western news stations.

 

 

 

I don't trust news networks...ever. Spins are always added to get ratings over here, and each tries to spin in the way of the Producer's opinions. They are nice places to get facts, but to base an opinion you need to do research on both sides.

 

 

 

Wow, I respect you now. CNN, Fox and BBC are probally the most anti-arab stations I have ever seen.

 

 

 

What do you know about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I'd like to find out about your wonderfully-balanced perspective. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

What would you like to know? I know lots about how Israels stomp on Palestinians.

 

 

 

And you would like us to believe you are an unbiased source of information?

 

 

 

And I suppose your unbiased? My opinion is just as unbiased as yours.

[Kryptic]

Easy: CNN, FoxNews, and the BBC. Arguably the three most biased Western news stations.

 

 

 

I don't trust news networks...ever. Spins are always added to get ratings over here, and each tries to spin in the way of the Producer's opinions. They are nice places to get facts, but to base an opinion you need to do research on both sides.

 

 

 

Wow, I respect you now. CNN, Fox and BBC are probally the most anti-arab stations I have ever seen.

 

 

 

And Al Jhazeera is not the most anti-Western news service in the world? At least the few of us actually doing research for you care enough to spell things like Al Jhazeera right.

 

 

 

When I watch arabic television, they dont exactly show you how to spell Al Jhazeera. I tried pro-nouncing it :lol:

[Scruffy5389]

Okay Scruffy, I can see your point of view and it's one i've considered quite a few times.

 

 

 

Let's go back to before the war. I wasn't one of the ones who would of seen the nukes (or lack of as it turns out) as the real reason for going to war. You said that he was quite happy to keep his atrocities within his own borders. This I am not denying, but the fact is don't we have a moral responsibility as the western powers to resolve these atrocities? Isolationism only works up to a point. There comes a point where you think, "if we really want world peace we're going to have to expand our horizons."

 

 

 

Back to the present. I agree that Iraq is in a bad way now (it's important to remember though that we'll only ever see the bad aspects through the media). However that does not mean that we should just give up on it. I don't know the exact figures but i'm pretty sure the American military has enough cash to stay there at the moment. As Barihawk said, to establish an effective democracy does take time. If we pulled out now it might never resolve itself. If we continually support and condition Iraq to take care of itself then eventually we can pull out and leave democracy to take care of the rest. We may not leave an Iraq without any conflict, that would be a big ask, but we can set it on the road to recovery.

 

 

 

You say: "There comes a point where you think, 'if we really want world peace we're going to have to expand our horizons.' " I absolutely agree with this. No country may isolate itself from the world; troubles elsewhere will affect us somehow. Plus, isolationism is bad for the economy. And there are certainly moral reasons for fighting genocide, even if the violence doesn't threaten us directly. I don't mean to argue in favor of isolationism.

 

 

 

However...

 

You say: "Don't we have a moral responsibility as the western powers to resolve these atrocities?" I am not sure that we do. Who gave us the right to police the world? One can argue that with great power comes great responsibility, but to me, that might just mean that great power has the responsibilty to not abuse said power. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to actively use that power for positive good. But I am not sure. Anyway, I think that in this case it is irrelevent. Because whether we should work to fight atrocities or not, in the case of Iraq, we simply do not have the power to control the chaos.

 

 

 

You claim that at the moment we can afford to stay in Iraq. Yet I just heard today from an extremely credible source (although he is very liberal) that just last week, congress was forced to vote to raise the maximum allowable national debt. The accumulated national debt was at 8.2 or 8.3 TRILLION DOLLARS, and congress had to raise the ceiling to 9 TRILLION DOLLARS. The GWBush administration is responsible for something like a third of this debt.

 

 

 

Proof:

 

This Site[/url]":57xiw73t]March, 21 2006

 

 

 

With no fanfare, President Bush signed legislation pushing the ceiling on the national debt to nearly $9 trillion.

 

 

 

The measure allows the government to borrow an additional $781 billion and prevent a first-ever default on Treasury notes. It also lets the government pay for the war in Iraq without raising taxes.

 

 

 

The debt limit increase was the fourth of Bush's presidency, totaling $3 trillion in deficit spending.

 

 

 

Do we really believe that the national government can afford to keep pouring money into Iraq? No. The way things are going in Iraq, we will run out of money before there is a viable Iraqi army that can keep the peace in our place. There is no way that America can stabilize Iraq, and I think we could have predicted that before we went to war in the first place. Whether the western world has an obilgation or not, America was pig-headed to think that we had the power to liberate and stabilize Iraq.

 

 

 

You write: "If we continually support and condition Iraq to take care of itself then eventually we can pull out and leave democracy to take care of the rest." I admit, if we continually support and condition Iraq, we can achieve relative stability and leave behind a country that can continue to stabilize itself. But we do not have the money to continually support and condition Iraq. We will bleed our country dry before stabilizing Iraq. We have already lost the war. The question that faces us now is this: Do we leave now in disgrace, or do we spend more money, lose more lives, and then leave in disgrace?

 

 

 

I'm scaring myself :shock: . But whether this is a pleasant view or not, I think it's true. And it really does scare me. :(

 

 

 

I strongly urge you to read that article I posted (it's pretty long, just read the first two pages and the last page if you want). It says that if we make the necessary changes, we could create an Iraqi army, but GWBush is neither making those changes or even attempting to make those changes. And I'm not even convinced that drastic changes will be able to create an Iraqi army in time, or that an Iraqi army - no matter how well trained - could keep the peace after we left. We can't even keep the peace ourselves.

 

 

 

Our only choice is to leave before we waste more money and lives.

 

 

 

Assassin, Barihawk, or anyone else who has been trying to understand my monstrous posts, I am interested to hear what you think :D

[Guest GhostRanger]

Easy: CNN, FoxNews, and the BBC. Arguably the three most biased Western news stations.

 

 

 

I don't trust news networks...ever. Spins are always added to get ratings over here, and each tries to spin in the way of the Producer's opinions. They are nice places to get facts, but to base an opinion you need to do research on both sides.

 

 

 

Wow, I respect you now. CNN, Fox and BBC are probally the most anti-arab stations I have ever seen.

 

 

 

What do you know about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I'd like to find out about your wonderfully-balanced perspective. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

What would you like to know? I know lots about how Israels stomp on Palestinians.

 

 

 

And you would like us to believe you are an unbiased source of information?

 

 

 

And I suppose your unbiased? My opinion is just as unbiased as yours.

 

 

 

The difference is I'm not making any assertions that you would like us to believe are "fact." I'm just refuting YOUR lack of evidence. Clearly I'm biased - I'm biased against your ridiculous propaganda.

 

 

 

I think its funny that you have spent 6 pages now flooding us with conspiracy theories and yet to show us ONE piece of factual data to support your conclusions. Please, just one.

[bearofthunder]

 

I know lots about how Israels stomp on Palestinians.

 

 

 

This is a good example of the universal sentence that has caused every ethnic conflict in the world since the beginning of civilization.

[Kryptic]

Easy: CNN, FoxNews, and the BBC. Arguably the three most biased Western news stations.

 

 

 

I don't trust news networks...ever. Spins are always added to get ratings over here, and each tries to spin in the way of the Producer's opinions. They are nice places to get facts, but to base an opinion you need to do research on both sides.

 

 

 

Wow, I respect you now. CNN, Fox and BBC are probally the most anti-arab stations I have ever seen.

 

 

 

What do you know about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I'd like to find out about your wonderfully-balanced perspective. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What would you like to know? I know lots about how Israels stomp on Palestinians.

 

 

 

And you would like us to believe you are an unbiased source of information?

 

 

 

And I suppose your unbiased? My opinion is just as unbiased as yours.

 

 

 

The difference is I'm not making any assertions that you would like us to believe are "fact." I'm just refuting YOUR lack of evidence. Clearly I'm biased - I'm biased against your ridiculous propaganda.

 

 

 

I think its funny that you have spent 6 pages now flooding us with conspiracy theories and yet to show us ONE piece of factual data to support your conclusions. Please, just one.

 

 

 

1. THIS THREAD WAS NOT MADE FOR THE DESCUSSION OF CONSPIRACIES.

 

 

 

2. I dont know where you have been, but Palestinians have been suffering for over 60 years now. I know this because I have familly currently in the fallen state, and I keep as much contact with them as possible. Thats all the evidence I will give on that one.

 

(Im not going into depth with anything, because it's personal - and I dont need to show you evidence to make you happy, because I simply dont care if you believe me or not.)

 

 

 

3. You want proof G Bush is an idiot? Link below - the Goofball is now denying that there is even a Civil War in Iraq... :roll:

 

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... bush_x.htm

 

 

 

4. You want proof Palestinians are suffering? Who gave the UN the right to invade on a states Soveriegnty, let alone hand the whole state to a bunch of unwanted group of people. (Unwanted people - Everyone refused their entrance into their state, no one wanted them)

 

 

 

Then after the Jews settled in, America gave Israel the means to force Palestinians around the way they wish. They came into their homes, told them they have a set time limit to leave before they blow their house up. How do I know this? Because this is what happened to my familly in Yafah - they lost everything.

 

 

 

Plus, the governing body that is suppose to protect citizens from war crimes is doing nothing! The UN is completely ridiculous. The Veto power that the 5 top states have defeats the whole philosophy they are trying to promote. Everytime the UN Securtiy Council recieves any resolution, the US just vetos it, wanting to protect their investment (Israel).

 

 

 

The UN doesn't even follow their own conventions specifically the Geneva Convention 1949. Since 1997 Palestinians have have been invoking the Geneva Convention against Israel. The convention was directed at the Jewish occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

 

 

 

But ofcourse Israel captured those regions when Egyptian and Jordanian soldiers went into those areas, aiding the fallen state of Palestine.

 

 

 

Resolution 242 was the first to come out. This stated that Israel should withdraw, and return all land back to Palestine. But Israel argued they are only condemned to give back only some terroritories. And they did, but only small regions that are kept far apart from eachother, to limit mobility and contact between the regions they returned.

 

 

 

Resolution 181 stated that all Israelss and Arabs should live in peacfully among eachother. But this Resolution became a big deal to the US, because this one in particular brought talk, questioning why was it necessary to even change the name to Israel, when they could just live peacefully together under the original name, Palestine.

 

 

 

Lastly, active Sept 15. 2005 the UN now denies that there is even a Israel - Palestinian issue. They state "Palestinian issues stem from Palestinians." -----Excuse me? :roll:

 

 

 

In total, I think it to 65 Resolutions came out infront of the Security Council, and not 1 of these were passed through, and were seen as a true problem.

 

 

 

http://www.seconddraft.org/ess_palestin ... fering.php

 

^^^ little more flava for ya

 

 

 

5. Is that enough evidence?! I can digg more if you would like.... Doesn't take much effort for me seeing how I really would like to show you up, because you keep nagging at me.

 

 

 

Flame me - But be good at it.

[Guest GhostRanger]

1. THIS THREAD WAS NOT MADE FOR THE DESCUSSION OF CONSPIRACIES.

 

 

 

Then quit hyping them up.

 

 

 

2. I dont know where you have been, but Palestinians have been suffering for over 60 years now. I know this because I have familly currently in the fallen state, and I keep as much contact with them as possible. Thats all the evidence I will give on that one.

 

(Im not going into depth with anything, because it's personal - and I dont need to show you evidence to make you happy, because I simply dont care if you believe me or not.)

 

 

 

I don't know where you have been - but the Israel/Palestinian conflict has been going on for thousands of years. Did you read that number correctly, THOUSANDS. In the thousands of years its happened, both countries have done terrible things - none worse than the next.

 

 

 

3. You want proof G Bush is an idiot? Link below - the Goofball is now denying that there is even a Civil War in Iraq... :roll:

 

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... bush_x.htm

 

 

 

Did you watch that press conference? I did. He had a lot more to say than that - but I guess listening to biased reporters taking quotes out of context works for you. The video clip of that report didn't even have him saying that...oh I forget - misquoting is the way of journalism. You'd be wise to know that.

 

 

 

4. You want proof Palestinians are suffering?

 

 

 

Thanks for giving me one I can answer in one word: no. But to elaborate, your original post has nothing to do with Palestine. It has to do with the war in Iraq. Strangely, your comments on the war in Iraq are nothing but factless assertions about President Bush's ulterior motives. Could I see facts about his oil company you have still yet to provide?

[Zerocool11]

And what would you like to do about all those Israelis that you plan to kick out of Israel? The last time I checked up on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, didn't the Israelis pull out of some of the contested territory and give it to the Palestinians, only to have all the homes they left be destroyed by in coming Palestinian settlers?

[Kryptic]

2. I dont know where you have been, but Palestinians have been suffering for over 60 years now. I know this because I have familly currently in the fallen state, and I keep as much contact with them as possible. Thats all the evidence I will give on that one.

 

(Im not going into depth with anything, because it's personal - and I dont need to show you evidence to make you happy, because I simply dont care if you believe me or not.)

 

 

 

I don't know where you have been - but the Israel/Palestinian conflict has been going on for thousands of years. Did you read that number correctly, THOUSANDS. In the thousands of years its happened, both countries have done terrible things - none worse than the next.

 

 

 

The Arabs and Jews have been fighting for the "land of honey" for Thousands of years... The Israel - Palestinian conflict has only been just over 60 years. Not really rellevent., but you corrected me, so I corrected back.

 

 

 

 

 

Did you watch that press conference? I did. He had a lot more to say than that - but I guess listening to biased reporters taking quotes out of context works for you. The video clip of that report didn't even have him saying that...oh I forget - misquoting is the way of journalism. You'd be wise to know that.

 

 

 

Biased, biased, biased....... hokay.

 

 

 

Thanks for giving me one I can answer in one word: no. But to elaborate, your original post has nothing to do with Palestine. It has to do with the war in Iraq. Strangely, your comments on the war in Iraq are nothing but factless assertions about President Bush's ulterior motives. Could I see facts about his oil company you have still yet to provide.

 

 

 

Sadly, thats one thing that still remains circumstantial. And this is one thing I probably shouldnt have mentioned due to the lack of evidence.

 

 

 

Looking back - I regret it.

 

 

 

Gooday.

[Guest GhostRanger]

2. I dont know where you have been, but Palestinians have been suffering for over 60 years now. I know this because I have familly currently in the fallen state, and I keep as much contact with them as possible. Thats all the evidence I will give on that one.

 

(Im not going into depth with anything, because it's personal - and I dont need to show you evidence to make you happy, because I simply dont care if you believe me or not.)

 

 

 

I don't know where you have been - but the Israel/Palestinian conflict has been going on for thousands of years. Did you read that number correctly, THOUSANDS. In the thousands of years its happened, both countries have done terrible things - none worse than the next.

 

 

 

The Arabs and Jews have been fighting for the "land of honey" for Thousands of years... The Israel - Palestinian conflict has only been just over 60 years. Not really rellevent., but you corrected me, so I corrected back.

 

 

 

You're right, the conflict became something completely different when we decided it was two specific countries. :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

Did you watch that press conference? I did. He had a lot more to say than that - but I guess listening to biased reporters taking quotes out of context works for you. The video clip of that report didn't even have him saying that...oh I forget - misquoting is the way of journalism. You'd be wise to know that.

 

 

 

Biased, biased, biased....... hokay.

 

 

 

Thank you for giving me the quotes you could use as evidence. The article you left didn't give the quotes and neither did you. Once agian, no evidence.

 

 

 

Thanks for giving me one I can answer in one word: no. But to elaborate, your original post has nothing to do with Palestine. It has to do with the war in Iraq. Strangely, your comments on the war in Iraq are nothing but factless assertions about President Bush's ulterior motives. Could I see facts about his oil company you have still yet to provide.

 

 

 

Sadly, thats one thing that still remains circumstantial. And this is one thing I probably shouldnt have mentioned due to the lack of evidence.

 

 

 

You don't have evidence for ANY of your Iraqi assertions. Just inconherent rants about why you think its better for Saddam to gas his people than have a civil war.

[Kryptic]

You don't have evidence for ANY of your Iraqi assertions. Just inconherent rants about why you think its better for Saddam to gas his people than have a civil war.

 

 

 

No, I didn't say that at all. You again played with my words/misread them/interpreted them wrong - I dont know, I dont care... All I know is you got it wrong.

 

 

 

What I was saying (probably 4th time REPEATING myself) is that more Iraqi's are dying faster and in larger amounts than when Saddam was in presidential position.

 

 

 

And what I was expecting was people discussing on how such a thing happened, and if there are any possible solutions. This was my intention. Not once did I think this would make anyone thing that I posted a pro-Saddam thread, because I hate him for what he did the same, if not more than you do.

 

 

 

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Guest GhostRanger]

You don't have evidence for ANY of your Iraqi assertions. Just inconherent rants about why you think its better for Saddam to gas his people than have a civil war.

 

 

 

No, I didn't say that at all. You again played with my words/misread them/interpreted them wrong - I dont know, I dont care... All I know is you got it wrong.

 

 

 

What I was saying (probably 4th time REPEATING myself) is that more Iraqi's are dying faster and in larger amounts than when Saddam was in presidential position.

 

 

 

And what I was expecting was people discussing on how such a thing happened, and if there are any possible solutions. This was my intention. Not once did I think this would make anyone thing that I posted a pro-Saddam thread, because I hate him for what he did the same, if not more than you do.

 

 

 

:roll: :roll: :roll:

 

 

 

Then I guess you need more respect for the English language and the implications that are made when you use certain phrases. When you say things like:

 

 

 

Saddam understood that if he didnt keep a firm hand on everyone, the whole country would go crazy, and start attacking one another, such as whats happening now. Iraq is full of people that are ignorant to other religions, and see other religions and cultures as a threat to their religions well-being. So, they react the only way the know how too - fight. Saddam grew up knowing that everyone follows this philosophy, and knew that not only did he have to be strict, but he had to kill a few people to prove that he is the man in power.

 

 

 

How would you manage a country which was populated with cultures that wanted to kill one another? Its a difficult position to be put in, and I cant imagine how Saddam managed the situation.

 

 

 

It implies that you think Saddam had it "difficult" and "did what he could." Which is a load of pro-Saddam propoganda.

[Kryptic]

Like it or not Ghost, its the truth. Saddam did have no choice... Not saying it was the right choice. He still should be tried accordingly.

 

 

 

But look at what has happened, once he's gone - hell broke loose. And dont for a minute deny, or disagree with me because you know its true.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Like it or not Ghost, its the truth. Saddam did have no choice...

 

 

 

Had no choice? How about NOT assassinating his way into power? That's a choice I'm sure he could have avoided.

 

 

 

How about the r.ape rooms he built and managed? Did he have a choice there or was it "out of his hands?"

[MyPurpleCrayon]

And dont for a minute deny, or disagree with me because you know its true.

 

 

 

Hahaha you know it's true. :roll:

 

 

 

Don't even try.

[Kryptic]

Whatever, its my opinion

 

 

 

Im entitled to it.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Whatever, its my opinion

 

 

 

Im entitled to it.

 

 

 

See earlier you said "don't deny it, its true." Now its your opinion. I'm glad we've sorted things out. You aren't providing "truth" or "facts" you're providing your opinion. Well done for seeing it mate!

[rocketman089]

Whatever, its my opinion

 

 

 

Im entitled to it.

 

 

 

No, stop. NOW. These whole past 7 pages you've wrote post after post of stuff you said was fact, truth, evidential. You couldn't back it up, you just attacked everyone else, and now that you're running out of crapola to say, you pull off the "it's my opinion, i'm entitled to it". That's not how it works.

 

 

 

I don't even know what to say, I'll just leave it up to Billy Madison...

 

 

 

"Kryptic, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

[sprites]

It seems to me that the US knew civil war would break out in Iraq the day they took Saddam out of power.

 

They are waiting to see how long it takes before militants destroy Iraq and its people are forced to let the US takeover everything.

 

And I'm not just talking about oil.

 

 

 

There is alot of disapproval of Bush here in America, so don't think that we are safe from another civil war either.

 

 

 

It could happen here right on our own turf!

 

The country is torn apart, leaving whoever is the strongest to bring back order and stability.

 

 

 

 

 

This is directed to EVERYONE: Let's curb the insults and have a real discussion here... It does not matter if someone is right or wrong.

 

If they want to contribute constructively I say let them speak. So if you can't disprove what they've said, I suggest you leave it alone and offer your viewpoints.

[Invidious]

All of the skeptics about the WOMDs and the corrupt reasons for the US going into Iraq for oil... Check this out... http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

 

 

 

It has quotes from many world leaders... Including a few from people within the American government itself.

 

 

 

EDIT*

 

 

 

As for the civil war issue... I myself think it's due to the poor management of the USAF. The USAF have been provoking the responses. They should be held responsible above all else.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

It has quotes from many world leaders... Including a few from people within the American government itself.

 

 

 

That's good, considering these people are the only people that know the truth.

 

 

 

"Here, go to this website that my communist teacher made. It's called bushistheworstpresidentever.com. It has many quotes from my teachers and then a few misquotes from the President and his cabinet."

[Guest GhostRanger]

All of the skeptics about the WOMDs and the corrupt reasons for the US going into Iraq for oil... Check this out... http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

 

 

 

It has quotes from many world leaders... Including a few from people within the American government itself.

 

 

 

Thank you for demonstrating how anyone get put together a few quotes to produce whatever outcome they want.

 

 

 

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."

 

 

 

Yay for quotes! (Show me Bush oil profits and records please)

[Invidious]

All of the skeptics about the WOMDs and the corrupt reasons for the US going into Iraq for oil... Check this out... http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

 

 

 

It has quotes from many world leaders... Including a few from people within the American government itself.

 

 

 

Thank you for demonstrating how anyone get put together a few quotes to produce whatever outcome they want.

 

 

 

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."

 

 

 

Yay for quotes! (Show me Bush oil profits and records please)

 

 

 

Official records would no doubt be sealed. But you can't even believe the UN?

 

 

 

"I don't see an argument for military action now"

 

- Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General

 

 

 

"We haven't found an iota of concealed material yet

 

- UN weapons inspector

 

 

 

"We need intelligence reports if they exist"

 

- UN weapons inspector

 

 

 

Even the Vatican was against it...

 

 

 

"a war of aggression that cannot be justified"

 

 

 

Hell... the CIA itself said that Iraq posed little threat to America...

 

 

 

"President George Bush's attempt to maintain public support for military action

 

against Iraq has taken a fresh blow from an unexpected quarter, with the

 

publication of a letter from the CIA stating that while Saddam Hussein poses

 

little threat to America"

 

 

 

The invasion was declared illegal under international law.

 

 

 

"The American and British governments have declared their plans to use military action to force a "regime change" in Iraq. Unfortunately, in international law, this is an unlawful reason for war."

 

 

 

 

 

How much more do you need to be convinced?