Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Thrawn on April 28, 2005, 06:59:17 PM
-
Here's the recent addendum to the ISG report.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/addenda.pdf
-
Based on the evidence available at present, ISG
judged that it was unlikely that an offi cial transfer of
WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However,
ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement
of limited WMD-related materials.
-
"evidence available at present"..."unlikely"..."unable to rule out "
yeah , thats definitive evidence that boosh is evil...impeach him.
-
a place outsource torture is Syria's niche, not hide wmd's
-
man how drunk were you when you tried to type that?
-
Toad, john, why re you reiterating what I already said in the title of the thread?
-
So the Basis for going to War was unfounded then. OOH I never new that one !!
How long are the Hawks Neo Cons and our chaps with their special relationship with the US going to argue that creating the mess that is now Iraq was legal justified and a good idea?
God give me strength!:lol
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Toad, john, why re you reiterating what I already said in the title of the thread?
Because half the folks here are too lazy to read the summary and the title doesn't give the full picture?
Why didn't you use this as the title?
However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement
of limited WMD-related materials.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Because half the folks here are too lazy to read the summary and the title doesn't give the full picture?
Why didn't you use this as the title?
and the wonderful thing is your point is proven in the post directly before yours LMAO
-
I have no doubt. Fortunately, there's a cure for such idiocy.
-
Just a little fill for your 20/20 hindsight
Hans Blix -- Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC
January 27, 2003
"Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.
As we know, the twin operation ‘declare and verify’, which was prescribed in resolution 687 (1991), too often turned into a game of ‘hide and seek’. Rather than just verifying declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programmes and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations. As a result, the disarmament phase was not completed in the short time expected. Sanctions remained and took a severe toll until Iraq accepted the Oil for Food Programme and the gradual development of that programme mitigated the effects of the sanctions."
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The UN did not want the invasion.
france and germany and russia did not want the gulf war resumed because of the "oil for food" profits.
-
Toad, what do you think "unofficial movements" means?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Toad, what do you think "unofficial movements" means?
I would think it means: movements done outside normal governmental channels, ie in secret.
That document you linked basically says that the ISG team was unable to determine, one way or the other, if WMD's were in fact moved to Syria or not. In other words, they just dont know.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
So? Where does it say "WMD found", or "evidence" or even "existence of Iraqi WMD is likely"? The UN did not want the invasion.
Some quotes from 1441:
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a
range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
and then further on,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
and yet still further,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions,
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council;
What do you do after you give a final opportunity to comply? It's too bad your clairvoyance was not available to UNMOVIC, the UNSC and Bush. You could have saved us a lot of trouble.
-
right move, right time, right place
I really don't care what the reason - but thanks for asking
-
What do you do after you give a final opportunity to comply?
According to some people you DONT go to war after giving a final chance to resolve things peacefully. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Elfie
That document you linked basically says that the ISG team was unable to determine, one way or the other, if WMD's were in fact moved to Syria or not. In other words, they just dont know.
Again with the proving a negative!
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Again with the proving a negative!
Maybe you should chosen a different thread title, like "ISG has no new political ammunition for either side" ?
-
So your saying GS, that Hitler did the right thing at the right time?
You should get a new argument.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So your saying GS, that Hitler did the right thing at the right time?
You should get a new argument.
He just has a fixation with comparing America to nazi Germany. Someday he might get over it.....maybe :D
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Toad, what do you think "unofficial movements" means?
Something like Qusay taking about a billion dollars in currency from the central bank in Baghdad just before the Iraq invasion?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Sure. Hitler did do the right thing at the right time for Germany ... of course, later he did the wrong thing at the wrong time and lost it all.
The US did the right thing at the right time for corporate America.
Okay now you are defending Hitler.... Probably not the best argument strategy.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You're the one defending Hitler ... and America.
I'm accusing Hitler ... and America.
eh? I dont see anywhere where Holden has defended Hitler. Are you drunk? :D
-
How quaint (and predictable) vidkun is equating hitler and America. Gee what a surprise. :rolleyes:
-
So GS, when I quoted you as saying, "Hitler did do the right thing at the right time for Germany..."
That was a misquote?
Damn quote button thingy must have malfunctioned: it must be Hitech's fault.
Either that or you lost the argument.
-
So GS, when I quoted you as saying, "Hitler did do the right thing at the right time for Germany..."
That was a misquote?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
right move, right time, right place
I really don't care what the reason - but thanks for asking
GS I would have more used this :
(http://doctsf.com/phonos/hmv1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Inflammatory
Which one's? Krystallnacht? The Night of the Long Knives? The Beer Hall Putsch?
Was the benifit the increase in air trafic over Schweinfurt?
The Cinncinnatti Reds' owner once said that Hitler wasn't all bad, and she had just as much trouble defending her statement.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Inflammatory
So when was the US found guilty of crimes?
If we are going to go on the assumpion that your opinion makes the US criminals, then, how about my opinion.
GS is a broken record that has no real concept on the real world, and therefor is a criminal dildo merchant.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No. Illegal acts benefited Germany, just like your crimes benefit you.
LOL, illegal acts benefiting Germany, which ones... please elaborate.
-
GS....america bad..click...america bad...click...america bad....click...america bad....click...america bad....click
hey somebody change that broken record.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Aggressive War. We've been over this already.
You defended Hitlers earlier policies when you said was "Hitler did do the right thing at the right time for Germany ... of course, later he did the wrong thing at the wrong time and lost it all."
You must have agreed with the Nazi policies of the 30's in order to think Hitler did the right thing for Germany. Those things, like eugenics, purging of political opposition, krystallnacht: those things were the policies of the 30's.
Later on was the agressive war.
and you're the one with the jukebox.
-
Since the aggressive war started in Sept '39, the only thing before the "later on" period was the 30's.
It's tough to defend your statement isn't it?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The invasion of Iraq was a criminal act of aggressive war.
As was Grenada and Panama...(as well as the Iran Contra scandal)
-
Your selective amnesia may be handy but it is not an appropriate argument tactic.
Originally posted by GScholz
Sure. Hitler did do the right thing at the right time for Germany ... of course, later he did the wrong thing at the wrong time and lost it all.
The US did the right thing at the right time for corporate America.
You brought up Hitler.
You said he did the right thing before he did bad.
You said aggressive war was bad.
Therefore you believe Hitler did good before he waged aggressive war.
The aggressive war began September 1, 1939
Therefore you believe Hitler did good before September 1, 1939.
You brought up Hitler, You brought up the 30’s by default.
Your statement was faulty.
You lose the debate.
-
Originally posted by john9001
france and germany and russia did not want the gulf war resumed because of the "oil for food" profits.
Try to engage your brain before posting. Oil for food "profits" as you call them were spread over firms belonging to many countries and not exclusively to the nations that you name. The kickbacks that I suspect you are alluding to were worth tens of millions of dollars at best. Now compare this relatively small amount to:
a) the value of the existing trade between the nations you list and the USA.
b) the potential value of trade between Iraq and nations you list should sanctions be lifted.
Your contention that France, Russia et al would jeopardise such huge trade revenues in order to protect comparatively insignificant sums on behalf of a few of their nationals implicated in dodgy Iraqi oil deals basically makes no sense.
You do see that don't you?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I would think it means: movements done outside normal governmental channels, ie in secret.
That document you linked basically says that the ISG team was unable to determine, one way or the other, if WMD's were in fact moved to Syria or not. In other words, they just dont know.
Elf based on your statements on this issue since the beginning of the war in Iraq I dont see how you can have it both ways.
Back then my Pres says: Imminent danger. WMD's are located.
And you and others supported and believed this statement.
By the way this isnt a problem as that was then and this is now:)
If Iraq stabilizes then yahooo and whooopeee. We will have a stable and marginally free country in the ME ,besides Israel.
And this is damn good news and about time.
Now my Pres says: Oops we made a mistake but Sadam baaaaad. Sadaam gone. So all is good.
All evidence supports the Presidents statements now, that there are NO WMD's.
So you disagree with the President now?
You think there are WMD's hiding somewhere even though the administration says this isnt so? So you are now saying the Pres is lying? :)
I think the right needs to get over it. There were never any significant amounts of wmd's. Hence they( significant amounts) wont be found:)
Let us all move on.
Let us hope that Iraq becomes a stable country in the ME.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Personal attack
Hitler's policies were pulling the heart out of Germany before the invasion of Poland. He put it all down in Mein Kampf.
The effect of the invasion of Poland was to bring the military power of several nations against him. Had he not invaded Poland, greater Germany may still include Austria and Czechoslovakia. That is why I found it difficult to believe that you could have possibly thought that the early stages of the war were good for Germany.
The British first bombed the German Navy only a few days after Sept 1. The war and Hitler's related policies were killing German civilians and military from the beginning. The war was bad for Germany. You know that.
To parallel Hitler's Germany and America is patently ridiculous. Hitler killed his political opposition and Bush won re-election by a percent or less. You cannot have a more equally divided government on a percentage basis than the USA has today. The Republican's have only the slimmest majority in both houses.
Please... continue to defend Adolph and your ridiculous argument.
-
[obvious]The mistake was to bring the world against them[\obvious]
[Even more obvious]If one steals the food of a happy gorilla, one is not immediely harmed. But it would be a mistake to do so.[/Even more obvious]
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Inflammatory
Illegal how? And according to whom? I've as of yet to anything saying that the United States, after resuming hostilities from the 1st gulf war due to non-compliance of the UN mandate, acted illegally. Actually, the U.S.'s actions were 100% legit per. the U.N. resolutions.
SHOW me where it was illegal. It was simply a continuation of the 1st gulf war. We waited 10yrs for Iraq to comply, they didn't, and we went in and changed the regime. Just because there was a 10yr gap, there was never a cessation of THAT war. We just put it on hold, showing mercy after slaughtering them in the 1st gulf war.
Also, Fascism, hmmm... I'm not quite sure you understand that word and it's meaning. Let me help you a bit here.
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Let’s ponder this shall we?
Is the U.S govt. centralized under a dictator? Uhh.. hmmm.. nope.
Is the U.S. practicing stringent socioeconomic controls? Nope there as well.
Do we surpress opposition through terror and censorship? No again.
Ok G.S. last chance, does the U.S. practice a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism? Durn, not true there either.
Well, appears you don't understand the meaning of the word.
Sorry you’re ignorant.
Hope I helped.
(p.s. you really look like a total moron w/ the "supporting Hitler" thing. Makes you look even worse than you NORMALLY do (I know, I know, hard to believe) Hitler invaded countries with the intention of keeping them. The U.S. doesn't WANT Iraq. Not going to be our 51st state or anything. Sorry you are soooo clueless re: the whole "how the world works" thing. Go hug a tree. You might feel better. Actually, better yet, go take a class at a University, you obviously need so help w/ the ole' brain matter)
-
WMLute,
First off, well done. :aok
Secondly, your perception of gscholz is in actuality not a perception but reality. Again,:aok
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Circumventing language filter
When they attacked Poland, wasn't Poland fighting them? Then as I recall, France and Britian both declared war... So until the fall of France opposing him was France, the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, Norway...
Seems to me that when the decision was made to invade Poland, Hitler forced several nations to oppose him, and in his plans was the USSR and the USA, so the literary use of the word 'world' is appropriate.
Go on... defend Hitler some more
-
What is the legal basis for the UN to maintain soveriegnty over participatory nations?
What is the legal basis of kofi anan's statement that the Iraq conflict is "illegal" and what is the basis of his authority to do so?
-
Please specify the article in the charter that delinieates the signatory nation has surrendered it's soveriegnty to the UN and is now subject to the whims of that organization?
AFAIK the US Government as the elected representatives of the citizens of said country has the sole authority to declare war against another nation beligerant to the US or not.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Personal attack
Translation: I don't know, or there is no basis for my claim so I'll just end the debate with a personal attack.
Very typical of you.
-
So by your count, Poland + France + UK = 2 countries?
I aways thought that ... never mind, math can be difficult.
And the UK brought in Austrailia, Canada, and the rest of the commonwealth.
Here's another place you're wrong...
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 97
The Secretariat shall comprise a Secretary-General and such staff as the Organization may require. The Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. He shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organization.
Article 98
The Secretary-General shall act in that capacity in all meetings of the General Assembly, of the Security Council, of the Economic and Social Council, and of the Trusteeship Council, and shall perform such other functions as are entrusted to him by these organs. The Secretary-General shall make an annual report to the General Assembly on the work of the Organization.
Article 99
The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.
Kofi saying it is illegal is a personal, not a legally binding opinion. He has no more legal basis in the matter than you or I. The SC decides what is aggressive war.
-
Legal precedence only gives a basis for any decision.
Decisions can be made against precedence.
-
I 'm sorry I am upsetting you, but it is only an agressive war if the UNSC says so.
A legal argument can be made that because Iraq did not comply with the cease fire agreement of GW1, GW2 is authorised by the UNSC. This is the arguement that the US, UK, Italy, Spain, Poland, Ukraine, etc. acted upon.
That arguement is just as valid as yours and until decided by the UNSC, this arguement remains valid.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No. The UN only gave the coalition a mandate to liberate Kuwait in GW1. A "continuation" of GW1 would still not have a mandate to invade Iraq and depose its government. The invasion was illegal, and with any luck (ok, a lot of luck) it will actually be deemed illegal in the UK.
No? The arguement cannot be made?
According to the UN Charter, the UNSC decides what is an agressive war, not a court in the UK.
-
GS,
You obviously are a very angry person. Personally, I think you are delusional.
Your whole defend Hitler idea is fraught with ignorance and misconceptions. Your claims that the US violated the UN charter are both baseless, and personal attacks by a US hater on people from the US.
If you're of the opinion that the US is such an evil power, and that we launch wars of aggresion, why do you bother to associate with us criminals? Wouldn't you be better off supporting a nazi bbs (you obviously like them or you wouldn't defend their policies) or better yet, if you are so set against the US's actions you could go join the insurgency in Iraq and help to expel our nation of criminals.
Seeings that you are unable to back up you're arguments with anything resembling fact, I suspect, you will either make a personal attack, cite some abscure unsubstantiated reason as to why we are criminals, or, just ignore the obvious fact that you are wrong and continue in your dreamland sense of reality.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
And according to whom?
Well according to the government of Canada at least. As well as 31 international law professors from 15 law faculties up here and 315 from 87 law falculties in the down there to start with.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/lawy-m22.shtml
I've as of yet to anything saying that the United States, after resuming hostilities from the 1st gulf war due to non-compliance of the UN mandate, acted illegally. Actually, the U.S.'s actions were 100% legit per. the U.N. resolutions.
It's hard to see something if you don't look for it.
SHOW me where it was illegal. It was simply a continuation of the 1st gulf war. We waited 10yrs for Iraq to comply, they didn't, and we went in and changed the regime. Just because there was a 10yr gap, there was never a cessation of THAT war. We just put it on hold, showing mercy after slaughtering them in the 1st gulf war.
The ceasefire agreement was between the Security Council and Iraq, not the US/UK and Iraq. Under the US brokered and written Security Council resolution 1441 the US and UK didn't have the authority to unilaterally resume hositilities.
"12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;"
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Resumption of hostilities was to be determined by the Security Council as a whole.
For futher reading...
http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/
Mavrick,
Please specify the article in the charter that delinieates the signatory nation has surrendered it's soveriegnty to the UN and is now subject to the whims of that organization?
Sovereignty is having ultimate authority within your own borders.
AFAIK the US Government as the elected representatives of the citizens of said country has the sole authority to declare war against another nation beligerant to the US or not.
Sure they might have the sole authority within the US to declare a war, but that doesn't mean thay by doing so they aren't violating international law. Besides, the US government didn't declare war on Iraq.
-
PS: The original reason why I started this thread was to refute and inform the people on this BBS who made the claim that Iraq moved their WMD to Syria. There is no evidence to support this. I probably sould have said that at the beginning.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Inflammatory
Within your own post is the downfall of your argument:
The UNSC is to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression". In reference to the coalition attacking Iraq, it has not determined agression has taken place.
As both the UK and USA have veto power, it is unlikely to.
Without that determination your cry of "war criminals" is hollow.
-
You are guilty of speeding through a school zone here in Oregon.
Convicted or not.
-
No, I'm saying that without a legal judgement an accusation is just that. I carries no weight, no recourse. It is just you howling in the wind. You stand on no legal footing whatsoever.
And saying that the invasion of Iraq is on par with the the crimes of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, or your hero is a bit of a stretch.
However, congrats! Your Afgan argument may be your first cogent thought in this thread.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Well according to the government of Canada at least. As well as 31 international law professors from 15 law faculties up here and 315 from 87 law falculties in the down there to start with.
get your facts straight. You pulled the 315 from 87 from this quote of "...250 professors from 73 law schools across the nation signed..."
http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1P1%3A68646718&refid=ink_tptd_np
and just because a bunch of law professors signed some statement does not make it illegal...
Originally posted by Thrawn
It's hard to see something if you don't look for it.[/B]
Exactly, you guys are not looking at the whole picture. You are using after quotes and ignoring the obvious. How is the war illegal over a year and a half after it started, and not when it started?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm
Annan is full of double speak. Why didn't he say it was illegal before it started? Or, when it started?
http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=292
This whole argument can go back and forth all you like. Annan, and the UN are a worthless body that do nothing unless it is to snub the US in the face. If they were such a wonderful body, the BS in Sudan wouyld be over, the suffering in Chechneya, the death toll in Angola... the list goes on ad finitum of failures of the UN to act decisively.
At that point, I believe it can (and will if it ever comes to international court) be argued that the basis to go to war was the decisive inaction by the UN on Iraq which led tot he war to begin with.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Well according to the government of Canada at least.
Show me a link to Canada's official statement that the war in Iraq is illegal.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Elf based on your statements on this issue since the beginning of the war in Iraq I dont see how you can have it both ways.
Back then my Pres says: Imminent danger. WMD's are located.
And you and others supported and believed this statement.
By the way this isnt a problem as that was then and this is now:)
If Iraq stabilizes then yahooo and whooopeee. We will have a stable and marginally free country in the ME ,besides Israel.
And this is damn good news and about time.
Now my Pres says: Oops we made a mistake but Sadam baaaaad. Sadaam gone. So all is good.
All evidence supports the Presidents statements now, that there are NO WMD's.
So you disagree with the President now?
You think there are WMD's hiding somewhere even though the administration says this isnt so? So you are now saying the Pres is lying? :)
I think the right needs to get over it. There were never any significant amounts of wmd's. Hence they( significant amounts) wont be found:)
Let us all move on.
Let us hope that Iraq becomes a stable country in the ME.
I was just commenting on this particular article, nothing more.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
It's hard to see something if you don't look for it.
I'm hard pressed to understand how the opinion of some legal prof's equate to the war in Iraq being illegal. Opinions are like... well... you know how that saying goes.
Here's another opinion from the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith.
The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, has set out his view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq:
Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:
1. In resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.
2. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.
3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.
4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.
5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.
6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.
7. It is plain that Iraq has failed to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.
8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.
9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.
Seems fairly straight forward to me. EXACTLY my take on the situation. Granted, i'm smart, so I can see how some of you are having a hard time with it.
Originally posted by GScholz
Inflammatory
No, you said if I defend the war on Iraq, I was defending facism. I was merely pointing out that you have not the slightest clue as to the meaning of the word facism.
In THIS post, I show how no UN charter was violated. Let's see, we had legal basis for GW2, no international law was broken, no U.S. law was broken, (hmmm... am I forgetting anything? Oh yeah!) Further more, the opinion of a corrupt UN Sec. Gen is not law, it's just an opinion. Like mine. I think that SG Annan is a scum bag, with questionable ethics, who I would love to see prosecuted and jailed, and THAT said, who really gives a flip what he "thinks". There that's my opinion. Is it LAW? (sigh)
You have no argument. There IS no factual basis for your argument. You can cite many "opinions" that mirror yours, but heck, so could Jim Jones, David Koresh, AND your much loved Hitler. I can probably go through the O'Club and find dozens of guys that think G.S. is a moron. I could then cite them, and with my mighty power of quoting peoples opinions make it Law. That way, G.S., according to his line of arguing, would be a proven idiot, and it would be 100% correct.