Conclusive proof that Bush lied about "imminent threat"

Bush would NEVER have gone in, gutless coward and craven bully that he is, if there was the smallest possibility that Iraq could hit back.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

... as a legal mandate? Yes? No?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

... of the original post. Article VI states that all treaties become "supreme law of the land" upon ratification.

Your remark suggests that it was okay for us to depose a dictator. According to the UN charter--which the US signed and ratified--it is against international law to wage war for the purposes of regime change.

Evidently, from your remark, you seem to be in favor of ignoring both international law and our own law, but I thought I'd check first to see if you were aware of it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

... if you read the resolutions, there was none for this latest invasion.

There may be some confusion here, but I believe the quote you provide refers to a previous resolution in June, 2004, at the time that the CPA turned over the government to the Iraqis. It did not authorize the initial use of force, but, rather, it enabled the multinational forces to remain in Iraq for eighteen more months since Iraq had no military of its own at the time, and so had no means of self-defense.

And, no, no nation can retaliate for a disregarded UN resolution, if you mean that retaliation to include military attack. Any nation has the right to petition the Security Council for another's failure to comply, but it's up to the Security Council to decide if the infraction warrants military action. It's not something any signatory nation can decide on its own.

The terms for military retaliation without UN approval are quite clear--that a nation has been attacked or is in imminent threat of attack--and that was the point of the original post. Imminent, in legal terms, does not mean possible or eventual or theoretical. It means that the attack is on the way, that it is in progress or that evidence shows the intent to attack momentarily.

This is why Mr. Bush (or, more likely, his speechwriters) chose the phrase "imminent threat," because it has legal significance. What the original poster is suggesting is that the quote provided shows that there was yet more evidence that the need for the US to attack Iraq was not immediate, because there was no imminent threat posed by Iraq to the US.

Cheers.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

of seeing what freepturds use as "logic".

I always get to see "deleted message" posted by "name removed" instead of their mindless ranting and name-calling . . .

You are assuming that when they said their was no problem waiting x period of time that after that (or durring that time) Sadam/Iraq would have become more of a thread. Fact is there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that.

PunPirate makes a great point as well. Even ignoring International law overthrowing dictators is not necisarily good policy. It usualy makes things worse both for the people we liberate and for our security.

and that * could be called the "war president" in 2004. Also the oil. Notice how when he was the "war president" on the war on terror, it didn't get him much after the first month or two. But being president of a real war with real soldiers got a lot of people voting for him because they felt one "shouldn't change horses in mid-stream".

He said "before they become an imminent threat". This is an important distinction because this is what he actually said and thus solidifies the question of why did we attack Iraq? Couldn't we have stopped them from becoming an imminent threat by putting the inspectors back in?