Korean Job Discussion Forums

[supernick]

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

[TheUrbanMyth]

[Nowhere Man]

[supernick]

TUM. Go back and read my post again. I said the war violates international law as the law clearly states. The war also violates UN provisions. Now,there are some who say the war is legal, but anyone with half a brain knows what the law clearly states, and I guess that's why you still haven't figured it out.

Maybe you can find where it says the war is legal. And don't go into previous resolutions for justification because those are with the UN and not individual states. Further, your perch boy's legal advice from M. Shaw doesn't hold water. He said that the presumption of WMD would justify a war, but the big question is this: Who is to provide evidence of WMD, MI5 or the Un weapon inspectors? If you said MI5, you're wrong, and it was the MI5 that Blair based his justification for the war. Only the UNSC could decide on what would be a breach. As for WMD, there was no evidence to conclude that Iraq had any such weapons, and from all reports, there was nothing there to suggest that Iraq had such weapons. It was only the CIA and MI5 that made such claims, and we now know that they really didn't know diddly squat. Weapon inspectors were in Iraq days before the war doing their job, and the had asked only for a few months more to conclude their work in destroying all weapons and materials, but the US and the UK didn't want to wait. And the result? I know, you'll blame it all all the insurgents.

Regardless of whether or not the war was legal, it's lack of legitimacy is causing many of the problems that we see now.

Another thing to consider, is the evidence that the US tabled at the UN in regards to Iraq was far different that Hans Blitz report. Even Powell knew that people weren't buying it. It turns out that the CIA was very wrong, but that's fine for some of you. Go to war on a fallacy and then continue to dream even with all the evidence against you.


I like how you claim that the insurgents target innocent people deliberately but the U.S. has not. I guess that means that it's ok for the US and the others to kill innocent people by accident, or by dropping cluster bombs, but we know how you don't want to talk about that.

My guess is this; If the US wasn't in Iraq, then there wouldn't be a problem with insurgents.

I can go on and remind you that the US has committed war crimes in Iraq, just as the insurgents have done, but that would be just a waste of time. Oh, but that's just a few bad apples, right?

I just wonder if you really think that US soldiers fired on innocent protesters by mistake. And that was before any insurgent attacks.

I'm not like you. I will condemn all who engage in such acts and ask that they all be brought to justice, but you think that it's only the insurgents that have committed war crimes. Maybe a few token soldiers will ever be convicted, and that's fine for you. The rule of law was thrown out the window at the start of the war. Why would you think that others should follow it?

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[The Bobster]

[Alias]

Army missed recruitment goal despite lowering numbers for May:

Army Falls Short




Interesting article about some of the desperate tactics the Marines are using:

When Marine recruiters go way beyond the call