Why invade Iraq?

[ACause]

Originally posted by Starboy,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Starboy,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-ACause,
Because damn near all of them were silent when Saddam moved on Kuwait...number 1...they damn near all support terrorism...number 2, and 3..they were all thinking...if the US can do it to Iraq..then they can do it to any one of us..fear is a great motivator in people.  Finally...no Middle Eastern leader could afford a democratic republic in their own back yard..it might give their own people a reason to cry out for it.

This list doesn&#39;t make any sense when you consider that we did have their support to remove Saddam from Kuwait. They all saw Saddam as a threat. Not the only threat in the region but a threat all the same. Try again. Why would Arab countries be so adamant about not wanting the US taking Iraq down?

If you do not make an honest attempt to answer this question and understand its implications then you will never have a chance of knowing what it will actually take to reduce Islamic terrorism in the world.

Starboy[/b][/quote]

Sure it makes sense...they saw Saddam as a threat..but they only wanted the miminum force necessary to relieve the pressure off the kettle..the Arabs told us in no uncertain terms they would not support removal of Saddam..because each of them were thinking...if the US can do it to Iraq...they can do it to us..because the majority of them are not that much better then his regime...None of them wanted a free & secular democracy in their backyard...that would give their populations a look at something better then what they have now...

That is an honest attempt to answer your question..

But I am curious as to what you think will alleviate Islamic terrorism?...It&#39;s clear they show no willingness to negotiate..and it&#39;s clear they regard all citizens..from old men to women to children as legitimate targets...so just what do you envision as a method for dealing with them?

[Gorgo]

Treaties are the law of the land. Read what is written.

To violate the UN Charter is to violate U.S. law.

[ACause]

Originally posted by Gorgo,
Treaties are the law of the land. Read what is written.

To violate the UN Charter is to violate U.S. law.

I beg to differ...Treaties are not LAW..they are agreements made between two parties and are in effect as long as both parties adhere to them.

I should know..the first Treaty the United States of America ever was made a signatory party to was the Treaty of New Hopewell..in which the new country made a treaty with my tribe..the Cherokee Nation. The US Federal Government has made over 500 TREATIES with the various tribes on this continent..to date..they&#39;ve broken each and every one of them. So using your ill-conceived logic the US has been breaking the law for 200+ years..

And I did read..you&#39;re intepretation of that article is what I disagree with.

[Gorgo]

I&#39;m not sure what you&#39;re saying here ACause. As I pointed out, treaties are the law of the land. There is no argument there. It is written exactly in those words in the Constitution. So, what you must be saying is that the U.S. is no longer a part of the U.N. Did you want to show me something that backs that up? I wasn&#39;t aware of that.

[ACause]

Originally posted by Gorgo,
I&#39;m not sure what you&#39;re saying here ACause. As I pointed out, treaties are the law of the land. There is no argument there. It is written exactly in those words in the Constitution. So, what you must be saying is that the U.S. is no longer a part of the U.N. Did you want to show me something that backs that up? I wasn&#39;t aware of that.

No..you&#39;re mistaking that Treaties are Laws...Laws are Bills put forth to the Congress for consideration..these Laws under our Constitution are what runs this country....Treaties are devised by our State Dept in conjunction with other signatory members to produce a desired result. Said treaties can be withdrawn from at any time..as witnessed by my comments bout treaties with the Indian tribes..trust me..we Indians know ALL bout treaties..

And not..it does not say that Treaties are the law of the land...those were your words and your intepretation of the Article...I happen to disagree with that intepretation.

And there is nothing stopping us from withdrawing from the UN..as I state..the UN is not a One World Government..it has no sovereign powers of the United States...I didn&#39;t elect not one official in the UN...I did not vote for Annan to lead the US..get my point?

[Gorgo]

Yes. The U.S. can get out of the UN. It has not. The Constitution says that treaties are the "supreme law of the land." The UN Charter is the law of the land.

Bush is in violation of international and domestic law.

[ACause]

Originally posted by Gorgo,
Yes. The U.S. can get out of the UN. It has not. The Constitution says that treaties are the "supreme law of the land." The UN Charter is the law of the land.

Bush is in violation of international and domestic law.

Once again..THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS&#33;&#33;&#33;...There..does making it in caps make it any clearer to you??..Treaties are not what legislate domestic or foreign policy..Now..you might be able to argue that the Constitution itself was no more then a treaty between the individual colonies..but that would have been more line with the Articles of Confederation rather then the US Constitution.....The Constitution says it and only it is the supreme law of this nation...

[Gorgo]

Argue with people who know the law, then.

http://electroniciraq.net/cgi-bin/artman/e.../view.cgi/6/265

[ACause]

Originally posted by Gorgo,
Argue with people who know the law, then.

http://electroniciraq.net/cgi-bin/artman/e.../view.cgi/6/265

Not going to argue with someone else either, I&#39;m pretty sure I could get a lawyer or Law Professor to support my position as well...simply put...The US Constitution is not subordinate to any other legal document, nor is US foreign and domestic policy mandated by a foreign power...period.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by ACause,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ACause,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Gorgo,
Argue with people who know the law, then.

http://electroniciraq.net/cgi-bin/artman/e.../view.cgi/6/265

Not going to argue with someone else either, I&#39;m pretty sure I could get a lawyer or Law Professor to support my position as well...simply put...The US Constitution is not subordinate to any other legal document, nor is US foreign and domestic policy mandated by a foreign power...period.[/b][/quote]

That is correct, but it also says that the US is bound to what it agrees to. So if we agree to it then we are bound to it and no one is above the law, not even the President.

Starboy

[Gorgo]

Yes. In other words, the U.S. is subordinate to those things that it agrees to be subordinate.

It also holds other countries to certain standards whether or not that country agrees to those standards. It would follow that it would hold itself to those same standards, and of course it does not.

[Gorgo]

I think if you get some legal "expert" to agree with you, what they will tell you is some version of it was okay for Bush to "reevaluate" the law.

In other words, the United States, by definition, is above the law and they can do whatever they want.