4 ms·

HN frowns on political commentary so I'll attempt to be brief The vast majority of the most recent wars have not been UNSC authorized. UN involvement is not ne

by Goety 5y ago

HN frowns on political commentary so I'll attempt to be brief The vast majority of the most recent wars have not been UNSC authorized. UN involvement is not necessary for a war to occur nor do they prevent wars or proxy wars between countries on the UNSC. The "modern international system" is an ideal. The US was attacked. >ancient, rusting artillery shells (from the 1980s) 20-30 years old isnt ancient, they were serviceable, and they had chemical weapons in the quantity for the potential of wmds. That is only what they found, and I imagine there were more not found. >Nobody would ever have accepted to go to war There was reasonable evidence they had more that the allied force didn't find. The international community is more to blame for the conditions after involvement than the instigators 10+ years on. A neighbor is beating up another neighbor and both are blaming it on someone else.

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
> The vast majority of the most recent wars have not been UNSC authorized. Unless those wars are fought in imminent self-defense, then they're illegal. The invasion of Iraq was an especially egregious violation of international law for two reasons: 1. The US knew that the UN Security Council would reject a resolution authorizing war, so it decided in the end not to ask. 2. The war had catastrophic consequences for Iraq. It's not every day a country of 20+ million people is invaded and its government overthrown. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result. A third factor making this war particularly egregious is the deliberate campaign of disinformation that was carried out in order to justify it. > The US was attacked. Not by Iraq. > 20-30 years old isnt ancient, they were serviceable, and they had chemical weapons in the quantity for the potential of wmds. This is how the NY Times described the small number of chemical artillery shells found scattered across Iraq: > Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them. These were the misplaced remnants of the chemical weapons program that Iraq dismantled in the 1990s. > There was reasonable evidence they had more that the allied force didn't find. The US occupied Iraq for nearly a decade. It's simply not credible to claim that there was any sort of sizeable stockpile that the US did not find.
- Goety 5y ago
  last response >> The US was attacked. >Not by Iraq. Saddam gave material assistance to suicide bombers and network. It would suggest had they not gotten rid of him some of the perpetrators would have tried again. The resulting catastrophe was the result of neighbors meddling in their affairs and an internal domestic power struggle. >These were the misplaced remnants of the chemical weapons program that Iraq dismantled in the 1990s. if it was dismantled it wouldn't exist. >It's simply not credible to claim that there was any sort of sizeable stockpile that the US did not find. it probably wasnt in Iraq anymore.

by Goety 5y ago

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago

> The vast majority of the most recent wars have not been UNSC authorized. Unless those wars are fought in imminent self-defense, then they're illegal. The invasion of Iraq was an especially egregious violation of international law for two reasons: 1. The US knew that the UN Security Council would reject a resolution authorizing war, so it decided in the end not to ask. 2. The war had catastrophic consequences for Iraq. It's not every day a country of 20+ million people is invaded and its government overthrown. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result. A third factor making this war particularly egregious is the deliberate campaign of disinformation that was carried out in order to justify it. > The US was attacked. Not by Iraq. > 20-30 years old isnt ancient, they were serviceable, and they had chemical weapons in the quantity for the potential of wmds. This is how the NY Times described the small number of chemical artillery shells found scattered across Iraq: > Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them. These were the misplaced remnants of the chemical weapons program that Iraq dismantled in the 1990s. > There was reasonable evidence they had more that the allied force didn't find. The US occupied Iraq for nearly a decade. It's simply not credible to claim that there was any sort of sizeable stockpile that the US did not find.

Goety 5y ago
last response >> The US was attacked. >Not by Iraq. Saddam gave material assistance to suicide bombers and network. It would suggest had they not gotten rid of him some of the perpetrators would have tried again. The resulting catastrophe was the result of neighbors meddling in their affairs and an internal domestic power struggle. >These were the misplaced remnants of the chemical weapons program that Iraq dismantled in the 1990s. if it was dismantled it wouldn't exist. >It's simply not credible to claim that there was any sort of sizeable stockpile that the US did not find. it probably wasnt in Iraq anymore.