Tina wrote: Usually, when a party of individuals wants to restore their credibility following an incident in which they are morally & legally wrong,…
(especially in the eyes of everyone else who KNOWS that this party of individuals are morally & legally wrong) the guilty party takes the 1st step by ADMITTING that they acted illegally.
**
Of course, I am talking about the Iraq 2003 invasion by the US.
(even though Article VI Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution states that:
Any treaty signed by the US becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land)
The US signed the UN Charter (1945) which outlaws starting wars (with 2 exceptions):
1) Country A may attack country B (Thus country B may attack country A)
2) If the UN Security Council specifically authorizes it.
**
Addressing #1:
It has been discredited that Saddam had a link with Bin Laden.
Addressing #2
The UN Security Council NEVER authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
**
Thus, the 03 Iraq invasion was & is ILLEGAL.
**
When Obama “spoke against” the Iraq war (at any time) he NEVER admitted it was an illegal act of aggression…he just said that it would have “undetermined consequences”.
QUESTION;
Do you think that the non-American people of the world will accept American moral leadership in the UN & the world …just because we elect a biracial man as President??
If Obama doesn’t admit that the 03 Iraq invasion was & is ILLEGAL, then how much credit does he deserve as far as “restoring America’s credibility” (in the eyes of Americans AND non-Americans)??
I predict that as Obama fails to own up to TRULLY restoring America’s credibility as President, those in love with the “Messiah” will tell themselves that the 03 Iraq invasion was legally & morally justified (and thus, no need for Obama to admit that the 03 invasion was illegal)…How about that for irony & hypocrisy????!!!!!
**and if you think I support McCain, then you’re wrong (the only difference is that Obama a slick salesman)
Facebook Relaxing Music
