America bombs, China builds! China builds 1,000 schools in Iraq

[Predd]

From the amount of stupidity you put in one post makes me wonder if your actual name is Rajesh or Kumar lol

I love how you couldn't even respond to a single one of my points, bravo! I hope you dont go around calling people "Indians" IRL when you get into geopolitical related discussions or debates.

 

[jhungary]

The popular perception is that WMDs were not found in Iraq and hence a lie. This is common knowledge.

Don't try to obfuscate with wrong evidence.


I concur with you.

And you said you are a lawyer? (Or work in a law office or something?)

Tell me which type of evidence, Physical Evidence no less, is non-refutable?

I mean, you don't like that and you don't want to count them, sure, every lawyer does that, that's what motion to suppress is for, but then that does not mean that evidence have no evidentiary value, but to tell me first "Perception is common knowledge" and then you tell me because of this "Common Knowledge" which is a perception which is NOT any kind of knowledge or even fact at all, is obfuscating fact with "wrong" evidence.

Dude, I was going to say don't quit your day job, but then you tell me you work in legal field. So............I am torn

 

[beijingwalker]

What lies?

The issue is NOT whether or not Iraq have WMD, the problem many people have question is, US and Coalition went to war because Iraq had WMD. Set aside the FACT that they did found Chemical Weapon stockpile back in 2008, the authority to use force is TO LOOK for WMD because of Iraq non-compliance as per Resolution 1441. Meaning the reason for war is Iraq non-compliance to Resolution 1441, not whether or not Iraq had WMD, they could have nothing, but the issue here is they are non-compliant to Resolution 1441, which have all 15 UNSC member agree, INCLUDING CHINA. You still need to be able to be checked to know they have nothing, that's the issue, not whether or not them having WMD is an issue.

The legality on the other hand, is another matter, there are 2 camps here, one said Resolution 1441 does not give power for allied to invade Iraq (at least a general invasion) and the other camp claim it did. The problem is 1441 said measure can be taken "Any Necessary mean" to uphold and implement resolution 660. Quote the text exactly

ODS HOME PAGE

Multilingual interface of the UN Official Documents System

documents-dds-ny.un.org

The legal question here is, does all necessary means include military invasion, because the term is so board, ALL NESSARARY MEANS can means anything, it could mean literally anything, which include a war (Which is what the pro-war legal community stands) or it could mean they should complete ALL OTHER MEANS before going to war, which in itself does not authorise an invasion.

I have no law degree, I am not going to pretend I know more than the best legal mind in the world know, my wife, who had a law degree, said it was ambiguous, which mean it is a grey area. Do you have a law degree do you can make a decision to say it was a "lies"?

If a country claims that you Aussies have chemical weapons and then invaded your country, bombed your country back to stone age and killled millions of your countrymen, what would you say?

 

[jhungary]

If a country claims that you Aussies have chemical weapons and then invaded your country, bombed your country back to stone age and killled millions of your countrymen, what would you say?

I will ask why China or Russia vote yes or did not veto on UN Resolution 1441

Security Council Resolution 1441 - UNSCR

The situation between Iraq and Kuwait

unscr.com

Abstract​

S/RES/1441 (2002)

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its
intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore
international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as
a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international
peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a
range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such
weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all
other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not
related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional,
and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special
Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons
2
S/RES/1441 (2002)
inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all
cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international
monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of
weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated
demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the
United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC),
established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM,
and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region
and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its
commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to
resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide
access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance
in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to
return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully
detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire
would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including
the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without
conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other
relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the
governing standard of Iraqi compliance,
Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor
organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the
implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,
Noting that the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward
rectifying Iraq’s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,
Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of
UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the
Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their
meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by
UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued
failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as
laid out in that letter,
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States
and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
3
S/RES/1441 (2002)
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its
obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular
through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA,
and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687
(1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this
resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under
relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced
inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the
disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent
resolutions of the Council;
3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament
obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the
Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not
later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and
complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such
as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft,
including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, subcomponents,
stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and
work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other
chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for
purposes not related to weapon production or material;
4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted
by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with,
and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a
further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for
assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate,
unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including
underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport
which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and
private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish
to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant
to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may
at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the
travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole
discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the
presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and
requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of
this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;
6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of
UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the
Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the
letter shall be binding upon Iraq;
7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the
presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks
4
S/RES/1441 (2002)
set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding
prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or
additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in
Iraq:
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection
teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and
experienced experts available;
– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities,
corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on
Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the
Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out
of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from
inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including
immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential
Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution
1154 (1998) of 2 March 1998;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the
names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical,
biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated
research, development, and production facilities;
– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient
United Nations security guards;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of
freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas
and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement
so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing
of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned
reconnaissance vehicles;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably
to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems,
components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to
impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of
equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment,
materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of
UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;
8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed
against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any
Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;
9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this
resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of
that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands
5
S/RES/1441 (2002)
further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with
UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the
IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information
related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on
Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to
be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to
be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and
the IAEA;
11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General
of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with
inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament
obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance
with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for
full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure
international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

 

[beijingwalker]

I will ask why China or Russia vote yes or did not veto on UN Resolution 1441

Security Council Resolution 1441 - UNSCR

The situation between Iraq and Kuwait

unscr.com

Did United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 authorize US to invade Iraq?

Resolution 1441​

At the insistence of the United States, the UN Security Council issued Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, demanding that Iraq readmit inspectors and comply with all previous resolutions. After some initial wrangling, Iraq agreed to readmit inspectors, who began arriving in Iraq within two weeks.

The international community soon differed on the degree of Iraq’s cooperation. Initial inspections were inconclusive, though a small block of countries led by the United States and the United Kingdom argued that Iraq had resorted to its earlier practices, that it was willfully hindering inspection efforts, and that, given the large volume of material unaccounted for from previous inspections, it doubtless continued to conceal large quantities of proscribed weapons. Other countries, particularly France, Germany, and Russia, sought to extend inspections and give the Iraqis further time to comply. The United States and the United Kingdom, however, were convinced that Iraq never intended full cooperation and began to mass troops and war matériel around Iraq in preparation for a military conflict.

On March 17, 2003, the United States and its allies declared an end to negotiations, and on March 20 they launched the first in a series of precision air attacks on targets in Iraq, followed by an invasion of American and British ground forces from Kuwait in the south.

 

[beijingwalker]

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan​

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

www.theguardian.com

 

[jhungary]

Did United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 authorize US to invade Iraq?

That's my entire point. Read the Red Text

What lies?

The issue is NOT whether or not Iraq have WMD, the problem many people have question is, US and Coalition went to war because Iraq had WMD. Set aside the FACT that they did found Chemical Weapon stockpile back in 2008, the authority to use force is TO LOOK for WMD because of Iraq non-compliance as per Resolution 1441. Meaning the reason for war is Iraq non-compliance to Resolution 1441, not whether or not Iraq had WMD, they could have nothing, but the issue here is they are non-compliant to Resolution 1441, which have all 15 UNSC member agree, INCLUDING CHINA. You still need to be able to be checked to know they have nothing, that's the issue, not whether or not them having WMD is an issue.

The legality on the other hand, is another matter, there are 2 camps here, one said Resolution 1441 does not give power for allied to invade Iraq (at least a general invasion) and the other camp claim it did. The problem is 1441 said measure can be taken "Any Necessary mean" to uphold and implement resolution 660. Quote the text exactly

ODS HOME PAGE

Multilingual interface of the UN Official Documents System

documents-dds-ny.un.org

The legal question here is, does all necessary means include military invasion, because the term is so board, ALL NESSARARY MEANS can means anything, it could mean literally anything, which include a war (Which is what the pro-war legal community stands) or it could mean they should complete ALL OTHER MEANS before going to war, which in itself does not authorise an invasion.

I have no law degree, I am not going to pretend I know more than the best legal mind in the world know, my wife, who had a law degree, said it was ambiguous, which mean it is a grey area. Do you have a law degree do you can make a decision to say it was a "lies"?

 

[beijingwalker]

That's my entire point. Read the Red Text

Iraqi government accepted Resolution 1441 which is only about investigating IF Iraq had WMD, it never authorized an invasion, as for if US invasion was legal based on UN terms, The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan had already anwsered.

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan​

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

www.theguardian.com

 

[Dalit]

Same story in Pakistan. The US has been bribing military officials and carrying out drone strikes. China has been investing and building infrastructure.

 

[jhungary]

Iraqi government accepted Resolution 1441 which is only about investigating IF Iraq had WMD, it never authorized an invasion, as for if US invasion was legal based on UN terms, The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan had already anwsered.

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan​

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

www.theguardian.com

.....Iraq have no right in this. Resolution 1441 is a resolution passed by UNSC. It doesn't matter whether or not Iraq "accept" or "agree" it would be valid until UNSC overwritten it by some other resolution. Also, the resolution is to condemn Iraq for non-compliance of the international monitor

Kofi Annan is NOT a lawyer, he is a economist and what he said of of his own opinion, whether or not he was the secretary general is not matter of what he said privately and what he believe, he believe the war is illegal, that's what he believe, agian, so does at least half the legal community, but then does that mean the war is actually illegal? No. Otherwise there would already be another UNSC resolution push by either China or Russia to condemn the war.

Why the War Wasn't Illegal | Brookings

Opinion by Michael E. O'Hanlon, Washington Times (9/26/04)

www.brookings.edu

Why the War Wasn’t Illegal​

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan was wrong in recently terming the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq “illegal.”

The war admittedly occurred on legally ambiguous grounds. It is also fair to acknowledge, even among those of us who accepted the logic of risking war to ensure Iraq’s verifiable disarmament, that its basic desirability and benefits can be debated. Indeed, while not my view, it can reasonably be argued the war was a strategic mistake, as it may foster more anti-U.S. terrorism and risk leaving Iraq in chaos.

But it was not illegal. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, passed by unanimous vote in November 2002, made it clear the then status quo in Iraq was what was illegal. Saddam had already violated some 17 previous resolutions demanding his verifiable disarmament. He was put on notice by Resolution 1441 that continuing this was emphatically unacceptable.

And while inspectors did make progress in Iraq in the ensuing weeks of late 2002 and early 2003, they hardly resolved all questions. Iraq’s compliance then remained imperfect at best, as chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has noted.

Even someone who would have preferred to see the inspections continue—and again, there was a case to be made for that approach—should not term the war illegal.

Resolution 1441 did not allow Saddam several more chances and several more bouts of imperfect compliance with U.N. demands. Once he again obstructed and obfuscated, it became clear he was not voluntarily and verifiably disarming—and 1441’s clear implication was that this was unacceptable. Whether it automatically justified war was of course debatable, and was hotly debated at the time. But a legal case certainly could be made for that justification.

To be sure, when Washington tried to secure formal approval for war, the United States and its partners failed to gain their desired second U.N. resolution in early 2003. That is why, practically and legally, the war was not explicitly or unambiguously legal. It was in a grey area. But again, being in a grey area is not the same as being illegal.

To be sure, it would have been better if a second resolution had passed explicitly authorizing war. In fact, even if blocked by a French or Russian veto, it still would have been politically (though not legally) beneficial to have a second resolution with the clear support of a majority on the U.N. Security Council.

The Bush administration rightly can be faulted for not bothering to develop a strategy to improve the odds of such an outcome. U.S. behavior was, in this period, strategically unwise and legally shaky. And Mr. Kerry is on perfectly reasonable ground in criticizing this period of Bush administration diplomacy.

But that does not mean the U.S. action was illegal. No U.N. resolution explicitly prohibited the use of force under the circumstances that existed in early 2003.

And Saddam had been such a menace to his own people and his neighbors in the past that his systematic noncompliance with U.N. Security Council demands made it reasonable to base an invasion on a number of arguments, including the inherent right of collective self-defense in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.

Saddam may have been contained at the time, more or less, but no one could confidently argue he did not pose a structural threat to regional peace and stability over the longer term.

Kofi Annan is understandably frustrated and even angered by conditions in Iraq today—which categorically are not good, despite White House claims to the contrary.

He also is on reasonable grounds in wishing the Bush administration had done more to be explicitly multilateral and legal in approaching any war to unseat Saddam.

But it is a much different thing, and a mistake, to deem illegal the use of force to overthrow a brutal dictator who had systematically and dangerously defied official demands made of him by the entire international community.

 

[beijingwalker]

.....Iraq have no right in this. Resolution 1441 is a resolution passed by UNSC. It doesn't matter whether or not Iraq "accept" or "agree" it would be valid until UNSC overwritten it by some other resolution. Also, the resolution is to condemn Iraq for non-compliance of the international monitor

Kofi Annan is NOT a lawyer, he is a economist and what he said of of his own opinion, whether or not he was the secretary general is not matter of what he said privately and what he believe, he believe the war is illegal, that's what he believe, agian, so does at least half the legal community, but then does that mean the war is actually illegal? No. Otherwise there would already be another UNSC resolution push by either China or Russia to condemn the war.

Why the War Wasn't Illegal | Brookings

Opinion by Michael E. O'Hanlon, Washington Times (9/26/04)

www.brookings.edu

Here we have some nobody who believes that he can explain an UN resolution better than the then UN general secretary. Many professionals work for the general secretary and he doesn't only speak for himself.

 

[Foinikas]

What wrong has China done to Iraq?

Why do you idolize China?

 

[jhungary]

Here we have some nobody who believes that he can explain an UN resolution better than the then UN general secretary. Many professionals work for the general secretary and he doesn't only speak for himself.

I don't need to be anybody to know if you are NOT a lawyer or have a law degree, you don't know any better on law than anyone who do. And no, he said that AFTER he step down as UN secretary general, so he only speaks for himself.

Or if you insist on speaking to "Somebody" I can ask my wife to answer your question as she DO have a law degree and she practices international law. Do you want to talk to her instead if you want "somebody" to talk to you about the aspect of international law? Or you much rather call her in her office so she can bill you $200 per hour?

And UN Resolution is about international law, not about who was the head of UN.

 

[beijingwalker]

I don't need to be anybody to know if you are NOT a lawyer or have a law degree, you don't know any better on law than anyone who do. And no, he said that AFTER he step down as UN secretary general, so he only speaks for himself.

Or if you insist on speaking to "Somebody" I can ask my wife to answer your question as she DO have a law degree and she practices international law. Do you want to talk to her instead if you want "somebody" to talk to you about the aspect of international law? Or you much rather call her in her office so she can bill you $200 per hour?

And UN Resolution is about international law, not about who was the head of UN.

Your wife? Come on. The world knows US second gulf war was based on a pathetic lie, ni one cares about what your wife thinks. millions innocent Iraqi civilians, women and children died or displaced by that lie. Have a heart.

 

[jhungary]

Your wife? Come on. The world knows US second gulf war was based on a pathetic lie, ni one cares about what your wife thinks. millions innocent Iraqi civilians, women and children died or displaced by that lie. Have a heart.

Again, you do know US did find Chemical Weapon in Iraq, right?



And you do know the law is not what you said it is, just because you think so does not mean so, and you have yet to debate anything other then "everybody knows" or "this is a lies". You keep using your strawman argument and don't want to go into the actual category that would classified the war as unjust, you can debate perception, what the world know all you want but at the end of the day, you can't prove to me the clause in term of legality, then all of what you said is nothing more than an opinion, a conjecture.

I mean, if this is the argument you want to had, then it's all yours, I am not interested in discussion one's own opinion, if you want to discuss truly whether or not the war is illegal, then legal argument MUST applies, not just what you think or what you said.