Could you explain how you came to that conclusion?

Granted, I could believe that the vast majority of ignorant people think the US invaded Iraq illegally, but it is a totally seperate proposition to say that the vast majority of the "world" believes the US invaded Iraq illegally.

How the hell do you know what the "vast majority" of the world thinks?

Could you tell us where you got your statistics?

Or did you just make it up?

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

America hasn't posed any real threat at all to any Middle Eastern nation outside Iraq.

As I've said, there's been a little sabre rattling on the part of both sides but nothing that can be construed as overtly and deliberately threatening.

Iran threatened to cause America "harm and pain" if the United States was successful in pushing nuclear related sanctions through the UNSC.

Iran threatened to attack Gulf State oil refineries and power stations as well as American military bases with missile attacks if the United States attacked Iranian nuclear facilities. They also threatened to bomb Israel for the same reason.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei threatened that "If the U.S. ventured into any aggression on Iran, Iran will retaliate by damaging U.S. interests worldwide twice as much as the U.S. may inflict on Iran".

Iran threatened to attack U.S. instilations in Iraq with rockets and missiles if the United States attacks either Iran or Syria.

Need I go on?

Hizballah threatened to "ignite WWIII" if the US attacked their allied interests.

Saddam Hussein threatened the United states with terrorism, Tariq Aziz threatened the UNSC.

So yes, the U.S. has been threatened.

But who really cares if the U.S. has been threatened? As I've said, it's just sabre rattling.

If you don't understand it how do you know it doesn't work?

The U.S. didn't invade the MIDDLE EAST.

The U.S. invaded Iraq.

What international court has ruled that the American invasion of Iraq was illegal?

Syria and Iran are both members of the United Nations. If they have a grevience against the U.S. invasion let them handle it through the UN.

The behavior you're encouraging on the part of Iraq's neighbors is the same sort of behavior that you consider illegal when it's displayed by the United States.

And understand here that I'm not claiming that what the U.S. did was right. That's an argument for another thread.

I'm simply claiming that what you suggest is wrong.

That's a ridiculous assertion. It's simply too general.

I do. And I agree with you. Doesn't change a thing about this discussion, but I agree with you.

Still doesn't justify war a proxy Iranian war against the U.S. Nothing really does, other than a UN resolution.

How is the Iraq war "fueling" the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

Which is all perfectly legal under international law.

I disagree with that, but I have no problem in general with the U.S. staying within its borders under most circumstances.

I agree with that.

Do you blame the U.S. for waging an unprovoked war against Iraq?

If so then you've got to apply the same standard to every other nation in the world.

Either unprovoked international aggression is wrong or it isn't. It can't be wrong for the U.S. and okay for Iran.

And threats are not aggression. Threats are threats and they've been made by both sides.

Again, American crossed thousands of miles to get to Iraq.

No other nation in the Middle East has been subjected to any aggression on the part of the United States.

You say it how you see it. And there's nothing wrong with that.

__________________

Think of it like 'standing orders'. Invasion illegal.

__________________
668.....the neighbour of the beast.

Unfortunately, I was being serious.

There aren't any "standing orders" that say invading another nation is illegal under all circumstances.

There are, however, international bodies in which the community of nations has placed the authority for making such determinations.

Oddly, no UN member-nations (including Iran and Syria) have brought this issue of the war's legality before the Security Council or the International Court of Justice and no member-nation of the International Criminal Court has expressed the desire to have the ICC rule on the war's legality.

Your personal opinion not withstanding, the invasion hasn't, to any appriciable or actionable standard, been declared illegal.

__________________

These look like legal reasons for retaliation. Would you expect Iran put his throat under the knife willingly?

Is it wrong to say: If you point your gun at me, I will point mine at you.

Don't you believe in cause and effect?

Oh but there are. War itself is illegal and self-defence, in terms of pre-emptive actions , cannot constitute wars of aggression in themselves.

If you don't want to abide by such international agreements then persuade your administration to withdraw from international treaties and resign the country's UN membership.

__________________
668.....the neighbour of the beast.

The point is that they're all threats. And the claim was made earlier that Iran wasn't making any. None. Not ever.

My point is merely that threats were made.

They're no better or worse than the threats that America is making. No more or less substantial than the threats America is making. No more cause for immediate aggressive action than the threats America is making.

Threats are childish regardless of whose making them.

But they're really just bluster.

__________________

That's why I said "under all circumstances".

The United States clearly has the case to make that 13 years worth of resolutions had been ignored, that 1441 was a "final warning", and that the stakes were too high to allow Koffi's family to continue to cash in on the Oil-for-Food program while American security was in jepoardy.

I'm not saying that they would win the case. I'm simply saying that the reason we have international courts is to try international disputes.

If a nation thinks the United States broke the law then they should take the United States to court.

I agree.

If Iran doesn't want to live up to their international treaties they should withdraw from the UN.

__________________

Your examples lead to the conclusion that the US is a threat to Iran's national security. Iran has the right to defend itself.

Does Iran's precautions against any aggression from the USA or Israel make Iran a possible, legitimate target?

soot;
The inclusion of that phrase still doesn't cover the arses of international law-breakers, such as Bush and the Boyos. Invasion is illegal. Bushy will be brought to book according to who ultimately gains legal control of Iraq.

__________________
668.....the neighbour of the beast.

That's illogical.

My examples don't lead to a conclusion, they assume a conclusion. They beg the question.

And they do that because Iran crafted their threats as a response to hypothetical aggression.

In a sentence of the form:

"If "x" does "y" then "z".

"y" is not the conclusion. "z" is the conclusion.

"y" is a predicate.

In the statement:

If America attacks us we will cause them harm and pain.

"x"= America
"y"= attacks us
"z"= we will cause them harm and pain

"We will cause them harm and pain" is the conclusion.

If anything such a statement leads to the conclusion that Iran is threatening American national security because Iran is the party making the threat.

You see?

But in no case do I consider making a threat to be the same thing as being a threat.

My only point is that Iraq is making threats.

I am the last person on this forum that thinks a peaceful Iran should be a legitimate target of anything other than capital investment.

But an Iran that is overtly attacking American servicemen in Iraq, training the Iraqi insurgency, and allowing insurgents and terrorists safe haven within their borders is not a peaceful Iran.

It's an Iran that is actively engaged in aggression directly against America.

And I'm afraid that that may make them a legitimate target.

I couldn't care less if Iran acquires nuclear weapons technology. That would not make Iran a threat to America.

And I don't care if they threaten America. That does not make them a threat.

Killing Americans, however, that does make Iran a threat to America.

__________________

Alleged international law-breakers.

__________________

An indefensible position, as the 'America' you claim to be suffering aggression is an aggressive America which is occupying a sovereign State by force and threatening Iran by so doing. It's as laughable as complaining about American support for Mexican insurgents following the illegal occupation of Mexico by Iran.

__________________
668.....the neighbour of the beast.

You claim that America is making threats.

Could you specify the threat(s) that America has made?

What threats are you talking about?

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I think wisdom seeker may be referring to the fabricated weapons of mass destruction intelligence reports which supposedly 'justified' the American government's pre-emptive attack.

Soot, are you saying Iran is behaving in this fashion, or are you speaking hypothetically?

__________________
I sometimes post on OzChess as well, but mostly here