That's an interesting take on it, Ed. I had to think about it for a while, parse it out, and see how it maps to the real world.
Iraq didn't sue for peace in a vacuum. The world wasn't just going on about its business peacefully when an Iraq representative suddenly appeared from nowhere to sue for peace. They sued for peace at the end of Gulf War I...on their backs with the Coalition foot planted firmly on their throats.
The theme of this thread is legalisms, so let me point out the flaw in your argument: A contract signed under duress is invalid and not enforcable.
Don't go ballistic now, that's not a defense of Iraq's violations of the terms of the ceasefire, or an implication that we were the bad guys then. This thread is about legal technicalities, so I'm arguing like a lawyer. Nothing more.
--Robert
Current Events » in reply to Iraq is the plaintiff
Re: Iraq is the plaintiff
The whole thread (39 posts)
- The burden of proof
- Not according to UNSC 1441
- Iraq is the plaintiff
- Re: The burden of proof
- Ironic
- No, the burden of proof is clearly on Iraq, not on the US or anyone else
- Re: The burden of proof
