Then you don't agree with Bond369's definition of unilateral?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

By definition US did not act unilateraly in Iraq. US did "consult" other countries but it seems it would attack Iraq no matter how much talking was done. Can that even be called consultation (to me it looked like an ultimatum)?

Is intent part of the definition?

The definition also fails under the "involvement of other nations" qualification. Yet, most in Europe persist in calling this a unilateral action. How vocal were/are you in correcting them?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

they should have stopped to listen.

listen to the UN and open their eyes to see that there are no WMD there in the first place, because the whole war started cause there were "WMD in Iraq"

Its not but imo it should be. "Consultation" with allies was noting but empty talking (ultimatum/threats?). Several major allies were disreagarded completley and insulted (freedom fires lol) just because they wouldnt agree with US/UK.
Yep you sure got "better" new allies that would blindly follow you. Their contribution to was was really impresive.
To be hones i stoped caring. Im sick of both sides as well as idiot population supporting em. In the past year majority of people i met on internet and in rl are plain idiots with brain procesing power that barely surpasses parrots.
Btw this rant is not meant at you.

Also i was somewhat vocal about this because i hate it when sience is mixed with politicks.

@thedevilf - you really should inform yourself before typing anything. Every member of the UN Security Council believed that Iraq had WMD and was a threat to the world. All of them. What were they saying that we should have listened to?

We sit across the table at Kyoto and beg for conciliations. We are told the conciliations we want are not even up for discussion. We refuse to participate if that is the case and we are called "planet killers" and "unilaterally" destroying the Earth and undermining efforts to save it. (Later, in order to make the protocol work, the conciliations we asked for are written into the document.) Was Europe's "consultation" empty talking? Ultimatums? Threats? Of course not, it's Europe! Lesson: If Europe says it's good, it's good and no amount of negotiating will change that.

We sit across the table at the UN and say, "Enough talk. Do something." We ask that the UN say what it means and mean what it says. We spend considerable time negotiating with our "allies" (does that term even have any relevance any more?). We allow for even more resolutions. At considerable expense, we put troops on Iraq's front door to elicit the only cooperation we have seen in 4 years. But no matter what we do, we are told that no matter what, force will never be an option. So we go to war to answer a threat that everyone believes to exist. And we are called "murderers" and accused of "unilaterally" attacking sovereign states without cause. Our attempts at getting the UN to actually do something are called "ultimatums" and "threats". Lesson: If Europe says it's bad, it's bad and no amount of negotiating will change that.

So, the two lessons we have learned are: If Europe says it's bad, it's bad. If Europe says it's good, it's good. And the US is arrogant for even imagining she knows better. What a joke.

We gave Europe a chance to stand up for what it supposedly believes in and it failed the test. It is Neville Chamberlain arisen. We tried negotiating at Kyoto, but Eurabia was not interested in negotiating - it was interested in getting its way. We stand up for ourselves and take the blame. We tried negotiating over Iraq, but Eurabia was not interested in negotiating - it was interested in getting ts way. We stand up for ourselves and take the blame.

Personally, I'm sick of taking the blame. There are two very large oceans that separate us from you and a lot more work that our soldiers could be doing here rather than saving your sorry asses from the next Islamic Empire. If we had strong borders, with 140,000 soldiers guarding them, Iraq, Iran, N. Korea and any other problem that Europe has allowed to fester would never be a problem for us. Do you feel as secure?

So I say, the Iraq war was a huge, collosal, stupendous mistake. It's your backyard and if you want to let the weeds grow then, by all means, let them grow. If Bush starts making noise about getting us involved in another patch of worthless dirt then I'll be the first to call for his impeachment. I'm sick of our soldiers dying for some other country. The last time they died for this one was 140 years ago.
And this is the height of your arrogance. The arrogance that has typified this entire ordeal. Of course our "new allies" are "blindly" following us. What else could explain it? If mighty France and Germany object then it must be the wrong course of action.

Note the irony when you immediately turn around and call us arrogant for believing you should give a shit.
I'm not sure how you group building a nuclear reactor into science. The science is pretty much figured out by now. This is a construction project. A very, very, large and expensive construction project. And the question is: who will get the economic boom from hiring a bunch of workers to build it? France, her employment situation desperate, clearly wants the windfall and is willing to snub the group if it doesn't go her way.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Enough with Iraq already. You wanted it, you have it, now deal with it.

France wants the reactor to be built. We've wanted it for twenty years. The project is not going ahead, so we're pushing. Stop the paranoia, will you?

Oh, and btw, the science is very much NOT figured out.

As I've pointed out, several times in several different threads, I didn't want it. But, since no one else wanted to "deal with it", it is up to us. C'est le Vie? Hopefully, the US will learn its lesson from this and let Iran and N. Korea do whatever they want.
(I know, I'm a dreamer.)
Interesting. Let me see if I can paraphrase:
"We want it our way. We've always wanted it our way. No one will listen to our infinite wisdom, so we're making threats. Stop the paranoia, will you?"

I've heard that before... wonder where it was? I think it has something to do with the first part of this post... yet, I can't put my finger on it. Still, it seems somehow... different... as if, once again, I'm on the wrong side of the argument despite the argument being exactly the same. Hmmmm. Curious.

btw: I'm still waiting for you to enlighten me on how our antiquated and out-moded constitution should be re-written. You're not going to let me down are you?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Didnt US signed that treaty and later "unsigned" it?
Also US is largest polutant around.
You wanted inspection, you got em. Than you wanted more and more and got most of it. Later you wanted war based on fake evidence (and inspections gave no indication of wmd) but you didnt get it. So you gathered few allies and went in. Now thats real negotiations.
Actually i do feel secure.
Meant it as having support of their goverment wile population was mostly against war. Long live democracy!
Umm it is a test reactor so they can see if fusion is even possible to be used as energy source. That fits sience pretty well.
So? They can build whatever they want on their land. You can build one as well so you can have some "profit" from it (if it even works).