if you're an anti-war protester please give me at least one FACT that supports why you think the US should not go to iraq and get rid of saddam.
anti-war protesters: please give me a fact that supports your argument
- Thread starter vital
- Start date
All the reasons given to go were lies and were reinvented and changed continually as they were revealed as such.
Why don't you give at least one FACT that support you think the US should go to Iraq and get rid of Saddam? you and your warmoger buddies are the one that needs justification, the war is gonna kill thousands you know.
Thousands of Iraqi troops, maybe. And whose fault would that be? Yes, Saddam's for not surrendering before the deadline.
Millions alone have died due to sanctions because of Saddam's non complinace, let alone any of his former and current atrocities against his own people. In 8 days of fighting there has been less deaths than on American highways in that same number of days. Very soon the safety and liberty of 27,000,000 Iraqi's will become reality, as is always the case, the collective is always more important than the individual. The rest of the world will be safer as well.
OK, how about the fact that the oft-quoted Resolution 1441 does not give any UN sanction for military action? (Read it here.) And that according to the UN Charter, there are only two times it is legal to invade a sovereign nation: 1. When it is in direct self-defense of an unprovoked attack, and 2. When a UN Security Council resolution has been passed approving the replacement of the regime. Neither of these conditions has been met with respect to Iraq. (BTW, according to all sources, there is no evidence linking Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. There may have been some overtures made, but there were ideological differences which prevented Saddam and bin Laden from allying.)
How about the fact that the US Constitution has been circumvented in this whole deal? Remember, no president has the right or privilege of declaring war on another country. That takes a vote of Congress. And what was the result of that vote? Oh, yeah, it never happened. A couple of significant points on this from a current lawsuit:
"22. President George W. Bush does not intend to seek a Congressional
declaration of war prior to launching a military invasion of Iraq. Defendant
Bush has made numerous public statements in recent weeks that, as President,
he holds the power to decide whether or not this nation will wage war on Iraq.
23. The United States Congress has not declared war against Iraq.
24. In October 2002, the United States Congress passed a resolution which is not
a declaration of war, properly construed. To the extent that a broad
construction of the resolution confers discretion upon the President to wage
war, the resolution unconstitutionally cedes to the President the power to
decide whether or not to send this nation into war."
The BBC reported that both the CIA and British Intelligence have
recently filed reports stating that Iraq is not a threat to anyone outside of its borders and is not likely to attack another nation unless it is attacked.
Link1
Link2
Link3
Link4
How about the fact that the US Constitution has been circumvented in this whole deal? Remember, no president has the right or privilege of declaring war on another country. That takes a vote of Congress. And what was the result of that vote? Oh, yeah, it never happened. A couple of significant points on this from a current lawsuit:
"22. President George W. Bush does not intend to seek a Congressional
declaration of war prior to launching a military invasion of Iraq. Defendant
Bush has made numerous public statements in recent weeks that, as President,
he holds the power to decide whether or not this nation will wage war on Iraq.
23. The United States Congress has not declared war against Iraq.
24. In October 2002, the United States Congress passed a resolution which is not
a declaration of war, properly construed. To the extent that a broad
construction of the resolution confers discretion upon the President to wage
war, the resolution unconstitutionally cedes to the President the power to
decide whether or not to send this nation into war."
The BBC reported that both the CIA and British Intelligence have
recently filed reports stating that Iraq is not a threat to anyone outside of its borders and is not likely to attack another nation unless it is attacked.
Link1
Link2
Link3
Link4
apoppin
Lifer
As much as we would like to think so, the Coalition is hopelessly UNprepared for war in Iraq.
And what if it is MILLIONS of Iraqi people that get killed along with thousands of coalition troops?
I think our officials are just beginning to realize how difficult this war is going to get.
I have read 1441, and I consider the term "serious consequences" as applied to a country that has already been severely economically sanctioned as "military force".
In respect to the bolded text, two points:
-Bush is allowed to use military force for 30 days, after which he must get sanction from Congress OR withdraw the troops
-Congress has passed a bill authorizing Bush to use "military force" in Iraq. It wasnt a declaration of war, but it is enough to make it legal from this perspective. Whether you think this is good enough to satisfy the legal status is moot for another 20-odd days, its legal till then
Congress has the power to declare war, POTUS has command over the military. According to the War Powers Act, Bush has 30 days to get approval from Congress or to withdraw the troops
In respect to the bolded line in your response, no offence intended, but what you consider 'serious consequences' to be is irrelevant. The UN, by its own charter, must specifically approve the use of military force against a sovereign nation. The UN is composed of relatively intelligent individuals. If they had meant to say 'military action', they would have. Their wording was intended as a threat or a warning, not as a sanction for military action. The word of the law is very clear. "Serious consequences" does not equal "it's okay for the US to invade."
and germany, france, russia, and china also signed un resoltuions regarding this mater, then sold weapons in direct conflict, so how important are un resolutions? If they can sign their name saying one thing, then violate what they say they will uphold, why should the US have even bothered?
I'm sorry that you cant accept the well documented fact that saddam aids, abets, harbors, trains, finances, and arms terrorists. He also has WMD he has shown no inhibition on using them, even on his own people. I for one have no trouble believing he would share his toys with ANYONE that would be willing to unleash them on mainland USA. I really don't care what the rest of the world's opinion is on this issue, America always has and always will retain the right to protect herself, proactively or not.
I'm sorry that you cant accept the well documented fact that saddam aids, abets, harbors, trains, finances, and arms terrorists. He also has WMD he has shown no inhibition on using them, even on his own people. I for one have no trouble believing he would share his toys with ANYONE that would be willing to unleash them on mainland USA. I really don't care what the rest of the world's opinion is on this issue, America always has and always will retain the right to protect herself, proactively or not.
And Powell has said he came out of the negotiations for 1441 thinking it would not be necessary for a second resolution for an invasion. That was his position on the meaning of "serious consequences". What do you think the term "serious consequences" meant in the context of the resolution and the (at the time it was written) situation in iraq?
How is the source from the lawsuit giving you the points labeled #22-24 any more relevant to this than I am? In reality, what anyone on this board thinks "serious consequences" to mean is irrelevant. Same thing for "illegal invasion" or "unconstitutional use of military force".
Frankly, history is going to judge this invasions legality. The UN is too inherently weak to act on it if it was legal or not. What I mean by that is lets say France puts forth a resolution to the effect of "The current invasion is illegal and needs to be stopped". The US or even the UK slaps a veto on it and it goes into the circular file. Which, come to think of it, isnt much of a dissimilar fate in terms of relevance as passed UN resolutions, unless one of the member nations decides to act on it.
EDIT: One thing I forgot to state clearly was to the extent that my opinion on resolution 1441 is irrelevant, so is yours.
well now a return to force is very clearly spelled out, whats the problem then?
Oh the French, Germans, Russians, and Chineese need Saddam to stay in power to get paid, and they don't want the illegal weapons they supplied to be found or worse yet, USED in the war..Like th GPS jamming stations and anti tank missilles.....
Actually, according to the UN charter, it doesn't. The only time the UN has determined it is legal to invade another country (c'mon boys and girls, say it with me) is in response to a direct threat (not an IMPLIED threat) or with UN approval. Neither condition has been satisfied. As a couple of the links show, both the CIA and British intelligence have determined that there is NO REALISTIC THREAT from Saddam's weapons.
I agree completely. And since we cannot settle a matter of opinion, we must obey the LETTER of the law. And the plain fact is that, no matter what, 'Serious consequences' is not literally synonymous with 'US invasion'. The letter of the law does not approve military action, no matter what personal interpretations we may have of it. Unless and until a UN resolution is passed saying "Oh, by the way, we have now set the term 'serious consequences' to equal 'invasion' in the legal books," it will remain illegal.
Oh, and folks.. the 'might makes right' argument has never stood the test of history. Every great society that has resorted to it has always been in the stages of decay. Saying that we should do it because the UN could never sto us, does not add any legitimacy to the issue.
America always has and always will retain the right to protect herself, proactively or not.
what part of that did you not understand? The UN does not decide America's policy, sorry.
what part of that did you not understand? The UN does not decide America's policy, sorry.
According to the US, UK, and the Aussies, it has been given UN approval. According to France, Russia, and China, it hasnt.
But this war isn't about self-defense or protection. Remember, Saddam has no connection to bin Laden or Al Qaeda. Saddam's weapons pose no threat to the US. These are points that US Military authorities have already conceded, as well as intelligence assets from other countries.
If there's no realistic threat, there's no justification.
And if the US ever wants to be part of a world coalition, it must abide by that coalition's rules. It can't just pick and choose the convenient ones.
"Saddam has no connection to bin Laden or Al Qaeda. Saddam's weapons pose no threat to the US."
That is YOUR contention. Do you really think YOU have more access to information than the intelligence of the US,UK, and Israel? BWAAAHHHAAAAAAA
Saddam will CEASE to pose any risk to anyone very soon.
Pray tell what in the world does the US need anyone else for?
That is YOUR contention. Do you really think YOU have more access to information than the intelligence of the US,UK, and Israel? BWAAAHHHAAAAAAA
Saddam will CEASE to pose any risk to anyone very soon.
Pray tell what in the world does the US need anyone else for?
Again, the US, UK, and others interpret "serious consequences" as "military action". I do believe, by definition, military invasion is a serious consequence, possibly the most serious consequence. I'm not saying that all serious consequences are military invasions, but that is about all that is left to apply to Iraq (at the time it was written), and that a military invasion is covered under the term "serious consequence".
The only reason the term "serious consequences" was used instead of an outright declaration that military action would be approved was to appease France (and probably Germany and Russia, too).
apoppin
Lifer
I am not very impressed with the coalition's "intellegence". Saddam IS winning the propaganda war and the coalition is WAY too slow to react - look how long it took to shut down Iraqi TV.
We have NO clue what we about to get into in Baghdad. I predict hundreds of thousands of casualties. :Q
You have the attitude of the ancient Romans . . . THE world power of its day - and it didn't take too long for the REST of the world to destroy the Roman Empire. Our EMPIRE is just as "secure".
Well, considering it was taken out with an experimental EMP bomb, I'd imagine some debate was made as to how to actually do it and was it worth risking the use of an EMP weapon.
I have to quite disagree. Do you honestly think this administration (and in conjunction with the British) just placed 300,000 troops in the area with no anticipation of what was to come? Do you honestly think they don't expect protracted street-by-street fighting? Bush, himself, said this would be a long conflict.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter