Originally posted by: SP33Demon
And yet we have found a hidden underground nuclear plant.
Do you have a link or a reference for this? I'm not saying it's wrong, but I haven't heard this before.
Yes we haven't been shown definitive proof of terrorist ties, but who are you to say there isn't?
I don't bear the burden of proof; I'm not the one alleging terrorist ties. We can't justify an attack on another country based merely on suspicions - we must present proof.
The rush was because Iraq has been in violation of 1441 over a decade and somebody has to enforce it because the talks were getting nowhere.
First, for accuracy, Resolution 1441 was passed late last year. This resolution asserts that Iraq was in violation of U.N. sanctions established after the Gulf War in 1991. The U.N. then sent in inspectors to verify compliance with 1441.
Whether Iraq was in material breach of 1441 is open for contention. They certainly weren't cooperating enthusiastically - not surprising - but they were making efforts to comply. For example, the began destroying their el Samoud (sp?) missles even though Iraq claimed they did not violate the 1991 restrictions. Were there other violations? Perhaps, that's why the inspectors were there.
More importantly, the U.S. can't claim U.N. "law" as the basis for the attack on the one hand while ignoring the lack of U.N. support for the attack on the other. Either the U.N. applies or it doesn't. We can't pick and choose which parts are convenient and which aren't. The Security Council as a body passed 1441. The Security Council as a body did NOT authorize the invasion of Iraq. The Security Council wanted to continue the inspections program, finding no clear and present danger that required an immediate military response. To date, while Bush keeps harping about "eleven years", he has yet to provide proof of any immediate threat that precluded letting the inspections continue for a few months, maybe even a year or more. Iraq was not an imminent threat to the U.S. or the world. Time was on our side.
You're jumping the gun now. You think we can just magically push a button and be granted access to all of the hidden underground bunkers Saddam has built? We just arrived in Bagdad a couple days ago for Christ's sake!
I agree that we might still discover WMD's, or at least chemical or biological agents. However, the fact that we haven't yet, and the fact that Iraq hasn't used
any yet surely raises the question: were they there or is this another fabrication? Remember, too, that the original claim was Iraq had mass quantities of WMD's, enough to kill tens of thousands of people. This is looking more and more unlikely. This leads to another question: if Iraq has no significant amounts of WMD's/agents, where is the great danger to the world that justified our attack?
Once again, there is classified information that Bush acted upon. Apparently Powell's classified presentation was enough to sway NINE OF FIFTEEN UN Security Council members to agree with us. Last I checked, that was a majority.
According to multiple reports based on intervews with officials from the U.S. and other countries, there were two pieces of evidence that formed the foundation for justifying our actions. While we had lots of other evidence, it was all indirect, circumstantial, or unconfirmed.
The first evidence we presented was "proof" that Iraq was trying to purchase large quantities of enriched uranium in Africa. Based on this evidence, the U.S. Congress agreed to abdicate its war responsibilities to Bush, and the U.N. Security Council passed 1441. This "proof" was later found to be completely fabricated - Iraq wasn't trying to buy uranium after all. Oops. Some of our spineless Congress-critters have since expressed regret that they gave Bush this authority based on false information.
The second evidence presented was the testimony of the Iraqi defector who used to head Iraq's chemical weapons program. We later learned that the U.S. neglected to provide his full testimony, specifically the part where he said he could personally confirm that those weapons had all been destroyed before he left Iraq.
Finally, re. the "majority" support in the Security Council - first, we don't know the count since Bush lacked the conviction and integrity to put it to a vote. Second, we can't really get too boastful about gaining the support of small countries that are highly dependent on the goodwill of the U.S. They will rubber-stamp anything we do, especially when they are given the full court press by the Bush administration. What really matters is the support of other peer countries who can tell us where to stick it when they disagree with us. On that front, we made a miserable showing. The simple fact is that the rest of the world powers, upon seeing all this secret evidence we offered, still decided that a war was not yet justified.
And we all know why the big guns didn't agree, it was purely based on $$$$ and political enmity towards this administration.
We don't all know that. While some have speculated as to their motives, it is equally possible that they felt the war was unjustified.
As to their enmity towards the Bush administration, why is that? Might it have something to do with the way Cowboy George arrogantly ignores everyone and everything except what his own inner circle whispers in his ear? Might it have anything to do with the way the U.S. has shunned every international initiative to improve the safety and security of the world? In my opinion, you're mixing cause and effect (but that's really a separate topic).
The answer is, we can't afford it. Can any country "AFFORD" any war?? Think about it... Any successful country that has maximized their money to important areas such as medicine, education, and defense will have some type of deficit and will be invested, not just sitting in an account for us to tap into whenever we feel we will need it for war. The truth is, I have been paying for excessive spending by my parents' generation, so how is this different?? That's like arguing for world peace, the deficit will never be eradicated/reach a solution in our lifetime IMO
I don't accept the premise that debt is inevitable for successful nations. On the contrary, a truly prosperous nation should run a surplus, or at least break even by reducing taxes appropriately.
Re. the current deficit, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Drawing the line between justified and unjustified debt is pretty subjective. In my opinion, of course, the cost of a war is only justified when there is absolutely no other choice.
As an aside, I'm finding it awfully ironic that the deficit shrunk tremendously under that "spend, spend, spend" Democrat Clinton, yet has reached record levels under those "fiscally conservative" Republicans, Reagan and Bush. I'm not sure either party remembers what it is supposed to stand for any more.
Your opinion for "a thousand Osamas" is wrong I hope. Even if it is right, I'll trade 1000 suicide bombings from Al Queda to 27 million people who embrace freedom, along with the millions of Americans who are willing to die for our freedom with the same zeal that suicide bombers are willing to kill themselves...
I too hope I am wrong about increased terrorism here, and I share your goal of 27 million free Iraqis. I question the means, not the result.
Peace
