Pre-emption strike and Iraq; Do you agree?

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD - <<The war was necessary.>>
Why?

That's why you read the rest of the his post.

I don't see the Iraq situation as being a "pre-emptive" "thingy" I have always felt action against it(by ANY administration) was just a continuation of the 91 campaign. Iraq had a set of things it had to do(and agreed to do) for the ceasefire. The never complied - thus game on.
As a whole - the "pre-emptive" doctrine can be a tricky game and each situation drives it's own outcome. I don't believe in a blanket "pre-emptive" policy - but I won't rule out using such a "tactic".


Iraq had plenty of time to comply, numerous resolutions, enough is enough.

Hurray!!! Ding Ding Ding....We have a winner!!! Somebody finally got it.

Gaard - I've stated my position hundreds of times on this board, infact I'm pretty sure we've had this exact conversation on why it was necessary. Maybe I should just type it all out and post it on my website and link it in my sig - it'd save me a hell of alot of typing

bjc112, here's your prize
:beer::beer:

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD - <<The war was necessary.>>
Why?

That's why you read the rest of the his post.

I don't see the Iraq situation as being a "pre-emptive" "thingy" I have always felt action against it(by ANY administration) was just a continuation of the 91 campaign. Iraq had a set of things it had to do(and agreed to do) for the ceasefire. The never complied - thus game on.
As a whole - the "pre-emptive" doctrine can be a tricky game and each situation drives it's own outcome. I don't believe in a blanket "pre-emptive" policy - but I won't rule out using such a "tactic".


Iraq had plenty of time to comply, numerous resolutions, enough is enough.

Hurray!!! Ding Ding Ding....We have a winner!!! Somebody finally got it.

Gaard - I've stated my position hundreds of times on this board, infact I'm pretty sure we've had this exact conversation on why it was necessary. Maybe I should just type it all out and post it on my website and link it in my sig - it'd save me a hell of alot of typing

bjc112, here's your prize
:beer::beer:

CkG

In other words, ithe war was wanted, but not needed. We were never in any real threat. If anyone disagrees, they can show me the WMD's we were told about, or the attack plans, some such "imminent" threat.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD - <<The war was necessary.>>
Why?

That's why you read the rest of the his post.

I don't see the Iraq situation as being a "pre-emptive" "thingy" I have always felt action against it(by ANY administration) was just a continuation of the 91 campaign. Iraq had a set of things it had to do(and agreed to do) for the ceasefire. The never complied - thus game on.
As a whole - the "pre-emptive" doctrine can be a tricky game and each situation drives it's own outcome. I don't believe in a blanket "pre-emptive" policy - but I won't rule out using such a "tactic".


Iraq had plenty of time to comply, numerous resolutions, enough is enough.

Hurray!!! Ding Ding Ding....We have a winner!!! Somebody finally got it.

Gaard - I've stated my position hundreds of times on this board, infact I'm pretty sure we've had this exact conversation on why it was necessary. Maybe I should just type it all out and post it on my website and link it in my sig - it'd save me a hell of alot of typing

bjc112, here's your prize
:beer::beer:

CkG

In other words, ithe war was wanted, but not needed. We were never in any real threat. If anyone disagrees, they can show me the WMD's we were told about, or the attack plans, some such "imminent" threat.

No - the war was needed....along time ago

<sigh>...I'll try to once again tell you the situation. You can look for the full details in a sig close to you soon

Saddam invaded Kuwait
The US(along with Allies) kicked his ass out and were going to remove him and the threat he posed from the ME.
The UN calls a ceasefire when Saddam agrees to terms set forth, in order to save his ass.
The terms were to be complied with so as to RESTORE International Peace and Security in the area.
Saddam defied this agreement.(ie. BROKE THE AGREEMENT)
Since Saddam broke the agreement - he was STILL a threat to International Peace and Security to the area.
We have an obligation and right to restore said Peace and security as mandated by the UN resolutions.
We are doing so.

Now again - incase you people missed this FACT. Saddam broke the cease-fire agreement. Thus, GAME ON.

I still can't believe you people don't understand these FACTS. Read the UN resolutions regarding this WHOLE Iraq situation - it is quite clear that Saddam didn't come close to upholding his end of the agreement.

CkG

 

[Bigdude]

Bush was right in attacking Iraq, I hope he does it again, in North Korea, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Clinton was wrong, and lied about Kosovo, we should of never bombed them!

 

[her209]

Its teh BRA (Bush-Rumsfield-Ashcroft) Doctorine. Guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Gaard]

We had the right, therefore it was necessary.

And, no, we weren't obligated to do any peace-keeping over there. (IMO, of course)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
We had the right, therefore it was necessary.

And, no, we weren't obligated to do any peace-keeping over there. (IMO, of course)

We were called upon to restore Int'l Peace and bring security to the area. The UN then set guidelines for Iraq to complete this on their own via the cease-fire Knowledge is power my freind - I suggest you look at the history of what the UN called for in regards to the Iraq situation. We took part in the initial push to bring peace and security, and we'd be negligent if we didn't follow through with our pledge to help. IMO, of course.

We had the "right" AND obligation for International Peace and to bring security to the area.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
We had the right, therefore it was necessary.

And, no, we weren't obligated to do any peace-keeping over there. (IMO, of course)

We were called upon to restore Int'l Peace and bring security to the area. The UN then set guidelines for Iraq to complete this on their own via the cease-fire Knowledge is power my freind - I suggest you look at the history of what the UN called for in regards to the Iraq situation. We took part in the initial push to bring peace and security, and we'd be negligent if we didn't follow through with our pledge to help. IMO, of course.

We had the "right" AND obligation for International Peace and to bring security to the area.
CkG

Yo Cad..
In 1441 along with all the 'deplore' and 'reaffirm' and 'whereas' and the like is this bit of wording or ideology.. "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States," You don't suppose this may mean that preemptive anything is not agreed to, other than under provisions of Article 51, by the US? Which BTW were not in existence when we invaded.. At least not proved to exist or proved to not exist conclusively We agreed to the treaty that is the UN Charter so why now is it OK to preempt.

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: asadasif
Do you people agree to the case of war in Iraq though its happenned?

Also, do you people believe in / support Pre-emptive strike thingy?

NOT AT ALL. This Bush Regime's pre-emptive strike has brought nothing but dead american troops and dead iraqi civilians. Additionally, it's disrupted the World and has caused America to REALLY be THE target of Terrorism.

In fact, it's turned America into a terrorist nation for the first time in history. You've got loose cannons at the helm, Bush's Regime, who are worse than any random act of violence that terrorists have ever purpetrated in history.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
We had the right, therefore it was necessary.

And, no, we weren't obligated to do any peace-keeping over there. (IMO, of course)

We were called upon to restore Int'l Peace and bring security to the area. The UN then set guidelines for Iraq to complete this on their own via the cease-fire Knowledge is power my freind - I suggest you look at the history of what the UN called for in regards to the Iraq situation. We took part in the initial push to bring peace and security, and we'd be negligent if we didn't follow through with our pledge to help. IMO, of course.

We had the "right" AND obligation for International Peace and to bring security to the area.
CkG

Yo Cad..
In 1441 along with all the 'deplore' and 'reaffirm' and 'whereas' and the like is this bit of wording or ideology.. "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States," You don't suppose this may mean that preemptive anything is not agreed to other than under provisions of Article 51 by the US? Which BTW were not in existence when we invaded.. At least not proved to exist or proved to not exist conclusively We agreed to the treaty that is the UN Charter so why now is it OK to preempt.

You seem to miss the fact that just because they are "sovereign" doesn't mean they can't sustain a forced "govermental change" The borders of Iraq are still intact - it is still called Iraq.
Again - I don't see this as "pre-emptive" This is a continuation of the previous conflict which was put on hold due to the ceasefire agreement. What happens when someone breaks a cease-fire agreement? Oh yeah - that's right....the other side resumes too

If you and other's wish to pretend that Iraq wasn't a threat - fine - be blind. The UN provided Iraq(Saddam) with an opportunity to save his ass and to show that he could bring Int'l peace and security to the area by complying with a set of terms. Saddam agreed to these terms. Saddam broke these terms - thus Saddam didn't provide Int'l Peace and security to the area. We(and Allies) were going to provide that before the UN and Saddam agreed to the terms and thus now we must provide that service again.

To all you nay-sayers - how much longer would you have given Saddam to comply? 1 month? 1 year? 1 decade? MORE? Saddam was given MANY chances to comply. He was given one last opportunity to do so - he failed. He was asked to leave - he didn't. He was given a warning that we were coming - he didn't leave.

Saddam called out bluff, only this time we weren't bluffing. Saddam is a fool.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
We had the right, therefore it was necessary.

And, no, we weren't obligated to do any peace-keeping over there. (IMO, of course)

We were called upon to restore Int'l Peace and bring security to the area. The UN then set guidelines for Iraq to complete this on their own via the cease-fire Knowledge is power my freind - I suggest you look at the history of what the UN called for in regards to the Iraq situation. We took part in the initial push to bring peace and security, and we'd be negligent if we didn't follow through with our pledge to help. IMO, of course.

We had the "right" AND obligation for International Peace and to bring security to the area.
CkG

Yo Cad..
In 1441 along with all the 'deplore' and 'reaffirm' and 'whereas' and the like is this bit of wording or ideology.. "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States," You don't suppose this may mean that preemptive anything is not agreed to other than under provisions of Article 51 by the US? Which BTW were not in existence when we invaded.. At least not proved to exist or proved to not exist conclusively We agreed to the treaty that is the UN Charter so why now is it OK to preempt.

You seem to miss the fact that just because they are "sovereign" doesn't mean they can't sustain a forced "govermental change" The borders of Iraq are still intact - it is still called Iraq.
Again - I don't see this as "pre-emptive" This is a continuation of the previous conflict which was put on hold due to the ceasefire agreement. What happens when someone breaks a cease-fire agreement? Oh yeah - that's right....the other side resumes too
Not forgetting that ALL the previous Iraqi resolutions were incorporated into 1441 might be a reasonable thing to do. The other side you reference was the UN members who remained siezed of the situation... sovereign deals with ALL the issue of a nation not just the physical borders.. you stretched on this one...

If you and other's wish to pretend that Iraq wasn't a threat - fine - be blind. The UN provided Iraq(Saddam) with an opportunity to save his ass and to show that he could bring Int'l peace and security to the area by complying with a set of terms. Saddam agreed to these terms. Saddam broke these terms - thus Saddam didn't provide Int'l Peace and security to the area. We(and Allies) were going to provide that before the UN and Saddam agreed to the terms and thus now we must provide that service again.

Blind... are there WMD bouncing about that everyone can't see. Baby invisable bio germs and large invisable missles... didn't think about that. The 'we' you refer to are the member states of the UN. They did not give the US authority to invade. They, the UN, have the authority by virtue of the treaty we and the other member states signed to do or not do anything or everything to establish order.

To all you nay-sayers - how much longer would you have given Saddam to comply? 1 month? 1 year? 1 decade? MORE? Saddam was given MANY chances to comply. He was given one last opportunity to do so - he failed. He was asked to leave - he didn't. He was given a warning that we were coming - he didn't leave.

Saddam called out bluff, only this time we weren't bluffing. Saddam is a fool.

Not much you can do about a vigilante is there. SH probably assumed the UN and ALL its members would not attack given the illegal nature of such an act. He didn't leave his country under duress... Gee CAD.. Would you? If the local police officer said she was gonna enter your home and eat your food after the highest court in the land said not to would you think she'd heed the authority?

CkG

You can dance all around the invasion issue but, other than Article 51 defense authority the US had no right to do anything regarding Iraq without UN authority. The authority they sought but were not given.

 

[PainTrain]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
We had the right, therefore it was necessary.

And, no, we weren't obligated to do any peace-keeping over there. (IMO, of course)

We were called upon to restore Int'l Peace and bring security to the area. The UN then set guidelines for Iraq to complete this on their own via the cease-fire Knowledge is power my freind - I suggest you look at the history of what the UN called for in regards to the Iraq situation. We took part in the initial push to bring peace and security, and we'd be negligent if we didn't follow through with our pledge to help. IMO, of course.

We had the "right" AND obligation for International Peace and to bring security to the area.
CkG

Yo Cad..
In 1441 along with all the 'deplore' and 'reaffirm' and 'whereas' and the like is this bit of wording or ideology.. "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States," You don't suppose this may mean that preemptive anything is not agreed to other than under provisions of Article 51 by the US? Which BTW were not in existence when we invaded.. At least not proved to exist or proved to not exist conclusively We agreed to the treaty that is the UN Charter so why now is it OK to preempt.

You seem to miss the fact that just because they are "sovereign" doesn't mean they can't sustain a forced "govermental change" The borders of Iraq are still intact - it is still called Iraq.
Again - I don't see this as "pre-emptive" This is a continuation of the previous conflict which was put on hold due to the ceasefire agreement. What happens when someone breaks a cease-fire agreement? Oh yeah - that's right....the other side resumes too

If you and other's wish to pretend that Iraq wasn't a threat - fine - be blind. The UN provided Iraq(Saddam) with an opportunity to save his ass and to show that he could bring Int'l peace and security to the area by complying with a set of terms. Saddam agreed to these terms. Saddam broke these terms - thus Saddam didn't provide Int'l Peace and security to the area. We(and Allies) were going to provide that before the UN and Saddam agreed to the terms and thus now we must provide that service again.

To all you nay-sayers - how much longer would you have given Saddam to comply? 1 month? 1 year? 1 decade? MORE? Saddam was given MANY chances to comply. He was given one last opportunity to do so - he failed. He was asked to leave - he didn't. He was given a warning that we were coming - he didn't leave.

Saddam called out bluff, only this time we weren't bluffing. Saddam is a fool.

CkG

Ohhhhh... I get it now. Iraq invaded Kuwaitt again and I missed the whole nab-derned thing! Hell ys it's a continuation of 91', who the hell are the Iraqi's to go pickin on them poor Kuwaiti's again...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
You can dance all around the invasion issue but, other than Article 51 defense authority the US had no right to do anything regarding Iraq without UN authority. The authority they sought but were not given.

No - you can't just toss out the CEASE-FIRE agreement. We(and allies) stopped because of it. Saddam broke it. Game on.

Pain - I think you need to understand what cease-fire means, just like my good freind Luny does

CkG

 

[PainTrain]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
You can dance all around the invasion issue but, other than Article 51 defense authority the US had no right to do anything regarding Iraq without UN authority. The authority they sought but were not given.

No - you can't just toss out the CEASE-FIRE agreement. We(and allies) stopped because of it. Saddam broke it. Game on.

Pain - I think you need to understand what cease-fire means, just like my good freind Luny does

CkG

What ceasefire do you speak of that Iraq broke? Was it done by the alleged handlings of the mysterious WMD's? Did Iraq aggress it's neighbors? The onyl thing I can think that Iraq did that could be considered grounds for action was kicking the weapons inspectors out, but I hold the term's "ground for action" and "all out war" into two entirely differnt realms of applicability.


Anyhow, I could be uninformed. But exactly how did I raq break a ceasefire?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PainTrain

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
You can dance all around the invasion issue but, other than Article 51 defense authority the US had no right to do anything regarding Iraq without UN authority. The authority they sought but were not given.

No - you can't just toss out the CEASE-FIRE agreement. We(and allies) stopped because of it. Saddam broke it. Game on.

Pain - I think you need to understand what cease-fire means, just like my good freind Luny does

CkG

What ceasefire do you speak of that Iraq broke? Was it done by the alleged handlings of the mysterious WMD's? Did Iraq aggress it's neighbors? The onyl thing I can think that Iraq did that could be considered grounds for action was kicking the weapons inspectors out, but I hold the term's "ground for action" and "all out war" into two entirely differnt realms of applicability.


Anyhow, I could be uninformed. But exactly how did I raq break a ceasefire?

Go get yourself some education on the topic. Here is the link to the info you need to become educated on this issue. Start with Resolution 660 waaaayyyyy back in 1990

Pay close attention to 678 and 687

CkG

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

...and don't skip over resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March
1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001, and, of course, 1441....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
...and don't skip over resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March
1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001, and, of course, 1441....

Oh, and since the other thread was locked. (how convenient

:|)
Care to tell us what your stance was when Clinton sent 350+ missiles screaming into Iraq? Again - since I have to say this everytime I bring up Clinton(the hero of the 90s

) - It isn't an "excuse" for Bush - it is to show the inconsistent nature of the arguments, accusations, and positions the left now embraces.

My position has been the same throughout - has yours? Saddam's removal was VERY necessary due to his unwillingness to provide Int'l peace and security to the area by complying with the cease-fire resolution.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

CAD and JG,
The resolution that is missing from all the links and references is the one that gives authority for the US and 'The Willing' to invade. That was rejected. So regardless of what the prior resolutions said (all part by reference of 1441) there does not exist the authority to invade. Even the British dropped that argument (of inferred authority) when faced with the reality of the diplospeak contained in those resolutions. As a member of the UN the US had but one option to gain access to Iraq and that was Article 51 of the Charter. That is what they used... WMD and the exigent circumstance of their immanent use against us and others.

edit to add a space..

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
...and don't skip over resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March
1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001, and, of course, 1441....

Oh, and since the other thread was locked. (how convenient

:|)
Care to tell us what your stance was when Clinton sent 350+ missiles screaming into Iraq? Again - since I have to say this everytime I bring up Clinton(the hero of the 90s

) - It isn't an "excuse" for Bush - it is to show the inconsistent nature of the arguments, accusations, and positions the left now embraces.

My position has been the same throughout - has yours? Saddam's removal was VERY necessary due to his unwillingness to provide Int'l peace and security to the area by complying with the cease-fire resolution.

CkG

Even if the Dub had to lie to the American People to get their support!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD and JG,
The resolution that is missing from all the links and references is the one that gives authority for the US and 'The Willing' to invade. That was rejected. So regardless of what the prior resolutions said (all part by reference of 1441) there does not exist the authority to invade. Even the British dropped that argument (of inferred authority) when faced with the reality of the diplospeak contained in those resolutions. As a member of the UN the US had but one option to gain access to Iraq and that was Article 51 of the Charter. That is what they used... WMD and the exigent circumstance of their immanent use against us and others.

edit to add a space..

I don't buy that. The absence of a new vote to authorize the use of force has no bearing on Iraq's compliance, or lack there of. The UN had already approved such force when it sought Int'l Peace and security in the area. Iraq was supposed to provide such via compliance with the terms of the cease-fire. Iraq was NEVER in compliance - and thus did not provide Int'l Peace and security in the area - which the UN demanded.

CkG

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Saddam must not be prepared to defy the will - be permitted, excuse me, to defy the will of the international community. Without a firm response, he would have been emboldened to do that again and again.

Our objectives in this military action were clear: to degrade Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programme and related delivery systems as well as his capacity to attack his neighbours.


So long as Saddam remains in power, he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD and JG,
The resolution that is missing from all the links and references is the one that gives authority for the US and 'The Willing' to invade. That was rejected. So regardless of what the prior resolutions said (all part by reference of 1441) there does not exist the authority to invade. Even the British dropped that argument (of inferred authority) when faced with the reality of the diplospeak contained in those resolutions. As a member of the UN the US had but one option to gain access to Iraq and that was Article 51 of the Charter. That is what they used... WMD and the exigent circumstance of their immanent use against us and others.

edit to add a space..

I don't buy that. The absence of a new vote to authorize the use of force has no bearing on Iraq's compliance, or lack there of. The UN had already approved such force when it sought Int'l Peace and security in the area. Iraq was supposed to provide such when it was deemed they were in full compliance with the terms of the cease-fire. Iraq was NEVER in compliance - and thus did not provide Int'l Peace and security in the area - which the UN demanded.

CkG

Then your argument is based on a premise that differs from the interpretation of the UN members of The Security Counsel who hold that authority and they don't agree with you. But, I see why you persist in this argument. It's just that the words they use and what they mean and what they are accepted to mean do not give invasion authority to any unilateral or allied group to force SH to comply. This is what they have said. This is what the staff authors have said. This is what Blix, who drafted many resolutions, said. It is the reason Jack Snow dropped that argument early on. But, I'll bet when they read your threads they'll revisit it.. and drop the exigent defense idea..

I edit to add I know it is Straw..

 

[PainTrain]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
...and don't skip over resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March
1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001, and, of course, 1441....

I'm rifling through those resolutions as fast possible on ym dial-up, so while I'm doing that just make it easier on us all and cite a source that backs up the claim of a "ceasefire" being broken. From what I've gathered from resolutions 660,661, they simply spell out what Iraq had done to Kuwaitt necessitating reaction from the UN.

678, on the other hand, spells out the terms of post war Iraqi compliance. Maybe this is where you got mixed up with the term ceasefire as it states on item 1 Page 12: "Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goal of the present resolution including a formal ceasefire." What you've done is jumped to the conclusion that Iraq indeed had WMD's based on our intellignce reports (as the Bushies suggest) but in truth there were plenty of instances coming to light finally that the Bush cabinet was told that there was no immenant threat, that there were no WMD's to be found in Iraq. Ok, so then you say "well that's because they've moved them to another country." Yes, that tactic worked well for the Iraqi Air Force in the first gulf war. They didn't get their planes back.

The fact is, we had weapons inspectors IN IRAQ, doing their job, and requested more time to find EVIDENCE of WMD's. They had not found this evidence when they were kicked out by us leading up to the war. Iraq therefore did not violate the UN resolutions, did not violate the ceasfire. Obviously, since they didn't aggress anyone and we have no more proof now of WMD's than we had before the war.

And here we are quoting exerpts from the UN resolutions, as if you intend them to illustrate justification for our war waging. If the UN wanted us to go to war, they would've indicated as such by not outright condemning our action and refusing military support.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD and JG,
The resolution that is missing from all the links and references is the one that gives authority for the US and 'The Willing' to invade. That was rejected. So regardless of what the prior resolutions said (all part by reference of 1441) there does not exist the authority to invade. Even the British dropped that argument (of inferred authority) when faced with the reality of the diplospeak contained in those resolutions. As a member of the UN the US had but one option to gain access to Iraq and that was Article 51 of the Charter. That is what they used... WMD and the exigent circumstance of their immanent use against us and others.

edit to add a space..

I don't think CkG or JohnGalt "gets" it, our boys are getting killed over there in Iraq on a daily basis. It's a hotbed of anti-americanism there right now as well as a magnet for terrorist groups. In fifteen years it could turn out to be another Iran, a theocratic islamic miltant state.

Yes saddam was a threat, I agree. But to what degree? Isn't North Korea's crazy leader more of a threat since he says he has nukes? Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction or even the remote capability to launch them at us. Bush overstated the threat and dragged us into a quagmire and hundreds of billions money pit... where there are no easy way out.

While CkG and Galt are still stucking in 1998 blaming Clinton, liberals, but never accepting the fact that they were just plain wrong; the rest of with a right mind know it's time for a change of leadership in this country.

 

[Red Dawn]

So long as Saddam remains in power, he will remain a threat to his people, his region and the world.

Well now that he's gone it looks like the title of "LEADER WHO IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO PEACE" belongs to the Dubya