NationStates Jolt Archive

I left out World War II since I figure most of us would agree on that one. I left out Iraq as a current conflict and Afghanistan because those are our current theaters. ~ Michael.

Somalia was necessary, we should have "stayed the course"; nuke their warlord butts.

You left out one that I consider justified.

Afghanistan.


Just wish they had stuck around and finished the job.

Everyone notice that a Warlord appropriated a city there today too?

-Z-

I voted for Haiti based on the fact it posed a risk to the coastal states with the potential for hordes of illegal migrants coming over. It posed a real risk to security.

I was against the Bosnia intervention, because basically, that was Europe's backyard. The French and German governments royally f-d up the situation by accepting Croatian seperation much too hastily precipitating Serbian military action in order to stabilize their assets in the region.

Kosovo was also unecessary. The basic collapse and inability of the Albanian government to deal with its internal problems provided ample supply of weapons and money to the KLA which had been listed as a terrorist organisation. The mass genocide was blown out of proportion, and the Serbian military losses were minimal. The only political loser in that situation was Macedonia which somehow inherited the entire problem by having refugees flood their border and seeing themselves forced to accept them by NATO leaders.

Somalia was also a mistake. No clear objective and no political will to go the extra mile to complete objectives. Had they stormed Mogadishu after having dropped several "daisy-cutters" and with heavy armor then maybe things would have been different. Humanitarian missions are all fine and dandy, but the soldiers involved should have the possiblity to use all means necessary to ensure the mission succeeds (i.e. Shoot first and ask questions later, meaning if I see you holding an AK-47 you are dead, no questions asked.)

Just my opinion. :?

how about the revolutionary war?

how about the revolutionary war?

:roll: So WWII wasnt justified?

btw poll maker,you should have put Korea, and Vietnam in there.

For some reason, EVERYTHING we do is injustified and imperialist. So why bother on NS anymore? Even the Revolutionary War is seen as an unnessecary war (if you know the people I know!)

how about the revolutionary war?

:roll: So WWII wasnt justified?

btw poll maker,you should have put Korea, and Vietnam in there.


Yes I suppose WW2 was necessary.......Shouldnt have bothered with the nazis though *puts on flame proof vest*

how about the revolutionary war?

:roll: So WWII wasnt justified?

btw poll maker,you should have put Korea, and Vietnam in there.


Yes I suppose WW2 was necessary.......Shouldnt have bothered with the nazis though *puts on flame proof vest*

*gets outanti- flame-proof flamethrower*

Yes, there is a rather large gaping hole left by you not including Korea and Vietnam, the former of which I believe was justified and carried out correctly (To a point), the latter of which was justified, however botched. though I think Haiti was the last military action I agreed with.

I cant agree with the whole Bosnia/Kosovo action because frankly, if you think Iraq II was done on false pretense, then you HAVE to think Bosnia/Kosovo was done as well under false pretense. All of this happening around the same time as Clinton is saying he didnt have certain sexual acts and so forth. So yea, the last legit action was Haiti.

Afganistan or World War 2

For everyone asking for more options, the poll option limits you to 5, so Love Poetry didn't have much choice. He took five of the most recent for his choices.

Personally, I'd go with Bosnia, but that's just me.

What about Iraq?

WHo ever thinks going after Ben Hiding wasn't justified is a moron. there is no doubt in my mind that was justified. Also Going in to Iraq is justified just because we didn't find WMD doesn't mean it wasn't justified look at how many UN Sancstion He broke

Also Going in to Iraq is justified just because we didn't find WMD doesn't mean it wasn't justified look at how many UN Sancstion He broke

I guess this means Israel is next... After all, the number of UN resolutions that Israel is in breach with exceeds the one's of Saddam's Iraq. But thats not going to happen, is it? Nope. For as we all know Israel is buddy buddy with that same USA whose goverment is so well known for its double standards.

none off the above,
the last justified military action by the US was Iraqi Freedom, and before that it was in Afgainistain.

you left both out.

get educated before you post another poll

You might try reading the original post before you make stupid comments, New Auburnland. Love Poetry left them out of the poll "because they are our current theaters."

Somalia was necessary, we should have "stayed the course"; nuke their warlord butts.


We never had to go to Somalia. We could have watched them kill each other but you know America, always there to butt-it. I'm sad to be an American!!!

Afghanistan (Taliban and Osama Bin Laden)

You might try reading the original post before you make stupid comments, New Auburnland. Love Poetry left them out of the poll "because they are our current theaters."
Whatevah! Whatevah! I do what I want!

WHo ever thinks going after Ben Hiding wasn't justified is a moron. there is no doubt in my mind that was justified. Also Going in to Iraq is justified just because we didn't find WMD doesn't mean it wasn't justified look at how many UN Sancstion He broke
Charter of the United Nations

Article 2

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

While Iraq may have been in violation of some sanctions, the UN did NOT sanction the US to attack Iraq, contrary to Article 2 number 4

Therefore the war was not justified.

You might try reading the original post before you make stupid comments, New Auburnland. Love Poetry left them out of the poll "because they are our current theaters."
Whatevah! Whatevah! I do what I want!Nice with the Southpark.

What about Iraq?
Definitely illegal.

I see you left out World War One...

america was hardly involved with ww1 or ww2 anyway, so why would they by on the poll

What? You can't be serious.

D-Day, the invasion of Italy, of North Africa, of Germany itself...

America may not have played a pivotal role in WWI, but it sure as hell did in WWII.

america was hardly involved with ww1 or ww2 anyway, so why would they by on the poll

Yea I'm pretty sure the Japanese lost on their own. Right? I'm pretty sure the Australiains managed to build within the span of 4-5 years close to 45 Fleet Carriers with numerous smaller Jeep Carriers. :roll:

america was hardly involved with ww1 or ww2 anyway, so why would they by on the poll

Ah, the sweet voice of Revisionist History, reinventing the Past to justify the Present.

Tell me another one-please.

As for the current Iraq war not being legit by UN Standards...the US was abiding by the following Security Council resolutions:

3 Apr 1991 Security Council resolution 687 (1991), Section C, decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept, under international supervision, the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometres, and related production facilities and equipment. It also provides for establishment of a system of ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq’s compliance with the ban on these weapons and missiles. Requires Iraq to make a declaration, within 15 days, of the location, amounts and types of all such items.


15 Aug 1991 Security Council resolution 707 (1991), demands that Iraq provide without further delay full, final and complete disclosures of its proscribed weapons and programmes, as required by resolution 687 (1991).


15 Oct 1994 Security Council resolution 949 (1994), demands that Iraq "cooperate fully" with UNSCOM and that it withdraw all military units deployed to southern Iraq to their original positions. Iraq thereafter withdraws its forces and resumes its work with the Commission.


12 Jun 1996 Security Council resolution 1060 (1996), terms Iraq's actions a clear violation of the provisions of the Council's resolutions. It also demands that Iraq grant immediate and unrestricted access to all sites designated for inspection by UNSCOM.


21 Jun 1997 Security Council resolution 1115 (1997), condemns Iraq's actions and demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any sites for inspection and officials for interviews by UNSCOM. The Council also calls for an additional report on Iraq's cooperation with the Commission and suspends the periodic sanctions reviews.


23 Oct 1997 Security Council resolution 1134 (1997), demands that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission, continues the suspension of the periodic sanctions reviews and foreshadows additional sanctions pending a further report on Iraq's cooperation with UNSCOM.


12 Nov 1997 Security Council resolution 1137 (1997), condemns the continued violation by Iraq of its obligations, including its unacceptable decision to seek to impose conditions on cooperation with UNSCOM. It also imposes a travel restriction on Iraqi officials who are responsible for or participated in the instances of non-compliance.


9 Sep 1998 Security Council resolution 1194 (1998) unanimously condemns Iraq’s decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM, terming Iraq’s actions a totally unacceptable contravention of Iraq’s obligations; demands Iraq rescind its decision and decides not to conduct the 60-day sanctions reviews until Iraq does so and the Commission reports to the Council that it is satisfied that it has been able to exercise its full range of activities, including inspections.


This is all taken from UNSCOMs Chronology. As a member of the permenant security council, the US was obligated to enforce the law, even if no one else was willing to do it. Frankly the UN has shown itself to be corrupt, toothless, and on more than one occassion harmful to humanity.

As for the current Iraq war not being legit by UN Standards...the US was abiding by the following Security Council resolutions:

3 Apr 1991 Security Council resolution 687 (1991), Section C, decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept, under international supervision, the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometres, and related production facilities and equipment. It also provides for establishment of a system of ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq’s compliance with the ban on these weapons and missiles. Requires Iraq to make a declaration, within 15 days, of the location, amounts and types of all such items.


15 Aug 1991 Security Council resolution 707 (1991), demands that Iraq provide without further delay full, final and complete disclosures of its proscribed weapons and programmes, as required by resolution 687 (1991).


15 Oct 1994 Security Council resolution 949 (1994), demands that Iraq "cooperate fully" with UNSCOM and that it withdraw all military units deployed to southern Iraq to their original positions. Iraq thereafter withdraws its forces and resumes its work with the Commission.


12 Jun 1996 Security Council resolution 1060 (1996), terms Iraq's actions a clear violation of the provisions of the Council's resolutions. It also demands that Iraq grant immediate and unrestricted access to all sites designated for inspection by UNSCOM.


21 Jun 1997 Security Council resolution 1115 (1997), condemns Iraq's actions and demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any sites for inspection and officials for interviews by UNSCOM. The Council also calls for an additional report on Iraq's cooperation with the Commission and suspends the periodic sanctions reviews.


23 Oct 1997 Security Council resolution 1134 (1997), demands that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission, continues the suspension of the periodic sanctions reviews and foreshadows additional sanctions pending a further report on Iraq's cooperation with UNSCOM.


12 Nov 1997 Security Council resolution 1137 (1997), condemns the continued violation by Iraq of its obligations, including its unacceptable decision to seek to impose conditions on cooperation with UNSCOM. It also imposes a travel restriction on Iraqi officials who are responsible for or participated in the instances of non-compliance.


9 Sep 1998 Security Council resolution 1194 (1998) unanimously condemns Iraq’s decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM, terming Iraq’s actions a totally unacceptable contravention of Iraq’s obligations; demands Iraq rescind its decision and decides not to conduct the 60-day sanctions reviews until Iraq does so and the Commission reports to the Council that it is satisfied that it has been able to exercise its full range of activities, including inspections.


This is all taken from UNSCOMs Chronology. As a member of the permenant security council, the US was obligated to enforce the law, even if no one else was willing to do it. Frankly the UN has shown itself to be corrupt, toothless, and on more than one occassion harmful to humanity.

Oh, and i suppose the next one on the list is israël, considering they have broken more UN resolutions than iraq and practicly every other country in the world. As a member of the permenant security council, the US is obligated to enforce the law, even if no one else is willing to do it. I think we all see this wont happen. This clearly shows that iraq breaking a few UN resolutions was not the reason they went to war, fighting terrorism wasn't one either and i suppose the non-existing wmd were not the real reason either (allthough now they are blaming it on the CIA, ... ). Then wat is left? oil, power, electorial gain (allthoug the outcome of the war turns out to be not so good for electorial gain), ... ?

You left out one that I consider justified.

Afghanistan.


Just wish they had stuck around and finished the job.

Everyone notice that a Warlord appropriated a city there today too?

-Z-

I agree.. and no , not just because he's my husband.. the question was "what was the last" and Afghanistan fits the bill.

I'd vote for Bosnia, but the US really shouldn't have been involved. The whole Yugoslavia ordeal should have been Russia's responsibility, since the Slavs there are cousins to the Russians (anyone remember how WWI started?). I'd vote for Somalia, but that wasn't really a US military action, it was a UN action. I'd vote for Haiti, but I don't really remember what that was all about. So I'm going to vote for the first Gulf War. We were asked to come in and help Kuwait, the UN authorized it, and we actually had massive global support.

how about the revolutionary war?
I'd say the 7 year war.

The mass genocide was blown out of proportion.

I have a freind who was a forensic Dude. It was his job to Dig up the bodies and collect evidence for the hauge. Believe me. It wasnt blown out of proportion.

As for the current Iraq war not being legit by UN Standards...the US was abiding by the following Security Council resolutions:

3 Apr 1991 Security Council resolution 687 (1991), Section C, decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept, under international supervision, the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometres, and related production facilities and equipment. It also provides for establishment of a system of ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq’s compliance with the ban on these weapons and missiles. Requires Iraq to make a declaration, within 15 days, of the location, amounts and types of all such items.


15 Aug 1991 Security Council resolution 707 (1991), demands that Iraq provide without further delay full, final and complete disclosures of its proscribed weapons and programmes, as required by resolution 687 (1991).


15 Oct 1994 Security Council resolution 949 (1994), demands that Iraq "cooperate fully" with UNSCOM and that it withdraw all military units deployed to southern Iraq to their original positions. Iraq thereafter withdraws its forces and resumes its work with the Commission.


12 Jun 1996 Security Council resolution 1060 (1996), terms Iraq's actions a clear violation of the provisions of the Council's resolutions. It also demands that Iraq grant immediate and unrestricted access to all sites designated for inspection by UNSCOM.


21 Jun 1997 Security Council resolution 1115 (1997), condemns Iraq's actions and demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any sites for inspection and officials for interviews by UNSCOM. The Council also calls for an additional report on Iraq's cooperation with the Commission and suspends the periodic sanctions reviews.


23 Oct 1997 Security Council resolution 1134 (1997), demands that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission, continues the suspension of the periodic sanctions reviews and foreshadows additional sanctions pending a further report on Iraq's cooperation with UNSCOM.


12 Nov 1997 Security Council resolution 1137 (1997), condemns the continued violation by Iraq of its obligations, including its unacceptable decision to seek to impose conditions on cooperation with UNSCOM. It also imposes a travel restriction on Iraqi officials who are responsible for or participated in the instances of non-compliance.


9 Sep 1998 Security Council resolution 1194 (1998) unanimously condemns Iraq’s decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM, terming Iraq’s actions a totally unacceptable contravention of Iraq’s obligations; demands Iraq rescind its decision and decides not to conduct the 60-day sanctions reviews until Iraq does so and the Commission reports to the Council that it is satisfied that it has been able to exercise its full range of activities, including inspections.


This is all taken from UNSCOMs Chronology. As a member of the permenant security council, the US was obligated to enforce the law, even if no one else was willing to do it. Frankly the UN has shown itself to be corrupt, toothless, and on more than one occassion harmful to humanity.
I challenge you to demonstrate how the US was "obligated to enforce the law".
Who gave the US this obligation?
Why did the US order UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq?

Using your methodology, the US would have been "obligated" to attack Israel for their lengthy list of violations of UN resolutions. Instead, the US used its' veto power to squash many sanctions against Israel. The big difference here is that Israel was using weapons against Palestinians, whereas Iraq was not.

Why the double standard?

I'd say the last one was the Oklahoma bombings

I'd say the last one was the Oklahoma bombings

To both CanuckHeaven and Illich Jackal:

You are both either incredibly naive and shortsighted when it comes to foreign relations, or your both kidding me. Why the double standard? Well because 1)Israel is an ally of the US, and Iraq wasnt. 2)The US doesnt allow condemnations of Israel to pass in the Security Council,ever.Not since the 1950s when the US told the Irsaelis to pull out of Egypt did we ever opennly act out against them in the UN. 3)The obligation to enforce the law, is at the US's discretion. To protect its own interest and cover its own ass. Dont like it? Your choice. I for one like President Bush's foreign policy of the US being first. Had Cliton had any sort of balls he would have done thing in '98 when he bombed Iraq and they didnt submit again to inspections. But he didnt. And there wasnt, and Saddam was left in power.

The US ordered UN Weapons Inspectors out of Iraq because they could have gotten caught in the crossfire. Not to mention that looking back into Saddams past he's notorious for taking hostages before someone attacks him. There is a famous picture of him with a little boy laughing and such. The little boy and his family were used as forced human shields. I'm pretty sure the US didnt want to end up having to worry about the UN. It would have been bad for PR.

How would the war on terrorism been different if the terrorists had flown a plane into United Nations headquarters in New York City on September 11th? ~ Michael.

How would the war on terrorism been different if the terrorists had flown a plane into United Nations headquarters in New York City on September 11th? ~ Michael.

I'll tell you what would have happened...There would be a commission started to detail a study to determine whether or not a commission was necessary to look into a study that would determine the details of any commission and it's subsequent framework which would have required a study been done..

They would have asked Libya as most recent chair of the Human Rights Commission could verify whether or not the deaths would constitute legitimate targets of freedom fightes...etc..etc...

Gulf War 1 - Justified due to UN authorization and international support.
Gulf War 2 - WTF was that about?
Haiti - I cant remember what that was about
Panama - ditto
Somalia - I dunno
Korea - Yeah, OK
Vietnam - Totally unjustified, ending in millions of pointless deaths
World War 1 - Justified
World War 2 - Justified. The US played a vital role in both the European and Pacific theatres of combat and their involvment was greatly appreciated (and im British). Oh, and ease off on the Aussies - (they did their best.)
Kosovo/Bosnia etc - Justified. Mass violation of human rights and genocide definately calls for outside military involvment.

So I voted for Kosovo.

To both CanuckHeaven and Illich Jackal:

You are both either incredibly naive and shortsighted when it comes to foreign relations, or your both kidding me. Why the double standard?
First off, what you think of my ability to see or understand is secondary to the FACTS at hand. Secondly it is nice to see that you do recognize that there is a double standard .

Well because 1) Israel is an ally of the US, and Iraq wasn’t.
Israel has been shooting up the Palestinians for the past dozen years, has numerous sanctions against her for UN violations and the US vetoes them all. NO action is necssary?

Iraq has been minding its’ own business since it got its’ ass kicked in Gulf War (1992), had no air force (due to US bombing raids over past 12 years), and the UN was conducting methodical inspections for WMD. This gives the US the right to invade? NOT

2) The US doesn’t allow condemnations of Israel to pass in the Security Council,ever.
Why not? Perhaps if the US quit propping up the Israeli government, they might be forced into finding a peaceful solution to the Middle East crisis?

3) The obligation to enforce the law, is at the US's discretion.
This is not the wild, wild west. The US is NOT the UN’s policeman. The UN did not ask the US to invade Iraq, and by doing so, they are in violation of the UN Charter. Perhaps if you read it, then you might understand the logistics?

To protect its own interest and cover its own ass. Don’t like it? Your choice.
It does not matter what I like or do not like, it is a very grave matter of international concern. If other nations follow the US example, there could very well be anarchy and absolute chaos.

I for one like President Bush's foreign policy of the US being first.
Even if it is illegal and immoral?

Had Cliton had any sort of balls he would have done thing in '98 when he bombed Iraq and they didn’t submit again to inspections. But he didn’t. And there wasn’t, and Saddam was left in power.
Yeah, yeah, and if George Bush Sr. had pushed on to Baghdad in 1992, Clinton wouldn’t have been dealing with the leftovers.

This war is not about Republicans or Democrats, it is about a US violation of the UN Charter. The world would have been just as upset either way.

The US ordered UN Weapons Inspectors out of Iraq because they could have gotten caught in the crossfire.
Perhaps the inspectors were foiling US plans to invade Iraq, because the inspectors were NOT finding ANY WMD? This is the very reason that many of the US's traditional allies would not condone an invasion of Iraq. They were all suggesting to Mr. Bush, to let the inspectors finish their job.

I'm pretty sure the US didn’t want to end up having to worry about the UN. It would have been bad for PR.
What an ironic choice of words!!

You left out one that I consider justified.

Afghanistan.


Just wish they had stuck around and finished the job.

Everyone notice that a Warlord appropriated a city there today too?

-Z-
He was pushed back. And btw, there's been a slight troop increase in Afghanistan since 2002.

Now as for justified actions of the US military, I'd say Bosnia/Kosovo. While I didn't like the politician in charge, that doesn't cloud my mind here. I think it was justified because Milosevic was a prick, and a threat to regional stability.

Bay of pigs

First off, what you think of my ability to see or understand is secondary to the FACTS at hand. Secondly it is nice to see that you do recognize that there is a double standard .

Secondary to the facts but still unbelievable. You fail to grasp the simple concept that nations dont do things to please people in other countries unless they want to.Thats not what the office of the U.S. Presidency is designed for. Its designed to ensure the best interests of the United States are maintained.


Iraq has been minding its’ own business since it got its’ ass kicked in Gulf War (1992), had no air force (due to US bombing raids over past 12 years), and the UN was conducting methodical inspections for WMD. This gives the US the right to invade? NOT
Iraq had no air force because during the first Gulf War, Iraqi generals sent their planes to Iran for safety. Not a wise choice. Iran kept the MiG-29s and sent back the older 21s. Methodical inspections?Did you read the UNSCOM Chronology? Did you count the number of times the UN had to censure and condem Iraq? Iraq wasnt doing what it was obligated to do under what you consider the end all be all of world law :roll:



Why not? Perhaps if the US quit propping up the Israeli government, they might be forced into finding a peaceful solution to the Middle East crisis?
Face it, not gonna happen. If the US hadnt propped up the Israeli government, then Israel would not exist today. I've got a theory and its a rather sound one at that, wanna know why the Russians never advanced onto Western Europe? It isnt because of the nuclear threat, neither side would have used nukes unless it was a last resort. The Russians never invaded because the outnumbered Israeli's using American supplied weapons managed to defeat superior numbers of Arabs using Soviet line technology. The entire Middle East was nothing but a testing ground during the cold war for both the Soviets and the US. If the US didnt prop up the Israeli government now, do you think they would be more peaceful, or less? I happen to think less. Israel would have nothing to lose, and they have shown they will go all out to protect their country from aggressors.


This is not the wild, wild west. The US is NOT the UN’s policeman. The UN did not ask the US to invade Iraq, and by doing so, they are in violation of the UN Charter. Perhaps if you read it, then you might understand the logistics?

And the UN doesnt make the law in the US. The Constitution and Bill of Rights is the end all and be all in the US. Sorry. The President does not answer to the Secretary General. The President answers to the people, and to the Congress. And whenever he oversteps his bounds the Supreme Court. Also no one said this was the Wild West, but the US is more involved in peace keeping operations than any other country in the UN. The US provides the most funding in the security council and one the reasons why the US is so overstretched army wise right now is because the US has peacekeepers in multiple missions right now. So while no one asks the US to the UNs policemen, if it werent the US, who else would it? Canada can barely fund its own military. I've read articles by several Canadian professors who deal with foreign affairs which state, that if Canada doesnt reverse its funding slide for the military, that you may as well just disband whats left and allow the US to provide security 24/7.


It does not matter what I like or do not like, it is a very grave matter of international concern. If other nations follow the US example, there could very well be anarchy and absolute chaos.

Funny, I dont see it happening. The world isnt coming to an end. The sky is not falling.


Even if it is illegal and immoral?
According to who? You?Or the UN? The same UN which has royally botched Africa, the same UN which sat on its hands in the Balkans. I'm sorry the UN cant use the immoral card. And I've already said that this being illegal is one of those things that doesnt fall on the US cause the President doesnt answer to the Secretary General.



Yeah, yeah, and if George Bush Sr. had pushed on to Baghdad in 1992, Clinton wouldn’t have been dealing with the leftovers.

Popular misconception is that Bush Sr. could actually go onto Baghdad. The Saudi's wouldnt have allowed us to use the bases in their territory. The time it would have taken to set up everything in Kuwait many more months would have passed and more money would have been wasted and the Kuwaitis werent exactly wanting to continue with the fighting. They were more concern with rebuilding.


This war is not about Republicans or Democrats, it is about a US violation of the UN Charter. The world would have been just as upset either way.

See above.


Perhaps the inspectors were foiling US plans to invade Iraq, because the inspectors were NOT finding ANY WMD? This is the very reason that many of the US's traditional allies would not condone an invasion of Iraq. They were all suggesting to Mr. Bush, to let the inspectors finish their job.

Thats right, care to explain why before the war the UN found those missiles which violated the 150m range set upon them? Or better yet the SCUDs which hit Kuwait, which Iraq supposedly "didnt" have before. Something smells rotten in the house of Denmark when stuff like that is constantly overlooked.


What an ironic choice of words!!

:roll:

Even if it is illegal and immoral?
According to who? You?Or the UN? The same UN which has royally botched Africa, the same UN which sat on its hands in the Balkans. I'm sorry the UN cant use the immoral card. And I've already said that this being illegal is one of those things that doesnt fall on the US cause the President doesnt answer to the Secretary General.

Or the same UN which sat on its hands during the Rwandan genocide? Even when warned about it by the general in command of its forces there?

First off, what you think of my ability to see or understand is secondary to the FACTS at hand. Secondly it is nice to see that you do recognize that there is a double standard .

Secondary to the facts but still unbelievable. You fail to grasp the simple concept that nations dont do things to please people in other countries unless they want to.Thats not what the office of the U.S. Presidency is designed for. Its designed to ensure the best interests of the United States are maintained.
Saddam’s Iraqi was a toothless tabby. No WMD. No terrorist links to Al-Queda . No air force. Army decimated due to Iran/Iraq War followed by Gulf War. Besides which he had been on his best behaviour since 1992. Now tell me again, why was it in your countries best interests to invade Iraq (illegally), and kill over 10,000 of her men, women and children?

If anything, this has made it worse for your country. Your troops are exhausted (extended tour of duty), some of your allies are considering withdrawing, other allies did not want Iraqi blood on their hands, the resistance is growing, bombings in Saudi Arabia, and Madrid, and uncovered plot in UK. When you factor in the cost of this war ($86 Billion), plus the cost of ongoing maintenance, US casualties (over 3,000), and a billion angry Muslims, you can honestly say that this is in the best interests of the US???


Iraq has been minding its’ own business since it got its’ ass kicked in Gulf War (1992), had no air force (due to US bombing raids over past 12 years), and the UN was conducting methodical inspections for WMD. This gives the US the right to invade? NOT

Iraq had no air force because during the first Gulf War, Iraqi generals sent their planes to Iran for safety. Not a wise choice. Iran kept the MiG-29s and sent back the older 21s. Methodical inspections?Did you read the UNSCOM Chronology? Did you count the number of times the UN had to censure and condem Iraq? Iraq wasnt doing what it was obligated to do under what you consider the end all be all of world law :roll:
The inspection team was gaining access to every desired site, 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles had been destroyed, the team was allowed use of U2 planes and helicopters, but they were not finding ANY WMD. The inspection team wanted more time. The US was not prepared to grant that time. Why? Why? Why?


Why not? Perhaps if the US quit propping up the Israeli government, they might be forced into finding a peaceful solution to the Middle East crisis?

Face it, not gonna happen. If the US hadnt propped up the Israeli government, then Israel would not exist today. ………If the US didnt prop up the Israeli government now, do you think they would be more peaceful, or less? I happen to think less. Israel would have nothing to lose, and they have shown they will go all out to protect their country from aggressors.
Well it is obvious that the US would not withdraw their support, but if the suggestion was there, perhaps Israel would be inclined to have a more serious look at peace proposals?


This is not the wild, wild west. The US is NOT the UN’s policeman. The UN did not ask the US to invade Iraq, and by doing so, they are in violation of the UN Charter. Perhaps if you read it, then you might understand the logistics?

And the UN doesnt make the law in the US. The Constitution and Bill of Rights is the end all and be all in the US. Sorry. The President does not answer to the Secretary General. The President answers to the people, and to the Congress. And whenever he oversteps his bounds the Supreme Court.
If the US does not answer to the UN, then why did Bush and Powell go there to sell their war on Iraq? The US violated the UN Charter, the moment she attacked Iraq.

Also no one said this was the Wild West, but the US is more involved in peace keeping operations than any other country in the UN. The US provides the most funding in the security council and one the reasons why the US is so overstretched army wise right now is because the US has peacekeepers in multiple missions right now. So while no one asks the US to the UNs policemen, if it werent the US, who else would it?
The UN peacekeeping role is multinational for the most part, and there is compensation paid to those forces by the UN. BTW the US owes over $800 Million to the UN for past dues.

It does not matter what I like or do not like, it is a very grave matter of international concern. If other nations follow the US example, there could very well be anarchy and absolute chaos.

Funny, I dont see it happening. The world isnt coming to an end. The sky is not falling.
I would suggest that the US would have its’ hands full, if North Korea decided to flex some muscle at this point. Not that it will but it would cause serious implications for the US.

Even if it is illegal and immoral?

According to who? You?Or the UN? The same UN which has royally botched Africa, the same UN which sat on its hands in the Balkans. I'm sorry the UN cant use the immoral card. And I've already said that this being illegal is one of those things that doesnt fall on the US cause the President doesnt answer to the Secretary General.
Well according to the agreement that the US signed, yes they are bound to the UN Charter. The fact that the US does not want to honour that commitment further weakens that body. Perhaps the UN can’t use the immoral word, but the rest of the world can. I am sure the people of the US are somewhat concerned as to how the rest of the world perceives them?

Yeah, yeah, and if George Bush Sr. had pushed on to Baghdad in 1992, Clinton wouldn’t have been dealing with the leftovers.

Popular misconception is that Bush Sr. could actually go onto Baghdad. The Saudi's wouldnt have allowed us to use the bases in their territory. The time it would have taken to set up everything in Kuwait many more months would have passed and more money would have been wasted and the Kuwaitis werent exactly wanting to continue with the fighting. They were more concern with rebuilding.
The thinking here would be that the US was not ready to take control of Iraq. YET!!

This war is not about Republicans or Democrats, it is about a US violation of the UN Charter. The world would have been just as upset either way.


Perhaps the inspectors were foiling US plans to invade Iraq, because the inspectors were NOT finding ANY WMD? This is the very reason that many of the US's traditional allies would not condone an invasion of Iraq. They were all suggesting to Mr. Bush, to let the inspectors finish their job.

Thats right, care to explain why before the war the UN found those missiles which violated the 150m range set upon them? Or better yet the SCUDs which hit Kuwait, which Iraq supposedly "didnt" have before.
See above.

Something smells rotten in the house of Denmark when stuff like that is constantly overlooked.
It sure does and it smells like US imperialism.

This is a more logical explanation as to why the US is in Iraq today:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Will Americans live in less fear of terrorism in their homeland as a result of this flawed intrusion of Iraq? Only time will tell.

Italy, Germany, the Philipines, Japan, Korea, Viet Nam, Afganistan, Iraq.

Look at their geographical positions. It's systematic containment of Russia and China which has been going on for over fifty years.

Certainly Bosnia, though the intervention was horribly botched by the UN. To all who think that Bosnia/Kosovo were purely European problems, I suppose you also think that Rwanda was an issue for Africa alone. Disgusting.

I don't see how defending South Vietnam from the aggressive north was unjustified. We just really fucked it up.

Somalia was necessary, we should have "stayed the course"; nuke their warlord butts.


We never had to go to Somalia. We could have watched them kill each other but you know America, always there to butt-it. I'm sad to be an American!!!

Then try picking a random country and living there, odds are youll be scampering back to the us in about 4 days.

Italy, Germany, the Philipines, Japan, Korea, Viet Nam, Afganistan, Iraq.

Look at their geographical positions. It's systematic containment of Russia and China which has been going on for over fifty years.
It is like a real time version of RISK.

Must be the battle of Sarratoga.
Second best: the reaction on Pearl Harbor (off course they provocate a little bit) and envolvement in WWII in EU, it helped the Russians a via lend and lease. (not really a major thing for the Russians but it helped and that is important).

anyone notice that the current iraq war is turning more and more into another vietnam?


just my 3 cents:)

Well in my opinon our last justified war was WWII. We had no right to go into Bosnia. We just caused even more suffering and we are even more hated. We bombed the crap out of the former Yugoslava and just sent them some cash and basickly said good luck. What would have happened if we never went in there was they would have killed each other for awhile but since both of their military's were not strong enough it probably would have died off. Also we were helping out Osama Bin Laden and giving his terrorist orginization weapons. We also had wasted casualties. It would have been better if we just stayed out of their. Oh by the way the Bosnians set up terrorist training camps in their country and hate us more then the serbs.

"Justified" is a relative term.

Personally, fuck the world. It's all going to hell anyway.

How would the war on terrorism been different if the terrorists had flown a plane into United Nations headquarters in New York City on September 11th? ~ Michael.

I'm not sure it would be any different given that the majority of the world does support the war on terrorism.. where the world doesn't support a war is the war in Iraq, which is completely separate to the war on terrorism. It's apples and oranges.

The war on terrorism and the war on Iraq are two different wars. The world does support the war on terrorism. Iraq just didn't fall under that category. Any one with an IQ over 40 knows that now.

Iraq was about oil pure and simple. Bush has been getting briefed by his energy advisors on the status of the Saudi fields and he knows that they're approaching Hubberts Peak. If we don't go in there and secure their resources our crash will hurt substantially more.

Why don't we have a exit strategy? Because we never intended to leave! DUH! Why was our rebuilding strategy so simple? Because we don't care about rebuilding the country, put up a facade to make it all look nice and dump the rest. It's going to be a pity when the rest of the world finds out that the Saudi's can no longer increase their supply to meet demands because they've peaked out their fields. The war between us and Russia is going to be really fun, good thing we're going to stay in NATO so we can invoke Article 6 and get you sheepish Europeans involved in another blood bath.

But hey, you guys suck off our tit so that we protect you from those evil commies, even though fascism is clearly a superior government model with the right people in charge. And no you get to pay for it! HA HA! And then your societies were stupid enough to dearm your populace, insuring that you'll not be able to descend into anarchy when the police state rolls around. That's where the real fun and reform will occur, that's how we'll finally get our population levels down. No, you see, it's all happening just as predicted, I'm just waiting for the American Federal Empire to start the scheduled series of waco like events. I just hope I have accumulated enough know how to survive to 2016.

Iraq was about oil pure and simple. Bush has been getting briefed by his energy advisors on the status of the Saudi fields and he knows that they're approaching Hubberts Peak. If we don't go in there and secure their resources our crash will hurt substantially more.

Why don't we have a exit strategy? Because we never intended to leave! DUH! Why was our rebuilding strategy so simple? Because we don't care about rebuilding the country, put up a facade to make it all look nice and dump the rest. It's going to be a pity when the rest of the world finds out that the Saudi's can no longer increase their supply to meet demands because they've peaked out their fields. The war between us and Russia is going to be really fun, good thing we're going to stay in NATO so we can invoke Article 6 and get you sheepish Europeans involved in another blood bath.

But hey, you guys suck off our tit so that we protect you from those evil commies, even though fascism is clearly a superior government model with the right people in charge. And no you get to pay for it! HA HA! And then your societies were stupid enough to dearm your populace, insuring that you'll not be able to descend into anarchy when the police state rolls around. That's where the real fun and reform will occur, that's how we'll finally get our population levels down. No, you see, it's all happening just as predicted, I'm just waiting for the American Federal Empire to start the scheduled series of waco like events. I just hope I have accumulated enough know how to survive to 2016.All you need is a modified V-8 Ford and a sawed-off shotgun, Mad Max. ~ Michael.

In reguards to Somalia, at least we were backed by the UN on that one, and assisting an international force, instead of going it alone.

Clintin fouled up BIG TIME in Somolia anyways, if hed have let the military do itt heir way, it would not have been the fiasco it was......kinda reminds me of Vietnam, another war where the polotitions ran the war, simpyl trying to better themsleves and make money on the lives of the US and NVA troops. That war had no point......it was wrong, even if stopping Commies is a good idea ;)

I also want it to be known that im a "Right Winger" i support america, and love my nation. I only say that so no one goes off on a rant to me about how i dont have any love or respect for my nation :)

Technically, there isnt really a Gulf War I and Gulf War II - it's all just the Gulf Conflict...the resolutions Bush Sr acted under in '91 are still in effect, and thus, the US was legally allowed to continue the conflict - see, that's what happens when an evil dictator doesnt read the fine print ;)

Technically, there isnt really a Gulf War I and Gulf War II - it's all just the Gulf Conflict...the resolutions Bush Sr acted under in '91 are still in effect, and thus, the US was legally allowed to continue the conflict - see, that's what happens when an evil dictator doesnt read the fine print ;)

You know, I really hate stupid garbage like this, SHUT UP. There was 12 years of no fighting. It's a second gulf war, that's the way it's going down in history. Trying to use the stupid played out, it's just a continuation BS is just that. BS.

Technically, there isnt really a Gulf War I and Gulf War II - it's all just the Gulf Conflict...the resolutions Bush Sr acted under in '91 are still in effect, and thus, the US was legally allowed to continue the conflict - see, that's what happens when an evil dictator doesnt read the fine print ;)

You know, I really hate stupid garbage like this, SHUT UP. There was 12 years of no fighting. It's a second gulf war, that's the way it's going down in history. Trying to use the stupid played out, it's just a continuation BS is just that. BS.Easy there, fella. No need to get bent out of shape.

A: There were plenty of years between fights during the famed 30 year war...

B: It's not a war. Congress never declared war on Iraq, rather, this is classified as a conflict.

C: There was fighting. Saddam's troops were shooting at US forces in the Gulf area. Ever heard of Saddam's numerous no-fly zone incursions and the anti-aircraft weapons fired at US fighters patroling the zone?

Technically, there isnt really a Gulf War I and Gulf War II - it's all just the Gulf Conflict...the resolutions Bush Sr acted under in '91 are still in effect, and thus, the US was legally allowed to continue the conflict - see, that's what happens when an evil dictator doesnt read the fine print ;)

You know, I really hate stupid garbage like this, SHUT UP. There was 12 years of no fighting. It's a second gulf war, that's the way it's going down in history. Trying to use the stupid played out, it's just a continuation BS is just that. BS.Easy there, fella. No need to get bent out of shape.

A: There were plenty of years between fights during the famed 30 year war...

B: It's not a war. Congress never declared war on Iraq, rather, this is classified as a conflict.

C: There was fighting. Saddam's troops were shooting at US forces in the Gulf area. Ever heard of Saddam's numerous no-fly zone incursions and the anti-aircraft weapons fired at US fighters patroling the zone?

the present war is certainly an outgrowth of the first. there certainly was low intensity combat in between the two. they will probably be studied as one extended conflict. does this make them one war or two? its probably a technical question, people tend to regard it as important in justifying the overthrow of saddam, and line up along pro and anti war lines, but i think you can take either position and be either for or against the present situation.

Technically, there isnt really a Gulf War I and Gulf War II - it's all just the Gulf Conflict...the resolutions Bush Sr acted under in '91 are still in effect, and thus, the US was legally allowed to continue the conflict - see, that's what happens when an evil dictator doesnt read the fine print ;)

You know, I really hate stupid garbage like this, SHUT UP. There was 12 years of no fighting. It's a second gulf war, that's the way it's going down in history. Trying to use the stupid played out, it's just a continuation BS is just that. BS.I do believe the "1st conflict" stopped with a Cease-Fire agreement.

It's also worth noting that the US ran many operations during that time. Operation Southern Watch, Operation Provide Comfort, etc etc. During which time shots were exchanged between US and Iraqi forces (usually SAM sites firing at patrolling aircraft).

The conflict was still alive, the fighting had just stopped.

Of course, technically we're still engaged in armed conflict with North Korea, we're just not out and out fighting as a cease fire was signed...

Of course, technically we're still engaged in armed conflict with North Korea, we're just not out and out fighting as a cease fire was signed...

The war is illegal under international law Neut.. Deal with it.. :P ..LOL

In reguards to Somalia, at least we were backed by the UN on that one, and assisting an international force, instead of going it alone.

Clintin fouled up BIG TIME in Somolia anyways, if hed have let the military do itt heir way, it would not have been the fiasco it was......kinda reminds me of Vietnam, another war where the polotitions ran the war, simpyl trying to better themsleves and make money on the lives of the US and NVA troops. That war had no point......it was wrong, even if stopping Commies is a good idea ;)

I also want it to be known that im a "Right Winger" i support america, and love my nation. I only say that so no one goes off on a rant to me about how i dont have any love or respect for my nation :)Just a point to make about Somalia, that someone else has made elsewhere--Bush started Somalia and left it for Clinton to clean up. Now, you can argue all you want about what he did once he was in charge, but it's important to remember that we weren't there because of Clinton. One might consider that the reason Clinton didn't take action against Afghanistan before he left office was because he remembered what it was like to enter office with a mess on your hands and he didn't want to leave Dubya with that.

In reguards to Somalia, at least we were backed by the UN on that one, and assisting an international force, instead of going it alone.

Clintin fouled up BIG TIME in Somolia anyways, if hed have let the military do itt heir way, it would not have been the fiasco it was......kinda reminds me of Vietnam, another war where the polotitions ran the war, simpyl trying to better themsleves and make money on the lives of the US and NVA troops. That war had no point......it was wrong, even if stopping Commies is a good idea ;)

I also want it to be known that im a "Right Winger" i support america, and love my nation. I only say that so no one goes off on a rant to me about how i dont have any love or respect for my nation :)Just a point to make about Somalia, that someone else has made elsewhere--Bush started Somalia and left it for Clinton to clean up. Now, you can argue all you want about what he did once he was in charge, but it's important to remember that we weren't there because of Clinton. One might consider that the reason Clinton didn't take action against Afghanistan before he left office was because he remembered what it was like to enter office with a mess on your hands and he didn't want to leave Dubya with that.

Incertonia, I'm not sure why we bother, I would say more then half of these people don't know the difference between a peacekeeping mission and an invasion of a sovereign nation that is against international law. BIG difference between peacekeeping missions folks.. it doesn't quite involve what an invasion is and does. Oh well.. I give up. I grow tired of people trying to say the UN is irrelevant then using the UN to quote broken resolutions.. which none of them gave any green light to invade Iraq.. for people then to say it is on "moral" ground, which is about the funniest argument I've heard yet, you don't invade a country to "liberate" it.. that's what peacekeeping is for. Any way.. whatever, no matter what we say to them, they will spin it to suit what they want to believe, the truth is just a foreign concept to some.

I do believe the "1st conflict" stopped with a Cease-Fire agreement.

It's also worth noting that the US ran many operations during that time. Operation Southern Watch, Operation Provide Comfort, etc etc. During which time shots were exchanged between US and Iraqi forces (usually SAM sites firing at patrolling aircraft).

The conflict was still alive, the fighting had just stopped.

Either way it's a pretty lame tactic to use to justify a war. uhhh well it didn't really stop technically.

OK, so why did you start fighting again?!?

And besides, all the media is calling it Gulf War 2 so that is most likely what it will go down as, regardless of everything concerned.

The Revolutionary War wasn't justified. How much worse off are the Canadians for not starting a war and begining hundreds of years of negative sentiment towards them? Damned impatient yanks. One doesn't shoot one's dad in the back over a grounding or pocketmoney dispute.

Personally, I don't agree with any US military action, because I don't recognise those United States, and would as such consider their armed forces a vigilante organisation or a terrorist one, depending on their current behaviour.

But that's just my opinion.

B: It's not a war. Congress never declared war on Iraq, rather, this is classified as a conflict.
From Encarta:

conflict: 1. military war: a continued struggle or battle, especially open warfare between opposing forces

"The US President George Walker Bush today 20 March 2003 delivered an address live on television announcing the beginning of war against President Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. CRTV Online News brings to you the full text of the war declaration speech that was read from the White House’s Oval Office shortly after Iraq suffered the first US-led military strike that targeted a building in South Iraq believed to have been the meeting point of some 5 top Iraqi authorities."

*shakes his head*

You dont quite understand what I'm saying. For the US to truly be at WAR, Congress must declare it so. The President has no say whatsoever in whether this nation is at WAR. Conflict =/= war. Hence, the Vietnam Conflict, the Korean Conflict, etc.

*shakes his head*

You dont quite understand what I'm saying. For the US to truly be at WAR, Congress must declare it so. The President has no say whatsoever in whether this nation is at WAR. Conflict =/= war. Hence, the Vietnam Conflict, the Korean Conflict, etc.

Thats just syntax that congress uses to hide behind. "nono, is not a real war!!! Is a conflict!!" So whether its an official war or not, meaning 'when its sold as a conflict', its still a war. Only difference is the label. And to refer to the Korean bloody conflict as the Korean War would be most appropiate as it was just that.

Still, you make a valid point. For the cowards in congress, and the fools who buy their bull, it was indeed a conflict, as is the current war in Iraq. But again, thats just syntax.

You havent read the Constitution lately, have you?


And Steph, the US actions in Iraq were not illegal under international law - there were outstanding resolutions and signed agreements Saddam refused to honor.

You havent read the Constitution lately, have you?


And Steph, the US actions in Iraq were not illegal under international law - there were outstanding resolutions and signed agreements Saddam refused to honor.

The resolutions never gave any green light for any one to invade Iraq Neut.. I'm sure you've read 1441 as I have as well, it's just not there. Also, the fact that no WMD was found and every WMD expert that has went into Iraq says it's just not there would actually sort of break that silly notion any way.. if there was no WMD, Saddam never failed to comply with 1441. Besides.. I can't recall.. I will try to find it for you, my husband has already proved that Bush never intended to try and let Saddam comply any way. Bush planned the invasion of Iraq with Tony Blair on Sept 20/01.. well outside of the time he was suppose to be allowed. It was a lie from day 1.

Bah Kuwait was never a democracy they repressive monothiesty.
Plus they had it coming. They pissed of saddam by severely underselling him on Da oil. So He invaded them to teach em a lesson. :twisted:

Bah Kuwait was never a democracy they repressive monothiesty.
Plus they had it coming. They pissed of saddam by severely underselling him on Da oil. So He invaded them to teach em a lesson. :twisted:

Bah Kuwait was never a democracy they repressive monothiesty.
Plus they had it coming. They pissed of saddam by severely underselling him on Da oil. So He invaded them to teach em a lesson. :twisted:
Actually, Hussein wanted to rebuild the Abbassid Empire, and used the oil dispute as justification. Kuwait was just the weakest, and one of the wealthiest.

doesnt make much sense to me.
But it sounds like It'd make good reading if you catch my drift.

Bah Kuwait was never a democracy they repressive monothiesty.
Plus they had it coming. They pissed of saddam by severely underselling him on Da oil. So He invaded them to teach em a lesson. :twisted:

actually they were slant drill in the deputed border region, if saddam had had any sense he would have just seized those border oil feilds, it unlikely anyone would have organized a military expedition to return a desputed oil feild to kuwait

unfortunately saddam always behave too stupidly for us to ignore. right up until the end it was his amazing ability to completely misread situation and fail to respond rationally to external pressure that caused his destruction far more than his level of threat or his brutality. he was dangerous because he was an idiot not an evil genius.

it wasn't that he was so bent of american destruction he would give al queada wmps no matter the cost, it was more that he might be just dumb enough to do it without even considering the cost.

doesnt make much sense to me.
But it sounds like It'd make good reading if you catch my drift.
People have spent many years trying to determine the exact psyche of dictators. There are a few common traits, like they're paranoid for their own safety, or that they are egocentric. Another aspect, as Hitler and Stalin both proved, is that they want to expand their realms at some point. If Hussein made it to Tehran in the eighties, don't think he'd sign a peace treaty: he'd annex the country.

The Revolutionary War wasn't justified. How much worse off are the Canadians for not starting a war and begining hundreds of years of negative sentiment towards them? Damned impatient yanks. One doesn't shoot one's dad in the back over a grounding or pocketmoney dispute.

Personally, I don't agree with any US military action, because I don't recognise those United States, and would as such consider their armed forces a vigilante organisation or a terrorist one, depending on their current behaviour.

But that's just my opinion.

Oh boo hoo..those poor Canadians.. :roll: Give me a break. The Revolutionary War was completely justified. The colonists wanted the same rights as British citizens in the mainland and they were denied those rights. So the US fought to determine its own law, and won. But ya know, I guess you dont recongize India as well for doing the same thing.

You havent read the Constitution lately, have you?


And Steph, the US actions in Iraq were not illegal under international law - there were outstanding resolutions and signed agreements Saddam refused to honor.
I would suggest that those Resolutions were not enforcible, because Iraq was complying with Resolution 1441, that is UNTIL the US told the UN inspectors to leave.

justified military action? Oxymoron?

You havent read the Constitution lately, have you?


And Steph, the US actions in Iraq were not illegal under international law - there were outstanding resolutions and signed agreements Saddam refused to honor.
I would suggest that those Resolutions were not enforcible, because Iraq was complying with Resolution 1441, that is UNTIL the US told the UN inspectors to leave.

Iraq was not providing unfettered access. Not to mention that Res 1441 was not the only relevant resolution.


la la la la la...gotta love google...

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

Check it out people. See how many resolutions you can find Saddam to be in defiance of... Then, return to tell me it was an illegal invasion :roll:

You havent read the Constitution lately, have you?


And Steph, the US actions in Iraq were not illegal under international law - there were outstanding resolutions and signed agreements Saddam refused to honor.
I would suggest that those Resolutions were not enforcible, because Iraq was complying with Resolution 1441, that is UNTIL the US told the UN inspectors to leave.

Iraq was not providing unfettered access. Not to mention that Res 1441 was not the only relevant resolution.


la la la la la...gotta love google...

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

Check it out people. See how many resolutions you can find Saddam to be in defiance of... Then, return to tell me it was an illegal invasion :roll:
You slice it and I'll dice it.

"Most experts in international law say they are not convinced either by the argument that military action against Iraq is authorized by earlier UN resolutions nor that the UN Charter allows self-defense against a perceived future threat."- - [Associated Press, 3/19/03]


Invasion of Iraq is illegal:

International Laws Violated:

Article 2 (Section 3- 4) of the United Nations Charter

Articles 39 to 50 of the United Nations Charter

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter

Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928

US laws violated:

Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution

The War Powers Resolution passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/uswarcrimes/uswarcrimesiraq/iraqinvasion.html

At the bottom of the page, the suggested excuse of using previous Resolutions is refuted.

*************************************************************
I am also including an article written by Mr. Scowcroft, national security adviser under President Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, is founder and president of the Forum for International Policy.

Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

BY BRENT SCOWCROFT
Thursday, [b[August 15, 2002[/b] 12:01 a.m. EDTT

Gotta agree, Google is awesome :-)

Hmm...lets see, you present two editorials, I present UN resolutions...

The 'broken' parts of the UN charter dont apply as the US was authorized to take action against Saddam by those resolutions ;)

Hmm...lets see, you present two editorials, I present UN resolutions...

The 'broken' parts of the UN charter dont apply as the US was authorized to take action against Saddam by those resolutions ;)
Not according to the lawyers. Read first, then comment?