As a for instance...have you read the Thomas Ricks book? Many military experts at THAT time questioned Feith, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld on all this...there is no hindsight, it was happening then.

There were experts on both sides of the matter, Cat - you very seldom get clear-cut unequivocal answers where it comes to intelligence assessments. In the end, though, so long as Saddam was unwilling to allow unfettered access to the weapons inspectors, it came down to the simple question of whether or not the US & UK were willing to take Saddam's word for it or not that he didn't have WMD's.

In hindsight, we know now that he didn't have them... but at the time, his actions seemed to indicate that he did - otherwise, why not give the inspectors the access they needed and be done with it?

Truth: On Oct. 10, 2002, on the Senate floor, Clinton said, “This is a very difficult vote … any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction.”

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


You Voted for the wrong team now we all have to suffer for it
Save energy Turn your Lights OFF!
Gun Contol is as simple as hitting your target!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





Spell check. Like I care

__________________
"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world...
...and then we fucked up the end game." - Charlie Wilson

As it's wording makes very clear, it stayed in effect and was built upon by subsequent Resolutions.

__________________
"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world...
...and then we fucked up the end game." - Charlie Wilson

By Emanuella Grinberg
CNN


(CNN) -- A U.S. soldier who deserted to Canada will not face persecution if he returns to the United States, Canada's refugee agency ruled Wednesday.


National Guardsman Corey Glass says he fled to Canada to avoid combat in the Iraq war, which he doesn't support.

National Guard Sgt. Corey Glass, 25, says he fled to Toronto in 2006 after serving in Iraq because he did not want to fight in a war he did not support.

"What I saw in Iraq convinced me that the war is illegal and immoral. I could not in good conscience continue to take part in it," Glass said Wednesday. "I don't think it's fair that I should be punished for doing what I felt morally obligated to do."

Glass, who's still on active duty and is considered absent without leave, applied for refugee status at the Canadian border in August 2006 on the grounds of objection to military service.

But Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board denied his application for refugee status Wednesday, prompting the Canadian Border Services Agency to issue a June 12 deportation order.

The agency says it evaluates each case on its own merits to determine whether the applicant faces a "well-founded fear" of persecution or cruel and unusual punishment if he returns to his home country.

"All refugee claimants have a right to due process," said Danielle Norris, a spokeswoman for Customs and Immigrations Canada. "When they have exhausted all legal avenues, we expect them to respect our laws and leave the country."

Glass, of Fairmont, Indiana, says he joined the National Guard believing that he would be deployed only if the United States faced occupation. After he returned from his first tour of duty, he said, he tried to leave the Army but was told that desertion was punishable by death.

Penalties for desertion range from a demotion in rank to a maximum penalty of death, depending on the circumstances, said Maj. Nathan Banks, an Army spokesman.

"The first thing we try to do is rehabilitate and retrain the soldier to see if we can keep him," he said. "Remember, we're at war, so everybody counts. When you decide to desert, you let everybody down."

Banks said that it is up to the deserter's commanding officer to decide on an appropriate punishment if the soldier refuses to return.

Members of War Resisters Support Campaign in Canada, which is providing transitional support to Glass and at least 13 other deserters in Canada, are holding out for a political avenue of appeal through the Canadian House of Commons.

Don't Miss
iReport.com: What do you think? Share your take
In December, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration adopted a motion calling on the Canadian government to initiate a residency program for conscientious objectors who have left military service "related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations."

The motion has yet to receive approval from the entire House of Commons.

Norris says the agency has received about 40 applications for refugee claims from U.S. deserters since the Iraq war began in 2003. Of the claims that have been addressed in public, only five have made it to the country's Federal Court of Appeals, a venue of last resort.

All five appeals were rejected, according to Norris.

The high court has yet to rule on its sixth challenge of this kind from Army combat engineer Joshua Key, who fled to Saskatchewan with his wife and four children in 2005.

"This has been our home for three years now. It's a lot like the U.S., and it's as close to the U.S. as you can be," said Key, who served on the front lines in Falluja before he returned to the United States in 2002.

Key said that fleeing to Canada was a difficult but obvious choice when faced with returning to Iraq.

"There was nothing but violence and innocent civilians dying in our hands for no justification," Key said. "We became the terrorists."

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


You Voted for the wrong team now we all have to suffer for it
Save energy Turn your Lights OFF!
Gun Contol is as simple as hitting your target!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





Spell check. Like I care

Why did you bother to quote me if you are going to ignore what my points were...let me repeat...

Also in the bit about changing objective in midstream that came from the Bush Sr./Scowcroft excerpt if you go bact to the original quote you can find..."Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish."

What part of this is so fucking hard for people to understand?

There isn't nor was there ever any UN mandate to remove Saddam from power...if you are going to somehow try and conflate "securing peace in the region" to mean such then I submit to you the absurd next argument that could be made is that the resolutions in question could be used to justify an invasion of Iran and Pakistan...perhaps we should invade India and Israel as well...good luck with that.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



OBAMA/PEROT

See my previous post.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



OBAMA/PEROT

Yes it did but that in and of itself did not justify junior going into Iraq as previously mentioned.

There are other stipulations which might be used to argue the validity of the "authority" and in reality a number of lawyers can and hopefully will look into the issue further.

In 107-243 a part also relevant regarding the UN resolutions is this...

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by
the President to—
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

...which makes the authority granted to Bush questionable, however, I've never argued that the UN was the basis to claim the legality of the Iraq war and the reason I say it is debatable is in that they also provided for...

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

The legal question would be, does the "and" negate the legality?

If we look a bit further though, quite possibly they have made that a moot point...

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.

I'm not a lawyer and not able to make the argument one way or another regarding the "legality" as regards our congress...but I can read and I'm standing by my position that THE UN DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE REMOVAL OF SADDAM FROM POWER AND THE INVASION OF IRAQ.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



OBAMA/PEROT

Also in the bit about changing objective in midstream that came from the Bush Sr./Scowcroft excerpt if you go bact to the original quote you can find..."Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish."

What part of this is so fucking hard for people to understand?

Not quite correct. Here, let me help you....

to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Security Council resolution 678 (1990) on the situation between Iraq and Kuwait

Why does the open ended part of the Resolution bother you so? Notice the and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; subsequent(future), relevant,(to what)? The International Peace and Stabilty. As you can plainly see "whatever means necessary" means ust that. If it takes the removal, it take the removal. You are being obtuse and intentionally misleading.

There isn't nor was there ever any UN mandate to remove Saddam from power...if you are going to somehow try and conflate "securing peace in the region" to mean such then I submit to you the absurd next argument that could be made is that the resolutions in question could be used to justify an invasion of Iran and Pakistan...perhaps we should invade India and Israel as well...good luck with that.
[/b]

(smile) Now try and extend it illogically with embellishment. Sorry, no.

__________________
"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world...
...and then we fucked up the end game." - Charlie Wilson