Originally Posted by Cordelier

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was aggression - the Coalition's military response to that aggression, as authorized by Resolution 678, was a justified reaction to that aggression. That conflict was ended by the ceasefire encapsulated by Resolution 687, which required (among other things) that Iraq provide "an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure" of all aspects of it's WMD programmes. The UN waited 12 years for Iraq to live up to it's ceasefire obligations and still Iraq was in material breach of the agreement. The choice was this... either the US and UK had to go into Iraq and make sure it didn't still have WMD's or they'd have to just take Saddam's word for it that he didn't still have them.

If you were President, would you have been willing to take Saddam's word for it?

Originally Posted by Amazed

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.

Originally Posted by Jetblast

It takes real balls for filthy neo-fascist phony American patriot Nazis to demand proof that the war was illegal when the illegal cause for the war - the WMD's - wasn't met with the same demand from these people. These types of blind "patriots" would serve just as faithfully under the Nazis, Soviets, or any other authoritarian force. Mindless war mongers who don't question their authorities is not what America is about. I suggest you read the Constitution and about the founding of this country and try to comprehend why our founding fathers felt it important to keep the government under check and balance control. Brute war-head jingoists are not helpful to our society.

As I said it takes real balls for crude brutes to demand proof while the whole time the WMD proof was never asked for and never given. The invasion of another country on false premises is an international war crime that the US has signed onto in international treaties. Because we have a jingo-ized public from 9-11 and a corrupt government and media doesn't change anything. Meanwhile our nation is SO corrupted that the proof that does exist that Bush premeditatively lied to get us into the Plan for A New American Century (sounds like a cheesy corporate slogan) is pushed aside while people act like it doesn't exist. These are the same people who ask you to prove TWA Flight 800 was shot down by missiles - the whole time ignoring that the evidence was criminally suppressed by that very same government.

You people are cowards and false Americans. May you suffer the fate for that.

Originally Posted by Amazed

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Sorry...

OOPPPSSSS.

Originally Posted by steve k

When are you going to clear your ears and actually read something other than what you want to hear and realize that WMD's weren't the sol reason for going into Iraq? Christ, man. read a fucking book or post besides DailyKos or Huffington. Your fucking embarrassing yourself and those who actually opposed the war for legitamite reasons.

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

...everybody who is so adamant about justice being done relative to the soldier in question...why doesn't the military simply use a bit of common sense and say, "Ok, fine, you don't agree with the Iraq war, we'll send you back to Afghanistan instead and you can "serve" there"...huh?

Anybody got a problem with getting back to that mess?

Originally Posted by Amazed

Why am I not amazed at your persistant ignorance?


LOL...frustrated at your inability to actually understand anything you don't agree with? As I said your are being obtuse, and willfully misleading.

I will look at your next post and if it is not an admittance that you finally understand and concede my point or provide examples to make your case showing that Bush Jr and Scowcroft were wrong when they said we would be exceeding UN mandate, I will go back to ignoring you.

I told you yesterday, I am not concerned with Daddy Bush. I also told you yesterday that you must think contextually, and in a linear manner. You are refusing to do this because it will not support your point.

Daddy Bush wasn't faced with 9/11, nor an authorized War On terror. That is the context you are forced to face. YOU want to apply the situation of 17 years ago to a situation that is entirely different, AND has no bearing on todays issues...

Subsequent does not mean future...it means any following 660 and prior to 678...however...if you find any that came along since or any that do in the next few years feel free to share them.

sub·se·quent Audio Help /ˈsʌbsɪkwənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[suhb-si-kwuhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. occurring or coming later or after (often fol. by to): subsequent events; Subsequent to their arrival in Chicago, they bought a new car.
2. following in order or succession; succeeding: a subsequent section in a treaty.

Of course it does....now you are just lying

Now, here's your assignment...use any and all Iraq UN resolutions if you wish and find me one that states that we were granted the authority to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power.

Either put up or admit that you've screwed the pooch.

You can reply with your "Nuh-Uhs" all day long. That is just you insisting on being obtuse. I've put it up for two days and all you retort with "no sir"!!!

The last "cite" from the Joint Resolution stated Regime Change specifically, but then, you didn't even read it, did you? Now, if ignoring me helps you pretend to be "right" all of the time, by all means, do what you need to bolster your self esteem.