Pakistan is a political nightmare in all ways. I don't see how he could have survived as President if he gave in to a US invasion of his own country - at the most, he may have had a role as an American puppet, but that's about it. He owes his position to the military, pure and simple, and the military is highly nationalistic - there's no way they would have put up with the US crossing the border in force.

No legitimacy either.

I don't know about that... Syria is run by secular Baathists - they'd have as much to fear from an influx of Islamic fundamentalism as anyone. Their only interest is in counteracting Israel's power in the region... what has Al Queda ever done against Israel? Nothing. I just don't see what the Syrians would have to gain by allying themselves with Al Queda.

No doubt... but, on the other hand, there is plenty of crap that you haven't pulled that you were blamed for - CIA makes a ready scapegoat for every anti-American group out there.

Perhaps not...they claimed to be our ally...either they would work with us or not...I'm talking about limited ops in the region where bin Laden was believed to be...not going into downtown Islamabad.

Who needs legitimacy?

Chirac: US and UK violated international law

Annan: US-UK's war on Iraq was illegitimate

Why War? Perle Admits Iraq War Was Illegal

Biden: US Losing Illegitimate Iraq War

Russian FM: Iraq war ''illegitimate''. | Asia Africa Intelligence Wire (March, 2003)

Believe as you wish.

So why not then?

__________________
"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."

Which side will you be on?


OBAMA/PEROT

Yeah, Vietnam started off as limited ops as well...didn't take too long before it became more and more unlimited, though. So you figure Bin Laden will just sit still and wait for the Green Berets to arrive and put the cuffs on him?

That's all well and good - everybody is entitled to their opinion - but unless you put together a legal argument that something isn't legal, well, then it is. You still haven't made your argument that Resolution 678 wasn't still operative and didn't apply in 2003.

Oh, I don't know... morality? Something about using the tactics of the enemy leading to you becoming the enemy?

hopefully someone will bust this fucker's head open with a concrete block.

__________________

GOD BLESS AMERICA

I figure they are more competent than that.

I've said all along that 678 was still in effect...where we've come up short on that part of the debate is your failure to produce anything from the UN that authorizes the removal of Saddam and a military attack on Iraq...thus the legitimacy question from that perspective...as I've mentioned before, Bush Sr and Brent Scowcroft didn't feel they had that option under 678 and you've failed to prove them wrong with anything either prior or subsequently.

Yeah, that morality bit...I find a big difference between targeted assassination of a military foe and targeting innocent women and children...or even using the excuse of "collateral damage"...I guess you're right, we don't have much of a moral leg to stand on.

__________________
"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."

Which side will you be on?


OBAMA/PEROT

send him to canadia.

nothing but pansy french losers there anyway

__________________

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Who? The Green Berets or Al Queda?

So why wasn't Resolution 678 applicable to enforcing Iraqi compliance with the ceasefire then? If you have hostilities and then one side gives up and agrees to a ceasefire, but then doesn't abide by then terms of that ceasefire, then how much validity does the ceasefire continue hold? Without a valid ceasefire agreement in place, then aren't the hostilities re-initiated?

Bush Sr. and Scowcroft were inhibited by the fact that there was obviously no ceasefire for Iraq to violate while the Gulf War was still going on.

You can target all of the leaders you want, but there'll always be someone ready and willing and able to take their place - and more often than not, they usually turn out to be even worse than their martyred predecessors.

The Canadians.

Each of the subsequent resolutions going all the way to 1441 called for going back for re-evaluation, not military action...the only military action specifically authorized was relative to removing Saddam's forces from Kuwait per 678...but you already knew that...when are you going to provide something that shows they went back and determined further military action was needed and to go into Iraq and remove Saddam? Huh? When?

Provide something that shows they went back to the UN and determined further military action was needed and to go into Iraq and remove Saddam.

So what's your plan?

__________________
"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."

Which side will you be on?


OBAMA/PEROT

I was a combat engineer and served in several places such as Ft Leonardwood MO Ft Benning Georgia, Ft Bragg North Carolina Ft. Lewis Washington, Darmstadt Germany The only actual combat I saw was very minimal compared to Iraq, Grenada.

A soldier goes where he is told to....

He obeys the chain of command clicks his heels and does what the hell he is told....

If he is not willing to do this than a life in the military is not where he belongs.

He was not drafted, everyone knows when they go in the military that there is a chance that they will go to combat, guess what that is what armies do.

This man should be court martialed and probably will be and he should be tried for desertion, soldiers who desert during war have been executed in the past.

He should at the very least spend the better half of his life behind bars.

Many brave men are out there day in and day out doing their duty for their country. He has shamed himself and his family.

He is a coward.

Viking

Well, I can't argue with you on that one *L*

Resolution 1441 declared Iraq to be in material breach of the ceasefire - once the Security Council made that determination, the terms of the ceasefire no longer restrained the resumption of hostilities, ie, Resolution 678's "all necessary means" once again came into effect.

Let me ask you this... what if Iraq hadn't given up in 1991? What if they kept fighting to the bitter end? Would the US have been justified in pushing the ground war to Baghdad then? Or would that have been compelled to just stop at the border and hunker down while the Republican Guard kept shooting at them?

Show me that they needed to once Resolution 1441 declared them to be in material breach of the ceasefire.

If you're confident you're on the side of the angels then all you have to do is stay true to what you believe in and outlast the bastards. They claim to fight for Islam and yet they betray what Islam stands for time and time again. You're not going to beat that by becoming more hypocritical than they are... the way to beat it is to stay true and expose them for the hypocrites they are.