Can Iraq be right for once?

Nope. What makes you think so?

:confused: Nations that are not allies of the United States have possessed WMD for generations, and it has not been a causus belli. Ergo, possession of WMD, by itself, has never been considered a causus belli by the U.S.

Why did you put “going to war with the UN” in quotation marks? Is it your position that the Gulf War did not occur?
I don’t argue that Bush wants to invade Iraq for that reason. I submit that it provides legal justification.

There are two facts relevant here. First, the Bushies have not invaded Iraq without UN approval. Second, the resolution doesn’t merely legitimize its proposed actions ‘in the eyes of U.S. allies,’ but legitimizes them, period.


:confused: Chumpsky, the mind boggles that you, of all people, would call a general strike “subversion.” Are you opposed to the right of the workers to strike?


I was going to say
4- There’s no huge oil fields in Korea.

but this site:

says they have maybe 6 billion tons of oil.

So never mind, I guess.

Sua, I simply mean to ask that if possession of WMDs were to become a causus belli in U.S. policy at some point, would you actually expect the U.S. to attack Great Britain? If you don’t, I submit that your statement was disingenuous.

As for my quotation marks, that was simply bad posting form. I was merely repeating your earlier phrase (redundant, of course, since it was already in the passage I quoted).
A third relevant fact here is that the Bush Admin doesn’t care what the U.N. thinks about its goals. I think it’s ridiculous for the Bushies to pretend they give a damn about what the U.N. thinks in principle.

That was just a sampling. Hell, the Canadians thwarted two American invasions alone.

According to this article it seems that the so-called strikers were on a paid holiday, courtesy of their employers. :smiley:

Neither does Iraq…

The world seem to be so very black and white.
I am happy that people are happy about their believes.

We could’ve won the Korean war, but the military has always been held back by politicians. It would’ve been easy. McArthur saw how to win. He knew it. I think it was Truman who held him back… not sure on that. He wanted to openly bomb China. That would’ve forced them to pull out of NKorea. Had they not, we would’ve threatened nuclear attack, and/or invasion. Trust me. Had we really wanted it, we would’ve taken it.

You people really think that the first Gulf War was fought over weapons of mass destruction, and/or the invasion of Kuwait. Sigh…

It was fought because Kuwait is an EXTREMELY oil rich country. That’s it. Had Iraq invaded say, Libya, no one would’ve cared. Bush would’ve just been like “meh” and that would’ve been that. The only reason we are going back to war with Iraq, and WE ARE GOING TO WAR, is because Bush Jr. and the Republican party as a whole are warmongers. I can’t believe that we elected our government to the entire Republican Party… We just signed away thousands of our sons, daughters, husbands, wives, to stupid wars.

I, for one, would have been really impressed if Iraq had invaded Libya, since they don’t share a border or anything.

When Americans and others worldwide and mired in messy debate about whether the USA should kill Iraqis or Koreans then The Terrorists Have Already Won ™

Let’s just emulate the Wisdom and Mercy of the Old Testament god and KILL ANYONE, ANYWHERE WHO PISSES US OFF!!!

Right. If you say so.

You’ve got a point. If there was direct evidence linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda, the only debate would be do we bomb Iraq to rubble or do we bomb more to make the rubble bounce.

There may not be a tie to Al-Qaeda, but Iraq does sponsor terrorism. Saddam pays family members of suicide bombers. North Korea may be a repressive regime, but they don’t pay people for murdering civilians.

Ans Iraq had the third? largest standing army in the world during the Gulf War. It’s just that no one guesed that it would suck so badly.

Yes…and that would have been preferable…why?

Be thankful that the military is held back by the politicians. The military is an extension of foreign policy, they don’t dictate it.

Back in Gulf War 1.0 they said Iraq had the 3rd largest army. Anybody know what their ranking is now? My guess is their 4th, the Salvation Army moved up to 3.

[Rodney Dangerfield] Because Truman was too much of a pussy whimp to let MacArthur go in there and take out those Commie bastards! [/Rodney Dangerfield]

[Sam Kinison] Good answer. Good answer. [/Sam Kinson]

Inspectors haven’t found a thing.

I think the 70,000 U.S. and U.N. troops, and 415,000 South Koreans who died in the Korean War would find this assertion mind-boggling.

I am not being disingenuous. I do in fact believe that if mere possession of WMDs were to become a causus belli in U.S. policy at some point, I would indeed expect the U.S. to attack Great Britain.

Indeed, it is the fact that Great Britain and France (and Pakistan and India, for that matter) possess WMDs that causes me to conclude that the mere possession of WMDs will never become a causus belli in U.S. policy.

IOW, my statements are not at cross-purposes. In fact, they follow logically (at least in my mind. YMMV :D).

I’m not sure how this is relevant. What is relevant is not whether the Bushies give a damn about the UN in principle, but instead whether they give a damn about it in action. I may despise the IRS, but you can’t accuse me of tax evasion so long as I fill out my 1040 and send in my check on April 15.

So far, the Bushies have abided by the UN. Indeed, even after the Bushies declared that the omission’s in Iraq’s weapons declaration constituted a “material breach” - which some Bushies were asserting was all that was needed for war, without further UNSC action - the US, as you might have noticed, did not declare war.

The evidence thus far, is that the U.S. intends to work through the UN.


In that case, I hereby withdraw the statement that I made about your (supposed) disingenuosity. The very idea that the U.S. would attack Great Britain merely because they possessed WoMD, however, strikes me as preposterous. Thus, I must ask, why on earth would you expect such a thing?