There is.
His apparent meltdown is just starting in GD.
Ok, good… The UN is a voluntary charter organization and has no sovernity over the USA.
Also, funny you mention, Iraq was in multiple clear violations of said UN laws that you support. Therefore it was mandated that we do what we did.
Either way, you lose.
No. He’s not. He’s trying to patiently explain to dec about how common enemies can provide the impetus for enemies to take up arms together, (ie al qaeda and the former Baathists). As an example, he uses the US and the USSR
These were not attack from Iraq. You seem to be conflating Iraq and al Qaeda. As Wolfowitz will tell you, they are not interchangeable entities.
If you care to check your Constitution, you’ll find that ratified international treaties are on par w/ the Constituion as the law of the land. Even if they weren’t, it would be a case of a breach of contract. Not good for American honor.
Saddam certainly supplied money to palistinean terrorists. I think it’s incredibly likely that he would support anti-american terrorists forces, and the evidence is building that he is now currently working with them.
I have little doubt we’ll have full proof of his deeds, it’s already coming out anyway.
You call yourself a conservative and support UN sovernity over the USA? What kind of alien conservative is this? That’s CLASSIC liberal democrat twaddle.
The US helped create the UN and accepted following certain “things” that Americans themselves thought were valuable. So you say UN laws dont matter anymore…
But then suddenly “multiple clear” violators of UN laws are wrong…
So should we punish clear violators of UN measures Mr. Monty ?
Ratified treaties are RATIFIED by the US Senate or Congress. So no its not UN sovereignty over the US… its AMERICANS accepting a International Law as being valid for them as well.
Also if I am against the War I am in favor of Saddam ? So if Bush is against the International Criminal Tribunal that means he is defending War Criminals then. Must be so thru your twisted logic. Why arent americans sending troops to the Hague to save Milosevic ?
Well, cause clinton went after Milosevic and invaded a country, so it’s ok, right?
Which UN treaty exactly banned going to war with Iraq, when Iraq was violating UN treaties which allowed such an invasion in the first place?
You make absolutely no sense. If the UN rules count, then we were justified with the invasion. If they don’t count, we did what was right according to US law when congress gave Bush authority to take military action.
I asked you about countries that dont obey multiple UN measures… should all of them be punished ? If Bush wants a more lawful world shouldnt all countries be treated according to what they do wrong or right ?
The USA has to act in the interest of national security. North Korea’s next on the list to be dealt with most likely.
Can’t you understand that a country that’s a serious potential threat to world security is more important to deal with than one that isn’t?
Iraq was an offensive nation, not defensive. That’s clearly proven by history. It also broke tons of treaties and was in violation of international rules. Therefore, the international rules you are relying on do justify the attack.
You aren’t saying anything that justifies passive behavior with Iraq.
I support the US Constitution as written. I’m kinda partial to it. I’d like to conserve it.
Well me too.
That doesn’t include any UN stuff, btw…
It certainly doesn’t forbid the invasion of Iraq, which was mandated by the UN’s own rules and our ceasefire in Gulf War 1.
Where have I said anything about the U.S. experiencing downfall? You’re making this up as you go along. I noted only that by acting as the active unilateral aggressor, the United States created a common enemy for both the Ba’ath and al Qaida to put aside their mutual hatred for the purpose of fighting us.
Germany and Japan are, actually, quite different cases for a large number of reasons:
They were wholly constituted nations with a common cultural tradition extending back even farther than the founding of the nations, themselves. Iraq is a colonially created nation constituting several different antagonistic ethnic groups who have no history of common self-governance.
Germany and Japan were, in fact, nations defeated by a group of nations at the end of a prolonged war in which they were left with no friends outside their borders. Iraq was defeated by the U.S. and the U.K. leading a pretend coalition of countries, while outside Iraq (throughout the Middle East) there are a large number of people who felt that the U.S. was waging a war for the sole purpose of taking Iraq’s oil. There are many people in the region, therefore, who are willing to come to the aid of any Iraqis who continue to put up resistance to the foreign invaders.
Germany and Japan were clearly defeated, so they had a rationale for accepting the dictates of the United Nations. Iraq was supposed to have been “liberated,” and they are upset at the way that they have not been given the freedom to run their own country. (The current ruling council may succeed if we actually spend enough money to get the country going, but all the members of that council were hand picked by the invaders, not elected by the people.)
Your “two options” are simply a logical fallacy (the excluded middle).
The U.S. could have done a number of things, not least among them giving the renewed inspections time to work and not lying to the U.N. when trying to get support for the war. By deliberately destroying the efforts to have a genuine coalition of united nations against Iraq, we have created a situation in which we are perceived as the greedy aggressors.
Your references to the U.S.S. Cole and the WTC/Pentagon attacks (and you forgot the embassies) are simply false. Iraq had nothing to do with any of those attacks and the energy (lives and money) we have wasted going into Iraq prematurely could have been used to actually attempt to build support in the region to destroy al Qaida. Instead, we went haring after a blowhard who was not threatening us while angering a lot of people whom we might have persuaded to our side if we had spent the same enrgy and money helping Afghanistan become a real country instead of letting it resort to the loose collection of feuding warlords that it is now (thus recreating the situation that brought the Taliban to power in the first place).
Even President Bush has not been foolish enough to claim that Iraq had anything to do with the WTC/Pentagon. Cole, and embassy attacks. Making that association indicates that you seem to have no actual knowledge of the situation or that you are willing to simply spout anything to make a point, regardless of the errors you post.
No. Iraq (in the person of Saddam Hussein) was shown by history to be a bully who only attacked smaller or weaker groups (either nations or his own people) when he was fully convinced that he had no chance of losing. Hussein never attacked anyone whom he perceived as strong enough to defend themselves and never attacked anyone stronger than he was. The U.S. was in no danger from Iraq.
Misreading the real lessons of history is a good way to stumble into more mistakes (as we have done, here).
False claim. If the UN rules count, they authorize the United Nations to act upon them, not some rogue nation who will quote only the portions it likes and ignore the rest.
About the last comment, I quote Fargo… But how do ya know?
Cause you say so? We had already fought one war with Iraq and they used ballistic missiles against our ally Israel. You think they weren’t a threat? Sure…
Your hysteric anti-Bush sentiments are making you say things that are patently false. It’s kinda sad.
There’s very very simple justification for the war. All it boils down to is this: Was Iraq in violation of the cease fire agreement from the first Gulf War.
The answer: Yes
QED
**
Mea culpa. I shall self-flagellate for an hour after dinner tonight. Or, on second thought, perhaps I’ll go to my favorite Dominatrix and have her do it for me 
Fair enough. But that brings us right back to square one: where’s the evidence of that connection?
Anyway, I am disinclined from participating any further in this thread as it has turrned into one big monty2_2001 flame-fest.
Where do you find these guys? I thought they went with the dinosaurs.
I disagree. The UN was obligated to act. It didn’t, so we did.
Too bad for saddam.
WEll, 60% of our active duty combat forces are in Iraq right now. We’ve put in a unit that has been traditionally reserved for dealing w/ the ventuality of conflict in NK. If NK gets out of hand, we’ll be short handed.
Ahh. You’re starting to get it. This is exactly my point. Iraq wasn’t a serious threat to world security. Nor, was it a probable threat to world security in the forseeable future. It was, though, as you correctly pointed out a “potential” threat to world security. But so’s Fernando Poo. Potential doesn’t cut it. It has to at least a likely threat. World security doesn’t cut it either. We don’t need to be the WorldCop. Iraq was violating UNSC resolutions, let the UNSC deal w/ it. They were dealing w/ Iraq’s violations more strictly than they were dealing w/ Israel’s violations of UNSC resolutions.
Iraq was forcibly partitioned and subject to more than a decade of severe sanctions and near daily bombing runs.
Can you cite the international rules and the language thereof that justify the attack? AFAIK, there’s none. Yes, I’ve read and reread UINSC res 1441. It says no such thing, Check it out for yourself.
We weren’t engaged in passive behavior w/ Iraq.
Heh, the anti-Bush anti-war peace hippies are the small minority now. Wake up and look around, this forum isn’t representive of the USA’s opinions. Just a small leftwing faction.