Fair question, Whuck, I don’t know. I do know the POTUS is not supposed to unilaterally break a treaty without congressional approval. (although they have done it).
That’s still an issue for the UN, not for the US.
Since when do you warmongers care about proof?
Besides, Iraq, which is a member of the UN, has ignored past and present resolutions. In effect, a breach of treaty.
All bets are off. Especially when the UN doesnt care to back up the penalties for Iraqs failure to conform to the resolutions.
We also had about 40 nations in some form or another backing our actions. It wasnt as unilateral as some would believe. France and Germany would be on board if they werent dealing with Iraq under the table (my speculation).
I always care about proof, son. I’m a scientist. But I’ll take your answer as a “no.”
And let’s not forget that Congress authorized war with Iraq in early October, 2002. There was nothing unilateral about it.
I must add, that I am not as much of a supporter of this current affair as I once was, or thought I would be. I haven`t been able to completely justify in my own head the act of bombing the crap out of another country.
On the other hand I do believe that Saddam had to go. Sooner than later. And the only way I can see that happening is with such force. I am not cheering, but I will be content when it is over. I guess you would call the feeling indifferent.
Does it bother you that we invaded Iraq with no proof of WMD’s?
Authorizing a war is technically not the same thing as authorizing a repeal of the UN treaty.
Whuck, it doesn’t matter how many other countries that the US bribed, threatened, intimidated or cajoled in to supporting the invasion. It still did not meet the international legal criteria to justify an aggressive action against the sovereignty of Iraq.
**
Oh, i am so shamed, you have insulted me so, i must go drag myslef back beneath my rock. Woe is me to have insulted such a high Lord master like Weirddave
you brought up me claiming a media bias first, cheif. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.
if i had cared about refuting your idiocy, i would have spent more than five minutes on your reply. But since i do have a job and the good sense not to waste time on braindead losers living in their parents’ basements, you’ll have to do with continuous five minute replies. And since you admit the information is available elsewhere, why should i bother?
Yes, Arabs would never come here to attack us. They fly planes all the way from Egypt into our buildings. (oh, wait, i’m sure you’re one of the ignorant masses who thinks all the highjackers flew over from Iraq.)
Damn, your coding skills prove you the master debater. Or a master something…i don’t really care. You also forgot to inslult my lack of capital I’s.
[quote]
which features the opinion of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak who says that he thinks the war will create “100 bin Ladens”. Gee, a politician in a country that opposes the war, with a population that opposes the war, saying something against the war. That’s shocking! Nowhere have you linked to anything, other than President Mubarak’s opinion, which proves “turned thousands of Arabs into terrorists who want us all dead”. YOU said that the war has created these new terrorists. Linking to stories about how the U.S. is unpopular in the Middle East isn’t even close to proving this, Sparky. We’ve been the “Great Satan” over there for years. I want evidence of new terrorists created in the last 2 weeks, specifically in response to the war.{quote]
You’ll get your evidence when people here start dying. Hopefully you will live through the first attack to see how wrong you were. And i’ll take the leader over a middle eastern nation’s opinion over the opinion of a basement dwelling armchair general who thinks that anyone who doubts CNN must be the pinnacle of foolishness
Once again, you brought up media bias first. And, yes, i did know that. But not being able to read Arabic keeps me from being accessable to all of their stories.
Sure, just repeat to yourself that your thoughts are independent enough and you will believe it. Just like everyone else does. Insulting people who doubt weapons of mass destruction report #28914235328532905239052905285902835902385290589203589230 is the most unique thought in the universe. No one has ever countered someone who had doubt about the latest claim by newsprograms jumping the gun. Grow a brain.
I am not sorry to see Saddam go. I don’t dispute that he is (was?) an evil thug who can benefit greatly from a bullet in the head. I think it may be a fortunate side-effect that the Iraqi people have an opportunity to start all over.
What bothers me is the precedent. The US has never gone in for “preemptive” invasions before. There are several other countries which are arguably as much or more of a threat than Iraq was. There are other countries with brutal or oppressive governments. Are we going to invade all of them? If not, why not?
We have done preemptive invasions to serve our own cause before. Panama wouldn’t exists if we didn’t say so. but we are supposed to be above that crap now in the 21st century. Someone didn’t get the memo.
If that were the only reason, it might…or hell, might not. How much more proof do you need than his gassing of 100,000 or so a few years back, and his continued obfuscation when it came to UN inspectors? Don’t tell me you actually believed Hussein when he said, “Oh, those? Yeah, ummm…we never had them but we destroyed any of them that we didn’t have and CERTAINLY NEVER USED.”
Uh huh. Does DtC stand for Diogenes the Credulous?
In any case, that was hardly the only casus belli we had. As far as I’m concerned, as soon as the first Iraqi SAM was fired at a US jet patrolling the no-fly zone, that was plenty of cause to eliminate Hussein.
The rest is just gravy.
Sure we have. Panama and Nicaragua immediately spring to mind.
I see your point. What I would like to know (Im sure youve stated this here but its getting late) is, why are you hung up on the legality of the actions? Are you using that as a means to justify the immoralities of the war? (does that make any sense?) If youre hung up on the morality of our actions more so than the legality than you should consider that Saddam, as a leader, is one of the most immoral, period. I guess knowing which you consider more important would help me understand your stance better.
upon preview I see you touched on it briefly (the fact that this is an isolated event when in fact their are many other countries whose leaders may deserve the bullet). Would you care to extend your views?
I did? Seem to me that reviewing my post on page one of this thread would reveal that I said:
I asked a question, and sure enough, you did go on to claim bias with your garbage about “Claim #oh-look-i’m-so-clever-I-can-hit-a-lot-of-numbers-in-a-row” and “whatever crap the media is shoveling these days”. You then accuse me of stating there is “liberal bias” in the media, something I’ve never done. This seems to be your stock in trade; wild, baseless accusations to hide the fact that you have no arguement. Your posts are singularly lacking in facts, devoid of cites that back up your claims ( but swimming with links to cites that don’t-perhaps as a diversion )and filled with pathetic attempts at insults to disguise the lack of the first two. So, hot spur, I’ll ask you directly, once again, for cites that:
I have complained about a “liberal bias” in the media
and
“Thousands” of new terrorists have been created by this war.
Cites, facts, verifiable data, not your or anyone else’s uninformed opinion. You come up with those two and we’ll move on to some of the other wild claims you’ve made. Maybe DTC will come up with a legitimate legal cite for his unique interpitation of the Constitution, too.
Put up or shut up.
Whuck
What bothers me is the thought of one world superpower making decisions about what other governments do or do not have a right to exist. By the same logic we’re using, China could decide to invade Taiwan as a “preemptive” defense against some trumped up threat. You may trust the US government (I don’t) to make decisons like this, but there may come a time when the US is no longer the world’s superpower (inconceivable, I know, but it seemed inconceivable for the Roman empire too). How would we want to be treated then?
How many conservatives would support a preemptive war waged by a Democrat? If Clinton had wanted to invade Iraq ten yeras ago, would he have gotten all the flag waving support from conservatives that GWB is getting? Nothing in Iraq was different then than it is now.
I don’t like going to war, or putting Americans in harm’s way, except as a last resort. Americans should not have to die if America is not being threatened.
Hussein may be evil but he wasn’t a threat to us.
Castro is an oppressive dictator too, and Cuba would be better off without him. having said that, would you be willing to die for a free Cuba?
Iraq is no different.
Yes, i’ll just call up my local Al-Qaeda representative and ask him how things go. Or i shall use the brain you lack and think. “what would Al-Qaeda do?” Use this war as a recruiting tool? Ding ding ding ding ding! The increased Taliban attacks must be unrelated to the war. Those Al-Qaeda dudes entering the US? All peace loving hippies.
And how about some cites that the war is ending terrorism? Since you love cites and all. I’ll even predict your reply: “Why should I supply cites, you’re the one making all the claims. My claims that terrorism will not sprout from this war are not claims at all. And media bias.”
Yoda said it best.
“Fear leads to anger. Anger leads hate. Hate leads to suffering.”
Those of you who grudginly accept the status quo of war; I understand. Those who look for the silver lining of bringing democracy to Iraq; (assuming we dont get distracted by invading more nations) I agree.
But all of you folks who clamour “jolly good show, what what!” and clap politely, vomiting smug patrotic elitism as Bush tears decades worth of international legitimacy to shreads… You are being manipulated by what a small cartel of white men. You think what they want you too in order that they may advance their agendas. Maybe they have American interests at heart, maybe it’s their own pocket books. Maybe their policies will bring a brighter tomorrow, maybe they won’t.
Buy into the doublespeak, lies, and propoganda, and you’re making a mistake thousands of generations have made before. Tear down the critics, the intellectuals, the “other side” in your feverish righteousness, and you’re nothing more than political fodder.
If you really have that much faith in your leader’s judgment; so much so that you have rationally decided to follow a man who leads through fear, anger, and aggression… then thats fine. Maybe it’s for the best. But have no illusion about right and wrong here- the choice is between political indoctrination and international rationality.
-C
Is it 100% certain we will get exactly 1,000 new terrorists out of this? No. But I would think a man of your obvious character and capacity for logic would understand this argument. I’ll be explicit.
I dont think anything there is contentious, no? Now, billy, do you think that a religious leader in Syria or Iran screaming about Jihad against the American devils is going to have MORE or LESS receptive crowds, given these events? Is there some point here where you think this isn’t so obvious it’s almost empirical? Do you count on the US to extend its domination beyond Iraq to contain the threat? Or perhaps you think the Arab world will collectively roll over and start suckling on America’s teat once it sees how wonderful our corporations are?
I’m perlexed at your need for a cite here.
-C
You’re conflating at least two unrelated concepts. No one is trying to “tear down the critics, the intellectuals (nice spin there, by the way, unilaterally recruiting them to “your side”),” etc. Most of us who are pro-war are saying, “Yes, we’ve heard your arguments. We simply don’t find them compelling.”
Oh, lord save us from oppression! :rolleyes:
No. Hopefully, they will establish plenty of successful Arab businesses that will give American corporations international competition, earn obscene piles of money, and make their countries rich. It’s high damn time the Arab world entered this century.
I don’t believe I am alone in viewing it as a fundamental conflict between a culture of narrow-mindedness, religious oppression, intolerance, and theocracy against one of globalization, economic expansion, human rights, and law. The world’s future, I believe, lies in not suffering dictatorships. It lies in open economic trade and the strong discouragement of religion in government. I realize we still have problems with this in our own country, but we’re a damn sight further along the curve than a lot of Arab countries.
Bad analogy, DTC. Here’s a better one: Let’s say you’re a cop, part of a large group of many police. Part of your job is to watch people and make sure they don’t commit any crimes… and if you catch somebody committing a crime, you’re to call for backup.
Now, in the process of doing your job, a bad guy walks up and starts punching you in the face. Do you, A: punch him back, wrestle him to the ground, and restrain him, or B: call for backup, and wait for said backup, even if that backup doesn’t, y’know, back you up?
You’re suggesting that we, the United States, which has been enforcing the US sanctions (alone with the UK) for well over a decade, do B. I’m sorry, my dear imbecile, but that’s insane.
Iraq punched us in the face?
There are alot of Arab businesses earning obscene piles of money and their countries are very rich. they’re sitting n mst f the freaking oil reserves!
Please explain what you mean by the last sentence.
Except of course, when the dictatorships suit the interests of big business and politics. Pinochet, anyone?
While I agree with the thecracy point, there is still plenty of Economic trade happening in the Arab world.