|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 15, 2004 22:22:26 GMT -5
Speaking of facts (not heresay), There were 17 UN resolutions regarding Iraq over a 12 year period www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htmThe burden of was proof Hussein's to meet. How dare the US challenge the UN to enforce it's own resolutions. I guess the UN resolutions were written under "bogus " circumstances as well? UNSCR 1441 clearly states...... "the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations. This talk about Bush looking to invade Iraq as soon as he was elected is not only speculative and unsubstantiated, but ridiculous to boot. Where's the documentation? I'm not interested in opinions and heresay, or "he said she said", I want valid proof.
|
|
|
Post by islandgirl on Mar 16, 2004 0:17:27 GMT -5
There certainly weren't 17 U.N. resolutions to invade and occupy Iraq so let's try to keep the facts and logic straight. As for Bush former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and the documents and blueprints he and others turned over to the media and for use in the book "The Price of Loyalty"? It all must not really exist. BTW, did we ever find those WMD's?
|
|
|
Post by sIsam on Mar 16, 2004 1:12:44 GMT -5
UNSCR 1441 clearly states...... "the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations. If it were necessary to intervene in Iraq then it should have been a UN lead mission. Not the US playing police to the world!
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 16, 2004 1:38:51 GMT -5
There certainly weren't 17 U.N. resolutions to invade and occupy Iraq so let's try to keep the facts and logic straight. Speak for yourself. You keep talking about facts but all I ever hear from you are opinions. UNSCR 1441 was clear. After 12 years of dismissed resolutions, there would be a price to pay if the conditions set forth in the context of the resolution were not met. They were not and action was taken against Hussein's regime. Just because no WMD'S have been found as of yet doesn't mean it wasn't there to begin with. Have you even read the reports? www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/13456.htmDocuments and blueprints? Lol ! Now you're just teasin'
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 16, 2004 1:46:05 GMT -5
If it were necessary to intervene in Iraq then it should have been a UN lead mission. Not the US playing police to the world! A UN lead mission? The UN had over 12 years to deal with Hussein and did nothing but create new resolutions. The United Nations is a debating society incapable of enforcing it's own resolutions. I for one wished the US didn't police the world. Let everybody else defend themselves.
|
|
|
Post by BarcelonaBob on Mar 16, 2004 2:00:20 GMT -5
The U.N. does not have enough troops to invade and occupy the smallest country in the world, much less a country the size of Iraq. Even if the U.N. Council had ever gotten off its decision-making inertia and made the decision to invade Iraq, its member nations would have had to supply the forces necessary for such an operation. The U.S. would have committed the most troops by far. Does it make any difference if a U.S. servicemember is killed in action in Iraq, whether that action was sanctioned by the U.S. alone, or by a U.N. resolution? I don't think the family members of the servicemember killed would see much difference, do you?
Most people here are defining terrorism as one lump sum object - it is not. Terrorist acts run a full spectrum from a lone individual (or group of individuals) acting independently such as McVeigh and Nichols in the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, to terrorist networks like the ETA (suspected organization responsible for the attacks in Spain) to Al-Qaeda, to the PLO, to state-sponsored terrorism which involves actual sovereign nations actively supporting terrorist organizations.
Iraq has been known for many years to have supported state-sponsored terrorism. They are not the only nation-state to have done this, nor are they the only one the U.S. has actively targeted. The U.S. is also aggressively committing forces to combat state-sponsored terrorism in Afganistan, and has previously launched strikes against Libya, including the 1986 bombing which almost killed Mohamar Quadaffi. Funny how we haven't heard a peep from him since that time.
I just find it humorous how people in this thread who are so under-informed or misinformed seem to have crystallized such off-target views on the war on terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by sIsam on Mar 16, 2004 4:22:54 GMT -5
And I find it very interesting that the people here forget the fact that US was is the main reason Saddam had turned into the monster that he was. He had US backing in the past...
As for the UN, I agree that UN does not have the kind of forces for this and member states would have supplied the force. That's the way it should have been....
|
|
|
Post by islandgirl on Mar 16, 2004 4:29:27 GMT -5
Have you even read the reports? Yeah, darn it, I must have missed the part of the resolution where they said there were going to invade and occupy Iraq but then didn't do it. I would like to think that you read the book and are speaking intelligently on the subject but your words clearly suggest otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by islandgirl on Mar 16, 2004 4:31:28 GMT -5
I for one wished the US didn't police the world. And it's pretty clear the majority of the rest of the world would agree.
|
|
|
Post by islandgirl on Mar 16, 2004 4:56:02 GMT -5
Does it make any difference if a U.S. servicemember is killed in action in Iraq, whether that action was sanctioned by the U.S. alone, or by a U.N. resolution? I don't think the family members of the servicemember killed would see much difference, do you? That's actually a very good anti-war statement altogether. You're assuming that Iraq had to be invaded when and how Bush decided. That's where we disagree. He decided to go in immediately without United Nations backing under what have turned out to be false pretenses. There has been nothing to prove the urgency of it all. (That is a very different situation from Afghanistan where the Taliban flat out said that they would protect/welcome Bin Laden immediately after the 9/11 attack on American soil.) It does make all the difference internationally whether the so-called war against terrorism (and the deaths that result from it) is a unifed effort or a unilateral decision pushed by one country's leader with questionable motives.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Mar 16, 2004 5:17:40 GMT -5
The U.N. does not have enough troops to invade and occupy the smallest country in the world, much less a country the size of Iraq. Even if the U.N. Council had ever gotten off its decision-making inertia and made the decision to invade Iraq, its member nations would have had to supply the forces necessary for such an operation. The U.S. would have committed the most troops by far. Does it make any difference if a U.S. servicemember is killed in action in Iraq, whether that action was sanctioned by the U.S. alone, or by a U.N. resolution? I don't think the family members of the servicemember killed would see much difference, do you? I just find it humorous how people in this thread who are so under-informed or misinformed seem to have crystallized such off-target views on the war on terrorism. For someone "so well informed" you sure use a lot of conjecture. Obviousy there are many families of service members that would see a major difference in the reason for their family members being killed in Iraq and many would not. I've not seen a poll that actually asks such families, and frankly it would be rather crass to attempt such a poll. Just as it crass of you presume that you personally know how all families of those that have lost relatives in Iraq do (or ought to) feel about their loss and how it relates to the reasoning behind the US declaring war on Iraq and sending troops to invade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2004 10:27:32 GMT -5
BiK, you keep missing the point: Bush invaded Iraq using specific justifications. He did this without the UN.
The upshot? The UN was correct and Bush was wrong. His man Powell sat there in front of the UN and the Bushies were all outraged that the UN members were not convinced that the evidence he presented was accurate.
Guess what? It wasn't!
Spin it any way you want, WE WERE WRONG TO INVADE IRAQ on our own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2004 10:36:03 GMT -5
Does it make any difference if a U.S. servicemember is killed in action in Iraq, whether that action was sanctioned by the U.S. alone, or by a U.N. resolution? Of course it does! Really? Where is it defined that way? ETA was never a suspect in Madrid--except by the governing party, the ex-government party I might add. They, like our illustrious president, tried to attach the crime to the group who would be most politically beneficial to them. What the heck are you talking about? If you are going to criticize us, please at least get your facts straight. Your whole post is full of inaccuracies. And it doesn't seem to have a point either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2004 10:38:35 GMT -5
And I find it very interesting that the people here forget the fact that US was is the main reason Saddam had turned into the monster that he was. He had US backing in the past... As for the UN, I agree that UN does not have the kind of forces for this and member states would have supplied the force. That's the way it should have been.... Not only that, this (IMHO) is the PRIMARY reason Bush I, Rummy, Cheney, Bush II, et al were out to get him. They took it PERSONALLY when Saddam was no longer their "boy." And Bush II REALLY took it personally (understandably) when Saddam tried to off his Dad. But it's no reason to make up reasons to go to war.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Mar 16, 2004 13:09:32 GMT -5
And I find it very interesting that the people here forget the fact that US was is the main reason Saddam had turned into the monster that he was. He had US backing in the past... Hussein was already a monster when he rose to power in 1979 becoming the head of state, chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, prime minister, commander of the armed forces and secretary-general of the Baath Party. As for the US siding with Iraq in his war against Iran, there's a no brainer. Less you forget the Iran hostage crisis. As for the UN, I agree that UN does not have the kind of forces for this and member states would have supplied the force. That's the way it should have been.... When has the UN ever taken the lead in anything other than a peacekeeping operation? Member states always have their own best interests in mind. The US did what it needed to do. Go ahead (R)uffda, don't disappoint me.
|
|