Phantom

True Leejo but think of it this way.

1) There is NO direct connection between SH and 9-11

2) There were no WMD's in Iraq

Those are the 2 reasons that Bush used for invading Iraq.

Therefore it is obvious that we invaded Iraq for the sake of invading a country we didn't like, using completely invalid reasons. The only reason Bush got away with it is because people were still freaking out and just wanted something to happen, they didn't care what.

__________________

leejo

No that's the myth about why Bush chose to invade Iraq. Here is the truth:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020912-1.html

Read it. The WMD issue is item 4 or 5 of many, and was only incidental to the full justification for the invasion. His failure to comply with UN demands to provide the required access and documentation was paramount though.

Nowhere in his speech to the UN did President Bush connect SH to 9/11 except to note that we can no longer allow outlaw regimes.

Trooper

i just have a question for you.....so was iraq better off before or after we came in.


imma bush supporter but the things he is messing with are things the government should have no say in anyway...healthcare...we all know what happens when the government "regulates things"..and medicare/social security....i personally dont want to use my tax dollars as a way for lazy immagrant to be a bum...

and our country is so far in debt as it is the money really doesnt matter any more. its all the countryies we have helped and then told them not to pay us back...

i guess things would have been better with Kerry...YAH RIGHT!

And to those who thinks the UN should have been involved you are nuts...they where making so much money off of the oil in Iraq they would have been stupid to do so....The UN is corupt and has no place in world conduct..

__________________
that sounds like a good idea trooper.
-Vulcan

TheFeniX

Bush being a retard and playing the "OMG TEH SET US UP THE BOMB" crap doesn't make the war itself invalid. It just makes his arguement for the war invalid (at least a large chunk of it).

Just because everyone (including the Bush administration) focused on that one agenda, doesn't make it the only one.

Saddam violated the argeement he signed back during Desert Storm. Aside form being a mass-murderer and terrorist supporter, he did everything within his power to stop UN inspectors from doing their job searching his military depots (even instructing his officers to fire at them).

It's akin it a parole violation, and he got the hammer laid on him for it.

__________________

Phantom

Except for last time I checked the United States didn't rule the UN. If UN rules were being broken then the UN as a whole should decide what to do about it, not the US taking things into it's own hands. That's why we have the UN.

__________________

Trooper

And to those who thinks the UN should have been involved you are nuts...they where making so much money off of the oil in Iraq they would have been stupid to do so....The UN is corupt and has no place in world conduct..


from the top to the bottom the officials where accepting money for not doing there job....

__________________
that sounds like a good idea trooper.
-Vulcan

Phantom

If you say that then why are we using the fact that Iraq disobeyed UN sanctions as a basis for invasion??

__________________

leejo

That's a fine argument if all the members of the security council are equal targets of terror, but they're not. If a country violates agreement after agreement with the UN and the UN does nothing about it (and in fact profits from it?!), and France alone pays the price, do you think France would agree with you or do you think France would throw up its hands and take care of business.

OK bad example. Sub Britain for France maybe.

But you just shifted your argument. You said WMDs and the direct connect with 9/11 were the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Now you seem to be saying that even though, or even if, those assertions are not valid, the UN should have signed off on the war anyway.

WMDs were PART of the justification for the war. POTUS made no assertion that SH was directly connected to 9/11. The claim that the justification for the Iraq war hinged on WMDs and 9/11 is incorrect and honest people should drop it.

Phantom

No I'm not saying that the UN should have signed off on it or not. I am saying that it is their decision to make, not ours.

__________________

leejo

If a black man is murdered in Mississippi in the 60s and the local sheriff refuses to pursue or arrest the man's murderers, a crime has still been committed and someone needs to do the job.

Iraq violated a ceasefire, it violated all the agreements it had made with the UN. Just because the UN lacked the spine or integrity to do anything about it doesn't let Iraq off the hook. You get that don't you?

Phantom

They broke UN sanctions not US sanctions so what authority do we have to do anything?? If we invaded every country that had ever done anything wrong according to somebody elses rules then we would have to invade every country, including our own.

__________________

Trooper

yah im saying since america has taken its role as global police to the extreme we are obligated to do things with out the support of others. The UN wasnt going to do anything about SH or Iraq not doing its job. SH was playing a game...he knew he could do it. if he dint have weapons, he very well may have none, if not why not just let UN inspectors come in and do there job and all is well and no one is worse off.

__________________
that sounds like a good idea trooper.
-Vulcan

Phantom

That's the problem Trooper, the US took the role of global police (extreme or not it is stupid), what right does the US have to police the world?? What right does the US have to tell other countries how to do things??

__________________

Trooper

i agree with you on that.....

but if not us helping other countries and giveing them guidence where would this world be...im proud of my country and i think the more people act it the better our country would be. (back to thread topic) to use a tragedy like her sons death for this is wrong and i hope you relize she wont make it with in 2 feet of that fence before getting either arrested or tackled..i hope both.

__________________
that sounds like a good idea trooper.
-Vulcan

leejo

What right? Well, our economy and military give us the right. I don't know if you've noticed but there are large parts of the world that don't give a rat's ass about your notions of "rights".

The UN is the primary whiner about "rights" and they won't even enforce their own rules. If anyone in the world is going to create global "rights" it'll be the good people of the USA, Britain, Australia, and so on, who not only care about rights but will do something to the people who violate others'.

Rights mean NOTHING without the will and ability to enforce them. The UN has neither. The USA has both. You should be arguing that we should be invading more horrible places instead of suggesting that Kofi Annan be the final arbiter.