Bush and Blair agree to attack Iraq without UN, even if no WMD found

[portisizzle]

Easy. Because the position to "invade Iraq because of UN law" is hypocritical if it indeeds breaks the same law that is supposedly being supported. Also, you have stated your support of invading Iraq based on humanitarian missions. Thus, my question to you to see if you support such actions elsewhere, which you never indicated or answered.

Mopping up UN disasters will indeed take time. Do you believe in priorities? If so where does Sudan stand in relation to Iraq?

Now answer one of my questions from a few pages back.

[Baculus]

Mopping up UN disasters will indeed take time. Do you believe in priorities? If so where does Sudan stand in relation to Iraq?

I can ask the same of you - did we finish in Afghanistan? Did we ever capture Bin Laden?

And this is part of my issue with Iraq - in any such global war against terrorism, if this is the case that we are involved, then Iraq took resources away from such a war. And, as some has suggested, possibly inflamed it.

In all of my discussions regarding 9-11, I never denied the existance of real terrorism. It exists. I am not convinced, if this is the case, that Iraq is helping defeat any such terrorism.

[vinva]

I found Johnny's link a few pages back revealing to this point. Sanctions and Resolution failed this country. The UN has a humanitarian objective in Iraq that failed. What else could they do in the country?

If we agree that the UN completely failed in Iraq then yes humanitarian aid was an issue. Resolutions required Saddam to trade food for oil. Did this happen as it should have? Not at all.

You ask me if the humanitarian crisis was the prime reason? Only if you consider the Saddam regime was in violation the sanctions and resolutions that included proper trade of food for oil. In that case this was as much about the people as it was about a preemptive strike to stop Saddam from continued violations in weapon programs.

I do not think that Colin Powell spent time illustrating obvious human rights violations to the Security Council as this was a given. The prime mover was in fact the weapons and violations of resolutions that ended the first Gulf War.

My point in including the pictures was to remind some here that this is not about political opportunity. Some seem so happy to see something reported that casts Bush in a negative light. To me this is SICK.

Let's not fool ourselves though...everything is about politics.

I will contend that the human rights violations committed by Saddam Hussein did not hurt the case for war but were in no way an important factor in the decision to finally invade.

The issue at hand was UN resolution 1441 and Iraq's less-than-full compliance with it. It finally gave us a reason to get tough with them...something that this administration obviously wanted to do from the beginning (I don't care how big a Bush supporter you are...you have to see that they were just looking for an excuse to get this guy). Couple these feelings with the Bush Doctrine (preemption), a 12 year history of violating the UN's resolutions and intelligence that the whole world agreed upon, and you have yourself justification for invading.

Toppling Saddam (and ending the human rights abuses) became the story once the administration realized that one of the main reasons they went in in the first place was bogus (WMDs...please understand me...I say it was bogus because it was, but that does not mean that I do not think that it was a legit reason to begin with). It was barely if ever mentioned in the buildup to war.

[vinva]

We would be accusing ourselves. If the US leaves the UN the UN ceases to exist. IMO.

I think that would have been the case 5 years ago, but with the emergence of the EU as a legit world power, that is becoming less true every day.

[Baculus]

Now answer one of my questions from a few pages back.

What question - are you talking about one of your own bait posts, or the one where you invented some statements to attribute to me?

Pity the fool that reads these exchanges.

[Predicto]

The fact that liberals ignor reality is to say that the opposition to our efforts have been PURELY POLITICAL. No reasonable American would dare oppose the effort America is going through to rid the world of terrorists and leaders who support terrorists from the face of the earth.

You are wrong. Invading the wrong country at the wrong time is something one can easily oppose for non-partisan reasons. Or has Pat Buchanan suddenly become a liberal democrat?

[portisizzle]

I can ask the same of you - did we finish in Afghanistan? Did we ever capture Bin Laden?

And this is part of my issue with Iraq - in any such global war against terrorism, if this is the case that we are involved, then Iraq took resources away from such a war. And, as some has suggested, possibly inflamed it.

In all of my discussions regarding 9-11, I never denied the existance of real terrorism. It exists. I am not convinced, if this is the case, that Iraq is helping defeat any such terrorism.

I take the view that this war will last for years and years if done properly. It will involve giving people in the Muslim world freedom so they can value the lives of themselves. Then we can talk about valuing the lives of others.

What we are talking about is the removal of dictators and hate mongers and planting democracy and elected leaders.

When you demonstrate criticism for the effort led by Bush I just wish you would keep in mind how long it has taken America to get where we are.

Think we can give Iraq say ten years?

How long ago was the American Civil war again?

[portisizzle]

You are wrong. Invading the wrong country at the wrong time is something one can easily oppose for non-partisan reasons. Or has Pat Buchanan suddenly become a liberal democrat?

Pat Buchanan is an isolationist. How did he come into the debate? Of course he is going to oppose our involvement.

As to your point about wrong country at the wrong time. Would the right time be when, say, he had true nuclear weapons. Like North Korea does now.

I remember some resolution by Clinton where we let North Korea pursue peaceful nuclear ambitions to avoid conflict. Now we have a country than says they can strike the US premptively.

I guess dealing with a country when they REALLY are a threat is the right way to go?

Can you say Neville Chaimberlain?

Can you say UN Charter? lol

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ch-pream.htm

We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

When is the right time to stop a country. Do you think you are particularly situated to come to that conclusion. PArdon me if I choose to follow our elected leaders decisions on who and when to deal with in the best interest of our country.

[Baculus]

When you demonstrate criticism for the effort led by Bush I just wish you would keep in mind how long it has taken America to get where we are.

Think we can give Iraq say ten years?

My viewpoint of Iraq is currently the following: We are there, so let's do the best we can while we are in fact there and try to get out as soon as we can. But I am also the opinon that we may have empowered political and religious elements that are, in fact, anti-Democratic, contrary to any such aspirations in Iraq. For example, the strengthening of relgious groups in Southern Iraq that are implementing more Sharia law. To me, this is one of the larger threats, but these religious elements are the same ones who would support a "jihad" against the West. Thus, one reason why some have proposed that the removal of Saddam, in its own way, may have worsened the situation due to these newly unleashed religious elements.

Also, I also believe that things aren't as bad, nor as good as both sides to portray. it's a nation that currently has wild differences of peace and war in various parts of the nation, and of success and failure.

I am not ready to say that Iraq is a failure - I suppose, to me, in its own way, that is a different and separate debate altogether.

[portisizzle]

Pity the fool that reads these exchanges.

Those that care will notice you don't answer questions that do not suit. Not very good as a debate strategy.

[Predicto]

By the way, how do YOU define terrorists if indeed Saddam was not to his own people?

Sad to say, there are a ton of brutal dictators in the world. Saddam was just one of many. One of the worst, certainly, but just one of many.

Fair or not, the rest of the world does not like it when one country just invades another without the concurrence of the UN. You need really good and direct justification for such an action. And like it or not, we NEED the goodwill of the rest of the world and the cooperation of their security forces if we actually going to catch terrorists hiding in those countries.

We need to focus our efforts on the countries that directly affect us in the US. The Taliban regime in Afganistan was harboring Al-Qaeda. Kaboom - bye bye Taliban, and fine with me.

Invading Iraq was a side track that had little to do with terrorism, or any current threat to the US. And now our armies are bogged down, our soldiers have died, our trillions (!) of dollars have been spent, and our goodwill and sympathy from after 9/11 has been totally exhausted. Now Iran is trying to get nukes, and no one will cooperate with us to do anything about it. The whole situation sucks.

[portisizzle]

I think that would have been the case 5 years ago, but with the emergence of the EU as a legit world power, that is becoming less true every day.

For some reason I do not fear the EU as I do say Russia and China.

Europe has historically been the killing fields for the superpowers. America has historically been the ardent supporter of freedom for European nations.

Unless something changes this balance and respect my eyes are glued to the way in which the world deals with terrorists.

[portisizzle]

Invading Iraq was a side track that had little to do with terrorism, or any current threat to the US. And now our armies are bogged down, our soldiers have died, our trillions (!) of dollars have been spent, and our goodwill and sympathy from after 9/11 has been totally exhausted. Now Iran is trying to get nukes, and no one will cooperate with us to do anything about it. The whole situation sucks.

Interestingly enough this side track has positioned us quite well to deal with any threat posed by Iran.

Just a thought. Could you imagine a world today where North Korea, Iraq, AND Iran posed legitimate threats and we were not in the theater?

A world were international sanctions meant nothing?

[Baculus]

Those that care will notice you don't answer questions that do not suit. Not very good as a debate strategy.

Actually, I am not sure to which question you'd like a reply. Go ahead and repost and I will answer it, Portis.

[vinva]

A world were international sanctions meant nothing?

And this might be the greatest uninteded consequence of this whole Iraq mess...now every crazy guy in the world is going to think twice about blowing off the UN because 1) they know the crazy US might step in and do something and 2) the UN won't do anyting to punish the US.

[Predicto]

Pat Buchanan is an isolationist. How did he come into the debate? Of course he is going to oppose our involvement.

He came into the debate when you asserted that all opposition to the war in Iraq was purely political partisanship, something you know to be false but you keep on saying over and over.

As to your point about wrong country at the wrong time. Would the right time be when, say, he had true nuclear weapons. Like North Korea does now.

I remember some resolution by Clinton where we let North Korea pursue peaceful nuclear ambitions to avoid conflict. Now we have a country than says they can strike the US premptively.

I guess dealing with a country when they REALLY are a threat is the right way to go?

Dude, just saying Saddam had nuclear aspirations isn't going to get you very far in a debate about whether an immediate invasion was necessary. He didn't have spit for a nuclear program. Hell, I can just SAY that Jamaica has nuclear aspirations if I want to. Let's invade them and find out later whether or not it is true.

When is the right time to stop a country. Do you think you are particularly situated to come to that conclusion. PArdon me if I choose to follow our elected leaders decisions on who and when to deal with in the best interest of our country.

Pardon me if I choose to question the decisions of the elected leaders of our country when they make no sense rather than following along nodding and chanting like an automaton. This isn't North Korea. We get to seek explanation for an inexplicable decision that ends up costing us several thousand soldiers' lives and several thousand dollars in debt for every man, woman and child in our entire country.

[portisizzle]

And this might be the greatest uninteded consequence of this whole Iraq mess...now every crazy guy in the world is going to think twice about blowing off the UN because 1) they know the crazy US might step in and do something and 2) the UN won't do anyting to punish the US.

Better than crazy guys thinking they can get away with everything they want so long as they have CNN and NPR as their voice.

I wonder some time what Osama thinks (and Hussein thought) listening to debate on our own floor of the U.S. Senate and HofR. Let alone reporters on CNN.

Good grief with friends like these who need enemies.

[Predicto]

Interestingly enough this side track has positioned us quite well to deal with any threat posed by Iran.

To the contrary - we are now positioned more poorly. As far as the world is concerned, our "invade an Islamic country and get out of jail free" card has already been played in Iraq. Our money has already been spent, our military has already been committed. We have a ton more justification to invade Iran right now than we ever had in Iraq, but our ammo is low and the Iranians know it.

[vinva]

Better than crazy guys thinking they can get away with everything they want so long as they have CNN and NPR as their voice.

I wonder some time what Osama thinks (and Hussein thought) listening to debate on our own floor of the U.S. Senate and HofR. Let alone reporters on CNN.

Good grief with friends like these who need enemies.

Do you really believe this? This debate is what makes the country freaking work...it's what makes it different. Without this debate we are nothing more than a dictatorship right now...one entire party controlling all of the government. I might not agree with a lot of the debate, but it's got to be there.

[portisizzle]

He came into the debate when you asserted that all opposition to the war in Iraq was purely political partisanship, something you know to be false but you keep on saying over and over.

Dude, just saying Saddam had nuclear aspirations isn't going to get you very far in a debate about whether an immediate invasion was necessary. He didn't have spit for a nuclear program. Hell, I can just SAY that Jamaica has nuclear aspirations if I want to. Let's invade them and find out later whether or not it is true.

Pardon me if I choose to question the decisions of the elected leaders of our country when they make no sense rather than following along nodding and chanting like an automaton. This isn't North Korea. We get to seek explanation for an inexplicable decision that ends up costing us several thousand soldiers' lives and several thousand dollars in debt for every man, woman and child in our entire country.

1) The debate over Iraq has been as much about how Bush is wrong as anything. To suggest other wise is ludacris. What was the 2004 election all about? Bush lied people died. Right? Oh except for Lieberman. And he got pole axed by the liberals. (BTW, notice I asy liberals and not Democrats and Conservative and not Republicans)

2) Jamica has good jerk chicken and hot hot hot sun, thats about it. But to you point about North Korea, historically speaking. Had we held our guns against North Korea in 1994 would we in the situation we are in today? Had we not delt with Saddam in 2003 would we be in a worse position with Iran and North Korea in the theater as well?

3) So there is a cost we are unwilling to spend to ensure our safety? How much would the cost be in Iraq, Iran, AND North Korea had a legitimate nuclear threat in say 10 years? In life and money?

We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

[Baculus]

Better than crazy guys thinking they can get away with everything they want so long as they have CNN and NPR as their voice.

Actually, it would be preferable to have NPR as one's voice, since they tend to be one of the most accurate news sources available as a media source.

And some of us are not so easily to simply "trust" our elected officials. It seems to be a theme, whenever it comes to this current administration, we are to simply "trust." That isn't enough - simply trusting is not enough, especially when such an administration has shown a tendency to be very secretive and with an avoidance for straight talking.

[portisizzle]

To the contrary - we are now positioned more poorly. As far as the world is concerned, our "invade an Islamic country and get out of jail free" card has already been played in Iraq. Our money has already been spent, our military has already been committed. We have a ton more justification to invade Iran right now than we ever had in Iraq, but our ammo is low and the Iranians know it.

We are positioned mere miles away from Iran with devastating capability and yet you believe we are positioned more poorly? Who told you we were out of ammo? This isn't Doom or Half Life 2.

Again I say what if Iran, Iraq, and North Korea were beating war drums?

Wow Predicto.

[Midnight Judges]

23,000 people died in targeted attacks? How many died by the hand of Saddam and his cronies?

Venture a guess?

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/pressreleases/20040224_mass_graves.html

Since the Saddam Hussein regime was overthrown in May, 270 mass graves have been reported. By mid-January, 2004, the number of confirmed sites climbed to fifty-three. Some graves hold a few dozen bodies—their arms lashed together and the bullet holes in the backs of skulls testimony to their execution. Other graves go on for hundreds of meters, densely packed with thousands of bodies.

"We've already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 20 in London. The United Nations, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) all estimate that Saddam Hussein's regime murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. "Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades," said the group in a statement in May. "Many of these 'disappeared' are those whose remains are now being unearthed in mass graves all over Iraq."

If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.

I was only counting civilians. If you want to count all people killed in Iraq since our invasion the number is more like 100,000. 100,000 in 3 years. Saddam killed 400,000 in 25 years. You do the math. My point remains, we have not improved things for the average Iraqi. Not yet at least.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

[Baculus]

Do you really believe this? This debate is what makes the country freaking work...it's what makes it different. Without this debate we are nothing more than a dictatorship right now...one entire party controlling all of the government. I might not agree with a lot of the debate, but it's got to be there.

Portisizzle talks about bringing "Freedom," but only on his terms, it appears. This is a common theme I often see: Let's bring freeedom to the Iraqi, but silence to those in the U.S. that use such freedoms to voice their disagreements! For you are a traitor if you do voice such sentiments!

And that is one reason why I am dubious of assertions that we are bringing "freedom" if, in the same breadth, when such freedoms are used, it is seen as being an Enemy of the State.

[Midnight Judges]

We are positioned mere miles away from Iran with devastating capability and yet you believe we are positioned more poorly? Who told you we were out of ammo? This isn't Doom or Half Life 2.

Again I say what if Iran, Iraq, and North Korea were beating war drums?

Wow Predicto.

We have bases in the UAE and Kuwait. Didn't need Iraq from a strategic standpoint. We are in worse position because 20,000 of our bravest are now wounded or dead.