Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Detector 
This, once again, is your opinion. But many others, particularly this administration, most of the House and Senate, and at the time, 76% of the American people did not agree with this assertion.
|
The House and the Senate did not vote to start the war. 76% may not have agreed at the time, after the neocon/Bush Admin propoganda blitz falsely implying the Hussein was in bed with AQ and they knew for a fact where those WMDs were.
Many more agree with me now that the truth has come out.
Quote:
|
What is profound about your positions is that they are all AFTER the FACT and AFTER the decision to go in was made, voted on and joined by 34 other nations.
|
Yes, after the deception of the neocon/Bush Administration was revealed.
That is profound.
Quote:
|
How profound that you are still under the impression that reality is like TIVO and we can have a do-over.
|
Where did I ever suggest we should have a do-over?
Quote:
Quote:
To suggest that the two do not go hand in hand is a profound act of denial.
I never made the argument that the latter was required. I clearly stated that the former resulted in the latter’s actions. Had Saddam NOT invaded Kuwait, had he NOT defied numerous UN resolutions for a decade, had he allowed full and complete inspection and documentation of his capabilities, had he honored the final ultimatum from the coalition forces, we would not be there today.
|
To suggest that the 1990 war resulted in the Mar 03 invasion is a profound fact of delusion.
Quote:
|
I find it fascinating that in many people’s views, yours included, that the actions we took had NOTHING to do with Saddam or the history of the ME which can be easily obtained if one did not constantly and willingly suspend disbelief like you appear to do.
|
I have never suggested such a thing. You must be thinking of someone else.
Quote:
Quote:
They BOTH can be added to the cost of ensuring that a megalomaniacal dictator did not continue to threaten peace in the ME.
|
That implies one required the other. A profound act of delusion.
Quote:
Another specious argument in that the joint resolution was clear as to what the perceived threat was and the enforcement of UN resolutions which Saddam CHOSE to defy, the previous administration also felt he was a threat and most of our allies believed him to be a threat.
But alas, you want to promote the naïve argument that we can use hindsight to make all our decisions and that this war was unnecessary because Saddam was a harmless contained threat and that never actually enforcing UN resolutions against despots makes the UN a more formidable organization that shows the worlds despots that they should not become threats themselves.
|
Hussein was no urgent threat in Mar 2003 requiring a rush to war. The inspectors had spent months combing thru Iraq without finding the WMDs where our sources said they were was a red flag that should have triggered suspicion as to the accuracy of our sources.
And even if Hussein had WMDs, he'd had them for 20 years and never gave them to terrorists. That would have been against his primary goal of staying in power. He was no urgent threat.
The only urgent threat was that the neocons and Bush Admin knew they were losing their excuse.
Quote:
|
I am sorry; I cannot get to such naïve logic without wallowing in historic ignorance and denial.
|
Read up on history a bit and then you'll understand. But you have to look at sources other than the Weekly Standard, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh.
Quote:
|
God forbid that we actually MEANT what we said and went in and enforced the resolutions Saddam defied and which was within our rights as a member nation of the UN to enforce it’s resolutions.
|
It was not. No nation has a right to attack another unless in defense.
Quote:
Quote:
Of course, we can all pretend that the ME has always been stable if not for our actions, but that would require the willing suspension of disbelief.
|
It certainly isn't stable because of our actions.
Quote:
|
What made the Kuwait mission more legitimate from the Iraq one; the FALSE notion that France, Germany and Russia supported it?
|
Isn't it obvious? Are you that unknowlegeable about history?
I'll assume you are being sincere and explain.
In 1990, Iraq attacked and invaded another nation without any defensive purpose or justification. It was an illegitimate act of war. As a result, the UN security counsel authorized use of force against Iraq, and all our allies, yes including France Germany Russia Canada etc., and even several ME states, approved the action. It was a completely legitimate military intervention based upon another state having attacked another without justification.
In 2003, Iraq had attacked no one. We were the ones attacking another state without any defensive purpose of justification.
Quote:
Here’s the composition of the first Gulf War, you will see that even with the larger coalition of the willing, America still did most of the heavy lifting.
United States 575,000 - 697,000
Saudi Arabia 52,000 - 100,000
United Kingdom 43,000 - 45,400
Egypt 33,600 - 35,000
France 18,000
Syria 14,500
Morocco 13,000
Kuwait 9,900
Oman 6,300
Pakistan 4,900 - 5,500
United Arab Emirates 4,300
Qatar 2,600
Bangladesh 2,200
Canada 2,000
Australia 1,800
Italy 1,200
Netherlands 600
Niger 600
Senegal 500
Spain 500
Denmark 100
Norway 280
Belgium 400
...and about ten other nations with less than 500.
Gulf War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
Thanks for looking that up. Proves my point.
Quote:
|
I highlighted the "committment" from our European allies whom were so gracious with their committments and efforts to support us after all we have done for them after WWII.
|
I forgot what we did for Spain in WWII?
Quote:
|
If you look at the UN resolutions, it places enforcement in the hands of MEMBER nations. The notion that it was illegitimate is expressed by those ignorant of the legal nature of this action and cannot provide any credible evidence to the contrary other than their emotional personal opinions based on their political belief that NO use of force is EVER necessary.
|
No nation can unilaterally decide it can attack another because it thinks UN resolutions should be enforced. If that was the rule, Arab nations could attack Israel tomorrow and according to you it would be completely legitimate by the UN.
Quote:
|
Again, the argument that Afghanistan or Desert Storm were MORE legitimate is absurd and cannot be sustained with credible facts.
|
Again, the argument that the justification for the US attack on Iraq in Mar 2003 was equally justified as Operation Desert Storm in 1990 is delusional and is not supported by any construction of credible facts.