We can get in other places. Wanting to invade another country which can't directly threaten America isn't justification for occupation of different country which couldn't directly threaten us.
The justification is that no justification is necessary for a free nation to choose to topple a nation run by thugs.
Period.
Not widespread, no terrorist camps in operation. You'll have to prove otherwise. Hearsay and coincidence don't justify invasion and occupation. You're gonna need real data. And if that's the case, why ain't we going after Saudi Arabia...oh, wait...
Abu Nidal wasn't "hearsay". Nor was his murder at that time a "coincidence".
Those are facts, and hence "real data".
Invented data is not proper justification, and there was nothing Saddam could do to use those WMD against us even if he had them, nor is there any indication he'd ever use them against the United States (it would be incredibly dumb to do such a thing).
Only if it's known to be a fabrication when it is used.
This could be handled through the UN since y'all seem to love that institution so much. These aren't reasons for invasion, overthrow of a government, and imperialistic occupation.
The UN is as effective as a hard-on on an ox.
There was no imperialist occupation of Iraq.
Running one's mouth is not proper justification for war. Actual threats and attacks to soveriegnty can be; not all war goes to overthrow of government and imperialistic occupation. Everything depends on the reality and nature of the threats and/or actions.
Read the book.
There was no imperialist occupation of Iraq.
You don't know what reality is.
That's not our concern (and we helped put Saddam's party in charge).
And we removed Saddam's party from power. How poetic.
Government derives it's authority from the governed, thus it is the Iraqi people whom gave credibility to the Iraqi government.
Right.
Hussein garnered 99% of the vote, and the dissenting 1% were murdered. That gave his regime complete credibility in your eyes.
Not in people who's eyes are open, but you didn't see any problems with what Hussein did.
BTW, you've stated, in the space of two sentences, that the US put Hussein in power, and that Hussein had the blessings of the Iraqi people. Now, if Hussein had the blessings of the Iraqi people, he had no need of US power to ascend his throne. So one of your statements is clearly incorrect, if not both of them. Which one are you going to admit was false?
The course and leadership of Iraq was not, is not, rightfully up to us.
So you're claiming that the US didn't help put Hussein in power, is that it?
If the Iraqi people had a problem with Saddam, they should have revolted.
What did your hero Mao say? Oh, yeah, political power comes from the mouth of a gun.
You really never have studied the faintest shreds of the real history of the Twentieth Century, have you? Do you honestly believe the Russians wanted to become Stalin's slaves? That Mao had to have legitimacy, because he managed to hang onto power all that time? That Pol Pot was right, becuase the people in Cambodia didn't succeed in revolting? That the people of Germany were happy under Hitler and the Gestapo? That the people in the Warsaw Block countries were happy because they didn't revolt?
It is their problem and their duty, not the US. Less you want to show me where in the Constitution it says that the US military is to "spread democracy".
Never said that. I said it wasn't wrong to intervene where necessary. What the Constitution does say is that the Congress has the power to declare war. It does not specify ANY limitations on what the basis of the declaration might be. The Congress did declare war on Iraq to all intents and purposes, so the Constitutional requirements were met.
Oh, and BTW, liberals aren't allowed to use the Constitution in their arguments. No one likes to see someone else's used toilet paper waved in their face.