• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

Thank you for explaining your position. Nevertheless, with your explanation, which I for the most part agree with, Iraq still remains a preventive war because Iraq posed no imminent threat to the United States (i.e. it was not posturing to attack us). It was a preventive war because we went in in order to prevent them from getting enough weapons to attack and getting in the position to attack the United States or others.

There was no need for an "imminent threat" provision because the Gulf War had never officially ended. The queation of imminent threat would only apply, in recent times, to Libya. At least that's the leg BHO must supposedly stand on.
 
There was no need for an "imminent threat" provision because the Gulf War had never officially ended.
So you have changed your mind about the War Powers Resolution requiring an imminent threat now that you know the WPR applies to Iraq?
Also, I don't think that we declared war in re Desert Storm. Further, iirc, regime change was not mentioned in the UNSC resolutions in Iraq pre-OIF.
 
There was no need for an "imminent threat" provision because the Gulf War had never officially ended. The queation of imminent threat would only apply, in recent times, to Libya. At least that's the leg BHO must supposedly stand on.

There was a first gulf war and a second gulf war. They were two separate wars with completely different causes. The second gulf war was a preventive war.
 
I have posted the irrefutable evidence to you and others on several occasions.

Some of the intelligence was crappy and wrong. It’s the stuff they got right and the WMD programs missed by UN inspectors that’s a bit more difficult to explain away.

UNSCOM, UNMOVIC and the ISG reports are irrefutable and provide overwhelming evidence.

So far not a single one of you hoaxers have even tried to explain what was found in Iraq. You just ignore it.



Kofi was not the President of the US. It doesn't matter what his opinion is.

His weapons inspectors proved Saddam was in violation of numerous resolutions.

The "illegal war" nonsense was a hoax. We don't need UN approval to do anything. Get over it.

I like the unlikely source of the proof of WMD: Wikileaks documents show WMDs found in Iraq « Hot Air
 
I like the unlikely source of the proof of WMD: Wikileaks documents show WMDs found in Iraq « Hot Air

Which would matter if that was ever Bush's claim. From you link: While the invasion of Iraq didn’t find huge stockpiles of new WMDs . . . ..

The point has always been that Bush claimed a growing, active program creating new wmds. So, prodiving something to back a claim not in contention is, well, fruitless and kind of silly.
 
I quoted it as well and others besides.
You say that the words in the reports mean things that they don't.
Kind of like when you had trouble discerning how saying that there were programs to develop certain missiles was not contradicting the assertion that those missiles didn't actually exist.

Exactly. And this happens far too often.
 
So you have changed your mind about the War Powers Resolution requiring an imminent threat now that you know the WPR applies to Iraq?
Also, I don't think that we declared war in re Desert Storm. Further, iirc, regime change was not mentioned in the UNSC resolutions in Iraq pre-OIF.

Desert Storm was approved by the US Government and those regulations remained in force. Nonetheless they received further approval from Congress anyway. President Clinton had bombed Iraq also during his administration without and 'imminent threat' claims.

There was no 'imminent threat' in WWI either but the US Government approved the war anyway, just as they did with Iraq.

The use of 'imminent threat' is when the President chooses to act on his own.
 
There was no 'imminent threat' in WWI either but the US Government approved the war anyway, just as they did with Iraq.

False. The Zimmerman Telegram and unrestricted submarine warfare were huge reasons for our entry into WWI. Both were direct and credible threats to the United States and its citizens.
 
False. The Zimmerman Telegram and unrestricted submarine warfare were huge reasons for our entry into WWI. Both were direct and credible threats to the United States and its citizens.

There was no sign that the Germans would be attacking the mainland USA. In fact the same thing might be said about WWII. How 'imminent' is imminent?
 
There was no sign that the Germans would be attacking the mainland USA. In fact the same thing might be said about WWII. How 'imminent' is imminent?

Let's see. Let's say that Germans finally won the Mexicans over and provided troops - we wanted to prevent that. Let's say Americans dying on British ships attacked by Germany actually mattered - we wanted to stop them from happening. Germany wanted us in the war - they were an imminent threat.

Your claim about WWII doesn't even make any sense.
 
Desert Storm was approved by the US Government and those regulations remained in force.
And the point being that even if OIF was a part of Desert Storm as you claim, Desert Storm was never authorized to engage in regime change. So, even if one allows that what you are saying were factually true, it still wouldn't wash because the authorization for Deseret Storm (from congress and the UNSC) didn't allow for the regime change we did in OIF.
Nonetheless they received further approval from Congress anyway.
As I pointed out, Congress authorized it under the War Powers Resolution
President Clinton had bombed Iraq also during his administration without and 'imminent threat' claims.
Whoah! Whoah! Whoah! Hold on there. Clinton did it. That changes everything. You havemade an excellent and irrefutable point. Every thing that Clinton did is by definition beyond reproach.[/sarcasm] :roll:
The use of 'imminent threat' is when the President chooses to act on his own.
And then some. It is not exclusively limited to w/e you think "when the President chooses to act on his own" means.
There was no sign that the Germans would be attacking the mainland USA.
And the point being what?
How 'imminent' is imminent?
This is actually a great question.
 
The Iraqi people and those of other countries. The Iraqi people have demonstrated in the past they can live in peace with their neighbors. They are worth the effort and sacrifice.

The liberation of the Iraqi people wasn’t the primary stated mission in Iraq. It was to remove Saddam first so that Iraqi’s may join the free and peaceful nations once again.

There are many crap holes in the world where the people simply are not worth the effort. Nothing will change.
there are homeless starving people in THIS country we need to help first imo.
 
Just another note in re imminent threat.

AFAICT, it only applies to STARTING a war.
 
Please explain what any of this has to do with whether or not the Iraq War was a preventive war?

It wasn't. It's a figment of your imagination.

You found something you think is illegal and then you say that's what the Iraq war was.

Party on!
 
It's been posted here before Candice but thanks for posting it again.

The "Bush Lied" hoaxers don't care what we found in Iraq.

The father of the hoax admitted he made it up and they still don't care.

Most of them never even knew that Joe Wilson made the whole thing up.

Birthers have more proof than the "Bush Lied" hoaxers.

Welcome to DP.
 
It wasn't. It's a figment of your imagination.

You found something you think is illegal and then you say that's what the Iraq war was.

Party on!

Umm...no. Iraq was a preventive war regardless of whether or not it was illegal. You can say that it's legal and it doesn't even matter - because as a "legal" war under international law, it was still a preventive war. There is no evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat since it didn't even have anything to imminently threaten us = preventive war, legal or not.
 
Umm...no. Iraq was a preventive war regardless of whether or not it was illegal. You can say that it's legal and it doesn't even matter - because as a "legal" war under international law, it was still a preventive war. There is no evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat since it didn't even have anything to imminently threaten us = preventive war, legal or not.

you're correct of course, but good luck all the same. :coffeepap
 
It's been posted here before Candice but thanks for posting it again.

The "Bush Lied" hoaxers don't care what we found in Iraq.

The father of the hoax admitted he made it up and they still don't care.

Most of them never even knew that Joe Wilson made the whole thing up.

Birthers have more proof than the "Bush Lied" hoaxers.

Welcome to DP.

Everyone knows what was found and it did not meet the claim Bush made.
 
False. The Zimmerman Telegram and unrestricted submarine warfare were huge reasons for our entry into WWI. Both were direct and credible threats to the United States and its citizens.

Never mind that Saddam was working with a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda whose mission was to kill Americans anywhere in the world.

Pay no attention to the lefty behind the curtain......he means nothing!

Party on!
 
Never mind that Saddam was working with a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda whose mission was to kill Americans anywhere in the world.

Pay no attention to the lefty behind the curtain......he means nothing!

Party on!

Again, factually incorrect. Links have already been provided.
 
Never mind that Saddam was working with a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda whose mission was to kill Americans anywhere in the world.

Pay no attention to the lefty behind the curtain......he means nothing!

Party on!

1. Now that you're using the "The Prof's" infamous "party on" statement, you lose even more credibility.
2. There is no credible evidence of an al-Qaeda/Hussein link. That myth was debunked along time ago.
 
Of course it doesn't matter. Our constitution is obviously second place to the UN. Kofi said so!

Party on!

Let me put that quote in context for you since you've now chosen to debate dishonestly:

Umm...no. Iraq was a preventive war regardless of whether or not it was illegal. You can say that it's legal and it doesn't even matter - because as a "legal" war under international law, it was still a preventive war. There is no evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat since it didn't even have anything to imminently threaten us = preventive war, legal or not.

Translated: the legality of the war has not affect on it being a preventive war.
 
Back
Top Bottom