The justification is that no justification is necessary for a free nation to choose to topple a nation run by thugs.
Period.
So you have no concept of sovereignty and you think you can dictate what type of governments other people have and whom heads those governments. Interesting take on the world.
Abu Nidal wasn't "hearsay". Nor was his murder at that time a "coincidence".
Those are facts, and hence "real data".
Ok, so you have one guy, one guy is coincidence. Prove terrorist training camps where in operation, prove widespread terrorist organization hide outs, members, and bases were in Iraq then you'll have proof. If you have one guy that happens to be a terrorist there then you have coincidence. If you have a bunch of people operating from the area in coordinated bases, communications, operations, etc who are all terrorists then you have the beginnings of fact.
Only if it's known to be a fabrication when it is used.
Otherwise it's a mistake. And there's evidence that this stuff was exaggerated on purpose, later on finding there wasn't even a basis for the exaggeration. Bad data doesn't justify actions, it means you committed error and need to be more careful in the future.
The UN is as effective as a hard-on on an ox.
There was no imperialist occupation of Iraq.
Then why use UN resolutions to justify the invasion? You only employ the UN when its in your interest. Either it's useful or its not; either we obey it or we ignore it. Choose. You can't say, well the UN resolutions were violated and then claim we get to go in and not take it to the UN for consideration. One way or the other.
And we are occupying, we made a puppet government, and we have to remain there to stabilize it because without our presence it would collapse (which means it can't be supported by the People). We have some half-assed imperial action and occupation.
Read the book.
There was no imperialist occupation of Iraq.
You don't know what reality is.
Yeah, we totally didn't set up a government the way we wanted it set up, we totally don't need to be there cause that government can stand on its own, we totally didn't overthrow a sovereign government because we felt like it. Totally no way no how can it be similar to imperial occupation.
Take off the partisan blinders and look around.
And we removed Saddam's party from power. How poetic.
Which was not our business, nor did we have proper justification for it. It doesn't matter how "poetic" it can be (romanticizing war is kinda sick), it doesn't change the fact that we had no business being in Iraq.
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?
Let's do a little reading comprehension as it seems like you're having some problems. I said the US supported the party which Saddam came from (we didn't put Saddam in, he took over later). I said that all government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the People. Both of these statements are true. We supported a party, that party took over, Saddam came out of it, he was our pal for awhile. He did some nasty things, but the people of Iraq did not revolt. It is up to them to remove their consent should the government act counter to the wishes of the People. We have no rightful or just authority to create governments we want, at least not without formal declaration and even then it would really depend on the nature and scale of the conflict. We are not the governed, thus we have no say in that government. If the Iraqi people didn't like it, it was up to them to do something about it. It's not our job.
And your retort about me not seeing a problem with Saddam's elections is delightfully pathetic. Try not lying in the future, it may help your intellectual honesty.
So you're claiming that the US didn't help put Hussein in power, is that it?
You and reading comprehension....who would have thought it'd be an Odd Couple case. First off again, I said we supported Saddam's party. Please read. Secondly, even if I said we put Saddam in the statement "The course and leadership of Iraq was not, is not, rightfully up to us." does not mean that we couldn't have installed Saddam. It would, however, mean that had we installed Saddam we did it unjustly and with power not granted to us by the Iraqi people. So, please try to read and understand what was written.
What did your hero Mao say? Oh, yeah, political power comes from the mouth of a gun.
Care to prove Mao is my hero? No? You can't? You mean you were lying again. Ok, well I'll add intellectual honesty in with the list with reading comprehension on things you really need to work on.
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?
No, they could very well be unhappy. But it's not my problem, I don't have the time or resources to run around saving the world from themselves. If people are willing to put up with despots, that's their own damned problem. Less that government does something to threaten and attack the soveriegnty of the United States, it's not my problem. People have to take care of themselves (Jesus, isn't this a "conservative" ideal), I can't do it for them. We don't have the rightful power to install government for other people, government derives legitimacy through the governed. If we are not of the governed, there isn't anything we can rightfully do. If a people started a revolt and asked for our help, that's one thing. To do it ourselves with no invitation and no declaration of war is a whole different ball game.
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.
No it didn't, they authorized the President to use the military for operations. They did not formally declare war against Iraq. Produce the formal declaration since you made the claim.
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.
Oh, BTW, since you have a penchant for lying maybe you should be wary of casting stones Mr. Glass House.
Also, I'm not a liberal so I guess that I get to use the Constitution in my arguments.
