Invasion of Iraq: Questions

[Gurdari]

Open question to anyone with answers:

Why did the US (and Co.) invade Iraq?

Legal reasons (with sources)?

 

[maineman]

weapons of mass destruction blah blah blah gassed his own people blah blah blah seventeen UN resolutions blah blah blah alqaeda blah blah blah 9/11 blah blah blah mushroom clouds over american cities blah blah blah weapons of mass destruction blah blah blah gassed his own people blah blah blah seventeen UN resolutions blah blah blah alqaeda blah blah blah 9/11 blah blah blah mushroom clouds over american cities blah blah blah weapons of mass destruction blah blah blah gassed his own people blah blah blah seventeen UN resolutions blah blah blah alqaeda blah blah blah 9/11 blah blah blah mushroom clouds over american cities blah blah blah weapons of mass destruction blah blah blah gassed his own people blah blah blah seventeen UN resolutions blah blah blah alqaeda blah blah blah 9/11 blah blah blah mushroom clouds over american cities blah blah blah

I think that's about it.

 

[Gurdari]

weapons of mass destruction -seventeen UN resolutions - 9/11 - mushroom clouds over american cities

I think that's about it.

I condensed your post slightly.

I think you are saying invasion was to enforce UN resolutions?
Which ones, what did they state?

 

[maineman]

I condensed your post slightly.

I think you are saying invasion was to enforce UN resolutions?
Which ones, what did they state?

the invasion was because the grand plan for a multicultural jeffersonian democracy springing from the banks of the Euphrates that would be America's great ally needed to be jump started by an American invasion...it was the Project for a New AMERICAN Century, after all.... and the attacks of 9/11 fortuitously provided the neocons with just the motivational event that they could use to galvanize American society behind just such an invasion.

The Use of Force Resolution had every possible rationale this side of the kitchen sink tossed in there for political cover, but the invasion was sold to the American people because Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and he had stockpiles of nasty weapons of mass destruction that he was going to use on us ANY MINUTE!!!!!

Americans were herded into the fold with a combination of fear and revenge...

Most Americans have figured that out by now - and if they don't forget that again between now and November of '08, they will take the keys away from this corrupt inept party of evil bumblers.

 

[Annie]

I condensed your post slightly.

I think you are saying invasion was to enforce UN resolutions?
Which ones, what did they state?

Check out the UN site.

 

[maineman]

Check out the UN site.

and I think the world of my Israeli friends, but DAMN, have you counted up the number of UN Security Council Resolutions that Israel is in violation of?

Funny that no one in America has used THAT as a justification to invade, conquer and occupy the Holy Lands.

 

[Annie]

and I think the world of my Israeli friends, but DAMN, have you counted up the number of UN Security Council Resolutions that Israel is in violation of?

Funny that no one in America has used THAT as a justification to invade, conquer and occupy the Holy Lands.

You honestly wish to equate them?

 

[maineman]

You honestly wish to equate them?

equate Israelis and saddam? of course not...but if violating UN resolutions was the rationale... so be it.

 

[Gurdari]

Check out the UN site.

This is the closest thing I could find:

"...a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and that such breach authorizes member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area."

ANyone have better UN links?

Still can't find anything about regime change, rewriting laws, etc. It seems mostly a mandate to enforce the inspections.

 

[Darwins Friend]

I believe that the real reason we committed had zero to do with "the paper".

The documents - in a hundred different forms, levels and languages - were just legalese for an abomination. The name for that abomination is GREED.

Little George got told by Big George’s cronies that their was an immense hog to be cut in the Middle East and the Saudi Royal Family owed their very existence and continued opulence to Bush41 in payment thereof.

They browbeat the poor little man into believing he was doing it to take vengeance on ‘a very Bad Man’ that, after all - tried to have his Dad killed.

I’m sure that this elite group of investors told GWB that ‘trickle down economics’ would eventually come into play, after he left office, and that his library would end up being a grand institution and legacy - for a truly minor human being and leader.

None of them had any idea (that they were letting on, anyway) that the Arab/Muslim folk were quite as tenacious and resourceful as they’ve turned out to be, but in as much as they’re ‘The House’ (and if you’ve been to Vegas you know that the house never really loses) it doesn't really matter.

Had George Jr. had someone read ‘The Seven Pillars of Wisdom’ he’d have understood what T.E. Lawrence meant and over 3,000 of our families would be a lot happier at this date.

And all the documents that were created to facilitate this brilliant folly? You can use them all when you’re out of Charmin.

 

[Gurdari]

Do you see the same agendas, ideals, and dishonesty when you look at the invasion of Panama, Nicaraugua, etc. ? The first war on terror was orchestrated by many of the same players... Negroponte, Bush Sr., Rummy, Pearle, Wolfowitz I think...

 

[Darwins Friend]

Do you see the same agendas, ideals, and dishonesty when you look at the invasion of Panama, Nicaraugua, etc. ? The first war on terror was orchestrated by many of the same players... Negroponte, Bush Sr., Rummy, Pearle, Wolfowitz I think...

Panama was done for the same reason that Saddam was hit the first time - a former puppet that was running amuck.

 

[Bullypulpit]

This is the closest thing I could find:

"...a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and that such breach authorizes member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area."

ANyone have better UN links?

Still can't find anything about regime change, rewriting laws, etc. It seems mostly a mandate to enforce the inspections.

That's pretty much the gist of it. But Chimpy and Co ordered the weapons inspectors out before they could actually provide the evidence to show that Iraq had no active weapons program. Saddam's game of brinksmanship, however, did not take into account just how determined Chimpy and Co were to invade and occupy Iraq.

 

[Bern80]

That's pretty much the gist of it. But Chimpy and Co ordered the weapons inspectors out before they could actually provide the evidence to show that Iraq had no active weapons program. Saddam's game of brinksmanship, however, did not take into account just how determined Chimpy and Co were to invade and occupy Iraq.

If I remember correctly the above was done mainly because Saddam was picking and choosing what he would 'allow' Weapons Inspectors to inspect.

Secondly, lack of evidence of something does not mean it isn't there. What I mean by that is terms of WMDs that can be anything huge stockpiles of nukes to a single drum of nerve gas. Both can do considerable damage. Now assume for a second it's latter. Iraq, is roughly the size of California in terms of square miles. So just for fun I'll go hide an empty 50 gallon drum somewhere in that state. You think you would actually be able to find it?

I think the invasion was warranted on that basis, because we know factually that he has used such nerve agents in the past. We may never find any WMD's in Iraq, but no war can be fought in hindsight. You listen to some of the Dems on this and it just makes you sick. Hillary being a prime example. To hear her speak about the neccesity of invading Iraq at the time you would swear you were listening to a Republican. But now that they found it they were all wrong well then it's only the Republican's and administrations fault.

 

[maineman]

If I remember correctly the above was done mainly because Saddam was picking and choosing what he would 'allow' Weapons Inspectors to inspect.

Secondly, lack of evidence of something does not mean it isn't there. What I mean by that is terms of WMDs that can be anything huge stockpiles of nukes to a single drum of nerve gas. Both can do considerable damage. Now assume for a second it's latter. Iraq, is roughly the size of California in terms of square miles. So just for fun I'll go hide an empty 50 gallon drum somewhere in that state. You think you would actually be able to find it?

I think the invasion was warranted on that basis, because we know factually that he has used such nerve agents in the past. We may never find any WMD's in Iraq, but no war can be fought in hindsight. You listen to some of the Dems on this and it just makes you sick. Hillary being a prime example. To hear her speak about the neccesity of invading Iraq at the time you would swear you were listening to a Republican. But now that they found it they were all wrong well then it's only the Republican's and administrations fault.

Denny..... And you don't remember correctly. After Saddam let them BACK in, at Dubya's urging, Hans Blix has said that he had free access to everywhere he wanted to look.

And the majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force resolution..... it wasn't ALL the republican's fault, but the fact remains: a majority of elected democrats in Washington DID try to stop this insanity.

 

[Annie]

Denny..... And you don't remember correctly. After Saddam let them BACK in, at Dubya's urging, Hans Blix has said that he had free access to everywhere he wanted to look.

And the majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force resolution..... it wasn't ALL the republican's fault, but the fact remains: a majority of elected democrats in Washington DID try to stop this insanity.

Not quite:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/

 

[Bern80]

And the majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force resolution..... it wasn't ALL the republican's fault, but the fact remains: a majority of elected democrats in Washington DID try to stop this insanity.

Well you're half right

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

I'll summarize quick for ya. there were 50 democrat senators in Oct. 2002 (well technically 49 with 1 'independent') The democrat vote on the resolution was 29 fore, 21 against in the senate. In the house there 212 democrats, 126 voted against the resolution.

You are technically right in that the majority of democratic congressmen voted against it, of which there were 262. 147 democratic congressman voted against it, which is majority by a whopping 6%.

 

[maineman]

Your 'facts' are incorrect

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

I'll summarize quick for ya there were 50 democrat senators in Oct. 2002 (well technically 49 with 1 'independent') The democrat vote on the resolution was 29 fore, 21 against. Unless you are define majority differently than I do, I reccomend you do some fact checking.

unless you define CONGRESS as the senate alone, then you are full of shit. I stand by my statement: A MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS VOTED AGAINST THE USE OF FORCE RESOLUTION.

NOW YOU ADMIT THAT I AM RIGHT.

I can wait.

 

[Bern80]

I edited my post, see above

 

[maineman]

I edited my post, see above

edited your post two minutes after you got your ass handed to you.

how gracious.

technically right, my ass...I AM right.

[/sacrasm off]