One question of the supports of the Iraq war.

[jeskibuff]

Bruno,
Have you even taken a cursory look at those U.N. resolutions? Here's a little help for you: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/

In case you don't feel like reading them, I put together a Cliff's Note version for you:

• Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security
• Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660...and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660
• Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction
• Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites...and...failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors,...and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA
• the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population
• ...expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out...

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations...

• Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions
• Decides...to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations
• Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations,...the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems
• Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations
• Recalls...that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations

Well, guess what, Bruno?? Saddam played games with the UN for 12 years and thumbed his nose at all those resolutions made by the world community. He was brazen enough to fire at our planes flying in the designated no-fly zones. The UN was a paper tiger...making rules and threatening action, but never making good on its threats. Saddam knew he could get away with almost everything with the UN. Would you respect your local police if they sequestered themselves in the safety of their precinct stations while they promised to apprehend the bank robbers and murderers? It's time to get a clue about the UN, Bruno...they are practically a worthless and toothless organization. If they can't do their job, a job that is supposed to ensure the peace and security of the world, then someone should step in and do it. That's precisely what GWB did. The Taliban didn't think we were serious. They've been put out of business. Saddam thought GWB was issuing more of Clinton's hollow threats. He's got a different perspective now, doesn't he? And NOW we're seeing positive results, with Libya opening access to and destroying their WMD pursuits.

You can call GWB a cowboy, but WHO CARES what you think?? He's taken action where others feared to tread. You may not "feel" safer, but GWB doesn't care about your insecurities, mainly because they're unfounded. He's done things to make our nation safer. If you don't think we're safer with Al-Qaeda on the run, a ruthless dictator out of business and confirmed terrorists like Khaddafy plopping his "guns" on the table, then I have no idea WHAT would make you feel safer.

If you thought that GWB's "War On Terror" would bring instant peace to the world, you know NOTHING about the nature of war. It took years and great sacrifice to drive Hitler to his demise. If we were transported back in time to June 6th 1944, you would be complaining that the D-Day invasion was a crime...that thousands of men died needlessly. The trouble is, you're SO myopic, you are unable to see beyond the immediate timeframe. You can't seem to realize that evil left unchecked is a far greater danger than the cost of containing it when you have the power to do so.

The U.N. did ask for more time so their weapons inspectors could do their job. Our response: No, we have waited too long.

First of all, the inspectors only got back in because GWB was forceful. Saddam capitulated, but then reverted to playing the same old games he was used to playing. He had ample time to get his act together and comply. He could watch the international news reports of aircraft carriers being dispatched to his neighborhood. He could get the play-by-play of troop buildup and the negotiations with Turkey for setting up air bases there. The trouble was that he was too familiar with paper tigers like Clinton and the U.N. Despite all the build-up and the recent lesson taught to the Taliban, he still thought we were bluffing. That's the problem with idle threats, isn't it?

GWB did the right thing. He waved a big stick and demanded compliance. When there was no compliance, he used the stick. If he HADN'T used the stick, America's credibility would have no substance and more nations would follow in Iraq's footsteps...i.e., flaunt the U.S., watch the U.S. make idle threats, then watch the U.S. back down from the threat. Following your scheme (going easy on Saddam), Libya would be emboldened by Iraq's actions. Following GWB's scheme, Libya decides that the pursuit of WMD and terrorism isn't in her best interest. Thanks to GWB, the world's a safer place! You'll continue to deny that fact, but even if GWB was travelling the nation, walking on water and healing lepers, you'd still insist that he is evil incarnate! You incessant Bush-bashers are just too predictable!

[bturk667]

I am not any more predictable than you Bush @SS kissers!
Evidently you feel it is perfectly acceptable for Bush to act unilaterally, I do not. Also, as I wrote to JSE, these were UN resolutions, not U.S. Since the U.S. is part of the U.N. then logic would dictate that the U.N. should have, at the very least, given us permission to attack Iraq in the enforcement of THEIR resolutions, which they did not.

I never said, or set a scheme, to go easy on Saddam. If I had my way Bush the elder would have taken him out during Desert Storm! Why didn't he, oh yeah the U.N., at least he didn't think that he was bigger than the rest of the world! Also, I never would have supported him in the first place in the early 80's, thanks Ronnie ray-gun for that!

Lastly, you say the world is a safer place, BULL$H!TT. Yeah, maybe if your not one of our brave soilders over there it is! Funny, Bush so his cowardice by running into the National Guard, yet has no problem sending troops to fight his unjust war! Do you really know how OUR world we be a safer place? We should have listened to Thomas Jefferson!!!

So by all means, continue your support of the Cowardly Bush. I on the other hand never will!

[jack70]

Evidently you feel it is perfectly acceptable for Bush to act unilaterally, I do not

Do you have the same opinion of France and other countries acting (unilaterally) in Liberia and other places around the globe?

Did you have the same opinion of Clinton acting (unilaterally) in Bosnia?

Do you have the same opinion about the 2-5 billion of our tax money Clinton spent (unilaterally) to "stabilize" Haiti in his administration? BTW, lotta good that did... we could'a given it to the people directly instead of down the rathole.

I never said, or set a scheme, to go easy on Saddam. If I had my way Bush the elder would have taken him out during Desert Storm! Why didn't he, oh yeah the U.N.

Then you ADMIT that following that UN-type approach to Iraq was a failure? Don't you learn anything? The UN is one of the most corrupt bodies in history. Except for an occasional food, humanitarian, or emergency relief mission, they are a joke. They are little more than a "hate America" club by all the worlds third-world corrupt-totalitarian banana-republics.

Bush so his cowardice by running into the National Guard

Funny, I remember Clinton lying (his "loathing the military" letter) to avoid the military, yet you didn't protest when HE ordered troops (unilaterally) into Bosnia or other hot spots. Funny, I remember John Kerry saying that if he'd been a year or 2 older, and seen the war (in 68) as the mess it had become by then, he would probably NOT have joined as he did earlier... he would, in fact, probably done what Bush did in 68... avoid the war. So Bush is smarter than you give him credit for... he acted with the same mixed feelings & questions about the war that Kerry did after being there in the early going. But don't confuse the issue by saying Bush didn't risk his life by becoming a fighter pilot. You have no clue about how difficult & dangerous that is. What Clinton did...vs what Bush did, in regard to Vietnam, are quite different.

Lastly, you say the world is a safer place, BULL$H!TT.

How many people, in the months following 9-11, expected ANOTHER major attack against the US sometime in the next year or 2? 90%? ...95%? ...100%?

Do you think it's co-incidence that Al Quaida has been on the run and in disarray from how it operated prior to 9-11? Do you think it's co-incidence that Pakistan has gotten those hard-core Islamic extremists out of it's intelligence system, and is now helping us target those hard-to-access areas in the Hindu Kush? You think that the fact terrorists are entering Iraq (& being killed there), instead of the U.S. is a BAD thing for us?

You need to read Rumsfeld's detailed written thoughts about how complex, long, and difficult this war will be. It's quite chilling, and lucid. The media tries to make it like a quick & simple electronic game. It's not.

[jeskibuff]

The UN is one of the most corrupt bodies in history...They are little more than a "hate America" club by all the worlds third-world corrupt-totalitarian banana-republics.

We kind of touched on this in the electoral college discussion. The time has come boys and girls ... What's happened is that "democracy" in such an organization ran amuck. Bad member states form an unholy alliance and instead of aiming to better the world, vote for measures that are against justice. How else can you explain that the U.S. gets denied a seat on the Human Rights Commission, but a country like Syria so entwined in terrorism gets a spot? Read Jeane Kirkpatrick's May 2003 article here. She says some pretty damning things about the U.N., like "many of the world's worst human rights abusers sit in judgment on governments that have long institutionalized the rule of law and respect for individual rights and fundamental freedoms" and "Russia voted almost exactly as it had during the Cold War, in association with the same countries--almost all of which were the dictatorships present in the commission."

You need to read Rumsfeld's detailed written thoughts about how complex, long, and difficult this war will be.

Baaad jack! Got a reference link to these?

I am not any more predictable than you Bush @SS kissers!

Oh, you're quite predictable, Bruno! Even to the point of resorting to derogatory name-calling when you find you're out of ammunition in a discussion! And the way I see it, myself and Bush "supporters" like P-I-Pete, JSE, Tug and Jack have not lavished 100% praise on Bush. We have all criticized him in some way, but we understand that no one is going to do things exactly the way WE feel they should be done. Some of us have also said nice things about people in the opposition party. Hey, I've even said that Clinton got some things right! The problem with you Bush-haters is that you let your hatred control your every opinion. You don't really care what's best for the country...you want what's best for your liberal theories, no matter whether they've already been proven to be failures in other parts of the world (socialism, for instance). You don't have ANY objectivity and THAT FACT greatly diminishes your credibility, as everything you say is terribly tainted by your unwavering biases.

[bturk667]

Out of ammunition, I doubt that. How could I possibly be when Bush is still President. As long as he is, I will have plenty of weapons!

See jeskibuff, I have no problems with Republicans, per se. I have a problem with Bush and his administration; they just happen to be Republicans. I had a problem with Clinton in a big way. Did this make me a conservative? Please, answer that question for me, please!!!

Why do I have to be objective? Why do I have to have credibilty? Bush is the one who needs to have these two things. Sadly, I feel he does not. If you do, great!

Lastly, my theories are not liberal, they are based on the facts at hand! As new facts come to light, my theories might change. This, however, will depend on those facts. I do not see the world as Liberal or Conservative, only as right and wrong. Know sometimes the facts seem to lean one way more than the other, but this does not mean I do. If this is the conclusion you came up with, well, your wrong. There are many issues where I have a decidedly Conservative stance! Again, I let the issues, facts, and my heart and mind dictate where I stand. The problem is that there are too many people in our country that let their party affiliations make up their minds for them, too bad!

Have a nice day!

[bturk667]

I have a problem when any nation acts unilaterally on the behalf of an organization that did not give them the right to.

Bosnia? That was a NATO action, which we lead.

Economically help a country (unilaterally) and going to war (unilaterally) are two totally different things. I hope you can understand the difference, otherwise "you don't know ...jack." I did not mention how much Bush is spending in Iraq, did I?

Why must people always bring up someone else, and what they did, when talking about Bush! Bush was a coward, plain and simple! Was Clinto a coward, of course. Though I am not quite sure what one has do with the other?
If Kerry were a year or two older. Now your making me laugh! He was not a year or two older was he? Try try as you might, BUSH RAN, KERRY FOUGHT!!!!

Bush in not smarter than I give him credit for. I never gave him any kind of credit for his intelligence!

Lastly, I did not say, I wrote about the world being safer, and that being BULL$HIT! Know, did I write the WORLD did I not? You are writing about the U.S. These are to different things! They are seperate issues! I was responding to what jeskibuff wrote. I do not feel the world is safer. I do however feel that we, the U.S., are safer!

I wonder if you know jack?

[FLZapped]

I have a problem when any nation acts unilaterally on the behalf of an organization that did not give them the right to.

Uhm, what about Great Britian and the thirty-some-odd other nations that took part??

Sorry, but this unilateral talk was long ago dismissed as incorrect.

I also don't understand your point about thinking it was OK to go into Bosnia under NATO, but not Iraq under UN sanction.

While I don't agree with everything Bush has done, I'm sure in the hell not going to vote for Kerry. His rhetoric and his record are completely out of sync. Besides the fact that he is a socialist who would have the citizens of this country looking to the government for their daily existance, while gutting our military and intelligence agencies. So I will once again be crossing party lines.

-Bruce

[bturk667]

If were not involved in the war in Iraq, then how many of those nation do you think would have gone it alone? I mean, do you think they would have attacked, and gone to war with Iraq over the U.N. resolutions?

If you can not understand the difference between a Nato lead operation (in Bosnia) and us attacking Iraq without the full support of the U.N. (only using U.N. sanctions as an argument), well then, there is nothing that I could write to help you to understand the differences. Remember, we were going to attack Iraq NO MATTER WHAT THE U.N. decided. Both Bush and Powell made perfectly clear to the entire world.
One question: Do you see the difference between what Geroge W. Bush is doing in Iraq, and what his father Geroge H.W. Bush did in Iraq, and how they did it?

If you feel that you must cross party lines in the upcoming election, then by all means, go right ahead! It is your right to do so!

[JSE]

"If were not involved in the war in Iraq, then how many of those nation do you think would have gone it alone? I mean, do you think they would have attacked, and gone to war with Iraq over the U.N. resolutions? "

No they probably would not have gone into Iraq. But, you must remember that the US is the backbone of the UN. Without the US, the UN would probably crumble or at least be a non factor. I don't even think we should be a member of the UN.

Did other countries want Saddam out of power? Absolutely. Could they do anything about it without the US? Nope. There were three countries opposed to us going into Iraq. We are no learing that they had a vested interest in leaving Saddam in power. Why should we the US bow down to their wants? That's crazy.

"If you can not understand the difference between a Nato lead operation (in Bosnia) and us attacking Iraq without the full support of the U.N. (only using U.N. sanctions as an argument), well then, there is nothing that I could write to help you to understand the differences."

Do you really think NATO would have gone in without the US? I doubt it.

JSE

[FLZapped]

If were not involved in the war in Iraq, then how many of those nation do you think would have gone it alone? I mean, do you think they would have attacked, and gone to war with Iraq over the U.N. resolutions?

Excuse me? That has nothing to do with it, the fact is, our action was NOT unilateral, period. You can't admit that though, can you?

If you can not understand the difference between a Nato lead operation (in Bosnia) and us attacking Iraq without the full support of the U.N. (only using U.N. sanctions as an argument), well then, there is nothing that I could write to help you to understand the differences.

I understand this: either our actions were unilateral, or not - and they weren't, no matter how you try to slice it.

One question: Do you see the difference between what Geroge W. Bush is doing in Iraq, and what his father Geroge H.W. Bush did in Iraq, and how they did it?

Yeah, both followed approved UN resolutions(which is why Bush Sr. stopped when he did), had the mandate from Congress, and had formed a coalition of nations.

-Bruce