Did The United States Have The Right To Attack, Invade & Occupy Iraq?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

This is NOT a public poll. I'm pretty sure people know my view on this.

Discuss your reason for your vote.

[bendog]

I thought I voted yes, but teh poll didn't show it. Saddam had to go. WJC shoud've done it, but the gop congress would've played politics. I don't agree with the nation building, but yeah, I think we had the legal right to get him out, and possibly the whole baath power structure. We had 4 choices, 1. leave him be after Blix found he wasn't a near term danger, 2. have him leave, but keep the baath and get a new "jefe,' 3. Get the UN to nationbuild, after using the french and others to "peacekeep" while the oil for food mission was transformed to a full nation builiding effort with Iraq being like the balkans for 20 years, or 4. the unilateral invasion and nationbuilding on the cheap.

4 was, imo, always the worst of the 4 choices.

ps, but did we have the 'right?" well, yeah, we had the legal right to force the UN to force saddam into compliance with the cease fire, and even if he had gotten technically into compliance, there's no doubt he harbored lingering intentions to hurt the US, and I think we have a right to interfer with countries that want to interfer with us. However, imo, technically, we had no need to use invasion without UN approaval, so it's illegal. But, technically, so was Kosovo. It's just that in Kosovo WJC let teh nation building professionals run the show, and in Iraq Bushii used idiots like wolfowitz and rummy, who had been exposed as idiots in the reagan and bushi years.

[Play2win]

I've been thinking, trying to remember the last single country invasion of a foreign country on foreign soil...

[Rascal]

It wasn't a single country invasion. I seem to remember the Brits and Auzzies having troops there along with Poland and other nations.

[bendog]

To me the distinction is sort of that with Kosovo and bosnia, it was Nato acting in bosnia, and asking us to act in Kosovo. There was a unified political group recommendation force, and of course there was competence and the political leaders getting out of the military way. With Iraq, it was the US, with the Brits more or less complicitly agreeing, and some minor allies along with us ... we paid the eastern europeans.

But more to the pt I tried to make was that strictly speaking both kosovo and iraq were technically illegal. War is "ok" in two situations. 1. the Sec Council oks it 2. The sec council refuses to ok it, but it's still necessary for self defense against some real impending danger to a country or a people facing genocide. With kosovo, Nato didn't go to the sec council cause Russia has been a Serb ally for over 100 years (see WWI and Archduke Ferdinand). With Iraq, we didn't go back to the Sec Council after Blix found there was no womd or womd program remotely endangering the US, because ... well, bushii would have been exposed as wanting a war not based on womd.

PS, but again, just because bushii has clustrefuoupoiuoed this thing and the troops doesn't mean that we didn't have a right to interfer with Iraq's politics, because they messed with us. Personally, I think these three groups over there are only half civilized and they need a "jefe,' but I'm prolly a racist jerk, and somebody like Holbrooke or Gore or BushI might have been able to pull off getting a real coalition from the UN to run the place for 20 years.

[Crushaholic]

Some of you act like we attacked Switzerland, or some country that's just minding their own business. Saddam may not have had anything to do with 9/11, but he publically applauded the destruction of the towers and the loss of thousands of lives. I remember this. He denied involvement, but was glad it happened. He was NOT a friend of the United States and, therefore, a detriment to our war against terrorism. We needed to get rid of him as PART of our strategy to eliminate terrorism.

[clarker]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

This is NOT a public poll. I'm pretty sure people know my view on this.

Discuss your reason for your vote.

I'm pretty sure if Clinton had the right to bomb Kosovo into the ground, when they were and never was a threat to the U.S., then yes we had the right.

[Play2win]

I do think BUSH I would have, atleast, got the job done. He's a tough SOB and gets things done. (one way or another)

[Play2win]

Or maybe, BUSH I would've had the wisdom not to get invovled in THIS (self-made) war.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Rascal

It wasn't a single country invasion. I seem to remember the Brits and Auzzies having troops there along with Poland and other nations.

DON'T FORGET POLAND!!!!

[Play2win]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

DON'T FORGET POLAND!!!!

Any of those other countries were just making sure our Coattails didn't drag on the Carpet as we were make our "Grand Entrance"...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by clarker

I'm pretty sure if Clinton had the right to bomb Kosovo into the ground, when they were and never was a threat to the U.S., then yes we had the right.

The difference?

Clinton is still greeted as a liberator in Kossovo today.

(Probably because Kossovo was a just cause and the whole world knows it.)

The illegal chimp, on the other hand, just pretends he's some kind of liberator as he kills tens of thousands of innocents and steals their resources.

And, leave us not forget, Clinton didn't lie to the American people and the U.N. about the reasons for military action in Kossovo.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

Saddam may not have had anything to do with 9/11, but he publically applauded the destruction of the towers and the loss of thousands of lives. I remember this. He denied involvement, but was glad it happened.

"Applauding" the attacks isn't a sufficient reason to wage a pre-emptive war on another country.

You're saying, essentially, that just because someone doesn't like us, we have a right to use military force against their country.

Do you have any idea just how insane (and thoroughly un-American) this sort of thinking is?

But, at any rate, the justification you put forth here is NOT the justification BushCo gave for its invasion of Iraq.

We were told that Iraq definitely had WMD, that the administration knew where these weapons were located, and that Iraq was such an imminent threat that we couldn't wait two more weeks for the weapons inspectors to finish their work.

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

He was NOT a friend of the United States and, therefore, a detriment to our war against terrorism.

Since when does the fact that someone is "not a friend" justify military action?

By this logic, we will eventually have to invade and occupy 90% of the world.

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

We needed to get rid of him as PART of our strategy to eliminate terrorism.

Terrorism is a tactic. You can't eliminate a tactic.

And, as anyone can see, Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq has given rise to MORE terrorism - not less.

[gunns]

I thought we were supposed to be defending this country and going after the cluster of terrorists who attacked us. We started off that way and then just kind of drifted to Iraq. Of course I still wonder why daddy Bush didn't take care of Saddam if he were such a big problem which we have since found out he wasn't to us.

[Rohirrim]

I only need one, simple phrase to express what I feel about Dubya and the job he has done: 1,860 American soldiers are dead and Osama Bin Laden is still alive.

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

"Applauding" the attacks isn't a sufficient reason to wage a pre-emptive war on another country.

You're saying, essentially, that just because someone doesn't like us, we have a right to use military force against their country.

Do you have any idea just how insane (and thoroughly un-American) this sort of thinking is?

I go back to the State of the Union Address January 2002. Bush said that if you're a terrorist, we're coming after you. If you harbor terrorism, we're coming after you. Saddam is/was a terrorist. He was a brutal dictator who gassed his own people to keep them in line. When that is going on, combined with being in a region known for terrorism against Americans, this is a recipe for forcing change. We're taking a pro-active stance, finally.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

I go back to the State of the Union Address January 2002. Bush said that if you're a terrorist, we're coming after you. If you harbor terrorism, we're coming after you. Saddam is/was a terrorist. He was a brutal dictator who gassed his own people to keep them in line. When that is going on, combined with being in a region known for terrorism against Americans, this is a recipe for forcing change. We're taking a pro-active stance, finally.

The ignorance of Bush backers knows no limitations, I guess. See, Bush told you al Qaida was there and you believed him. Bush told you WMD were there and you believed him. Now, the U.S. government says those things weren't true and you still believe they are because Bush told you so. Face it, you were completely duped!

Lots of brutal dictators in the world, just not very many of them sitting on the largest oil reserves in the world or put a contract out on Bush's daddy.

[bendog]

Originally Posted by clarker

I'm pretty sure if Clinton had the right to bomb Kosovo into the ground, when they were and never was a threat to the U.S., then yes we had the right.

not really to disagree with you, but Nato was unanimous in finding Serbia's aggression was a threat to Nato, and Nato is still essential to our defense. Reparing relations with Nato and getting them more into aghanistan will be one of the biggest initial duties of the next admin.

[El Guapo]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

The ignorance of Bush backers knows no limitations, I guess. See, Bush told you al Qaida was there and you believed him. Bush told you WMD were there and you believed him.

kind of hard to deny that there are no WMDs there when saddam used WMDs to gas his own people.

perhaps there are none there NOW, but they had to go somewhere (see: syria).

[Spider]

....... Right wing nut jobs and the lines they cling to ..........

[bendog]

the gas stockpiles were reduced and catalogued by the first inspections. But, I agree that WJC and the gop congress failed to adequately deal with Saddam. But, Blix in Feb 02, a month before the invasion, reported he's hit 300 sites inclueding all we told him of, and no gas. Rather than Syria, it appears Saddam did get rid of what little he had left, if any, after the inspections dureing Bushi and Wjc.

[El Guapo]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

....... Right wing nut jobs and the lines they cling to ..........

seriously, do you think saddam had JUST enough to do that gassing?!

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Maverick_7

seriously, do you think saddam had JUST enough to do that gassing?!

......What ever floats your boat , so you can sleep at night knowing full well others are serving in a war while you go to college ........ Some support of a just war .... Kinda like buddy that cheers from the sideline while you are in a fight out numbered ...... dont need that kind of support there tiger

[Spider]

Hey Mav just a question here ...... could it be you support the war to cover up your own cowardice ?
After all if you realy believed in the Iraq war , nothing would stop you from going and doing your part ........

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Maverick_7

seriously, do you think saddam had JUST enough to do that gassing?!

I'm assuming we knew exactly how much he had, seeing as how we're the ones who gave it to him. Of course, we expected him to use it on the Iranians.