Bush hasn't justified war (GREELEY ALERT)

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | December 26, 2003 | ANDREW GREELEY

[Luis Gonzalez]

You must have missed this.

"Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." -- President George W. Bush, September 20th. 2001

Do you think Saddam was "with us", or "with the terrorists"?

[zarf]

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime

The connection between "terrorism" and Iraq was the ability of Iraq to give WMD to the terrorists....thus justifying our invasion of the country. By all accounts, intelligence pointed in that direction thus, IMO, it was a perfectly good reason for punching Hussein's lights out.

My complaint with the administration is that, just because the weapons have not been found, they shouldn't shy away from it's initial rational for going to war.

We had reasonable suspicion regarding the WMD....I think that's justification enough.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"It was not justified by a risk to us."

You are dellusional.

If a risk to the US is what would have justified invading Iraq in your mind, then you are simply lying to yourself by claiming that there was no "risk to us".

Any outlaw regime like Hussein's, with the access to wealth such as it had, and an axe to grind against the U.S., which he had, is a potential risk to us by the mere fact that at any time it can finance people like Usama bin Laden.

You may not find my answer acceptable, but that's your problem, not mine.

[TomB]

It was to the UN that those cease fire promises were made and it was the UN that was dealing with Saddam. The Security Council had the responsibility to use force to enforce those provisions. They wisely decided against that course of action.

No, the cease fire was negotiated by Schwarzkopf and signed by the leaders of the coatlition. It was up to the coalition to patrol the no-fly zones and it was they who were fired upon, negating the cease-fire.

You seem to have a real love for the UN, when they have constantly proven themselves to be worthless. Face it, as has been shown, Russia, France and Germany had too much to lose to allow war in Iraq to happen. They didn't give a rats ass about our security. You may want to surrender our sovreignity to the UN, but I don't.

[TomB]

You are dellusional.

Geez, Luis, almost 200 posts into this thread and someone finally summed it up well.

A libertarian who wants to surrender the security of the country to the UN? That's a new one to me.

[Mike4Freedom]

You seem to have a real love for the UN,...

A classic ad hominem. I have no respect for the UN as it is currently comprised. They want to disarm the world so we will all be at the mercy of any terrorist government that comes along. That is just like the gun control nuts on the American left.

Nevertheless, I like that one provision of the charter. I fits with my moral view of what is right and wrong. One does not initiate force, start a fight, strike the first blow without a truly IMMINENT threat. If it is hard to get a force resolution through the Security Council, that is good. I really believe what Bush and company said but did not mean. War must absolutely be the LAST resort to resolve any problem and every obstacle to war is good.

If your memory recorders were on during the first quarter of 2003, you saw clearly that Bush was determined to have a war and nothing was going to stop him. There was no possibility of a peaceful settlement.

[TomB]

A classic ad hominem. I have no respect for the UN as it is currently comprised. They want to disarm the world so we will all be at the mercy of any terrorist government that comes along. That is just like the gun control nuts on the American left.

Nevertheless, I like that one provision of the charter. I fits with my moral view of what is right and wrong.

So you will pick and choose what provisions you obey? Wow, THAT is convenient.

The fact remains, we as a country do not owe allegiance to the UN, and we do not, under any current law, have to cede our independence to that organization.

Iraq violated the cease-fire, hence our actions were legal. You may argue they were ill-advised, rash, "unilateral", poorly motivated, or whatever else you can manufacture in you conspiracy-filled mind. But it is inaccurate to say it was illegal.