Posted on 01/10/2005 7:29:30 AM PST by areafiftyone
My claim was that we patrolled the no fly zone due to the UN resolutions which called for said patrols. My claim was also that it was because of UN resolutions that economic sanctions were set against Iraq. (After all, those were the two items YOU mentioned.)
Nice attempt at deflecting attention to your error. Too bad it failed.
Anyone who doesn't recognize that the entire situation in Iraq has been a conflict between the United States and Iraq is delusional.
This, BTW, is why the role of the United Nations has been utterly inconsequential from my perspective. The UN involvement did not lend any credibility or justification to the U.S. effort in 1990, nor did the lack of UN involvement detract from the U.S. effort in 2003. For principled conservatives, the U.S. effort should always stand up or fall down on its own merits regardless of what the "international community" thinks about it.
Let's make a list of the promises and covenants the Vatican has broken with me.
Post #200 Alberta's Child:
If there was an Iraqi connection to Oklahoma City, then it would be far more devastating to the GOP than to the Clinton administration for that connection to be revealed.
Are you in the habit of asking yourself questions that you already have an answer to? Or are you dissatisified with your answer but thought it might win your point anyway?
It sounds invented. In any case we have done well and it has been quick.
What I posted in #200 was an answer to the recurring question (see #192) that came up in my mind about this topic.
It doesn't sound invented at all, when you consider the context in which it was made back in early 2003.
The civilian leadership in the Defense Department at the time included people like Richard Perle, who had spent the previous 18 months making comments in various media outlets that included such idiotic predictions that the U.S. could defeat Iraq with no (yes, that's zero) troops. So it would not surprise me if this quote was, in fact, accurate.
Hmmm. Very interesting!!!
Mutual self-interests coalesced to deceive the American public.
Yes, your logic was rather circular. I responded to your points, then for some reason, you jumped to an issue that had not been discussed. Ah, well.
"The U.S. actively sought to get those U.N. Security Council resolutions in the first place"
We weren't the only ones who wanted them.
"then used these resolutons as the justification for the war itself and the subsequent sanctions against Iraq."
Presuming you are talking about the first Gulf War, many of the UN resolutions came as a result of that war. Again, we were not the only nation that pressed for the resolutions and subsequent sanctions.
"Anyone who doesn't recognize that the entire situation in Iraq has been a conflict between the United States and Iraq is delusional."
I imagine Kuwait might have a different opinion.
" This, BTW, is why the role of the United Nations has been utterly inconsequential from my perspective."
Oh, I have no problem with getting rid of the UN. But that won't change the past.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.