23 reasons for war in Iraq ( lets not forget)

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf ^ | Oct 16, 2002

[ventanax5]

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism; Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

[MNJohnnie]

Why Iraq

One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the “Anti War movement”) of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US’s National “News” media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.

Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.

To start with Saddam’s Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it’s diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it’s military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.

The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.

Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The “Holy” soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).

Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.

There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.

Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect” to understand. It’s so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like “No Blood for Oil” or “We support the Troops, bring them home” or dumbest of all “We are creating terrorists” then to actually THINK.

Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their “god” will reward them for killing us.

So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.

Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming “We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad” and recruit the next round of “holy warriors”. Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it -

If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

Winston Churchill

[RightWhale]

Don’t see any bulleted points. Especially don’t see #1: overt threat by Iraq to Israel.

[P-40]

Good reason right here:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2807821.stm

[CJ Wolf]

UN UN UN....That’s why we fight.

[misterrob]

Democrat Thought Process On Israel:

Screw Dem Jews

[RightWhale]

Seems so. Strange since Dems were in power when they got Israel created through the UN.

[what's up]

One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying

I've highlighted the word that best describes what's going on IMO.

Thanks for the link...I've saved it.

[paul51]

To much historical rehash. The main arguments should be focused on why iraq today. The reasons for being there now and staying there now have less and less to do with UN resolutions years ago. These points only muddy the waters now. Anyone that isn’t claer on why we went into iraq initially won’t or doesn’t want to comprehend why we should be there now.

[misterrob]

Different dems.

[okie01]

The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.

I wouldn't be so sure.

More likely, we'd have mounted a "diplomatic offensive" to understand their motivations, to assess their rage.

Algore never would have gone into Afghanistan after bin Laden with anything other than Special Forces.

Meaning that, at the first public embarrassment or ridicule, he'd have pulled out.

And, under no circumstances, would Iraq have ever happened.

I just can't imagine Algore doing anything substantive. Indeed, he is proudly proclaiming that he would not have done as Bush did.

Of course, he lies. A lot.

[RightWhale]

So they say. Actually, I remember them. They were somewhat to the right of where the average mainstream Republican is now. That’s probably hard to imagine.

[SolidWood]

Bill Clinton was way more “gung ho” than Al Gore... and all he did was drop a few bombs on Afghan tents, drop a few bombs on some Iraqi facilities, drop a lot of bombs on Christian Serbs and withdraw immediately from Somalia. No significant response after the WTC bombing, the Embassy Bombings in Africa, the USS Cole attack... Clinton did nothing to counter Jihadism and I would’t expect Gore to be any different.

[syriacus]

Saddam was making a comeback before we invaded Iraq.

1. Containment was not working.
2. Unauthorized flights were going into Iraq.
3. Saddam was shooting at our planes.
4. Saddam was sending money to the families of suicide bombers.
5. The oil for food scandal was giving him a transfusion of power.
6. Men, women and children were being tortured and killed.

Pre-emption is not necessarily a bad thing.
If someone had invaded Hitler's Germany before Hitler got too powerful, millions of lives would have been save.
We certainly impressed Muammar al-Gaddafi.

[kabar]

To much historical rehash. The main arguments should be focused on why iraq today. The reasons for being there now and staying there now have less and less to do with UN resolutions years ago.

Of the 23 reasons contained in the Joint Resolution, only 10 mention the UN. This is not some meaningless "historical rehash." Hillary Clinton and the Dems are trying to withdraw this authorization essentially rewriting history. When you read all 23 reasons, many still obtain today:

Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region

[syriacus]

I did the list which is up above from memory...here is the list I was thinking of, which I've had on my FR "about me" page for a long time.

Pre-War "containment" of Saddam failed more each day.

1. The oil-for-food program was corrupt
2. The weapons inspections were a farce
3. US and allied planes were targeted
4. Uninspected flights to Baghdad gutted the sanctions
5. Terrorists were training in Iraq
6. Saddam supported terrorism - $25,000 to each family of a suicide bomber (Thanks, Prost1).
7. Saddam was thumbing his nose at decent people as he rewarded his collaborators.

Bush interrupted Saddam's staging of a comeback.

[Allegra]

I'm beginning to think that the majority of the people who favor finishing the job in Iraq are IN Iraq. Hence, the skewed "poll numbers."

Yes, I'm joking.

Sort of.

[Allegra]

Bush interrupted Saddam's staging of a comeback.

And now Saddam and his evil sons are maggot-fodder.

As they should be.

[\/\/ayne]

BTTT

[syriacus]

“We support the Troops, bring them home”

Same thing happened in 1949.

1. 1945 -- We occupied a newly freed South Korea.
2. 1949 -- the Democratic administration of Harry Truman pulled our troops out of Korea, against the advice of folks in the military and Republicans, who warned South Korea would be too weak to resist invasion.
3. 1950 -- the army of North Korea's dictator Kim il-Sung invaded and occupied most of South Korea
4. 1950 -- Truman announced he was sending troops to S Korea to fight a "police action" against "bandits."
5. 1950-52 -- 30,000 Americans died in Korea in the remaining 30 months of Truman's administration, as part of the effort which was begun to rewin South Korea's freedom

Democrats want to abandon Iraq. Haven't they learned anything from their abandonment of South Korea? Are they "stuck on stupid"?