PM: Canada right on Iraq No weapons of mass destruction found yet

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2003/05/23/93553.html ^ | Fri May 23 2003 | CP

[mabelkitty]

Last I checked we were a sovereign nation.

International law is made up by bureacrats out of whole cloth to make industrialized nations "pay" for perceived transgressions.

[mabelkitty]

Yes, he's banned and comes back rising like a Phoenix from ashes.

[mabelkitty]

Um, how about nuclear proliferation using Chinese money, selling secrets to our enemies, then being slapped in the face with it after he cut and run. Still no relevance, right?

Welcome to Free Republic!

[mabelkitty]

I'm not one of the ignorant Americans, sweetheart.

Have a nice day.

[BlueNgold]

Members of the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq prior to 9/11 ...

Members of the Bush administration realized that the policy of trying to contain Iraq was an abject failure as evidenced by their expulsion of all U.N. inspectors without significant consequence. In recognizing the threat posed by Iraq the administration began to re-evaluate options for dealing with Iraq from day 1. President Bush made no equivocation on his position during the campaign and followed through with a deliberate and thoughful approach which included the efforts within the United Nations. When it became clear that the United Nations had no backbone and their resolutions amounted to little more than idle threats it became necessary to investigate alternatives that did not include them.

If you honestly believe that anyone in this administration, or any administration ever, 'wanted' to invade another country and shed the blood of Americans or others without it being an absolute necessity then you are misguided as you are uneducated on international military affairs and history.

[Yardstick]

A democratic state attacking a non-democratic state in the interest of human rights and we can not offer a word in protest.

Oh, you didn't mention that the attack on Pakistan was in the interest of human rights in your scenario. If that were genuinely the case, why would we protest it? I would hope we would assist them.

[eBelasco]

A democratic state attacking a non-democratic state in the interest of human rights and we can not offer a word in protest.

Not sure I catch your drift. Apparently, protesting the regime's policy while at war is treasonous.
Also, are you suggesting a prohibition on attacking democratic states? That would be ascribing limits to the use of our power.

[BlueNgold]

A democratic state attacking a non-democratic state in the interest of human rights and we can not offer a word in protest.

You seem to shortcut the scenario by about 2 years of international diplomacy. The fact is the United States made every effort to include the 'world community'. However, even in the face of renewed international pressure Iraq remained in constant and consistent violation of not only United Nations resolutions, but also of the cease fire agreement they signed with us. Present a scenario where a vanquished despot continues to ignore the United Nations and the cessation of hostilities documents they have agreed to and we can perhaps find an analagous situation. An unprovoked attack without foundation is in no way similar to the situation we faced. Your efforts to paint the administration, or this country as a whole, as blood-thirsty, barbarous, and empirical are, again, misguided. (Perhaps you should consider engaging a trial lawyer to sue your educators for failure to provide advertised services. I hear they are looking for work ...)

[Yardstick]

I'm not necessarily saying we jump in with our military, but if it were a just war, fought in the genuine interest of human rights (as it is in your scenario), then why would wouldn't we want to assist the "good guys"? At the very least, why would we want to protest it? I thought that fighting for a just cause (or supporting a just cause, or at least not protesting a just cause) was generally a *good* thing. After all, that's why we went to war with Iraq.

[BlueNgold]

They honestly believed that the invasion was in the best interest of the United States

This is an entirely different situation than that which you presented and is entirely in keeping with thoughtful international policy. Making a decision that something is in our best interest, even at a cost, is different from 'wanting' to invade another country. Again I point you back to the 2000 campaign. Iraq did not need to be 'sold' to the President, it was on his radar screen already.

Your efforts to paint the President as a puppet belie the facts and seem a product of the misguided stereotype of President Bush as a bumbling fool. (I wish I had a resume that included a Yale undergraduate degree and Harvard MBA!)

next ....

[eBelasco]

As Richard Perle said: "I think there were overwhelming practical considerations (to include the world community). One is we weren’t ready so the argument that you’ve got nothing to lose by going to the UN, you know, it may take a week or two or six or eight but we’re not going to be ready for 8 or 10 or 12 weeks. So you’ve got nothing to lose." and "it’s treating the United Nations as a source of legitimacy, if you can get it to go along with you. And when you can’t then you have to deny that it is THE source of legitimacy."

I'm assuming LivingLarge's scenario assumes that India has some justification for the attack, ie: Pakistan has the potential to potentially attack India, they have an illegitimate regime, they are in violation of some resolution, etc etc.

[Let's Roll]

They were there - they were either moved or destroyed at the last moment. Even Saddam admitted to having them at one time - he couldn't or wouldn't account for them in his "report" to the UN.