A question for leftists/liberals, Who is more your real enemy?

[GAVol]

:whistling:

Yes, that was sort of ironic wasn't it?

 

[utvolpj]

Yes, that was sort of ironic wasn't it?

It got a chuckle out of me.

 

[smokedog#3]

Yes, that was sort of ironic wasn't it?

you asked for it.

 

[therealUT]

what's the use of saying the samething over and over again. nobody else besides england thought they were a threat, W had to talk Blair into it and he's been regretting it ever since. W didn't say anything about any of that other s___ in his speeches he said iraq was a threat and going to go bin laden on us. iraq was no threat they were a joke, alot like our president. he had talked about invading iraq before he took office 9/11 helped him do this, he worked off the fear of the american people. shame he got the wrong guy. as said before i still do not see any need for us to be over there they don't want us over there. the whole 2,500 americans killed over there was a waste that did not have to happen, all it accomplished was pissing everybody off. maybe that was W's agenda. in that idiots mind you never know. :bad:

I suggest you read George Bush's speeches from Fall 2002 through March 2003.

 

[therealUT]

For example, Smoke. This was just one of his comments relating to Iraq, prior to OIF.

Action to remove the threat from Iraq would also allow the Iraqi people to build a better future for their society. And Iraq's liberation would be the beginning, not the end, of our commitment to its people. We will supply humanitarian relief, bring economic sanctions to a swift close, and work for the long-term recovery of Iraq's economy. We'll make sure that Iraq's natural resources are used for the benefit of their owners, the Iraqi people.

Iraq has the potential to be a great nation. Iraq's people are skilled and educated. We'll push as quickly as possible for an Iraqi interim authority to draw upon the talents of Iraq's people to rebuild their nation. We're committed to the goal of a unified Iraq, with democratic institutions of which members of all ethnic and religious groups are treated with dignity and respect.

--President George W. Bush, March 14, 2003

That is a start Smoke, now go do some research on your own. It is very easy, all of President Bush's official remarks can be accessed by date at whitehouse.gov.

 

[smokedog#3]

For example, Smoke. This was just one of his comments relating to Iraq, prior to OIF.
That is a start Smoke, now go do some research on your own. It is very easy, all of President Bush's official remarks can be accessed by date at whitehouse.gov.

the first part we already know is crap, there was no threat. as for the rest of that crap why should americans care, where are the benefits for the american people, are we better off. hell NO. last i heard the united states of america wasn't spelled IRAQ. i can't really figure out what you were trying to say. this bit just states the same lies or wrong intellegence ( if your a Bush lover ) that everybody already knows and clarifies there was no real reason for us to invade. :banghead:

 

[OrangeEmpire]

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

1. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.

And Iraq was driven from Kuwait in 1991. The decision was made at that time
not to topple the Saddam regime, which, imo was a terrible decision. That was the time to take out Saddam.

2. As a result of the cease fire regarding #1, Iraq agreed to destroy WMD and cease support of terrorism.

What specific terrorist acts have been specifically linked to Iraq?

3. Iraq has lots of WMD is close to getting a nuke

Where are they?

4. Iraq did not cooperate with UN weapons inspectors.

Then it should be a UN problem shouldn't it?

5. Congress has before stated Iraq's WMD are a threat to US interests.

See #3

6. Iraq's WMD are a threat to the US and region, and Iraq harbors terrorists.

See #3

7. Iraq has violated UNSC resolutions.

Then let the UNSC handle it.

8. Iraq has used WMD in the past.

So has the USA. As a matter of fact, we are the ONLY nation who has ever used WMD against another nation

9. Iraq has and continues to act aggressively toward the US.

In what way? Iraq posed no threat whatsoever to the United States.

10. Members of al Queda are known to be in Iraq.

And in just about every other nation in the middle east. Are we going to take them out as well?

11. Iraq aids and harbors terrorists.

See my answer to #10

12. September 11, 2001 showed it's particularly important to keep WMD out of the hands of terrorists.

I agree. So how has our action in Iraq helped to keep WMD out of the hands of terrorists?

13. Iraq may use WMD against US or US troops deployed in the region.

If they had actually had any to start with.

14. UNSC resolution 678 authorizes force in response to certain conditions. And "authorizes member-states" to use "all necessary means."

Resolution 678 authorizes force specifically to enforce resolution 660. Resolution 660 orders Saddam Hussen to immediatly withdraw from Kuwait. Maybe I'm missing something here, but did Iraq reoccupy Kuwait or something?

15. Congress has before authorized to use force against Iraq pursuant to UNSC 678.

Again, resolution 678 has nothing whatsoever to do with the current situation.

16. Congress has before authorized force against Iraq to enforce USCR pertinent to maintaining peace in the region.

Congress authorized the use of force to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Very different situation.

17. The policy of the US should be to take steps remove Hussein from power.

Funny, that's never been US policy before now.

18. President Bush has committed to enforcing USCR resolutions

Then he should go through the UNSC instead of doing an end run around them.

19. The US is determined to fight terrorism and Iraq's support for terrorists in combination with it's WMD is in violation of UNSC resolutions, and part of the war on terror is enforcing UNSC resolutions.

1. What terrorist acts can be linked to Iraq
2. Where are the WMD
3. Enforcing UNSC resolutions is a UNSC problem.

20. Congress has taken steps to pursue terrorists, including those behind September 11, 2001.

None of the 9/11 terrorists have been linked to Iraq. Most of them, however, were Saudi citizens. Maybe we should take out the government of Saudi Arabia

21. The President and Congress are committed to pursuing those countries backing terrorists, including those behind September 11, 2001.

See my answer to #20

22. The President has the authority to use force under the Constitution to deter and deflect terroristic threats to the US.

Which Mr Bush's war has NOT accomplished. If anything, we've only stirred the hornet's nest.

23. A secure and peaceful Middle East is in the national security interests of the US.

I totally agree. So what has this war done to insure a secure and peaceful Middle East?

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Why aren't the quote boxes working? :dunno:

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

United
Nations

S/RES/0678 (1990)
29 November 1990

RESOLUTION 678 (1990)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2963rd meeting on 29 November 1990
The Security Council,
Recalling, and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August (1990), 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of of 29 October 1990 and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990.
Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council,
Mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of international peace and security,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;
4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;
5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
.

 

[therealUT]

First, Saddam Hussein publicly declared that he provided money to families of terrorists.

Second, should it have been a UN issue? If two (and most likely three) of the five member nations on the security council were not being paid off by Saddam in the oil for food scandal, then, yes. However, the UN has been amidst more scandal and corruption in its history than even the grandest conspiracy theorists would claim of the US.

Third, you highlighted the the claim that this war has not deterred terrorism? Look at the history of terrorist attacks against US civilians since 1976. And, then, look at the attacks against US civilians since 2001. NONE. Therefore, the hornet's nest has not been stirred from this action.

 

[hatvol96]

First, Saddam Hussein publicly declared that he provided money to families of terrorists.

Second, should it have been a UN issue? If two (and most likely three) of the five member nations on the security council were not being paid off by Saddam in the oil for food scandal, then, yes. However, the UN has been amidst more scandal and corruption in its history than even the grandest conspiracy theorists would claim of the US.

Third, you highlighted the the claim that this war has not deterred terrorism? Look at the history of terrorist attacks against US civilians since 1976. And, then, look at the attacks against US civilians since 2001. NONE. Therefore, the hornet's nest has not been stirred from this action.

If the UN is so corrupt, why should we care if their resoultions and wishes are enforced?

 

[smokedog#3]

First, Saddam Hussein publicly declared that he provided money to families of terrorists.

Second, should it have been a UN issue? If two (and most likely three) of the five member nations on the security council were not being paid off by Saddam in the oil for food scandal, then, yes. However, the UN has been amidst more scandal and corruption in its history than even the grandest conspiracy theorists would claim of the US.

Third, you highlighted the the claim that this war has not deterred terrorism? Look at the history of terrorist attacks against US civilians since 1976. And, then, look at the attacks against US civilians since 2001. NONE. Therefore, the hornet's nest has not been stirred from this action.

W contributed money to the bin laden family. last i heard he was a terrorist. his family members arn't considered terrorist but he is. atleast saddam went on record and didn't blow off the question like your president. how do you know bin ladens family is not giving money to the terrorist. hell his uncle is the main terrorist. i guess they are good because W has oil dealings with them.

 

[volinbham]

If the UN is so corrupt, why should we care if their resoultions and wishes are enforced?

The UN is not an individual entity as has been implied in many of these posts. The UN has no enforcement force. It relies on its members to do the enforcement. The resolutions we enforced are ones of our own making within the UN. Since the "corrupt" members signed on to those resolutions (such as 1441) we would expect them to back up what they say. Unfortunately they did not because of the Oil for Food honey pot.

 

[therealUT]

By the way, MyBloodRunnethOrange, I am glad to see you have done some research on resolutions 660 and 678. However, the global community up to and as recently as 2002 continued to expand 660 and 678, most notably through resolution 1441. 1441 still found Iraq in violation of 660 and 678.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

By the way, MyBloodRunnethOrange, I am glad to see you have done some research on resolutions 660 and 678. However, the global community up to and as recently as 2002 continued to expand 660 and 678, most notably through resolution 1441. 1441 still found Iraq in violation of 660 and 678.

1441 recalled that 660 and 678 had authorized the use of force in order to force the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait, not that they were currently in violation of 660 and 678. It did find that they were in violation of 687 which required Iraq to comply with weapons inspections, and they were most definitely in violation of 687.