But why would anyone want to make a fool of himself?Those who believe it was so are more than welcome to opine.
Anyone who chooses " No UN Authorization" is a subversive. IMHOThose who believe it was so are more than welcome to opine.
I am thinking maybe you were too young to actually remember that war and how it unfolded? I will give you the benefit of the doubt.We went in without UN authorization, as I recall. The UN, and in particular, France, was correct. They wanted PROOF of weapons of mass destruction, rather than "belief." They wanted the inspectors to finish and find some proof. So far, the inspectors had not found any proof that Iraq had WMDs, if you recall. But Cheney & Rumsfeld had a different agenda. As Wolf testified later before Congress, they decided to tell the people we were going in for WMDs because it was easier for the public to understand. The real reason, he said, was complicated and political. That was his testimony....that they had lied to the world. France caught the lie....and stupid people here gave up french fries! (mistakenly believing french fries were, well, french)
Iraq represented a new policy, as well. First time we attacked another country who had done nothing to us or done an action that required us to invade them to protect our interests. It was new, unprecendented policy. And our stupid congress people fell for it. Including KERRY. Which is why I'm suspicious of Kerry's decision regarding Syria now. He says "trust me, I know Syria used Chem weapons." He has a track record of not being able to judge so-called evidence properly, so I wouldn't go by Kerry's judgment on this. I do, however, trust Obama's judgment.
Because a bunch of ***** leftist cowards don't believe that evil should be stopped or confronted, that it will just magically disappear while they run around showing their "concern" for all the poor Americans but say "screw you" to everyone else in the world. NM that there are probably far more Iraqi's that believe in what used to be the American dream than there are Liberals who do. Sad but true, many of the people in enemy countries are actually better Americans than Demo's are.Those who believe it was so are more than welcome to opine.
Possibly true, but I have seen those aspersions being tossed around before. Never seen anybody come close to backing them up. But I am game, give me the facts and proof.Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the USA. Now the OILY issue. Iraq sold OIL in Euros and that threatened the US Dollar supremacy. Iraq didn't sell to USA OIL corporations. The Iraq War changed the price of OIL in Iraq to US Dollars and brought the Iraq OIL into Western Big Energy Corporation distribution networks. It profited the Energy corporations to FUEL the War. After the War the Iraq OIL entered the Big Energy Distribution Network to provide huge additional profits. It is only good business for Energy Corporations to promote/market Wars because it is really good for their business. Wait a Minute, holy mackerel, low life, scumbag lobbyists wouldn't be trying to buy Congressmen and women to gin up wars that produce huge profits for Big Energy. Of course they would. That just good marketing, Corporatist style.
C
Actually I think it was quasi legal as congress did approve of the war via resolution. I do not know if that makes it constitutional. Much more legal than Obama's Libyan operation. But the way I read the constitution, congress must declare war, not by resolution for a war to be considered constitutional. So every war we have been involved in since WWII, could in a way be said to be unconstitutional. But with congressional approval, they may have been legal or quasi legal if you will.lt was illegal because it wasnt defensive
hi pero ,Actually I think it was quasi legal as congress did approve of the war via resolution. I do not know if that makes it constitutional. Much more legal than Obama's Libyan operation. But the way I read the constitution, congress must declare war, not by resolution for a war to be considered constitutional. So every war we have been involved in since WWII, could in a way be said to be unconstitutional. But with congressional approval, they may have been legal or quasi legal if you will.
It certainly was defensive. Saddam had violated 17 Chapter 7 UNSCRs, the last of which promised dire consequences. He was firing on US aircraft, selling food from oil and faking a WMD program.lt was illegal because it wasnt defensive
Don't know how they do it in Turkey, but it is legal here. While that may sound arrogant, I sure trust US a lot more than the UN, or, for that matter, Turkey. When your country has done half as much good as the US has around the world, maybe then you could legitimately bring up whether you think its legal or not. In the meantime, have a good evening....hi pero ,
whether a foreign policy decision made by any government is constitutional or not doesnt determine its legality
Howdy Medusa, I suppose you're right as to in one's own mind anyway. But the way our government works, if something is constitutional, it is at least legally binding. At least as far as the federal system goes. I thought Iraq was a mistake from the get go, but once congress gave it approval via a resolultion, (resolutions for me is the wrong way to go, we went to war on an opinion of congress, not a declaration) I did my best to ensure its success.hi pero ,
whether a foreign policy decision made by any government is constitutional or not doesnt determine its legality
Those who believe it was so are more than welcome to opine.
kurds were bombed 25 years ago and USA was aware of it .It certainly was defensive. Saddam had violated 17 Chapter 7 UNSCRs, the last of which promised dire consequences. He was firing on US aircraft, selling food from oil and faking a WMD program.
It was also defensive for the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, the children being intentionally starved, the victims of institutionalized rape and the Iraqi people in general.
I thought the anti-war folks had a good point in demanding a formal declaration of war... even it is is just a formality.It was more-or-less authorized by Congress... but speaking in very strict, very Constitutionally-literalist terms, there was no formal declaration of war. Now, it has been true for some time that the Prez can commit military forces up to 90 days without Congressional authorization, and whether a declaration of war as such by name is required is a debateable point given how far we've strayed from the Constitution...
But anyway, I wasn't opposed to the Iraq war itself... but I thought there should have been a proper Congressional declaration of war.
but your constitution doesnt govern this world ,it governs only USA :mrgreen:Howdy Medusa, I suppose you're right as to in one's own mind anyway. But the way our government works, if something is constitutional, it is at least legally binding. At least as far as the federal system goes. I thought Iraq was a mistake from the get go, but once congress gave it approval via a resolultion, (resolutions for me is the wrong way to go, we went to war on an opinion of congress, not a declaration) I did my best to ensure its success.
I need clarification...are you talking about the Iraq Invasion of 2003 under Bush Jr., or the original Gulf War authorized by the UN that Bush Sr. was involved with?Those who believe it was so are more than welcome to opine.
Don't know how they do it in Turkey, but it is legal here. While that may sound arrogant, I sure trust US a lot more than the UN, or, for that matter, Turkey. When your country has done half as much good as the US has around the world, maybe then you could legitimately bring up whether you think its legal or not. In the meantime, have a good evening....
I too have a mind and heart...what is your point? What is illegal about it? Under whose laws? There is no true governing World Body that can make that determiniation. Too much corruption and intrigue going on at the UN. So, whose word are we going to take for it? Medusa's? I rather think we can figure it out on our own, thank you very much for the input.even if all the parliament members agree that we should attack syria ,it is still illegal
l am not interested in what some governors claim to be legal
l have a mind and heart
Post of the day!It certainly was defensive. Saddam had violated 17 Chapter 7 UNSCRs, the last of which promised dire consequences. He was firing on US aircraft, selling food from oil and faking a WMD program.
It was also defensive for the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, the children being intentionally starved, the victims of institutionalized rape and the Iraqi people in general.
l am against all wars in favor of imperialismI too have a mind and heart...what is your point? What is illegal about it? Under whose laws? There is no true governing World Body that can make that determiniation. Too much corruption and intrigue going on at the UN. So, whose word are we going to take for it? Medusa's? I rather think we can figure it out on our own, thank you very much for the input.