Justify invading a sovereign country?

I didn't get to listen to it.  How about filling us in.  What were the reasons of justification or the proof that he said that he was going to present?

Other than that, go gettum GWB![50]

Works for me.

I'd love to have heard him say to teh UN "We brought you into this world, and we can take you out!!"

[:D]

I'm waiting for tonites speech.

Still, I want it to go to a vote of Congress, so that every one of them critters is on record as to what they believed on teh matter. Theoretically, thay are all more knowledgeable to the specifics than I am. Theoretically.




Besides, the Constitution mandates that ONLY  Congress can declare war. AFTER that, POTUS is the CinC.

One guy on radio this A.M. mentioned this:

Bush oughtta walk down to teh U.N. building and address the general Assembly as follows:

"Hey France - who saved yer butt from Nazi occupation?"

"Russia - who saved you from financial collapse and severe poverty?"

"Bosnia - Been to war lately? Who saved you bacon?"

And go down the list of ALL the nations that OWE us.

Same old stuff.  Evil this, evil that.  Killed his own people, violating UN accords.  Lieing, breaking deals and conditions, etc...


Bush gave a long list of compliance issues for Iraq to follow if it wants to save it's ass.

I don't know.  Lot's of rhetoric & broad, unsupported statements.

Bush laid out the case for war with Iraq
in several ways...obviously he had to make a case in front of the UN
He named UN resolution upon resolution that the Iraquis had violated and ignored.
The UN has given Iraq over 11 years to conform they have not...they have been amassing weapons for the last 4 years and to give them more time to give inspectors the run arround and continue to build WMD would not only not be prudent but it would be in violation of everything the UN was formed to prevent..
Bush used their own laws and charters to prove Sadam must go and go now...
Kaffi Annan of course gave a speech that played Iraq conflict down and made the Paly Israel question most important.. (with Israel responsible naturally)
One of the best speeches a US Prez every made to that 'august' body [/sarcasm]
[img]http://focusonjerusalem.com/annan.jpg[/img]
[img]http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/70000/images/_70445_annanarafat150.jpg[/img]

GWB sure can make a GREAT speech when he truly believes and is committed to what hes speaking about. I believe this was the case. His speech in my mind fully justifies an attack on iraq. Thats the way to address the UN, by telling them we don't need you if you don't want to help. We'll go it alone. Give Em Hell GWB!

I kept hoping to hear, "...So this is why I am here now to tell you that we started bombing Baghdad about 15 minutes ago."

But does that justify an invasion?

Saddam has been in defiance of the UN Resolutions for 11 years!  Nobody has cared.

[url=http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=143769]Why Iraq and Why Now?[/url]

[:o] sausage fest?

Therein lies my reservations.

Since its IMPOSSIBLE for me to ever know the truth abotu Iraq without endangering sources / our armed forces, I may just have to trust Pres Bush's honesty, and the Constitutional method of Congress declaring war.

Sucks, but I thinks that all I can go on.

Three reasons, taken in series:

1) George Bush 41 forged an alliance with the express intent of removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait in order to liberate an ally and secure the free flow of oil at market prices. Doing so saved the bacon of the entire world economy. The mission was NOT to topple Hussein, although we sure tried to take him out under the old "fog of war" thing. Frankly, I didn't agree with the idea of not rolling into Baghdad, but he did what he need to do to preserve the alliance that was needed to accomplish the mission.

2) Billy Boy defeated George Bush 41 and spent the next 8 years seeing to it that the military was gutted in any way possible. He was much happier to use the armed forces as an international meals-on-wheels program or as target practice for every little tinhorn asshole he could find, rather than for the purpose for which it exists: to DEFEND AMERICA. When he finally left (thank GOD!), he left behind a hollow shell that had neither the support nor the morale for an Iraqi campaign.

3) GW was in office less than a year before 9/11 happened and all hell broke loose. Fortunately, he had begun rebuilding our forces as soon as he took office, so we were actually able to DO something.

So....

One year between George 41 kicking Saddam's ass and losing the election...
Eight years of Billy boy turning the White House into a brothel...
One year of GW rebuilding the military after taking office, and one year since the attacks (during which time we actually started using the intelligence services to collect data on the likes of Hussein rather than on the Michigan Militia)...

1+8+1+1=11 years!

That's why NOW.

Why Iraq? Anyone who thinks that Saddam is NOT involved in terrorism, or that he is NOT a threat to us, or that he can be trusted with WMD's, is either in complete denial or is a liberal democrat.

Q.E.D.

Man, what I would give to have arafat wired with one of his suicide bombs!  Take out two terds with one stone...

Keving67

Almost nothing in that speech related to anything less than 10 years old!  I could not believe the level of rhetoric in that speech!  It also hit home to me just how much of an actor Bush is--he sounds so good when he puts his brain in neutral and just reads from the teleprompter.  Our president, like the rest of our government, is selling us out.  

Lots of countries violate UN Resolutions--why is the US not invading them also?  The truth is that the UN is ineffective and always has been and it needs to go.  The fact that our president feels that making his case before the UN is more important than making it to our own Congress is alarming to the max.

Stop believing the propaganda--Iraq is not a threat to the world.  Everything Bush said about Iraq is also true about the United States--talk about a country with tons of WMDs and the will to use them!  I can understand why other countries think the US is a threat to the world.

[img]http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/70000/images/_70445_annanarafat150.jpg[/img]

Wow, what a picture!  I think that guy is actually much closer to the camera than Arafart, but still. . .what a perfect photo!

You really don't have a clue.  From what source(s) do you base your assertion that Iraq is not a threat?  Scott Ritter?  You accuse many of listening to propaganda, but apparently you listen to Saddam's propaganda.  You really are not any smarter than the rest of us, as you insinutate.  The truth is probably exactly the opposite.

You slam GWB constantly.  Who would you rather have, Gore?  Maybe you are upset the Slick Willy is not still in office.

I really am beginning to believe that you are a DU mole.  Some others here seem like liberals as well, but you take the cake.

Yes, the US has many WMDs, but we would not use them except as a last resort.  Saddam has shown that he will use WMDs on the Iranians and his own people.  If you can't see the difference, then you really are warped.

[img]news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/70000/images/_70445_annanarafat150.jpg[/img]


That's how they give bl_wjobs in "Pali-."

Being well hung in the nasal department and all...  

[}:D]

--LS

Be careful trickshot, it sounds like you are a traitor. Iraq is a serious threat to the world, Saddam is a lunatic, and he will push the button as soon as he can. However I am not one to say that we should just nuke the place and turn it into a sheet of glass either. Personally I don't want to kill Saddam, it would be much more fun to strip him naked, roll him in molasses, tie him to the ground, cover him with ground corn, and let chickens peck him to death. We will prevail and GWB is just the man to lead us there.

Well I'm old enough to remember the same things being said about Col. Quadafi of Libya.

He turned out to be a paper tiger.

The traditional greeting between men in many other parts of the world is a kiss on the cheek.
In the M.E., it's been around since biblical times (This was the gesture that Judas used to betray Jesus), and that is what Kofi is doing.

There are many renditions of why we in the US & UK use a handshake, and I'm not going to snopes to check them out... The 2 I've heard are (a) it goes back to the Judas/Jesus encounter, and (b) It was a way of saying 'I'm friendly, here is my sword-hand (i.e. same vein as the military salute)'... Legends aside, they exchange cheek kisses (Russians & some european cultures do too), we try to crush eachother's right hands...

Well, That can easily be explained by his little encounter with the USAF....

Watching a 'vark blow up the palace you just left 5 min ago can have that effect....

Damn good speech, IMO.

Eric

Well, IMHO, it doesn't take a speech to the UN to justify an invasion...

It just takes a worthwile strategic objective, and there are plenty to cite with Iraq:

First, there's the ability to re-shape the Iraqi government in our image. Japan was a fudal, backwards dictatorship prior to 1945. After loosing WWII, we occupied them and turned them into the most prosperous, democratic country in the far east. Japan's example has spread to Korea, Taiwan, and many others. Basically, it's the old 'Domino Effect' theory again, except it will be *US*, not the soviets tipping over the first domino.

Second, there's control of a large supply of oil. Now, I'm not reccommending we go in there to take the oil, but I am reccommending that any OPEC actions tampering with the supply be countered by an increase in Iraqi production. Basically, break the cartel by rendering it useless (and buy (not take, buy - they need their economy back) all our oil from Iraq & Russia after we occupy it & start redoing the government)...

Thank you, sir, for the kind words. I appreciate them a great deal.

Here's what I heard...



Yay UN!!



Yay world socialism!!




Wonder who he means by that??



My, my, my.....



And as daddy Bush stated, in Iraq act 1, we know that the purpose is "a new world order"....



I guess this speaks volumes, the leader of the US delegation was Alger Hiss, shown to be a Soviet, (read communist), spy. most our environmental law comes out of "Agenda 21" from the UN. How about the convention on small arms? Read that one??



In other words, we'll do it with the international law we helped found,...or without it. Kinda like a bank robber saying give me your money, or I'll hold you up! I wonder if he thinks the same way about the US Constitution. Oh silly me, he signed the "campaign finance" bill at the same time he said it was un-constitutional... Not to mention the "Patriot Act"...



And that promise was again?? [b]A New World Order![/b] (World socialist govt.)

I'm old enough to remember a certain gentleman by the name of Ronald Reagan kicking the good colonel's balls up into his throat one spring evening in 1986. Took out the bastard's daughter and blew his tent into next week.

Sure, Lybia took out the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, but God only knows what our response was that DIDN'T make the headlines.

The moral is that he became a paper tiger [b]after[/b] we went in and kicked his ass to remind him what a shit he was.

Now it's Saddam's turn, and I guarantee you that "regime change" doesn't mean leaving him alive...

I didn't hear the speech, and I usually stay out of these sort of threads, but work's slow today, so here goes.

Does the thought of the US invading a sovereign country, relatively unprovoked, bother me?  Yes.  However, the thought of Iraq with WMD's bothers me quite a bit as well.  Saddam has demonstrated both the will to use them (Kurds and Iranians) and the means to deliver them (Scuds).

Now, how does Saddam having WMD equipped TBM's affect us as Americans?  Will he be able to deliver a WMD to CONUS?  Well, no, probably not.  Could he hit any of our bases or other interests in the Middle East?  Yeah, he could.  Will he germ / gas / nuke the living daylights out of Isreal?  I'd put money on it.  And then Isreal will go nuclear in retaliation.

Regardless of what you think of our involvement with Isreal, I don't think anyone would be real happy to sit back and watch that level of genocide happen without doing something to prevent it.  Hence our current situaltion with Iraq.

I think it's a good idea to go through the UN first.  We're a little short on allies on this issue, and with a Klinton-weakened military, we may need some.  And Iraq has been violating UN resolutions, so the UN should be the one to call them on it.  Even if it's the US on behalf of the UN.  That will give us a little better justification in the eyes of the rest of the world.

So - here is my armchair general plan of action (and for that matter prediction of what will happen).

Do what we're doing, ie get the UN to enforce those WMD restrictions on Iraq.  If the UN doesn't go for it, well then we do it on our own.  Get weapons inspectors into Iraq.  If they resist/refuse, we install them by force.  That is where the shooting will start.  Actually, it will probably be bombing, but you know what I mean.  From there, depending on Isreal and the other countries in the area, things could get messy.  But I won't speculate on that.  Too scary.


That's my $0.02.  Take it for what it's worth.  I'm no political / military analyst.  I just play one on TV.

As Chimbo alluded to in a previous post, Kofi plays for the other team. [;)]