The War In Iraq Thread

[StevenOtero]

What is your opinion on it?

[Cajuncowboy]

I support it.

Saddam was in clear violation of the UN resolutions that brought a Cease fire to the first Gulf war. He failed to give the inspectors unfettered access and even the inspectors themselves, at the time, said they could no longer verify if Saddam indeed did away with his chemical and biological weapons. This was purely on Saddam.

This is the dirty little fact people forget when moaning and groaning over the Iraq war. Oh and by the way, it was a condition of the cease fire agreement with Saddam the first time around that the UN would be allowed to inspect for this. Now we know the UN was dirty with the revelation of the oil for food program taking bribes from Saddam.

So yes, I support and will continue to do so.

[silverbear]

Originally Posted by Cajuncowboy

I support it.

Saddam was in clear violation of the UN resolutions that brought a Cease fire to the first Gulf war. He failed to give the inspectors unfettered access and even the inspectors themselves, at the time, said they could no longer verify if Saddam indeed did away with his chemical and biological weapons. This was purely on Saddam.

This is the dirty little fact people forget when moaning and groaning over the Iraq war.

The dirty little fact that YOU ignore is that if Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions, it was on the UN to take action against them... the United States had no right, legally or morally, to take unilateral action on behalf of the UN... not when that body chose not to take any actions themselves...

Now we know the UN was dirty with the revelation of the oil for food program taking bribes from Saddam.

Which still doesn't give us the right to unilaterally enforce their resolutions... if the UN is so corrupt, we ought to get out of it...

[Jordan55]

Yeah Right, let the UN enforce it, when has the UN enforced anything?
Silverbear same old argument, I believe Hillary was supportive of milatary action at the time, but now she has a new take on it to appease her party.
Sadam, made the wrong call on Bush's resolve and ultimately his bribes to the French,Germans and Russians failed to save him.
These are the members of the UN you wanted to help enforce the resolutions?
So who would be left in the UN, to confront Sadam?
Of course your argument wouldn't exist if there were WMD's found.

[theogt]

Originally Posted by silverbear

the United States had no right, legally or morally, to take unilateral action on behalf of the UN... not when that body chose not to take any actions themselves...

Legally? Says who?

Morally? Says you.

[burmafrd]

Should have gone in and taken Saddam out in 93 or 94, when he first started pulling all his crap. Just no one wanted to do anything.
This is exactly what happened in the early 30s when Hitler started to flex his muscles. France and England were too afraid and had weak leaders to do anything. In 34 or 35 they could have stepped in and taken Hitler down easily. But they did not. Instead they let him get too strong. The UN is even worse in some ways- since some countries like Russia and China NEVER want the UN to do anything strong.
We were lucky in that Saddam was so incompetent at anything other then staying in power.

[StevenOtero]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

Should have gone in and taken Saddam out in 93 or 94, when he first started pulling all his crap. Just no one wanted to do anything.
This is exactly what happened in the early 30s when Hitler started to flex his muscles. France and England were too afraid and had weak leaders to do anything. In 34 or 35 they could have stepped in and taken Hitler down easily. But they did not. Instead they let him get too strong. The UN is even worse in some ways- since some countries like Russia and China NEVER want the UN to do anything strong.
We were lucky in that Saddam was so incompetent at anything other then staying in power.

Yeah, I agree with you. I guess we didn't want to start a quagmire like there is now? I'm not sure why we stopped in the early 90's.

[arglebargle]

We didn't continue back in the early '90's because the wiser heads in that era (including most of the generals in charge) were worried about the power vacuum that would occur then, and the increased power it would offer to other regional foes like Iran. Oops....

Probably should have done it then though, we were at least better set up and prepared. But it is not like there were going to be no consequences.

[Yeagermeister]

Originally Posted by otero1

Yeah, I agree with you. I guess we didn't want to start a quagmire like there is now? I'm not sure why we stopped in the early 90's.

It wasn't the objective. The objective was to get Saddam back in his own country.

Plus I know someone that was there on the front lines and he said his tank was running on fumes and had one shell left when it was over. We didn't have the supplies needed to overthrow him.

As for the topic....I support it.

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by Yeagermeister

It wasn't the objective. The objective was to get Saddam back in his own country.

Plus I know someone that was there on the front lines and he said his tank was running on fumes and had one shell left when it was over. We didn't have the supplies needed to overthrow him.

As for the topic....I support it.

the topic or the war? : )

[burmafrd]

Yeager, I was in Saudi at the time of the ground war. Either your friend was lying to you or he knew nothing. One fact on the gulf war: not one tank fired a complete load. We had 60 days of Ammunition piled up and ready to move forward. Unlike 3rd Armys move through France in 1944, supplies were NOT a problem in Desert Storm.

Only the battle of (never could remember the number) 43/73 easting did any unit fire even HALF its basic load.

[ThaBigP]

Originally Posted by silverbear

The dirty little fact that YOU ignore is that if Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions, it was on the UN to take action against them... the United States had no right, legally or morally, to take unilateral action on behalf of the UN... not when that body chose not to take any actions themselves...



Which still doesn't give us the right to unilaterally enforce their resolutions... if the UN is so corrupt, we ought to get out of it...

You forget, Resolution 1441 allowed for enforcement of the terms of the resolution by either the UN body as a whole, or any individual(s) member nations. Therefore, bye-bye "illegal if the rest of the UN didn't go along" argument.

I must add, though, that I agree with your sentiments regarding the UN - if it's as bad as we think it is (I think so), then get out.

[burmafrd]

don't bother with Silver- every time you show him wrong he just changes his rant to something else.

[arglebargle]

I do love it when some people -- who hate the UN and think it should be left or disbanded -- use it as justification for things they just wanted to do anyway.

Just because something is allowed, it doesn't make it necessarilly a good idea.

And we do have the right to expect it to be done competantly....

It was mishandled from the get go, and will end up helping our foes more than us. IMO.

[zrinkill]

Originally Posted by Cajuncowboy

I support it.

Saddam was in clear violation of the UN resolutions that brought a Cease fire to the first Gulf war. He failed to give the inspectors unfettered access and even the inspectors themselves, at the time, said they could no longer verify if Saddam indeed did away with his chemical and biological weapons. This was purely on Saddam.

This is the dirty little fact people forget when moaning and groaning over the Iraq war. Oh and by the way, it was a condition of the cease fire agreement with Saddam the first time around that the UN would be allowed to inspect for this. Now we know the UN was dirty with the revelation of the oil for food program taking bribes from Saddam.

So yes, I support and will continue to do so.

Good post.