Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by StevenOtero, Jan 13, 2008.
What is your opinion on it?
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.
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...
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.
Legally? Says who?
Morally? Says you.
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.
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.
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? : )
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.
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.
don't bother with Silver- every time you show him wrong he just changes his rant to something else.
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.
Well he is a car salesman :laugh2:
Ok, I have to set you straight my friend. The UN Resolution that he violated was the one that brought a cease fire. Keep in mind that it did not bring a surrender. There is a big difference. We allowed Saddam to stay in power with the understanding he would adhere to these resolutions. Clinton could have exorcised his prerogative at any time to go in and seek unfettered access through the UN. He did not because he had visions of one day becoming the head of the UN. Knowing what we know now, I wonder if he had any knowledge of the Oil for food scandal.
With all that said, Bush acted against the back drop of 9/11 and was not about to watch as some mad man who was a sponsor of terrorism himself, have any opportunity to pass on any WMD. It was Saddam's call all the way and he failed to give that access.
As for the UN, it has less to do with them than it does with the US's security. For those who want to yammer on about morality and about the right to do this, I wonder if it was morally right to prevent more suicide bombers families from getting paid by this guy? I think it was morally right.
And as some of you on this forum like to say...
Whose morals? Mine or yours? What makes your's more right?
At least we demolished the rape rooms and got rid of a sponsor of state terrorism. And that NO ONE can deny.And that is why I support this action and always will.
It was mishandled from the get go, and will end up helping our foes more than us. IMO.[/QUOTE
So the situation over there hasn't improved? And are foes that would be
al Queda? that's the ones were supposedly helping.
Yeah it looks like they have the upper hand over there now doesn't it.
The war in Iraq is the war with Iran.
We didn't go to Iraq to mitigate a threat imposed by Sadaam himself, with weapons he either didn't have or didn't know how to maintain and keep from degenerating.
We didn't go to Iraq to liberate a people. It was hoped that that would be a beneficial by-product of our actions.
We didn't go to Iraq in furtherance of catching the fool responsible for 9/11.
It was hoped that the consequences of our actions were to be mitigating the spread of such an ideology in a volatile region. Influencing the region with what we would put in place after Sadaam was deposed, is the hope.
Iraq is right between Saudi Arabia, a radical state with plenty of room for terrorism to grow, yet still an ally, and Iran the birth place of most of our Mid-East problems and a very lethal and hateful antagonist.
Sadaam wasn't going to last forever and his sons were idiots. Iran would have filled the void, controlled the very strategic and important Strait of Hormuz and put a major squeeze on American oil flow and thus our power.
A powerful Iran is a dangerous Iran. Allowing them to control that which gives us our way of life would be suicidal. Plainly put, they hate us severely and the United States couldn't afford that scenario.
Iran cannot stand toe to toe with us or Israel so they count on proxy organisations and the influencing of others to behave in a like manner of terrorism and guerilla warfare, all the while holding up their hands and saying 'it wasn't me'. A fine show and shrewdly played for the casual viewer, who's wrapped up in popularity contests and false partisan showmanship.
Right now, America can't really attack Iran, front to front, without causing more strife. To fully put them out of our misery would be to nuke them and that's not likely to happen and it shouldn't. So instead there exists our own proxy war, pretending to liberate a people and fighting insurgents in Iraq, to have a base of operations with which to have a constant finger on the pulse and a base of operations to launch against Iran. Plenty of foreign fighters came to Iraq to fight and were killed in droves. The U.S. does have the manpower and financial resources to wait out anyone, including Iran and will stay in Iraq, no matter what your favorite candidate tells you what he/she will do if elected.
The upper hand in what? Besides the popularity contest in the United States?