In reply to:
Invading Iraq, however, was not retaliation and even Bush needed "permission" before proceeding. This permission came from the countries that allied themselves with us. We would not have gone into Iraq if we had to do it totally alone... ...at least get your events straight.
The facts that I am basing my arguments on are the same as ones documented in
Britannica Online
"Though justified by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein on grounds that Kuwait was historically part of Iraq, the invasion was presumed to be motivated by Iraq's desire to acquire Kuwait's rich oil fields and expand its power in the region. The United States, fearing Iraq's broader strategic intentions and acting under UN auspices, eventually formed a broad coalition, which included a number of Arab countries, and began massing troops in northern Saudi Arabia. When Iraq ignored a UN Security Council deadline for it to withdraw from Kuwait, the coalition began a large-scale air offensive (Jan. 16–17, 1991). Saddam responded by launching ballistic missiles against neighbouring coalition states as well as Israel. A ground offensive by the coalition (February 24–28) quickly achieved victory. Estimates of Iraqi military deaths range up to 100,000; coalition forces lost about 300 troops. The war also caused extensive damage to the region's environment. The Iraqi regime subsequently faced widespread popular uprisings, which it brutally suppressed.
A UN trade embargo remained in effect after the end of the conflict, pending Iraq's compliance with the terms of the armistice. The foremost term was that Iraq destroy its nuclear-, biological-, and chemical-weapons programs. The embargo continued into the 21st century and ceased only after the Second Persian Gulf War.(2003) International conflict that took place between Iraq and a combined force of troops from the United States and Great Britain, with smaller contingents from several other countries.
The trade embargo and weapons-inspection process that the UN imposed on Iraq following the First Persian Gulf War (1990–91) had partly fallen into abeyance by 2001. U.S. Pres. George W. Bush argued that the September 11 attacks on the U.S. in that same year highlighted the threat to U.S. security posed by hostile countries such as Iraq. Encouraged by Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the UN issued Security Council Resolution 1441 in November 2002, demanding that Iraq readmit weapons inspectors and comply with all previous resolutions. Although Iraqi did readmit inspectors, Bush and Blair declared in early 2003 (despite objections by many world leaders) that Iraq was continuing to hinder UN inspections and that it still retained proscribed weapons. On March 20, seeking no further UN resolutions, the U.S. and Britain (with token representation from other countries) launched a series of air attacks on Iraq, and a ground invasion followed."
Now, I did elude to the fact that we "retaliated" against Bin Laden when we took out Saddam, but the written historical record shows that 9-11 was just a triggering event that lead to us taking action on Saddam's violation of the the 1991 armistice earlier than we otherwise would have. Ok... I should have been more specific there. My apologies. I presume that we agree that when a country signs a peace armistice with the UN, that they should honor the terms of that armistice. I also think that most of us would agree that failure to follow the terms of an armistice, returns the warring parties back to the state they were in before the armistice was signed and ignored - war. I do not believe that the US & UK needed any additional permission to continue the hostilities that were already approved by the original UN Coalition. The armistice was a protracted cease fire, and it was violated by Saddam. The other countries simply walked away before the job was done. It's not our fault that they won't come back to finsh what they willingly participated in at the start of the Gulf War. I don't really see it as Gulf War 1 & Gulf War 2. It is like we had halftime in Gulf War 1. This war is just the end of a long cease fire.
The corruption within the U.N., and the countries that were receiving kickbacks from Saddam will be a huge scandal this winter. France, Russia, and Germany (or the UN representatives of those countries) were being paid off by Saddam with the money that he got for selling oil that was supposed to be buying food and medicine for the Iraqi people - The "Oil for Food" prorgam.
So we have:
1- Saddam is stonewalling the UN on the WMD inspections front
2- At the same time, Saddam is paying off the UN officials capable of initiating the actions spelled out in UN 1441.
3- Both Saddam AND the UN officials involved are making money hand over fist by siphoning money off of the "UN approved" oil sales program.
All they have to do to protect this arrangement is keep the status quo. Saddam defiantly snubs the UN, the US pushes for armistice compliance, the UN reaffirms the embargo (trapping the Iraqi people in a situation that they can not change), oil for food, kickback money to UN officials, rinse, repeat...
This sort of stuff normally makes left leaning folks go ballistic. Rich folks making outrageous profits off of the pain and suffering of poor people, while stealing their precious national resources at the same time. Why doesn't this anger you? All you seem to care about is making President Bush look like the bad guy. Given the events described above, he mounted a RESCUE, not an occupation.
I think the kicker of this scandal is going to be that we find out someone at the UN fed Saddam the invastion date, and he had sufficient notice, and possibly even UN help in secreting his WMDs off to another counrty, or under the sand somewhere in Iraq. This thing is gonna bust wide open, proving the UN is corrupt, Saddam had WMDs, and the terrorists fighting us in Iraq now are really Al Queada. It's going to be a hat trick for the Prez.
In reply to:
So if you say Kerry would wait to ask for permission before retaliating after an attack on our soil...
Yes, I am saying that because he himself said it, on 2 or 3 occasions. I've also seen him on TV saying the exact opposite, that he wouldn't ask the UN for permission. Ok... I say that 50% of the time Kerry would act immediately, and 50% of the time, he'd ask Zimbabwe and France for permission. I really just don't know, and he certainly hasn't made it any easier for me to understand his position. The only real question is, "Do I feel lucky?".
