The US and UK invaded a sovereign nation without provocation (Not a barf alert!!!!)

4-10-03 | Anti- Zot

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Ok here's one.

Q: What do you call a hooker with no legs?

A: A night crawler.

[Kadric]

Ok first off take and read UNSC Resolutions 1269 and 1368.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Teacher: Chad, define Horticulture...

Chad: Well, ok. You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think...

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

Yep. Someday, I'll learn to read the whole thread before I post.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Where's the fun in THAT? ;0)

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

Well, you'll have less fun, but it will keep me from looking even stupider than God intended.

[gitmo]

So those Iraqis that were putting up giant posters of President Bush and standing in line to kiss them are the victims of an American invasion?

[Jimmyclyde]

BUMP

[thoughtomator]

Boy you're a sucker for punishment! I'll bite...

You seem to like the word "sovereign" - tell me then, what are the basic requirements to be considered sovereign? And who is the sovereign in the United States? 50 points if you can figure either one out.

[Michael Barnes]

The US and UK invaded a sovereign nation without provocation or proof of anything or either country having been harmed

Unless you have top level intel clearance, I doubt you know the real deal. All we had to do was look at 5000 kurds dead with a WMD to know what was going on.

The US and UK invaded a sovereign nation stating it had WMD

It did, proved it, and there are key indicators all over Iraq that it had more; now where they have been moved to is going to be the cat and mouse game

Then it was for regime change

If were going in, might as well re-decorate while were there. Why leave him in power for another 17 resolutions and 12 years of defiance?

Then it was to liberate its' people

Usually happens with regime change once democracy is introduced.

Yeah? So when do we liberate Syria, Iran, N. Korea, Cuba

On scumbag dictator at a time.My hopes are on Iran next.

Why was Iraq so important at this point in time?

Purely my opinion, but we had alot of infrastructure in the area. Afghanistan was purged, Iraq is now being purged, kinda leave Iran sitting in a pickle, no?

One word - OIL

If it were that simple, we would have kept Kuwait all to ourselves. If it is all about OIL, we would have ditched Israel a very long time ago to obtain the black gold.

so why not go on to try and control the rest of the Middle East?

Controlling it would make us a new regime. Not the direction we want to go. Limited "police" action, install a stable Gov't, begin normal relations.

Oh, and keep the U.N. out of it...things will turn out much better.

[dodger]

No new doctrine is needed as hostilities resumed upon Iraq's sustained violations of the Gulf War ceasefire.

It really is as simple as that although there are many other valid and quite compelling related considerations ....

[dodger]

BUMP, reply #111

[dodger]

BUMP, reply #111

[Michael Barnes]

Limited Police Action = after our troops mop up what is left of the thugs. Once their purged, stick around, police up, get things stable enough for a new Gov't in Iraq to take over..By no means do I believe what we are currently doing is limited police action. A neccessity yes, limited police action, no.sorry for the mix up.

[dodger]

BUMP, reply #111

[dodger]

BUMP, reply #111

[dodger]

BUMP, reply #111

[dodger]

BUMP, reply #111

[Kadric]

Take and read those Resolutions I posted.

The case could be made that since the USA and Britain were acting under UNSC resolutions at the start of the 1991 war and the cease fire was with the UN we would need a resolution to resume hostilities. (I do not believe this myself.)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1368

Adopted by the Security Council at its 4370th meeting, on 12 September 2001

The Security Council,

Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,

Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,

Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter,

1. Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security;

2. Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and to the people and Government of the United States of America;

3. Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;

4. Calls also on the international community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 (1999) of 19 October 1999;

5. Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations;

6. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

[dodger]

TOO LONG & besides no new doctrine is needed as hostilities resumed upon Iraq's sustained violations of the Gulf War ceasefire.

Even were the cease-fire 'with the UN' (which it is not, by any consistent historical-diplomatic analysis), belligerence resumes once one party resumes hostilities -- as have the Iraqis years ago.

THE SOLE INCONSISTENCY IN MATTERS OF THE HISTORY & DIPLOMACY OF WAR IS THAT NEITHER THE US & UN IMMEDIATELY CRUSHED SADDAM IN 1998.