Replies

There were four reasons consistently given for going to war with Iraq:

Not to the exclusion of the one you conveinently overlooked, namely "Regime change".

Iraq's continued non-compliance with, and active material breach of, UN resolutions (a.k.a. cease fire conditions) which arguably cover the next three. Iraq's continued WMD ambitions. Iraq's ties to terrorism. Iraq's contined human rights violations.

Going to war at the beheast of world government? Hmmm, very conservative. The rest are thus far unproven allegations and suspicions with the exception of human rights violations. Which were not against our citizens.

So when do we attack the other hundred countries that violate human rights?

Not to the exclusion of the one you conveinently overlooked, namely "Regime change".

I think there were other reasons for going to war with Iraq, and regime change was certainly the objective. It wasn't conveniently overlooked and neither are the other reasons. But regime change in Iraq has been a codified goal of our foreign policy toward Iraq since 1998.

Going to war at the beheast of world government?

The UN asked us to go to war with Iraq? Strange, I thought the argument was we unilaterally went to war with Iraq without the world's permission, but did it based on the statutory powers granted by Congress? Are you sure you're not thinking of another conflict: Bosnia, Kosovo, ??

The rest are thus far unproven allegations and suspicions with the exception of human rights violations. Which were not against our citizens.

I don't think there is any question that Iraq was in violation of it's cease fire conditions:

"Resolution 687 required, as a precondition for a formal cease-fire, that Iraq officially notify the United Nations of its acceptance of the provisions of the resolution. These provisions included:
(1) respect for the international boundary as agreed between Iraq and Kuwait in 1963, which the Security Council guaranteed;
(2) the creation of a demilitarized zone along the Iraq-Kuwait border and the deployment of a U.N. observer unit into that zone;
(3) the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of all chemical and biological weapons, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and nuclear-weapons-usable material, together with facilities related to them, and international supervision and inspection to verify compliance;
(4) the creation of a fund, drawn from future Iraqi oil revenues, to pay compensation for losses caused by the Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait;
(5) the continuation of the embargo of all exports of arms to Iraq;
(6) the phased relaxation of certain other aspects of the U.N. sanctions against Iraq as Iraq complies with its obligations under the resolution; and
(7) the renunciation by Iraq of support for international terrorism."
(http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/papers/1991/91051704.html)

I don't think there is a question Iraq supported terrorism, I think what you allude to is the degree Iraq and Al Qaeda formed ties and whether that met a threshold of a threat to the US (and some might be concerned with the threat to allies), justly so.

I'll let my previous post on Iraq's WMD ambitions stand. The current "unproven allegations" are based on proven violations in the past, from 1992 through 2002. Again, I think your disagreement should not be with fact, but whether your threshold was crossed for resuming hostilities with Iraq. Obviously it was not, but I'd be curious which of our past conflicts - without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight - would have been in your opinion.

So when do we attack the other hundred countries that violate human rights?

Good question. I imagine we'll get around to all of them as time goes by, unfortunately. I try to be optimistic that it won't be us hoping for liberation from a foreign oppressor or domestic tyrant, it's much better being on the other side picking which battles to fight and which to turn a blind eye to - such as Rwanda.

Good reply.

It is funny to hear people who call themselves conservatives using the U.N., of all things to justify this when one considers that the best thing to do with the U.N. is to get out of it and it out of America.

As for Boortz, well, as "liberals" are fond of saying about folks who come around to their brand of thinking, "Neal has grown." He has gone from being a typical product of L.P.org to a neo-con on most issues.

A better venue for him would be the American Enterprise Institute. Who knows, Bill Kristol himself might come down to the podium and give Neal a pat on the head for his part in selling this war.