Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DoughtyOne; Bokababe; sickoflibs; randomhero97
There are some parts I don't agree with it on, like the Iraq war.

As I recall, the justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was to enforce compliance with UN inspections for "weapons of mass destruction." Turns out there weren't any, or at least, none of any significance--I do remember the reports that some yellowcake uranium was found, as were a couple of minor leftovers that had not been destroyed after the first Gulf War.

Right now, the justification--the purpose--for the ongoing conflict in Iraq. I, for one, can not continue to support an armed conflict whose purpose keeps changing after the fact or whose purpose is vague and ill-defined.

That said, I do believe that the conflict in Afghanistan was unquestionably legitimate but terribly mismanaged.

28 posted on 12/22/2009 7:54:10 PM PST by rabscuttle385 (Purge the RINOs! * http://restoretheconstitution.ning.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: rabscuttle385

Why dont you try reading the Congressional Authorization for Military Force in Iraq. It lists many more reasons then just UN sanctions or WMD.

Sorry about your guy Saddam not getting to stay in power are you?


30 posted on 12/22/2009 7:56:49 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: rabscuttle385
As I recall, the justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was to enforce compliance with UN inspections for "weapons of mass destruction."

It's not quite that simple. Altogether, the Iraq War Resolution cited 23 separate reasons for military action against Iraq. The U.N. resolutions were only one of them.

Iraq War Resolution

37 posted on 12/22/2009 8:05:05 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: rabscuttle385; DoughtyOne; Bokababe; randomhero97
RE :There are some parts I don't agree with it on, like the Iraq war. (DoughtyOne; to rabscuttle385)

The Iraq invasion is the most popular thing here at FR that Bush did(talk radio too) that is at the same time most hated and a joke across America and voters. WMDs is Bush's “I didn't have sex with that woman”

Try this, If invading Iraq was so brilliant why isn't the Republican platform to invade and rebuild Iran based on their Nuke program???

48 posted on 12/22/2009 8:18:43 PM PST by sickoflibs ( "It's not the taxes, the redistribution is spending you demand stupid")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: rabscuttle385

“As I recall, the justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was to enforce compliance with UN inspections for “weapons of mass destruction.” Turns out there weren’t any, or at least, none of any significance—I do remember the reports that some yellowcake uranium was found, as were a couple of minor leftovers that had not been destroyed after the first Gulf War.”

I’ve always thought people with 20/20 hindsight are folks who jump on the loudest bandwagon, DIABLO’s if you will.


79 posted on 12/22/2009 9:10:00 PM PST by Rembrandt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: rabscuttle385
Right now, the justification--the purpose--for the ongoing conflict in Iraq. I, for one, can not continue to support an armed conflict whose purpose keeps changing after the fact or whose purpose is vague and ill-defined.

That said, I do believe that the conflict in Afghanistan was unquestionably legitimate but terribly mismanaged.

Just like every Democrat I've known for the past six years.

You're not fooling anybody rabscuttle.

113 posted on 12/23/2009 4:42:38 AM PST by Chunga (Any IDIOT who says Obama would be better for the country than McCain is a disgrace - Mark Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: rabscuttle385

Yes, the Iraq war did start out under those terms, but I wasn’t kidding myself when we went in. Hussein had been popping off his mouth about hating the U.S. and wanting to do anything he could to take it down.

He didn’t honor the no-fly zones. He was forever trying to target our aircraft. He moved his armed forces up to the no-go zones and if I remember correctly even entered them several times.

He was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel $25k.

He had attacked four different neighbor nations, occupying one and was responsible for over a million deaths.

The U.N. chief inspector thought he had WMDs. The European leaders thought he had WMDs. Our Democrats in Congress thought he had WMDs.

After 09/11, Bush got a consensus to go in. We took out the military opposition and the government. Hussein had nobody to blame, but himself.

Once the strong leadership which had been abusing the Iraqi people at will was gone, then what? Should we have just left the place in total anarchy? Should we have allowed Hussein to return to power?

I think the region is much better off. I think we’re better off.

Once you commit to an operation like this, you can’t just cut and run because your original premise, shared by most people, was not correct. You have to leave something behind that is reasonably believed not to be a threat to the world.

I think we’re accomplishing that. I will remain supportive.


129 posted on 12/23/2009 6:56:05 AM PST by DoughtyOne (H.C. Bill, saves more in second decade, despite taxation w/o benefits for first 4 years. Suuurre...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson