Originally Posted by RumRunner_1492

It was argued they were in violation of resolution 687 in regards to weapons inspectors.

Since when did a ceasefire resolution justify hostilities? What part of resolution 687 was violated?

Originally Posted by Norman Adlam

Aaahh... is that similar to 'please point to the vote supporting the US action'?

UN approval is not needed for US military action.

The US, being a major payer and member, did it's normal bullying tactic - aided and abetted by the UK!

And, like many things in the UN 'committee' - it often fails to take an aggressive stand against such things.

And you know that full well, hence the regular 'UN are pansies / ineffectual/ we'll-take-our-ball-away-if-they-don't-do-what-we want' sentiment expressed on here.

Not really sure what you are saying here. US invaded, UN did not condemn. That about covers it. If you point is that the UN is a useless organization, on that we can agree. But then why bring it up?

Originally Posted by Indiana_Geoff

UN approval is not needed for US military action.

I agree. Shame everyone - including the US - kept referring it to as a 'war'..

And so why did the US attempt to get UN approval if it didn't give a damn anyway?

Not really sure what you are saying here. US invaded, UN did not condemn. That about covers it. If you point is that the UN is a useless organization, on that we can agree. But then why bring it up?

Errr... maybe in response to Indiana_Geoff's comment in post #24 "As far as the UN, please point to the vote condemning the US action. "

And what I'm saying - quite clearly to me - is that the major players want UN support / approval.... when it suits them... but then always ignores such things (and bitches about the UN) when they don't like it!

And the US - a major member (like Russia etc) always does it's best to screw the UN stance if it doesn't like it. It's support only ever goes as far as getting what it wants - or it throws it's toys out of the pram.

Damned Juvenile, if you ask me!

Originally Posted by Sport Flyer

Of course both should go before the Haig. The sad thing is they never will.

???

Originally Posted by Norman Adlam

I agree. Shame everyone - including the US - kept referring it to as a 'war'..

And so why did the US attempt to get UN approval if it didn't give a damn anyway?

Because it's like a garnish on your plate. The steak doesn't care though.

Found that UN condemnation yet? Those are a lot more frequent than the declarations of war.

Originally Posted by Indiana_Geoff

Because it's like a garnish on your plate. The steak doesn't care though.

Found that UN condemnation yet? Those are a lot more frequent than the declarations of war.

Typical arrogant twaddery, methinks!

Often used by bullies, who think they have a right to do whatever they like.
Shame someone else - like the bodies of the soldiers, the families, the costs to the population - always pay the price for such arrogance..

Still, it's obviously worth it to some...
Guess you should mention it to those 'steaks' that pay the price..

Originally Posted by Norman Adlam

Often used by bullies, who think they have a right to do whatever they like.

And we do, Norman, we do.

Originally Posted by H2SO4

False dichotomy. Don't consign those Americans (and Brits, and Aussies) who opposed this idiocy all along to your planned isolationist utopia. After all, there was plenty of internal dissent in all those countries all along, and 99% of those against the war never changed their minds.

It's the hawkish neocons whom you should be sentencing to isolation, preferably in a penal facility. They're the ones who caused the deaths of many of "their people" as well as untold thousands of Iraqis.

There is nothing "isolationist" about not giving out stuff for "free".

You can't make political friends without making political enemies. If you give food, medicine, war machines whatever to one un-evolved society full of barbarians the enemies of these barbarians will now be your enemies.

Like most "humans" the folks in other countries will despise and blame anyone that has more than they do while never stopping to ask if they are to blame for the condition of their lives.

Some of the relentless drumbeat that lead to the war - lest we forget...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."

--President
Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam
rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want
to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."

--President
Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long
way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For
the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical
or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security
threat we face."

--Madeline
Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those
weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

--Sandy
Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you,
after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."

Letter to President
Clinton, signed by:

--
Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others,
Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein
has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction
technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made
a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

-Rep.
Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ...
chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and
palaces for his cronies."

--
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no
doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.
Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition,
Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using
the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles
that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President
Bush, Signed by:

--
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with
the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the
peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the
United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e
means of delivering them."

--
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has
stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout
his country."

--
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search
for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we
should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

--
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for
many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of
mass destruction."

--
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN
weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that
Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological
weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up
his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports
indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

--
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be
voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use
force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
real and grave threat to our security."

--
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is
unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to
develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons
of mass destruction."

--
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has
systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy
his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he
has refused to do"

--
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four
years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam
Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has
also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

--
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in
possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity
for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

--
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without
question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous
dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly
grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation
... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued
deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So
the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real..."

--
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 less

Let's not overlook 'God told me to do it'

Bigfoot
To be fair those listed were only democrats and were no match for (a name they would use) "Dumbya's" mind control tactics.
And they have the nerve to discuss IQ's

Originally Posted by debogus

Bigfoot
To be fair those listed were only democrats and were no match for (a name they would use) "Dumbya's" mind control tactics.
And they have the nerve to discuss IQ's

With all the press lies and/or insinuations fed to it by the administration of the "threat" that Iraq posed to US security, no representative wa going to run the risk of being labelled as unpatriotic in any forthcoming election by being seen as anything less than 100% behind the Administration,
Probably and cynically, the IQ's of many were far in advance of their courage to speak out against an unnecessary, futile and unjustified war.

Originally Posted by RumRunner_1492

Not at all. He was doing nothing more than enforcing UN resolutions.

Why? Where in his oath does it say he is the guy who has to enforce U.N. resolutions?

Furthermore, how many other U.N. resolutions did he decide not to enforce?