So we need to fight a war now, that might not need to be fought at all, so we can get those boys and girls home?
Why don't you tell that to some of the thousands of Reservists who have been called to active duty, being forced to leave their civilians job behind, and often suffering devasting financial difficulties as a result of YOU wanting to keep them over there until YOU decide it's time to start a war..
X.. The US Congress passed an authorization to use war back in October, 2002. We let the UNSC pass 1441 in November with a 15-0 unanimous vote DECLARING IRAQ IN MATERIAL BREACH.. They then gave Saddam exactly 30 days to produce all the documentation related to his weapons programs,.. readmit inspectors, and to IMMEDIATELY comply with 1441.
That was months ago, when the US didn't have nearly the quantity of troops in place that it has now.... And the only reason we've seen the limited cooperation we have to date, is merely the result of Saddam giving up just enough to assist the French in actively opposing direct military action.
Why don't we just BRING THEM HOME WITHOUT THE WAR?
Oh I see... I guess you want BINDING UNSC resolutions ignored and never enforced?? What are you.. French?? Russian??
Does the UN mean anything to you??
You claim you were for Desert Storm in 1991.. Yet, you are perfectly willing to permit Saddam to violate the terms of cease-fire that he claimed to agree to then, and which have laid the foundation for every UN resolution against Iraq since??
I don't think "liberating" Iraq is worth any American lives, and I don't think Iraq is a threat to us, realistically speaking.
And Iraq was a threat to us during Desert Storm, but not now?? Where's your dysfunctional logic there??
And besides, UN resolution 1441 states that Saddam's non-compliance represents a threat to peace and international stability in the region. That resolution, once again, was adopted 15-0...
That means they all recognize Saddam is a threat to peace and stability, even if you don't. Why else would they all vote for that resolution?? They couldn't deny it and to abstain or vote no would have been too obvious a sign of utter bias on Saddam's behalf.
The only difference is whether they want to permit the US to disarm him forcibly, or wait for a chance to try to just make a declaration after a year or two, declaring him in compliance... That way they can get the sanctions lifted and get their lucrative oil deals with Saddam commenced.
You're just too obvious X.. Why not just come out and state that you oppose this war because you despise Bush??
Be honest about it.... If it were Clinton making these arguments, you'd be keeping your mouth shut.. (and so would I because I support the idea, not just the man carrying out the idea)..
This goes FAR BEYOND Bush.. It's whether the UN will have any credibility in the future or if it's merely become another failed institution such as the League of Nations.
Hawk
And |
