JimSmith - 11/29/2005 11:15 PM
430 - 11/29/2005 6:34 PM
kvining - 11/29/2005 11:55 AM
That is simply not true, azimuth. The governing authority for Iraq was the UN Security Council. In order to act under UN authority, we had to get their approval. We were unable to. The UN wished to wait for a final report from the UN Weapons Inspectors, asking for six more weeks to categorically prove there assertion that Iraq had no WMDs . We refused to, and attacked on our own, without authority, and without the consent of the UN. It was an act of war criminals and has left a stain as dark as the ones left by Hitler on us.
What is your point about the UN? We do not require their permission. We do not subjugate our troops or citizens to UN Authority.
You may not agree with the war and their are lots of people who agree with you. Of course it helps that hindsight is 20/20. But you are wrong about the 'stain' left on America. You love to try and play the Hitler and fascist card. But no matter how hard you try it just is not going to stick.
No one is suggesting we subjugate our troops or citizens to UN Authority. You, and many who share your outlook on this, view the issue as a black and white, the UN has authority over our troops, or not situation. It is only that kind of a situation if we make it that kind of situation.
First, at least half of the reasons you and others of like mind cite for invading Iraq is Saddam's crimes of violating UN imposed sanctions. If we don't care about the UN rules, then these are not valid, and citing them is dishonest and misleading. We never needed any UN subjugation of our troops telling us to go to Iraq to defend the UN's interests as much as we don't need UN subjugation of our troops telling us we cannot invade for what ever reasons we decide are in our best interests. In any case, it is illogical to say you are going to invade Iraq to impose UN sanctions that the UN does not agree need to be enforced with miliary actions.
The next misleading aspect of the argument is that the UN never suggested they had any authority over our troops, the UN merely requested we indulge them with some additional time for the UN weapons inspectors to carry out their mission so they could determine whether there was evidence of Saddam being capable of threatening anyone with WMD. We decided unilaterally that we had to being the attack on a particulat day. We unilaterally decided there was an imminent danger that has never been substantiated by the UN weapons inspectors, American troops, American weapons search teams, or anyone else.
From the hindsight you cited it is apparent there was no interest in letting the UN weapons inspectors complete their mission because it was pretty clear they were not going to substantiate an argument for invading Iraq. The rush to war at the time was being resisted by very few Americans and the sense of urgency created by the Bush administration is particularly inexplicable without introducing theories of underhandedness.
When viewed in concert with the numerous other examples of cherry picking the intelligence reports and publishing or broadcasting only those reports or aspects that supported the WMD story, and burying the ones that did not, the act of preventing definitive data from being obtained in the last stages of preparation to invade only makes sense if it was already known by the Bush administration that the UN inspectors would ultimately have shown there were no WMD. If the strategy was to invade Iraq, such a development by the UN inspectors could only be viewed as a definitive threat to that strategic plan, and in true Karl Rove tradition, in dire need of being squashed. Shock and Awe essentially squashed any further UN weapons inspector activity.
And, the Hitler/facist card is not really a joke. There is nothing worse than dismissing a threat because you find it too offensive to consider. That does not make it unreal or not feasible. It just means you don't want it to happen. We agree on that, I think we disagree on how vigilant we have to be to make sure it never happens. Jim