So let me get this straight.
* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors..
No, not a reason to invade Iraq. Get this straight, there was no intention to invade Iraq before 9-11-2001. This is "bait and switch" bullshit. No WMD, gotta come up with something to flimflam the public. You may think this is justification, but no way a Joint Resolution of Congress would have been authorized based on this thin line of bullshit.
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population.".
Another "excuse" ginned up after the WMD and Al-Qaeda "implications" were found to be baseless. Read the Congressional Resolution you cite below "signed by Clinton" on this subject - it specifically prohibits US "boots on the ground" and limits the scope of US involvement in deposing Saddam to financial assistance, weapons and training, outside of Iraq. So, Congress doesn't agree with you on this one either.
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"..
I thought you weren't going to mention WMD - they didn't have any left. Again all old news from decades before 9-11-2001, and well before the Congressional Resolution "Clinton signed" that prohibited a US invasion. Again, you are out on a cold corner all by yourself if you think this is a reason to invade Iraq.
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War..
An alleged assassination attempt is reason to invade another country? Are you out of your mind? And every time they fucked with us in the no-fly zone they got exactly what they deserved. Look at the date on the Congressional Resolution you quote below - the one "Clinton signed" and you will note this shit was covered by it as well. Only unbalanced people think this is a reason to invade another country.
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations..
So, we will just leave them unnamed to avoid the Al-Qaeda word. More hyperbole. All within the time span of when the Congressional Resolution you cite below was prepared, and again, not considered a reason to invade.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism..
Oh, given the authorization by the Constitution and Congress means you arbitrarily invade countries? What the hell does this have to do with justifying the invasion of Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people?
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement (signed by Bill Clinton).
Read this fucking document. It specifically limits the scope any US involvement in any attempt to unseat Saddam to financial aid, which can include giving supplies and weapons to a group inside Iraq made up of Iraqis who wish to unseat Saddam themselves. Oh, and training of those types outside of Iraq.
Another complete red herring - you don't even read the shit you spout off or make any attempt to construct a coherent, cogent argument.
These were not reasons that were good enough to start the war in your mind? Sorry to hear that..
No, and not in the minds of the people who composed and signed the CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION you cited above, which basically summed up the total of Saddam's direct threat to the US at the time, including all your examples of Saddam's boorishness in that regard, by saying it was not our business, but we have an interest, so we will grant assistance to any group inside Iraq that wants to do the job. No one ever stood up a rebel force.
I did take out the references to WMD's and Al Qaida just because we can't agree on those here in BWOT..
Not really. You watered it down a bit, but once you take the chance of WMDs and Al-Qaeda out of the picture, you had no case.
As for the UN weapons inspectors you say they were doing their jobs. How is that when they were continuously thrown out and forbidden to inspect certain areas?.
The only time that they were thrown out never to return was when we threw them out so they wouldn't become collateral damage during Shock and Awe. All the times Saddam threw them out they were allowed back in. God only knows the real reasons why Saddam didn't let them in everywhere. Or, no, actually an after the invasion search for evidence of WMDs documented by some Bush lackey who went by the name Duelfer, gave us the real reason Saddam was so uncooperative. Duelfer, in the Duelfer Report, discovered Saddam was posturing right up to the end because he never thought the US would invade and he was deathly afraid of letting Iran know he was a broken, two bit little shit because Saddam was sure they would invade if they knew he could not keep them out, or threaten to unleash his (phantom) WMDs.
As for the immorality and illegality of this war please tell us all then why you are not lambasting Obama for continuing it? FTL refuses to answer that question and just resorts to name calling..
No, FTL has made it clear he is not pleased that Obama is not in a whole hog troop removal maneuver right now. So am I. However, all of us realize there is a difference between starting an illegal, immoral invasion, then presiding over an illegal, immoral occupation to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" for 60 months that killed several hundred thousand Iraqis and 5,000 or more US soldiers and trying to end the same event without trying to leave the space in some kind of order, while we withdraw in some kind of order. At the moment we are complying with the Iraqi government's requested timetable for withdrawing troops. Which means Iraq, as it exists today, has asked us to stay there for the duration of Obama's planned withdrawal. Makes it somewhat less illegal, and the immoral intent and motive for invading in the first place was never transferred to Obama. That stain is stuck on Bush's skin, and his neocon cohorts.
Why is it that the vast majority of Iraqi people were thankful when we ousted Saddam? The insurgents are for the most part, foreign fighters. The Iraqi civilians do not want to be in the middle of this and for that I am saddened. But to classify the US as murderers and killers of civilians is to rewrite the facts..
No it isn't. Had Rummy and Cheney and Bush listened to the military, the scope of the invasion might have been too great in terms of acknowledged up front costs to have started. And, had they not opted for the "smaller, lighter, cheaper no-plan" and taken Saddam out, then maintained some semblance of order, the results might not have been so horrific. But that is speculation. The net result is the population turned on us when we behaved like savages and did nothing when the criminal elements of Iraqi society began to run rampant. They began to support an insurgency made up of mostly foreign fighters, and a chaotic, bloody reign of terror took over the country, motivate to drive American forces out. We invited them "to fight us over there so we don't have to fight them over here" and made Iraq the central front of the global war on terror. And innocent Iraqis were killed by the hundreds of thousands. That blood is on our hands.
Especially when you are not willing to criticize the current President for continuing the war. That means you are not basing your characterization of the war as illegal and immoral on principle, but on political demogoguery.
This is your central beef. Bush started the whole quagmire, steered the country into this abomination that now believes torture is ok, and no one should be expected to be held responsible for their actions - got shit for it from all of us "lefties" and now you want to equate Bush's immoral and illegal actions with Obama's efforts to understand how to meet our obligations to the Iraqi people as we withdraw. I am disappointed the timetable is not shorter. But we have a date and a schedule and we are working along that path to be out of there in a finite time period. Never had that from Bush. Just a lot of the same bullshit you are peddling for why he would do it again if he was faced with the same sets of circumstances. Like that means anything from someone who has no moral compass and figures the US Constitution is just an old sheet of paper.
The value of your posts on this subject at least has deteriorated to the point where you just sound silly.