What's the Difference?

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: He also stated he went to the UN and told them to do something or the coalition would -- he gave them the chance.

So in other words, if the courts fail to act in a way that we see fit, we should just resort to vigilantism. That was the attitude of the 9/11 bombers and its not one that I approve of.

We have laws, treaties and courts to deal with conflicts - and if the judgement doesn't go our way, so be it. That's the difference between civilisation and barbarism. [/QUOTE]"Resorting to vigilantism when the courts fail to act in a way we see fit" was the attitude of the 9/11 bombers???? Exactly WHAT "judgement" went against the A.Q. terrorists that made them feel justified in attacking the World Trade Center????

Sorry, Skunk, but you're comparing apples to zucchini here. There was absolutely NO action taken by the U.S. against the A.Q. OR Bin Laden prior to 9/11 to justify such a RE-action on their part. In fact, Bin Laden and the A.Q. were responsible for several other attacks and had gotten away pretty much scot-free after committing them (WTC in 19993, American barracks bombed, and the U.S.S. Cole to name a few examples). President Clinton has been soundly criticized for not going after Bin Laden earlier (after these aforementioned attacks) with the same fervor and determination that President Bush did....but in his defense, the American Public would not have supported such a massive, all-out search-and-destroy effort. Especially considering the only time Clinton DID take any form of "military action" against Bin Laden just happened to be at the same time he was being investigated for inappropriate sexual conduct and for perjury. No, Clinton could not go after Bin Laden with the same level of commitment that Bush was able to do.


But that is irrelevant to the Iraqi issue. As Timber pointed out, the first Gulf War ended under a Cease Fire agreement, NOT a Peace or Treaty agreement. That means that the U.S. and Coalition forces agreed to end hostilities on the condition that Saddam Hussein comply fully and completely with the terms and conditions set down by the U.N. under this Cease Fire Agreement. The terms were that Saddam Hussein would provide thorough documentation of the destruction of WMD's that he admitted he had. He failed to comply. In fact, he went out of his way to obstruct the U.N.'s every effort to confirm or enforce compliance. And he finally kicked them out of the country completely once public attention died down enough and turned their attention elsewhere. The Cease Fire Agreement also included a clause that said the U.S. and Coalition forces could force Saddam's compliance by any means necessary - which would include military action.

Timber is correct. The justification for the invasion of Iraq is set down and spelled out in the U.N. own agreement. When President Bush saw that the U.N. lacked both the will and the wherewithall to enforce the resolutions they handed down, he told them he would only wait so long for them to get the job done. If they couldn't do it, he would. I know that isn't a very popular attitude among many, but President Bush told the U.N. they had had 12 years to get a positive result out of Saddam Hussein, and Hussein had thumbed his nose at them the entire time. So America took the action the U.N. couldn't - or wouldn't.

You say that it is ironic that the U.S. is now the one asking for more time. Well, criticize that all you want...but we've only had 9 months to do the job the U.N. Inspectors were given 12 years to do. If we are STILL telling the U.N. to "give us more time" in 2015, THEN you will have a legitimate complaint.

[Black Baron]

S.H paid to suiciders here 25000 usa dollars.
He was NOT a nice person, and he was a criminal.
He used womd against curdes, had mass graves in his country, and did a lot of other "problems".
It is really a pity that the UN is so hypocrite. When the palestinians here have little (or major) problems, sharon gets on the head. When saddam killed the opposition, (and in far greater numbers than our assassinations of terorrists), the Un shuts up and ignores him.
When someone decides to put an end to it ( to GWB it was a nice side affect, and that was all, but still), the UN shouts in dismay.


So when the UN cryticizes bush, all he has to say- You allowed saddam to happen. Either stop playing the role of "the defender of people's rights", or shut up.

[Chewbacca]

The Emporer wears no clothes!

[Chewbacca]

So does it make a difference that Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice and other made such a strong case that Iraq currently, in the last few years leading up to the war, after 9/11, had WMDs and now Bush says it doesn't make a difference.

We didn't go to war with Saddam mainly because he was a bad dicator.

We didn't go to war with Saddam mainly because he gave money to families of suicide bombers.

We did not go to war with Saddam mainly because he gassed Kurds and/or Shiites 10 or 15 years ago.

We went to war with Saddam becasue he had and was develpong WMDs that posed a dire, immediate threat to the United States and others.

This is what we were told, this so far is proven not true, actually proven more false than true by some accounts.

Does it make a difference that they could be so wrong, and alls the leader can say about it is "It doesn't make a difference?"

I apologize for being intelligent, but a fourth grader could do the math and determine that it does indeed make a difference.

It does make a difference to say

"This man has it and is a threat to use it"

than to say

"This man could possibly try to find it and then maybe use if he does try to find it and suceeds"

[Bozos of Bones]

I don't go against anything you just said, Chewbacca, but can you negate the possibility of oil being a very big reason to go to war? And what about shares of oil companies during the war?