The Iraq war is not illegal

[picasso]

If I hear one more idiotic protestor on the radio say so.......:rolleyes:

We had the right, by law to go in and remove Saddam and his regime by the resolutions made after the first Gulf War.

Dissent is fine, protesting is fine, hating Bush is fine, but the war isn't illegal you twit.


burp. better.

[Ike]

yeah....I feel the same way...and I'm not even a very big supporter of the policies that took us to Iraq.


But every time I hear someone say it was illegal, I want to vomit.

I seriously want to have them show me which law was broken...but they never tell you that. Just that the war is somehow illegal.

[BigRedJed]

People who make statements like that marginalize themselves and make their points less credible. That applies to both sides of the aisle. If you have a strong, valid opinion you shouldn't need to stretch the truth to make it more convincing.

That whole "illegal war" thing is very similar to the "Bush lied" statements. They're incendiary statements that stretch the truth to attempt a greater effect.

Is it fair to criticize the administration for a **** poor intelligence pipeline pre-war? Yes. Is it fair to say the administration has bungled in some key areas along the way? Yep. Was the "mission accomplished" posturing naive and embarrassing in hindsight? You bet. Is it fair to say that the President is an absolutely HORRIBLE PR guy who often seems to be in over his head in the war effort? Absolutely.

But when you incorporate patent falsehoods into your argument, it makes it much easier to ignore your POV. Unfortunately, many people don't grasp this.

[Ike]

People who make statements like that marginalize themselves and make their points less credible. That applies to both sides of the aisle. If you have a strong, valid opinion you shouldn't need to stretch the truth to make it more convincing.

That whole "illegal war" thing is very similar to the "Bush lied" statements. They're incendiary statements that stretch the truth to attempt a greater effect.

Is it fair to criticize the administration for a **** poor intelligence pipeline pre-war? Yes. Is it fair to say the administration has bungled in some key areas along the way? Yep. Was the "mission accomplished" posturing naive and embarrassing in hindsight? You bet. Is it fair to say that the President is an absolutely HORRIBLE PR guy who often seems to be in over his head in the war effort? Absolutely.

But when you incorporate patent falsehoods into your argument, it makes it much easier to ignore your POV. Unfortunately, many people don't grasp this.

bingo. And to be honest, its entirely possible that the "bush lied" mantra is true...but if you are going to say it, you better have damn good evidence that you are right, and so far, I hear only conjecture and belief and no hard proof that Bush intentionally misled the American people. He could have, but if someone is gonna say it, I want irrefutable proof.

[OklahomaTuba]

It is usually the same drooling dumbasses that believe 9/11 was "an inside job" that come up with the illegal war BS.

And if Bush lied, well so did nearly every democrat who voted for the war and President Clinton, who signed a law called "The Iraqi Liberation Act" in 1998.

Kind of hard to believe that so many political opposites and other nations would get together and construct a lie so grand. But one can never underestimate the evil BusHilter.

[landrun]

bingo. And to be honest, its entirely possible that the "bush lied" mantra is true...but if you are going to say it, you better have damn good evidence that you are right, and so far, I hear only conjecture and belief and no hard proof that Bush intentionally misled the American people. He could have, but if someone is gonna say it, I want irrefutable proof.

Which will be pretty hard to convince an object person of seeing how the dems who make this accusation said long before Bush ever did that Iraq was a terrorist state with WMDs - including Kerry, Gore and Clinton. They're even on record as saying they support preemptive strikes on Saddam and Baghdad. I guess its cool to talk tough but you're a liar and a criminal if you're actually man enough to follow through with your talk.

[Ike]

Which will be pretty hard to convince an object person of seeing how the dems who make this accusation said long before Bush ever did that Iraq was a terrorist state with WMDs - including Kerry, Gore and Clinton. They're even on record as saying they support preemptive strikes on Saddam and Baghdad. I guess its cool to talk tough but you're a liar and a criminal if you're actually man enough to follow through with your talk.
The thing about the Bush lied bit...it's really irrelevant what Kerry, Gore and Clinton thought...if Bush really did lie, it would imply that he knew better than they did. And proving that that he knew anything better than anyone is a tough sell to Bush haters....therefore, they kind of contradict themselves when they claim that Bush lied.

[OklahomaTuba]

Bill Clinton made the case for war in 1998 at the Pentagon before sending cruise missles in.


Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

Now we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf, and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our force posture would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand and our friends and neighbors in Canada.

That list is growing, not because anyone wants military action, but because there are people in this world who believe the United Nations resolutions should mean something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved, because they remember the past, and because they can imagine what the future will be depending on what we do now.

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. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.

Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.

And he will know that the international community continues to have a will to act if and when he threatens again. Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's activities with all the means at our disposal. If he seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared to strike him again.

The economic sanctions will remain in place until Saddam complies fully with all U.N. resolutions.

Consider this already these sanctions have denied him $110 billion. Imagine how much stronger his armed forces would be today, how many more weapons of mass destruction operations he would have hidden around the country if he had been able to spend even a small fraction of that amount for a military rebuilding.

We will continue to enforce a no-fly zone from the southern suburbs of Baghdad to the Kuwait border and in northern Iraq, making it more difficult for Iraq to walk over Kuwait again or threaten the Kurds in the north.

Now, let me say to all of you here as all of you know the weightiest decision any president ever has to make is to send our troops into harm's way. And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes, it's the only answer.

You are the best prepared, best equipped, best trained fighting force in the world. And should it prove necessary for me to exercise the option of force, your commanders will do everything they can to protect the safety of all the men and women under their command.

No military action, however, is risk-free. I know that the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well.

Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires constant vigilance. We have seen that constant vigilance pays off. But it requires constant vigilance. Since the Gulf War, we have pushed back every time Saddam has posed a threat.

When Baghdad plotted to assassinate former President Bush, we struck hard at Iraq's intelligence headquarters.

When Saddam threatened another invasion by amassing his troops in Kuwait along the Kuwaiti border in 1994, we immediately deployed our troops, our ships, our planes, and Saddam backed down.

When Saddam forcefully occupied Irbil in northern Iraq, we broadened our control over Iraq's skies by extending the no-fly zone.

But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N. weapons inspection system itself. Yes, he has tried to thwart it in every conceivable way, but the discipline, determination, year-in-year-out effort of these weapons inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.

But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era. That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our allies to imagine.

If we look at the past and imagine that future, we will act as one together. And we still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.



http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

[picasso]

I didn't really want to turn this into a political thingy. I was just sayin that it's not illegal.
I'm tempted to write a letter to the editor @ Tulsa World. crap get's old.

[Scott D]

People who make statements like that marginalize themselves and make their points less credible. That applies to both sides of the aisle. If you have a strong, valid opinion you shouldn't need to stretch the truth to make it more convincing.

That whole "illegal war" thing is very similar to the "Bush lied" statements. They're incendiary statements that stretch the truth to attempt a greater effect.

Is it fair to criticize the administration for a **** poor intelligence pipeline pre-war? Yes. Is it fair to say the administration has bungled in some key areas along the way? Yep. Was the "mission accomplished" posturing naive and embarrassing in hindsight? You bet. Is it fair to say that the President is an absolutely HORRIBLE PR guy who often seems to be in over his head in the war effort? Absolutely.

But when you incorporate patent falsehoods into your argument, it makes it much easier to ignore your POV. Unfortunately, many people don't grasp this.

this post is illegal

[BigRedJed]

YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER!!

[Hatfield]

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!

[Scott D]

YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER!!

NO YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER. YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER! THIS WHOLE COURT IS OUT OF ORDER!

[Okla-homey]

Perhaps illegal in the international law context...if you go in for that whole international law chestnut. Other than that, i got nuttin'

[MojoRisen]

But when you incorporate patent falsehoods into your argument, it makes it much easier to ignore your POV. Unfortunately, many people don't grasp this.[/QUOTE]


Clearly people who can tell a bait and switch aren't the masses in votes.

Unfortunately the Green Mail tatics and negative campaining is extremely effective.

Very Frusterating at times- but it's hard to concieve it will ever change when people vote on 2 or 3 issues.

[Widescreen]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/24/BAG3ROR95I45.DTL


"We can't afford to spend one more dime or lose one more American or Iraqi life on this illegal and unwinnable war," Lee told the crowd, which offered several rousing standing ovations.

Pic, San Francisco loves you.

[Jimminy Crimson]

Bush 41 and Clinton didn't finish the job, so Bush 43 had to go finish the job. If he hadn't, #44 would have had the same situation on his hands.

[Okla-homey]

These things are facts:
The US is a sovereign nation. The prez is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of that sovereign nation. The prez can deploy the military anywhere he wants, without asking permission of anyone, including Congress. The only practical power the Congres has in this dealio is the power of the purse. Legality doesn't enter in to it, because the Pres. as the big cheese can blow off Congress if he needs to. In this case, he didn't even blow them off because they authorized the deployment in a non-binding resolution.

This thing is my opinion:
The donks in Congress displayed spinelessness in fearing there would be political blowback if they yanked funding for milops in Iraq...and they blinked on pulling funding. They are politicians first. Principle hardly enters in to it. Unfortunately, that is generally the case on BOTH sides of the aisle.

The Fall of 2008 is long way off. I'm sure the donks in Congress figure if things turn out OK they can say, "See, we were on board for the big win!" If things turn to shiite, they can say, "see, we put a limit on it." They are morbidly afraid of their party being further portrayed as the puss party given they haven'y yet recovered from the legacy of forcing a pull-out from Vietnam.

[OCUDad]

Bush 41 and Clinton didn't finish the job, so Bush 43 had to go finish the job. If he hadn't, #44 would have had the same situation on her hands.Fixed. :rolleyes:

[usmc-sooner]

the mid east is going to be a problem for a long time. It's kinda pointless to blame Bush. In 08 we're going to need a strong leader.

I'm actually ok with those who don't like Bush, but those that act like he's the devil bother me. I'm sure he loves his country as much as anyone.

[SoonerGirl06]

the mid east is going to be a problem for a long time. It's kinda pointless to blame Bush. In 08 we're going to need a strong leader.

The middle east has been a problem for a long time and for the Dems to blame Bush for the issues there now is ridiculous (we've seen the great work Clinton did with the middle east while he was in office.. :rolleyes: ). But then again, they're known for their fingerpointing and do little else to resolve matters.

Yeah... we're definitely going to need a strong leader in '08.. one who will stand up for America and not sell it to the Red Chinese.

[VeeJay]

I just finished watching a National Geographic special on the run-up to 9/11. In '99 we had an excellent chance to take out OBL, who was in a small tent community at the time. Military lawyers said no, we can't take out the entire tent village to get OBL because there may be children, and there may be a tent that's being used as a mosque.

Another plot was called off because OBL was with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia - supposedly our friends. This presented a dilemma for Pres. Clinton - so we backed off.

This goes across U.S. political party lines. I get sick to my stomach thinking about the pic made of Taliban soldiers kneeling and praying (there must have been 100 of them). Our drone could have reduced the entire stinking mess of them to embers, but because they were conducting a religious prayer we let them live another day.

Another goddam day to go and kill our guys with roadside bombs. F That.

[SoonerGirl06]

I just finished watching a National Geographic special on the run-up to 9/11. In '99 we had an excellent chance to take out OBL, who was in a small tent community at the time. Military lawyers said no, we can't take out the entire tent village to get OBL because there may be children, and there may be a tent that's being used as a mosque.

Another plot was called off because OBL was with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia - supposedly our friends. This presented a dilemma for Pres. Clinton - so we backed off.

This goes across U.S. political party lines. I get sick to my stomach thinking about the pic made of Taliban soldiers kneeling and praying (there must have been 100 of them). Our drone could have reduced the entire stinking mess of them to embers, but because they were conducting a religious prayer we let them live another day.

Another goddam day to go and kill our guys with roadside bombs. F That.

I saw that special as well. I saw another one about Bin Laden a while back that was pretty interesting too. The thought that we were so close to getting him 8 years ago and didn't just makes me sick. Just think of all the lives that could have been saved... but because our Commander in Chief didn't have the nads to do so and was more concerned about his political career we instead lost 3000 lives unnecessarily and our country was changed forever.

[def_lazer_fc]

But then again, they're known for their fingerpointing and do little else to resolve matters.

Yeah... we're definitely going to need a strong leader in '08.. one who will stand up for America and not sell it to the Red Chinese.

yeah, those dems and their damn fingerpointing. not saying they don't do it, but at least they don't just roll over and give out medals of honor like gold stars in kindergarten.

and the "red chinese"? not saying anything bad about that statement. i was just not around for the first communist scare so i'm really hoping to witness it this time. :D

[SoonerGirl06]

yeah, those dems and their damn fingerpointing. not saying they don't do it, but at least they don't just roll over and give out medals of honor like gold stars in kindergarten.

and the "red chinese"? not saying anything bad about that statement. i was just not around for the first communist scare so i'm really hoping to witness it this time. :D

Ya know... "it just boggles the mind" to think you don't fully grasp the concept of what I was referring to regarding the Red Chinese... If voters elect Hillary, you can probably be sure she'll continue the same relationship with them that her husband did... or have you forgotten about the campaign contributions he received from the Chinese and the favors he performed in return for those contributions?

As far as your first comment... I'd much rather have Republicans giving out medals of honor like gold stars in kindergarten then Democrats giving it in the *** with tax increases and defunding/demoralizing our military during a time of war.

:)

[soonerscuba]

Hook, Line and Sinker.

[Scott D]

Ya know... "it just boggles the mind" to think you don't fully grasp the concept of what I was referring to regarding the Red Chinese... If voters elect Hillary, you can probably be sure she'll continue the same relationship with them that her husband did... or have you forgotten about the campaign contributions he received from the Chinese and the favors he performed in return for those contributions?

As far as your first comment... I'd much rather have Republicans giving out medals of honor like gold stars in kindergarten then Democrats giving it in the *** with tax increases and defunding/demoralizing our military during a time of war.

:)

*sigh* (republicansarestillvotingtogiveitinthe***withtaxi ncreasesalsodontfoolyourselfintothinkingthatstuffi spartisanbased)

down with space bars! :D

[SoonerGirl06]

*sigh* (republicansarestillvotingtogiveitinthe***withtaxi ncreasesalsodontfoolyourselfintothinkingthatstuffi spartisanbased)

down with space bars! :D

You've just been mooned! :eek:

:D