Hell yes, I would be 100 percent behind that because there would have been world concensus and participation on this military action. If the Americans were fighting along side the Russians, the Germans, the Chinese, the French
3 of those 4 wanted Hussein to remain in power because of MONEY...no greater motive than that. Of course they disagreed with the action...it ended up costing them billions of dollars as they could
1) No longer sell arms to Hussein
or
2) No longer skirt the oil for food program and purchase his oil at rock bottom prices...illegally as outlined BY THE UN!!
Holy double standard. So its hard to believe that the American executive could be motivated by money for their reasons to go into Iraq, and to think so would be a conspiracy theory, but its easy to consider that the international community is responsible for a multi-national conspiracy to keep the United States out of Iraq???
Wow!!!
The fact that none of these countries could find the evidence presented convincing was more than enough to say it was nothing but BS.
Are you serious? ALL of these countries Ok'd 17 resolutions against Iraq in regards to the WMD program he had....why did they do that if it was all BS??
And I thought they okayed these resolutions based on what transpired during the Gulf War, and supported these same resolutions for search purposes. If they were sure of the data that was presented they would have okayed the military action in Iraq. They thought what Powell presented was BS and voted to not support him.
Speaking on the Powell presentation to the UN, were you aware that Powell made his presentation in front of the General Assembly, and not to the Security Counsel? This was an unheard of move by the Uited States, especially on something as "sensitive" as the "intelligence" that was being presented. The feeling was that Powell had no substance to present that would have convinced the Security Counsel so he presented a grandstand presentation in front of the General Assembly to gain popular vote. He failed there as well. This was the first time in recent memory that information like this was shared in front of the General Assembly and not restricted to the Secuirty Counsel. If this was so important, why not go the recognized route and present to the Security Counsel who would have final say anyways? Answer is obvious. The information was not convincing enough for the Security Counsel to ammend the sanctions against Iraq, and the US new it.
The UN is there as mechanism to protect the countries that cannot protect themselves from the world superpowers, and their decisions must be followed by ALL countries, including the United States, no matter what the transgression was against them.
I see...so the UN is the all saying power among international disputes, but when they themselves are the ones that threaten military action aginst Iraq for transgressions of their own resolutions, yet do not follow through, then the rest of the world has to follow along? What's the point of threats if you aren't willing to follow up? I might add this is the same UN that had LIBYA appointed to chair and oversee its Human Right Violations division.
The UN should be the all saying power in regards to interventions into other countries, especially when one of the permanent Security Counsel members are involved. How else does the world prevent the Super Powers from dancing all over the globe at will? If law is going to transgress borders then the UN is mechanism for that. The General Assembly votes for who sits on the committees that oversee things such as Human Rights, so obviously the international community thinks Libya is up to the task. Someone nominated them and they were voted onto the commitee. The US had the right to veto such an action, but they didn't. Maybe the Ambassador to the UN should be queried as to why the right of veto was not exercised?
If this is the course of action that the US wishes to take, then why the hell are they not in Sudan? Why are they not in North Korea, where a manaical dictator IS killing his own people and DOES have weapons of mass destruction? Removing a dangerous dictator? That's a bullsh*t answer and you know it Tranny. The US military said that Hussein was no threat. It was the civilian group that forced the issue. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were the drivers behind this invasion. Not the intelligence community. Not the military. It was the civilains in the pentagon. The two motivations that have been floated have been proven to be false. That leaves others, which are greed and a grudge. Neither is a good motivation for making an illegal military intervention into a country.
What's BS...that removing Hussein was a reason for the war or that he was a dangerous dictator?
Why are the US NOT in N Korea? Because they are in SOUTH KOREA...you know right next door which allows for the area to be stable. It keeps Kim in check. Funny how a democracy with support from the worlds super power is able to do that huh? The key is having a democracy in place in the region to negin with...i guess thats lost on you though. Hey maybe they should leave the S Koreans to fend for themselves since they have no right to help out other countries or "impose their version of democracy"....right? Kim can then roll into S Korea (like his father attempted) kill hundreds of thousands, get a bigger piece of the area, gain more power, and you can sleep better at night knowing the US isnt intervening in other countries domestic affairs. That's better.
Nice double standard again. You preach containment with North Korea, which is an actual threat and HAS WMDs they could use right now AND are developing a missle system capable of reaching the United States, but say containment was not working with Iraq and invasion was needed to flesh out WMDs that had not been found in a decade of searching and did not have a delivery mechanism that could guarantee delivery to Isreal let alone the United States?
Wow!
And who is the primary threat again?
Oh, and what about that nasty Sudanese thing, where thousands of people are being murdered RIGHT NOW by a real tyranical dictator, not 20 years ago?
That's a simple answer. Another Bush (Jeb) runs for office. He's the guy that the PNAC has been grooming. He'll be a popular candidate as well, especially with the Hispanic community. If Bush feels he isn't ready, the PNAC finds another candidate they can easily control as Bush 43. It probably doesn't take a lot find a dim wit like Bush that would want to be President.
I'll say this. If the 2008 or 2012 elections are won by a Republican, and you see a lot of the names that are PNAC members, then I think you can come back and apologize then. If these guys disappear from the scene all together, then I'll come back and say just how wrong I was in accusing them of a clandestine operation to control the Whitehouse.
Wow. The conspiracy theory is already planned well into the next decade...OK, now i understand.
Well numbnuts, a lot of these guys have already survived through the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations, are through to the Bush 43 administration, and are running the show, so what is so hard to believe that they would not make it through to the next administrations? Hey, I'm not the one who sees an international conspiracy to keep the US out of Iraq.
Hell, at least I was proven right that the Americans were indeed lying in regards to WMD and their motivations of going into Iraq. Or do you still cling to the hope that WMD are going to be found
Too rich.
YOU were proven right?? Holy moly, meglomania is alive and well I see. How were the Americans proven to be lying exactly? The UN itself ( you know the very body you are relying on in this most bizarre argument) admits FULLY that they existed, in fact their head guy says so to this very day. There are 17 resolutions against Iraq for breaking their agreements with the UN in regards to WMD. Are those all BS as well now? All made up?
And yes i have no doubt WMD will still be found...somewhere. Thats the scariest part of this whole thing to me...where the hell are the WMD that ALL countries on the security council admitted he had and punished him for? Still buried/hidden in the Iraqi desert or in the hands of some other rogue nation? If its the latter i truly pray that the US or someone else goes and gets them before they are used.
Holy thick as a brick Batman! What part of the United Nations NOT backing the US in Iraq don't you get? If they were sure there was a need to have a military intervention they would have supported the US. They didn't. They thought the US case was horsesh*t. They felt that inspections were more than enough to weed out any WMDs, even though in a decade they had found jack. Oh wait, we do have to take into consideration the international conspiracy that is going on to keep the US out of Iraq!
BTW... I guess the US didn't think that the sanctions were near enough? That's funny, because it didn't stop the US from keeping sanctions in place against Cuba for 40 years. Again, the US does have an interesting way in dealing with these double standards.
But I think you are placing way too much faith in the media and in believing that the Whitehouse is going to give the full story on soemthing that could be completely humiliating to them.
Why do you think the media/White house is only what has formed my opinion? I have been around long enough to know where to gleen my info from, and where to read/watch and who to listen too. Here is a hint...it aint someone like Rush Limbaugh. Ditto Michael Moore.
Yeah, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are thankful you lost that remote control.
I love how you have competely dodged the issues. Once again, how is the United States actions in Iraq any different from those of the Nazis and the Soviets? How? Unilateral intervention with a bullsh*t coalition is hardly a quality excuse. Then again, which excise are we using this week? WMDs? The tyranical dictator? The threat to the region? The poor dresser that p*ssed of Mr Blackwell? Which is again?