Oh really? This has been brought up in this thread before, but it bears repeating due to the lie above.

The coalition invaded Iraq without UN authorization from the UNSC, breaching international law in the process. We broke the UN Charter, which by the way, was ratified by Congress, making it the "law of the land". The only exception to legally circumventing the UN Charter is in the case of self-defense, i.e. we are currently under attack, or there is the IMMEDIATE THREAT of an attack from another country. To this day, there is still ZERO legitimate proof that Iraq was planning an attack on us. Whether Saddam completely complied with UN inspections is irrelevant, Resolution 1441 does not authorize the use of force.

Stop the lies, MaKK.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

Guess it all depends on what the definiton of "immediate" and "threat" "is".

..

I mean "are".

No, wait, "is". I think.

Gracious, how did Congress not realize this was illegal?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

---
"AthiestDiary, you rock." - MikeyG (I'm LOVED! HOORAH!)

quote:

---

Guess it all depends on what the definiton of "immediate" and "threat" "is".

..

---

You're right, Saddam sounds like a good guy. Let's put him back. Let's remove all Congress persons who voted for the war from political life all together also. They must all go!

Seriously though, define "immediate" and "threat" for me.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

shithead... oops, I mean mAAk.... you believe we were right to go to war because Saddam isn't a good guy. So fuck it. Let's go to war with every country that has a not-so-nice guy for a leader. Iran, North Korea, Saudi-Arabia, Syria, Palestine, Libya... Hey, ya know what. Let's just take on fucking China!

Isn't China a threat? Maybe not an "immediate" one. But one down the line? Aren't all those countries threats in their own way? Should we go to war with all of them? Maybe you can see a distinction now... C'mon... try REALLY hard.

For the record, I don't think Saddam was a threat to us, immediate or otherwise. We had defanged his ass a long time ago.

---
Destroying my reputation one post at a time.

If you'd read as recently as one page ago you'd see your premise for what "I believe" is wrong.

I didn't say we went to war with a not so nice leader.

The current leaders of Iran haven't invaded a soverign nation that I know of.

Pretty sure the same with North Korea, though I've pointed out the logistical problems of a North Korean engagement several times.

Haven't..

Invaded..

a soverign..

nation.

The real crime is that you imply I think all of these leaders are meanie-heads.

Not really.

Who are you talking to?

What are you going on about? Because I was talking about immediate threats.

It's pretty obvious when they march into a neighboring country that they are.

Did I ever imply that?

Hmmm...

None of their current leaders invaded Kuwait?

That's obvious. I do though.

The Taliban were much more lacking in "fang" than Saddam, and they hit us. It's funny how so much blustering can be shot down by one sentence, isn't it?

Hope you aren't feeling defanged.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

So because one country invades another country, that makes the former country a threat to the United States, even though the US is several orders of magnitude larger and more powerful than the latter country and even though it appears that the former country has since disarmed? Hey, Germany invaded Poland in 1939. I guess that Germany is a threat to the United States too. And hey, the United States invaded Canada in 1812. I guess that even the United States is a threat to the United States!

Saddam and his army were pathetic. There's no way he could have been a threat to the United States. If you cry, "He had weapons of mass destruction!" then I point you to the fact that so far absolutely nothing has been found. If you want to argue that Saddam wanted to get weapons of mass destruction, then let's talk about the "logistical problems" of invading every single country that might be pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the Taliban hit America. They provided shelter to al-Qaida, who were the ones who attacked America, but that's it. Conversely, a report by the 9/11 Commission stated that it had found no credible evidence that there had been any collaborative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida, which even lessens the reasons to invade Iraq.

---
Blue is the color of victory.

It amazes me, as it did in 2000, that the election could possibly be so close.

I know people are generally stupid, but it worries me that 45% of the people think Bush is just great. Just what are these people smoking?

---
...Trot and Cap'n Bill were free from anxiety and care. Button-Bright never worried about anything. The Scarecrow, not being able to sleep, looked out of the window and tried to count the stars.

fuzzy: It's not that people are generally stupid. Well, maybe it is. But really it's more that approximately half the population is of below-average intelligence. Thus Lincoln's maxim. Bush knows he is not fooling all of the people all of the time. He just wants to fool slightly more than half of the people most of the time. Not even half of all of the people, but half of the people who vote, which is way less than half of all of the people.

Just look at MaKK. No, don't wince and turn away. Look at him. LOOK AT HIM!

---
What others say about boorite!

Great point, Gabu. Spot-on.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

It does when they've demonstrated an intent to do us harm and they are sitting on a quarter of the earth's oil supply.

Since 9-11 we've learned that's not enough to deter an attack.

Note the phrase "appears". Also since 9-11 we've learned we can be hit from a group operating in a nation with no weapons or military to speak of.

I said none of the current governments of these countries has invaded another. Hitler isn't still in power.

Canada was part of Britain then, the country with which we were at war.

Great logic.

What about support for terror?

That's never been part of my argument for war, to get Saddam's WMDs.

I've very plainly laid out my stipulations for going to war, none of which included WMDs. Who are you talking to?

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the Taliban hit America. They provided shelter to al-Qaida, who were the ones who attacked America, but that's it.

Taliban was the government and al Qaeda was their weapon. The weapon owned the government though. Not blaming the Taliban seems inordinately silly. You'll note the U.S. didn't share you attitude.

I've said that 9-11 demonstrates that the basis by which a nation could pose a tangible threat to us has changed, and in that respect Iraq then seemed to pose an unreasonable danger to us under Saddam.

When you want to actually talk about my points, and not points you make up, I'll still be here.

fuzzyman:

quote:

---

It amazes me, as it did in 2000, that the election could possibly be so close.

I know people are generally stupid, but it worries me that 45% of the people think Bush is just great. Just what are these people smoking?

---

MakK, I don't recall claiming anything you say that liberals like to claim. In fact, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I read my statement and your response, and I see no connection. But blurting out crazy non-sequiturs is what you do, and I wouldn't change it for the world.

---
What others say about boorite!

Actually, my point was less about the U.S. invading Canada than it was about a nation invading another nation.

That's a crappy pretense for invasion. MaKK, you have no business citing UN resolutions or laws or anything. You can't be okay with disregarding the entire function of the U.N. when it fits your purpose only to quote their charter when it also suits you.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Fuzzyman implied everyone voting for Bush is stupid, and I am assuming he is a liberal. I was just joining in the conversation. Jeez, mister snappy.

mikey:

quote:

---

Actually, my point was less about the U.S. invading Canada than it was about a nation invading another nation.

That's a crappy pretense for invasion.

---

Yay! Makk brings out the Hitler comparisons!

Makk, you're useless and your points aren't rooted in logic.

And you smell funny.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

We're talking about ignoring governments that invade other countries. Hitler's invasions were ignored. You were advocating ignoring Saddam Hussein's invasion. The comparison is valid.

Also you seem to be more against me debunking claims that the war was illegal with citation of U.N. procedure than actually having a problem with any of the specific citations. That doesn't seem very logical.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

No, I simply refuse to be baited into any of your idiotic illogic traps.

I really wish sometimes that you weren't such a troll, because then maybe there would be an actual discussion here instead of you just coming up with shit to argue a point.

Crawl back in your cave, Anne.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

The comparison is valid because Hitler's invasions were ignored, and Saddam's invasion was also... er... met with overwhelming force?

Have I got that analogy right?

(MaKK is just having fun with us.)

(MaKK is a Scion in a vortex in a cesspool in a sewage plant collapsing into a shit-reeking sinkhole.)

---
What others say about boorite!

The war actually being legal according to the U.N. is a illogic trap. Ok Mikey.

I started the discussion by asking how you think Bush is a criminal. You are the one not participating.

I'm sorry that you are scared by strong women role models.

boorite:

quote:

---

The comparison is valid because Hitler's invasions were ignored, and Saddam's invasion was also... er... met with overwhelming force?

Have I got that analogy right?

---

"I know you are, but what am I?"

Ugh. Anne Coulter is a strong female role model? For what, insane, sensationalistic, exploitative mongoloids?

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

quote:

---

Sometimes, it isn't fun. But that's only when I'm jerking off while posting in the forums.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are the one not participating.

---

"I know you are, but what am I?"

---

When have they demonstrated such an attempt? Perhaps when they complied and disarmed? What does thier oil supply have to do with this, anyway?

...support which has so far been completely unproven.

Let's see here: al-Qaida was the Taliban's weapon. Then you say that al-Qaida was in control of the government. Then you say it's the Taliban's fault, implying that they were not being controlled. Which is it?

No kidding? Here I was thinking that they completely agreed with me. Now I see that I was totally wrong.

You did not address for a second the point I made that there is no proven collaborative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida whatsoever. If they were not working together - if Iraq was not in any way sponsoring terrorists - before Saddam was removed, then what purpose did invading Iraq have?

Germany was blatantly disregarding orders and had been amassing a huge armed force. Conversely, all evidence points to Iraq having complied and disarmed as it was told to. The comparisons of Iraq to 1939 Germany and of the war in Iraq to World War II are completely unfounded.

---
Blue is the color of victory.

Clerical error?

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet