There probably has been discussion about this, but what gave us the right to start a war? I mean, didn't we used to consider those who would launch first strikes heinous and cowardly nations? Like Imperial Japan and Pearl Harbor. I love how biased history is. Japan was doing that to protect its interests in the Pacific, America's invading Iraq to protect its interests... Yet Japan's action were detestable and unprovoked, and we are defending freedom and doing the patriotic thing. When did we suddenly know what was best for every other nation? Damn Cold War and all its policies ****** everything up. If we had stayed out of the Mid-East the terrorists wouldn't hate us, it would have been Russia. But then Russia would have had exclusive access to the oil. Damn. I'm going in circles. What are your thoughts?

[This message was edited by YNLissa on December 21, 2003 at 06:46 AM.]

It was a "U.S.-led coalition", as even U.N. officials pointed out as well as historians. It was the U.S. versus Iraq, both in the minds of many Westerners as wel as Iraqis. The U.S. was the face of the coalition. I remember, after the war, Saddam made a point of putting George Bush Sr.'s picture on floors everywhere, where people would walk on it (which is meant to be insulting). I don't recall Hussein and his forces directing that kind of venom at Helmut Kohl or Eduard Shevardnadze. It was (of course) us and the Brits, with some other folks tagging along with token military commitments: the U.S. had three times the troops as all the rest of the coalition combined. So, the Gulf War was a U.S. v. Iraq conflict, The presence of a U.N. resolution and even other troops was little more than a formality, than tokenism. And we were right to enforce the ceasefire - whcih we mostly wrote, and which we were entitled to enforce - and finish the job.

NuShoesAgain, the agreement that Iraq broke was with the United Nations. They did not decide to follow up the technical violation with immediate, unthinking invasion. Because it was an agreement with the U.N., it was never any of the United States to illegal "enforce" anything.

thats so true

Why is it the socialists seem to have been asleep from 1990-1991? Remember a little ditty called the GULF WAR? As a condition of the U.S.-led coalition to stop bombing the crap out of Iraq, Saddam Hussein signed a ceasefire that, among other things, required that he allow weapons inspectors in to search for WMDs, providing for the enforcement of a ban on WMDs. He broke the ceasefire, so George W. Bush really just continued where we left off. Except, this time, Hussein wasn't going to get a second chance.

Are you going to follow up everything you've posted Faaloun without a point? Or should I do that for you?

quote:

---

Why didn't Saddam just let us friggin come in and show us that he didn't have any weapons that he was told he weren't allowed to have?

---

That could be argued to be a point of national sovereignty, which sparked WWI.

Unprovoked? Why didn't Saddam just let us friggin come in and show us that he didn't have any weapons that he was told he weren't allowed to have? I don't see why the media says it was unprovoked because we haven't FOUND anything, it was an oppressive regime, and most iraqis believe the attack will make life better. Besides, he had weapons before, he wouldn't show us that he didn't have them, then we attack and he activates his emergency plan to make sure that we have a heck of a time trying to find them. Maybe he even included in his plan telling a friend where they were and when to attack, just to prove that even if he's dead/imprissoned he can still wreck havoc on anyone he wants. So there's my soapbox on the war being justified.

First of all, you people need to get this "international law/international support" mentality out of your head.

This is not the United Nations.

This is not the European Union.

This is not NATO, or a World Government body.

This is the United States of America.

So what right do we have to go start a war? Well, according to the Constitution of the United States of America, we have every single right -- DUTY, even - to conduct a defense of this nation.

We were attacked by Saudi Arabian terrorists, yet we bombed Afghanistan - doesn't make sense, I know, but still, we went after the terrorists there (among other things).

Of course, this is just in response to your question, what "right" do we have ...

We are in Iraq because of the United Nations; the U.N., in 1991, authorized the use of force on Iraq, like we even need to GO before them to use force...

...but, the U.N. "authorized" us, and Bush I didn't oust Saddam when he had the chance; he said, in an autobiography, that he didn't want to occupy the nation, etc., etc. So we left - sorta.

Amid bombings here and there by the Clinton Administration, nobody said anything; the U.N. resolution was still active I guess you could say.

Bush II simply continued the U.N. resolution his father received.

So what "right" do we have to defend our nation? EVERY STINKING ONE, and without the approval of the U.N.

No, I do not agree with the U.N. wars this country has fought (Korea, Iraq I & II), but yes, I do agree that the United States of America has every single right, as prescribed by the United States Constitution, to defend itself.

So rather, the question should be worded, "What right does the United Nations have in telling us who we can, or cannot attack to defend this nation?"

See, I would have supported both Iraq wars if we went at it as America; we went at it via the U.N., so therefore, I do not support it.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states Congress shall declare war.

War has not been declared since World War II.

Therefore, the wars after WW II have been illegal; I say if we are to fight the war on terrorism, we need to go after the U.N. first.

First, Japan promised us peace. That is why we considered them cowards.

Second, on the issue of World War II and America being to involved in foreign affairs. We were criticized for being to isolated.

America is a superpower, that makes us damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Any decision we make is going to make SOMEONE unhappy, it is inevitable.
If we hadn't helped Kuwait, we would have been criticized for that, and hated in the middle east still. See what I mean?

I think we won an amazing political victory by getting the inspectors Back in Iraq, and we should have been more prudent, now we are experiencing the frustration of not being able find what we're looking for.