Things Bush apparently doesn't need to attack Iraq

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Chris 62
It's self evident.

If he annoced he wanted to attack, say Canada, you would have a point, but a country that is a known US enemy, terror supporter and constantly defies the UN resolutions against it?

Maybe self-evident to you...

The Bush admin hasn't provided any proof of terror support, which if present should be a fairly easy way of gaining all the support they need. So why hasn't it been revealed, even covertly to other, allied nations?
All we get is some holier than thou BS comparing Dubya and Saddam to Churchill and Hitler.

And as far as defying the UN goes, this has never been a casus belli by itself. Hell, the US itself has violated its agreements with the UN, and IIRC you have been one of the people advocating that (apologies if I remember wrongly).

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Lemmy
Now, why do you people still bother trying to argue with Chris?
Isn't clear by now that he just had too much propaganda fed to him (and swallowed it gladly obviously) the last decade to form his own opinion?

What "propaganda" is that?

Or do you need the UN resolutions Saddam violated listed before you will even consider action?

The childishness of people like you are amazing, Lemmy.

[DinoDoc]

Re #1: Can anyone find me the specific case that White House lawyers have laid out saying that Bush doesn't need Congressional approval? Thanks in advance.

Re #3: I fail to see how lacking this would be a serious obstacle to military action against Iraq.

[DanS]

"Makes no sense to me to piss everyone off and go it alone. No sense at all."

There may be some that you cannot convince on some actions. That should influence your actions, but not dictate them.

In order to act, Bush doesn't need all of these things. It is true. It's all about not boxing yourself in. Others will say "you can't act without x". But of course Bush can.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Jaakko
Maybe self-evident to you...

The Bush admin hasn't provided any proof of terror support, which if present should be a fairly easy way of gaining all the support they need. So why hasn't it been revealed, even covertly to other, allied nations?
All we get is some holier than thou BS comparing Dubya and Saddam to Churchill and Hitler.

Yes or no, has Husien repeatedly broken the cease fire agreement of the gulf war?

And as far as defying the UN goes, this has never been a casus belli by itself. Hell, the US itself has violated its agreements with the UN, and IIRC you have been one of the people advocating that (apologies if I remember wrongly).

Not me, I think the UN is a disaster.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jaakko
The Bush admin hasn't provided any proof of terror support,

Fuel for the fire

[Chris 62]

Now, now Dino, those are accusations, not facts.

Much like our "friends" always provide, and then shout from the rooftops that it's fact, only to be proven wrong time and time again.

[Jaakko]

Chris,

Well of course Saddam has violated the ceasefire, but being powerless against US airpower, he's just managed to turn even more of his remaining SAM batteries to scrap metal.
But that's pretty shaky grounds for an invasion, considering that all the hubbub has been about WMD and terrorists.

Regarding the UN, so you are against the US ditching its UN agreements, yes?

[Seeker]

"If the US was any near as evil as folks here say, we would just subjugate half the world"

You've been asleep for the last 30 years I guess?

Subjugation does not necessarilly mean military conquest.

It can be cultural, economic, political, and diplomatic too.

Or maybe you thought that Egypt was 'independent' of England in the 19th century....or that Czechoslovakia was a truly sovereign nation in the 1950s...

Most of the world is not subjugated in the same way that the Chinese were not subjugated during the 19th century.

The map is coloured red, white, and blue with America's protectorates and vassal-states. Mexico, heck most of Central and South America, etc.

[Lemmy]

What "propaganda" is that?

Or do you need the UN resolutions Saddam violated listed before you will even consider action?

The childishness of people like you are amazing, Lemmy.

i just love it when they bite

and what? no other nickname for me?

[Jaakko]

So it's a Link War, Dino?

[DanS]

This thread is amazing. It headlines with something obviously true. But then degenerates.

Bush doesn't need:

1) The support of our allies;
2) The mandate of the American people;
3) Approval from Congress; or
4) Approval from the U.N.

I have yet to see somebody make a case why these things are needed.

[Seeker]

It's a could vs should thing.

Of course he doesn't 'need' these things.

The question is, morally, shouldn't he?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DanS
3) Approval from Congress

Personally, I'd like to see a case for why he doesn't need this.

[Andrew1999]

Does anyone else feel like this is a pointless discussion? The impression I have (and that everyone I talk to has) is that the decision for war was made a long time ago and everyone is just going through the motions. Maybe some of the minor detals have to be filled in, but that's it. Any discussion of whether it's right or wrong may be interesting but ultimately meaningless, like arguing the merits of the American Civil War after it's been over for 140 years.