"In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored. " - bush to the UN "In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. " - bush to the UN "In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq. " - bush to the UN "In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge. " - bush to the UN "In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise" - bush to the UN bush justified the war exactly the way he should have. exactly the way i mentioned above. the war in 91 ended because of promises iraq made. if thoise promises arent kept the war continues. bush said this. he meant it. bush is right. credibility matters. if we make a deal with someone contingent on them doing something, and they dont do it, the deal is off. dealing with it any other way makes our entire foreign policy a farce.
martin, are you claiming that the UN was IN FAVOR of Bush's invasion of Iraq? Is that the idiotic point you are trying to make here? Because if you are, let me respond by saying that the lies you right wing nuts will tell to defend Bush knows no limits. On one hand you right wingnuts condemn the UN for NOT backing the war. Then on the other hand, you claim Bush had UN backing. Typical of you wackos. You want it both ways. The UN did NOT back the war. End of story. Nothing your kind ever says can be taken at face value. You lie constantly.
No one said the UN backed the the second war in Iraq. They didn't. Which I find very interesting. Here is the United Nations, and the UN Security Council, falling all over themselves to back away from the commitment they made to enforce UNSC Resolutions 686, 687, 688, and 1441, the first three dealing with the armistice conditions set forth by the UN that Saddam Hussein had to meet to bring an end to the onslaught directed against him and save his regime in 1991, the final threatening, and I quote, "severe consequences" if he did not fully and completely cease all resistance and comply with the previous three resolutions. Some people claim that Bush was trying to wreck the UN and destroy international unity by going to war with Iraq, but it could also be argued just as convincingly that he was actually trying to SAVE the United Nations and it's credibility by trying to force the organization to put some teeth into it's resolutions. If so, I think he's misguided. The UN is beyond saving. What little credibility it had left after the disasters in Bosnia and Rwanda, it lost over the Iraq affair. The UN was exposed for what it was, a den of anti-American, anti-Semitic vipers, used by despots to take cheap shots at free democracies, an upside-down, convoluted parallel universe, where nations like Libya chair the Human Rights Committee. The UN, like the World Leftist Political Movement, is much more interested in the aquisition of power, and the use of that power to destroy it's enemies, than human rights or global security or making the lives of the world's people better. Iraq's failure to live up to the cease fire agreements that ended the 1991 war was a good enough reason alone to invade and remove Saddam Hussein from power. His suspected development of WMD, real or feigned, was also a cause for concern in the prewar stage when it was unknown what he actually had in his arsenal. His ties to terror orgs and the presence of terror training facilities in Iraq thrown in (very real, despite the Administration's downplaying of them and the Left's attempts to sweep them under the rug), and the case to go ahead and remove him was very powerful, even if only circumstantial. In the post-Sept. 11th world, one cannot afford to sit back and wait for threats to become immediate. No one will argue that the security situation and the geo-political situation in the Middle East was not greatly improved by removing him from power. It gives us one less Ameri-hater to worry about, and now the U.S. holds a cocked pistol pointed at the heads of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Let's hope we don't have to use it. But Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons worries me.
One other thing, before I let this go. If the UN had backed the war with Iraq, why would that have suddenly made it "right?" What about a UN resolution saying "You may go to war" makes war any less brutal, any less tragic, any less difficult and agonizing a decision? Who died and made the UN God of War and Peace? If UN certification is what people look to to decide whether or not the war is "just" and "moral," this world really is a whole lot more fargone than I had imagined.
of course i was not claiming that. i was responding to this statement: the administrations reasons were valid, and were clearly stated for the world to see. just as i said above . of course no i'm not. i dont give a damn what the un says after they prove they are spineless. i'm aware of this. oh yes i lie tons when words are put in my mouth. thanks for the personal attacks. real classy.
Oy can we just all agree this was a plublicity stunt that was a nice gesture and good for morale. The only problem I have with this is the Anerican President should never not be seen for 72 hours. He should show himself publically every day.
Why do you say that Supafan? Can't the man have some privacy and get away for a bit? Sometimes the Prez has to just kick back and relax in a "secure, undisclosed location" watching the game and having beer and pretzels. Well, maybe not pretzels for W. :
Please read his post and get help if you do not understand. When you make comments like this it proves you cannot read.
I say it because the President is a public figure. Unless his life is in danger because as it may have been on Sept. 11 the American people should know where there President is.
So you are saying that Bush should have broadcast it to the world that he was going to Baghdad and given some time for potential assasins to set up a plot to kill him?
