Well, the UN told them to let us inspect and if they were collecting weapons they were in violation of our treaty with them after the first gulf war.....sooooo A brick in the wall my friend. Circumstantial evidence collected throughout an investigation that leads one to believe the allegations are true will be admitted though the evidence alone does not prove guilt as long as the evidence is probative. Statements gathered from informants (your hear-say) coupled with fact that Iraq refused to let us take a peep after the UN ordered them to do so = just cause to go in. Hence, why old W never got impeached. After all, if there was not enough proof, why would the UN order Iraq to let us in. Did they get it wrong, unless Saddam some how got them out without our sattelites and spy planes catching them (which I always thought was unlikely) then we sure did get it wrong. However, at the time there was enough information to believe we were right, we had to act. Did they get it wrong, unless Saddam somehow got them out without our satellites and spy planes catching them (which I always thought was unlikely) then we sure did get it wrong. However, at the time there was enough information to believe we were right, we had to act. We just removed a dictator from office; we had to stay in at that point to insure that they had the time to reach some sort of stability in Iraq. If not another, perhaps one crazier than Saddam, would of jumped right in. Just think of the mess that would of caused. For the record, <------------ This guy is NOT a W fan
Since when is the UN the ultimate power? If the UN told the US hey we want to come look at your **** I suspect we would say nah no thanks. But it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.. ha Sadaam leaving power doesn't help them nor us. Any of these short term results don't count for anything. Bush wasn't impeached because he fear-mongered and war-mongered a nation to believe he was right, when everybody now knows he wasn't. Nobody is a W fan now. The question is who was a fan before, DURING, and after. Not this guy.
That's the 2nd time I have heard that in the past week and I had never heard it before. My dad told me the same thing Sunday.
In your scenario would the US be bound by a treaty that they signed after getting their tail whooped for acting all uppity towards Canada less than a decade before? Help us? Probably not. Help them? C'MON, of course it is better for them to have Saddam out. Well, that is your take and you may be right. However, I think it probably has more to do with not committing an impeachable offense, but that’s just my take. Back on topic though, I wonder what Obama's justification for acting will be?
The way things are now with how the law is written a president can determine that military force must be used. A president can without congressonal approval start a war. After sixty days he must get approval but by then the war is already started. There was a reason the founding fathers decided that congress had the responsibility to decide if this country went to war and the president would be the commander and chief of the forces fighting that war. The last time war was declared was ww2 but the military action has been used many times. We are walking a dangerous path allowing one man the power to bomb another country and start a war on his own judgement and then asking congress for approval. So far every action we have fought since ww2 has been aginst adversaries that could do little to attack the USA. A president can start a war on his own knowing that he wouldn't have been able to get congressional support. IMO the president should only be able to go it on his own if American lives are at risk. In today's world congress could vote on the use of force within 24 hours if needed as in this Libyan situation. I have no problem with the USA using it's military to protect it's intrest. I just feel that the original intent of the constution should be followed giving the use of force ( war) authority strictly to congress.
Bound by a treaty. Nah no thanks. Better to have him out so that it can be ran lawless by many different Sadaam sects? I doubt. In fact I think they might be worse off.
Lawless?? They have been a democracy since we got involved. They had an election in 2006 and 2010. It is a multiparty system with a parliament and executive branch with all the trimmings How is having a government with representation worse than having a dictator that would of his goons round up all those that oppose him so he could line them up and shoot with his gilded AK 47?
