Iraq violated the cease fire...this is more than enough justification http://tech.mit.edu/V112/N13/iraq.13w.html http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/31/world/iraqi-forces-shell-kurdish-rebels-in-apparent-cease-fire-violation.html etc etc etc. I bet the 'majority' of Brits say the Brits' attack on St Nazaire was justified, but the French say no.... I bet the majority of Iraqis said it was illegal...
1) The opinion of the rest of the world was irrelevant : what was important for Bush was the opinion of Congress 2)This was not the concern of the US :why should it be ? That in 1945 Germany was worse off than it was under Hitler was the lasy of the worries of the US .
That particular source is one of the worst possible ones in most cases. They have a reputation for horribly biased and illogical stories. The daily mail isn't much better at least from what I've seen and our UK memebers report. This article seams to confirm that. A lot of inunedo and misleading statements and headline. As an example let's look at: Rumsfeld didn't make it possible for them to buy the viruses, which by the way are not chemical weapons. They were free to do so unless specifically prohibited. Said viruses were dispersed to numerous countries for development of antiviruses. Likewise the supplies to make pesticides are pretty much openly available unless the government takes specific action to prohibit their sale. Actually it doesn't. It sates that an individual, admitedly the head of the UN nuclear regulatory body, didn't think they were "yet" in breach of it. But he also made it clear that that was only his opinion and he seems to have been focusing on the nuclear end of things rather thant he chemical and biological. Multipe acts of war on the part of Iraq vs the US and Britain as well as failing to live up to the requirements of the truce he signed aren't "strong arguments"? Again I'd like to see your sources on it being the "opinion" "held by the majority of the word" or world, whichever. Not that it is all that relevant or important. Again it's not all that relevant but I'd say so. Especally if you look at the longer term impacts. Sadam wasn't going to stay in power forever and if he died or was removed from office by the Iraqi people the result would almost assuredly have been much worse. Likewise had one or more of his sons succeeded him it would have been an even worse situation likely leading to further revolts and blood shed.
These "violations" occurred in 1992 a full decade prior to the invasion!!! These "violations" also occurred "within" Iraq not surrounding nations!
The opinion of Congress was swayed by fictitious points. 1. WMDs 2. Al Qaida. Both turned out to be lies. Interesting though tho.... The Opinion of the world was irrelevant to the U.S.......... So in other words US did what she wanted and cared about no one else's opinion. Yet calls other countries periahs and aggressive in nature. The U.S. Should lead by example. Lwd it is precisely this short sighted thinking that neglected to see who would fill the vacuum with Saddams departure. The same shortsighted thinking that armed "rebels" against Assad that turned out to be ISIS. Now there is talk in Washington about starting talks with Assad because he is much better than the latter. Funny China and Russia warned the U.S. Of just the exact scenario. Now ISIS is in every country the U.S. And her allies bombed..... What is occurring in the Middle East today is a direct result of US military intervention. http://rudaw.net/NewsDetails.aspx?pageid=103138
Nice try but it seems that no matter what is presented to you contradicting your opinion of the Iraq invasion you simply brush them off as being unreliable, biased or some sort of twisted prapoganda. Until then I guess more propaganda for you. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-10770239 http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/27/lord-goldsmith-iraq-war- Finally the UN deliberations themselves: http://lcnp.org/global/reportSCIraq.pdf I would like you to present sources of which defend the U.S. Invasion on Iraq.
They continued to occur up until the invasion. That is irrrelevant and not all occured within Iraq either. The attempted assasination of Bush being a rather outstanding eample of the latter. Or not. My guess is or not. Neither were lies by the way in any case. The WMD's and Al Qaida connections were used not so much to sway Congress but to sway the public in both the US and rest of the world. Most of those in Congress and indeed at any high level in most governments would have been aware of more of what was going on. The US was very interested in world opinion. Indeed the WMD argument (which I never really cared for and thought was a mistake in any case at least as presented) was all about convincing other nations to either join or at least aprove of the US effort. I disagree. Short term would be ignoring him and indeed what would likely happen if he fell. There was some classic short term thinking as part of the invasion though as I will admit. The fact that "nation building" was considered to be anathema by some of the administration meant that in they planned for a quick exit and didn't really have enough force to reestablilsh order in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. On the other hand the administration learned pretty quickly and the short term chaos gave Al Quada a great opertunity to fall on their face which they did. What order was established also prevented a wholesale religious war between the Shia and Sunnit and over time even allowed some relationships to be built between some of the varioius comunities which may have some significant long term benefits. The US was slow to arm the Syrian rebels (no quote marks needed) precisely because some were known to be radical Islamist. That very slowness may have helped the radicals dominate some of the rebel groups. There is talk in Washington of all sorts of things. I'm not sure I would say that Assad is all that much better than the radicals either. He is saner but in the long run that may make him more dangerous rather than less. Nor are the radicals the only alternative to Assad. Indeed it's beginning to look like (again) like Assad may not be an alternative. Nothing funny about it at all. Their support may well have prevented a non radical group coming to power in Syria and much of the devestation that has resulted from the on going war. Not really but even if they were they tend to make short term splash then loose. That is a rediculously simplistic statement. Your implication is also that most if not all the impacts of US efforts in that area have been or are negative. That's simply not the case.
Price, do you think that using special forces and conducting covert strikes against Al-Qaeda In Iraq would've been the better alternative to directly invading Iraq?
