Originally Posted by Space_Coyote

Bzzzzz, let's try again:

Necessary:
Even assuming Saddam possessed the means of harming America, no threats or actions had been made to that end.

Even assuming Saddam possessed the means of harming America, to do so would have been suicide, and so he wouldn't have done it.

Even assuming Saddam possessed the means of harming America, he would not have passed them along to terrorists who believed is secular regime to be an afront to God.

Then of course we note that he didn't have the means of harming America.


Domestic Legality:

Congress did not, and to this day has not declared war. Rather, they unconstitutionally empowered the PRESIDENT, in direct violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 and Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution to go to war at his discretion. Congress declares war, the president fights it, that's how it works in America, and that's not how our government went about doing it.

International Legality:

The US is a member of the United Nations, a signatory of its charter and one of the founding members even. The UN voted against punitive military actions against Iraq, and the United States invaded anyway. Thus, the United States unlawfully invaded a sovereign nation, which placed our country in direct violation of the UN charter, of which were are ORIGINAL SIGNATORIES.

Sorry Bourne, wrong on all counts. The war in Iraq is indefensible.

Originally Posted by Space_Coyote

Bzzzzz, let's try again:

Necessary:
Even assuming Saddam possessed the means of harming America, no threats or actions had been made to that end. Saddam failed to comply with the cease fire agreement from the first gulf war. That gave full justification for his removal.

Even assuming Saddam possessed the means of harming America, to do so would have been suicide, and so he wouldn't have done it. Saddam had a history of making stupid moves. It was considered "suicide" when he failed to comply with UN resolution 1441, but that didn't stop him, now did it? I would also like to know how you come to the conclusion that "he wouldn't have done it"? Did you know Saddam well?

Even assuming Saddam possessed the means of harming America, he would not have passed them along to terrorists who believed is secular regime to be an afront to God. Based on the intelligence, we very much assumed he had the means, as did 33 other countries. I again ask you, since you concluded that he "would not have passed them along to terrorists", how well did you know the man... Did the two of you speak often?

Then of course we note that he didn't have the means of harming America. Something we did not know prior to the invasion... But don't let that get in the way of a perfectly good rant against America.


Domestic Legality:

Congress did not, and to this day has not declared war. Rather, they unconstitutionally empowered the PRESIDENT, in direct violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 and Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution to go to war at his discretion. Congress declares war, the president fights it, that's how it works in America, and that's not how our government went about doing it. Bull! It was accepted by all parties involved, that the congress gave the president the legal authority to invade Iraq, in the same way we had gotten involved in every single conflict since WWII.

International Legality:

The US is a member of the United Nations, a signatory of its charter and one of the founding members even. The UN voted against punitive military actions against Iraq, and the United States invaded anyway. Thus, the United States unlawfully invaded a sovereign nation, which placed our country in direct violation of the UN charter, of which were are ORIGINAL SIGNATORIES. America makes decisions about her security... Nobody else. That's the way it is, and how it should always be. The UN and anyone else who doesn't like it, can kiss our red, white and blue a$$.

Sorry Bourne, wrong on all counts. The war in Iraq is indefensible.

Originally Posted by Bourne

But it was necessary and perfectly legal.

Originally Posted by Grim17

Sorry Spacey, but the senate, congress, the majority of the American people, and 33 other countries all agreed that Saddam was a threat and we took him out. I know this may be a tough concept for you to grasp, but I stand by my country. It's called "loyalty".

Originally Posted by Space_Coyote

Bzzzzz, let's try again:

Necessary:
Even assuming Saddam possessed the means of harming America, no threats or actions had been made to that end.

Even assuming Saddam possessed the means of harming America, to do so would have been suicide, and so he wouldn't have done it.

Even assuming Saddam possessed the means of harming America, he would not have passed them along to terrorists who believed is secular regime to be an afront to God.

Then of course we note that he didn't have the means of harming America.


Domestic Legality:

Congress did not, and to this day has not declared war. Rather, they unconstitutionally empowered the PRESIDENT, in direct violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 and Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution to go to war at his discretion. Congress declares war, the president fights it, that's how it works in America, and that's not how our government went about doing it.

International Legality:

The US is a member of the United Nations, a signatory of its charter and one of the founding members even. The UN voted against punitive military actions against Iraq, and the United States invaded anyway. Thus, the United States unlawfully invaded a sovereign nation, which placed our country in direct violation of the UN charter, of which were are ORIGINAL SIGNATORIES.

Sorry Bourne, wrong on all counts. The war in Iraq is indefensible.

Originally Posted by mkfffe

I stand by my country too, which is why I question our leaders. "Blind loyalty" is just as harmful as treason, just the end result is different:

Treason: Person ends up dead or country taken over.

Blind Loyalty: We all just do as the government says and never care.

I will always be loyal to America and I will always question its decisions because I want to live in a better America. What the Senate, Congress, Most Americans (blinded at the time by the 9/11 after-effects), and 33 countries said at the time does not mean that it was right, nor should we listen to it. Back in the 50's & 60's we were told to duck and cover under a desk in case of a nuclear explosion. Question your government a little and you'll get more out of it.

Originally Posted by Grim17

You know that things are going well in Iraq, when the NY Times actually admits that President Bush was right.

Great article!

Originally Posted by Bourne

But it was necessary and perfectly legal.

Originally Posted by Grim17

That's not what the majority of the Congress, the Senate and the American people believed back in 2003. It's easy to make such claims today, but what we believe today, has nothing to do with what we believed when the decision was made to invade Iraq.

Originally Posted by Space_Coyote

Bzzzzz, let's try again:

Necessary:
Even assuming Saddam possessed the means of harming America, no threats or actions had been made to that end.

Even assuming Saddam possessed the means of harming America, to do so would have been suicide, and so he wouldn't have done it.

Even assuming Saddam possessed the means of harming America, he would not have passed them along to terrorists who believed is secular regime to be an afront to God.

Then of course we note that he didn't have the means of harming America.


Domestic Legality:

Congress did not, and to this day has not declared war. Rather, they unconstitutionally empowered the PRESIDENT, in direct violation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 and Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution to go to war at his discretion. Congress declares war, the president fights it, that's how it works in America, and that's not how our government went about doing it.

International Legality:

The US is a member of the United Nations, a signatory of its charter and one of the founding members even. The UN voted against punitive military actions against Iraq, and the United States invaded anyway. Thus, the United States unlawfully invaded a sovereign nation, which placed our country in direct violation of the UN charter, of which were are ORIGINAL SIGNATORIES.

Sorry Bourne, wrong on all counts. The war in Iraq is indefensible.

Originally Posted by Grim17

That's not what the majority of the Congress, the Senate and the American people believed back in 2003. It's easy to make such claims today, but what we believe today, has nothing to do with what we believed when the decision was made to invade Iraq.

Originally Posted by Michael

You persist in giving Bush, Cheney and others that manipulated intel and launched a propaganda crusade a pass while citing everyone that had been misled. Only hardcore Bush / War supporters are left to still do that in 2008. For example, Colin Powell was the guy with Persian Gulf and military credibility the Bush administration used to sell the lies. Powell trust GW Bush just like he trusted his father, but finally researched the intel and propaganda himself. He now calls this the worst point in his career. He had the personal integrity to break away from Bush on this and resign.

We were led to believe that Saddam not only had weapons of mass destruction, but that he was linked to Al Qaeda and could be planning an imminent attack against the US.

It is really a bogus argument that everyone supported the attack and somehow that is now justification after the fact that the propaganda has been exposed.