Why did so many Dems vote for Iraq War

[BlindBoo]

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

It was a UN ceasefire. It was not a US ceasefire. The UN Security Council is the body to authorise action, not the POTUS, nor the Congress.

It is rather hilarious to read the horror at Iraq defying the UN while the US invades in breach of the UN Charter.

The UN does not have the authority to declare ceasefires and they don't have the authority to enforce them. The ceasefire was between the US and Iraq.

Please explain why the UNSC passed Resolution 687. Also it would be nice if you could post a link to the US-Iraq cease fire agreement.

 

[Slyhunter]

Iraq was a much safer and stable nation before the U.S. invaded. That's the reality. Now it's a horrific nightmare for its Citizens. But the U.S. got its Puppet Government installed, and will now plunder its resources. It's not like the U.S. hasn't done that before.

First you claim the leaders of the targeted nation are 'Evil' and a 'Threat' to the World. Maybe even compare em to Hitler and the Nazis. Then you invade and slaughter Thousands. And finally, you plunder the nation's resources. It's happened many times before, and it will happen again. Who will the next targeted Boogeyman be? Who knows? But one thing we do know, is that there will be a new Boogeyman to wage War with. Bet on that.

I fail to understand Libertarian isolationism.

The most basic role of government is to protect the rights of the people; this certainly includes the right to free enterprise.
If outside forces seek to wrongly encroach upon that right, government has a plenary duty to act. Seems pretty cut and dried, from a libertarian point of view.

What happens to economic freedom when the Iranians blockade the straits and we have no way to project force? There are times when you need to go places, kill people, break things; many times you need the cooperation and assistance of allies to do it.

The U.S. is responsible for the mass brutal slaughter of Millions of Iraqis. That included thousands & thousands of innocent women & children. And for what?...

So it could install a Puppet Government and plunder its resources. That's the ugly reality most Americans stubbornly refuse to accept. The Iraq War was a horrific crime against humanity. The U.S. should actually be held accountable.

I wish we were plundering their resources then maybe wed get reimbursed for war costs. But it just aint true and you spouting the lie doesnt make it true.

 

[asterism]

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

North Korea has been breaking ceasefire agreements since the 50's. When should we have invaded North Korea?

When we decided it was the proper thing to do. We don't know if things would be better had we enforced the cease-fire against North Korea. We live under the luxury of living in a world without Saddam and that's a good thing.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis no longer have the luxury of living. Not so good for them.

As opposed to the million killed by Saddam before the invasion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

North Korea has been breaking ceasefire agreements since the 50's. When should we have invaded North Korea?

When we decided it was the proper thing to do. We don't know if things would be better had we enforced the cease-fire against North Korea. We live under the luxury of living in a world without Saddam and that's a good thing.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis no longer have the luxury of living. Not so good for them.

As opposed to the million killed by Saddam before the invasion.

How many of them did we bring back to life?

 

[BlindBoo]

No, sir. You are the one LYING. What we knew in 2003 after inspections was much different than in 2002 when the vote for authorization of force was held.

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The UNSC, with US support passed 1441 which was supposed to allow Saddam a final chance to allow unfettered access to anywhere the inspector wanted to go. The only reason that passed was because the Bush Administration agreed that a second UN resolution would be needed before using military force on Iraq. President Bush reneged on that agreement.

That's not true. The UN inspectors went back into Iraq in November 2002 and multiple undeclared chemical weapons were found and destroyed. Iraq then submitted a "final" report in December 2002. Hans Blix stated that they new report gave no new information and noted that all previous "final" reports were dishonest.

Hans Blix stated this in January 2003:

Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix s remarks - Jan. 27 2003

Iraq was still in breach of the agreement. UN Resolution 1441 did not require UN approval for the invasion.

There was no military action trigger in 1441 regardless and it cannot be used as a pretext for the invasion even if they found any active WMD programs, which they didn't. Even President Bushes Ambassador to the UN claimed that, but perhaps he was lied to as well.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Dey wuz misled !!!! Lmfao

 

[BlindBoo]

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

North Korea has been breaking ceasefire agreements since the 50's. When should we have invaded North Korea?

When we decided it was the proper thing to do. We don't know if things would be better had we enforced the cease-fire against North Korea. We live under the luxury of living in a world without Saddam and that's a good thing.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis no longer have the luxury of living. Not so good for them.

As opposed to the million killed by Saddam before the invasion.

With the help of Ronnie Raygun of course.

 

[asterism]

When we decided it was the proper thing to do. We don't know if things would be better had we enforced the cease-fire against North Korea. We live under the luxury of living in a world without Saddam and that's a good thing.

Saddam was insignificant and you were happy to spend thousands of American lives to needlessly remove him.

That makes you as evil as he was .

That's just an emotional and irrational response. Nobody would seriously equate supporting an invasion to remove a tyrant with the actions of that evil tyrant - except an emotional partisan hack I guess.

Saddam was very significant and was undermining the premise of the UN Security Council, the UN programs for humanitarian aid, and was at the nexus of terrorism in the Middle East. It's why your President signed the Iraqi Liberation Act.

No part of the Iraqi Liberation Act called for the U.S. to invade Iraq. If I recall, it limited our fiscal commitment to something like $100m.

On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law
105-235, which declared that ``the Government of Iraq is in
material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations''
and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance
with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to
bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.''.

Text - H.R.4655 - 105th Congress 1997-1998 Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Congress.gov Library of Congress

You can claim that the President doesn't have the authority in accordance with the Constitution to use military force but you would be wrong.

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise
speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in
section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

That doesn't mean that the President doesn't have the authority to exercise his powers under the Constitution.

 

[asterism]

That's just an emotional and irrational response. Nobody would seriously equate supporting an invasion to remove a tyrant with the actions of that evil tyrant - except an emotional partisan hack I guess.

Saddam was very significant and was undermining the premise of the UN Security Council, the UN programs for humanitarian aid, and was at the nexus of terrorism in the Middle East. It's why your President signed the Iraqi Liberation Act.

No part of the Iraqi Liberation Act called for the U.S. to invade Iraq. If I recall, it limited our fiscal commitment to something like $100m.

On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law
105-235, which declared that ``the Government of Iraq is in
material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations''
and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance
with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to
bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.''.

Text - H.R.4655 - 105th Congress 1997-1998 Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Congress.gov Library of Congress

You can claim that the President doesn't have the authority in accordance with the Constitution to use military force but you would be wrong.

Operation Desert Fox had nothing to do with ghe Iraqi Liberation Act, which wasn't even signed into law yet.

Please make a note of that.

Actually it was signed by Bill Clinton in 1998. Jesus Christ, man, you are on the internet. How do you make a statement like that and not verify it before showing you don't know what you are talking about?

I stand corrected on the dates. Still, Operation Desert Fox had noting to do with it. The Iraqi Liberation Act was about supporting regime change from within Iraq and Operation Desert Fox was about punishing Hussein for throwing U.S. weapons inspectors out of Iraq and for taking out military targets and WMD installations.

Both were part of the same strategy, to oust Saddam Hussein.

Why is that so hard to grasp?

 

[asterism]

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The main reason for invading Iraq was over WMD. Turned out, Hussein wasn't making any.

Because he still had enough in the form of binary agents.

Yet all that was found were some unaccounted leftovers from before the first Gulf war scattered around the country.

Fully lethal stockpiles that were previously claimed to have been destroyed.

link?

Here's a good place to start:

Iraq Had WMDs After All Power Line

 

[asterism]

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

It was a UN ceasefire. It was not a US ceasefire. The UN Security Council is the body to authorise action, not the POTUS, nor the Congress.

It is rather hilarious to read the horror at Iraq defying the UN while the US invades in breach of the UN Charter.

The UN does not have the authority to declare ceasefires and they don't have the authority to enforce them. The ceasefire was between the US and Iraq.

Please explain why the UNSC passed Resolution 687. Also it would be nice if you could post a link to the US-Iraq cease fire agreement.

The UN was a neutral negotiator of the ceasefire, not the governing authority.

 

[BlindBoo]

The main reason for invading Iraq was over WMD. Turned out, Hussein wasn't making any.

Because he still had enough in the form of binary agents.

Yet all that was found were some unaccounted leftovers from before the first Gulf war scattered around the country.

Fully lethal stockpiles that were previously claimed to have been destroyed.

link?

Here's a good place to start:

Iraq Had WMDs After All Power Line

Of course he had them, in the 1980's. If you were a tax payer you too can proudly say "And I Helped"

Exclusive CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran Foreign Policy

 

[asterism]

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The UNSC, with US support passed 1441 which was supposed to allow Saddam a final chance to allow unfettered access to anywhere the inspector wanted to go. The only reason that passed was because the Bush Administration agreed that a second UN resolution would be needed before using military force on Iraq. President Bush reneged on that agreement.

That's not true. The UN inspectors went back into Iraq in November 2002 and multiple undeclared chemical weapons were found and destroyed. Iraq then submitted a "final" report in December 2002. Hans Blix stated that they new report gave no new information and noted that all previous "final" reports were dishonest.

Hans Blix stated this in January 2003:

Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix s remarks - Jan. 27 2003

Iraq was still in breach of the agreement. UN Resolution 1441 did not require UN approval for the invasion.

There was no military action trigger in 1441 regardless and it cannot be used as a pretext for the invasion even if they found any active WMD programs, which they didn't. Even President Bushes Ambassador to the UN claimed that, but perhaps he was lied to as well.

No military trigger was needed. The UN does not have authority over the US.

 

[BlindBoo]

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

It was a UN ceasefire. It was not a US ceasefire. The UN Security Council is the body to authorise action, not the POTUS, nor the Congress.

It is rather hilarious to read the horror at Iraq defying the UN while the US invades in breach of the UN Charter.

The UN does not have the authority to declare ceasefires and they don't have the authority to enforce them. The ceasefire was between the US and Iraq.

Please explain why the UNSC passed Resolution 687. Also it would be nice if you could post a link to the US-Iraq cease fire agreement.

The UN was a neutral negotiator of the ceasefire, not the governing authority.

The UNSC was the authority not just a negotiator. There was no cease fire agreement between the US and Iraq. Iraq accepted the UN's terms.

 

[BlindBoo]

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The UNSC, with US support passed 1441 which was supposed to allow Saddam a final chance to allow unfettered access to anywhere the inspector wanted to go. The only reason that passed was because the Bush Administration agreed that a second UN resolution would be needed before using military force on Iraq. President Bush reneged on that agreement.

That's not true. The UN inspectors went back into Iraq in November 2002 and multiple undeclared chemical weapons were found and destroyed. Iraq then submitted a "final" report in December 2002. Hans Blix stated that they new report gave no new information and noted that all previous "final" reports were dishonest.

Hans Blix stated this in January 2003:

Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix s remarks - Jan. 27 2003

Iraq was still in breach of the agreement. UN Resolution 1441 did not require UN approval for the invasion.

There was no military action trigger in 1441 regardless and it cannot be used as a pretext for the invasion even if they found any active WMD programs, which they didn't. Even President Bushes Ambassador to the UN claimed that, but perhaps he was lied to as well.

No military trigger was needed. The UN does not have authority over the US.

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council byUNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

The US is a permanent member of the Security Counsel so of course we can veto any attempt to hold us accountable for the invasion and disastrous occupation.

If the UN has no authority over the US why was the UN able to force President Bush to sign a new SOFA with Iraq before the end of 2008?

 

[asterism]

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

It was a UN ceasefire. It was not a US ceasefire. The UN Security Council is the body to authorise action, not the POTUS, nor the Congress.

It is rather hilarious to read the horror at Iraq defying the UN while the US invades in breach of the UN Charter.

The UN does not have the authority to declare ceasefires and they don't have the authority to enforce them. The ceasefire was between the US and Iraq.

Please explain why the UNSC passed Resolution 687. Also it would be nice if you could post a link to the US-Iraq cease fire agreement.

The UN was a neutral negotiator of the ceasefire, not the governing authority.

The UNSC was the authority not just a negotiator. There was no cease fire agreement between the US and Iraq. Iraq accepted the UN's terms.

Not true.

Washingtonpost.com Iraq Special Report

AFTER THE WAR - Cease-Fire Meeting - A Hard-Faced Schwarzkopf Sets Terms at Desert Meeting - NYTimes.com

US-Iraq Cease-Fire Meeting Video C-SPAN.org

The Safwan talks ended the war, not a UN authority.

 

[asterism]

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The UNSC, with US support passed 1441 which was supposed to allow Saddam a final chance to allow unfettered access to anywhere the inspector wanted to go. The only reason that passed was because the Bush Administration agreed that a second UN resolution would be needed before using military force on Iraq. President Bush reneged on that agreement.

That's not true. The UN inspectors went back into Iraq in November 2002 and multiple undeclared chemical weapons were found and destroyed. Iraq then submitted a "final" report in December 2002. Hans Blix stated that they new report gave no new information and noted that all previous "final" reports were dishonest.

Hans Blix stated this in January 2003:

Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix s remarks - Jan. 27 2003

Iraq was still in breach of the agreement. UN Resolution 1441 did not require UN approval for the invasion.

There was no military action trigger in 1441 regardless and it cannot be used as a pretext for the invasion even if they found any active WMD programs, which they didn't. Even President Bushes Ambassador to the UN claimed that, but perhaps he was lied to as well.

No military trigger was needed. The UN does not have authority over the US.

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council byUNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

The US is a permanent member of the Security Counsel so of course we can veto any attempt to hold us accountable for the invasion and disastrous occupation.

If the UN has no authority over the US why was the UN able to force President Bush to sign a new SOFA with Iraq before the end of 2008?

The UN has no authority to force anything.

 

[Faun]

There were no U.S. troops occupying Iraq, so if you claimed there were, you were merely pulling another "kaz."

They were in the Kurdish territory, Skippy. So if an enemy only occupies the Northwestern US, they didn't invade? Hey Kaz, they are only in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, that's not occupying the United States

They were based in Turkey in the north and Saudi Arabia in the south. The U.S. did not "occupy" parts of Iraq.

OK, so if Russia had troops that were based in Canada and came into Washington, Idaho and Oregon but didn't remain there permanently, they didn't invade us

Now everyone here gets to watch you idiotically switch your argument from "occupying" to "invading."

Thanks for such an easy win.

No switch, we did both. How do you occupy without invading? We armed and sheltered the Kurds with boots on the ground. You're the one trying to split hairs.

The point is that Clinton was a neocon. Obviously he was a fiscal liberal. And obviously he extensively used the military to install governments he approved of. Your splitting hairs over occupy and invading doesn't change that. We were in Iraq before W came to power militarily trying to topple Hussein both in the North and the South

You tacitly confess you don't know the difference between "occupy" and "invade" yet here you are pretending like there's no difference between the two.

Your ignorance aside, you're also arguing facts not in evidence ... post a link proving Clinton put "boots on the ground" in Iraq...

 

[Mac1958]

I'd guess those who voted for the war did so for one of three reasons:

1. They figured they were fucked politically if they didn't
2. They believed the tragically flawed and incorrect information
3. Some combination therein

Party affiliation irrelevant.

.

 

[Faun]

No part of the Iraqi Liberation Act called for the U.S. to invade Iraq. If I recall, it limited our fiscal commitment to something like $100m.

On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law
105-235, which declared that ``the Government of Iraq is in
material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations''
and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance
with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to
bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.''.

Text - H.R.4655 - 105th Congress 1997-1998 Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Congress.gov Library of Congress

You can claim that the President doesn't have the authority in accordance with the Constitution to use military force but you would be wrong.

Operation Desert Fox had nothing to do with ghe Iraqi Liberation Act, which wasn't even signed into law yet.

Please make a note of that.

Actually it was signed by Bill Clinton in 1998. Jesus Christ, man, you are on the internet. How do you make a statement like that and not verify it before showing you don't know what you are talking about?

I stand corrected on the dates. Still, Operation Desert Fox had noting to do with it. The Iraqi Liberation Act was about supporting regime change from within Iraq and Operation Desert Fox was about punishing Hussein for throwing U.S. weapons inspectors out of Iraq and for taking out military targets and WMD installations.

Both were part of the same strategy, to oust Saddam Hussein.

Why is that so hard to grasp?

Why would a lucid individual "grasp" that? It's complete lunacy. Operation Desert Fox was not about "ousting Saddam Hussein." WTF leads you to believe it was??