Ultron

Well considering we aren't threatening any of our allies militarily, that would be a hasty judgement on the part of the EU.

Ultron

Hey I try!

Ultron

IIRC France Germany and Russia weren't asking for 3 more months. They never were going to support military action in Iraq. Fortunately article 7 (the provision all those resolutions were made under) of the UN charter gives leeway to member nations who want to form their own coalition to handle such affairs, which the USA did with the help of Britain, Austrailia and other nations.

Support from three members of the Security Council never would have occured. Actually SC approval for military invasion is mighty rare. The last time I can think of where it happened outside of Gulf War I is in Korea in 1950, when Russia was vetoing the UN. They would have blocked but didn't participate.

Well since most of the claims were made by UN inspectors (read Colin Powell's report, it was largely made out of UN claims) I don't think they would have been discredited by much.

Danya

Who knows...but it sure wasn't about oil or they would never be so obvious about it, right? It's just coincidence that it's time for OPEC to be irrelevent...along with the UN.

U.S. aide sees Iraq hindered by OPEC

Danya

You misunderstood. What they said was they would not give another resolution because it was not necessary and they believed (as did I) it was only being put in place as a pretext. They simply refused to be forced into a date for war but they did want to know from the inspectors...NOT GW Bush...how long it would take to complete their job and in the end it was three months that they requested. Bush wouldn't give them more than a week. Congress gave him a blank check. He just wasn't lucky enough to get one from the UN. If he was so sure about the weapons why not let the process have time to work?

If war were necessary and people everywhere were not protesting in droves because they could see it wasn't maybe Bush could have gotten his way. The leaders of THOSE countries listened to their people. Damn that democracy always getting in the way, huh?

If he had a drop of diplomacy in his body maybe he would have gotten his needed votes. We don't know because that was not how he approached the situation with the UN.

Do you think the U.S.'s first preventative war would be something readily agreeable to the international community? Don't be silly. Even we should have rejected it. Bush demanded not only agreement but enthusiasm and complete loyalty. He (and his minions) need to get over it and admit they were wrong. They've embarrassed this country enough.

No. Powell submitted the fake documents from Niger and the satellite images of the buildings that were nothing like what was there or could have been there when the inspectors checked.

I'm not talking about claims; I'm talking about what was submitted as proof. You act as if proof is way too much to ask when thousands of lives are at stake. That's irresponsible. I'm betting had the war been waged on your streets instead of a safe distance away you would have been a bit more patient.

slept2long

Germany was the only country who said they would never support military action.

I think you mean Chapter 7

Chapter 7 article 39:

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The Security Council NOT the US.

Chapter 7 article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Again the Security Council not the US.

Chapter 7 article 442

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Getting the idea here?
And the important Chapter 7 article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

There was no armed attack so throw the idea of using this as a defense out the window.

Let's look at Resolution 1441

I am posting the portions dealing with violations and consequences.

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq�s obligations and will be reported to the Council for
assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General
of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance
with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Where does it say we form a coalition and invade?

You can't really prove that so why claim it? They may have all decided NOT to vote just as well. We had a new resolution, I think, all drawn up that would let us go in but couldn't even get the 9 votes needed to pass.

And? War shouldn't be taken lightly. There are a few people here who could qualify that.

Huh? Most of the claims were not made by UN inspectors because they kept saying they found nothing. If you could show some examples of all these claims they made I'd be happy to consider them. And we've found what so far? NOTHING.

Radcliffe Emerson

I make it a point to never turn on anything on Fox News.
I don't like losing my appetite....

Hubble head

Somewhere this thread flew off topic. I have not heard Bill apologize or say much of anything regarding the WMD other than "we need more time" or "they will find them". I suspect in his mind that he is buying time and looking for anything he can to say "there they are". The second he comes out against Bush as he said he would I think his job security will be in question.

HaysooChreesto!

O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc will never apologize or admit they were wrong. Hannity's spin (see "No Spin Zone") is that they washed all the mobile labs down and destroyed all the WMD's right before the U.S. invaded. It's flimsy at best.

However, in the circles I socialize in nobody really cares if they find WMD's or not. I feel the same way. Same with the people I do business with.
Some people like to say that Americans have short memories but that just isn't the case. I've heard people talk about the 1972 Munich Olympics, the Iranian taking of American hostages, Pan Am flight 103, Qaddafi's shennanigans in the 80's, the first WTC bombing, the continuous suicide bombings in Israel, and of course 9/11. What it basically adds up to is that the American people are sick and tired of Arab sponsored terrorism. Call it a tiny minority of Islamic terrorists, religous fundamentalism gone haywire, or whatever you like. But Americans are and have been fed up for a long time. If being fed up results in the ouster of Saddam Hussein then so be it. Most people in the U.S. are just fine with it and they don't care to see things from radical Islam's point of view.

It's futile to ask "what do all those historical events have to do with invading Iraq?". It hasn't been just one event or one leader that's made the American people have ill feelings towards the ME.

ex-idaho

Lamma, Ameicans wouldn't give two shits about any of those other events if not for 9-11. There have been terrorist acts carried out against non-American targets for years and there was never any outrage from the US public. We don't care if a brown people in a far away land are blowing themselves up and taking other non-Americans with them. We didn't even really care about the first attack on the WTC.

I believe the reason Bush has received so much support from the public is because he has managed to transfer his policy into public outrage. If we had a different man at the helm, a man that was more interested in long term goals instead of short term military victories I beleive the US public would not be so bloodthirsty as they are now.