What right does the US have to go to war with Iraq?

The argument is that Iraq is a threat to us and our interests...nothing, including the UN, requires any country to check their sovereignty at the door and take action if they feel threatened.

 

"You're either with us, or you are with the terrorists"...ring a bell? Contrary to what some on this bbs think, there were ties established between Al Queda and Iraq...including but not limited to harboring the terrorists. I think that reason alone gives us the right to attack Iraq.

 

Yeah, I used to hear stuff like that on the elementary school playground. Where else?

 

On the theme of naive questions, why is Iraq suddenly an immediate threat that absolutely must be dealt with before the end of the month, if possible, through military action??

Before Iraq, back when many of you were just youngsters, Libya was the 'great evil' and terrorist supporter. Khadafi (sp?) was the Saddam of the day, yet we didn't blast him. He's still in power, quietly abusing his people, exporting oil and continuing on as yet another oppressive dictator.

Saddam's a pr*ck -- no doubt. But how is he more so than many others, and, as DD noted, what gives the US the right to strike now?? And after Afghanistan, and Iraq, do we target North Korea, maybe Pakistan, and the Blitzkrieg our way through the middle east in the name of god, country and the American way??

 

we blasted the crap out of Ghadaffi!! we bombed him back a long way...we unfortunately killed his son, which broke his spirit. Ghadaffi is no longer the tyrant he once was...not even close. but to say we are treating Ghadaffi any different than Saddam is to ignore history...and it also ignores the fact that Saddam, if he's developing WMD, is a much greater threat to the stability of the Mideast and to the US.

the urgency to strike revolves around the weather, as i understand it. if you don't do it now, you have to wait 6 months or so, as i understand it. that's 6 more months for him to develop weapons, or so the argument goes....plus...the guy has had 10 years!! it's not like we just started this! even the clinton administration was putting pressure on saddam...including striking at him with cruise missiles.

 

to append...i hope war is unnecessary...but i don't think the threat is unjustified...in fact, i think the threat may be enough to resolve the issue.

 

please excuse yourself from this thread if you didnt know that we tried to annihilate Khadafi

 

On a completely unrelated note, Libya - a military dictatorship with an extensive and brutal internal system of torture and repression - was confirmed as the new chair of the U.N. Human Rights Commission.

As much as I respect much of the work the U.N. does in the "global community", it's pretty difficult to take it seriously sometimes.

 

Where is the link, especially since most of the 9-11 terrorist were from our ally Saudi Arabia?

 

That is so funny. Like him or not, you have to admitt that Bush's speaches are pretty simple.

 

Well....yessss.

My point, though, was that the 'annihilation' of Khadafi was not much greater then round one against Saddam.

Khadafi's still in power. We were able to contain him without another strike a few years later and demands that he be removed.

I'm no political scholar here. My question is genuine. Why the urgency now? There are many despots leading oppressed nations. Why can't (isn't) Sadam be contained in the same way Khadafi was.

Enlighten me.

 

The fact that this question is being asked shows yet another failure in leadership from the Bush Admin. Perhaps all will be made clear in Bush's state of the union. I am not holding my breath though.

 

Why does any country ever go to war? To defend itself. Bush, and many Americans, think Iraq is a threat because they continue to try to acquire or buidl nuclear weapons, and 9/11 showed that we are not safe just because we are a long distance away.

The UN is a joke, we dont even have to bring them up. The UN is not a stage for high morality and principle. Why does France have veto power? Their influence in world affairs is tiny compared to their unfluence on the UN. France and other countries play politics in the UN.

If we follow what the UN does we will be in big trouble. We have to follow what we believe is right.

 

I think 99% of Americans understand the need to go to Iraq. Whether they agree is a different story, but people get the basic concept.

 

Another simple question. Iran actually attacked and captured the US embassy. Khomeini' Iran was hardly a great friend of human rights. We didn't invade. We let the people sort it out and now they are moving toward moderation and have somewhat been our allies in the war against Bin Laden. What's different?

 

Good response, Max. (before my latest post)

I guess I was somewhat surprised at how quiet Libya's been in the terrorist world. And that got me to questioning if Iraq was fundamentally different.

Perhaps we didn't 'break Saddam's spirit.' Doesn't he have a son we can kill???

I'm just very uncomfortable with the US (or UN) having a 'strike first' policy.

 

as a matter of fact , he does...and he is supposedly 10 times as ruthless as Sadaam is

 

i bet you yourself could itemize the differences...you're asking a question i think you probably know the answer to.

 

No but the US did give Saddam the OK and WMDs to do the job for us.