I do not take kindly to attacks on my salvation. Please refrain.
Quote Originally Posted by SonInMe
Another amazing fact that always is ignored in this debate is...no solution was ever proposed by those who did not support the war...none, not once.
support the war?
what disciple of Jesus of Nazareth supported the invasion (mass murder and DU abomination war crimes) of Iraq?
show me one.
Solution to what? The Saddam problem of course. Ya know, the Iraq war? Giove me your solution, other than war to Saddam breaking the ceasefire agreement over and over?
what 'saddam problem'? saddam was a partner in crime-pal.....didn't ya know that?
he got sucker punched like the Colonel.
what on earth are you talking about.
is this what you're on about?
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < click
Doe v. Bush, 323 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2003), was a court case challenging the constitutionality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The case was dismissed, since the plaintiffs failed "to raise a sufficiently clear constitutional issue."[1] The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was challenged by "a coalition of U.S. soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers, and members of Congress" prior to the invasion to stop it from happening.[1] They claimed that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal. Judge Lynch wrote of their argument, "They base this argument on two theories. They argue that Congress and the President are in collision -- that the President is about to act in violation of the October Resolution. They also argue that Congress and the President are in collusion -- that
Congress has handed over to the President its exclusive power to declare war."[2]
Doe v. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is how 9/11 influenced our decision to go into Iraq...
Saddam had been breaking the cease fore agreement for years. He thumbed his nose at the agreement we signed and stood by. Couple breaking that agreement ( which means firing begins again ) with the enviroment of terrorism, Saddam's actions also emboldened the terrorists to commit 9/11 because after all the USA had not upheld their end of the ceasefire agreement...we were seen as weak. If after all those years of Saddam breaking that agreement and we did nothing, why not attack the USA?
how many times do you have to hear BUSH & CO say Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11?
12 years and counting since 9-11.
and 7 years + they've been
saying it in public.
Bush: Saddam was not responsible for 9/11
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
theguardian.com,
Tuesday 12 September 2006 03.54 BST
George Bush last night admitted that Saddam Hussein had no hand in the 9/11 terror attacks, but he asked Americans to support a war in Iraq that he said was the defining struggle of our age.
he president conceded some crucial ideological ground, formally disavowing the neo-conservative accusation that Saddam had played a role in the attacks on September 11 2001. But he was unapologetic about the decision to invade Iraq.
"I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Mr Bush said. "The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat - and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take.
"
The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."
Bush: Saddam was not responsible for 9/11 | World news | theguardian.com < click
IS THE WORLD A SAFER PLACE?
:
