EXPLAINING: UN resolutions and justification for Iraq war...

[jab105]

I understand the list of lies about the war with Iraq...that one's easy to argue with the freepers....

But how do you (specifically) argue about the UN resolutions from 1991, and 1441 (from 2002)...and that so many people came out to say that they had WMDs...

My response has been that the inspectors said that Iraq was complying with 1441, right before the US kicked them out to go into Iraq...the US reason for going in was that Iraq was an "imminent threat" and that we didn't have time to wait for the inspectors, which then leads to the lies used for the "imminent threat" argument...

But, I don't think my argument against the resolutions is that strong, because they bring up that the 1991 resolution said that they had a specific number of days to comply and we gave them 12 years...they also bring up that it isn't active compliance like South Africa....

That ones easy to argue since the active compliances with South Africa was in regards to nuclear weapons (and Iraq had no noclear weapons)....

But what about the resolutions part, that's the only place where I think I need some help, anyone?

Also, I found this link, which really helps argue against the crap that those that protested against the war were unpatriotic!!

http://slate.msn.com/id/27730/

Thanks for the help (if you can:))

[ParanoidPat]

1. Two words, PREEMPTIVE ATTACK!

Ask them to square that with the Constitution! :evilgrin:

FRAME THE DEBATE!

[Old and In the Way]

2. Screw the legal technicalities.

The bottom line is, was it worth 200+ American lives and 10's of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths and casualties to find out that the UN was right? That this President lied to get us into Iraq? That Halliburton and Bechtel are making close to a trillion dollars in no-bid repair contracts to fix something that wasn't broken? Is it worth the loss of our US reputation and $4BB/month for the next 5 years?

If these people who wish to argue the legal technical details had spent a little time using critical thinking skills and had supported the millions of people who marched against this war before we invaded, maybe the whole goddam thing could have been avoided.

[lfairban]

5. That's good!

Bring up the money it has/is cost/ing. Does anybody now seriously think Iraq was a real threat to the US?

[lfairban]

3. We haven't invaded Israel,

and they have violated more resolutions than Iraq.

Another angle:
They had a few days, and we did not do anything about it until 12 years later? Hasn't the statute of limitations run out or something?

How can we prove that they didn't disarm? We have found no WMD's!

Were they suppose to document the destruction of those agents in some particular way, and that is why we invaded? Twelve years later?! On bad paperwork??!! Bush did worse than that at Harken. After he clearly violated the SEC rules, he said it was just paperwork that his lawyer forgot to file! Why didn't someone invade Harken?!

Does any of that help?

[jab105]

7. Very good...

most helpful, yes, that's a great point, I completely missed that one!!

[antineocon1]

4. Tell them that

Blix indicated that Saddam was complying with 1441 at the same time that Bush and Blair were sexing up the WMD issue. The 1441 resolution never called for force being taken. Bush and Blair knew that Blix most likely would not find WMD, so they hyped the WMD issue in order to justify going around the UN.

When they come at you with the "Saddam had to prove he had destroyed such weapons", ask them to burn a piece of paper and then wash it down the sink. Then ask them to prove that they destroyed the piece of paper.

[Romberry]

6. Well, the last time I looked, it was up to the UN...

...to enforce UN resolutions. In 1991, the United States led a coalition that had full UN sanction. Is it now up to the United States to decide unilaterally which UN resolutions will or will not be enforced? By what right does the US presume that authority? And as late as March, the UN was specifically refusing to endorse an invasion.

People who get caught up in the "we were only enforcing UN resolutions" gambit need to face the facts: Iraq had already been disarmed. The first Gulf War worked. The sanctions worked. The hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqi people who were killed or injured in this war need not have been sent to war at all.

[uhhuh]

8. The UN had to make the call

Whether or not the Iraqis violated the resolutions, it was the job of the UN to decide what action would be taken. THe U.S. legitemized this by going to them once before the war. They promised..PROMISED...that there would be a second vote before any attack. "It's time for everyone to show their cards." or something, is what the chimp said. He knew he wasn't going to get the vote because he BUGGED THE UN!!! The attack HAD to be authorized by the UN to have any legitimacy. It wasn't, so it was illegal, and becoming more so every stinking day.

[jab105]

9. Great points...

My favorites...

Israel is in violation...
Blix said that Iraq was complying....
We have found no indication that they haven't been complying...
12 years ago, nuff said...
MOST IMPORTANTLY: it was the UN's job to go in if they weren't complying!

THANK YOU!!