brinktk
Active member
1)The war was not unconstitutional : the decision to go to war was approved by Congress .
2)That Bush II had plans for a war against Iraq does not mean that it had the intention to attack Iraq.
3) A great power that is not riposting after it is attacked,ceases as a great power .The credibility of the US depends on its willingness to riposte after an attack .
4) The electors wanted no second Vietnam,but a short and cheap war .
5)The aim of the war was not the liberation of Iraq .
6) The leader of the US does not need a written proof to start a war,he only needs the consent of Congress .The war against Iraq was as constitutional as the war of 1898 against Spain, or the war in Korea,or the war in Vietnam .All depends on Congress ,not on the usual anti-patriotic protesters,besides: 100000 is nothing on a population of 300 million :the electors approved the decision to go to war and reelected Bush .
7) Don't give me the usual liberal nonsense of "the good guys" .
So people who exercise their constitutional right to protest are unpatriotic? What about the people who fight in the war, are they unpatriotic too?
This wasn't Spain, Korea, or Vietnam. This was a deliberate telling of half truths to outright lies to prosecute a pre emptive war. Congress and the people only gave their consent because they believed the lies that were told to them.
I certainly know the difference between plans and aims. The Bush administration absolutely was going to find any way to fight Iraq during the Bush administration regardless of 9/11 or not. The book Cobre II illuminates that fact in great detail.
Yes, the war WAS unconstitutional. It was an authorization to use military force as an extension of the War Powers act based off of knowingly bogus intelligence. Is a person convicted of a crime on bogus evidence still guilty of that crime?
The aim wasn't to liberate Iraq? Really? Then what was it? I distinctly remember being ORDERED to refer to the invasion as the liberation of Iraq while I was there fighting back in March of 03...while you were behind a computer screen, no doubt jumping for joy that Americans and brown people were killing each other in the cities and deserts of the region, I was killing and trying not to get killed by those "arabs" as you say...
The 100, 000 person march was intended to show that there was a large movement against the war. It wasn't the sum total of people in this country who disagreed with the war you idiot. Nice try though.
So you don't think that a liberal democracy needs a moral justification to go to war? Way to show how morally bankrupt you are. You have no idea how to fight and WIN a war. The foundation to win, if you are a democracy, is to ensure the justification is airtight....or just be hypocrites. I prefer not to be a hypocrite. You have made clear where you stand on that note.
It is quite nice to see how consistent chicken hawks are worldwide though.