DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JVoV
Most of the 9/11 terrorists had been in the US for quite some time beforehand. 15 of them were Saudi nationals. 0 were citizens of Iraq or Afghanistan, the countries we invaded in retaliation.
I'd suspect that nothing in these 28 pages implicate an American citizen, but likely would name more Saudis.
But why now?
Were we at war with France during WWII?
We didn't go into Afghanistan because Afghanistan attacked us. No "Country" attacked us. We went into Afghanistan because that's where al Qaeda was. The Taliban were taken down because they wouldn't allow us to go after al Qaeda in their country, and they wouldn't hand over bin Laden.
Saudi Arabia didn't attack us.
As far as Iraq goes, the stated reasons were the wrong reasons to go in (regardless of whether or not they were lies). Had the basis been made that we went into Iraq to depose Saddam for violation of the Persian Gulf War cease fire, we'd have had the authority to do so. Simply claiming Saddam had WMD's and that he would use them isn't enough.
Do we think Iran would attack us or allies? Does Iran have WMD's? Can we attack Iran? What about North Korea? Syria? Russia?
Iraq AUMF
quote:
The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:- Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
- Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" 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.
The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
I don't agree with all the justifications. I don't agree that some of the "justifications" actually justify going to war. There was bipartisan passage of the AUMF, even though lawmakers had access to much of the same intelligence as the President (the President's claim that they had the same intel as he, was not completely factual, as he had access to more thorough and sensitive information than lawmakers usually get).
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
Senator 60 Minutes- 9/11 Attackers Had “Support from ... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread