--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Actually it was quite legal, Saddam constantly violated his  terms 
of cease 
> fire dictated to him at the end of the first Gulf war. 

It has recently been shown that Bush was actually conducting heavy 
bombing operations in Iraq before officially going to war. My 
understanding is that Bush went to war without allowing the UN 
inspectors to finish their job (as he had said he would) and without 
getting the final OK from Congress (as he had promised he would). 
Either way, Bush went to war under false pretenses, having decided 
(according to the Downing Memos et al.) much earlier that he would 
have to lie and cook the evidence to justify his actions. I am no 
lawyer, but I believe "lying to justify a war" equals "illegal war".

Hey Saddam  had any 
> number of opportunities to prove he didn't have WMDs and it would 
have  prevented 
> an invasion. All he had to do was co-operate with weapons 
inspectors,  not 
> play the shell games, and made a serious effort  to prove to the 
world  he was 
> harmless. He could have begged the weapons inspectors to come in 
and  promise 
> not to interfere and be as much help as possible. but no. 

What are you talking about? The UN inspectors were there, and they 
were efficiently doing their job. It was *Bush* who interfered with 
them and prematurely pulled them out, not Saddam.

But you know  if he 
> did that , he would still be there, the weapons inspectors would 
be  gone saying 
> they couldn't find any and people would still be wondering if he 
had  them or 
> not. Sanctions would have been lift because no proof was found 
that  he was a 
> really bad boy and he would be reconstituting his programs very  
shortly. And 
> he still would have been a threat to the region.

An awful lot of "woulda, coulda, shoulda," there, MDixon, and 
totally beside the point: Bush invaded Iraq illegally, and as it 
turns out, unnecessarily.

 <So Rory I take  it you 
> don't think Iraq is better off without  Saddam?

Not being in Iraq, I couldn't tell you first-hand. The reports I 
have been hearing from civilians in Iraq imply otherwise; some have 
gone so far as to say that things are definitely worse now than they 
were under Saddam. Either way, it is beside the point, and does not 
justify a war entered into illegally in the first place. 




To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to