I'm going to write a book "The Iraq War For Dummies"

[Sandman]

Nevermind that just two days before the invasion of Kuwait, the assistant Secretary of State, John Kelly testified that the U.S. had no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Sandman
Nevermind that just two days before the invasion of Kuwait, the assistant Secretary of State, John Kelly testified that the U.S. had no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country.

Maybe that was true. What does that matter?

Are you going to say that we encouraged Saddam to invade next?

That has nothing to do with the reasons we sent forces to get Iraq out of Kuwait.

[straffo]

Rolex you're hard with my zygomatic muscle

[Sandman]

A week before that, John Kelly stated that the U.S. was not obligated to come to the defense of Kuwait.

[NUKE]

Sandman, that was the truth.

[oboe]

Originally posted by NUKE
The area is vital to the security of the United States.

Our biggest weakness IMO (I assume you're speaking about oil).

The security of the most powerful and arguably successful nation on the Earth should not be dependent on a politically tumultuous region, overrun with terroristic religious fanatics and tin-plated dictators (or kings).

Which President warned us about 'foreign entanglements'?  Was it Washington?

[Gunslinger]

Raider I still think you are being Narrow minded here.  Just because a group is not a threat now or is off the Radar does not mean they wont be a problem in the future.

Sadam and AQ did not have a working relationship so to speak but that doesnt mean givin the oppertunity to cause harm to the US through them he wouldnt jump at the chance.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Raider I still think you are being Narrow minded here.  Just because a group is not a threat now or is off the Radar does not mean they wont be a problem in the future.

Sadam and AQ did not have a working relationship so to speak but that doesnt mean givin the oppertunity to cause harm to the US through them he wouldnt jump at the chance.

1) how am I narrow minded ?

2) Your right up to the part where  you say BUT...the rest of that statement is your pure speculation unless you have another website of bad information you want me to read?

ps I never said anything about him being the only terrorist out there. so why you attribute that to me I am not clear on. what I did say is that #2 is so far back you dont have to worry about them.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by NUKE
I bet it would be a big hit. Just list all the logical reasons that the US went to war against Iraq. Pretty much a slam dunk.

No hype, just facts and logic.

1. Iraq invades Kuwait, threatens world oil reserves in Middle East.
2. UN passes resolution, tells Iraq to leave. Resolution ignored.
3. Bush tells world, "agression will not stand", orders military buildup in region
4. Iraq ignores threats/resolutions from UN to leave Kuwait
5.  US and allies kick Iraq out of Kuwait
6. Iraq argees to terms of cease-fire.
7. Saddam tries to kill off the Kurds in north, US imposes no fly zone to protect them
8. years go by, Saddam kicks out UN inpsectors, still no compliance with cease-fire,  UN helpess to do anything about it.....maybe draft another resolution or three
9. Bush II puts large US force in Middle East
10. Saddam allows inpsectors......afraid of US, not of UN
11. Saddam never fully complies with UN or inspectors
12. UN passes "LAST CHANCE" resolution for Iraq to comply
13. Iraq still does not comply by UN deadline
14. The US, having spent billions and billions screwing around with Iraq, trying to get them to comply with the UN, decides to take out Saddam and make sure Iraq complied with all cease-fire agreements. Mission accomplished.
15. Saddam taken out. Iraq in compliance with all UN resolutions and cease-fire agreement.
16. Ignornant people from around the world think the US is hellbent on war......because the US only waited 13 years for Iraq to comply.
17. No WMD found in Iraq. People then claim war was not justified, even though before the war, everybody, including France, Germany, Russia and the UN all said Iraq probably had WMD.

18. GB re-elected President of USA.
19. Free elections in Iraq. No more Saddam and 100% of the vote.
20. US forces leave Iraq a free nation.

Unfortunately, the people who need to buy this, won't.

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by NUKE
I bet it would be a big hit. Just list all the logical reasons that the US went to war against Iraq. Pretty much a slam dunk.

No hype, just facts and logic.

1. Iraq invades Kuwait, threatens world oil reserves in Middle East.
2. UN passes resolution, tells Iraq to leave. Resolution ignored.
3. Bush tells world, "agression will not stand", orders military buildup in region
4. Iraq ignores threats/resolutions from UN to leave Kuwait
5.  US and allies kick Iraq out of Kuwait
6. Iraq argees to terms of cease-fire.
7. Saddam tries to kill off the Kurds in north, US imposes no fly zone to protect them
8. years go by, Saddam kicks out UN inpsectors, still no compliance with cease-fire,  UN helpess to do anything about it.....maybe draft another resolution or three
9. Bush II puts large US force in Middle East
10. Saddam allows inpsectors......afraid of US, not of UN
11. Saddam never fully complies with UN or inspectors
12. UN passes "LAST CHANCE" resolution for Iraq to comply
13. Iraq still does not comply by UN deadline
14. The US, having spent billions and billions screwing around with Iraq, trying to get them to comply with the UN, decides to take out Saddam and make sure Iraq complied with all cease-fire agreements. Mission accomplished.
15. Saddam taken out. Iraq in compliance with all UN resolutions and cease-fire agreement.
16. Ignornant people from around the world think the US is hellbent on war......because the US only waited 13 years for Iraq to comply.
17. No WMD found in Iraq. People then claim war was not justified, even though before the war, everybody, including France, Germany, Russia and the UN all said Iraq probably had WMD.

18. GB re-elected President of USA.
19. Free elections in Iraq. No more Saddam and 100% of the vote.
20. US forces leave Iraq a free nation.

1-10 All true
11.5  Saddam never fully complies with UN or inspectors because he has no WMD's to hand over.
12.5  Saddam still has no WMD's
13.5  Iraq cant comply because they have no WMD's to hand over, theyve all been destroyed.  If they had them, theywouldve used them.
14.5  US spent billions and billions trying to justify a trillion dollar shift of funds from the US treasury to halliburton and United defense.
15.5  Saddam taken out.  Mass pandamonium, lawless country ruled by terrorists.  No running water, no electricity, no medicine.  Children die by the thousands.
16.5  All highly educated people are ignorant and Nuke is all-wise.
      Funny thing about those ignorant people, they just dont realize how ignorant they are even when people are telling them.
17.5  Reason for war, 'saddam has WMD's!'  Fact, saddam has no WMD's, therefore the reason for war was false, regardless of citizens attempt to make up other reasons after the embarrasing and costly mistake is exposed.

18.5  You break it, you buy it.

19.5 Free elections in iraq, if you can make it to the polling place without getting killed, by insurgents or by US forces, if your going to vote for the Iranian sponsered group.

20.5  After the oil is secured for Haliburton, the US forces will leave Iraq a devastated and warlord ruled country, in the year 2025.

[Martlet]

Someone needs to educate themselves a little more about the content of the resolutions.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by GScholz
I did. The UN did not authorize military action.

They don't need to.  The last I knew, the USA wasn't governed by the UN.  This isn't Norway, after all.

[Raider179]

congress did if I remember correctly

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Raider179
Name and date the last foriegn terrorist group to target and attack the U.S. ? Al-qaidi is #1 terrorist threat and #2 is so far down the list you really dont have to worry about it.

narrow minded

[Martlet]

What treaty would that be?