Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 10:01 pm
You last visited January 16, 2017, 9:40 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Is being in Iraq ILLEGAL?


Last Edited: November 19, 2005, 3:52 pm

Looks like both branches of government, the President and Congress both are functioning within the Constitution regarding Iraq. 

Seems we did have unanimous congressional approval for going into Iraq which nixes any arguments about any illegality of us being there. 

We're a member of the United Nations which created Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 each made a part of the other by reference calling for the removal of Saddam by one or more member nations for non-compliance to these resolutions.

We are the only remaining super power in the world, the only nation powerful enough to remove Saddam so we did the right thing and lead the way. 

While removing Saddam which happened quickly we set about to provide a stable democratically elected representative republic government for the people of Iraq so that Iraq would not become the heartbeat for an Islamafascist terrorist state occupying most of Asia and eclipsing Europe over time.... which would further enable their stated goal of world domination.

Neal Boortz, attorney member of the Georgia Bar Assn., a Libertarian has covered the issue many times and here is what he says about our involvement in Iraq.

 "OK, folks. One more time .. by the numbers ...
  1. Both the UN and the United States had knowledge of Saddam's WMDs.
  2. The UN ordered Saddam to destroy his WMDs.
  3. Saddam agreed to destroy his WMDs.
  4. Saddam agreed to provide evidence of the destruction of his WMDs
  5. Before destroying his WMDs Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq.
  6. After Saddam kicked out the inspectors there was evidence that he began a program to hide his WMDs
  7. Saddam now claims that he destroyed his WMDs, after he kicked out the weapons inspectors.
  8. Saddam has never failed any evidence that he destroyed the WMDs.
  9. Three UN resolutions, Numbers 678, 687 and 1441 authorize either the UN or any member state to use force against Saddam Hussein if he fails to abide by his agreements to destroy his WMDs, and to document that destruction.
  10. The United States, Great Britain, Australia, Spain and about 38 other nations banded together to act against Saddam in compliance with those three UN resolutions.


" In 1991 our security analysts felt that Saddam would have a workable nuclear weapon by the end of the decade, if, that is, something wasn't done to stop him.  It was also know for a certainty that Saddam had previously purchased uranium from Niger.  In 1998 Saddam Hussein kicked the inspectors out of Iraq.  From 1998 until 2002, a period of four years, there were no inspections in Iraq.  Saddam had a free reign to act.  During this period America was attacked.  Other attacks had been planned but were averted, one by an alert female Philippine policewoman who became suspicious when told of some firecrackers that had gone off in a Manila apartment.

So ... here's your scenario.  You're the president, and here is the information you have:

  1. America is under attack.  Islamic terrorists are actively trying to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.
  2. There was and is evidence that Saddam Hussein was supporting Islamic terrorists.  Saddam himself was making a big show of writing checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
  3. You know that Saddam Hussein had both chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
  4. You know that Saddam had already killed thousands of Iranians and Kurds with his chemical weapons.
  5. You know that Saddam had begun one nuclear program, using uranium from Africa.  That program was slowed when Israeli fighter jets destroyed his nuclear facility in 1986.
  6. Saddam had ignored 12 years of United Nations resolutions calling for him to destroy all of the equipment and materials connected with his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, and to present evidence to the UN that he had done so.
  7. In 1998 Saddam ended all inspections in Iraq.  During the very time that terrorist attacks against the United States were reaching a new peak, and during this time you have no way of figuring out what Saddam is up to within his own borders.
  8. You know that Saddam hates the United States and has a particular hatred for your father, the first President Bush.
  9. You firmly believe that if Saddam managed to develop a nuclear device, he could, in all probability, make that device available to a terrorist organization.
  10. You also know that our security efforts at our borders and ports would be completely ineffective in detecting and stopping a nuclear device from entering this country.

So, what do you do?  With that information can you really afford to sit back and just watch Saddam?  Can Saddam be watched that closely?  Could Saddam be watched closely enough to insure that he would not place either chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in the hands of any terrorist group?  This man, Saddam Hussein, was absolutely refusing to abide by any of the 17 UN resolutions.  The burden of proof had been on Saddam.  Prove that you have destroyed your weapons.  Show us how you did it.  Show us where you did it.  Give us the documentation.  Show us that those weapons and those weapons systems are gone and we'll  leave you alone.  But Saddam refused.

You're the president here, and you have two possible screw-ups you can commit.  You can attack Saddam and then fail to find those weapons of mass destruction.  Or, you can give Saddam more time and then try to explain to the American people why a nuclear device was detonated in the center of Chicago, or why thousands were killed when a poison gas was spread throughout the New York Subway system. 

Which mistake do you want?  Which screw-up do you want to explain to the American people?  Do you really want to try to explain to the American people that after Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1998 that you thought he went on and did just exactly what the UN had demanded of him, and then didn't tell anybody?

Sometimes there are no really good choices.  Sometimes you have to chose between two options on the basis of which one would lead to the worst consequences, not necessarily the best result.  True leaders can make those decisions.  Demagogues cannot."





My question of the moment is what did Sen. Jay Rockefeller tell Assad on his visit to Syria in 2002 which may have prompted Saddam to truck out and hide any weapons of any kind that he had?????  See previous post

"Interesting Timeline"  http://blogs.lotterypost.com/konane/2005/11/interesting-timeline.htm

Entry #118


This Blog entry currently has no comments.

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.