Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RangerDick
I posted this another thread already, but it seems to be relevant to this discussion as well. Attached is a link to the Joint Resolution for the Use of Military Force in Iraq. In it you will find several reasons for the justification for the use of military force. Liberation of the Iraq's is mentioned, it's right there in black and white.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20021002-2.html
Here are just a few selected passages:
Quote:
....... Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;......
.......Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;.......
........ Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; |
Really? Where are the Military Resolutions to attack other, more brutal, repressive nations?????
Such as Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, Cuba, Columbia, Chile, Iran, Zimbabwe, and so on and so on and so on?
I mean if we are using "liberation" as such a big thing where are the rest of the countries that need liberated..... and are in far worse shape with far worse dictators?
I don't believe "liberation" is a reason for invasion into a sovereign country. If that were the case, I'm sure there are a few countries that could listen to the far left and decide our country needs "liberating".
NO COUNTRY HAS THE RIGHT TO DICTATE HOW ANOTHER IS RUN.
We can embargo, sending only food, clothing and medicines to their people through non-biased organizations such as the Red Cross, but there is no reasoning to go to war to "liberate" a sovereign country, that is not threatening nor has the ability to threaten us.
Wanna use Hitler for an example? Ok.... noone went to war with him UNTIL HE INVADED Poland and Czechloslavakia.
Napolean??? Noone touched him until he started invading others.
Korea and Vietnam and the whole "Domino Theory" set this policing theory. And even then it is sad that we chose those 2 (neither of which asked us for help, and both were bad wars), while Czech BEGGED US for help when the USSR tanks rolled in and we turned deaf ears.