Bush had the troops on the way long b4 he got approval to use them. Its been proven over and over what A PACK OF FILTHY LIES this war is........we welcome you in reality.please join us

really...you do realise that the Security Council passed a resolution offering Iraq a “final opportunity” to cooperate on arms inspections in November of 2002. How do you think the UN would show Saddam they were serious if there was no troop buildup? The UN for years have expected the US to pick up their slack and then they don't have to take the blame. If Bush was as bad as you suggest why then didn't the other countries in the UN force the US out of Iraq and install a peace keeping force in Iraq. You really need to read and study what went on before you talk about reality.

was that not you a couple posts back who was blathering on about how troops in the field go stale and ineffective and had to be used......commen knowladge since D-day by the way or longer for all I know but anyhow.so now you say they had to be there as a deterent or to have the UN taken seriously? I am just feeling your being a little inconstant on your ever evolveing reasons for this criminal war.

bah, you say that like someone is going to be prosicuted

If the UN inspections were so important we would have been in Iraq in the 90's when they did their last inspections. We had intel from Saddam's brother in law that said that Saddam got rid of his possible eventual WMD in the 90s because of the inspections that happened then. That is why there was nothing there when these inspectors went there. Bush was going to war in Iraq anyway, the inspections were just a ploy to get the world to back him on his mission. He succeeded. We are now in Iraq and there were no WMD but he knew that it would not matter once he got in there. Bloodlust was sparked in the American people from 9/11 and any arabic blood would do. Sickening isn't it?????

what I said was the UN needed the US there or their threat of any reprisal against Saddam would not be taken seriously. Find me one article that the UN told Bush to stop building up the forces. The UN then failed to enforce their Resolutions leaving the invasion force hanging. The UN dropped the ball, as usual, and the US was left to do what had to be done. There is nothing inconsistent about it if you can follow it...

the only way the UNdropped the ball was by not stopping bush but realy what nation can withstand or wish the wrath of the worlds most aggresive and powerful country.yes that is america

oh so Saddam's brother was a source that should have satisfied the world that Saddam had no more WMD's...

funny how most of the world believe Saddam still had WMD's..even some his own staff believed Saddam still had them..

probably a better source than the one we trusted

the US is only one country...and you say the UN couldn't do anything?...the UN didn't want to do anything

"Following is the alphabetical list of the 192 Member States of the United Nations with, between parentheses, the date on which they joined the Organization."

http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml

Most of the world believed the lies, its a succsess story of modern propaganda, Stalin would be jelouse

the UN has nothing without america, you should know this. EVERYONE should know this

there was a lot more than one source..

but you believe what you want to believe...it's comforting to know that your not the one making decisions

you do know that they knew they were lieing when they told us about wmd's, right?

you do remember the outing of the cia agent by rove, right? you remember all this, don't you?

Friday 05 March 2004

Blair's defence is bogus, says the former UN weapons inspector.
The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair.

Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorising the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/7/3784

On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." [2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_war

Besides those opinions you relied to claim the war is illegal you should look for a credible source and one that has the authority to declare the war illegal, like the The International Court of Justice

And a few of you claim it was Bush himself who started the war;

United States Code Title 50, Chapter 33, the War Powers Resolution.
U.S. House Joint Resolution signed October 16, 2002, authorizing the president to attack Iraq.
British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith’s March 17th statement supporting the use of force against Iraq. This statement is also available here.
The Australian Attorney General’s March 18th memorandum supporting the use of force against Iraq"


Also can you who claim the war is illegal please tell me where the terrorists who where fighting in Iraq would be during these past years and what they would be doing? It's nice that your in a position to read that question and to post an answer because had it not been for the war against the terrorists in Iraq the western world may be looking very different today.

you're just off in your own little world, aren't ya? well, have fun with that. reality will still be around for when you get tired of make believe

It's annoying when people talk without first doing a little research...you might want to take a look at UN resolution 1511 dated Octber 16, 2003...you think Bush has a free hand in what is going on in Iraq and that the whole world is against him...

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/1016resolution.htm

and for those of you who don't have the attention span needed to read and understand the resolution here's a brief synopsis


Adopted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, the resolution focuses on three main areas: Iraqi leadership and the transfer of power from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to the Iraqi people; continued security provided by a multinational force under unified command; and international and United Nations participation in the financing of reconstruction and recovery projects. It also gives the United Nations a greater role in assisting Iraq in the political process and other areas such as human rights, humanitarian aid, and sustainable development.

Northrn yank.. Is that you? How ya been? Crap.. I haven't argued with you in at least 3 months of Sundays!