Cidien Wrote:An illegal war? Now you've got to be kidding me! Yes, Bush took a course of action which seriously undermined the credibility of the UN out of dedication to upholding UN authority. The UN gave Saddam MANY chances to let weapons inspectors into his country and gave him MANY chances to show them that he has disarmed. Saddam IGNORED the UN. The UN in their resolutions promised war to remove Saddam if Saddam did not comply. The UN did nothing, so Bush did. The Bush did the job of the UN because they UN refused to do it. If you don't believe me look up the UN resolutions yourself. They state very clearly what they would do is Saddam did not comply.
The secretary of the UN said so. You are a pretty smart guy but I do think he's smarter and has more knowledge on the subject.
Once again, there were weapons inspectors let in. They weren't allowed to fininsh because Bush patience was gone and he invaded. When the final weapons inspectors report came out it stated: No WMD found.
The UN resolution did not promise war. It said something along the lines of 'if they don't comply there will be serious consequences'. No where did it say Iraq would be invaded or there would be war. You say it does. Show me where.
This is where all the arguments come from. The US sees this resolution as saying there would be war if they didn't comply and all the countries opposed think that the resolution didn't say that. The resolution was to vague and Bush used it.
And this is very important since I see resemblance with WWII: Why do you believe its the US right to invade a country on their own. Do other countries also have this right? What if Spain, who also suffered a devestating terrorist attack, decided to invade Moroko where some of the terrorists came from?
Seriously, this scares me that a country can do this and get away with it. Last time this happened Saddam invaded Kuwait and he didn't get away with it but the US does.