Little Hawk - 04 May 08 - 01:45 PM - our student of matters historical - for that read "war gamer"

"Well, of course the President of the United States of America does not require UN approval for any action that he may decide to take! ;-) Nor does the leader of any other country. Countries take whatever action they decide to, because they are sovereign entities, and it's their decision. Then they meet the consequences, whatever those may be..."

Absolutely correct.

"Mussolini didn't require approval of the League of Nations to attack Ethiopia either."

Totally irrelevant.

"Hitler didn't require anyone's approval to invade Poland or Russia."

Also totally irrelevant.

"Saddam Hussein didn't require anyone's approval to attack Kuwait (Although he did try to get a green light from Washington first, so he obviously was concerned somewhat about it...and he appeared to get just that very approval from April Glaspie, the American ambassador! She told him in so many words that the USA was not concerned about inter-Arab quarrels. Hmmmm. Interesting, isn't it?)"

This is one of the looney lefts myths, misrepresentations and half-truths. If our "student of history" wants to get into the details of this, it can be clearly demonstrated exactly what the official US position was with regards to Kuwait.

"George Bush did not require the approval of the UN in 2003 to attack Iraq. Duh! LET'S STATE THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS, SHALL WE? ;-)    But......he sure would have liked the UN's approval to do so, wouldn't he? And he tried like hell to get it, didn't he?"

If you believe what you have written why on earth do you and those of like mind keep wittering on about UN approval and an "illegal war". From what you have said above there is no such animal.

"That was an important part of the PR game. There's nothing that feels nicer than being able to tell your deluded public, who were silly enough to imagine that the debilitated state of Iraq in 2003 was a threat to the USA, that "we have the approval of the UN to attack Iraq". That's like tying a big red bow around the nicely wrapped package of lies you are presenting them. It's the icing on the cake.

He didn't get it. Too bad."

Totally irrelevant bullshit, he didn't need it (UN approval) get over it. He did the right thing at the time on the best advice available at that time. And guess what? the chips would have fallen exactly the same way irrespective of who had been in the "White House" in 2001, because the advice would have remained the same.

"any action that he may decide to take in order to defend and protect the people and interests of the United States Of America" - Teribus

"That's funny! And it's sad. By no stretch of the imagination was Iraq a threat to the people and interests of the USA."

Really? Then best take that up with those who identified exactly what sort of threat Iraq posed in 1998 Little Hawk. Take it up with them, please note you will not find yourself questioning anyone who was appointed by GWB - it was their advice that remained constant to the incoming President and his Administration.

"Not in 2003, not ever. They had no such capability. Iraq was not capable of threatening the people and interests of the USA...unless you mean by their decision to start pegging their oil sales to Euro instead of the US dollar. And if they did so decide, well, that was their business, not America's. They own their own oil and can decide what to do with it."

2003 Little Hawk? "their own oil and can decide what to do with it."?? Student of History has obviously forgotten about the UN "Oil for Food" thing??


"The real truth,"

Little Hawk you would not know the real truth if it jumped up and bit you.