I’ve often asked this question in my writings and on my show. Most often, in discussions with the ignorant about Saddam being the innocent victim of Bush/Cheney aggression.
No clear answer has been given by pacifists to the question: “What would justify war?”
The pacifist hordes often give conflicting answers. For example, Ron Paul (who claims a form of pacifism) was interviewed by John Stossel in 2007, and was asked what would justify a war.
If you’re attacked, you have a right and an obligation to defend (your) country. I do not believe there is ever a moral justification to start the war.
That sounds nice, but I found Paul’s answer interesting, and vague. What constitutes an attack? Is it on your property, your citizens, or must it be within your national borders? Pacifists have been unable to clarify this position for me over the years.
What does this have to do with Iraq, and my greater point later?
Before the 2003 Iraq invasion, Saddam was repeatedly ‘attacking’ the US and her allies in a little discussed conflict in the no fly zones. Yet Ron Paul, and others, have frequently said that there was no justification for the invasion of Iraq. So … shooting/attacking US citizens, and destroying US property is not an attack?
I’m of a different viewpoint, and my training to invade Iraq under Clinton proved that even Slick Willy agreed with me.
So why bring this up now? Iraq was a resounding success, and Saddam is dead. Because we may be heading for another war.
In yet another example of how Obama has not been the great uniter many expected him to be, his popularity in the Arab world is less than that of Bush at the end of his presidency.
Obama’s approval ratings are even lower than President Bush’s before he left office in 2008. They dropped from 26 percent to 12 percent in Morocco, 9 percent to 5 percent in Egypt, 16 percent to 10 percent in Jordan and 22 percent to 12 percent in the UAE (though they did improve in Saudi Arabia, and tick up slightly in Lebanon).
I should note that the survey also found a dip in his popularity when bin Laden was killed. So, those numbers should be thrown out because we don’t care what terrorist scum think. We really shouldn’t care what anyone abroad thinks, but I’m drawing on years of data that shows it wasn’t Bush that made the US unpopular in hostile regions. It is, in fact, that we are Americans.
If Obama is unpopular in hostile regions, that suits me just fine. The real issue is that he is not popular in friendly ones either.
Repost from my old blog:
It’s Official: Obama Has Pissed Off More Allies Than Bush
We all know that Obama is having problems mending fences with our enemies … because they hate us. He has also angered several of our allies since winning the election. I wrote about it here, here and here. However, that list has now grown to include more of our allies than were ever angry at Bush for his policy in Iraq.
The latest allies to get super pissed at the great uniter are the European Union, and India.
That’s one impressive list Mr. President. Bush only angered four or so allies, and two of them got caught violating international law and arming Saddam illegally.
He also didn’t improve relations with Iran as promised. The streets were literal burning when he was inaugurated. He never had a chance to build bridges with them because their government hates us. It is, however, a failure in his stated policy.
I love hackers, used to be one of them in my youth (no good at it now). Most hackers are good, decent people who simply exploit weaknesses in a harmless manner to improve security. There is, of course, the dark side.
A popular jihadist Internet forum has been knocked off the Internet, and counterterrorism experts say it appears it was hacked.
Cybersecurity analysts say the al-Shamukh forum appears to have been taken down by a fairly sophisticated cyberattack that hit not only the website, but the server.
Perhaps it was a government op to take the site down, but I prefer to think otherwise. Well done in either case.
This is a post I used to have on my show’s old website. It’s a compilation of several posts of I’ve done in the past, and is only a small amount of the information about WMDs out there. It is, however, more than enough to prove they existed, and were found after the invasion. Some listeners have been requesting it.
Why is it that every time we learn Iraq did have WMDs the press plays the ‘shocked’ card? Just how many times can you pretend to be shocked over the same story as if you’ve never heard it before?
Wikileaks released more documents this last week, and among them yet more evidence that Iraq did have WMDs at the time of the invasion, and we found them.
You’d have to be the intellectual equivalent of an amoeba to not get this by now. Then again, we are talking about the press along with their anti-war cocktail buddies.
So what new information did we learn, and what info has been right under your nose the whole time? You’ll find out after the jump.
Rep. Randy Forbes had a nice exchange with a caller on C-SPAN a few days ago explaining the questionable legality of Obama’s actions in Libya.
I pointed out that Obama actually supported the invasion of Iraq in making his case for attacks on Libya. I broke down the Iraq/Libya comparison more here.
Obama cannot ignore the War Powers Resolution on Libya
HOWEVER clumsy, incurious and self-serving House Republicans have been about holding past administration’s accountable for foreign conflicts, their challenge of President Obama is on target.
The writer obviously has a lack of historical knowledge, but at least some in the press are finally starting to address the fact that Obama’s actions in Libya are not legal. And when I say not legal, I mean actually not legal. Not the mythical, anti-war fruit not legal used to attack Bush.
My question: Where are all the anti-war fruits?
Shouldn’t they be protesting in the streets, burning Obama in effigy, and flooding the MSM with accusations of Obama’s war criminal status? Yet, I continue to see praise, not criticism, for Obama’s stance on Libya.
Anti-War Fruit – Not to be confused with someone who simply opposes war. Someone who makes false accusations in order to oppose war. Such as … claiming a legal war is illegal in spite of the facts.
Frankly, I haven’t seen more ignorance of an issue by the left since they claimed Clinton was only impeached for getting oral sex (which was not the case).
Here’s why this is a major issue …
Iraq:
UN Resolution 678 authorized force to be used against Iraq for not complying with the Gulf War cease fire. This was never altered, repealed, or replaced by subsequent resolutions. In fact, it was upheld by each.
UN Resolution 1441 upheld the provisions of Resolution 678, and offered Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.” Iraq failed to do so. As a result, a US led coalition (larger than the first Gulf War) launched an invasion after Saddam refused to step down. The invasion started in March 2003.
In October of 2002 (5 months prior to the invasion) the US Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
To recap, President Bush had international authorization to use force (even though it was unnecessary), and he had full approval from Congress. Congress also continued to approve US efforts in Iraq on an annual basis in spite of rhetoric from Democrats.
Libya:
UN Resolution 1973 authorizes the use of force by member nations. Just as UN Resolution 678 did with Iraq.
Unlike Iraq, however, Obama never sought the approval of Congress to attack Libya. This is a violation of his own political rhetoric, but it is NOT illegal.
That is, until May 20, 2011.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows the President of the United States to use military force abroad for 60 days without seeking the approval of Congress. Obama missed that deadline. As a result, he is factually in violation of US law.
Earlier I mentioned that UN approval to use force against Iraq was unnecessary, and it was. As it would be for the US to act against Libya, so long as Congress approved. Moving against the will of the United Nations is not a violation of international law, it is a violation of an international agreement. US law is the higher authority in our legal system, and that has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Neither President Bush or Obama have violated any international treaty.
President Obama is now in violation of US law. President Bush was never in violation of US law. President Clinton was not in violation of US law, or international treaty when he authorized Operation Desert Fox.
Had Obama gone to Congress and asked for their approval to engage in military operations against Libya, and they approved, everything would be legal with regard to Libya. You may disapprove of it for some moral reason, but it would still be legal. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Obama is, in fact, breaking the law by continuing to use the US military against Libya. His supporters are continuing to show their hypocrisy by supporting him instead of protesting him as they did Bush. And yes, this is a justifiable impeachable offense.
To my new permanent home on the web! TheBurningTruth.us is my new website. A fully featured blog with my podcasts, and a bunch of new stuff coming soon!
I’ve often asked this question in my writings and on my show. Most often, in discussions with the ignorant about Saddam being the innocent victim of Bush/Cheney aggression.
