Would any Dean supporters have supported the UN removing Saddam

[DaisyUCSB]

or Nato removing him, somewhere down the road, because Dean has indicated more or less he would support that course of action. Sort of the Biden/Lugar course of action

[wtmusic]

1. Absolutely

That's been his position all along.

We can maintain order and stability in the world without breaking international law.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Or looting our treasury

[DaisyUCSB]

3. Well I'm sure there are alot of you who wouldn't

And I don't think that alot of you are fair enough to democratic signers of the Iraq resolution. Because although Bush and Blair didn't end up getting a second UN resolution, they could never have gotten one if congress hadn't shown it's support for the removal of Saddam.

[MoonAndSun]

6. How do you know?

eom

[Cheswick2.0]

7. what is your point?

Why beat around the bush?

[curlyred]

8. Always good to know where someone is coming from, isn't it

Why ask the question when you obviously have your mind made up?

[displacedtexan]

9. Based on?

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

[displacedtexan]

15. Glad you edited your post to include a message.

n/t

[cthrumatrix]

4. thru the UN ...was the proper way..and perhaps not a war

but the UN vote 11-4 against the US way.

And chimpy didn't want the "cards shown"...remember

[DaisyUCSB]

13. How else could Saddam have been removed?

he could have been in a mansion at a beach in some tropical country if he had left. In stead of in jail

[cthrumatrix]

21. what happened in Georgia.....the people threw him out..he left

Saddam would not have left ...but IF there were 60 nations/armies with the UN brokering peace talks and diplomacy he could have left on his terms...

But the issues were not big enough to the world communty...there was an 11-4 vote NO...remember?

[arewethereyet]

27. he didn't budge in 10 years with ALL countries turned against him

because he knew the UN would never "do" anything about their threats. A) they can't B) they wouldn't as that would be against the intersts of many member nations.

[onebigbadwulf]

5. No

because there are at least 5 other countries that needed liberation/intervention ahead of Iraq

[DaisyUCSB]

18. which ones and why?

None that a force could have, in a practical way.

[liberalnurse]

10. Dean's position is clear......

He would not of attacked Iraq. If the UN voted to address Saddam, then he would support the UN.

[eyesroll]

11. Sure...it was a UN resolution that * kept citing as a reason to attack

and if the UN had felt strongly that Saddam's violation of their resolution was bad enough, they would have struck.

Most Dean supporters who have done their homework know he's not a pacifist, or anti-war. He was anti THIS war, in THIS manner.

[adamrsilva]

12. Of course, removing Saddam is not a bad thing

Saying that destroys your credibility. This war was wrong because

1) The admin garnered support for through lies and misrepresentations
2) It was unilateral
3) It was micro-managed and there was no post-war plan, which has ended up causing a worse problem in the country than there was before.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. yes

though technically i support kuchinich, dean, edwards, kerry, clark etc (in that order)

ABB

[mrgorth]

16. yes.

[ibegurpard]

17. Yes

Because that would've meant that there was an international consensus that it needed to be done and we would've gone in with the support of our allies and other countries.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

19. Sure

because the UN and NATO are organizations that take more than what an idiot like Bush says to decide to take action. If the UN felt Saddam needed to be ousted, it would have been an action taken by a majority of the Security Council, and would have been supported by them.

[Individualist]

20. Yes

[bowens43]

22. UN - Yes, NATO - No

[Alpharetta]

23. Depends

You ask a hypothetical question but it boils down to this: which candidates do I trust to lead us into war?

The Honorable Senator Robert Byrd knew the charges were unsubstantiated. I imagine if Dean had been a Senator, he would have stood with Senator Byrd in opposition to the invasion.

We are not owned by NATO or the UN. Who are the candidates I believe with the courage to stand against NATO or the UN? Kucinich and Dean.

The ones with the courage to say NO are the ones I'd trust if they said YES. So those are the two I would support if they backed the UN.

[DaisyUCSB]

29. It was unsubstantiated that Saddam was a torturous dictator?

Who kept his people living like Dirt and living off them while he killed and raped them?

There were alot of good reasons for Saddam to be removed and replaced with non-evil people that are clear as day.

[Alpharetta]

39. are you asking a question?

looks like you're trying to justify the invasion on the "He was evil" argument.

also looks like you're ignoring my point:

wars are started or joined based on the judgement of our leaders. Bush had poor judgement. He credited "darn good intelligence" when most of the war protesters knew the "immminent threat" intelligence had already been discredited.

Those who did not stand with the Senator Byrd in the Senate chamber lacked courage. I trust Dean and Kucinich to show good judgement because they have shown courage.

[DaisyUCSB]

43. The imminent threat was only one of the reasons

And I don't think that most of the anti-war protesters that people like Dean have used to fuel there campaigns would ever listen or take in the arguments that support the notion that regime change in Iraq is fundementally not a bad idea.

[Alpharetta]

50. Imminent Threat was the only reason that would justify the invasion

The rest of the arguments are reminiscent of what PNAC and FoxNews try to foist on us.

[Alpharetta]

41. The "Saddam was evil" argument

Most of us believe "Saddam was evil" and had rape rooms and killed poor little doggies.

Bush ran under a campaign promise of not being the world's policeman.

There was no imminent threat. So you can't use the "Saddam was evil" argument as justification for an expensive and ill-fated occupation.

[DaisyUCSB]

44. Whether he was or wasn't an imminent threat

I still think there is alot to support the notion that the UN/Nato removing him would have been better for the world than leaving him in power.

Too many anti-war people won't listen to any arguments why Iraq would have been better off with a new regime than Saddam, because SOME of the arguments are shaky.

[Alpharetta]

49. you're arguing for the invasion?

Osama is loose

Iraq is in tatters on the verge of civil war

Afghanistan is in the hands of warlords and the Taliban

Pakistan is selling its nuclear secrets

The money flow to terrorist groups is yet unchecked

International shipping and transportation are not yet secured

and you think Iraq was the right place for NATO and UN to focus their efforts?

[DaisyUCSB]

53. Yes, I do

I think allowing Iraquis to start a democracy, something that they were unable to attempt in a police state, is a better way than most others I've heard of jumpstarting the essential moderatization of a region who's population mostly lives in squalor, religious bigotry and evil , and humiliation.

[Alpharetta]

55. A brave stance against evil

But not realistic. Democracy is not to be enforced at the point of a gun.

You view the world in very PNAC terms.

[DaisyUCSB]

57. Gee I didn't know PNAC was now an adjective

by your logic we forced democracy on Japan and Germany at the point of a gun, but what I do I know I see the world in "very PNAC terms"

[Alpharetta]

58. Are you getting your arguments from Excellence In Broadcasting?

PNAC is indeed an adjective. It means a naive recitation of the PNAC doctrine.

For you to compare the Iraq situation with WWII is very Rush of you. That's an adjective too. It means addled by painkillers and conservative talk shows.

[Alpharetta]

52. Senator Robert Byrd's Speech

Remember what he said about the aftermath of the invasion.

Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace? And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?


Full speech
http://www3.sympatico.ca/essentialsoftware/projecthealing/Articles/ByrdsAddress.html

The invasion was stupid. The only valid reason for something this risky would be an imminent threat.

[demigoddess]

24. yes, of course

That would not be breaking international law and making the whole world mad at us,
Also it would not be a policy of terrorizing the world with our might, which is the goal of the republicans now in charge.

[lovedems]

25. To accomplish what? A democracy?

Democracy starts from the bottom up, not the top down. The UN and Nato and US could have assisted the Iraqi people if they wanted to overthrow Saddam (purpose of the sanctions?) but invasion is not the answer.

[eissa]

30. As a family member from Syria said

"We don't want your democracy if it's attached to a bomb."

[DaisyUCSB]

31. The Iraquis were brainwashed and incapable of dissent

Everybody who attended one meeting questioning his leadership would have there genitals cut off if anyone were to find out

[eissa]

26. It would have been a better option

I think the UN/NATO coming in (with Arab support, which I believe is crucial) to provide support for IRAQIS to overthrow Saddam would have been a better, less deadly option for all. It would not give the appearance of the US as world cop, deciding who stays and who goes. I would have trusted a Dean administration because, unlike this administration, there would have been no ulterior motives (oil).

[DaisyUCSB]

32. better than what?

I believe it(the UN/NATO/US regime change) would have been better than leaving him in power. I think it's obvious and too many dems let there anti-bush bias distort there objectivity about decisions of foriegn policy and Iraq

[eissa]

34. anti-bush bias?

most of our dems voted FOR bush's screwed-up policies; they went along with his semi-blind "vision" and that's why we're in this mess. In an way, I understand; the atmosphere this administration has created with its "you're either with us or against us" tone, and the media helping them along, made it hard for anyone to stand up to * and his neo-con imperialists.

[DaisyUCSB]

40. no, this is what I'm talking about

Most of the democrats who voted for the resolution, like Kerry and Edwards, were voting in favor because the UN needed to see the congress in support of the idea that Iraq was better off without Saddam in order for the UN to pass a second resolution, one that would have been similar to what we did in 91. Of course 20-20 is hindsight and although France and Germany stopped a second resolution from passing, Dean shouldn't misrepresent there(Kerry and Edwards) positions on the correct course of action. They didn't favor rushed, non-UN, non-NATO, invasion, at any point, nor did they vote for it. And Dean implies that they did.

[eissa]

56. Maybe it's me

but I have had such distrust and hatred for this administration from the start, that I never thought they would ever give the world community a chance to intervene. That, along with confirmation from repuke family active in the Iraqi opposition that * and his cronies had plans to invade Iraq prior to even getting into office, and my worst fears were realized. I just don't get how some of our dems didn't see it either.

[Oreegone]

28. But of course

NATO no UN yes.

There is enough of a contingency in the UN that if they all agreed I would feel alright about it. Secondly we would not be doing it all by ourselves, it would be an international force.

We couldn't mine the rebuilding efforts for our buddies and corporate contributors that way either.

[CWebster]

33. How about when Kerry whined that Saddam

had targeted a sitting president?

This guy gets away with the most outrageous casually uttered. it isn't an actual fact that Saddam tried to assasinate '41 but it is accepted as such--just like the Saddam-gassed-his-own-people claim that Kerry has been known to repeat---the jury is still out on that too.

Some of us may know it, but the voter on the street who sees Kerry as the more electible after the media set about casting doubts on Dean? What do they know?

[NashVegas]

35. There's a Reason We Went in w/out the UN

The resolution was in jeopardy of being vetoed.

Trick question.

[Cuban_Liberal]

36. Yes.

Through the UN or through a regional-security organization.

[LuminousX]

37. The inspections were working

Missiles that were in violation were being found and destroyed. Facilities were being investigated. Yeah, if the UN found a need to invade to enforce the weapon inspections, then I would have supported it.

[DaisyUCSB]

47. But he never complied with UN resolution 1441, by not accounting for

weapons that there is proof he had. And again, the WMD that the UN voted in favor that he had were only 1 reason why a new regime would have been preferable to leaving him in power, had the international forces done the job

[NashVegas]

38. *Which* Resolution Are You Referring To?

And what were its specifics?

[DaisyUCSB]

45. refurring to where?

?

[NashVegas]

48. In Your First Post

Okay, so you weren't referring to a specific resolution.

The fact remains this question is not really answerable. Under the circumstances presented by the Bush administration in 2002-2003, the UN did not support removing Saddam.

A different (meaning: truthful) set of circumstances might have gained a different answer from the UN.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. UN, yes. Nato or the US, no.

But, it's a purely hypothetical question. The UN didn't approve removing Saddam by force. Unlike 3 of the senators who did.

[DaisyUCSB]

46. The US is part of the UN and NATO

And Kerry and Edwards never approved the course of action Bush took. They favored the UN/NATO removing Saddam. And that course of action could not happen if congress hadn't asked them to, as they did in the IWR. (which, by the way, wasn't actually called the "iraq war resolution")

[NoPasaran]

51. No

I think it is up to the people to select or remove their own governments. I think there's some wording to that effect in our Declaration of Independence. It is certainly not the right of a collection of governments to depose leaders at will.

[DaisyUCSB]

54. Was it up to the German people to change there minds about Naziism

and change there government once Hitler solidified his power? Not really, it was impossible.

And it was impossible for regular Iraqui's to get knew leadership without a great power invading and removing the Bath regime

[eridani]

59. Where do people get this snotty elitist idea--

--that people in other parts of the world can't overthrow oppressive dictators without the world bully blowing up their infrastructure and scattering depleted uranium and cluster bombs all over?

Filipinos overthrew Marcos, Iranians the Shah, and Romanians Ceausescu without such 'help.' Iraqis were on the verge of doing the same when the US intervened on Saddam's side in 1991. Granted it became much harder in the 90s because 90% of the population became dependent on the government for food due to sanctions, but there was a simple way out of that dilemma. Just do as Jimmy Carter suggested--eliminate sanctions in return for permanent weapons inspection.

A few choice words on the subject from the latest Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Exactly what part of FUCK OFF!! WE'D RATHER DO IT OURSELVES!! is it that you don't understand?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1010-01.htm

Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi told a news conference that she opposed any foreign intervention in Iran.

"The fight for human rights is conducted in Iran by the Iranian people and we are against any foreign intervention in Iran," she said.

The 56-year-old lawyer and human rights activist was speaking after earlier being awarded the Nobel peace prize, becoming the first ever Muslim woman to to get the honor.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1210-02.htm

"In the past two years, some states have violated the universal principles and laws of human rights by using the events of Sept. 11 and the war on international terrorism as a pretext," she said in a prepared acceptance speech.

"Regulations restricting human rights and basic freedoms ... have been justified and given legitimacy under the cloak of the war on terrorism."

Wearing no headscarf for the ceremony, the 56-year-old who won the $1.4 million prize for her work for the rights of women and children in Iran, lashed out at what she called breaches of the Geneva conventions at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay military jail.

Ebadi, who has become a symbol of reformist hope in Iran while labeled a political stooge of the West by conservative clerics, also pointed a finger at her own government, urging Tehran to accept that reform is inevitable.

"In fact, it is not so easy to rule over a people who are aware of their rights, using traditional, patriarchal and paternalistic methods," she said.