[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
No, that is where you are quite obviously wrong. We ARE the illegal invader if we had no justification.

There is NO lawful justification for the US government to enter into hostilities without a credible military attack or an eminent attack upon America, or those with which the US government has a mutual defense treaty. Since Iraq had done neither, the invasion of Iraq was unlawful, and is an ongoing war crime under US and International law.

We had justification from just about every angle: (1) We are not bound by the UN, as our invasion uncovered endemic corruption and profitteering at the expense of starving Iraqis. This corruption was more than evident pre-invasion.

Please state the Constitution article or Amendment that authorizes unilateral aggression based on the above. I'll save you some time, there is no such Constitutional provision. Nor will there ever be such a provision.

(2) Humanitarian reasons (used to be a good excuse some years back, but I suppose legitimate humanitarian reasons are not, apparently).

There is no lawful method to stage an invasion of a sovereign nation for any reason; humanitarian reasons are nothing more than a sop for guys like you. Socialist to the core.

(3) Violation of resolutions and a corrupt organization unwilling to enforce the resolutions (see #1).

You just stated above that the UN resolutions has no binding force upon the US, but now you're invoking said resolutions. Which is it, M-dose?

In point of fact, any dealings between Iraq and the UN are the business of those two entities; and not the business of America unless they pose an overt or imminent threat to America. All of your rationales for war, so far, are nothing more or less than hard core socialist activities. Only a socialist wants to kill others for their own good.

(4) Most importantly a direct relationship with al qaeda that made this invasion as important, and obviously more important, than our invasion of Afghanistan.

There was NO direct or indirect relationship between the government or agents of the government of Iraq and the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. There never was such a relationship, in point of fact the Iraqi government interdicted numberous Al Qaeda attempts to kill or disrupt the Iraqi government or members of that government.

We were not the aggressor, we were the responder.

Typical socialist ploy; playing at word definitions to attempt to hide the truth. Fat chance that will work. The invasion of Iraq by the Bush'ists and the US military in March 2003 was naked aggression, pure and simple. It was no more justified than the Soviet Union's attack on Finland, or the German invasion of Poland. In fact, the rationalizations used by the Bush'ists, like M-dose here, are nearly the same as the German's used verbatim.

Saddam was the aggressor,

A third world country, almost, and a 5th world military, and M-dose calls them the agressors against the most powerful and agressive military on earth. The above statement by M-dose would be hilariously funny if it weren't for the murders being committed by the US government as we speak.

pattern aggressor at that. He was funding and harboring al qaeda.

No, we've already established beyond doubt that that is a lie, a damnable one at that.

He was fueling the problem

There was no problem between America and Iraq, period. While there may have been problems between Iraq and the UN, those aren't our business.

and we were the solution. We were and are the peacemakers. We are the liberators.

Yeah, liberating just like the Soviet Union did when they invaded Afghanistan and the Germans did when they invaded Czechoslovakia; the US government is liberating Iraqi's from their lives, and their treasure. Additionally, the Bush'ists are liberating some 500 billion tax dollars from Americans and working on liberating 2300 young Americans from their lives as well.

If we Americans don't stop him.