"Canada under PM Chretien explicitly said he would not support the Iraq war if there was no UN approval for the war."

Why didn't the UN support the war?

"Of course the UN would not sanction a preemptive war"

Why not? If there had been good evidence of WMDs, I think they would have.*

[*ETA: This sounds like a blanket claim when I first wrote it, but I don't mean it in a blanket way. What I mean is that if there had been compelling evidence that there were WMDs and the situation was really as serious as Bush's administration told the US public it was, then I think there's a good chance the UN would have followed that evidence and taken some direct preemptive action. Whether that was a 'war' or not is not something I care about.***

** Oops! Missing crucial word added. <-- Forget this. Stupid grammar mix up.

*** OOOOPS! Extraneous non-crucial word re-removed.]

Edited 12/31/2015 00:25:03

Wct you claim you know every single fact about the Iraq war and it's prior history so please tell me this

How many Kurds and Iraqis did Saddam gas?

How many school children did he murder who forgot the words to the Quran while in his presence?

How many Iranians did he murder with his troops?


How many times had he threatened America and Israel?

How many times did he kick out UN inspectors?


How many times did the UN find proof of his quest for a bomb? ( not a bomb itself )


Answer these questions without feeling shame for making the man who took down one of the world's ugliest dictators in the world look like an idiot. George Bush definitely wasn't perfect and his motivation wasn't probably all for freedom but he delt with more new threats and ways of warfare plus a hitching congress better then Obama and his golf club and al gore with his supposed creation of the internet ( jackass ) ever could have done

Edited 12/31/2015 00:12:02

If Bush wasn't president (and thus was not involved in *generating* political and public pressure to start the Iraq War in the first place, as well as silencing dissenting voices against it)

Now hold on this assumes that Bush was the only neocon pushing for a war with Iraq, which is an entirely false position. Bush didn't create the Hawks that fed onto the Anti-Iraq hysteria. Bush didn't create the military industrial complex that wanted a 10 year quagmire to increase sales. Bush didn't create the media that pushed the terrorism/WMD hysteria. These are all byproducts of the American political system that existed largely before Bush and Gore ran in 2000. Bush wasn't the only source of political and public pressure. His cabinet and advisers would have gone on Sunday news shows to pressure Congress to act preemptively. Israel lobbyists and weapon manufacturers would have done the same...regardless of who was in the white house. There are external and internal actors and factors that create the political scenario. Removing one factor (Bush) may have shifted the political climate enough to avoid Iraq war, although I think that is idealistic at best when you consider Al Gore's political alliances and history of intervention.

Put yourself in bushes shoes. He delt with an entirely different form of warfare and threats with absolutely no experts or advisors but shaken up military advisors he had never seen this type of thing either. Bush did his best considering the circumstances

Edited 12/31/2015 00:15:05

Wct you claim you know every single fact about the Iraq war and it's prior history

You're already off to a bad start, Conservative. I've never made any such claim. If you think I did, I dare you to try to quote me on it. Good luck.

I won't bother responding to your disingenuous comments until you resolve this issue. You're presenting a straw man. If you want me to respond, either quote me proving I said that, or take back your claim that I did.

If Bush wasn't president (and thus was not involved in *generating* political and public pressure to start the Iraq War in the first place, as well as silencing dissenting voices against it)

Now hold on this assumes that Bush was the only neocon pushing for a war with Iraq

No, it does not assume that. Re-read it.

better
than
expected.

Again you assume that Bush was the only one "generating" political and public pressure. That is the logical conclusion of your argument. This is not true. Was he [Bush] the most powerful politician exerting pressure? Absolutely. Was he the only one? Hell no. Thus the simple explanation that Bush was the ultimate cause for the invasion of Iraq cannot be sustained.

Edited 12/31/2015 00:28:43

Bush wasn't the only source of political and public pressure.

But was he *a* source? Was he not, in fact, one of the most *important* sources, being the president and all?

Edited 12/31/2015 00:27:50

Let me put my argument this way: Bush wasn't the manufacturer of the justifications for the Iraq war. He was just the puppet spokesmen who revealed and explained them to the world. The external people, the people behind the scenes who actually came up with the false narratives and justifications, would have still been around in any other presidency in 2003. Thus it would be likely the Iraq War would have been perpetrated by any other President had Bush not been in office.

Again you assume that Bush was the only one "generating" political and public pressure. That is the logical conclusion of your argument.

No, I do not make any such assumption. And no, it's not a conclusion of my argument. (You're also confusing 'assumptions' with 'conclusions' in these two sentences.)

If you think it's a logical conclusion, let's see your logical argument reaching that conclusion.

Bush need not be the *only* source of pressure for him to still be *responsible* for the pressure he *did* generate.

But was he *a* source? Was he not, in fact, one of the most *important* sources, being the president and all?

No. Bush wasn't liked a whole lot during this time, but Congress still gave the green light for the Iraq invasion.

Thus the simple explanation that Bush was the ultimate cause for the invasion of Iraq cannot be sustained.

I did not claim he's the 'ultimate cause' for the Iraq War. I don't even think the concept of 'ultimate cause' is useful for much of anything at all, especially in social/political contexts. You are inventing an 'explanation' I didn't make.

He need not be an 'ultimate' cause to still be responsible for *his part* in it.

No. Bush wasn't liked a whole lot during this time, but Congress still gave the green light for the Iraq invasion.

Why did they?

Can a puppet be responsible?

You criticised Jai earlier for not knowing the history of the Iraq war and worded in such a way implying you did. So please by all means, justify Saddam's actions like every other anti Bush liberal of our time

Let me put my argument this way: Bush wasn't the manufacturer of the justifications for the Iraq war. He was just the puppet spokesmen who revealed and explained them to the world.

So, according to *your* theory, Bush was just a puppet? Geez, I couldn't make this stuff up!

So, are you saying that *anybody* who becomes president would automatically become a puppet? Was Bush special or typical in his puppet-hood?

Either way, it doesn't look good for Bush. Or the people who voted for him, or the people who listened to him about the Iraq War. Or the US as a 'democracy'.

Edited 12/31/2015 00:38:15

Bush need not be the *only* source of pressure for him to still be *responsible* for the pressure he *did* generate.

LOL. But I never said he wasn't responsible!!! Again you're not admitting to the fact that external actors would have pushed for an invasion of Iraq regardless of who the president was. That was the crux of my original question. Forget Bush. How would an Al Gore president have differed in terms of the Iraq War question. I understand you have a deep seated hatred for Bush (which may or may not be completely justified). But my question is a hypothetical situation. If you don't like engaging in hypothetical situations just say so lol...no need for a forum war. You just like getting into arguments I feel :P

it doesn't look good for Bush. Or the people who voted for him, or the people who listened to him about the Iraq War.

At this point I don't understand why we're arguing. I agree with this!!! I never supported Bush nor the neocons. I'm not a neocon. I think anyone who though Iraq had a nuke or a WMD is nuts.

Edited 12/31/2015 00:41:19

wct some advice take a trip to America, stay a couple of years, then judge us. If it wasn't for America this entire dam world would be either Fascist or communist

LOL. But I never said he wasn't responsible!!! Again you're not admitting to the fact that external actors would have pushed for an invasion of Iraq regardless of who the president was.

I'm sorry, but this is just a fail.

Other countries, who normally *do* support US wars, such as Canada, did *not* buy the 'bad intelligence', and did *not* make PR campaigns to try to sell the war to their people.

The only way your claim could work is if, as you've just about said already, *any* president would have done exactly as Bush did, because the presidency is just a puppet title.

If that's the case, why do you hate Obama so much? He's just a puppet. Or the Clintons? Puppets. They have no power, apparently, of their own. They just follow the dictates of the secret cabal pulling all the strings behind the curtains.

For that matter, why do you care who gets elected this election?

You yourself don't even believe your own theory. That's how bad it is.