Why do libs call Iraq a pre-emptive war?

Question

In order for it to be a pre-emptive war, there would have to have been a conclusion by treaty for the Gulf War (1992) and not a mere ceasefire..

In fact, the multiple UN resolutions allowing "serious consequences" that lead up to the Iraq invasion were ALL preconditioned and relative to the cease fire agreement of 1992... hense, in all manners Operation Iraqi Freedom is the conclusion of the Gulf War, not a freestanding war on its own.

Are liberals just ignorant of this fact, or ignoring it for political means?

Answer 1

Liberals should call it an illegal war. The US is bound by the UN charter, but it has violated it by independently attacking and occupying Iraq.

Answer 2

Bush never said he was invading Iraq because of failure to comply with UN resolutions.Bush said he was invading Iraq because of new weapons of mass destruction (which were NEVER found) and because Saddam had a connection to Al Quaeda (which he didn`t.)

Democrats AND Independents AND some Republicans who still like the Constitution call Iraq a pre-emptive war because Iraq was no threat to us or anyone else in any direct and clear and present danger way in 2003.

Had Bush sent special forces or really whatever level of military force he wanted to hunt down Bin Laden and Al Quaeda and captured their power center none of this would be happening now.  But Bin Laden is still in hiding mocking us and Al Quaeda has regrouped and is poised for their next attack. This all happened while Bush was tending to the war in Iraq. Now we have no resources to actually fight Al Quaeda and other terrorists who are an ACTUAL threat.

The Clinton intelligence leaders TRIED to tell the incoming Bush people about their intelligence work on Al Quaeda and the Bush intelligence people were like ``Yeah yeah whatever -- clear out of my office.``

Clinton had Bin Laden in his crosshairs since at least 1998 and special forces were about to move in finally in early 2001 when they were called out by the Bush CIA and sent to get intelligence on Iraq. The ones who had spanned administrations were like ``What the f&^K? We`ve GOT him.`` But they had their orders so they moved out.

9/11 is Bush`s fault and he has done nothing to stop terrorism. He has made it worse with his single-minded self-motivated PRE-EMPTIVE war.

Answer 3

Pre-emptive because the war was started by the USA for reason of preventing aggression by Iraq.

Your circular arguments about treaties from Gulf war I don't have any merit. Saddam did not declare war on Kuwait. USA and the other countries that countered Iraq did not declare war on Iraq.

By the same lack of reasoning you are demonstrating you could trace Operation Iraqi Freedom back to the days of Alexander the Great. It was all his fault!

Answer 4

First, Bush himself characterized the 2003 invasion of Iraq as pre-emptive, part of the so-called "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive war.  This is not just some liberal delusion.  While he did not actually use the term "pre-emptive," he clearly spoke of the importance of not waiting "for threats to fully materialize" before striking (see attached link, for example).  Attacking before being attacked, while a threat is "materializing, is the definition of pre-emptive war.

Futher, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to which you link is not a declaration of war.  It is a Joint Resolution of Congress to authorize the president to use military force against Iraq if it is deemed necessary.  The one you link to is the AUMF from 1991, but it is essentially the same as the AUMF passed in 2002 to authorize the current president to use force against Iraq.  Formal peace treaties are used to end declared wars.  The US has not formally declared war on anyone since the declaration of war against Japan in 1941, and the US has signed no "peace treaties" since the end of World War II in 1945.

Finally, if the 2003 invasion of Iraq was merely "the conclusion of the [1991] Gulf War" and not a 'freestanding war," as you claim, then why was it necessary to pass another AUMF in 2002?  By your logic, the current George Bush could have just picked up where his father left off, yet he didn't.  George W. Bush clearly was not concerned about offending either world or US opinion, so if the ivasion of Iraq in 2003 was simply a continuation of the first Gulf War, how would you explain Bush's asking Congress for a new AUMF?

Answer 5

Yawn. Obama 08

Answer 6

you bet ye.

Answer 7

He did say that AL-Qaeda fighters were in Iraq and that Iraq did have open support for terrorists as did many other countries and terrorists also were in The U.S.A.

This according to your info. He did say he was going to war with Iraq over weapons of  mass destruction. Not in those words but his intent to  war to stop weapons of mass destruction was clear. He said so himself in his speech. He said lawless nations had amassed such weapons. According to other sources The UN Inspectors had not found any evidence but all the way up to 1997 such claims were made. There it is. Now as to terrorists in The U.S.A. a destruction of commercialairports and commercial cars can help stop more attacks and Global Warming.