George Bush sucks! He is so stupid.

Shush.

But seriously, I don't think we need UN approval for war. We were pretty close to getting UN approval, but that wouldn't have made the war any more justified. The better question would be to explain why it was right for the US to go to war knowing Iraq was not an immediate threat (which the CIA admitted). What would've happened if we had a preemption policy in 1963? Wouldn't you rather have had the administration spend that 87 billion dollars finding Osama?

I purposely stayed away from debate of whether it was right to go to war based on the merits of Iraq being a threat. I think that justifying a war is a personal opinion that goes far beyond politics, at least it does in my mind. Would UN Approval have made it a justified war in my mind? No. I'm not trying to say that.

I do believe it was wrong to go around the UN. The US is always on trial in the court of world opinion. You can't breathe these days without the whole world listening so you better make sure you have support outside the walls of the United States. The opinion of people in other countries count just as much as ours, we are all humans inhabiting the same space. We can't just cast aside the opinions we don't want to hear, especially when those opinions are on such a grand scale.

France and Russia did not want war because they had huge contracts and business interests in Iraq. They can take the moral high ground - but the war was about money // of which France and Russia lost a whole lot in the end, which is why they refused to go along with a UN resolution from the start. There are several dozen countries that did help us and support us and not one country that came to the defense of innocent Iraq.

You are absolutely right about this war being about money. I agree on the France and Russia issue as well. We are still left with the question, why do the US monetary intrests get to override UN consensus. Certainly we wouldn't be happy if France or Russia waged war on a country without UN approval where we had a vested interest.

going to war without a UN mandate invalidates the UN as much as the iraqi government's refusal to comply with the demands of various UN resolutions. it simply undermines the premise for war on both sides. that is unless you accept america as beyond beyond the boundaries of the UN, which is difficult (ne impossible) to rationally defend. so far all defenses i have heard have been around two main issues: the size of america's military, and the ability of france or russia to veto military actions using their seats on the security council. neither one holds much water when you look at the stated role of the UN in world politics when accepted by the US (see the justification for resolution 1441 and everything prior to it as argued by the US government over time).

i'm not surprised that halliburton is getting all of these spoils. i guess i shouldn't be surprised that the same congress that had hearings at the suggestion that the travel office at the white house was staffed by friends wont have similar investigations over significantly more money and hundreds, if not thousands (counting iraqi deaths) of lives. i'm not surprised, i'm just disheartened.

I think Martin Van Buren said it best, "I'm serious. I was President for four years. I was sanwiched in between Andrew Jackson and William Henry Harrison... Of course you remember Taft's fat ass getting stuck in a tub. Hahahaha.....It's not funny"

First, there are only two people on this site who would defend Bush. Myself and Mullen.

Second, why should we need to ask for UN approval to defend ourselves. Iraq was a threat since 1990 (all agreed until last year, the year a republican brought the issue to the UN) Arguments were made by most on both sides that we should have removed him from power in the first Gulf War. Why does that change now?

Third, Halliburton is a company in the US which employs many, many people, not just Dick Cheney. Because there was a prior connection doesn't prove wrongdoing! Find proof of it and I may go along with your argument. You can't prove a negative, so the Halliburton thing is simply a liberal snipe and nothing more. Is John Kerry indebted to the Heinz corp. because he is married to Theresa Heinz? I don't believe that, why should it be different for a conservative.

Lastly, I have been confronted with nothing but sarcasm and insults due to my political stance on this site, why should I respond in a different manner?

Achem's Razor. The simplest explanation is almost always the correct one. Just as water seeks the lowest ground. Don't read too much into things, if you do you run the danger of outsmarting yourself.