the policy was that we would like to see Saddam Hussein removed not that we were going to actively invade the country.

Big time WRONG answer! Congress gave their approval to go to "war" with Saddam! Just how the hell can you go to war with someone "without" showing up on their doorstep?

2003 Invasion of Iraq From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Redirected from 2003 Iraq war) The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. 2003 Invasion of Iraq Map of Iraq Date 02:30 UTC March 20, 2003–April 15, 2003 Location Iraq, Southwest Asia Prelude Iraq disarmament crisis Targets Alleged weapons of mass destruction. Opponents of the Kurdish allies of the USA in the North. Results 2003 occupation of Iraq. Creation of Iraq Interim Governing Council. Opponents to the US-led occupation engage in guerrilla warfare. Failure to locate weapons of mass destruction. Capture of Hussein, capture/killing of his senior officials, and various loyalists. Operational links between the Saddam Hussein government and Al-Qaida remain disputed, lacking clear new evidence. For other uses of this term, see Iraq war (disambiguation). The 2003 invasion of Iraq, alternatively the Iraq War, Second Gulf War or Third Gulf War, was a war that began 20 March 2003 fought between a Coalition consisting primarily of American and British forces, and Iraq. It began without the explicit backing of the United Nations Security Council. After approximately three weeks of fighting, the Ba'ath Party was deposed and the period known as post-invasion Iraq began. Approximately 250,000 United States troops, with support from 45,000 British, and smaller forces from other nations, entered Iraq primarily through their staging area in Kuwait. Plans for an invasion force from the north were abandoned when Turkey officially refused the use of its territory for such purposes. Coalition forces also supported Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 50,000. Facing them was a substantial military force. The regular Iraqi army was estimated at 280,000–350,000 troops, with four Republican Guard divisions with 50,000–80,000 troops, and the Fedayeen Saddam, a 20,000–40,000 strong militia, which used guerilla tactics during the war. There were an estimated thirteen infantry divisions, ten mechanized and armored divisions, as well as some special forces units. The Iraqi Air Force and Navy played a negligible role in the conflict. On 17 March 2003, in his Address to the Nation, U.S. President George W. Bush's demanded that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay leave Iraq, and gave them a 48-hour deadline; Iraqi President Saddam Hussein refused to leave.[1] (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/iraq/20030317-7.html) The next day Bush's spokesman Ari Fleischer announced that the U.S. would invade Iraq whether Saddam Hussein left or not, stating that "the bottom line is, a coalition of the willing will disarm Saddam Hussein's Iraq, no matter what." [2] (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030318-4.html) United States military operations were conducted under the name Operation Iraqi Freedom, United Kingdom military operations as Operation Telic, and Australian operations as Operation Falconer.

Link

Once again, hoist by your own petard!

I guess all those U.N. resolutions meant nothing, and also the cease-fire agreement.

Congress gave their approval predicated on totally wrong information. Thus we went to war based on a threat to did not exist. If we were to and against all evil dictators the way we acted in Iraq, this country will be at war for ever and we will have no one left to safeguard our democracy for.

Congress gave their approval predicated on totally wrong information. Thus we went to war based on a threat to did not exist. If we were to and against all evil dictators the way we acted in Iraq, this country will be at war for ever and we will have no one left to safeguard our democracy for

Yeah, predicated on info that the whole GD world was using!

I say again, were does the United States obtain the authority to enforce UN resolutions? Answer the question. Shown me where we get that power. Telling me that the UN didn't act does not give us the authority to act.

the remainder of the world in attack Iraq United States did. And please don't tell me that that was a coalition of the willing because in fact the only other country to contribute any measurable amount of resources was Britain. Plain and simple the United States acting unilaterally with Britain to enforce resolutions for which they had no authority and against a country that posed no threat to either England or the United States.

the remainder of the world in attack Iraq United States did. And please don't tell me that that was a coalition of the willing because in fact the only other country to contribute any measurable amount of resources was Britain.

Guess again:

In order of number of troops (estimated) committed to Iraq as of March 2005: USA 130,000 United Kingdom 8,761 South Korea 3,600 Italy 3,085 -- began phased withdrawal of troops in March 2005 [3] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4350213.stm) Poland 1,700 Ukraine 1,450 -- announced to withdraw troops by October 2005 [4] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4310987.stm) Georgia 889 Australia 850 Netherlands 800 -- began phased withdrawal of troops in March 2005 [5] (http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=7413) Romania 730 Japan 550 -- limited to non-combat zones only Denmark 496 Bulgaria 450 -- began phased withdrawal of troops in March 2005 [6] (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/15/europe/web.0315iraq.html) El Salvador 380 Mongolia 180 Azerbaijan 151 Latvia 122 Lithuania 118 Slovakia 105 Czech Republic 80 Albania 71 Estonia 55 Macedonia 33 Kazakhstan 25 Norway 10 -- has withdrawn the 179 soldier strong force of engineers and currently has 10 staff officers deployed in Iraq [7] (http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=116&sid=420737) Angola 0 Colombia 0 Costa Rica 0 -- asked to be removed from the official coalition list in September 2004 Dominican Republic 0 -- withdrew troops in May 2004 Eritrea 0 Ethiopia 0 Honduras 0 -- withdrew troops in June 2004 Hungary 0 -- withdrew troops in December 2004 Iceland 0 Kuwait 0 Micronesia 0 Moldova 0 -- withdrew troops in February 2005 New Zealand 0 -- withdrew troops in September 2004 Nicaragua 0 -- withdrew troops in February 2004 Philippines 0 -- withdrew troops in July 2004 Portugal 0 -- withdrew troops in March 2005 Rwanda 0 Singapore 0 -- withdrew its single amphibious transport dock deployed in the Persian Gulf in March 2005 [8] (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/display.asp?number=2400) Solomon Islands 0 Spain 0 -- withdrew troops in June 2004 Thailand 0 -- withdrew troops in August 2004 Tonga 0 Uganda 0

Iraq repeatedly broke their peace treaty with the UN and the "US" (we are the primary signature on the document) from the 1991 Gulf War. That is the only authorization we needed to invade. A peace treaty is not worth the paper it is on, if knowone follows or enforces it. Ask the French and British what happens if peace treates are not enforced.

WMD or not, the invasion had only been delayed far to long, IMO until someone with a back bone enforced it.

Remember, if the French weren't involved then no other country matters.

I say again, were does the United States obtain the authority to enforce UN resolutions? Answer the question. Shown me where we get that power. Telling me that the UN didn't act does not give us the authority to act.

How about U.N. resolutions.

Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

U.N. Resolution 1441. I can quote all the other resolutions if you want.

i'm not positive the intel was wrong. i think it was cooked. wolfowitz was a member of the 'team b' advisory panel...perle was introduced polish immigrant richard pipes (who wound up team b chairman)...rumsfeld and cheney were enthusiastic team b supporters. it is so similar to what team b was doing, it's difficult for me to think otherwise.

if there was an intel failure in iraq, there certainly wasnt one as regards the world's most irresponsible nuclear proliferator. the administration--hell, bush himself--blamed north korea for supplying libya with the materials despite the cia reports that pakistan was not only providing materials but engineering know-how to both iran and libya.

that bit of stupidity resulted in making it much more difficult to deal with pyongyang, and must surely have convinced pakistan's military that bush is either a moron for buying into musharraf's ridiculous claim that khan--the father of pakistan's bomb--was acting solely on his own, unbeknownst to anyone in that country's military dictatorship (like musharraf would still be in power if he was that incompetent) OR that the us really dont care.

considering the fact that we've now decided to sell f-16s to pakistan--the global equivalent of selling tech 9s to the crips --as a reward for all their help in the war on terror (instead of seriously working to capture bin laden, they focused their efforts on terrorizing the people of kashmir) like selling uranium hexafluoride to iran, and very likely to whomever else had the money, there's a third option.

they're right on both counts.

That's why I use AMD

drmiler\

your list proves my statement that 99% of military forces in Iraq either came from United States or Great Britain.

america BAD.... everyone else good.... america bad... everyone else good... my question is why are you still living here?

lee1776

no UN resolution including 1441 authorized the United States to attack Iraq. the point remains Iraq was not a threat to the United States or Great Britain. that is the only legitimate reason for either of our countries attack Iraq or for that matter any other country. Iraq wasn't capable of attacking either of our countries.

I think the bottom line is
a)
not just the US believed that they had these weapons

Saddam said or implide he had them
c)
Over 12 UN resolutions for open access to his coutry (big one here)


The reality, for me, is that there was no way you could avoid all of this and still say you want to protect the US.
Iraq just used its middle finger every time a UN resolution came around. We can't live in a world like that.