[yucapote]

This thread is in reponse for this one http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16344

I started that thread saying that I DO NOT HAVE NOTHING AGAINST ISRAEL! However I was insulted. How I could be an Israel's hater if I have JEWISH blood in my veins. My great grandfather was a SEPHARDI JEW that came from Spain to Puerto Rico in the late 1870's. My family don't know much about him, we only know that he was JEW.

The biggets insult for me was when hansolo mentioned that he looked at my bio and felt sorry for my students after finding out I am a teacher. I've been only teaching for 7 years and I invite him and others to visit my office, school or my house to see all the awards and prizes that students and I have won in my short teaching career because they are among the best in the school distric.

Now I know that in this forum if you don't preach to the choir you are doomed. Please, make yourselves a favor and open your eyes, don't be narrow minded and use your critical thinking skills.

[Mike Irwin]

For what it's worth, I saw your message as an exercise in comparative international civics, not as an anti-Isralie diatribe.

I'm sorry others saw fit to attack you for simply posting factual information.

[DeltaElite]

I saw it as factual also.
Ya gotta be careful posting the facts around here, it upsets the natives to be confronted with facts, logic, reasoning and/or rational discourse.

I am not anti-semitic, far from it, I am anti-stupid people, which has severely limited the pool from which I can socially interact. :D

[MeekandMild]

Now I know that in this forum if you don't preach to the choir you are doomed. Please, make yourselves a favor and open your eyes, don't be narrow minded and use your critical thinking skills I sympathise with you. It is sometimes hard to discuss anything here in depth as some of the posters, indeed some of the moderators (not Law Dog) confuse critical thinking with prejudiced thinking. Some of them are especially resistant to any in depth discussion of history, patterns, trends or anything more abstract of an idea than "fire hot, water cold". And heaven forbid you try to explain anything which goes against popular prejudice. :scrutiny:

In Law Dog's words: I have never, in all my born days, come across anybody as bloody bull-headed and iron-assed as this group.

Law Dog, if you read this, you might consider asking Oleg to allow people who start threads to delete off topic posts from their threads. This might make your job easier and cut down on the ad hominum insults. :cool:

[cuchulainn]

yucapote,

FWIW, my criticism of your post was limited to what I saw as a false premise.

Your post was not bigoted. There is a big difference between bigoted statements and what you posted. Most of us around here know the difference.

[Mike Irwin]

Discussions of historical events and activities are easy to hold, as long as one comes in with an open mind, a willingness to discuss and interpret historical events in a calm, logical manner (instead of simply making statements designed to inflame), and don't attempt to launch a "discussion" using a premise that's thinly veiled as an incitation.

For example, a good topic of discussion would be...

Let's discuss Jewish life in Nazi Germany.

But, a bad discussion topic would be...

Let's talk about how the Jews are themselves responsible for the holocaust...

[cuchulainn]

Mike Irwin,

Nicely put.

[Drjones]

yucapote:

Just looked at that thread.

Lemme get this straight:

You start off by saying "Iraq was invaded becasue Saddam violated about a dozen UN resolutions. I have nothing against Israel, but this is outrageous. "

You post a (long) list of UN violations that Israel has violated.

Then, a couple, ahem, The *HIGH* Road members call you all manner of names.

Did I miss something?

Methinks someone needs to learn how to read AND GROW UP, and it AIN'T you, yucapote.... :scrutiny:

[priv8ter]

Because if you are a Nazi, then I probably am also, and my Jewish parents would hate to hear that.

I didn't read you post originally, but like to think I got your point. It is pretty lame to hear people making up all these excuses for why we went to war with Iraq. I for one wish we had just came out and used the Texas excuse of 'Some Folks Just Need Killin.' But instead we tried to keep people happy.

And NOW, there are counties in the UN trying to get the US officially condemned. And it looks like it might pass!!! :fire: :fire:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/31/un.arabs/index.html

What a world. I for one understand why Isreal has ignored the UN resolutions, and I am glad to see us heading down the same road.

It is sad that Isreal has to treat all Palistinians with the same heavy hand, but life there is so different from the way it is here, I can't judge them for their actions.

Sorry some folks have to jumo to conclusions and get what could have been a thought provoking thread shut down.

:barf:

Greg

[Mike Irwin]

You know, pardon me if I'm wrong, and I'm going to deflect this discussion just a little bit, but the entire ramp-up to war with Iraq was predicated on Iraq's continued violation of UN resolutions.

Collin Powell and George Bush both addressed the UN on the subject of Iraq's "material breech" of UN resolutions stemming from the first Gulf War.

Violation of resolutions over disarmament was continually stressed by the President and his advisors as a justification for the war.

It's only within the past few weeks that I've heard anyone from the Administration give any real time to the concept of a "war of Iraqi liberation."

Quite frankly, Yucapote IS correct. Israel has ignored UN mandates for decades, and yet hasn't drawn an invasion.

Am I upset about that fact? No, not in the least.

Does it deflect anything from the reality of the comparison, though? No, not in the least.

[cordex]

Couple things.
How I could be an Israel's hater if I have JEWISH blood in my veins.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but this argument is a bad one. Hitler himself was half or a quarter Jewish. I am not comparing you to Hitler, just showing that that statement was meaningless.

Secondly, amongst the insults there were some extremely well thought out and polite points made.

DeltaElite,
Ya gotta be careful posting the facts around here, it upsets the natives to be confronted with facts, logic, reasoning and/or rational discourse.
Sir, I am not sure if I should be offended or not. If you were a newbie with a few posts, I would pass it off as silly ignorance of the truth, but someone who has been here as long as you have, and posts as much as you do ...
Hmmm ...

[cuchulainn]

Mike Irwin:

You know, pardon me if I'm wrong, but the entire ramp-up to war with Iraq was predicated on Iraq's continued violation of UN resolutions.

<snip>

Quite frankly, Yucapote IS correct. Israel has ignored UN mandates for decades, and yet hasn't drawn an invasion.
Therein lies the false premise I criticized in the first thread.

We didn't invade Iraq because it violated resolutions. We invaded Iraq because it has WMD, and there are resolutions related to that.

The resolutions are expressions of the problem. The problem is the justification for invading Iraq. But the resolutions themselves are not the justification. Therefore it is a fallacy to suggest or imply that Israel is getting away with something that Iraq is being invaded for.

It's kind of like saying the colonists rebelled because of the Declaration of Independence. Rather the DoI was an expression of their justification for rebelling.

[Nightfall]

Israel is in violation of some UN resolutions, etc. So is Saddam.

The difference is that one is willing to use those against other countries, against his own people, and probably to give them to terrorists eventually.

One can be talked to... the other has been talked to for a long time, and won't listen.

If Israel uses their WMD on other people in the manner Saddam has, and ignores/deceives/refuses to comply for as long as the Iraqi regime... then it's go time.

We weren't pushing military action as a method to enforce resolutions against all countries. We were pushing for military action in light of repeated, willful, and direct violation of repeated calls for disarmament as both part of UN resolutions and treaties. He has proven his regime is willing to victimize his own people and others with these WMD, and remains a threat as he is distinctly willing to do anything to hurt the US, probably through terror attacks. He has proven himself and his regime as a threat to many of the free (and even not so free) peoples of the world. Israel has not and different situations earn different response levels.

[Oleg Volk]

Oleg to allow people who start threads to delete off topic posts from their threads
No way to do it using this forum's software but we do take requests. Use "report this thread to a moderator" link.

I will note that being Jewish doesn't mean liking or disliking anything or anyone in particular. Personally, I will base judgement on the actions of individuals and their ethnicity, faith or scale color just don't matter!

[scottgun]

I though we invaded Iraq to bring freedom to the Iraqi people?
Err, wait, what propaganda is it this week that we are using to justify this war? I'm not necessarily against the war, it's just amusing to hear the latest talking points to justify this.

And reading the other thread, yucapote is being slandered because he merely raises a point. Then again Israel can do no wrong, and anybody who questions it is a nazi.

[Mike Irwin]

"Therein lies the false premise I criticized in the first thread."

I don't think it's a false premise at all, Chuch.

If it's still a war "because Iraq has WMD," then why has the administration suddenly soft-shoed that aspect, going for "A war of Iraqi liberation?"

And, if we truly invaded Iraq simply because we suspect they have WMD, the North Korea connundrum comes right back at us...

The simple fact remains that the United States tried very hard for several months to get the UN to allow the US to act in its name, and failed. When that failed, the entire premise of the war suddently shifted...

[cuchulainn]

I though we invaded Iraq to bring freedom to the Iraqi people? We did. Who said there can be only one reason?

If it's still a war "because Iraq has WMD," then why has the administration suddenly soft-shoed that aspect, going for "A war of Iraqi liberation?" See above.


And it's about oil too.

And it's about Bush family honor.

[cuchulainn]

And, if we truly invaded Iraq simply because we suspect they have WMD, the North Korea connundrum comes right back at us... No it doesn't. Who said we have to treat NK the same? Concepts of fairness and hypocrisy in international relations are at best misplaced.

Please see my rant (3rd item) here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16446

[Drjones]

I though we invaded Iraq to bring freedom to the Iraqi people?
Err, wait, what propaganda is it this week that we are using to justify this war? I'm not necessarily against the war, it's just amusing to hear the latest talking points to justify this.

No offense, but you're being a little shortsighted.

I too am confused, but more disgusted, by the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Though I suppose PART of the goal of this operation is the liberation of the Iraqi people, I do wish it was named differently, and that the media focus was on another point.

But its all PR: Others have said it before, that Americans have a hard time waging war and killing for anything other than touchy-feely, selfless, do-good stuff.

It doesn't sit well with many Americans and many other people in the world if we say "We are going to war to defend the US from a madman with WMD, who aids and abets terrorist organizations, and also in order to protect our oil interests."

:rolleyes:

[Drjones]

And its about Bush family honor.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[B9mmHP]

yucapote;
Since you mentioned blood, UN and teaching, i will tell you what I think of them.

Sorry some have offended you, so this is not personal.

The United Nations is full of a bunch of idiots and socialists and should packup and go home.

As far as blood goes, it don`t mean S#!t.

The public school system is nothing more than indoctrination camps setup by the socialists to turn our children into a bunch of mindless idiots that fallow what the socialists want them to learn. The teachers give kindergarteners little awards for being good and fallowing the program, like little stickers to put on there shirts, candy treats and the like for fallowing the program propaganda. ( Can you say Pavlov`s Dog )

Every time I see one of the camps busses running around picking up our childern for indoctrination it makes me sick. They teach all kinds of crap that is Politically Correct, even if it defies common since, reason and known facts.

Sorry if this offends you and your awards and prizes from the indoctrinated Children. Hell, as far as I know you may have recived the awards for telling them the facts, even if you think the UN is something that should be part of our lives.

[cuchulainn]

Drjones,

One element is Bush family honor (BFH), IMO (I have no proof, obviously). That's neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Certainly alone, BFH would be insufficient reason. But with the other good reasons for the war, so what if it's in there and we acknowledge it?

I support the war for numerous reasons, but BFH is not one of them. Nonetheless, I believe BFH is in there to a small degree, and that fact does not make me upset or diminish my strong support.

[MeekandMild]

We didn't invade Iraq because it violated resolutions. We invaded Iraq because it has WMD, and there are resolutions related to that. That may be true on the surface but not in depth. There are several nations which have WMD. The deeper reason Iraq was invaded is because they have used them at least twice, the first time against Iran and the second time against the Kurds. Further Saddam's people have freely slaughtered their Shiite and Kurish citizens freely.

[DeltaElite]

Cordex,
Don't be offended, unless you fit the statement I made. :D
If so, feel free to be as offended as you like. :D

Of course, I could just be pulling you chain and being a smart arse again, but who knows. ;)

[cuchulainn]

That may be true on the surface but not in depth. Meek,

You are right that there are many and complex reasons (I know this; see my other posts in this thread and elsewhere). I was merely trying to distinguish between the resolutions and "justification" to criticize the false premise that we're invading over the resolutions.

[scottgun]

Dr Jones, no offense taken, the statement was made slightly in jest to illustrate the disingenuous nature of these statements to justify the war. So, it's not really about the UN resolutions, not really freeing the Iraqi people, not really about protecting Israel, not really about oil (yeah right). They haven't found any WMD. although, I don't doubt that they have the capacity.

Is this just about a family feud to protect personal financial interests? When things look murky, follow the money trail.

[cuchulainn]

No scottgun,

It's about all those things and more.

Its being about A does not negate its being about B, C, D, E, F and G.

This is not a "choose only one answer" test.

It is murky only if you are insisting on one answer.


+++++
+++++

People:

What's with this idea that there can be only one reason?

[Lord Grey Boots]

Does no one understand the difference between a UN general session resolution, and a UN Security Council resolution?

Hint, the first ones occur all the time, don't mean anything at all.


The Security Council resolutions are the ones that countries must listen too and follow, OR ELSE. Unless of course, the country in question gives lots of money to France....

[ahenry]

Violation of resolutions over disarmament was continually stressed by the President and his advisors as a justification for the war. Think way back to the very beginning of this, I mean even before Bush’s first speech to the UN in Sept ’02 (remember the first “axis of evil speech”) (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.speech.txt/). The UN resolutions really weren’t even mentioned then. Recall how everybody jumped all over the administration and their need to “make the case for war”. If you start from the beginning you can see that the UN resolution angle was only introduced as justification after other issues (ones that required thinking individuals rather than spineless puppets) were dismissed by what I consider to be, people who walk about with their heads up their fourth point of contact. In one way of thinking, politics is all about convincing “the other guy” to do what you want and the UN resolutions angle were for solely that purpose.

[MJRW]

I am very bothered by hansolo and trapshooter's responses. I don't think I can politely and within the posting guidelines say what I think of their posts, nor their character based on those posts. While I may not be entitled to it, nor the forum in general, I would like to know if any form of warning, banning, or suspension is taking place. It sickens me that I post on the same forum as them and it is simple enough for me to remedy if no remedy is provided.

[pax]

MJRW,

That sort of question is best asked, via PM, of the moderator who closed the thread. It is rarely answered.

But.

Did you see the heat with which the Dawg closed that thread? I think it is safe for THR members to assume that the matter has been dealt with, and won't happen again.

At least, it durn well better not. :scrutiny:

pax

It is hard to be religious when certain people fail to be incinerated by bolts of lightning. – Calvin

[grampster]

IMHO the war in Iraq is about, bottom line, "I'm mad as h**l and I'm not going to take it anymore."
Terrorism took a quantum leap on 9-11. As a result a line got drawn in the sand and Sadaam happened to be on the wrong side of that line when it went down.
Message is: Don't care about the past, don't care about oil, don't care about nothing except what is right.
Definition of "right": If you want to oppress your people? Think twice. If you want to export that oppression through terrorism or blackmail? Kiss your sorry A** goodbye.
End of Rant!
grampster

[Mike Irwin]

"Who said there can be only one reason?"

Oh, no one said that there only had to be one reason.

But it's sort of suspicious to run with a single reason for nearly a year, and then pretty much abandon it for the next soundbite reason on the list.

[Mike Irwin]

"Terrorism took a quantum leap on 9-11. As a result a line got drawn in the sand and Sadaam happened to be on the wrong side of that line when it went down."

Yeah, I can see that. But I can also see that there is apparently more evidence that elements of the Saudi Royal Family is providing more aid, comfort, and support for international terrorists than Iraq was.

[cuchulainn]

But it's sort of suspicious to run with a single reason for nearly a year, and then pretty much abandon it for the next soundbite reason on the list. I don't recall it being a one note song. The Bush Administration has been harping on WMDs, supporting terror and human rights violations all along.

The "human rights" angle is not new.
The "WMD" angle has not been abandoned.

Both have been and still are cited as justification.

[ahenry]

Yeah, I can see that. But I can also see that there is apparently more evidence that elements of the Saudi Royal Family is providing more aid, comfort, and support for international terrorists than Iraq was. I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that out of hand. However, suppose you faced a mob and took out one of the main leaders in a most impressive and astonishing way. The chances of intimidating the rest increase dramatically and you did eliminate one of the major threats you faced.

[scottgun]

Don't feed me lies.
I have no doubt that there are many factors influencing this war, but when GW Bush gets on the TV and says that we are sending troops into Iraq to free the people of Iraq, it is simply a bunch of lies. I don't like seeing this presented in the flavor of the week, based on what sounds good at the time. I guess if it sounds good to more than 50% of the people, then that is what goes.
You can fool some of the people some of the time...

[ahenry]

I have no doubt that there are many factors influencing this war, but when GW Bush gets on the TV and says that we are sending troops into Iraq to free the people of Iraq, it is simply a bunch of lies. Now I haven’t been able to catch all the speeches Bush has made since the onset of the war but, at least prior to the initiation of active hostilities, freeing the Iraqi people has been a minor point of his speeches. Once the war started, appealing to the Iraqi people (through insisting that we will help them become free) only makes sense. Let’s use all the resources we can, and that includes the Iraqi people.


I leave you with the below quotes from Bush:

“Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.” Oct. 7th 2002

“Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons... Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility... Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people.” State of the Union, Jan. 28th 2003

“The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq.” Feb. 26th 2003

“Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people. If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.” March 6th 2003

“The regime...has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.” March 17th 2003

“To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East...The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military... We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people... Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities...My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail. ” March 19th 2003; Oval Office speech to America at the start of the war.

[nsf003]

I am very bothered by hansolo and trapshooter's responses.

Yes, me too.

I lost a lot of respect for them both. I don't like personal attacks.

nsf

[trooper]

I lost a lot of respect for them both.

So did I.

I don't think I EVER insulted hansolo or someone else because of his/hers nationality or profession.


Regards,

Trooper

[Matt G]

Yes, yes: we agree, and the Staff of THR agree, that it is simply not taking The High Road to make ad hominem attacks.

That said, it's inappropriate AND off-topic to discuss other Members and their posts, in-thread. If you must discuss it, please take it to email or PM; that's what it's there for.

Come to think of it, is ANY of this actually on-topic? :confused:

+++++

A bore is a fellow talking who can change the subject back to his topic of conversation faster than you can change it back to yours. --Laurence J. Peter

[cuchulainn]

scottgun:
I have no doubt that there are many factors influencing this war, but when GW Bush gets on the TV and says that we are sending troops into Iraq to free the people of Iraq, it is simply a bunch of lies. Hmm? Lies? Well I grant you that we aren't freeing them because we are selfless saviors or anything storybook noble like that. But one reason we went in IS to free them -- because it is in **OUR** best interest to free them. No one claimed lily-white purity behind our motive of setting them free.

Yep, it's all about us -- as it should be. The selfish motive doesn't change the fact that we're going in to free them.

Yep, we will leave many people under other regimes that are as bad or worse. So what? It's not our job to free them or anyone else. It just happens that freeing the Iraqi people coincides with our interests.

It's all about enlightened self interest. Selfish motives are not unvirtuous ;)

[RON in PA]

Cordex: You claim that Hitler was part Jewish. I challange you to substantiate that. To the best of my knowledge Hitler lived in fear that someone would discover that he had Jewish roots and had that possibility throughly investigated. Result: noone could find any Jewish backround in Hitler's lineage.

Yucapote: The fact that you believe your great grandfather was a Sephardic Jew doesn't mean anything, it doesn't make you a Jew or prevent you from being an anti-semite ( I AM NOT CLAIMING YOU ARE). By-the-way, the Spanish Jews were expelled in 1492 and it was illegal to be openly Jewish in Spain until sometime in the 20th century. Could your Sephardic ancestor come from someplace other than Spain? Spanish North Africa or Morocco? Interesting historical note, Franco the Spanish dictator, a buddy of Hitler and publicly anti-semitic, saved thousands of Jews during WW2 by allowing them to enter Spain.

What ever the original intent of Yucapote's original post was, it should be noted that most UN resolutions regarding Israel were Arab or Eastern Block instigated and represent primarily the status of a small, unpopular country outvoted by those out to destroy it.

[Oleg Volk]

Funny how "Franco the Spanish dictator" got such bad press yet his regime was by far more benign than the Communists he had supplanted. Almost all photos from the 1930s show the Loyalist (i.e. Communist) side of the Spanish Civil War and Smith's famous essay "Life in a Spanish Village" painted a gloomier picture than his photo-essays on life under other, far more despotic regimes.

[CZ-75]

Interesting historical note, Franco the Spanish dictator, a buddy of Hitler and publicly anti-semitic, saved thousands of Jews during WW2 by allowing them to enter Spain.

I have heard Franco had Sephardic ancestry, which is why he wasn't caught up in Hitler's ethnic fixations and never allied with Germany.

Hitler may not have been Jewish, but he certainly believed he was a quarter Jewish and set up the Nuremburg laws so that one could still be considered "German" with that much non-aryan bloodline (never mind that strong evidence points to slavic Czech bloodlines for Hitler as well). I never heard of the investigation you mentioned, but w/o DNA evidence it would be hard to ascertain what happened nearly a century earlier regarding his father's conception. There are markers that have been established that are strong indicators of Jewish ancestry. Would be interesting, but pointless really, to exhume Alois Hitler to run tests.





Oh, it would be nice if the parties doing the name-calling would apologize and save face.

[Smurfslayer]

I think what seems to be getting lost in this discussion is that

1: Iraq attacked, invaded & occupied Kuwait, a neighboring and sovereign nation.
2: Kuwait lobbied for & got UN support, more importantly, US support.
3: We, along with allies and "supported" on paper by UN resolution, attacked the Iraqi forces occupying Kuwait.
4: We routed said occupying force.
5: What was left of the Iraqi military complex intelligently surrendered.

The terms of the Iraqi surrender dictated that Iraq comply with "terms", subject to :rolleyes: UN monitoring.

I think a large portion of us would agree with minimum discussion on most of the above. Here's where opinions start to diverge.

IMO, US forces and the Administration failed by not taking forces to Baghdad in the 1st Gulf war, capturing the Iraqi government officials who participated and having them prosecuted for war crimes - or, killing them. We then turned over all semblance of control of the situation to the UN basically abdicating our advantage. The subsequent administration had no stomach for further "war" with Iraq save for limited military strikes in "support" of the UN resolutions post surrender, despite having used the military much more than previous administrations...

So, no matter what we're calling the current military action, regardless of what "doctrine" is being used to justify it, regardless of the UN's whiny rhetoric, the bottom line is this:

We fought Iraq. They surrendered & agreed to terms. They violated the terms, and are suffering the consequences, as they deserve. Now, does UN support matter? as a matter of diplomatic practicality, yes. Have other countries violated UN resolutions? Yes. Some severely.

I ask this - What are we going to do, as a country, when the UN levies sanctions against us ? It's going to happen, it's only a matter of time. What if they are trade sanctions - say, oil ?

This is one reason among many that I see the UN heading in a very bad direction. Within the last 20 or so years, we haven't gotten a lot of ROI from the UN, and the fact that the UN recognizes regimes like North Korea, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq & China, in effect, granting them a twisted form of legitimacy ought to be reason in and of itself to justify our exit from the UN.