What Clinton did or didn't do is a moot point and merely serves to distract from the main point of debate.

Many have claimed that the US was authorised to go to war due to previous UN resolutions. If this was the case, why were the UN security council so opposed to this action?

The only way military action is legal is if it is sanctioned by the UNSC and since two members were promising to veto it, I don't think you had their approval. The war was illegal because it was clearly against the will of the UN and the UNSC members.

If not, why do you have a coalition of the 'willing' rather than a UN sanctioned force?

Hate the man, your damn right I do
Why?
Because he's been in office 5yrs now?
and hasnt done one thing, that has made me sit back and think,

' thats why he's president '


All he's done is lower world relations, cause major economic hassle AROUND The world, and is still TRYING to justify this war, even tho every possible reason for justification has been proved FALSE and FAbricated.

What good has he done for you Edsinger?

Nope, it's an illegal government.

Originally posted by Chris McGeeIf not, why do you have a coalition of the 'willing' rather than a UN sanctioned force?

Well quite simply, the coalition of the willing is not the coalition of the bought.

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
Hate the man, your damn right I do
Why?
Because he's been in office 5yrs now?
and hasnt done one thing, that has made me sit back and think,


What good has he done for you Edsinger?

Well for one, the economy had the most mild recession of my lifetime and I lost my job in it. The same was said of Reagan while in office but he has done some good things for the economy and some of the State budgets are showing surpluses again.

But what has he done for me personally?

HE has set the TulipWalkers objective back another 10 years by my estimation. Thats what he has done for me and my country.

Originally posted by WisdomMaster
Nope, it's an illegal government.

Horse#e!

Oh wait this is a conspiracy board , hmmm

Did the Aliens at area 51 buy the election?

Originally posted by edsinger
Well quite simply, the coalition of the willing is not the coalition of the bought.

I take it this is the "anti- UN" horse dung post of the thread is it?

Originally posted by edsinger
Well quite simply, the coalition of the willing is not the coalition of the bought.

That might be the funniest thing you've ever posted. Remember the angst when Turkey, despite billions of dollars worth of promises, turned you down?

The best part of this whole charade is that you're ignoring the fact that the governments concerned were representing the will of their people (whatever other motive they may or may not have had) and as such you are attacking democracy.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
...............
They had 'chemical' warheads, which were empty, so they had Warheads that could be used for chemicals. It doesn't mean they had them and it's conjecture to assume they were to be used that way.
............

The conjecture is on your part.... for what reason do you think they call them empty chemical warheads....because they are used for chemicals only.....