That "report" Saddam gave was a joke, as I recall it was like 9 billion pages of jibberish. Man do we need the way-back machine for some of you guys.

For those of you with semi-open minds, do you recall a large contingent screaming "no!!!Saddam has complied, don't go to war" Of course you don't, as it was generally accepted that he has done anything but and was simply playing his same old games.

You are wrong. Iraq did ot comply with 1441, but rather 1442 as your quote indicated.

As far as it being "instructive to go to the source"...It is even more instructive if you do not omit what happened later. Iraq did not comply. This is the report (from the same UN site) the next March, just prior to military action:

As you probably know the U.N. does not have a military to "handle" wars.
One can only hope...

930,

When the Nazis where killing the Jew's, They used names to de-humanize the Jewish people.

Your using Nazi like tactics against the President of the United States Of America.

UN Charter
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.


If it was UN reolution that Iraq violated then the UN should be responsible for disciplinary action. Bush's arrogance has only hurt the US.

Huh? Definition of Warlord(#2) can also mean one who espouses the ideal that war is necessary, and has the means and authority to engage in war. The word has a strong connotation that the person exercises far more power than his official title or rank (if any) legitimately permits him.

Don't you think Bush was a little trigger-happy with regards to Iraq? Can you honestly say that The US had the right to invade a soverign country against the will of the international community?

So you think Clinton is a war criminal for invading a soverign country like Yugoslavia without UN support or approval? What about launching 75 missiles at camps in soverign countries (even if he knew they had already been evacuated) without the blessing of the UN? I have not seen you post complaining about either.

Gettysburg..... 55,000 in three days..... we are not getting any smarter!

We're not talking about Clinton now. Are we? We're talking about Iraq. And the fact that Clinton committed the same crime does not give our country the right to continue the bahavior. It doesn't change the facts of the matter.

I see. So only Republican Presidents have to get permission from the UN?

That made me laugh. Don't turn this into a bi-partisan debate. I would consider that a cop-out due to your lacking any sort of substantial argument.

The fact remains that bush was not acting in the countries best interest when he decided to go to war with Iraq. Because of him the middle east is less stable then when Saddam was in power. He has betrayed not only the American people, but also the memories of all those that died on 9/11 by not going full force into Afghanistan to actually get the people that were involved in the 9/11 plot. It is very likely that Osama would have been dead by now if we would have sent in 150k troops into Afghanistan instead of Iraq. He certainly got us into real quagmire there - mission accomplished.

\

So it has nothing to do with principle? Why, pray tell, were you so concerned that we did not get permission from the UN then?

I didn't see the reports, but, the inspectors were back in.

And do we have to remind you for the umpteenth time that there were no WMDs? I believe that's what those reports said. It was also what the inspectors said. At the time, there were plenty of us who identified the degree of potential threat at well below the threshold of one American life.

What an amazingly original thread.

I really don't think we have ever discussed Iraq before...

It will probably remain a topic until Americans stop dying over there.

That's not what you Bush'ists have been saying for over three years; so now you've changed your tune.

Another demonstration of the Bush'ist lack of morals.

I've stated that Clinton is a war criminal in this forum many times; and would love to see him in the dock right next to Bush. Even better would be to see them both swinging from the same gibbet.

Its war, people die.

I seem to recall that both parties gave the thumbs up to go into Iraq. Given bad intel? Well, they should have examined the sources then. Nobody held a gun to congress' head. The lib dems could have stalled till they felt good about it but I seemed to recall (as do many of you) that almost all said "lets roll!".

BTW - I remember reading a op ed column by M Albright aout the Iraq invasion - she was for it. Imagine, a Clinton croonie saying it was justified...