2,974

[lendaddy]

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.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
Oh, yes. Our deep respect for the UN.

Of course. That explains everything.

You are aware, of course, that Resolution 1441 was one additional vote short of authorizing military action? No? Faux News didn't bother with that detail?

Yes, Dubya was concerned that the UN wouldn't take the final step, and his plans were all made. So he went ahead without the aid & support of the majority of the world's countries.

In fact, in January '03, Iraq had complied with 1441 and let the weapons inspectors back in and produced documentation showing that it had no WMD programs.

It's instructive to go to the source.

---------------from the UN website---------------
On 8 November, the Council unanimously adopted resolution 1441 (2002), by which it held Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, and decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime. The Council also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities and recalled repeated warnings by the Council that Iraq would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations. The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to any sites in Iraq, including presidential sites.

On 25 November, the first inspectors arrived in Baghdad and have been continually present there since then. On 7 December, one day before the deadline set by resolution 1442, Iraq handed over to the United Nations the required declaration "of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and other delivery systems". The Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Hans Blix, and the Director-General of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, briefed the Council in closed consultations on their initial assessment of the declaration and progress of inspections on 19 December.

--------------end excerpt-------------
....

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:

I naturally feel sadness that three and a half months of work carried out in Iraq have not brought the assurances needed about the absence of weapons of mass destruction or other proscribed items in Iraq , ...I would like further to make some specific comments that relate to the Draft Programme. I am aware of ideas which have been advanced that specific groups of disarmament issues could be tackled and solved within specific time lines. The programme does not propose such an approach, in which, say, we would aim at addressing and resolving the issues of anthrax and VX in March and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs) in April. In the work we pursued until now we worked broadly and did not neglect any identified disarmament issues. However, it is evidently possible for the Council to single out a few issues for resolution within a specific time, just as the draft programme before you selects twelve key tasks progress on which could have an impact on the Council's assessment of cooperation of Iraq under resolution 1284 (1999). Whatever approach is followed, results will depend on Iraq's active cooperation on substance.
May I add that in my last report I commented on information provided by Iraq on a number of unresolved issues. Since then, Iraq has sent several more letters on such issues. These efforts by Iraq should be acknowledged, but, as I noted in this Council on 7 March the value of the information thus provided must be soberly judged. Our experts have found so far that in substance only limited new information has been provided that will help to resolve remaining questions....

[fintstone]

Originally posted by 930addict
If it was for a U.N. resolution then this war should have been left up to the U.N. to handle...

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

Originally posted by 930addict
...Iraq was never a threat to us. There are many countries that support terrorists, is Bush the warlord going to take after all of them too? ...

One can only hope...

[Jim Bremner]

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.

[930addict]

Originally posted by fintstone
As you probably know the U.N. does not have a military to "handle" wars.

One can only hope...

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.

[930addict]

Originally posted by Jim Bremner
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.

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?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by 930addict
If it was for a U.N. resolution then this war should have been left up to the U.N. to handle…

Originally posted by fintstone
As you probably know the U.N. does not have a military to "handle" wars....

Originally posted by 930addict
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.

Originally posted by fintstone
As you probably know the U.N. does not have a military to "handle" wars....

[fintstone]

Originally posted by 930addict
...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.

[widgeon13]

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

[930addict]

Originally posted by fintstone
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.

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.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by 930addict
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?

[930addict]

Originally posted by fintstone
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.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by 930addict
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...

\

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?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by lendaddy
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.

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.

[Nathans_Dad]

What an amazingly original thread.

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

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
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.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Which would also make sense if we had invaded Iraq as revenge for 9/11. But we didn't so what's your point?

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.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by fintstone
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.

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.

[M.D. Holloway]

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...