Do Republicans regret their Iraq fiasco?

[Iceweasel]

2003?

Yes 2003. That is when Bush forced the UN inspectors to leave Iraq so he could start bombing Iraq and insert ground troops to find the WMD through war, death and destruction and to ignite Shiite/Sunni civil war which led to the creation of AQI and then they changed their name to ISIL/ISIS.

ISIS calls al Qaeda modernists, you don't know what you're talking about.

Like I said BEFORE, the UN was ineffective. Had they been effective the US would not have gone in. obama pulled out too early, making a political decision, not military. Your Bush hate is misplaced.

U.N. Inspectors Leave Iraq Fox News
Published March 18, 2003
Associated Press
U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war.

After failing to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq, Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to step down or face war in a speech Monday night.

 

[Dragonlady]

Icew 10863944

That excuse has more moving parts than a Swiss watch.

Why? Explain yourself for once. Being truly non-partisan in support of the October 2002 vote that Republicans and Democrats alike voted for is not an excuse. It is a statement of non-partisan fact. I have explained why and what it means. All I get from you is clowning and cliché's. You have not been taught an argument against what I'm saying is most likely the reason. So you have none and can't try to make one.

I can't understand anything for you. You can't accept facts that differ from your beliefs, I posted them, they're still there.

Your hatred of Bush was childish and at this point, clinical. You need professional help. If what you said was remotely true Democrats would have had a field day with it and made it daily headline news.

Anyone who disagreed with Bush in 2002 and 2003 was "aiding and abetting the terrorists". Those who questioned the war, were against America. Or have you forgotten "freedom fries". It would have been political suicide to vote against it.

Even the American media reported only those things which backed up Bush and his portrayal of Iraq as having weapons of mass destruction.

Many of the analysts that the White House depended on for information reported that intel which didn't support the administration's point of view was sent back or rejected. The CIA bent over backwards to find stuff which Bush could use to push his position. Otherwise they would lose favour.



Fortunately the media in other parts of the world persisted in telling the truth

 

[Iceweasel]

Anyone who disagreed with Bush in 2002 and 2003 was "aiding and abetting the terrorists". Those who questioned the war, were against America. Or have you forgotten "freedom fries". It would have been political suicide to vote against it.

Even the American media reported only those things which backed up Bush and his portrayal of Iraq as having weapons of mass destruction.

Many of the analysts that the White House depended on for information reported that intel which didn't support the administration's point of view was sent back or rejected. The CIA bent over backwards to find stuff which Bush could use to push his position. Otherwise they would lose favour.



Fortunately the media in other parts of the world persisted in telling the truth

Political suicide to vote against the war because of what Bush said? The Democrats feared him that much? You people can't keep up with your own bullshit.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Isn't this the part where Republicans are supposedto blame Iraq on the Democrats?

Bush liberated a country, got rid of Saddam. Obama successfully ended the war. Then he went against his advisers, and now it's a total screw up. What does Obama do? Blame BUSH and plays golf.

See. This is the new lie on the Right. They will always find a lie to cover their asses.

I'd have to say, anyone who announces a complete troop withdraw date deadline for all the world to be made aware ... is by far not the most intelligent individual (I don't particularly care of you are a Republican or Democrat). To do so for strictly political reasons, without utilizing your own intelligence resources and the advice from those commanders who are deployed with direct contact to their troops in that region, is only asking to create an unstable situation when they our Troops leave. President Obama became the next president to jump and declare to the world "Mission Accomplished" haphazardly, leaving a vacuum of ill equipped solders behind to deal with any terrorist threat looking to reclaim a foothold in Iraq.

 

[rdean]

Just like Benghazi and Fast and Furious, Republicans are desperate to make some kind of scandal work. They keep talking about secret CIA reports and secret info proving Saddam had WMD's.

Unfortunately for them, George Bush said he was disappointed there were no WMD's. Cheney said there were no WMD's and even lies about saying there ever were. And now Jeb Bush says there were no WMD's.

Republicans believed Bush when he lied and refused to believe him when he tells the truth. Such silly and mislead people.

Look at how stupid liberals allow themselves to get. Rdean, you are a fucking lost cause you piece of shit.

Yea, sure. If you really felt that way, you could explain why. Give examples.
But you don't.
Never will.
What does that make you?
"Tool"?

 

[rdean]

1. 
   Do Republicans regret their Iraq fiasco?

No more than the Leftytoons who voted to get us into it then and are getting us into more shit now.

See what I mean? Republicans insisting the "fiasco" was the Democrats fault because they went along with it? Wow, talk about the lack of taking responsibility. They won't and never will.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Icew 10864855

Like I said BEFORE, the UN was ineffective.

You said? The majority of the 15 members on the UN Security Council were of the opinion that the inspections were working just fine.

You admit as much right here:

After failing to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq,

You said? You are not anybody to decide the UNSC's business. Who do you think you are?

 

[Esmeralda]

Do they? Considering all the damage it's caused. All the American lives lost or destroyed. The financial cost to the country. Do they ever wonder if it was a bad idea?

They don't regret anything because they just blame it on someone else. Simple.

 

[deltex1]

NotFooledbyReality...this proves that you are a lying hate filled idiot.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02
2000

No it proves you are all that and don't know how to read a calendar. What do you think "2000" means there? Iraq and the UN were near completion of the disarmament process in March 2003 when Bush decided to invade. Is someone typing posts for you and reading you stuff? What is your problem?

Your evidence has been rejected - you are three years off..

Upon what basis do you believe that Saddam would have honored any agreement? I suppose the same faith you have in the ayatollah in iran that his word is his bond.

 

[Edgetho]

I can't, and I won't, speak for anyone else but I was against the invasion from Day One.

It just simply made no sense. I didn't think Saddam had WMDs and if he did, they weren't deliverable. But I know that Mossad thought he did. Iran thought he did. Turkey thought he did. The Pakis thought he did. The Indians thought he did.

In fact, every Intelligence service on earth thought Saddam had WMDs.

You dims? You're too stupid to remember this -- BBC ON THIS DAY 7 1981 Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor when Israel bombed an Iraqi Nuclear reactor -- TWENTY years before.

But, like I said, dimocraps are stupid. Big surprise there....

But here's the thing dimocrap morons.....

We DID invade Iraq. Can't change that. It can't be done.

What you SHOULD be asking (but you won't, because you are the scum of the earth) is why the Lying Cocksucker in Chief refused to push for SOFA with Iraq.

But, like I said. dimocraps are not only stupid, you're the scum of the earth.

Now, to use my own truth.... the Lying Cocksucker in Chief shouldn'thave let our troops be withdrawn -- But he DID.

So now that's a problem we should deal with.

Bush went into Iraq and de-stabilized the entire region. Bad move.

But he won the War and had the region moving in the direction of democracy and civil rights for everybody -- Even women.

Then along comes the Lying Cocksucker in Chief and, true to being dimocrap scum, stabbed the people of the region in the back... Just like dimocrap FILTH did to the people of SE Asia in the mid-70s

So now do we let another few million die?

If it's up to the scum of the earth dimocraps -- It sure looks like it.

So what else is new

 

[JimH52]

Do they? Considering all the damage it's caused. All the American lives lost or destroyed. The financial cost to the country. Do they ever wonder if it was a bad idea?

Are you kidding? They are chomping at the bit for another war in the middle east. Why else would they invite Bbi to tell Congress how Iran is ready to destroy the world? Rather than try to come up with a plan to stop Iran and put inspectors on the ground to monitor their program, they want to attack Iran. They need to pad the pockets of some of their corporate friends, even if it does mean the blood of American soldiers is shed.

If they do win the WH in 2016, we will be in another major war before the 4 year term is complete for the GOP President.

 

[JimH52]

NotFooledbyReality...this proves that you are a lying hate filled idiot.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02
2000

No it proves you are all that and don't know how to read a calendar. What do you think "2000" means there? Iraq and the UN were near completion of the disarmament process in March 2003 when Bush decided to invade. Is someone typing posts for you and reading you stuff? What is your problem?

Your evidence has been rejected - you are three years off..

Upon what basis do you believe that Saddam would have honored any agreement? I suppose the same faith you have in the ayatollah in iran that his word is his bond.

There were inspectors on the ground who could not find WMD. It did not matter to the recovering alcoholic. He attacked to find the WMD anyway.

 

[deltex1]

I can't, and I won't, speak for anyone else but I was against the invasion from Day One.

It just simply made no sense. I didn't think Saddam had WMDs and if he did, they weren't deliverable. But I know that Mossad thought he did. Iran thought he did. Turkey thought he did. The Pakis thought he did. The Indians thought he did.

In fact, every Intelligence service on earth thought Saddam had WMDs.

You dims? You're too stupid to remember this -- BBC ON THIS DAY 7 1981 Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor when Israel bombed an Iraqi Nuclear reactor -- TWENTY years before.

But, like I said, dimocraps are stupid. Big surprise there....

But here's the thing dimocrap morons.....

We DID invade Iraq. Can't change that. It can't be done.

What you SHOULD be asking (but you won't, because you are the scum of the earth) is why the Lying Cocksucker in Chief refused to push for SOFA with Iraq.

But, like I said. dimocraps are not only stupid, you're the scum of the earth.

Now, to use my own truth.... the Lying Cocksucker in Chief shouldn'thave let our troops be withdrawn -- But he DID.

So now that's a problem we should deal with.

Bush went into Iraq and de-stabilized the entire region. Bad move.

But he won the War and had the region moving in the direction of democracy and civil rights for everybody -- Even women.

Then along comes the Lying Cocksucker in Chief and, true to being dimocrap scum, stabbed the people of the region in the back... Just like dimocrap FILTH did to the people of SE Asia in the mid-70s

So now do we let another few million die?

If it's up to the scum of the earth dimocraps -- It sure looks like it.

So what else is new

I believed the wmd issue was merely a way to demonize Saddam in the eyes of the world...as we prepared to attack. I believe we should have just killed Saddam...easier than invading. I spported the war but always felt it was our opportunity to show the world we meant business...go in with all guns blazing...no roe...disarm the nation. Tolerate nothing. W failed at that. But he won in the long run...and, as you say, OBABBLE pissed it all away.

 

[deltex1]

NotFooledbyReality...this proves that you are a lying hate filled idiot.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02
2000

No it proves you are all that and don't know how to read a calendar. What do you think "2000" means there? Iraq and the UN were near completion of the disarmament process in March 2003 when Bush decided to invade. Is someone typing posts for you and reading you stuff? What is your problem?

Your evidence has been rejected - you are three years off..

Upon what basis do you believe that Saddam would have honored any agreement? I suppose the same faith you have in the ayatollah in iran that his word is his bond.

There were inspectors on the ground who could not find WMD. It did not matter to the recovering alcoholic. He attacked to find the WMD anyway.

You know nothing about what was found.

 

[Edgetho]

There were inspectors on the ground who could not find WMD. It did not matter to the recovering alcoholic. He attacked to find the WMD anyway.

You're a lying scumbag.... But you're a dimocrap, so that kinda goes with the territory.

Saddam expelled the Weapons Inspectors

July 5, 2002

• Iraq once again rejects new UN weapons inspection proposals.

July 23, 2002

• A British government memo gives an overview of a secret meeting of United Kingdom Labour government, defense, and intelligence figures, who discuss the build-up to war in Iraq. The head of MI6, recently back from visiting Washington, is quoted as expressing the view that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."[8]

August[edit]
August 2002

• According to U.S. Intelligence, China, with help from France and Syria, has secretly sold to Iraq the prohibited chemical Hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene, or HTPB, which is used in making solid fuel for long-range missiles. France denies that the sale took place. U.S. intelligence traces the sale back to China's Qilu Chemicals company in Shandong province. The chemical sale involved a French company known as CIS Paris, which helped broker the sale of 20 tons of HTPB, which was then shipped from China to the Syrian port of Tartus. The chemicals were then shipped by truck from Syria to an Iraqi missile manufacturing plant.

August 2, 2002

• In a letter to the UN Secretary General, Iraq invites Hans Blix to Iraq for discussions on remaining disarmament issues.

August 17, 2002

• A letter from an Iraqi intelligence official urgently asks agents in Iraq to look for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and another unnamed man. Two responses said, "we found no information to confirm the presence of the above mentioned in our area of operation. Please review, we suggest circulating the contents of this message."[9]

August 19, 2002

• The UN Secretary General rejects Iraq's August 2 proposal as the "wrong work program", but recommends that Iraq allow the return of weapons inspectors in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1284, passed in 1999.

September[edit]
September 12, 2002

• US President George W. Bush, addressing the UN General Assembly, challenges the UN to confront the "grave and gathering danger" of Iraq or stand aside as the United States and likeminded nations act. The UN Security Council begins discussion on drafting a new resolution to encourage Iraq to comply with the previous sixteen UN resolutions.

September 22, 2002

• The British government places a dossier before Parliament giving its intelligence assessment of Iraq's WMD capability. The document alleges that Iraq possesses chemical weapons and biological weapons, and has restarted its nuclear weapons program. The document also asserts that Iraq has sought "significant quantities of uranium from Africa", and that some of the WMD would be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them. Claims later leaked in May 2003 that the dossier was "sexed up" under pressure from Downing Street will lead to a media furore, and the apparent suicide of weapons inspector David Kelly.

September 26, 2002

• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld accuses Iraq of harboring al Qaeda terrorists and aiding their quest for weapons of mass destruction.
• The Bush administration says attempts by Iraq to acquire thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes points to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. Indeed, Colin Powell, in his address to the U.N. Security Council just prior to the war, made reference to the aluminum tubes. But a report released by the Institute for Science and International Security in 2002 reported that it was highly unlikely that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium. Powell later admitted he had presented an inaccurate case to the United Nations on Iraqi weapons, and that the intelligence presented was in some cases "deliberately misleading."[10][11][12]

October[edit]
October 3, 2002

• US Evangelical Christian leaders led by Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention send a letter to President Bush outlining the theological justification for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq.[citation needed]

October 10, 2002

• The United States Congress passes the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.
• Canada announces that it not will be part of any military coalition sanctioned by the United Nations to invade Iraq.
• A few days before the U.S. Senate vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, about 75 senators are told in closed session that Saddam Hussein has the means of delivering biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction byunmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) drones that could be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack U.S. eastern seaboard cities.Colin Powell suggested in his presentation to the United Nations that UAVs were transported out of Iraq and could be launched against the U.S. In fact, Iraq had no fleet of UAVs nor any capability of putting UAVs on ships.[13] Iraq's UAV fleet consisted of less than a handful of outdated Czech training drones.[14] At the time, there was a vigorous dispute within the intelligence community as to whether CIA had conclusions about Iraqi UAVs were accurate. The U.S. Air Force agency most familiar with UAVs denied outright that Iraq possessed any offensive UAV capability.[15]

November[edit]
November 8, 2002

• The UN Council votes unanimously for Resolution 1441, the 17th Iraq disarmament resolution passed by the council, calling for immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq. The resolution also demands that Iraq declare all weapons of mass destruction to the council, and account for its known chemical weapons material stockpiles.

November 13, 2002

• Iraq accepts U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and informs the UN that it will abide by the resolution.
• Weapons inspectors arrive in Baghdad again after a four-year absence.

December[edit]
December 7, 2002

• Iraq files a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements of resolution 1441. UN weapons inspectors, the UN security council and the U.S. feel that this declaration fails to account for all of Iraq's chemical and biological agents.
• Turkey moves approximately 15,000 soldiers to the border with Iraq

December 19, 2002

• UNMOVIC Chairman Hans Blix tells UNSC members that the Iraqi weapons declaration filed on December 7 "is essentially a reorganized version" of information Iraq provided UNSCOM in 1997, and that it "is not enough to create confidence" that Iraq has abandoned its WMD efforts.

2003[edit]
January[edit]
January 2003

• Turkey invites at least five other regional countries to a "'last-chance' meeting to avert a US-led war against Iraq."
• According to U.S. Intelligence, France has secretly sold prohibited spare parts to Iraq for its fighter jets and military helicopters.

January 18, 2003

• Global protests against war on Iraq occur in cities around the world, including Tokyo, Moscow, Paris, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Cologne, Bonn, Goteborg, Istanbul, and Cairo. NION and ANSWER hold protests in Washington D.C. and San Francisco, California.

January 2003

• A statement released to various newspapers and signed by the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic shows support for the US, saying that Saddam should not be allowed to violate U.N. resolutions. The statement goes on to say that Saddam is a "clear threat to world security," and urges Europe to unite with the United States to ensure that the Iraqi government is disarmed.

January 25, 2003

• An international group of volunteers leaves London, heading for Baghdad to act as human shields. Most will leave in March fearing that they would actually become human shields.

January 27, 2003

• Chairmen of the inspections effort report to the UN Security Council that, while Iraq has provided some access to facilities, concerns remain regarding undeclared material; inability to interview Iraqi scientists; inability to deploy aerial surveillance during inspections; and harassment of weapons inspectors.

January 31, 2003

• Tony Blair meets George Bush at the White House. In a memo written by Blair's chief foreign adviser, Bush is paraphrased as saying: "The start date for the military campaign was now pencilled in for March 10. This was when the bombing would begin."

February[edit]
February 5, 2003

• At the United Nations US Secretary of State Colin Powell presents the US government's case against the Saddam Husseingovernment of Iraq, as part of the diplomatic side of the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. The presentation includes tape recordings, satellite photographs and other intelligence data, and aims to prove WMD production, evasion of weapons inspections and a link to Al-Qaida.

February 7, 2003

• The chief United Nations arms inspector Hans Blix says Iraq appears to be making fresh efforts to cooperate with U.N. teams huntingweapons of mass destruction, while Washington says the "momentum is building" for war with Iraq.

February 8, 2003

• Sections of a new 'dossier' issued by the UK government, which purports to present the latest British intelligence about Iraq, and which has been cited by Tony Blair and Colin Powell as evidence for the need for war, are criticized as plagiarisms. Evidently they have been copied without permission from a number of sources including Jane's Intelligence Review and a 12-year-old doctoral thesis which was published in the US journal Middle East Review of International Affairs. Some sentences appear copied word-for-word with even spelling mistakes being reproduced from the original articles. Downing Street responds by saying that the government had never claimed exclusive authorship and that the information was accurate.

February 10, 2003

• France and Belgium break the NATO procedure of silent approval concerning the timing of protective measures for Turkey in case of a possible war with Iraq. Germany says it supports this veto. The procedure was put into operation on February 6 by secretary generalGeorge Robertson. In response Turkey calls upon Article 4 of the NATO Treaty, which stipulates that member states must deliberate when asked to do so by another member state if it feels threatened.

February 12, 2003

• An audio tape attributed to Osama bin Laden is released by al Jazeera television. It recounts the battle of Tora Bora and urges Muslims to fight the United States and to overthrow the Iraq government of Saddam Hussein.

February 13, 2003

• A UN panel reports that Iraq's al-Samoud 2 missiles, disclosed by Iraq to weapons inspectors in December, have a range of 180 km (above the 150 km limit allowed by the UN), splitting opinion over whether they breach UNSCR 1441.
• Austria bars USA military units involved in the attack on Iraq from entering into or flying over its territories without a UN mandate to attack Iraq.
• The Washington Post claims that anonymous sources confirm that two Special Forces units have been operating on the ground insideIraq for over a month, making preliminary preparations for a large-scale invasion.

February 14, 2003

• A very large demonstration is held in Melbourne to protest against the Australian government's support for the USA's policy on Iraq. Organisers estimate that 200,000 people come out on to the streets, while some news sources put the number at "up to 150,000".[16]
• UNMOVIC chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei present their second report to the United Nations Security Council. They state that the Iraqis have been co-operating well with the inspectors and that no weapons of mass destruction have been found, but that the Saddam Hussein government had still to account for many banned weapons believed to have been in his arsenal. Mr Blix also expresses doubts about some of the conclusions in Colin Powell's Security Council presentation of February 5, and specifically questions the significance of some of the photographic evidence that Mr Powell has presented.

February 15, 2003

• Global protests against war on Iraq: People around the world demonstrate against the planning of war against Iraq. In Rome one million people take to the streets, in London one million. In Berlin there are half a million in the largest demonstration for some decades. There are also protest marches all over France as well as in many other smaller European cities. Protests are also held in South Africa, Syria, India, Russia, Canada and in the USA, in around 600 cities in total.

February 18, 2003

• Hours before the first ships transporting heavy United States military equipment to Turkey were supposed to reach port, the Turkish government announces that it will withhold approval to dock unless the United States increases a reciprocal $6 billion foreign aid grant to $10 billion. The Bush administration indicates that no substantial changes will be made to the proposed aid package.[17]

February 22, 2003

• Bush meets with the Spanish president, Aznar, to discuss the Security Council situation. According to a leaked transcript of the meeting, Bush was using foreign aid and trade agreements to put pressure on Security Council members to support US policy. The transcript also revealed that Saddam had offered to go into exile if he was allowed to keep $1 billion and information on weapons of mass destruction.

February 24, 2003

• Secretary of State Colin Powell states at a meeting in Beijing that "It is time to take action. The evidence is clear ... We are reaching that point where serious consequences must flow." His speech appears to imply that military action is likely to follow within three weeks, based on previous briefings from The Pentagon.

February 25, 2003

• The United States, Britain and Spain present to the UN Security Council a much-anticipated second resolution stating that Iraq "has failed to take the final opportunity" to disarm, but does not include deadlines or an explicit threat of military force. Meanwhile, France, Germany, and Russia offer a counter-proposal calling for peaceful disarmament through further inspections.
• Both major parties of Kurdistan, an autonomous region in Northern Iraq, vow to fight Turkish troops if they enter Kurdistan to captureMosul or interfere in Kurdish self-rule. Between them the two parties can mobilize up to 80,000 guerillas – most likely no match for the modern Turkish army, but a severe blow to the unity of U.S. allies on the Northern front expected in the U.S. plan to invade Iraq.

February 26, 2003

• Hans Blix states that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation. Specifically, Iraq has refused to destroy its al-Samoud 2 long range missiles. (These are not a WMD, and Iraq is permitted "battlefield" missiles. However, Iraq's missiles were limited by UN instruction to a diameter of 600mm, and the Al-Samoud II has a diameter of 760mm). These missiles are deployed and mobile. Also, an R-400 aerial bomb was found that could possibly contain biological agents. Given this find, the UN Inspectors have requested access to the Al-Aziziyah weapons range to verify that all 155 R-400 bombs can be accounted for and proven destroyed. Blix also expresses skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said
• George Bush commits publicly to a post-invasion democracy in Iraq, saying it will be "an example" to other nations in Arabia
• Tony Blair passes a motion in the British House of Commons supporting a new resolution at the UN Security Council and presumably authorizing a war (although the motion carefully avoids saying so). 120 UK Labour Party MPs dissent and vote against it – double the number who opposed the previous such motion – but the UK Conservative Party backs the government's motion.
• Saddam Hussein, in an interview with Dan Rather, rules out exile as an option.

February 27, 2003

• UN Security Council meeting on Iraq ends without forming an agreement on timeline for further weapons inspections or future reports.

February 28, 2003

• Iraq is expected to begin the process of destroying Al Samoud two missiles on Saturday. Hans Blix, U.N. chief weapons inspector says "It is a very significant piece of real disarmament". However, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declares that the Iraq commitment to destroying these missiles is a fraud that President George W. Bush had predicted, and indicates that the United States wants a total and complete disarmament of Iraq. He also repeats that if the United Nations does not act to disarm Baghdad, the United States will lead a coalition of voluntary countries to disarm Saddam Hussein.

 

[regent]

As Jeb said it's all in the past, we now go on to the future.

 

[deltex1]

I can't, and I won't, speak for anyone else but I was against the invasion from Day One.

It just simply made no sense. I didn't think Saddam had WMDs and if he did, they weren't deliverable. But I know that Mossad thought he did. Iran thought he did. Turkey thought he did. The Pakis thought he did. The Indians thought he did.

In fact, every Intelligence service on earth thought Saddam had WMDs.

You dims? You're too stupid to remember this -- BBC ON THIS DAY 7 1981 Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor when Israel bombed an Iraqi Nuclear reactor -- TWENTY years before.

But, like I said, dimocraps are stupid. Big surprise there....

But here's the thing dimocrap morons.....

We DID invade Iraq. Can't change that. It can't be done.

What you SHOULD be asking (but you won't, because you are the scum of the earth) is why the Lying Cocksucker in Chief refused to push for SOFA with Iraq.

But, like I said. dimocraps are not only stupid, you're the scum of the earth.

Now, to use my own truth.... the Lying Cocksucker in Chief shouldn'thave let our troops be withdrawn -- But he DID.

So now that's a problem we should deal with.

Bush went into Iraq and de-stabilized the entire region. Bad move.

But he won the War and had the region moving in the direction of democracy and civil rights for everybody -- Even women.

Then along comes the Lying Cocksucker in Chief and, true to being dimocrap scum, stabbed the people of the region in the back... Just like dimocrap FILTH did to the people of SE Asia in the mid-70s

So now do we let another few million die?

If it's up to the scum of the earth dimocraps -- It sure looks like it.

So what else is new

I believed the wmd issue was merely a way to demonize Saddam in the eyes of the world...as we prepared to attack. I believe we should have just killed Saddam...easier than invading. I spported the war but always felt it was our opportunity to show the world we meant business...go in with all guns blazing...no roe...disarm the nation. Tolerate nothing. W failed at that. But he won in the long run...and, as you say, OBABBLE pissed it all away.

Having said that...Saddam had wmd....how significant they were was debatable...but they came in handy to justify a war that needed little justification.

 

[Iceweasel]

NotFooledbyReality...this proves that you are a lying hate filled idiot.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02
2000

No it proves you are all that and don't know how to read a calendar. What do you think "2000" means there? Iraq and the UN were near completion of the disarmament process in March 2003 when Bush decided to invade. Is someone typing posts for you and reading you stuff? What is your problem?

Your evidence has been rejected - you are three years off..

Upon what basis do you believe that Saddam would have honored any agreement? I suppose the same faith you have in the ayatollah in iran that his word is his bond.

There were inspectors on the ground who could not find WMD. It did not matter to the recovering alcoholic. He attacked to find the WMD anyway.

This is REALLY old at this point. Saddam did not give them unfettered access, that was the complaint! It's why he was in violation UN resolutions.

 

[Edgetho]

This is REALLY old at this point. Saddam did not give them unfettered access, that was the complaint! It's why he was in violation UN resolutions.

Yeah, but it was only 17 of them

 

[regent]

NotFooledbyReality...this proves that you are a lying hate filled idiot.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02
2000

No it proves you are all that and don't know how to read a calendar. What do you think "2000" means there? Iraq and the UN were near completion of the disarmament process in March 2003 when Bush decided to invade. Is someone typing posts for you and reading you stuff? What is your problem?

Your evidence has been rejected - you are three years off..

Upon what basis do you believe that Saddam would have honored any agreement? I suppose the same faith you have in the ayatollah in iran that his word is his bond.

There were inspectors on the ground who could not find WMD. It did not matter to the recovering alcoholic. He attacked to find the WMD anyway.

This is REALLY old at this point. Saddam did not give them unfettered access, that was the complaint! It's why he was in violation UN resolutions.

Do countries have to obey UN resolutions including the United States?