So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[Boss]

So you admit you have read but ignore that Dr Blux was overall saying that the inspections were not a failure and the period could be short - meaning the could be successful.,

That proactive cooperation by Iraq did arrive prior to the invasion according to Blix.:

UN1441 called for Saddam to cooperate immediately, actively and proactively. Coming around after months when 100k troops are ready to deploy in the Persian Gulf IS NOT IMMEDIATE COOPERATION!

UN1441 did not say.. "Whenever you feel like cooperating" or "as long as it looks like the US is ready to launch an invasion." Those were not options afforded Saddam in UN1441.

Blix repeatedly reports that Iraq is not cooperating fully. Saddam never did turn over information requested about various programs. UN1441 does not say that we're going to give SH all the time in the world... it says IMMEDIATE COOPERATION.... are you having trouble with either of those BIG words?

As for what arrived eventually, that doesn't matter. This was SH's standard MO. Convince everyone that you are willing and ready to cooperate, then start dragging your feet, obfuscating and pushing back. In the past, he had run this game 17 times with the other resolutions and there was no reason for him to think he couldn't get away with it again.

His game playing time ran out.

And you still ignore the fact that Saddam offered Bush direct and immediate cooperation with the CIA in December 2002 as reported by Fox News. Bush could have had direct immediate cooperation but chose to reject it. Will you never acknowledge Saddam's early offer to fully cooperate immediately in accordance with 1441?

Again, I have posted the reports from Dr. Blix which show that he was not cooperating. Saddam "offered" to do a LOT of things... he never did them, that's the problem!

And again, I am dreadfully sorry your buddy got himself ousted and then, summarily tried and executed by the people of Iraq. I guess he should have maybe taken those resolutions seriously and especially UN1441 when it called for his immediate, active and proactive cooperation. As Blix said, had he cooperated in 1991, he could have saved himself 10 years of sanctions.

UN1441 was his final chance to cooperate fully and this was made perfectly clear to him. No more games, no more runaround, no more stonewalling. We did not get that. We got the same old games from Saddam as before. Even with 100k troops ready to invade his country he was still not forthcoming with information requested. You seem to be thinking like Saddam, that we weren't serious.. that UN1441 was a joke. That as long as he "appeared" to be cooperating, that was good enough. You and Saddam were dead wrong!

 

[Faun]

So you admit you have read but ignore that Dr Blux was overall saying that the inspections were not a failure and the period could be short - meaning the could be successful.,

That proactive cooperation by Iraq did arrive prior to the invasion according to Blix.:

UN1441 called for Saddam to cooperate immediately, actively and proactively. Coming around after months when 100k troops are ready to deploy in the Persian Gulf IS NOT IMMEDIATE COOPERATION!

UN1441 did not say.. "Whenever you feel like cooperating" or "as long as it looks like the US is ready to launch an invasion." Those were not options afforded Saddam in UN1441.

Blix repeatedly reports that Iraq is not cooperating fully. Saddam never did turn over information requested about various programs. UN1441 does not say that we're going to give SH all the time in the world... it says IMMEDIATE COOPERATION.... are you having trouble with either of those BIG words?

As for what arrived eventually, that doesn't matter. This was SH's standard MO. Convince everyone that you are willing and ready to cooperate, then start dragging your feet, obfuscating and pushing back. In the past, he had run this game 17 times with the other resolutions and there was no reason for him to think he couldn't get away with it again.

His game playing time ran out.

And you still ignore the fact that Saddam offered Bush direct and immediate cooperation with the CIA in December 2002 as reported by Fox News. Bush could have had direct immediate cooperation but chose to reject it. Will you never acknowledge Saddam's early offer to fully cooperate immediately in accordance with 1441?

Again, I have posted the reports from Dr. Blix which show that he was not cooperating. Saddam "offered" to do a LOT of things... he never did them, that's the problem!

And again, I am dreadfully sorry your buddy got himself ousted and then, summarily tried and executed by the people of Iraq. I guess he should have maybe taken those resolutions seriously and especially UN1441 when it called for his immediate, active and proactive cooperation. As Blix said, had he cooperated in 1991, he could have saved himself 10 years of sanctions.

UN1441 was his final chance to cooperate fully and this was made perfectly clear to him. No more games, no more runaround, no more stonewalling. We did not get that. We got the same old games from Saddam as before. Even with 100k troops ready to invade his country he was still not forthcoming with information requested. You seem to be thinking like Saddam, that we weren't serious.. that UN1441 was a joke. That as long as he "appeared" to be cooperating, that was good enough. You and Saddam were dead wrong!

Even if Hussein was noncompliant and in violation of 1441, that was for the U.N. to decide, not George Bush. It was also for the U.N. to decide what "serious consequences" would mean in the event of noncompliance, not George Bush.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Blix said ", the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short" with a pro-active Iraq attitude"

And Blix said according to your deep research said proactive cooperation was being received ". It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive ", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues."

So the proactive cooperation was there prior to the invasion. Blix said the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short.

As I said you are nuts to cite Blix to support your ignorant opinion that the 2003 Blix inspections were a failure.

Using war to disarm Iraq instead of allowing a proactively cooperating Iraq within a peaceful inspection process is the failure. And there were no WMD in Iraq anyway.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Faun 11635692

Even if Hussein was noncompliant and in violation of 1441, that was for the U.N. to decide, not George Bush. It was also for the U.N. to decide what "serious consequences" would mean in the event of noncompliance, not George Bush.

That's true, but SH was compliant with 1441 because Blix merely questioned the 'immediacy' regarding the amount of time it took for SH to become proactive on what Blix referred to as 'substance'. Blix constantly reported Iraq's immediate cooperation on process which is a term Blix used in reference to access to sites and assisting inspectors to move around the country freely etc.

There is no definition in Res 1441 separating 'immediate cooperation' into two parts (process and substance) which means cooperation on process was immediate enough for the majority on the UNSC to accept the inspections as very functional seeing no significant compliance issues.

And to me the separate issue of Iraq''s immediate offer to Bush to let the CIA come in was sufficient to show that Iraq attempted to demonstrate cooperation on substance immediately but the Bush White House respond




Boss 11635523

UN1441 did not say.. "Whenever you feel like cooperating" or "as long as it looks like the US is ready to launch an invasion." Those were not options afforded Saddam in UN1441.

1441 did not define what 'immediate, was. There was no defined timeline ir deadline. Bush agreed to that kamguage. And Blix repeatedly reported that cooperation on process was immediate and with very few issues or contention that arose during the early weeks of the process.

1441 did not define cooperation as 'process' and 'substance' - your argument has no legal, logical, technical, linguistic or relevant basis.

What matters is that cooperation on process was immediate while what Blix called cooperation on substance took longer. But Blix said with that active cooperation the inspection process could be completed in a short period of time.

Completion of the process overall in six months can very well be defined as immediate.

War as the solution to confirm compliance was by no means immediate - was it Boss? Or without tremendous loss of life limb and property and wealth.

Your argument is as nutty as it is partisan bs based on nothing.

 

[Boss]

So you admit you have read but ignore that Dr Blux was overall saying that the inspections were not a failure and the period could be short - meaning the could be successful.,

That proactive cooperation by Iraq did arrive prior to the invasion according to Blix.:

UN1441 called for Saddam to cooperate immediately, actively and proactively. Coming around after months when 100k troops are ready to deploy in the Persian Gulf IS NOT IMMEDIATE COOPERATION!

UN1441 did not say.. "Whenever you feel like cooperating" or "as long as it looks like the US is ready to launch an invasion." Those were not options afforded Saddam in UN1441.

Blix repeatedly reports that Iraq is not cooperating fully. Saddam never did turn over information requested about various programs. UN1441 does not say that we're going to give SH all the time in the world... it says IMMEDIATE COOPERATION.... are you having trouble with either of those BIG words?

As for what arrived eventually, that doesn't matter. This was SH's standard MO. Convince everyone that you are willing and ready to cooperate, then start dragging your feet, obfuscating and pushing back. In the past, he had run this game 17 times with the other resolutions and there was no reason for him to think he couldn't get away with it again.

His game playing time ran out.

And you still ignore the fact that Saddam offered Bush direct and immediate cooperation with the CIA in December 2002 as reported by Fox News. Bush could have had direct immediate cooperation but chose to reject it. Will you never acknowledge Saddam's early offer to fully cooperate immediately in accordance with 1441?

Again, I have posted the reports from Dr. Blix which show that he was not cooperating. Saddam "offered" to do a LOT of things... he never did them, that's the problem!

And again, I am dreadfully sorry your buddy got himself ousted and then, summarily tried and executed by the people of Iraq. I guess he should have maybe taken those resolutions seriously and especially UN1441 when it called for his immediate, active and proactive cooperation. As Blix said, had he cooperated in 1991, he could have saved himself 10 years of sanctions.

UN1441 was his final chance to cooperate fully and this was made perfectly clear to him. No more games, no more runaround, no more stonewalling. We did not get that. We got the same old games from Saddam as before. Even with 100k troops ready to invade his country he was still not forthcoming with information requested. You seem to be thinking like Saddam, that we weren't serious.. that UN1441 was a joke. That as long as he "appeared" to be cooperating, that was good enough. You and Saddam were dead wrong!

Even if Hussein was noncompliant and in violation of 1441, that was for the U.N. to decide, not George Bush. It was also for the U.N. to decide what "serious consequences" would mean in the event of noncompliance, not George Bush.

No sir, it was made clear that the United States would give the UN one more shot at getting Saddam's cooperation. Our nation is not controlled by or obliged to the UN. Never has been or will be the case.

Again.... THIS is where I disagreed with Bush on Iraq. I would have not gone to the UN again. There would have been no UN1441 or Hans Blix inspectors. Saddam would not have been afforded that opportunity to cooperate. Most importantly, we wouldn't have to endure Saddam apologists like you who want to make every excuse in the book for a tyrant dictator who was never going to comply. The going to the UN is where Bush messed up on Iraq. You do what you have to do and take the son of a bitch out... THEN you go to the UN.

 

[Boss]

Blix said ", the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short" with a pro-active Iraq attitude"

And Blix said according to your deep research said proactive cooperation was being received ". It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive ", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues."

So the proactive cooperation was there prior to the invasion. Blix said the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short.

As I said you are nuts to cite Blix to support your ignorant opinion that the 2003 Blix inspections were a failure.

Using war to disarm Iraq instead of allowing a proactively cooperating Iraq within a peaceful inspection process is the failure. And there were no WMD in Iraq anyway.

UN1441 makes it clear that Saddam had one last chance to cooperate immediately, fully and unconditionally. The cooperation was to be active and proactive but most importantly, immediate. It was NOT. It wasn't until we had 100k troops poised to invade that he even began to cooperate. We can't afford to keep 100k troops stationed on ships in the Persian Gulf to babysit Saddam. That wasn't what UN1441 called for nor what we agreed to do, or what Saddam agreed to do, for that matter.

Yeah, up to his last report, Blix was saying... hey, this could be short and we can get it over with quickly if Iraq will just comply and cooperate. It could have been over in 1991 and Iraq could've avoided a decade of sanctions. The problem certainly wasn't that we didn't give Saddam enough time.

 

[Boss]

1441 did not define what 'immediate, was.

Well because it wasn't written for MORONS!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11636646

Yeah, up to his last report, Blix was saying... hey, this could be short and we can get it over with quickly if Iraq will just comply and cooperate.

So you do understand that Blix reported that SH was cooperating on substance proactively prior to Bush's decision to invade. Blix reported SH cooperating immediately on process the entire time. So why is it that Bush invaded again?And that is after lying every time he said he would exhaust all diplomatic opportunities before starting a war. You make no sense. You are right 1441 was not written for morons. Only a moron would think he could make up his own version of what 'immediate cooperation' meant. Only a fool would believe that inspections that were working and had achieved the goal of proactive cooperation from Iraq on substance after a few months and immediate cooperation on process the entire tome to be a failure. Only a complete raving for war maniac would favor killing people and wasting billions of dollars as the better idea. You are right. 1441 was not written for idiots who still prefer the death destruction and turmoil plan was indeed the smarter way to go.

 

[Faun]

So you admit you have read but ignore that Dr Blux was overall saying that the inspections were not a failure and the period could be short - meaning the could be successful.,

That proactive cooperation by Iraq did arrive prior to the invasion according to Blix.:

UN1441 called for Saddam to cooperate immediately, actively and proactively. Coming around after months when 100k troops are ready to deploy in the Persian Gulf IS NOT IMMEDIATE COOPERATION!

UN1441 did not say.. "Whenever you feel like cooperating" or "as long as it looks like the US is ready to launch an invasion." Those were not options afforded Saddam in UN1441.

Blix repeatedly reports that Iraq is not cooperating fully. Saddam never did turn over information requested about various programs. UN1441 does not say that we're going to give SH all the time in the world... it says IMMEDIATE COOPERATION.... are you having trouble with either of those BIG words?

As for what arrived eventually, that doesn't matter. This was SH's standard MO. Convince everyone that you are willing and ready to cooperate, then start dragging your feet, obfuscating and pushing back. In the past, he had run this game 17 times with the other resolutions and there was no reason for him to think he couldn't get away with it again.

His game playing time ran out.

And you still ignore the fact that Saddam offered Bush direct and immediate cooperation with the CIA in December 2002 as reported by Fox News. Bush could have had direct immediate cooperation but chose to reject it. Will you never acknowledge Saddam's early offer to fully cooperate immediately in accordance with 1441?

Again, I have posted the reports from Dr. Blix which show that he was not cooperating. Saddam "offered" to do a LOT of things... he never did them, that's the problem!

And again, I am dreadfully sorry your buddy got himself ousted and then, summarily tried and executed by the people of Iraq. I guess he should have maybe taken those resolutions seriously and especially UN1441 when it called for his immediate, active and proactive cooperation. As Blix said, had he cooperated in 1991, he could have saved himself 10 years of sanctions.

UN1441 was his final chance to cooperate fully and this was made perfectly clear to him. No more games, no more runaround, no more stonewalling. We did not get that. We got the same old games from Saddam as before. Even with 100k troops ready to invade his country he was still not forthcoming with information requested. You seem to be thinking like Saddam, that we weren't serious.. that UN1441 was a joke. That as long as he "appeared" to be cooperating, that was good enough. You and Saddam were dead wrong!

Even if Hussein was noncompliant and in violation of 1441, that was for the U.N. to decide, not George Bush. It was also for the U.N. to decide what "serious consequences" would mean in the event of noncompliance, not George Bush.

No sir, it was made clear that the United States would give the UN one more shot at getting Saddam's cooperation. Our nation is not controlled by or obliged to the UN. Never has been or will be the case.

Again.... THIS is where I disagreed with Bush on Iraq. I would have not gone to the UN again. There would have been no UN1441 or Hans Blix inspectors. Saddam would not have been afforded that opportunity to cooperate. Most importantly, we wouldn't have to endure Saddam apologists like you who want to make every excuse in the book for a tyrant dictator who was never going to comply. The going to the UN is where Bush messed up on Iraq. You do what you have to do and take the son of a bitch out... THEN you go to the UN.

Bullshit.

While it's true the U.N. does not control the U.S., the reverse is also true -- the U.S. does not control the U.N.

You make no sense justifying a U.S. invasion over U.N. resolutions without U.N. approval.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11624492

If – for whatever reason – this is not done, the international community cannot have confidence that past programmes or any remaining parts of them have been terminated.

Boss 11625364

. Well I posted what Hans Blix reported to the UN as his role ended. He said international community could not be certain whether they knew if Saddam was in compliance with UN1441.

You did not post Blix reporting that the international community could not be certain whether they knew if Saddam was in compliance with UN1441. Why do you re-write what people actually say?

Blix reported that Iraq cooperated on process from the very start with very few incidents that did not interfere with making a lot of progress with the inspections. Then by mid Februray Blix reported SH cooperating on substance 'proactively' . Blix reported that even with Iraq's proactive cooperation on substance it would still take a few months to resolve the few longstanding unresolved issues with regard to unilaterally destroyed WMD in the early nineties. Blix's reports taken as a whole easily resolved the issue of Iraq's compliance with 1441 for members of the UNSC that were not hell bent for war. Iraq was in compliance with 1441 because Blix never ever said he was not in compliance with 1441. Had Blix witnessed a severe enough infraction to hinder inspections on the part of SH, he was to refer the non-compliance to the UNSC and they were to convene a meeting to determine if Iraq was in violation of his final opportunity to comply.

That never happened - and your actual quote of Blix had nothing to do with the international community being unable to be certain whether they knew if Saddam was in compliance with UN1441. They knew SH was in compliance with 1441 the entire time. The majority on the Council was certain about that. Why do you revise and embellish even the words of people that you have posted? Do you think no one will catch you?

 

[Boss]

Boss 11636646

Yeah, up to his last report, Blix was saying... hey, this could be short and we can get it over with quickly if Iraq will just comply and cooperate.

So you do understand that Blix reported that SH was cooperating on substance proactively prior to Bush's decision to invade. Blix reported SH cooperating immediately on process the entire time. So why is it that Bush invaded again?And that is after lying every time he said he would exhaust all diplomatic opportunities before starting a war. You make no sense. You are right 1441 was not written for morons. Only a moron would think he could make up his own version of what 'immediate cooperation' meant. Only a fool would believe that inspections that were working and had achieved the goal of proactive cooperation from Iraq on substance after a few months and immediate cooperation on process the entire tome to be a failure. Only a complete raving for war maniac would favor killing people and wasting billions of dollars as the better idea. You are right. 1441 was not written for idiots who still prefer the death destruction and turmoil plan was indeed the smarter way to go.

No hard head, I posted the parts of the reports from Blix which confirm that SH was NOT cooperating and the only time he began to cooperate was when the troops were deployed to the Gulf and he knew invasion was imminent. This is how SH had played us for the previous 10 years through 17 other resolutions.

"Immediate cooperation" is not hard to understand unless you are a moron. "Immediate" doesn't mean after 3-4 months and only when troops are preparing to invade. "Cooperation" doesn't mean obfuscation, protests, complaints, refusing to provide relative documentation... those are NOT cooperative.

Again--- The error Bush made was to give Saddam one more chance. There should have never been a UN1441. All it seems to have accomplished was to give liberal morons ammunition to attack Bush for not allowing diplomacy to work.

As for wasting billions of dollars, that's exactly what we were doing with ships full of soldiers sitting in the Persian Gulf.

 

[Boss]

Bullshit.

While it's true the U.N. does not control the U.S., the reverse is also true -- the U.S. does not control the U.N.

You make no sense justifying a U.S. invasion over U.N. resolutions without U.N. approval.

Wow... It's really funny when someone says "bullshit" then immediately admits it is true!

Uhm... The United States did not invade Iraq because they violated the terms of UN1441. Had Saddam complied with UN1441, the invasion could have been avoided. The issue was not SH obeying UN resolutions, if it were, we would have invaded them 17 times the previous decade. The issue was his WMD programs which he was not forthcoming about.

 

[Political Junky]

I don't know what it is you think you get.

Bush himself warned about the creation of ISIS if we pulled out too precipitously and without a proper status of forces agreement. When Bush left office, there was no ISIS.

So we should have just stayed and paid to defend iraq forever. I fail to see how that is good use of tax dollars.

War is not about tax dollars. We embarked on a carefully considered plan of attempting to create an Arab democracy... first time in history. The rationale behind this was, a democracy is more stable and doesn't tend to start wars with other democracies. There is more individual freedom under a democracy as opposed to a kingdom or dictatorship. There are fewer human rights issues. Generally, the people are happier and better off.

The idea was to change hearts and minds through realization. You can't defeat an ideology any other way, and that is what we are fighting, a war rooted in ideology. But all that went out the window because we abandoned it.

Rand Paul said the hawks in the GOP created ISIS.

 

[Faun]

Bullshit.

While it's true the U.N. does not control the U.S., the reverse is also true -- the U.S. does not control the U.N.

You make no sense justifying a U.S. invasion over U.N. resolutions without U.N. approval.

Wow... It's really funny when someone says "bullshit" then immediately admits it is true!

Uhm... The United States did not invade Iraq because they violated the terms of UN1441. Had Saddam complied with UN1441, the invasion could have been avoided. The issue was not SH obeying UN resolutions, if it were, we would have invaded them 17 times the previous decade. The issue was his WMD programs which he was not forthcoming about.

Now you're backpedalling as fast as you can.

Earlier, you said, "NO, Shithead! UN1441 was Saddam's LAST FUCKING CHANCE!"

Now you say, "The United States did not invade Iraq because they violated the terms of UN1441"

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11639376

"Immediate" doesn't mean after 3-4 months and only when troops are preparing to invade. "Cooperation" doesn't mean obfuscation, protests, complaints, refusing to provide relative documentation... those are NOT cooperative.

Are you clear now that Iraq did not obstruct or block access to sites or interfere with the movements of the 2003 UN inspectors as Blix reported cooperation on process was received immediately. \

SH didn't have documentation. He could not produce it in a week or ever if it did not exist. How do you decide 3-4 months was not immediate when SH offered to let the CIA come in immediately. And when the UNSC majority recognized it as immediate enough to want inspections to continue. You are nobody on the UNSC and your warmonger opinion meant nothing to a group of much more intelligent people than you.

SH made his offer to let the CIA come in mid-December and was already cooperating on process by that time according to Blix.

Could you explain how you could believe on March 17, 2003 that invading and killing people insde Iraq would resolve Iraq's 'paperwork' problem more quickly than the UN inspectors were saying they could do it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Uhm... The United States did not invade Iraq because they violated the terms of UN1441. Had Saddam complied with UN1441, the invasion could have been avoided. The issue was not SH obeying UN resolutions, if it were, we would have invaded them 17 times the previous decade. The issue was his WMD programs which he was not forthcoming about.

How much more forthcoming could SH have been than offering to let the CIA come into Iraq to search for 'the most lethal weapons ever devised' and the programs required to build them? You can't seem to find a line of bs to respond to that.

Iraq did not violate the terms of UNSC 1441. So according to you the invasion should have been avoided. Bush needed nine members to agree with his claim that Iraq but after trying for nearly a month he could not get them. You have been citing 1441 language to claim Iraq violated the terms of it, but you don't recognize the fact that it was Bush that did violate the terms of 1441 when he decided to force inspectors out and invade Iraq without the consent of the majority that were sitting on the Council.

Bush also violated another obligation to the UNSC under 1441 which was the US's obligation to turn over all intelligence on WMD to the Security Council and the inspectors. Bush admitted on March 17, 2003 that he did not share all the intelligence he claimed to have when he uttered the following words:

NF 9999980

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. " GW Bush Speech on March 17 2003 telling UN inspectors to get out of Iraq because Bush decided to start a decade long war to take the 'most lethal weapons ever devised' stockpiles away from the Baathist regime in Baghdad.

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Blix was not given the opportunity to investigate this supposed 'doubtless' intelligence because Bush was starting a war based on it within 48 hours.

Why didn't Bush let the CIA go in and check it out for themselves if he did not wish to share such critical doubtless intelligence with the UN inspectors? Can you explain why it does not matter to you that Bush did not cooperate with the UN in accordance with UNSC 1441?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11639417

Had Saddam complied with UN1441, the invasion could have been avoided. .

What happened to ;your original 'simple reasoning' justifying the US invasion of Iraq?

Boss 11517170

Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later. .

Apparently in one of these quotes your are not expressing your honest 'feelings'. Which is it? Your problem is 'had Saddam complied with UN1441' the invasion still had to be launched by your simple-minded reasoning because as you put it we had to 'kill them then' instead of dealing with them later.

The fact that 'them' were not in Iraq when Bush decided to force the inspectors out and invade never entered your 'simple' mind as you were cheering Bush on to start his stupid war. The war that contributed greatly to the creation of the Daesh terrorist scum that attacked Iraq last year.

 

[Boss]

Bullshit.

While it's true the U.N. does not control the U.S., the reverse is also true -- the U.S. does not control the U.N.

You make no sense justifying a U.S. invasion over U.N. resolutions without U.N. approval.

Wow... It's really funny when someone says "bullshit" then immediately admits it is true!

Uhm... The United States did not invade Iraq because they violated the terms of UN1441. Had Saddam complied with UN1441, the invasion could have been avoided. The issue was not SH obeying UN resolutions, if it were, we would have invaded them 17 times the previous decade. The issue was his WMD programs which he was not forthcoming about.

Now you're backpedalling as fast as you can.

Earlier, you said, "NO, Shithead! UN1441 was Saddam's LAST FUCKING CHANCE!"

Now you say, "The United States did not invade Iraq because they violated the terms of UN1441"

There is no backtracking, you're just a fucking moron.

UN1441 was the last chance Saddam had to come clean about his WMD programs. The WMD programs are why we invaded Iraq. Are ya getting that through your hard head? The invasion was because we didn't know about his WMD programs which he had ample opportunity to disclose and which UN1441 was his final chance.

You keep trying to argue he was complying, but that's not what Hans Blix reported. Our objective had nothing to do with getting Saddam to comply with a UN resolution. We didn't give two shits if he complied or not... we were always going to find out about his WMD programs, it was entirely up to him how that went down.

Now you say... oh well, he didn't have any WMDs... well then he was really fucking stupid then! Worse stupid than you, and that's saying something... because, IF he didn't have anything to hide, he should have disclosed everything and not obfuscated, protested, complained, obstructed, etc. That was a pure bonehead move IF he didn't have anything to hide. Why not comply with UN1441, let the inspectors do their job, confirm he didn't have anything and present the documentation requested to prove he had destroyed everything... then the sanctions are lifted, there is no invasion and he remains dictator of Iraq.

He chose to play the very same games he had played for a decade. Pretend to be willing to cooperate fully, then when inspectors arrive, start applying conditions and doing everything he could to obstruct their inspections. When Bush allowed the UN to try one more time with UN1441, he made it clear that this would be Saddam's last chance. He sought and received Congressional approval to use military force and he used it.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11639417

Had Saddam complied with UN1441, the invasion could have been avoided. .

What happened to ;your original 'simple reasoning' justifying the US invasion of Iraq?

Boss 11517170

Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later. .

Apparently in one of these quotes your are not expressing your honest 'feelings'. Which is it? Your problem is 'had Saddam complied with UN1441' the invasion still had be launched by your simple-minded reasoning because as you put it we had to 'kill them then' instead of dealing with them later.

The fact that 'them' were not in Iraq when Bush decided to force the inspectors out and invade never entered your 'simple' mind as you were cheering Bush on to start his stupid war. The war that contributed greatly to the creation of the Daesh terrorist scum that attacked Iraq last year.

Now you are trying to conflate what I said regarding radical Islamic terrorists with Saddam Hussein. I said nothing about killing all Iraqis. I have friends who are Iraqi, they're great people for the most part. I've got nothing against them, they are not our enemy.

The terrorist elements in Iraq are due to Obama's policies. Bush had agreed to a timetable for withdrawal after months of saying he would not do so. Again, I don't agree with what he did, but that's what he did. Now, I have to assume that had he still been president and the time came, and he saw Iraq was still unable to defend itself against growing and increasing terrorist elements, he would have rescinded the withdrawal. That's what should have been done because we have blood and lives invested there and they shouldn't have been wasted for nothing.

But again... Bush wasn't the sharpest crayon in the box. He shouldn't have bothered going to the UN again, and he shouldn't have done like his daddy and say he wasn't going to do something then turn around and do it anyway.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11640567

Now you are trying to conflate what I said regarding radical Islamic terrorists with Saddam Hussein. I said nothing about killing all Iraqis.

I did not conflate what you said. You wrote what you wrote. Those two sentences from you are not compatible. You said you supported the invasion of Iraq and the War on Terror under the simple reasoning that we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later. And I never came close to even remotely suggesting that you said anything about killing all Iraqis. That's just another stupid and dishonest dodge on your part. I said "The fact that 'them' were not in Iraq when Bush decided to force the inspectors out and invade never entered your 'simple' mind as you were cheering Bush on to start his stupid war." How on earth did you construe that to mean 'them' was 'all Iraqis'. My use of the term 'them' was in reference to your 'kill them NOW instead of dealing with 'them' later. That is referring to 'them' by you and me as terrorists. Your are quite ignorant to believe that I meant that all Iraqis were not in Iraq when I wrote, ""The fact that 'them' were not in Iraq when Bush decided to force the inspectors out and invade...." You don't read or reason well do you?

Are you now going to contradict reality once again and tell us that 'terrorists' were in Iraq in such dangerous numbers needing to be killed immediately that Bush was forced to kick inspectors out and start bombing Iraq and invading in order to kill those terrorists linked to the 9/11/01 attacks there swith them later.so we would not have to deal with them later?