So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[NotfooledbyW]

What Blix said we "know for a fact" is that the international community can't be certain.

That is a lie if you read all that Blix had to say. He was preparing to set up long term monitoring which comes when certainty on disarmament has been achieved. What a ridiculous point to suggest that Blix wanted inspection to continue even though he could never achieve a high enough degree of certainty that sanctions could be lifted and long term monitoring could be set in place.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11653454

We already had UN-documented proof of certain WMDs in Iraq... (no intelligence, documented proof.)

There has never been UN-documented proof that pre-1990s WMDs were not unilateral destroyed by Iraq during the early 90s. That was the longstanding issue that Blix and Iraq were attempting to resolve when Bush decided to kill people in Iraq because he had new US or UK or ??? foreign intel that Iraq was hiding new stockpiles if WMD from Blix and The rest of the inspectors in March 2003.

The fact is there is no way in hell that a US invasion could resolve the longstanding issues regarding destruction of 1990s CW and BW.

War couldn't resolve that but Blix and Iraq could have if the inspections were allowed to be completed.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11653454

UN1441 ordered Saddam to turn over information about the supposed destruction of these WMDs to the UN inspectors and to do so immediately or face severe consequences. Iraq failed to comply.

But the UNSC could be flexible enough to realize that Iraq could not turn documentation over that he did not have. That is why Blix and the UNSC never considered the failure to provide that specific documentation a reason to quit inspections and convene a meeting to determine what severe consequences Iraq must face.

It would have been really stupid for Bush to start an invasion against Iraq over paperwork issues. That is why Bush did not cite the reason you are currently manufacturing as Bush's reason to justify war. He'd have sounded so stupid had he announced that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11653446

The offer you are talking about was not unconditional. Since you are supposedly the resident expert on this offer, you are obviously aware of the conditions, so I will let you tell us what they were. If you try and claim there weren't any, you're a liar

I am aware of no conditions attached to the offer as made and reported by Fox News. If you no of no reports of conditions then you have no basis to suggest there were conditions.

The offer was to let the CIA come in. That it, the CIA should have been sent in.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11653454

We know none of this as fact.

We know it all now as facts. That ls the point.

Well, I suppose you can follow Alinskys' 'Rules for Radicals' and keep claiming it until it becomes "truth" but no... we did not know this as fact. That is the point.

Blix: "The international community cannot be certain as to the status of Saddam's WMD programs." (March 2003)

 

[Boss]

Boss 11653454

UN1441 ordered Saddam to turn over information about the supposed destruction of these WMDs to the UN inspectors and to do so immediately or face severe consequences. Iraq failed to comply.

But the UNSC could be flexible enough to realize that Iraq could not turn documentation over that he did not have. That is why Blix and the UNSC never considered the failure to provide that specific documentation a reason to quit inspections and convene a meeting to determine what severe consequences Iraq must face.

It would have been really stupid for Bush to start an invasion against Iraq over paperwork issues. That is why Bush did not cite the reason you are currently manufacturing as Bush's reason to justify war. He'd have sounded so stupid had he announced that.

Wasn't a paperwork issue. It was a matter of confirmation and verification. All the UN was ever given was Saddam's word that he had destroyed documented WMDs. That doesn't "confirm" anything. If Saddam's word was all that we needed, there would have been no need for inspectors or resolutions. Thing is, we could not trust Saddam. So we needed evidence to confirm these WMDs were destroyed. If there truly was no documentation, there were certainly people involved in the act of destroying them, and their testimony would have sufficed.... it never came.

UN1441 did not call for additional meetings to decide what "severe consequences" Saddam would face. The wording was very clear and deliberate, and Saddam had this one last chance to comply fully or face the consequences. I'm sorry if you were somehow misled into thinking those consequences would be more resolutions for him to ignore. I'm sorry if Saddam didn't take UN1441 seriously, he should have. Again-- IF he had nothing to hide and there were no WMDs in Iraq, the smart thing for him to have done is to comply with the UN resolutions and get it over with. Regrettably, he did not do that.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11653446

The offer you are talking about was not unconditional. Since you are supposedly the resident expert on this offer, you are obviously aware of the conditions, so I will let you tell us what they were. If you try and claim there weren't any, you're a liar

I am aware of no conditions attached to the offer as made and reported by Fox News. If you no of no reports of conditions then you have no basis to suggest there were conditions.

The offer was to let the CIA come in. That it, the CIA should have been sent in.

There were conditions and you are being dishonest in not revealing them. Care to try again or are you just going to keep on lying about this?

 

[flacaltenn]

Our problem is -- we didn't acknowledge their choice. We CONTINUED to lock up their economy and bomb them daily for 12 years. That's brutal enough. I accept the 200,000 dead number from the embargo/bombing years. But what makes it immoral is that we know now -- we were doing it for no legal reason as the there were not WMDs of serious consequence ever found.

Actually think (as strange as that is) that we actually agree on most of this. Except that Dems and leftists at the time were willing to extend the "containment" forever. Rather than let Iraq out of the box..

Actually, the Dems and Leftists would have been happy to confirm that Saddam didn't have WMD's, and then lift sanctions.

But Bush couldn't go to war fast enough...

How much longer would that have taken? 12 years to do it bud.
You can't have absolute assurance with UN inspectors. If you didn't see several 100 serious Nuclear/Chemical/Bio engineers WORKING in Iraq --- that's all the proof I would need. You can hide the "stockpiles" --- but it's hard to hide 1000 hi tech workers that suddenly disappear from academia or industry..

Was time to give it up and concentrate on the groups that attacked us.. Hell, when Clinton trotted out the 3 Jew road show, trying to drum up a ground war with Iraq (Albright, Berger and whatzhizface), the leftists and Dems told him no.. How could the doves just ignore the awful carnage that we were inflicting on Iraqis for 12 years? ACCEPTABLE to have kids continue dying for lack of food and medicine? Albright said it was acceptable.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11656499

There were conditions and you are being dishonest in not revealing them. Care to try again or are you just going to keep on lying about this?

You are making the claim there were conditions. There were no conditions. If you want to call me a liar you have provide the evidence that there were conditions. And you can't can you?

 

[Boss]

Boss 11656499

There were conditions and you are being dishonest in not revealing them. Care to try again or are you just going to keep on lying about this?

You are making the claim there were conditions. There were no conditions. If you want to call me a liar you have provide the evidence that there were conditions. And you can't can you?

Well the main condition was it was a stonewall over turning over documents requested. The UN inspectors were in the middle of evaluating compliance regarding tons of WMDs that were supposedly destroyed. Iraq had not provided any documentation and the UN was growing impatient. The US had already positioned battleships in the Persian Gulf and was preparing the inevitable invasion when Iraq decided to trot out this crony and his bogus offer. It was nothing more than a stunt and distraction from what was actually happening and how the Iraqi government was actually NOT complying with UN1441.

UN1441 made no provision for the US CIA to have to come in and show them any damn thing. The onus was not ON the CIA... it was ON Saddam and Iraq to confirm they had destroyed these weapons.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Again, I respectfully disagree with you. People fundamentally want freedom. You'll never convince me otherwise.

Is it not your argument that Bush invaded Iraq because of the WMD they thought was there. Why do you support killing people because the want freedom?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11633182

I've NOT made up any damn thing! I posted what Hans Blix reported... Here is a more extensive account:.

I have edited to the few actual incidents or actions that Dr Blix included in his long lists of reports which contained much more positive words about Iraq's cooperation than negative. This is all Boss has:


{{{ 27 January 2003 (A) "...for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character." (B) "On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites." (C-a) "...a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. (C-b)The inspectors went without any UN insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again. (C-c) Shortly thereafter, we receive protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. 14 February 2003 (D) The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.}}}}


That is the summary of Iraq's 'obstruction' and 'harrasment' according to Dr Blix which Boss is declaring is some kind of sane and reasonable justification for disarming Iraq by killing people and getting our people killed instead of doing as Dr Blix recommended as the right way to verify Iraq being disarmed. Keep the inspections going for a short period of time

 

[Boss]

Again, I respectfully disagree with you. People fundamentally want freedom. You'll never convince me otherwise.

Is it not your argument that Bush invaded Iraq because of the WMD they thought was there. Why do you support killing people because the want freedom?

Bush invaded Iraq because they failed to comply with repeated UN resolutions regarding their known WMD programs and the uncertainty of any ongoing WMD programs. The plan to replace the toppled regime with a democratic government goes back to the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.

Why do you support a tyrant dictator and radical Islam?

 

[Boss]

Boss 11633182

I've NOT made up any damn thing! I posted what Hans Blix reported... Here is a more extensive account:.

I have edited to the few actual incidents or actions that Dr Blix included in his long lists of reports which contained much more positive words about Iraq's cooperation than negative. This is all Boss has:


{{{ 27 January 2003 (A) "...for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character." (B) "On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites." (C-a) "...a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. (C-b)The inspectors went without any UN insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again. (C-c) Shortly thereafter, we receive protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. 14 February 2003 (D) The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.}}}}


That is the summary of Iraq's 'obstruction' and 'harrasment' according to Dr Blix which Boss is declaring is some kind of sane and reasonable justification for disarming Iraq by killing people and getting our people killed instead of doing as Dr Blix recommended as the right way to verify Iraq being disarmed. Keep the inspections going for a short period of time

Thank you for continuing to post proof that Saddam was not complying with the terms of UN1441.

 

[Faun]

Boss 11653454

We know none of this as fact.

We know it all now as facts. That ls the point.

Well, I suppose you can follow Alinskys' 'Rules for Radicals' and keep claiming it until it becomes "truth" but no... we did not know this as fact. That is the point.

Blix: "The international community cannot be certain as to the status of Saddam's WMD programs." (March 2003)

Imagine my surprise that, when looking up that quote you ascribe to blix to review in context, I discovered Blix never said that.

The international community cannot be certain as to thestatus of Saddam s WMD programs - Google Search

 

[Boss]

Boss 11653454

We know none of this as fact.

We know it all now as facts. That ls the point.

Well, I suppose you can follow Alinskys' 'Rules for Radicals' and keep claiming it until it becomes "truth" but no... we did not know this as fact. That is the point.

Blix: "The international community cannot be certain as to the status of Saddam's WMD programs." (March 2003)

Imagine my surprise that, when looking up that quote you ascribe to blix to review in context, I discovered Blix never said that.

The international community cannot be certain as to thestatus of Saddam s WMD programs - Google Search

June 5, 2003 -- Hans Blix final UN report:

"...the international community cannot have confidence that past programmes or any remaining parts of them have been terminated. "

Google THAT, fuckwit.

 

[Faun]

You're such a lying dumbfucking rightie, that you're now arguing with yourself...

We didn't invade Iraq because of a broken UN resolution...

Bush invaded Iraq because they failed to comply with repeated UN resolutions...

.... you're so full of shit, you can't keep your stories straight.

 

[Faun]

Boss 11653454

We know none of this as fact.

We know it all now as facts. That ls the point.

Well, I suppose you can follow Alinskys' 'Rules for Radicals' and keep claiming it until it becomes "truth" but no... we did not know this as fact. That is the point.

Blix: "The international community cannot be certain as to the status of Saddam's WMD programs." (March 2003)

Imagine my surprise that, when looking up that quote you ascribe to blix to review in context, I discovered Blix never said that.

The international community cannot be certain as to thestatus of Saddam s WMD programs - Google Search

June 5, 2003 -- Hans Blix final UN report:

"...the international community cannot have confidence that past programmes or any remaining parts of them have been terminated. "

Google THAT, fuckwit.

Fuck you. You put a fake Blix comment in quotes and ascribed it to him in March, 2003. Called on it, you're now forced to admit he didn't say that nor did he say it in March, 2003.

When do you stop making shit up? You know, you wouldn't have to if facts and the truth was on your side, right?

 

[Boss]

You're such a lying dumbfucking rightie, that you're now arguing with yourself...

We didn't invade Iraq because of a broken UN resolution...

Bush invaded Iraq because they failed to comply with repeated UN resolutions...

.... you're so full of shit, you can't keep your stories straight.

Again... it was not his "breaking resolutions" that was the issue. IF it had been, we would have invaded in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998.... he broke 17 UN resolutions and we did not invade Iraq.

We needed to know the status of any WMD programs he had and the status of the WMDs we knew he had. His WMDs were the issue, not broken resolutions. Now it just so happens the last resolution he broke promised he would face serious consequences. But it was not because we didn't like him breaking resolutions.

 

[Boss]

Fuck you. You put a fake Blix comment in quotes and ascribed it to him in March, 2003. Called on it, you're now forced to admit he didn't say that nor did he say it in March, 2003.

When do you stop making shit up? You know, you wouldn't have to if facts and the truth was on your side, right?

Hooray to the fucking clown jerk for scoring a technical point!