So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss11660327

That time had passed, the inspectors were gone, troops were already on the ground in Iraq. <> He is simply saying "we needed this to be done, if it can't be done we can't be sure." Well, it wasn't done so we can't be sure.

Thanks for admitting you wholeheartedly approve of 4484 US troops getting killed and 40,000 wounded and a trillion US dollars being spent for an attack on a nation so that we could not be sure that the 'threat' cited to justify the war would be resolved. Blix has a powerful point. Too bad you don't get it.

 

[Boss]

I don't even think you have a grasp of what UN inspectors do. It appears you think they are investigators who are like detectives... searching for clues and trying to solve a case... that's not what UN inspectors are. They are more like the health department kind of inspector who comes in and inspects a certain facility on a list of facilities.

They were in Iraq to verify and confirm Iraq's WMD programs had been dismantled and destroyed. They were never expected to "search for" anything. Saddam was REQUIRED to cooperate actively, proactively and immediately and he did not do that. Bush, as president of the US, was under NO obligation to allow the UN to do anything. We're not the United States of the United Nations.

 

[Boss]

NF 11660698

I'm still waiting for the quote from Blix where he says Iraq was not complying with UNSC Res 1441. You can't call that minor stuff "not complying" if Blix doesn't.

Still waiting Boss. Where did Blix say Iraq was not complying? You have mounted a defective argument that is based upon nothing but stupidity by thinking you and Bush43 got to determine whether Iraq was complying or not under the legal force of UNSC Res 1441 in its entirety.

There was a means to deal with non-compliance within 1441 and that action was never ever close to being considered by the authorities that mattered.

I've already shown you. I highlighted pertinent parts of Blix's reports. From the very first report, there was harassment, complaining, objecting, ridiculing, obfuscating and staging protests to disrupt the inspectors and Blix reports all of it. UN1441 was clear... cooperate actively, proactively and immediately or face serious consequences. DOES NOT SAY: Cooperate as little as possible and if it gets too bad we'll talk about what to do next!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11635523

UN1441 called for Saddam to cooperate immediately, actively and proactively.

Why do you think you can get away with making things up. Cooperating 'proactively' was not in 1441 language. The term unconditionally is mentioned Section 9.


9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;


10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;


11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;


12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;


We know that Blix reported that Iraq did cooperate immediately, actively and unconditionally in his first report. As I pointed to you several times earlier but you keep ignoring the facts, the idea of proactive cooperation on substance was not part of the language of 1441.


But while we are looking at the language of 1441 that Bush signed the USA onto, take a look at Section 10. All Member States including the US were required to give full support to UNMOVIC by providing any information related to prohibited programs.


When Iraq unconditionally offered to let the CIA come into Iraq, Bush43 was obligated as signatory to 1441, as a key member state, to send those CIA agents in to give 'full support' to UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Why did Bush get to stall and delay providing information and of course by March 2003, not give the inspectors all the intelligence Bush said he had that left 'no doubt' that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from UNMOVIC and the IAEA?


And while you have critical sections of UN Res 1441 in front of you, will you ever tell us (per Section 11), when Dr Blix reported to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, or any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations? Tell us Boss. You've been claiming Blix did that. Where is your proof?

 

[Boss]

Boss 11635523

UN1441 called for Saddam to cooperate immediately, actively and proactively.

Why do you think you can get away with making things up. Cooperating 'proactively' was not in 1441 language. The term unconditionally is mentioned Section 9.


9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;


10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;


11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;


12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;


We know that Blix reported that Iraq did cooperate immediately, actively and unconditionally in his first report. As I pointed to you several times earlier but you keep ignoring the facts, the idea of proactive cooperation on substance was not part of the language of 1441.


But while we are looking at the language of 1441 that Bush signed the USA onto, take a look at Section 10. All Member States including the US were required to give full support to UNMOVIC by providing any information related to prohibited programs.


When Iraq unconditionally offered to let the CIA come into Iraq, Bush43 was obligated as signatory to 1441, as a key member state, to send those CIA agents in to give 'full support' to UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Why did Bush get to stall and delay providing information and of course by March 2003, not give the inspectors all the intelligence Bush said he had that left 'no doubt' that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from UNMOVIC and the IAEA?


And while you have critical sections of UN Res 1441 in front of you, will you ever tell us (per Section 11), when Dr Blix reported to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, or any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations? Tell us Boss. You've been claiming Blix did that. Where is your proof?

You're still not showing us where UN1441 gives Saddam and Iraq permission to harass, obstruct, obfuscate, complain and protest or affords Saddam and Iraq an unlimited amount of time to come around and cooperate.

When Iraq unconditionally offered to let the CIA come into Iraq, Bush43 was obligated as signatory to 1441, as a key member state, to send those CIA agents in to give 'full support' to UNMOVIC and the IAEA.

You need to show me the language in UN1441 which stipulates this because I don't believe it's there. The US was NOT obligated to do any such thing by UN1441 or any other UN resolution.

As usual, you continue to lie and distort the facts. It's such a shame that Saddam didn't know you personally, you would have made an awesome crony for him. I am sure he would have been majorly impressed by your tenacity and fervor in defending his tyrannic regime.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11660055

We needed to know the status of any WMD programs he had and the status of the WMDs we knew he had.

Bush told us all on March 17 2003 that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from the Res 1441 inspection teams. That had to mean the US intelligence community knew exactly where the 'most lethal weapons ever devised' were being hidden and the quantities and type involved. But you are declaring there that Bush needed to know the status of any WMD programs that SH had and the status of the WMD's that Bush 'knew' SH had.

You make a perfect argument for why Bush should have accepted Bush's offer and sent the CIA into Iraq to show the inspectors exactly where 'the most lethal weapons ever devised' were located. Again, why didn't Bush exhaust all peaceful means like he said he wanted to do until the inspections start working.

The CIA offer came several weeks after the Iraqis allowed the inspectors go into one of Saddam's palaces, with no conditions.

December 04, 2002

Doors open for UN inspectors as they pay a visit to Saddam's inner sanctum by David Blair, The Daily Telegraph (London)

When the UN convoy drew up outside the palace unannounced, about 20 minutes after leaving their headquarters in eastern Baghdad, a dozen nervous security men surrounded them.

They carried walkie-talkies and wore plain clothes. Sentries armed with AK-47 assault rifles hovered in the background. Foreigners caught approaching presidential palaces are routinely arrested and the UN inspectors were kept at the gates for about 10 minutes.

Demetrius Perricos, the senior weapons inspector, talked with tense security men. A surrounding melee of journalists did not help this delicate task. "Please stand aside, we have work to do," Mr Perricos said. Leading a senior Iraqi security man by the arm, he added: "I want to talk with him in private." After Mr Perricos had conducted several quiet conversations, the gates were opened. Saddam suffered the indignity of temporarily handing over control of one of his palaces.

Inspecting Iraq A Record of the First 40 Days compiled by the Project on Defense Alternatives


On December 4th first official SH Palace inspection was 'immediate, active and unconditional cooperation as 1441 demanded. Surely there were many signs during the first 40 days that Iraq had changed 180 degrees away from the way they treated inspectors in 1998. There was no reason to believe the offer by Iraq's Chief Spokesman and liaison between Iraq and the UNSC, UNMOVIC and the IAEA, was not sincere when the offer was made to let the CIA enter to assist the UNSC to find the alleged WMD that the CIA surely had to know what was there and where it was being hidden. Hoe ford Bush Claim 'there was no doubt' if all he was going on was allegation and speculation. Speculation has doubt. "needing to now the status from Iraq sources is not 'removing doubt. So what on earth was the point you were trying to make. It makes no sense at all.

 

[Boss]

Again... UN1441 made no provisions for CIA involvement in any way with inspections, nor could it have required such a thing. We were under NO obligation to reveal ANY intelligence information to Iraq... the onus was on Iraq to comply with UN1441 and to do it immediately and unconditionally.

You can whine and moan about this until the day you die... I frankly don't give two shits.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11668368

You're still not showing us where UN1441 gives Saddam and Iraq permission to harass, obstruct, obfuscate, complain and protest or affords Saddam and Iraq an unlimited amount of time to come around and cooperate.

There was no limit on time. The term 'immediate' as expressed is quite subjective. It was not intended to be definitive and toa trigger for war.

It did not have to give permission because what you have negatively cherry picked out of 99% proper inspections and cooperation is insignificant and not worth mentioning. In highly volatile situations such as this there is an expectation that a little jaywalking is going to happen from time to time ... but no traffic obstructed so the more intelligent on the UNSC and Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei noted some minor infractions but kept moving on for the bigger picture.... Mainly not wanting to see people die over nothing.

 

[Faun]

Boss 11668368

You're still not showing us where UN1441 gives Saddam and Iraq permission to harass, obstruct, obfuscate, complain and protest or affords Saddam and Iraq an unlimited amount of time to come around and cooperate.

There was no limit on time. The term 'immediate' as expressed is quite subjective. It was not intended to be definitive and toa trigger for war.

It did not have to give permission because what you have negatively cherry picked out of 99% proper inspections and cooperation is insignificant and not worth mentioning. In highly volatile situations such as this there is an expectation that a little jaywalking is going to happen from time to time ... but no traffic obstructed so the more intelligent on the UNSC and Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei noted some minor infractions but kept moving on for the bigger picture.... Mainly not wanting to see people die over nothing.

Which is why polls indicate by a margin of 2 to 1, people think invading Iraq was a mistake.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11668597

We were under NO obligation to reveal ANY intelligence information to Iraq

You can't even be bothered to read what is put right in front of your eyes.

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA

The CIA on the ground in Iraq alongside UN inspectors would have been the fullest support the US could have given the Iraqis at that time. Just turning over any intel the US had was requested by the UNSC..So why didn't Bush that as his part?

 

[Boss]

Boss 11668368

You're still not showing us where UN1441 gives Saddam and Iraq permission to harass, obstruct, obfuscate, complain and protest or affords Saddam and Iraq an unlimited amount of time to come around and cooperate.

There was no limit on time. The term 'immediate' as expressed is quite subjective. It was not intended to be definitive and toa trigger for war.

It did not have to give permission because what you have negatively cherry picked out of 99% proper inspections and cooperation is insignificant and not worth mentioning. In highly volatile situations such as this there is an expectation that a little jaywalking is going to happen from time to time ... but no traffic obstructed so the more intelligent on the UNSC and Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei noted some minor infractions but kept moving on for the bigger picture.... Mainly not wanting to see people die over nothing.

No sir... "immediate" is not subjective in any way.

The resolution was clear and unambiguous. It didn't allow minor (or major) infractions. The "expectation" was for Saddam and Iraq to comply immediately and unconditionally. We're discussing destruction of documented weapons of mass destruction, not jaywalking. I don't know about percentages but Saddam was required to cooperate 100% and not 99%. Anything short of 100% is significant because it's not what was mandated by UN1441.

I understand Dr. Blix wanted to continue inspecting, that was his job. IF I had been inspecting in Iraq, I would have wanted to continue as well. Unfortunately, UN1441 doesn't stipulate that Blix gets to decide how long the UN will try to inspect a defiant Iraq. That was never agreed to by Bush or the US.

I also didn't want to see people die over nothing. But they didn't die over nothing, they died because Saddam wouldn't come clean about his WMD programs he supposedly no longer had... it's a shame if he didn't have them... could've avoided a lot of people dying, but I don't think he really cared about that.

 

[Boss]

The CIA on the ground in Iraq alongside UN inspectors would have been the fullest support the US could have given the Iraqis at that time.

Was never going to happen, was never a serious offer. It was tossed out there at the last minute in an attempt to try and avoid an inevitable invasion. Had the US taken the bait, Iraq would have almost immediately began attaching conditions and caveats as they always did on ANY offer they made. The US was not ever going to reveal sensitive intelligence information to Iraq or the UN inspectors, nor were they ever obligated to do so.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11668368

You're still not showing us where UN1441 gives Saddam and Iraq permission to harass, obstruct, obfuscate, complain and protest or affords Saddam and Iraq an unlimited amount of time to come around and cooperate.

There was no limit on time. The term 'immediate' as expressed is quite subjective. It was not intended to be definitive and toa trigger for war.

It did not have to give permission because what you have negatively cherry picked out of 99% proper inspections and cooperation is insignificant and not worth mentioning. In highly volatile situations such as this there is an expectation that a little jaywalking is going to happen from time to time ... but no traffic obstructed so the more intelligent on the UNSC and Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei noted some minor infractions but kept moving on for the bigger picture.... Mainly not wanting to see people die over nothing.

Which is why polls indicate by a margin of 2 to 1, people think invading Iraq was a mistake.

UN1441 doesn't say that we're going to depend on polls to decide what to do about Iraq. The Authorization to Use Military Force passed by Congress, doesn't stipulate that it is conditional depending on which way the polls swing. Nations do not go to war on the basis of public polling data.

What people say in polls doesn't matter. A lot of people are stupid and misinformed.... case in point, this thread.

 

[Faun]

Boss 11668368

You're still not showing us where UN1441 gives Saddam and Iraq permission to harass, obstruct, obfuscate, complain and protest or affords Saddam and Iraq an unlimited amount of time to come around and cooperate.

There was no limit on time. The term 'immediate' as expressed is quite subjective. It was not intended to be definitive and toa trigger for war.

It did not have to give permission because what you have negatively cherry picked out of 99% proper inspections and cooperation is insignificant and not worth mentioning. In highly volatile situations such as this there is an expectation that a little jaywalking is going to happen from time to time ... but no traffic obstructed so the more intelligent on the UNSC and Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei noted some minor infractions but kept moving on for the bigger picture.... Mainly not wanting to see people die over nothing.

Which is why polls indicate by a margin of 2 to 1, people think invading Iraq was a mistake.

UN1441 doesn't say that we're going to depend on polls to decide what to do about Iraq. The Authorization to Use Military Force passed by Congress, doesn't stipulate that it is conditional depending on which way the polls swing. Nations do not go to war on the basis of public polling data.

What people say in polls doesn't matter. A lot of people are stupid and misinformed.... case in point, this thread.

How many times are you going to flip-flop on whether or not we invaded over U.N. resolutions?

Your instability aside, the public has had 12 years to review the Iraq debacle and has decided, by a factor of 2 to 1, that it was a mistake to invade.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11668368

You're still not showing us where UN1441 gives Saddam and Iraq permission to harass, obstruct, obfuscate, complain and protest or affords Saddam and Iraq an unlimited amount of time to come around and cooperate.

There was no limit on time. The term 'immediate' as expressed is quite subjective. It was not intended to be definitive and toa trigger for war.

It did not have to give permission because what you have negatively cherry picked out of 99% proper inspections and cooperation is insignificant and not worth mentioning. In highly volatile situations such as this there is an expectation that a little jaywalking is going to happen from time to time ... but no traffic obstructed so the more intelligent on the UNSC and Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei noted some minor infractions but kept moving on for the bigger picture.... Mainly not wanting to see people die over nothing.

Which is why polls indicate by a margin of 2 to 1, people think invading Iraq was a mistake.

UN1441 doesn't say that we're going to depend on polls to decide what to do about Iraq. The Authorization to Use Military Force passed by Congress, doesn't stipulate that it is conditional depending on which way the polls swing. Nations do not go to war on the basis of public polling data.

What people say in polls doesn't matter. A lot of people are stupid and misinformed.... case in point, this thread.

How many times are you going to flip-flop on whether or not we invaded over U.N. resolutions?

Your instability aside, the public has had 12 years to review the Iraq debacle and has decided, by a factor of 2 to 1, that it was a mistake to invade.

Here's a clue for your clueless stupid ass: It was what the resolutions were about that we invaded over.

The public has had 12 years of you and others promoting your lies and propaganda. But for the record, I said from my first post in this thread that I thought it was a mistake to "invade" and that we should have simply reduced his country to rubble instead. All the speeches and saber-rattling, going to the UN, making a case, etc.... THAT was Bush's mistake and he paid the price. If he had done like Clinton did in 97-98 and unleashed cruise missiles up his ass, no one would have even noticed... just like no one noticed when Clinton was doing it.

 

[Faun]

Boss 11668368

You're still not showing us where UN1441 gives Saddam and Iraq permission to harass, obstruct, obfuscate, complain and protest or affords Saddam and Iraq an unlimited amount of time to come around and cooperate.

There was no limit on time. The term 'immediate' as expressed is quite subjective. It was not intended to be definitive and toa trigger for war.

It did not have to give permission because what you have negatively cherry picked out of 99% proper inspections and cooperation is insignificant and not worth mentioning. In highly volatile situations such as this there is an expectation that a little jaywalking is going to happen from time to time ... but no traffic obstructed so the more intelligent on the UNSC and Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei noted some minor infractions but kept moving on for the bigger picture.... Mainly not wanting to see people die over nothing.

Which is why polls indicate by a margin of 2 to 1, people think invading Iraq was a mistake.

UN1441 doesn't say that we're going to depend on polls to decide what to do about Iraq. The Authorization to Use Military Force passed by Congress, doesn't stipulate that it is conditional depending on which way the polls swing. Nations do not go to war on the basis of public polling data.

What people say in polls doesn't matter. A lot of people are stupid and misinformed.... case in point, this thread.

How many times are you going to flip-flop on whether or not we invaded over U.N. resolutions?

Your instability aside, the public has had 12 years to review the Iraq debacle and has decided, by a factor of 2 to 1, that it was a mistake to invade.

Here's a clue for your clueless stupid ass: It was what the resolutions were about that we invaded over.

The public has had 12 years of you and others promoting your lies and propaganda. But for the record, I said from my first post in this thread that I thought it was a mistake to "invade" and that we should have simply reduced his country to rubble instead. All the speeches and saber-rattling, going to the UN, making a case, etc.... THAT was Bush's mistake and he paid the price. If he had done like Clinton did in 97-98 and unleashed cruise missiles up his ass, no one would have even noticed... just like no one noticed when Clinton was doing it.

It's adorable how you can't keep your story straight yet you delude yourself that I'm the stupid one.

You also can't refrain from lying as you get caught repeatedly. Typical rightie though, so it's fully expected. Despite your lie that you said from your first post that it was a mistake to invade, the reality is, you said no such thing in your OP.

And regardless of your failed attempts to rewrite your own history on this thread, twice as many people think going to war with Iraq was a mistake than those who think it wasn't.

And time has revealed it was a mistake. The intelligence was wrong and abused. Iraq did not have any weapons programs. They weren't stockpiling WMD. They were not a threat with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The U.N. would have reached that same conclusion had they been allowed to finish the job they were sent in to do. We could have spared some 40,000 American casualties, over 100,000 Iraqi lives, 1 to 2 trillion dollars, and ISIS wouldn't be sweeping across the region.

Going to war in Iraq was a huge mistake of monumental proportions.

 

[Boss]

Iraq did not have any weapons programs. They weren't stockpiling WMD. They were not a threat with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

These were not concluded.

Again, IF these are true, Saddam was dumber than you or the W-hater. In fact, he must have been retarded. Why not open all doors, answer all questions, turn over all documents and comply fully with the UN and international community? The only "excuse" I've heard anyone present is that he was afraid of Iran, but we were NEVER going to allow radical Islamist Fundies to take over Iraq. Regardless of anything Saddam did, THAT wasn't going to ever happen.

I don't believe they were stockpiling weapons. I think that we will one day find a substantial cache of WMDs buried remotely somewhere inside Iraq and that will account for any 'stockpiles' he had. I think he didn't want to reveal this to the UN inspectors because he knew they would discover he had not been a very good boy. I think he had all kinds of raw materials, empty shells, equipment and hardware to produce any WMD he wanted, and I think that all got carted off to Syria in the weeks before the invasion. Our CIA has actually uncovered some of it in Syria.

So... slowly but surely, history is going to reveal everything. Was the Iraq War a Mistake? That's a tough question to answer today. Polls aren't what matter. I can certainly find mistakes in Bush's execution of the war, I've made no bones about that. I'm not even sure there needed to be "a war" there. We could have removed Saddam with surgical air strikes from stealth bombers and the son of a bitch wouldn't have even heard them coming. But then there would be the aftermath and who would come in to take power... we couldn't allow radical Islam to fill that void. Could we have prevented that without putting troops on the ground? I don't know. I doubt it.

But the whole problem here is, you are a liberal shit-for-brains who doesn't give one whit about military affairs of any kind, over there or anywhere. You live in your own little Pollyanna World where we're all like 7-year-olds playing in the sandbox together. (You're the kid who always pissed his pants and started whining.)

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11668721

Was never going to happen, was never a serious offer

The offer was serious and unconditional until the Bush regime took it up and tested it for seriousness and conditions. So you are spouting pure speculative nonsense based on nothing over and over again. The offer to let CIA in was an offer that came early on and a couple weeks after the inspectors did an unannounced visit on one of Saddam's palaces and did an unrestricted and unfettered inspection with nothing to be found but the gardeners digging up some grass to plant flowers or vegetables. It's tough for you to actually respond to my points and facts directly because if you acknowledge that you actually read them you'd look dumber than you already do.

You favored massive Iraqi casualties because taking SH & Sons out does not resolve the WMD threat including your 'paperwork' threat unless you took out every Sunni with a weapon and after killing most the Sunnis you had no way to complete inspections because by the you slaughtered most the people in Sunni Land Iran gas sent the Badr Militia and all the rest to pick up the pieces in the bombing created chaos. Any surviving Sunnis now take up allegiance with Al Qaeda to defend themselves from militant Iraqi Shiites and whatever militant groups that stream in from Iran.

Massive bombing of Iraq leaves a bigger stain on Bush's legacy because the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq to be found or target in the first place.

 

[jasonnfree]

Boss 11668368

You're still not showing us where UN1441 gives Saddam and Iraq permission to harass, obstruct, obfuscate, complain and protest or affords Saddam and Iraq an unlimited amount of time to come around and cooperate.

There was no limit on time. The term 'immediate' as expressed is quite subjective. It was not intended to be definitive and toa trigger for war.

It did not have to give permission because what you have negatively cherry picked out of 99% proper inspections and cooperation is insignificant and not worth mentioning. In highly volatile situations such as this there is an expectation that a little jaywalking is going to happen from time to time ... but no traffic obstructed so the more intelligent on the UNSC and Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei noted some minor infractions but kept moving on for the bigger picture.... Mainly not wanting to see people die over nothing.

Which is why polls indicate by a margin of 2 to 1, people think invading Iraq was a mistake.

UN1441 doesn't say that we're going to depend on polls to decide what to do about Iraq. The Authorization to Use Military Force passed by Congress, doesn't stipulate that it is conditional depending on which way the polls swing. Nations do not go to war on the basis of public polling data.

What people say in polls doesn't matter. A lot of people are stupid and misinformed.... case in point, this thread.

How many times are you going to flip-flop on whether or not we invaded over U.N. resolutions?

Your instability aside, the public has had 12 years to review the Iraq debacle and has decided, by a factor of 2 to 1, that it was a mistake to invade.

Here's a clue for your clueless stupid ass: It was what the resolutions were about that we invaded over.

The public has had 12 years of you and others promoting your lies and propaganda. But for the record, I said from my first post in this thread that I thought it was a mistake to "invade" and that we should have simply reduced his country to rubble instead. All the speeches and saber-rattling, going to the UN, making a case, etc.... THAT was Bush's mistake and he paid the price. If he had done like Clinton did in 97-98 and unleashed cruise missiles up his ass, no one would have even noticed... just like no one noticed when Clinton was doing it.

Why are you so afraid of isis? Just stay in this country and you're safe from them.

 

[Faun]

Iraq did not have any weapons programs. They weren't stockpiling WMD. They were not a threat with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

These were not concluded.

Again, IF these are true, Saddam was dumber than you or the W-hater. In fact, he must have been retarded. Why not open all doors, answer all questions, turn over all documents and comply fully with the UN and international community? The only "excuse" I've heard anyone present is that he was afraid of Iran, but we were NEVER going to allow radical Islamist Fundies to take over Iraq. Regardless of anything Saddam did, THAT wasn't going to ever happen.

I don't believe they were stockpiling weapons. I think that we will one day find a substantial cache of WMDs buried remotely somewhere inside Iraq and that will account for any 'stockpiles' he had. I think he didn't want to reveal this to the UN inspectors because he knew they would discover he had not been a very good boy. I think he had all kinds of raw materials, empty shells, equipment and hardware to produce any WMD he wanted, and I think that all got carted off to Syria in the weeks before the invasion. Our CIA has actually uncovered some of it in Syria.

So... slowly but surely, history is going to reveal everything. Was the Iraq War a Mistake? That's a tough question to answer today. Polls aren't what matter. I can certainly find mistakes in Bush's execution of the war, I've made no bones about that. I'm not even sure there needed to be "a war" there. We could have removed Saddam with surgical air strikes from stealth bombers and the son of a bitch wouldn't have even heard them coming. But then there would be the aftermath and who would come in to take power... we couldn't allow radical Islam to fill that void. Could we have prevented that without putting troops on the ground? I don't know. I doubt it.

But the whole problem here is, you are a liberal shit-for-brains who doesn't give one whit about military affairs of any kind, over there or anywhere. You live in your own little Pollyanna World where we're all like 7-year-olds playing in the sandbox together. (You're the kid who always pissed his pants and started whining.)

You're fucking insane. We're not going to find anything else. You realize we're not even looking anymore, right? And yes, it's conclusive. There were no active weapons programs. Even the Bush administration was forced to admit it even if you're in denial.

And the recent poll I'm citing doesn't ask if Bush's management of the war was a mistake ... it asks if the war was a mistake. And 2 to 1 say yes.

And sorry, you don't get to transfer project your hatred of the troops onto me. You're the one who doesn't give a shit that they were sent to war over weapons that weren't there. Their lives mean nothing to a piece of shit America-hater like you.