So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11827803

And again... an Authorization to Use Military Force is very clear and unambiguous... it is certainly not an order to continue unlimited and never-ending diplomatic efforts.

Unfortunately for you neither the AUMF nor the UN Resolution contains language that set a limit on the use and pursuit of diplomacy. The criteria in both documents was that the diplomacy was to begin promptly and immediately. And that criteria was met. So quit making that story up and don't bring it up again.

 

[Boss]

Stop floundering around trying to manipulate my words into something you can attack. As I correctly stated, there were three pages of "reasons" Saddam posed a threat to the US and authorization to use military force was in order. Continued threat, material threat, actionable threat, potential threat, imminent threat... doesn't matter, he was all of the above. And he was probably the most murderous tyrant since Pol Pot.

UN inspectors were not there to search for WMDs like some freaking Easter Egg hunt. He was MANDATED by UN1441 to cooperate fully and unconditionally and to do so immediately, or face serious consequnces. The issue was mainly over known WMDs in his possession, which he had not accounted for and never did. You dismiss this as "paperwork" a simple "clerical" matter. I say, bullshit... Saddam did not want to turn over the information about the WMDs as he was required to do. We can speculate on why he refused to turn over the information but it really doesn't matter why.

Clueless dumbasses want to run around hollering he didn't have any WMDs to turn over... but he did have them at one time, the UN tagged them and sealed their locations... they existed. Did he destroy them? That's what he claimed, but he couldn't back that up with any evidence. UN1441 did not stipulate that the UN and US must take Saddam at his word on his WMD programs, or there would have been no need for inspectors at all.

 

[Faun]

Who the fuck do you think Powell was talking about when he said, "We wrote 1441?" Russia? China? What country do you think Powell is from?

People often use "we" in what is known as the "royal" sense. (watch The Big Lebowski) The UN does not allow the US and UK to write it's resolutions. Yes, China and Russia had input into what went in the resolution, just like every member of the UNSC had a voice. Resolutions are a collection of elements introduced by various members and voted on by the others.

It's hilarious that you offer up propaganda from Iraq as proof the US and UK wrote UN1441! It's also amazing that you don't seem to comprehend that George W. Bush was never on the UNSC, or an Ambassador to the UN, and therefore, never had any authority over what went in a UN resolution. I'm sure he made suggestions, I am sure some of those were accepted.

Now... You point out that there was no time limit in 1441... BUT-- IF Bush and the UK wrote 1441, as you claim they did, why wouldn't they have given him a deadline? It's pretty stupid to have full authority over what goes into a resolution and then intentionally tie your own hands.

You truly are fucking insane. There is no other explanation for why you would be committed to such a retarded position.

You don't even know what you're saying. You make no sense. First, you say the U.N. doesn't allow the U.S. or U.K. to write its resolutions (which is astoundingly retarded; yes, they do) but then you say China and Russia had input. What in the hell do you think China and Russia had input to if the U.S. and U.K. didn't write the resolution?? Who do you think wrote it? Who do you think writes U.N. resolutions if not the member nations (sometimes alone, sometimes with other countries)?? You're a fucking imbecile.

I've never seen anybody who knew so little, yap so much.

And by the way, the New York Times is not propaganda. I don't care how far to the fringe right you are. That's what I offered up... the NYT reporting 1441 was written by the U.S. and the U.K. ... and you STILL don't get it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11828978

Continued threat, material threat, actionable threat, potential threat, imminent threat... doesn't matter, he was all of the above.

It does matter when discussing the language contained in the AUMF (Iraq) which we are discussing. The word chosen in that document was 'continuing threat' for a reason. To use ' ' ' 'imminent threat' in that document would not have been feaseable for the simple fact that means it would be too late for an attempt at diplomacy. And specifically for requiring the diplomacy to go "though" the UNSC. It matters the type of threat faced. The solution to the continuing threat allowed ample time for diplomacy. Words are chosen for reasons apparently that are way over your intellectual capability.

And SH could not be an imminent threat unless he had certain weapons and capability to do great harm to America or American interests and his plan of action is in its final stages.

Offering to let the CIA come in shows SH was trying very hard to avoid a war with the U.S. It makes it hard to believe that SH was planning an imminent attack on America at any time.

So words matter. You can't reduce them to mush just because you can't make a valid point. Or argument by using them.

Myself and posters like Faun etc can use the full range of the English language and all its words to knock down foolhardy arguments such as all of yours.

 

[Boss]

Who the fuck do you think Powell was talking about when he said, "We wrote 1441?" Russia? China? What country do you think Powell is from?

People often use "we" in what is known as the "royal" sense. (watch The Big Lebowski) The UN does not allow the US and UK to write it's resolutions. Yes, China and Russia had input into what went in the resolution, just like every member of the UNSC had a voice. Resolutions are a collection of elements introduced by various members and voted on by the others.

It's hilarious that you offer up propaganda from Iraq as proof the US and UK wrote UN1441! It's also amazing that you don't seem to comprehend that George W. Bush was never on the UNSC, or an Ambassador to the UN, and therefore, never had any authority over what went in a UN resolution. I'm sure he made suggestions, I am sure some of those were accepted.

Now... You point out that there was no time limit in 1441... BUT-- IF Bush and the UK wrote 1441, as you claim they did, why wouldn't they have given him a deadline? It's pretty stupid to have full authority over what goes into a resolution and then intentionally tie your own hands.

You truly are fucking insane. There is no other explanation for why you would be committed to such a retarded position.

You don't even know what you're saying. You make no sense. First, you say the U.N. doesn't allow the U.S. or U.K. to write its resolutions (which is astoundingly retarded; yes, they do) but then you say China and Russia had input. What in the hell do you think China and Russia had input to if the U.S. and U.K. didn't write the resolution?? Who do you think wrote it? Who do you think writes U.N. resolutions if not the member nations (sometimes alone, sometimes with other countries)?? You're a fucking imbecile.

I've never seen anybody who knew so little, yap so much.

And by the way, the New York Times is not propaganda. I don't care how far to the fringe right you are. That's what I offered up... the NYT reporting 1441 was written by the U.S. and the U.K. ... and you STILL don't get it.

No... You are still the retard in the room. You'll always be the retard in the room. That doesn't change because you know how to puff out your chest on a message board. You cited a NYT article which quoted Iraq claiming the US and UK wrote 1441.

Resolutions in the UN are created in much the same manner as bills in Congress. There is usually a sponsoring nation or nations, and the actual text is debated among members of the UN then advanced to the Security Council, where alterations may be made or amendments added. The President of the United States is never in attendance for any of this, it is not part of his job.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11828978

Continued threat, material threat, actionable threat, potential threat, imminent threat... doesn't matter, he was all of the above.

It does matter when discussing the language contained in the AUMF (Iraq) which we are discussing. The word chosen in that document was 'continuing threat' for a reason. To use ' ' ' 'imminent threat' in that document would not have been feaseable for the simple fact that means it would be too late for an attempt at diplomacy. And specifically for requiring the diplomacy to go "though" the UNSC. It matters the type of threat faced. The solution to the continuing threat allowed ample time for diplomacy. Words are chosen for reasons apparently that are way over your intellectual capability.

And SH could not be an imminent threat unless he had certain weapons and capability to do great harm to America or American interests and his plan of action is in its final stages.

Offering to let the CIA come in shows SH was trying very hard to avoid a war with the U.S. It makes it hard to believe that SH was planning an imminent attack on America at any time.

So words matter. You can't reduce them to mush just because you can't make a valid point. Or argument by using them.

Myself and posters like Faun etc can use the full range of the English language and all its words to knock down foolhardy arguments such as all of yours.

What you have continually tried to do is parse out certain segments of AUMF or UN1441 and pretend the rest of it didn't exist.

Again... it was not ever the responsibility of the US or CIA to go FIND his WMDs. Why do you keep harping on that offer? UN1441 demanded that SH cooperate immediately and unconditionally, to turn over documentation on the status of existing WMDs and programs which we already knew he had.

 

[Kosh]

Boss 11827803

And again... an Authorization to Use Military Force is very clear and unambiguous... it is certainly not an order to continue unlimited and never-ending diplomatic efforts.

Unfortunately for you neither the AUMF nor the UN Resolution contains language that set a limit on the use and pursuit of diplomacy. The criteria in both documents was that the diplomacy was to begin promptly and immediately. And that criteria was met. So quit making that story up and don't bring it up again.

ISIS started in 1999 and was allowed to flourish under Obama and got their official title/name from US government of ISIL in 2014.

No matter how you far left drones want to spin it it was a joint effort of Clinton and Obama..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11828978

Now... You point out that there was no time limit in 1441... BUT-- IF Bush and the UK wrote 1441, as you claim they did, why wouldn't they have given him a deadline? It's pretty stupid to have full authority over what goes into a resolution and then intentionally tie your own hands.

Bush tells Negroponte to Veto it and there is no 1441. And Blair doesn't get to play army with America's dumbest President ever. No one is saying Bush had full authority to produce the draft Resolution that became 1441. He had full authority to stop it if it was not acceptable as written. The USA under Bush accepted 1441 as written. So now you know there was no time limit to end diplomacy and Bush accepted it. Bush ceded the authority to determine whether SH complied with 1441 to the other 14 members on the council. That was the right move because Iraq was not an imminent or immediate threat to the world at that time.

So you still cannot explain how SH became a bigger and more imminent threat in March 2003 (200 inspectors) than he was in November 2002( 0 Inspectors) when Bush didn't veto or try to stop 1441 from becoming a very relevant UNSC Resolution with regard to Iraq!s WMD disarmament obligations to the civilized and lawful world.

You inability to explain that explains it all. You are stumped.

 

[Kosh]

Boss 11828978

Now... You point out that there was no time limit in 1441... BUT-- IF Bush and the UK wrote 1441, as you claim they did, why wouldn't they have given him a deadline? It's pretty stupid to have full authority over what goes into a resolution and then intentionally tie your own hands.

Bush tells Negroponte to Veto it and there is no 1441. And Blair doesn't get to play army with America's dumbest President ever. No one is saying Bush had full authority to produce the draft Resolution that became 1441. He had full authority to stop it if was not acceptable as written. The USA under Bush accepted 1441 as written. So now you know there was no time limit to end diplomacy and Bush accepted it. Bush ceded the authority to determine whether SH complied with 1441 to the other 14 members on the council. That was the right move because Iraq was not an imminent or immediate threat to world at that time.

So you still cannot explain how SH became a bigger and more imminent threat in March 2003 (200 inspectors) than he was in November 2002( 0 Inspectors) when Bush didn't veto or try to stop 1441 from becoming a very relevant UNSC Resolution with regard to Iraq!s WMD disarmament obligations to the civilized and lawful world.

You inability to explain that explains it all. You are stumped.

Yes we know the far left loves to rewrite history to ignore the fact that Obama allows ISIS to run wild on the world. See the Bush defense will be used for at least the next 50 years.

And the far left drones still support the illegal wars of Obama..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11829736

UN1441 demanded that SH cooperate immediately and unconditionally, to turn over documentation on the status of existing WMDs and programs which we already knew he had.

Iraq did provide its declaration/documentation on time. There was no time limit to resolving all outstanding issues from unwitnessed CW/BW destruction in 1991 or 1992. There was no time limit on ending diplomacy in 1441 and you have admitted knowing that. So why are you making the argument that you have admitted that you know is untrue?

 

[Boss]

Boss 11828978

Now... You point out that there was no time limit in 1441... BUT-- IF Bush and the UK wrote 1441, as you claim they did, why wouldn't they have given him a deadline? It's pretty stupid to have full authority over what goes into a resolution and then intentionally tie your own hands.

Bush tells Negroponte to Veto it and there is no 1441. And Blair doesn't get to play army with America's dumbest President ever. No one is saying Bush had full authority to produce the draft Resolution that became 1441. He had full authority to stop it if it was not acceptable as written. The USA under Bush accepted 1441 as written. So now you know there was no time limit to end diplomacy and Bush accepted it. Bush ceded the authority to determine whether SH complied with 1441 to the other 14 members on the council. That was the right move because Iraq was not an imminent or immediate threat to the world at that time.

So you still cannot explain how SH became a bigger and more imminent threat in March 2003 (200 inspectors) than he was in November 2002( 0 Inspectors) when Bush didn't veto or try to stop 1441 from becoming a very relevant UNSC Resolution with regard to Iraq!s WMD disarmament obligations to the civilized and lawful world.

You inability to explain that explains it all. You are stumped.

Nothing need be explained. Saddam did not comply with UN1441 and Bush took action as he said he would do. He allowed there to be a UN1441... he didn't have to do that. He worked with his Congress to get an AUMF with the commitment to allow the UN one last resolution to bring SH into compliance. Again... he didn't have to do that. Saddam was already in material breach of the 1991 cease fire agreement. As President, he could have simply resumed military action without even consulting Congress OR the UN.

 

[Faun]

Who the fuck do you think Powell was talking about when he said, "We wrote 1441?" Russia? China? What country do you think Powell is from?

People often use "we" in what is known as the "royal" sense. (watch The Big Lebowski) The UN does not allow the US and UK to write it's resolutions. Yes, China and Russia had input into what went in the resolution, just like every member of the UNSC had a voice. Resolutions are a collection of elements introduced by various members and voted on by the others.

It's hilarious that you offer up propaganda from Iraq as proof the US and UK wrote UN1441! It's also amazing that you don't seem to comprehend that George W. Bush was never on the UNSC, or an Ambassador to the UN, and therefore, never had any authority over what went in a UN resolution. I'm sure he made suggestions, I am sure some of those were accepted.

Now... You point out that there was no time limit in 1441... BUT-- IF Bush and the UK wrote 1441, as you claim they did, why wouldn't they have given him a deadline? It's pretty stupid to have full authority over what goes into a resolution and then intentionally tie your own hands.

You truly are fucking insane. There is no other explanation for why you would be committed to such a retarded position.

You don't even know what you're saying. You make no sense. First, you say the U.N. doesn't allow the U.S. or U.K. to write its resolutions (which is astoundingly retarded; yes, they do) but then you say China and Russia had input. What in the hell do you think China and Russia had input to if the U.S. and U.K. didn't write the resolution?? Who do you think wrote it? Who do you think writes U.N. resolutions if not the member nations (sometimes alone, sometimes with other countries)?? You're a fucking imbecile.

I've never seen anybody who knew so little, yap so much.

And by the way, the New York Times is not propaganda. I don't care how far to the fringe right you are. That's what I offered up... the NYT reporting 1441 was written by the U.S. and the U.K. ... and you STILL don't get it.

No... You are still the retard in the room. You'll always be the retard in the room. That doesn't change because you know how to puff out your chest on a message board. You cited a NYT article which quoted Iraq claiming the US and UK wrote 1441.

Holyfuckingshit!

Now I have to fucking educate you on how quotation marks work??

Dumbfuck ... quotation marks are used to designate quoting someone -- there were no quotation marks indicating the NYT was quoting Iraq when they reported the U.S. and the U.K. wrote 1441.

So we have Colin Powell saying we wrote it and we have the New York Times saying it -- yet a dumbfucking conservative still thinks he knows better.

 

[Boss]

UN1441 demanded that SH cooperate immediately and unconditionally, to turn over documentation on the status of existing WMDs and programs which we already knew he had.

Iraq did provide its declaration/documentation on time. There was no time limit to resolving all outstanding issues from unwitnessed CW/BW destruction in 1991 or 1992. There was no time limit on ending diplomacy in 1441 and you have admitted knowing that. So why are you making the argument that you have admitted that you know is untrue?

No they did not, they never turned over documentation requested and we still don't have it.

It wasn't about a time limit... Saddam was required to immediately cooperate and he didn't. It was never implied or suggested that diplomacy would continue indefinitely.

 

[Boss]

Who the fuck do you think Powell was talking about when he said, "We wrote 1441?" Russia? China? What country do you think Powell is from?

People often use "we" in what is known as the "royal" sense. (watch The Big Lebowski) The UN does not allow the US and UK to write it's resolutions. Yes, China and Russia had input into what went in the resolution, just like every member of the UNSC had a voice. Resolutions are a collection of elements introduced by various members and voted on by the others.

It's hilarious that you offer up propaganda from Iraq as proof the US and UK wrote UN1441! It's also amazing that you don't seem to comprehend that George W. Bush was never on the UNSC, or an Ambassador to the UN, and therefore, never had any authority over what went in a UN resolution. I'm sure he made suggestions, I am sure some of those were accepted.

Now... You point out that there was no time limit in 1441... BUT-- IF Bush and the UK wrote 1441, as you claim they did, why wouldn't they have given him a deadline? It's pretty stupid to have full authority over what goes into a resolution and then intentionally tie your own hands.

You truly are fucking insane. There is no other explanation for why you would be committed to such a retarded position.

You don't even know what you're saying. You make no sense. First, you say the U.N. doesn't allow the U.S. or U.K. to write its resolutions (which is astoundingly retarded; yes, they do) but then you say China and Russia had input. What in the hell do you think China and Russia had input to if the U.S. and U.K. didn't write the resolution?? Who do you think wrote it? Who do you think writes U.N. resolutions if not the member nations (sometimes alone, sometimes with other countries)?? You're a fucking imbecile.

I've never seen anybody who knew so little, yap so much.

And by the way, the New York Times is not propaganda. I don't care how far to the fringe right you are. That's what I offered up... the NYT reporting 1441 was written by the U.S. and the U.K. ... and you STILL don't get it.

No... You are still the retard in the room. You'll always be the retard in the room. That doesn't change because you know how to puff out your chest on a message board. You cited a NYT article which quoted Iraq claiming the US and UK wrote 1441.

Holyfuckingshit!

Now I have to fucking educate you on how quotation marks work??

Dumbfuck ... quotation marks are used to designate quoting someone -- there were no quotation marks indicating the NYT was quoting Iraq when they reported the U.S. and the U.K. wrote 1441.

So we have Colin Powell saying we wrote it and we have the New York Times saying it -- yet a dumbfucking conservative still thinks he knows better.

Hey retard boy... THIS is what you posted:
In pages of hostile language, the Iraqi letter calls the United States and Britain, allies who wrote the resolution, "the gang of evil" and accuses them of manipulating the Security Council with "the biggest and most wicked slander" against Iraq.

That is NOT the NY Times! That's the NY Times reporting about a hostile letter from Iraq.

Now... IF we need to go dig up the official protocol of UN resolutions, I am sure that info is available online somewhere, but I am betting it doesn't say that UN resolutions are written by the US and UK governments or presidents.

The US and UK did participate with the formation of UN1441, along with other SC members. To try and claim otherwise is a complete ignorance of how the UN resolution process works. Sorry!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11829736

UN1441 demanded that SH cooperate immediately and unconditionally, to turn over documentation on the status of existing WMDs and programs which we already knew he had.

After all the cooperation that SH provided immediately why would he not turn over documents on decades old materials if had had the documentation suitable to prove it?

Your Conspiracy Theory that SH was deliberately hiding documents just shows how hard up you warmongers wanted to end diplomacy over the WMD issue and just start killing and maiming Iraqis for no good reason.

Paperwork? 4484 Americans dead! You are a piece of work for sure.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11830055

Who the fuck do you think Powell was talking about when he said, "We wrote 1441?" Russia? China? What country do you think Powell is from?

People often use "we" in what is known as the "royal" sense. (watch The Big Lebowski) The UN does not allow the US and UK to write it's resolutions. Yes, China and Russia had input into what went in the resolution, just like every member of the UNSC had a voice. Resolutions are a collection of elements introduced by various members and voted on by the others.

It's hilarious that you offer up propaganda from Iraq as proof the US and UK wrote UN1441! It's also amazing that you don't seem to comprehend that George W. Bush was never on the UNSC, or an Ambassador to the UN, and therefore, never had any authority over what went in a UN resolution. I'm sure he made suggestions, I am sure some of those were accepted.

Now... You point out that there was no time limit in 1441... BUT-- IF Bush and the UK wrote 1441, as you claim they did, why wouldn't they have given him a deadline? It's pretty stupid to have full authority over what goes into a resolution and then intentionally tie your own hands.

You truly are fucking insane. There is no other explanation for why you would be committed to such a retarded position.

You don't even know what you're saying. You make no sense. First, you say the U.N. doesn't allow the U.S. or U.K. to write its resolutions (which is astoundingly retarded; yes, they do) but then you say China and Russia had input. What in the hell do you think China and Russia had input to if the U.S. and U.K. didn't write the resolution?? Who do you think wrote it? Who do you think writes U.N. resolutions if not the member nations (sometimes alone, sometimes with other countries)?? You're a fucking imbecile.

I've never seen anybody who knew so little, yap so much.

And by the way, the New York Times is not propaganda. I don't care how far to the fringe right you are. That's what I offered up... the NYT reporting 1441 was written by the U.S. and the U.K. ... and you STILL don't get it.

No... You are still the retard in the room. You'll always be the retard in the room. That doesn't change because you know how to puff out your chest on a message board. You cited a NYT article which quoted Iraq claiming the US and UK wrote 1441.

Holyfuckingshit!

Now I have to fucking educate you on how quotation marks work??

Dumbfuck ... quotation marks are used to designate quoting someone -- there were no quotation marks indicating the NYT was quoting Iraq when they reported the U.S. and the U.K. wrote 1441.

So we have Colin Powell saying we wrote it and we have the New York Times saying it -- yet a dumbfucking conservative still thinks he knows better.

Hey retard boy... THIS is what you posted:
In pages of hostile language, the Iraqi letter calls the United States and Britain, allies who wrote the resolution, "the gang of evil" and accuses them of manipulating the Security Council with "the biggest and most wicked slander" against Iraq.

That is NOT the NY Times! That's the NY Times reporting about a hostile letter from Iraq.

Now... IF we need to go dig up the official protocol of UN resolutions, I am sure that info is available online somewhere, but I am betting it doesn't say that UN resolutions are written by the US and UK governments or presidents.

The US and UK did participate with the formation of UN1441, along with other SC members. To try and claim otherwise is a complete ignorance of how the UN resolution process works. Sorry!

Oh oh The UN does not let the U.S. write their Resolutions says Boss:


Iraq cited in the NYTimes was correct. The U.S. And UK wrote 1441:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the ...
Wikipedia › wiki › United_Nations_Secu...
Mobile-friendly - The resolution text was draftedjointly by the United States and the United Kingdom, the .... time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to .... 1435 · 1436 · 1437 · 1438 · 1439 · 1440; 1441; 1442 · 1443 · 1444 · 1445 ...

 

[Boss]

Boss 11829736

UN1441 demanded that SH cooperate immediately and unconditionally, to turn over documentation on the status of existing WMDs and programs which we already knew he had.

After all the cooperation that SH provided immediately why would he not turn over documents on decades old materials if had had the documentation suitable to prove it?

Your Conspiracy Theory that SH was deliberately hiding documents just shows how hard up you warmongers wanted to end diplomacy over the WMD issue and just start killing and maiming Iraqis for no good reason.

Paperwork? 4484 Americans dead! You are a piece of work for sure.

I don't know, that's a good question... why wouldn't he? Seems like, if he had nothing to hide and wanted to remain in power and have the UN sanctions lifted, he would have been happy to comply. I never said he deliberately hid documents, I don't know what happened to documents or if there ever were documents. I know that the UN tagged thousands of WMDs and we knew those existed at one time... what happened to them? If he destroyed them, show the inspectors where that took place, we have the forensic equipment to verify his claim. He refused to comply.

I have no idea why he didn't want to comply, I can only speculate at this point and we'll never know for sure. My guess is, he didn't want to disclose a location where the WMDs were destroyed because they were either not destroyed, or it would have exposed that he had been continuing to stockpile WMDs after 1991, in clear violation of international law.

Yes... 4,484 Americans dead and MOST (if not all) were killed by radical Islamic terrorists and not Saddam's military. The overwhelming majority of casualties in Iraq from our weapons were radical terrorist thugs and not Iraqi citizens. Yes, there were a few who became collateral damage... we shot and blew up a few of our own soldiers too. Shit happens in war.

 

[frigidweirdo]

UN1441 demanded that SH cooperate immediately and unconditionally, to turn over documentation on the status of existing WMDs and programs which we already knew he had.

Iraq did provide its declaration/documentation on time. There was no time limit to resolving all outstanding issues from unwitnessed CW/BW destruction in 1991 or 1992. There was no time limit on ending diplomacy in 1441 and you have admitted knowing that. So why are you making the argument that you have admitted that you know is untrue?

No they did not, they never turned over documentation requested and we still don't have it.

It wasn't about a time limit... Saddam was required to immediately cooperate and he didn't. It was never implied or suggested that diplomacy would continue indefinitely.

Why was it so important for Bush to have Saddam cooperate?

Because Saddam had WMDs?

Bush's main argument was that Saddam had had WMDs in the past, therefore would have them in the present (2003). Kind of like saying the US had had WMDs and used them, like atomic bombs, napalm and all sorts of things like that, therefore the US would use them.

Paul Wolfowitz said:

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but, there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two."

It's funny. The second issue, support for terrorism. Saddam did far more than Bush to stop terrorism. I'm not saying Saddam didn't help some terrorists, but you look and see ISIS, and you know ISIS wouldn't exist if Saddam was still in power. Terrorism would have been reduced massively. The Madrid and London bombings wouldn't have happened, for example.

The third point is just laughable, the Bush team didn't give a flying duck about the Iraqi people, never have, never will. They care about the OIL.

So they went for WMDs. Why?

Scott Ritter, in 2002, criticised the US govt for using Khidir Hamza's testimony on the Iraqi nuclear weapons program. However Khidir Hamza did work for the Iraqi nuclear weapons program when he claimed he did.

Saddam's son in law, who defected to Jordan in 1995 called him "a professional liar", David Albright, former weapons inspector in Iraq said "Hamza had some good information about Iraqi nuclear programs until his departure from Iraq, but that's it."

Yet the Bush govt had him give "evidence" to the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs. A guy who knew almost nothing about the Iraqi nuclear program.

Ritter in 1999 criticised the Clinton govt of spying on the Iraqi army for potential WMDs. Why did Clinton not do anything? Why did inspectors leave in 1998 if Clinton's govt thought that WMDs were being produced?
Also in 1999 in an interview with Ritter " "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board."

So, Ritter was saying that Saddam did not have the capability at that point to produce these weapons.

"According to Ritter: "Iraq today (1999) possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability.""

The Report of pre-war intelligence, from the US govt, said:

"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."

Here is an assessment by the committee:

"The October 2002 NIE stated that Iraq appeared to be reconstitituting its nuclear weapons program. The Committee's report concluded that this view was not supported by the underlying intelligence, and the report agreed with the opinion of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, expressed as an "alternative view" in the NIE, that the available intelligence did not make "a compelling case for reconstitution" of the Iraqi nuclear program. The committee reached several conclusions critical of poor communications between the CIA and other parts of the intelligence community concerning this issue."


So, basically you have Bush, or whoever was controlling Bush's strings, telling the intelligence services, or at least one part of the intelligence services, to go make stuff up. This was all designed to give Bush a reason to go to war. The Powell Doctrine requires that you have public support, and the public wouldn't support a war for no reason. So they made reasons, and they picked up on what the American people would fear the most, WMDs, especially in regards to Israel.

Evidence was simply expanded. It was possible for Niger to sell Iraq nuclear material. This is because Niger has nuclear material. So, if it is possible for this to happen all you need to do is to find one guy who says it has happened, hardly difficult to find someone willing to say something for a wad of cash, is it?

Then you use some old evidence, get a few people who have a grudge against Saddam, like former scientists, stick them up in front of the Senate, pretend they know something about a nuclear program of a country they haven't been to for nearly 10 years, long after Nuclear Inspectors were going around Iraq, long after Clinton's govt were spying on the potential WMD programs, and wham, you've suddenly made yourself a great work of fiction that people will believe because there isn't enough evidence out there to prove it 100% wrong.

So Bush used uncertainty in intelligence, anything they didn't want to release was "top secret", but they supposedly had this information, but no one could see it, no one could question it, even if it was all fake.


So, the question is, why the hell did Bush's govt put so much effort into making this stuff up about WMDs to invade Iraq?

What was the interest for the US in invading an OPEC country that did not support the US?
Was this the very same interest that had the US supporting with large wads of cash the coup d'etat against Chavez in OPEC Venezuela the year before? You bet it was.

Bush had targeted three countries, two were OPEC and the other was Afghanistan, which you can half see why he went in there for reasons not of oil. But you look at the vilification of Muslims, it made Bush's task in Iraq so much easier.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No they did not, they never turned over documentation requested and we still don't have it.

There was a deadline in 1441. It told Iraq to submit documentation by a specific date. Iraq met that requirement. What I said was there was no time limit for diplomacy to finally resolve any disputed documentation issues. You favor bombing and killing Iraqis over those documentation unresolved issue. It is a very bad CT you got yourself riled up over.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11830055

People often use "we" in what is known as the "royal" sense. (watch The Big Lebowski) The UN does not allow the US and UK to write it's resolutions. Yes, China and Russia had input into what went in the resolution, just like every member of the UNSC had a voice. Resolutions are a collection of elements introduced by various members and voted on by the others.

It's hilarious that you offer up propaganda from Iraq as proof the US and UK wrote UN1441! It's also amazing that you don't seem to comprehend that George W. Bush was never on the UNSC, or an Ambassador to the UN, and therefore, never had any authority over what went in a UN resolution. I'm sure he made suggestions, I am sure some of those were accepted.

Now... You point out that there was no time limit in 1441... BUT-- IF Bush and the UK wrote 1441, as you claim they did, why wouldn't they have given him a deadline? It's pretty stupid to have full authority over what goes into a resolution and then intentionally tie your own hands.

You truly are fucking insane. There is no other explanation for why you would be committed to such a retarded position.

You don't even know what you're saying. You make no sense. First, you say the U.N. doesn't allow the U.S. or U.K. to write its resolutions (which is astoundingly retarded; yes, they do) but then you say China and Russia had input. What in the hell do you think China and Russia had input to if the U.S. and U.K. didn't write the resolution?? Who do you think wrote it? Who do you think writes U.N. resolutions if not the member nations (sometimes alone, sometimes with other countries)?? You're a fucking imbecile.

I've never seen anybody who knew so little, yap so much.

And by the way, the New York Times is not propaganda. I don't care how far to the fringe right you are. That's what I offered up... the NYT reporting 1441 was written by the U.S. and the U.K. ... and you STILL don't get it.

No... You are still the retard in the room. You'll always be the retard in the room. That doesn't change because you know how to puff out your chest on a message board. You cited a NYT article which quoted Iraq claiming the US and UK wrote 1441.

Holyfuckingshit!

Now I have to fucking educate you on how quotation marks work??

Dumbfuck ... quotation marks are used to designate quoting someone -- there were no quotation marks indicating the NYT was quoting Iraq when they reported the U.S. and the U.K. wrote 1441.

So we have Colin Powell saying we wrote it and we have the New York Times saying it -- yet a dumbfucking conservative still thinks he knows better.

Hey retard boy... THIS is what you posted:
In pages of hostile language, the Iraqi letter calls the United States and Britain, allies who wrote the resolution, "the gang of evil" and accuses them of manipulating the Security Council with "the biggest and most wicked slander" against Iraq.

That is NOT the NY Times! That's the NY Times reporting about a hostile letter from Iraq.

Now... IF we need to go dig up the official protocol of UN resolutions, I am sure that info is available online somewhere, but I am betting it doesn't say that UN resolutions are written by the US and UK governments or presidents.

The US and UK did participate with the formation of UN1441, along with other SC members. To try and claim otherwise is a complete ignorance of how the UN resolution process works. Sorry!

Oh oh The UN does not let the U.S. write their Resolutions says Boss:


Iraq cited in the NYTimes was correct. The U.S. And UK wrote 1441:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the ...
Wikipedia › wiki › United_Nations_Secu...
Mobile-friendly - The resolution text was draftedjointly by the United States and the United Kingdom, the .... time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to .... 1435 · 1436 · 1437 · 1438 · 1439 · 1440; 1441; 1442 · 1443 · 1444 · 1445 ...

Why did you leave out the rest of the info?

The resolution text was drafted jointly by the United States and the United Kingdom, the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations, particularly with Russia and France. France questioned the phrase "serious consequences" and stated repeatedly that any "material breach" found by the inspectors should not automatically lead to war; instead the UN should pass another resolution deciding on the course of action. In favour of this view is the fact that previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII used much stronger terms, like "...all necessary means..." in Resolution 678 in 1990 and that Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter."