So Where Are The Subversive War Protestors Now That A Socialist Is In Charge?

[Vigilante]

Obama can get away with the same things that they castigated Bush for. Classic liberal BS

Most of it was started by Bush and inherited by Obama. that, and we can see the atrocities that are being committed. No phantom WMDs.

The prick has had 6 YEARS to undo what Bush did,,,,, the pos didn't, and you won't recognize that FACT!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I don't agree with Code Pink very much, but on Bush's decision to invade Iraq Code Pink got it right. *Vigilante and Oldstyle had it all wrong. But we can see within the following exchange that *Vigilante and Oldstyle had to flee from the solid education that I was trying to present to them:

001a 9785575

Obama can get away with the same things that they castigated Bush for. Classic liberal BS

001b 9797782

I castigated Bush only when he decided to kick UN inspectors out and then invade Iraq over alleged WMDs being hidden by the regime there. <> I have not seen any instance where Obama has started a war by kicking out UN inspectors. When you find that situation then you make your statement. But until then your statement is false. Over 90 percent of Americans supported Bush going after terrorists in Afghanistan after 911. That means most Americans didn't castigate Bush until he abandoned the war on terrorists and went after Saddam Hussein for no good reason to justify starting a war.

*NF: Have you seen any instance where Obama has started a war by kicking or forcing out UN inspectors because the war he started would get them injured or killed?

001c 9797826

What are you talking about, <> Bush gave the U.N. the date we were going to invade, and the inspectors left 2 days before by U.N. orders! Saddam broke 17 U.N. resolutions AFTER Gulf War one, and was shooting at our planes in the NO FLY zone.... I just love it when 2 digit IQ'd subversives make up their own history!

001d 9797877

Are you dense? That is what I said... Bush kicked the inspectors out. As to the broken resolutions... Bush signed onto UN Res 1441 in November 2002 which meant all the prior violations by Iraq were on hold as Iraq was given a FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY by letting the inspectors come in and finish disarming Iraq peacefully. Bush violated UN Res 1441 not Saddam Hussein. You have been entirely fooled by Dubya. <> Iraq ceased shooting at US and UK planes who were bombing Iraq in the summer of 2002 when UN Res 1441 was passed and Iraq let the UN inspectors come back in. <> And Saddam went further than just letting the inspectors back in. He offered to let the US military and FBI and CIA come in to work alongside the UN inspectors to find WMD if they thought some was there. That offer came in December 2002 and Bush did not pursue it or even consider it. Bush is lying to you when he claims he exhausted all peaceful means prior to deciding on war.

001e 9797897

The U.N. FORCED the inspectors out so they didn't get killed in the fighting! Saddam VIOLATED 16 resolutions, I'm sure that these must have been the equivalent of Res 1441.... Saddam continued to violate these resolutions! Now please STFU and learn something!

001f 9798163

1441 was the last Resolution prior to the US and UK invasion. If you read 1441 you would not have wasted your time and everyone's time listing over a decade of Iraq's history of violations. Of course Saddam violated those resolutions prior to 1441 (November 2002). But 1441 specifically states that Iraq was therein given a FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY. Saddam did not continue to violate those resolutions because he was never ever and never came close to being in violation of 1441 for not taking his FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY.<> If you have any record of the UNSC voting that Iraq did not take his FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with all those resolutions under 1441 then lets see it. I know it does not exist. Bush and Blair tried to set a deadline for 1441 and the UNSC fifteen members were opposed to setting a deadline and the majority sought to keep the inspections going and avoid war. <> So you do not know anything about what went down which is obvious by your statement "Saddam VIOLATED 16 resolutions, I'm sure that these must have been the equivalent of Res 1441.... " ,,, You have no clue what 1441 was about do you? Your 'sure that these 'must have been' the equivalent of Res 1441" The equivalent? You had no idea what you were typing did you?

*NF: If you have any record of the UNSC that the UNSC determined that Saddam Hussein did not take his FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with 1441 then lets see it.

 

[Oldstyle]

I don't agree with Code Pink very much, but on Bush's decision to invade Iraq Code Pink got it right. *Vigilante and Oldstyle had it all wrong. But we can see within the following exchange that *Vigilante and Oldstyle had to flee from the solid education that I was trying to present to them:

001a 9785575

Obama can get away with the same things that they castigated Bush for. Classic liberal BS

001b 9797782

I castigated Bush only when he decided to kick UN inspectors out and then invade Iraq over alleged WMDs being hidden by the regime there. <> I have not seen any instance where Obama has started a war by kicking out UN inspectors. When you find that situation then you make your statement. But until then your statement is false. Over 90 percent of Americans supported Bush going after terrorists in Afghanistan after 911. That means most Americans didn't castigate Bush until he abandoned the war on terrorists and went after Saddam Hussein for no good reason to justify starting a war.

*NF: Have you seen any instance where Obama has started a war by kicking or forcing out UN inspectors because the war he started would get them injured or killed?

001c 9797826

What are you talking about, <> Bush gave the U.N. the date we were going to invade, and the inspectors left 2 days before by U.N. orders! Saddam broke 17 U.N. resolutions AFTER Gulf War one, and was shooting at our planes in the NO FLY zone.... I just love it when 2 digit IQ'd subversives make up their own history!

001d 9797877

Are you dense? That is what I said... Bush kicked the inspectors out. As to the broken resolutions... Bush signed onto UN Res 1441 in November 2002 which meant all the prior violations by Iraq were on hold as Iraq was given a FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY by letting the inspectors come in and finish disarming Iraq peacefully. Bush violated UN Res 1441 not Saddam Hussein. You have been entirely fooled by Dubya. <> Iraq ceased shooting at US and UK planes who were bombing Iraq in the summer of 2002 when UN Res 1441 was passed and Iraq let the UN inspectors come back in. <> And Saddam went further than just letting the inspectors back in. He offered to let the US military and FBI and CIA come in to work alongside the UN inspectors to find WMD if they thought some was there. That offer came in December 2002 and Bush did not pursue it or even consider it. Bush is lying to you when he claims he exhausted all peaceful means prior to deciding on war.

001e 9797897

The U.N. FORCED the inspectors out so they didn't get killed in the fighting! Saddam VIOLATED 16 resolutions, I'm sure that these must have been the equivalent of Res 1441.... Saddam continued to violate these resolutions! Now please STFU and learn something!

001f 9798163

1441 was the last Resolution prior to the US and UK invasion. If you read 1441 you would not have wasted your time and everyone's time listing over a decade of Iraq's history of violations. Of course Saddam violated those resolutions prior to 1441 (November 2002). But 1441 specifically states that Iraq was therein given a FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY. Saddam did not continue to violate those resolutions because he was never ever and never came close to being in violation of 1441 for not taking his FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY.<> If you have any record of the UNSC voting that Iraq did not take his FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with all those resolutions under 1441 then lets see it. I know it does not exist. Bush and Blair tried to set a deadline for 1441 and the UNSC fifteen members were opposed to setting a deadline and the majority sought to keep the inspections going and avoid war. <> So you do not know anything about what went down which is obvious by your statement "Saddam VIOLATED 16 resolutions, I'm sure that these must have been the equivalent of Res 1441.... " ,,, You have no clue what 1441 was about do you? Your 'sure that these 'must have been' the equivalent of Res 1441" The equivalent? You had no idea what you were typing did you?

*NF: If you have any record of the UNSC that the UNSC determined that Saddam Hussein did not take his FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with 1441 then lets see it.

For someone to sit here and declare that Saddam Hussein wasn't violating UN sanctions before the Second Gulf War is ludicrous! He'd been doing exactly that FOR YEARS!

As for the UN itself? France was allowing parts for Iraq's Mirage jet fighters and Gazelle Helicopters...both manufactured by French companies tightly controlled by the French government...to be sold to Iraq in return for Iraqi oil. Is it any wonder that France wanted to give Saddam Hussein "one more chance" over and over again! The 3 members of the UN Security Council that voted against going to war with Iraq were France, China and Russia. So guess what 3 countries all turned out to be illegally supplying Saddam Hussein with armaments following the First Gulf War? That would be France, China and Russia!

Before you give me a "lesson" about something...don't you think you should actually LEARN about it first?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9869122

*NF: Have you seen any instance where Obama has started a war by kicking or forcing out UN inspectors because the war he started would get them injured or killed? <> *NF: If you have any record of the UNSC that the UNSC determined that Saddam Hussein did not take his FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with 1441 then lets see it.

I see Oldstyle continues to be unable to answer my questions.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

001g 9869122

*NF: Have you seen any instance where Obama has started a war by kicking or forcing out UN inspectors because the war he started would get them injured or killed? <> *NF: If you have any record of the UNSC that the UNSC determined that Saddam Hussein did not take his FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with 1441 then lets see it.

001h 9869587

For someone to sit here and declare that Saddam Hussein wasn't violating UN sanctions before the Second Gulf War is ludicrous!

Why do you sit there and state something false about what I have been writing here? You must care little about your reputation for integrity and clarity in expressing your agenda. That is because I have already been down this road with you before. Why do you repeat the same invalid argument over and over again without attempting to address your miserable shortcoming and lack of being informed on this matter about UNSC Resolution 1441 and Bush's decision in March 2003 to force, yes kick the inspectors out of Iraq and start a needless war?


Perhaps you can't remember so far in the past. Or If you cannot understand something from the following exchange let me know. I will try to clarify it for you even further:

001a 9798997.

Saddam Hussein violated UN sanctions repeatedly over the span of YEARS.

.

001b 9799183

I agree with that 1000% and that is precisely why I agreed 10000% after 09-11-01 with Bush 43's determination to confront the Baathist Regime in Iraq for being in violation of all those Resolutions you mention. I also 10,000% agreed with Bush's decision to go to the UN seeking a new UN resolution that would give Saddam Hussein a Final Opportunity to Comply. <> That is where UNSC 1441 comes into play and where your deviation from facts reality and history come into being. That is where I allow historical reality to influence my judgment and Bush duped minions are stuck in the ignorance of the facts. You cannot relate to events that transpired after 1441 because you cannot accept apparently that 1441 was unanimously passed by the UNSC and one of those votes was the USA.

002a 9798997.

To say that he was an innocent victim because Bush finally said enough is enough is laughable.

002b 9799183

Your suggestion is not true. My point is that Saddam was not innocent. My point is that the FACTS are that Saddam Hussein did not commit a material breach of 1441 and Bush's decision to invade Iraq was contrary to the facts and the decisions and non-decisions of the UNSC majority in opposition to Bush and Blair. <> It was Bush's terrible decision to violate 1441 that got innocent Iraqis killed wounded and displaced, innocent American Brit and Iraqi Children lost their parents, in a needless war. 4584 American soldiers were killed and ten times that were wounded. The US economy was harmed due in large part for Bush's decision in March to violate 1441 and borrow trillions to pay for bloody war and occupation. <> UN inspectors in March were at most a few months from finding Iraq disarmed an no longer in violation. Bush intervened and ended the peaceful process and the rest is history. The history between November 2002 and March 10, 2003 had been largely Orwellian Style suppressed. Perhaps that is why you know nothing about it. Perhaps you know but refuse to deal with reality as must Iraq Invasion supporters do.
But don't distort my position on Iraq so you can argue out of ignorance against it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

001g 9869122

*NF: Have you seen any instance where Obama has started a war by kicking or forcing out UN inspectors because the war he started would get them injured or killed? <> *NF: If you have any record of the UNSC that the UNSC determined that Saddam Hussein did not take his FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with 1441 then lets see it.

001h 9869587

As for the UN itself? France was allowing parts for Iraq's Mirage jet fighters and Gazelle Helicopters...both manufactured by French companies tightly controlled by the French government...to be sold to Iraq in return for Iraqi oil.

What does that have to do with whether or not Iraq was found by the UNSC to be in violation of UNSC Resolution 1441 or not. Are you suggesting that Bush sent 4584 of America's finest to die in Iraq and spent at least one trillion US taxpayer dollars over in order to keep the French Government from committing some form of UN violation of sanctions. Wouldn't Bush have been better off taking the matter up at the UN peacefully with France if it was such a national security violation. And the French were right to demand that the UN inspections in 2003 according to 1441 be allowed to continue. You see the same exact determination that Iraq did not have WMD would have been achieved without all the deaths injuries destroyed property, refugees, and new terrorist activity coming into Iraq had the French position on UN Res 1441 been followed.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

001g 9869122

*NF: Have you seen any instance where Obama has started a war by kicking or forcing out UN inspectors because the war he started would get them injured or killed? <> *NF: If you have any record of the UNSC that the UNSC determined that Saddam Hussein did not take his FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with 1441 then lets see it.

001h 9869587

Is it any wonder that France wanted to give Saddam Hussein "one more chance" over and over again!

UNSC Resolution 1441 in November 2002 was a Unanimous 'YES' vote to give Iraq a final opportunity to comply with relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq's disarmament obligations to the world community. The United States and United Kingdom voted yes to give Iraq 'one more chance' in November of 2002. Iraq let the UN inspectors come back in during December 2002. Iraq invited both the US and UK to send in the CIA and military agents along with those inspectors in December 2002 but Bush refused to accept that very public offer by the Iraq regime.

 

[Oldstyle]

001g 9869122

*NF: Have you seen any instance where Obama has started a war by kicking or forcing out UN inspectors because the war he started would get them injured or killed? <> *NF: If you have any record of the UNSC that the UNSC determined that Saddam Hussein did not take his FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with 1441 then lets see it.

001h 9869587

As for the UN itself? France was allowing parts for Iraq's Mirage jet fighters and Gazelle Helicopters...both manufactured by French companies tightly controlled by the French government...to be sold to Iraq in return for Iraqi oil.

What does that have to do with whether or not Iraq was found by the UNSC to be in violation of UNSC Resolution 1441 or not. Are you suggesting that Bush sent 4584 of America's finest to die in Iraq and spent at least one trillion US taxpayer dollars over in order to keep the French Government from committing some form of UN violation of sanctions. Wouldn't Bush have been better off taking the matter up at the UN peacefully with France if it was such a national security violation. And the French were right to demand that the UN inspections in 2003 according to 1441 be allowed to continue. You see the same exact determination that Iraq did not have WMD would have been achieved without all the deaths injuries destroyed property, refugees, and new terrorist activity coming into Iraq had the French position on UN Res 1441 been followed.

What does it have to do with the UN Security Council resolution? God but you're clueless! The UN Security Council members that voted against military action against Iraq are the same members that were supplying Saddam Hussein with illegal armaments! France, China and Russia were violating the very sanctions that the UN had already passed but you think that Bush should have "taken the matter up" with the French at the UN? France wasn't in the right on Iraq...France was profiting off illegal arms sales to a despot in return for cheap oil.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

001g 9869122

*NF: Have you seen any instance where Obama has started a war by kicking or forcing out UN inspectors because the war he started would get them injured or killed? <> *NF: If you have any record of the UNSC that the UNSC determined that Saddam Hussein did not take his FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with 1441 then lets see it.

001h 9869587

The 3 members of the UN Security Council that voted against going to war with Iraq were France, China and Russia. So guess what 3 countries all turned out to be illegally supplying Saddam Hussein with armaments following the First Gulf War? That would be France, China and Russia! <> Before you give me a "lesson" about something...don't you think you should actually LEARN about it first?

There are fifteen members on the UNSC and the US could not get the majority of them to pass a resolution offered by the US and UK on March 7 to authorized war. So if you wish to be respected for your knowledge of what happened in the UNSC from November 2002 through March 2003 you ought to get your facts straight. France, China and Russia did not vote against going to war with Iraq because there never had to be a vote on that matter. Iraq was complying with the UNSC demands as defined in UNSC Resolution 1441. They were correct that inspections and long term monitoring were a much wiser and safer way to go than a US bombing and ground attack on the people of Iraq.

 

[Ibentoken]

Obama's war is illegal. Obama is murdering women and children. Obama is a war criminal.

 

[Oldstyle]

001g 9869122

*NF: Have you seen any instance where Obama has started a war by kicking or forcing out UN inspectors because the war he started would get them injured or killed? <> *NF: If you have any record of the UNSC that the UNSC determined that Saddam Hussein did not take his FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with 1441 then lets see it.

001h 9869587

The 3 members of the UN Security Council that voted against going to war with Iraq were France, China and Russia. So guess what 3 countries all turned out to be illegally supplying Saddam Hussein with armaments following the First Gulf War? That would be France, China and Russia! <> Before you give me a "lesson" about something...don't you think you should actually LEARN about it first?

There are fifteen members on the UNSC and the US could not get the majority of them to pass a resolution offered by the US and UK on March 7 to authorized war. So if you wish to be respected for your knowledge of what happened in the UNSC from November 2002 through March 2003 you ought to get your facts straight. France, China and Russia did not vote against going to war with Iraq because there never had to be a vote on that matter. Iraq was complying with the UNSC demands as defined in UNSC Resolution 1441. They were correct that inspections and long term monitoring were a much wiser and safer way to go than a US bombing and ground attack on the people of Iraq.

Where do you get the notion that Iraq was complying with UN sanctions when it was illegally selling oil for weapons?

 

[Oldstyle]

001g 9869122

*NF: Have you seen any instance where Obama has started a war by kicking or forcing out UN inspectors because the war he started would get them injured or killed? <> *NF: If you have any record of the UNSC that the UNSC determined that Saddam Hussein did not take his FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with 1441 then lets see it.

001h 9869587

The 3 members of the UN Security Council that voted against going to war with Iraq were France, China and Russia. So guess what 3 countries all turned out to be illegally supplying Saddam Hussein with armaments following the First Gulf War? That would be France, China and Russia! <> Before you give me a "lesson" about something...don't you think you should actually LEARN about it first?

There are fifteen members on the UNSC and the US could not get the majority of them to pass a resolution offered by the US and UK on March 7 to authorized war. So if you wish to be respected for your knowledge of what happened in the UNSC from November 2002 through March 2003 you ought to get your facts straight. France, China and Russia did not vote against going to war with Iraq because there never had to be a vote on that matter. Iraq was complying with the UNSC demands as defined in UNSC Resolution 1441. They were correct that inspections and long term monitoring were a much wiser and safer way to go than a US bombing and ground attack on the people of Iraq.

As for my knowledge of how the UN Security Councils "works"? If you knew what the hell you were talking about you'd know that there are 5 nations that are permanent members of the UNSC and that all 5 have the right to veto a resolution and any veto by one of the permanent members would kill a resolution.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

001h 9869587

As for the UN itself? France was allowing parts for Iraq's Mirage jet fighters and Gazelle Helicopters...both manufactured by French companies tightly controlled by the French government...to be sold to Iraq in return for Iraqi oil.

001a 9869906

What does that have to do with whether or not Iraq was found by the UNSC to be in violation of UNSC Resolution 1441 or not. Are you suggesting that Bush sent 4584 of America's finest to die in Iraq and spent at least one trillion US taxpayer dollars over in order to keep the French Government from committing some form of UN violation of sanctions? Wouldn't Bush have been better off taking the matter up at the UN peacefully with France if it was such a national security violation. And the French were right to demand that the UN inspections in 2003 according to 1441 be allowed to continue. You see the same exact determination that Iraq did not have WMD would have been achieved without all the deaths injuries destroyed property, refugees, and new terrorist activity coming into Iraq had the French position on UN Res 1441 been followed.

001b 9870002

France, China and Russia were violating the very sanctions that the UN had already passed but you think that Bush should have "taken the matter up" with the French at the UN? QUOTE]

When you accuse France, China and Russia of violating the very sanctions that the UN had already passed you have apparently lost from the remote corners of your mind the fact that UNSC 1441 explicitly offered Iraq a final opportunity to comply. And you refuse to acknowledge the fact that Bush voted yes for 1441 along with every other member. So what could be your point about those members' alleged 'violations' having an impact on determining if Iraq was allowing the UNSC inspections continue to a proper conclusion?

I know you know about Iraq's final opportunity to comply and Bush's agreement, but it is starkly apparent that you will not accept the significance of that fact. You see if your peripheral accusations are correct it means that France, China and Russia were also given a final opportunity to comply along with the primary suspect you allege they were dealing with.

 

[Oldstyle]

France was one of the 5 permanent members and France declared that it WOULD veto any resolution to take military action against Iraq. That's why there was never a vote to do so...because it would have been a waste of time.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

001g 9869122

*NF: Have you seen any instance where Obama has started a war by kicking or forcing out UN inspectors because the war he started would get them injured or killed? <> *NF: If you have any record of the UNSC that the UNSC determined that Saddam Hussein did not take his FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with 1441 then lets see it.

001h 9869587

The 3 members of the UN Security Council that voted against going to war with Iraq were France, China and Russia. So guess what 3 countries all turned out to be illegally supplying Saddam Hussein with armaments following the First Gulf War? That would be France, China and Russia! <> Before you give me a "lesson" about something...don't you think you should actually LEARN about it first?

There are fifteen members on the UNSC and the US could not get the majority of them to pass a resolution offered by the US and UK on March 7 to authorized war. So if you wish to be respected for your knowledge of what happened in the UNSC from November 2002 through March 2003 you ought to get your facts straight. France, China and Russia did not vote against going to war with Iraq because there never had to be a vote on that matter. Iraq was complying with the UNSC demands as defined in UNSC Resolution 1441. They were correct that inspections and long term monitoring were a much wiser and safer way to go than a US bombing and ground attack on the people of Iraq.

As for my knowledge of how the UN Security Councils "works"? If you knew what the hell you were talking about you'd know that there are 5 nations that are permanent members of the UNSC and that all 5 have the right to veto a resolution and any veto by one of the permanent members would kill a resolution.

No member vetoed anything with respect to UN Resolution 1441.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

France was one of the 5 permanent members and France declared that it WOULD veto any resolution to take military action against Iraq. That's why there was never a vote to do so...because it would have been a waste of time.

Cite the French position on the matter.

 

[dilloduck]

France was one of the 5 permanent members and France declared that it WOULD veto any resolution to take military action against Iraq. That's why there was never a vote to do so...because it would have been a waste of time.

Cite the French position on the matter.

Are you enjoying watching Obama create some Liberal carnage ?

 

[Oldstyle]

France was one of the 5 permanent members and France declared that it WOULD veto any resolution to take military action against Iraq. That's why there was never a vote to do so...because it would have been a waste of time.

Cite the French position on the matter.

Russia France to Veto New UN Resolution on Iraq

 

[Oldstyle]

001g 9869122

*NF: Have you seen any instance where Obama has started a war by kicking or forcing out UN inspectors because the war he started would get them injured or killed? <> *NF: If you have any record of the UNSC that the UNSC determined that Saddam Hussein did not take his FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with 1441 then lets see it.

001h 9869587

The 3 members of the UN Security Council that voted against going to war with Iraq were France, China and Russia. So guess what 3 countries all turned out to be illegally supplying Saddam Hussein with armaments following the First Gulf War? That would be France, China and Russia! <> Before you give me a "lesson" about something...don't you think you should actually LEARN about it first?

There are fifteen members on the UNSC and the US could not get the majority of them to pass a resolution offered by the US and UK on March 7 to authorized war. So if you wish to be respected for your knowledge of what happened in the UNSC from November 2002 through March 2003 you ought to get your facts straight. France, China and Russia did not vote against going to war with Iraq because there never had to be a vote on that matter. Iraq was complying with the UNSC demands as defined in UNSC Resolution 1441. They were correct that inspections and long term monitoring were a much wiser and safer way to go than a US bombing and ground attack on the people of Iraq.

As for my knowledge of how the UN Security Councils "works"? If you knew what the hell you were talking about you'd know that there are 5 nations that are permanent members of the UNSC and that all 5 have the right to veto a resolution and any veto by one of the permanent members would kill a resolution.

No member vetoed anything with respect to UN Resolution 1441.

Both Russia and France made it clear that they WOULD veto any attempts to pass a resolution to attack Iraq.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

001g 9869122

*NF: Have you seen any instance where Obama has started a war by kicking or forcing out UN inspectors because the war he started would get them injured or killed? <> *NF: If you have any record of the UNSC that the UNSC determined that Saddam Hussein did not take his FINAL OPPORTUNITY to COMPLY with 1441 then lets see it.

001h 9869587

The 3 members of the UN Security Council that voted against going to war with Iraq were France, China and Russia. So guess what 3 countries all turned out to be illegally supplying Saddam Hussein with armaments following the First Gulf War? That would be France, China and Russia! <> Before you give me a "lesson" about something...don't you think you should actually LEARN about it first?

There are fifteen members on the UNSC and the US could not get the majority of them to pass a resolution offered by the US and UK on March 7 to authorized war. So if you wish to be respected for your knowledge of what happened in the UNSC from November 2002 through March 2003 you ought to get your facts straight. France, China and Russia did not vote against going to war with Iraq because there never had to be a vote on that matter. Iraq was complying with the UNSC demands as defined in UNSC Resolution 1441. They were correct that inspections and long term monitoring were a much wiser and safer way to go than a US bombing and ground attack on the people of Iraq.

As for my knowledge of how the UN Security Councils "works"? If you knew what the hell you were talking about you'd know that there are 5 nations that are permanent members of the UNSC and that all 5 have the right to veto a resolution and any veto by one of the permanent members would kill a resolution.

No member vetoed anything with respect to UN Resolution 1441.

Both Russia and France made it clear that they WOULD veto any attempts to pass a resolution to attack Iraq.

You said the voted against it. You were wrong - admit it.