Spineless Trump seeks good relationship with Putin's Russia after Russia votes at UN against Israel

[NotfooledbyW]

The inspectors were unable to verify that Saddam was in compliance. It appeared that Iraq was hiding something.

"It appeared"? Based on what. By Late February Dr Blix said Iraq was cooperating on substance and process proactively.

You warmongered over 'appearance' and so many people died and ISIS formed from the stupidest invasion of another nation by the US in history.

Bush didn't invade he said because of 'appearance' - Bush said on March 17 2003 he had intelligence 'that left no doubt' that Iraq was 'hiding' WMD from inspectors.

We know that is a lie, not because Trump says so, but because ten days prior Bush offered by draft resolution to allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power if inspectors declared Iraq in compliance within 10 days. The inspectors wanted 90 days. The draft resolution could not get votes so it was withdrawn. Inspections were working according to the majority on the UNSC.

That proves however that Bush had no Intel on hidden WMD on March 10 because he need not offered SH to remain in power.

Suddenly 10 days later Bush suddenly finds doubtless intelligence that he was obligated through 1441 to provide to the inspectors.

He provided no new Intel.

Trump is right -Bush lied.

4400 more good Anericans died serving their country in Bush's mistake.


I am not a warmonger. I agreed with the UN inspectors on March 7 2003.

. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59446-2003Mar7.html

Blix's Iraq Report Deepens U.N. Rift
Team's Assessment Cautiously Upbeat

By Glenn Kessler and Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 8, 2003; Page A01


UNITED NATIONS, March 7 -- The chief U.N. weapons inspector today provided a cautiously upbeat assessment of Iraqi disarmament, deepening a split within the U.N. Security Council over the U.S. drive to win international support for a military strike.

Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, said Iraq had been slow to cooperate but that in the past month, it had taken numerous promising steps. "It would not take years, nor weeks, but months" to complete the inspections, he said, adding he would present a work plan for more inspections at the end of a month.

Blix's report, coupled with a report by the chief nuclear watchdog that there is no evidence Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programs, bolstered the determination of France, Russia and China -- permanent members with veto power -- to block a U.S.-British resolution authorizing force.

"The military agenda must not dictate the calendar of inspections," said French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. "We cannot accept an ultimatum as long as the inspectors are reporting cooperation."

Seeking to break the impasse, the United States, along with Britain and Spain, today modified their proposed resolution authorizing force so that it set a March 17 deadline for Iraq's compliance. A senior administration official told reporters in Washington that the United States would be "closing the diplomatic window" on that date.

During the public and sometimes emotional clash of Security Council members today, a number of smaller, undecided nations that the administration had wooed made it clear they were uncomfortable with the U.S. approach and pleaded for the council to unite around a broad plan that would set a series of deadlines. On the 15-member council, only Bulgaria signaled support for a new resolution, while eight nations, including Pakistan, Angola and Chile, appeared to be against it.

President Bush insisted Thursday that the United States would call for a vote, and U.S. officials yesterday pressed for it as early as Tuesday. Nine votes -- and no vetoes -- are necessary for passage. It is highly unusual for members to seek a vote for a Security Council resolution that appears doomed to fail, and it was clear the looming showdown concerned many of the foreign ministers attending today's session. Several suggested the rift could irrevocably damage the international body.

"What is at stake now is the unity of the international community," said German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. "The Security Council -- in fact, we all -- face an important decision, probably a historic turning point."

France has not vetoed a U.S.-sponsored resolution since 1956, during the Suez Canal crisis, and no U.S.-sponsored resolution has been defeated since the end of the Cold War.

Administration officials had a lot at stake in the reports by Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, the International Atomic Energy Agency's director general. But the reports fell far short of the clear demonstration of Iraqi noncompliance sought by the administration. In his news conference Thursday night, Bush said Blix's task was to "answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"

Blix declined to give a clear answer, allowing both sides in the debate to draw their own conclusions, but his overall message was that the inspections regime was beginning to yield results. When Iraq began last Saturday to destroy missiles that had been found to exceed U.N. restrictions, he said, it was not "the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed."

Blix took five sentences at one point to address the "yes or no" question Bush had raised, essentially saying that Iraq has become "proactive" in some areas, and that he held out hope this trend would continue.

ElBaradei's report was even more damning to the administration's position. In recent months, the administration and Britain have alleged Iraq illegally sought high-strength aluminum tubes for a centrifuge-based uranium enrichment program and had sought uranium from Niger. He said experts had concluded the tubes were for a rocket engine program, as Iraq had said, and that the documents used to allege the connection between Iraq and Niger were fabricated. Overall, he concluded, there is no evidence that Iraq has revived a nuclear weapons program.

While other foreign ministers hailed the reports as proving inspections could work, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said he was not persuaded. "I still find what I heard this morning a catalogue of non-cooperation," Powell said. The Iraqi actions cited by Blix were offered only grudgingly and under the threat of force, Powell said, and stopped far short of what was demanded by the Security Council. "Iraq is still refusing to do what is called for by Resolution 1441 -- immediate, active and unconditional cooperation."

Powell spoke forcefully, but he seemed tired and stoic during the session. "There are some people who simply, in my judgment, don't want to see the facts clearly," he told reporters afterward.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, whose government desperately needs a second resolution to shore up support at home, delivered the most impassioned address. "Let us be blunt about this," he told the other ministers: Iraq was beginning to cooperate because of "the presence of over 200,000 United States and United Kingdom young men and young women willing to put their lives on the line for the sake of this body, the United Nations."

At one point, Straw leaned forward over the horseshoe-shaped table and addressed "my good friend," Villepin, whose pronouncements against war have annoyed British and U.S. officials.

"Dominique said the choice before us was disarmament by peace or disarmament by war. Dominique, that's a false choice," Straw said, in a rare use of a first name in Security Council debate. "I wish that it were that easy, because we wouldn't be having to have this discussion. We could all put up our hands for disarmament by peace and go home."

Straw argued that "the paradox we face is that the only way we are going to achieve disarmament by peace . . . is by backing our diplomacy with the credible threat of force."

But Villepin was unmoved, telling reporters later, "You don't go to war because of a timetable."

In his address to the council, Villepin not only denounced the prospect of war, but also heaped scorn on the various rationales offered by the administration to attack Iraq. He said "regime change" through force "will encourage dangerous instability," that a war would not inhibit international terrorism but only increase it and that a war would not recast the Middle East but "run the risk of exacerbating tensions."

"In a few days, we must solemnly fulfill our responsibility through a vote. We will be facing an essential choice: disarming Iraq through war or through peace," Villepin said. "And this crucial choice implies others; it implies the international community's ability to resolve current or future crises; it implies a vision of the world, a concept of the role of the United Nations."

Speaking to reporters, Villepin archly said: "If we are going to believe that because of Iraq or through Iraq, we are going to solve, like magic, all the problems of the world, I believe there should be very soon a lot of disappointment."

The official purpose of the meeting was to hear an oral summary by Blix of the 167-page report on the inspection process that was completed last week, including outstanding areas and how to address them. The report included sobering information on outstanding questions -- such as the fate of anthrax -- but the tone did not differ much from his oral presentation.

The report, which focused on 29 unresolved disarmament matters, challenged Iraq's claim that it destroyed its entire stock of biological agents at the Al Hakam biological weapons facility in the summer of 1991. "Based on all evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 liters of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist," according to a confidential draft of the report. The report also indicated that Iraq maintains the expertise to reconstitute anthrax, botulinum toxin and other deadly biological agents in short order. "Iraq currently possesses the technology and materials, including fermenters, bacterial growth media and seed stock, to enable it to produce anthrax," the report stated.

"There does not seem to be any choke points, which would prevent Iraq from producing anthrax on at least the scale of its pre-1991 level," the report said.

Still, the report said, in the chemical and biological area, "no proscribed activities, or the result of such activities from the period of 1998-2002 [when inspections were halted], have, so far, been detected through inspections."

Blix suggested to the council that U.S. intelligence leads have failed to yield hard proof that Iraq is transporting banned arms and mobile biological weapons labs around the country to evade detection by U.N. inspectors. "No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found," he said.

In a last-ditch effort to avoid a war, Pakistan distributed a proposal to Security Council members that would extend full amnesty to Iraqi officials who participated in Iraq's disarmament. The proposal, which was initiated by Saudi Arabia, is designed to encourage Iraqi officials to turn against their leadership, said Arab diplomats familiar with the plan. "It's intended to promote a revolt," said an Arab diplomat.

The paper, which was set out in the form of a Security Council resolution, "declares a full amnesty for all Iraqi officials who extend their full and unequivocal cooperation" to the U.N. in disarming Iraq. It also provides assurances to Iraqi officials who cooperate with the United Nations that they and their families would be protected.

Diplomats involved in the preparation of the paper conceded that the proposal had little hope of council approval. They noted that Pakistan has made it clear it will not formally introduce the proposal unless Saudi Arabia and other Arab initiative supporters could persuade the United States and other major Security Council powers to embrace it.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

You apparently agree with going to war over "appearances"

 

[Claudette]

Russia and the US have had a very strained relationship during obama's term in office. That's not a good thing for anybody. If Trump can smooth things over a bit, good on him. We'll never see eye to eye on everything but both countries have plenty of other things to deal with.

Yup. I agree. Better relations with Russia is much better than bad relations.

 

[tinydancer]

Russia is fighting Isis and Obama has been arming isis.

You are so disconnected from reality you should be maybe get padded walls so you don't hurt yourself.

Kerry was caught admitting that Obama was using ISIS as leverage against Assad.

 

[tinydancer]

What many don't know is that Putin and Netanyahu do have a solid relationship. There is even talk of Putin inviting both Bibi and Abbas to Moscow.

Why Israel, Russia remain chums

 

[Correll]

The inspectors were unable to verify that Saddam was in compliance. It appeared that Iraq was hiding something.

"It appeared"? Based on what. By Late February Dr Blix said Iraq was cooperating on substance and process proactively.

They had had plenty of time and were unable to verify compliance.

You warmongered over 'appearance' and so many people died and ISIS formed from the stupidest invasion of another nation by the US in history.

I like the way that all cause and effect is on US. All other people, especially if they are brown, are unthinking blocks of wood with no Free Will and no responsibility for anything.

[/UOTE]
Bush didn't invade he said because of 'appearance' - Bush said on March 17 2003 he had intelligence 'that left no doubt' that Iraq was 'hiding' WMD from inspectors.[/QUOTE]

The world is full of people who have no doubts, but are still wrong. Surely you've noticed that.

We know that is a lie, not because Trump says so, but because ten days prior Bush offered by draft resolution to allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power if inspectors declared Iraq in compliance within 10 days. The inspectors wanted 90 days. The draft resolution could not get votes so it was withdrawn. Inspections were working according to the majority on the UNSC.

Your supporting argument does nothing to support your conclusion.

In fact their request for more time to find evidence that Iraq was in compliance validates MY point that they had NOT been able to declare Iraq in compliance.

That proves however that Bush had no Intel on hidden WMD on March 10 because he need not offered SH to remain in power.

It showed he had no hard evidence.

Suddenly 10 days later Bush suddenly finds doubtless intelligence that he was obligated through 1441 to provide to the inspectors.

He provided no new Intel.

Trump is right -Bush lied.

4400 more good Anericans died serving their country in Bush's mistake.

He was obligated to provide intel to the inspectors? And he didn't?

Big Fucking deal.

I am not a warmonger. I agreed with the UN inspectors on March 7 2003.
s"

You voted for a candidate who wanted to declare a no fly zone to be enforced by US warplanes being ordered to shoot down Russian war planes in they entered it.

That is you supporting a war monger.

Your airy dismissal of that reveals your hysteria over Iraq to be self serving bullshit.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

tinydancer, post: 16329628

What many don't know is that Putin and Netanyahu do have a solid relationship. There is even talk of Putin inviting both Bibi and Abbas to Moscow.

Why Israel, Russia remain chums

Of course they are. You have made my point. Putin is not criticized for his UN vote but Obama is condemned for abstaining.

 

[Correll]

tinydancer, post: 16329628

What many don't know is that Putin and Netanyahu do have a solid relationship. There is even talk of Putin inviting both Bibi and Abbas to Moscow.

Why Israel, Russia remain chums

Of course they are. You have made my point. Putin is not criticized for his UN vote but Obama is condemned for abstaining.

Your inability to understand that we expect different results from our President than we do the Leader of Russia is not credible.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16329911

He was obligated to provide intel to the inspectors? And he didn't?

Big Fucking deal.

Your approval of a US President lying us into an actual war where hundreds of thousands of innocent people died were wounded and lost property is a big deal. You are, based upon actual events, and lies, an actual warmonger.

You give us a false equivocation that a candidate for President proposed a NFZ carefully constructed to avoid a military incident with Russia is the same thing as the actual deadly quagmire that the Bush invasion produced.

The proposed NFZ would never had been needed had Bush listened to Clinton Putin and DeVillipain 2003 and given the inspectors more time.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16329911

He was obligated to provide intel to the inspectors? And he didn't?

Big Fucking deal.

Your approval of a US President lying us into an actual war where hundreds of thousands of innocent people died were wounded and lost property is a big deal. You are, based upon actual events, and lies, an actual warmonger.

The intelligence assessment was incorrect. That is not a lie, it is a mistake. Also, it is not like Saddam was an innocent victim in all of this. He had two whole administrations AND the invasion of Afghanistan to STOP fucking around.

You give us a false equivocation that a candidate for President proposed a NFZ carefully constructed to avoid a military incident with Russia is the same thing as the actual deadly quagmire that the Bush invasion produced.

LOL!!! Giving orders to US pilots that could require them to shoot down russian planes with split second decision times, is NOT the policy to avoid a military incident. Try to be less crazy.

The proposed NFZ would never had been needed had Bush listened to Clinton Putin and DeVillipain 2003 and given the inspectors more time.

More time? More time to do what? FInd the WMDs? FInd evidence that they had been destroyed? Saddam was a fool. He destroyed his WMDs, as required WITHOUT witnesses. That destruction of the devices could NEVER have been validated by the inspectors.

More time was just stalling while various people tried to sabotage the war effort.

 

[tinydancer]

tinydancer, post: 16329628

What many don't know is that Putin and Netanyahu do have a solid relationship. There is even talk of Putin inviting both Bibi and Abbas to Moscow.

Why Israel, Russia remain chums

Of course they are. You have made my point. Putin is not criticized for his UN vote but Obama is condemned for abstaining.

Because that was a betrayal by Obama.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16329911

In fact their request for more time to find evidence that Iraq was in compliance validates MY point that they had NOT been able to declare Iraq in compliance.

There was no time restraint in UNSC 1441.

Of course they could not declare compliance because Bush forced them to leave. Iraq was cooperating at that time.

Bush lied about having undoubtable intelligence against Hussein so he could not share it with the inspectors. He then invaded instead of letting inspectors finish as Russia and France and Senator Clinton wanted.

And you swallow Bush's lies deep into your throat, and now we know that your President that you voted for thinks you are stupid for swallowing Bush's lies.

But you are a pure idiot on your own for saying this:

"In fact their request for more time to find evidence that Iraq was in compliance validates MY point that they had NOT been able to declare Iraq in compliance."

There was no WMD in Iraq you damned bloodthirsty fool. Bush did not prove Iraq was not in compliance by killing Iraqis and getting our troops killed.

The point is in a few more months the inspectors would have reached the same conclusion as Bush took a couple years to conclude by killing people and creating conditions for ISIS to be formed.

This is not my opinion alone. It comes from your beloved Trump as well.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Because that was a betrayal by Obama.

But it's not a betrayal by Putin? How can that be?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16330488

LOL!!! Giving orders to US pilots that could require them to shoot down russian planes with split second decision times, is NOT the policy to avoid a military incident. Try to be less crazy.

"Could" ? I see. Pure speculation. While you supported Bush's actual virtual stupid deceitful mistake of invading Iraq which is what Trump says it was.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16329911

In fact their request for more time to find evidence that Iraq was in compliance validates MY point that they had NOT been able to declare Iraq in compliance.

There was no time restraint in UNSC 1441.

There was a limit to how long American would stand around letting Saddam and the UN play games.

Of course they could not declare compliance because Bush forced them to leave. Iraq was cooperating at that time.

They had had plenty of time.

Bush lied about having undoubtable intelligence against Hussein so he could not share it with the inspectors.

He didn't doubt it. Your assumption that he didn't share what he had with the inspectors because of, what ever, is not proof of anything.

He then invaded instead of letting inspectors finish as Russia and France and Senator Clinton wanted.

Finish? Finish what? THey were never going to FINISH anything. They had failed to verify compliance.

And you swallow Bush's lies deep into your throat, and now we know that your President that you voted for thinks you are stupid for swallowing Bush's lies.

Your creepy imagery notwithstanding, I believe that Bush believed his intelligence was good. I think Trump was unfair to accuse Bush of lying.

I support Trump based on his immigration, trade and foreign policies.

But you are a pure idiot on your own for saying this:

Screw you asshole.

"In fact their request for more time to find evidence that Iraq was in compliance validates MY point that they had NOT been able to declare Iraq in compliance."

There was no WMD in Iraq you damned bloodthirsty fool. Bush did not prove Iraq was not in compliance by killing Iraqis and getting our troops killed.

It was on Saddam to demonstrate that he had met the terms of the peace. HE did not do so. The inspectors were unable to do so either.

Do you not believe in ceasefires?

The point is in a few more months the inspectors would have reached the same conclusion as Bush took a couple years to conclude by killing people and creating conditions for ISIS to be formed.

THAT's an unsupported assumption on your part.

This is not my opinion alone. It comes from your beloved Trump as well.

So, now you are citing Trump as an Authority. How ironic. IMO, Trump was unfair in his attack on Jeb Bush on this issue.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16330488

LOL!!! Giving orders to US pilots that could require them to shoot down russian planes with split second decision times, is NOT the policy to avoid a military incident. Try to be less crazy.

"Could" ? I see. Pure speculation. While you supported Bush's actual virtual stupid deceitful mistake of invading Iraq which is what Trump says it was.

SO you are against the very concept of considering the risks of military actions because such would be "pure speculation".


THat is an absurd position obviously crafted after the fact to rationalize your partisan support of the warmonger Hillary.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16330488

More time was just stalling while various people tried to sabotage the war effort

So people like Putin and Hillary Clinton, the UN inspectors, who favored a diplomatic solution were sabotaging the war effort although they were proven correct. War was not necessary to confirm Iraq was disarmed of WMD.

But people like you and Bush, Cheney 90% of Republicans who favored war over diplomacy/active ongoing inspections with no bloodshed must admit that you are warmongers.

You are guilty of sabotaging the peaceful effort of verifying that Iraq was disarmed as long as Iraq was cooperating with the inspectors.

Saving 4485 American service members lives would have been worth giving diplomacy a shot for a few more months when there was no threat from Iraq with inspectors on the ground there. Don't you think, Republican certified warmonger?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16331228

Finish? Finish what? THey were never going to FINISH anything. They had failed to verify compliance.

You have no way of knowing that. Biix and al Beradai both insisted they could finish, just not in ten days as Bush attempted to demand.

Their peaceful work was cut short by Bush.

We do for a fact know that.

And we know that no WMD were found using the warmonger method.

Read the history. Blix was beginning to set up long term WMD monitoring in accordance with UN Resolutions for the imminent date that he would recommend sanctions be lifted.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SO you are against the very concept of considering the risks of military actions because such would be "pure speculation".

No. Considering the risk of military action has no bearing when facing a credible actionable military threat.

No. Military action (foreign invasion) should not ever be based on speculation of any kind about the threat. The threat must be credible and if it is based on solid evidence then military action to defend our country should be taken regardless of the risk.

Bush had a means to check out all intelligence on Iraq's WMD's without any need to invade. He would not take the means.

Huge mistake Trump says

Iraq was not in any kind of position to pose an actionable military threat with 200 UN inspectors on the ground having access to any site they wanted to inspect including palaces.

Iraq in December 2002 offered the US and UK the opportunity to bring their spy agencies into Iraq to work alongside the inspectors and lead them to the WMD stockpiles that Bush and Blair said were there.

Bush refused. The White House said let the inspectors handle it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

THAT's an unsupported assumption on your part.

That's a lie. I supported it. Going by what the inspectors themselves professionally reported.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll, post: 16331228

It was on Saddam to demonstrate that he had met the terms of the peace. HE did not do so. The inspectors were unable to do so either.

Read 1441. Saddam did so prior to the invasion. There was no deadline for complete declaration of compliance in 1441. He had to allow unfettered inspections and cooperate. Which he did as reported by the inspectors.