Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why would a lucid individual "grasp" that? It's complete lunacy.I stand corrected on the dates. Still, Operation Desert Fox had noting to do with it. The Iraqi Liberation Act was about supporting regime change from within Iraq and Operation Desert Fox was about punishing Hussein for throwing U.S. weapons inspectors out of Iraq and for taking out military targets and WMD installations.Operation Desert Fox had nothing to do with ghe Iraqi Liberation Act, which wasn't even signed into law yet.Text - H.R.4655 - 105th Congress 1997-1998 Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Congress.gov Library of Congress
You can claim that the President doesn't have the authority in accordance with the Constitution to use military force but you would be wrong.
Please make a note of that.
Actually it was signed by Bill Clinton in 1998. Jesus Christ, man, you are on the internet. How do you make a statement like that and not verify it before showing you don't know what you are talking about?
Both were part of the same strategy, to oust Saddam Hussein.
Why is that so hard to grasp?Operation Desert Fox was not about "ousting Saddam Hussein." WTF leads you to believe it was??
aster 11380670Saddam was very significant and was undermining the premise of the UN Security Council, the UN programs for humanitarian aid, and was at the nexus of terrorism in the Middle East. It's why your President signed the Iraqi Liberation Act.
Why go back to 1998 for excusing an dumb invasion committed in 2003?
In 2003 SH was not connected in any way to the terrorists that killed 3000 souls on September 11 2001 which was the impetus behind the invasion.
In 2003 SH was not undermining the premise for the UN Security Council. Bush and Blair failed to acquire enough promised UNSC votes to authorize war early in March 2003 so they had to pull their draft Resolution to declare Iraq in material breach of UNSC Resolution 1441.
In fact SH was in such a cooperative mood after the 9/11 attacks under Bush's watch that in December 2002 the dictator offered to let the CIA FBI and US Military come into Iraq with UN Inspectors but the Bush White House did not test the offer. The WH rejected that offer by saying let the UN handle it.
SH messing with humanitarian aid was not a US national security issue that would even in part justify the deadly dumb and disastrous invasion that was ordered to go by no one other than GW Bush.
The IL A had nothing to do with a US ground invasion into Iraq. Why bring it up?
Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.
The environment has been workable. Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas Day and New Year's Day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.
In this updating, I'm bound, however, to register some problems. The first are related to two kinds of air operations. While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we plan to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety unless a number of conditions are fulfilled.
As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in Resolution 1441 and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our requests. I hope this attitude will change
Umm... the operation wasn't about removing Hussein.Why would a lucid individual "grasp" that? It's complete lunacy.I stand corrected on the dates. Still, Operation Desert Fox had noting to do with it. The Iraqi Liberation Act was about supporting regime change from within Iraq and Operation Desert Fox was about punishing Hussein for throwing U.S. weapons inspectors out of Iraq and for taking out military targets and WMD installations.Operation Desert Fox had nothing to do with ghe Iraqi Liberation Act, which wasn't even signed into law yet.
Please make a note of that.
Actually it was signed by Bill Clinton in 1998. Jesus Christ, man, you are on the internet. How do you make a statement like that and not verify it before showing you don't know what you are talking about?
Both were part of the same strategy, to oust Saddam Hussein.
Why is that so hard to grasp?
Because it was a major military offensive done right after passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act.
There are a lot of things you would do based on lies from the people you trust. It's so hard to accept the fact you were lied to because you trusted them. Which part of that you can't seem to understand?The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:
“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council byUNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:
“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council.
The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:
“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5]
Nothing here supports your claim.
But, you knew that.
Right, it's only written into the text of the resolution itself. Furthermore, several countries specifically say that not having a hidden trigger is the only reason they voted for it. But you claim no proof. Even our own Abassador claimed we would seek a second resolution. But you claim no proof.
Yet Democrats voted to authorize W to invade without it. That's right, just ignore the inconvenient factsNo part of the Iraqi Liberation Act called for the U.S. to invade Iraq. If I recall, it limited our fiscal commitment to something like $100m.
On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law
105-235, which declared that ``the Government of Iraq is in
material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations''
and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance
with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to
bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.''.
Text - H.R.4655 - 105th Congress 1997-1998 Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Congress.gov Library of Congress
You can claim that the President doesn't have the authority in accordance with the Constitution to use military force but you would be wrong.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise
speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in
section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
The Iraq war authorization supported by the Democratic leadership and most of the party.
You want em W, go get him. No UN resolutions required
As ghas been point out in this thread the majority of Democrats in Congress voted against give President Bush they deciding power.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; andIraq was not a threat to the worlds remaining superpower.
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
The US had agreed to 1441 and it was being implemented.
The Democratic leadership supported it, the Democrat Senate voted for it. The Democratic House had a close vote with as Faun just pointed out only need 19 flips when zero were needed in the first vote.
Based on that you think Obama was born a virgin birth, Democrat farts smell like lilacs and Harry Reid wouldn't be responsible if he shit in his own pants. I blame both parties. You call me partisan for that, the "biggest on this board." You just keep telling yourself that...
Umm... the operation wasn't about removing Hussein.Why would a lucid individual "grasp" that? It's complete lunacy.I stand corrected on the dates. Still, Operation Desert Fox had noting to do with it. The Iraqi Liberation Act was about supporting regime change from within Iraq and Operation Desert Fox was about punishing Hussein for throwing U.S. weapons inspectors out of Iraq and for taking out military targets and WMD installations.Actually it was signed by Bill Clinton in 1998. Jesus Christ, man, you are on the internet. How do you make a statement like that and not verify it before showing you don't know what you are talking about?
Both were part of the same strategy, to oust Saddam Hussein.
Why is that so hard to grasp?
Because it was a major military offensive done right after passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act.
... for those of us who lived under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and understand what tyranny means, ... the difficulties of today, the pains of today, and the disappointments of today -- and they are very profound, because Iraqis deserve better -- these pale in comparison to what we had to endure. ... Then, people had the certainty of the knock on the door late at night, and could possibly end up in a mass grave. Two weeks ago, in Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, a new mass grave in which there were some five-six people who were shot. Their families never heard from them since 1988. They were found and they could only be identified by the pajamas they were wearing as they were taken from home. These are the type of stories that my people, my community, had to endure.
I see you're still struggling with this ... the Iraqi Liberation act was about removing Hussein; Operation Desert Fox was not. Operation Desert Fox was a U.S. military operation; the Iraqi Liberation Act declared it was not to involve U.S. military to remove Hussein from power. The two had nothing to do with each other. Stop with this nonsense.Umm... the operation wasn't about removing Hussein.Why would a lucid individual "grasp" that? It's complete lunacy.I stand corrected on the dates. Still, Operation Desert Fox had noting to do with it. The Iraqi Liberation Act was about supporting regime change from within Iraq and Operation Desert Fox was about punishing Hussein for throwing U.S. weapons inspectors out of Iraq and for taking out military targets and WMD installations.
Both were part of the same strategy, to oust Saddam Hussein.
Why is that so hard to grasp?
Because it was a major military offensive done right after passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act.
It was about weakening his ability to produce WMD, a major factor in removing him from power. Read the Iraqi Liberation Act again.
Yeah, the people of Iraq are so much better off with ISIS.Better for the Kurds:
No longer forgotten a Kurdish view of the Iraq war Rand Khalid Comment is free The Guardian
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic
... for those of us who lived under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and understand what tyranny means, ... the difficulties of today, the pains of today, and the disappointments of today -- and they are very profound, because Iraqis deserve better -- these pale in comparison to what we had to endure. ... Then, people had the certainty of the knock on the door late at night, and could possibly end up in a mass grave. Two weeks ago, in Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, a new mass grave in which there were some five-six people who were shot. Their families never heard from them since 1988. They were found and they could only be identified by the pajamas they were wearing as they were taken from home. These are the type of stories that my people, my community, had to endure.
It must be tough for those that miss good ole' Saddam.
The U.S. owes the Iraqi People War Reparations. However, that can never absolve the U.S. from its horrific crimes against humanity in Iraq. Period, end of story.
They owe us thanks and compensation for freeing them. It wasn't in our interest to do it. It's not our job or in our interest to police the world.
Then I'm the guy who wants the American people to be free, and you relish slavery and beg for more, I wouldn't expect you to comprehend
I wish we were plundering their resources then maybe wed get reimbursed for war costs. But it just aint true and you spouting the lie doesnt make it true.I fail to understand Libertarian isolationism.Iraq was a much safer and stable nation before the U.S. invaded. That's the reality. Now it's a horrific nightmare for its Citizens. But the U.S. got its Puppet Government installed, and will now plunder its resources. It's not like the U.S. hasn't done that before.
First you claim the leaders of the targeted nation are 'Evil' and a 'Threat' to the World. Maybe even compare em to Hitler and the Nazis. Then you invade and slaughter Thousands. And finally, you plunder the nation's resources. It's happened many times before, and it will happen again. Who will the next targeted Boogeyman be? Who knows? But one thing we do know, is that there will be a new Boogeyman to wage War with. Bet on that.
The most basic role of government is to protect the rights of the people; this certainly includes the right to free enterprise.
If outside forces seek to wrongly encroach upon that right, government has a plenary duty to act. Seems pretty cut and dried, from a libertarian point of view.
What happens to economic freedom when the Iranians blockade the straits and we have no way to project force? There are times when you need to go places, kill people, break things; many times you need the cooperation and assistance of allies to do it.
The U.S. is responsible for the mass brutal slaughter of Millions of Iraqis. That included thousands & thousands of innocent women & children. And for what?...
So it could install a Puppet Government and plunder its resources. That's the ugly reality most Americans stubbornly refuse to accept. The Iraq War was a horrific crime against humanity. The U.S. should actually be held accountable.
It was a UN ceasefire. It was not a US ceasefire. The UN Security Council is the body to authorise action, not the POTUS, nor the Congress.
It is rather hilarious to read the horror at Iraq defying the UN while the US invades in breach of the UN Charter.
The UN does not have the authority to declare ceasefires and they don't have the authority to enforce them. The ceasefire was between the US and Iraq.
Please explain why the UNSC passed Resolution 687. Also it would be nice if you could post a link to the US-Iraq cease fire agreement.
The UN was a neutral negotiator of the ceasefire, not the governing authority.
The UNSC was the authority not just a negotiator. There was no cease fire agreement between the US and Iraq. Iraq accepted the UN's terms.
Not true.
Washingtonpost.com Iraq Special Report
AFTER THE WAR - Cease-Fire Meeting - A Hard-Faced Schwarzkopf Sets Terms at Desert Meeting - NYTimes.com
US-Iraq Cease-Fire Meeting Video C-SPAN.org
The Safwan talks ended the war, not a UN authority.
The UNSC, with US support passed 1441 which was supposed to allow Saddam a final chance to allow unfettered access to anywhere the inspector wanted to go. The only reason that passed was because the Bush Administration agreed that a second UN resolution would be needed before using military force on Iraq. President Bush reneged on that agreement.
That's not true. The UN inspectors went back into Iraq in November 2002 and multiple undeclared chemical weapons were found and destroyed. Iraq then submitted a "final" report in December 2002. Hans Blix stated that they new report gave no new information and noted that all previous "final" reports were dishonest.
Hans Blix stated this in January 2003:
Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.
CNN.com - Transcript of Blix s remarks - Jan. 27 2003
Iraq was still in breach of the agreement. UN Resolution 1441 did not require UN approval for the invasion.
There was no military action trigger in 1441 regardless and it cannot be used as a pretext for the invasion even if they found any active WMD programs, which they didn't. Even President Bushes Ambassador to the UN claimed that, but perhaps he was lied to as well.
No military trigger was needed. The UN does not have authority over the US.
The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:
“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council byUNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.
The US is a permanent member of the Security Counsel so of course we can veto any attempt to hold us accountable for the invasion and disastrous occupation.
If the UN has no authority over the US why was the UN able to force President Bush to sign a new SOFA with Iraq before the end of 2008?
The UN has no authority to force anything.
kaz 11385474If the US stopped supporting the Kurds, they would have been overrun by Saddam. Clearly it was an invasion
Can't read, can you? The NFZs were the result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Now that was an invasion. Bush 41 liberated Kuwait and knew when to stop. The Kurds liberated themselves and Iraq's army was decimated - Bush43's dumb dumb invasion was a ground invasion and a regime change and an occupation. There were no US ground troops in the Kurds war against the Baathist regime. Operating a NFZ over a country that was just defeated after violating international law cannot be called by anyone with a reasonable mind - an "invasion" . It is an absurd argument on your part.
So stop with the conjecture then and prove it. Post a link to an article stating Clinton put "boots on the ground" in Iraq.It was still an invasion. What it certainly was not was an "occupation," which is what that idiot thinks it was.The US had a major bombing campaign of Iraq in 1998, we had no fly zones over a majority of the country, and we broke off the Kurdish north from control by Hussein and the Iraqi government, Sparky. W took over, then Obama took over. It was again a cluster by both parties
Give us a break with your rewriting history.
. Following the 1991 uprising of Kurds in the north and Shia's in the south against Saddam Hussein, thePeshmerga succeeded in pushing out the main Iraqi forces from the north. Despite significant casualties and the crisis ofrefugees in bordering regions of Iran and Turkey, the Peshmerga success and establishment of the northern no-fly zonefollowing the First Gulf War in 1991 created the basis for Kurdish self-rule and facilitated the return of Kurdish refugees. As Kurds continued to fight government troops, Iraqi forces finally left Kurdistan in October 1991, leaving the region with de facto autonomy.
Iraqi Kurdistan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The Peshmerga fought their own war to obtain self rule. The NFZ preserved it.
A NFZ is not an invasion in any sense of the invasion of Poland by the Germans and the invasion of Iraq ordered by GW a Bush.
If the US stopped supporting the Kurds, they would have been overrun by Saddam. Clearly it was an invasion
He won by a few percentage points, simpleton
US President's are elected by electoral votes.
2008 results are clearly 2:1
Electoral Vote* Winner: 365 Main Opponent: 173 Total/Majority: 538/270
Simpletons should not call non-simpletons simpletons as you simply did without checking the facts.
Because it was an election year and, as Scooter Libby said, "You don't sell new product in August." The war vote was back loaded to ensure it occurred in October before the 2002 mid-terms. An idiot could see it was a rotten bill of goods. But lies and manipulation coupled with a willing news media and BAM!...you have one very bad foreign policy blunder.An on-going "excuse" that many right wingers on here have about supporting the wasteful, horrible and unproductive war ON Iraq (not just "in Iraq") is that many democrats ALSO voted for such a war.....
They're somewhat correct on this and I, for one, have much less respect for those democrats who foolishly went along with the LIES of the murderous Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz...... It is salutary for right wingers to tacitly and finally admit that the war was a DISASTER and, to some extent, I don't blame them for trying to share the blame far and wide to ease their own sorry conscience.....
However, there's an ancient axiom that states:
If one tells you a lie.....and you repeat it thinking it to be true, ultimately WHO is the culpable liar?
The U.S. owes the Iraqi People War Reparations. However, that can never absolve the U.S. from its horrific crimes against humanity in Iraq. Period, end of story.
They owe us thanks and compensation for freeing them. It wasn't in our interest to do it. It's not our job or in our interest to police the world.
Then I'm the guy who wants the American people to be free, and you relish slavery and beg for more, I wouldn't expect you to comprehend
They owe you thanks for brutally maiming and murdering Thousands & Thousands of innocent men, women, and children? God you're sick.
The U.S. owes the Iraqi People War Reparations. However, that can never absolve the U.S. from its horrific crimes against humanity in Iraq. Period, end of story.
They owe us thanks and compensation for freeing them. It wasn't in our interest to do it. It's not our job or in our interest to police the world.
Then I'm the guy who wants the American people to be free, and you relish slavery and beg for more, I wouldn't expect you to comprehend
They owe you thanks for brutally maiming and murdering Thousands & Thousands of innocent men, women, and children? God you're sick.
LOL, most people want to fight for freedom, you fight for slavery. You wouldn't understand
The U.S. owes the Iraqi People War Reparations. However, that can never absolve the U.S. from its horrific crimes against humanity in Iraq. Period, end of story.
They owe us thanks and compensation for freeing them. It wasn't in our interest to do it. It's not our job or in our interest to police the world.
Then I'm the guy who wants the American people to be free, and you relish slavery and beg for more, I wouldn't expect you to comprehend
They owe you thanks for brutally maiming and murdering Thousands & Thousands of innocent men, women, and children? God you're sick.
LOL, most people want to fight for freedom, you fight for slavery. You wouldn't understand
Tell that to the Iraqi mother & father who's baby you brutally slaughtered. Pretty sure they'd tell you to go fuck yourself and your 'Freedom' Now go shove another 'Freedom Fry' in your fat face, you ignorant buffoon.
The U.S. owes the Iraqi People War Reparations. However, that can never absolve the U.S. from its horrific crimes against humanity in Iraq. Period, end of story.
They owe us thanks and compensation for freeing them. It wasn't in our interest to do it. It's not our job or in our interest to police the world.
Then I'm the guy who wants the American people to be free, and you relish slavery and beg for more, I wouldn't expect you to comprehend
They owe you thanks for brutally maiming and murdering Thousands & Thousands of innocent men, women, and children? God you're sick.
LOL, most people want to fight for freedom, you fight for slavery. You wouldn't understand
Tell that to the Iraqi mother & father who's baby you brutally slaughtered. Pretty sure they'd tell you to go fuck yourself and your 'Freedom' Now go shove another 'Freedom Fry' in your fat face, you ignorant buffoon.
I opposed the invasion, stupid bitch
