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.
you provided a link to the resolution
I provided the info in the resolve that simply gives reason to the invasion
Right. And you pointed to the section about Saddam destroying WMDs and "providing proof". How much proof did Saddam need to provide to convince you and Bush that he did not have something?
Wow, you support the invasion because Saddam didn't give you enough proof of something. Unreal.
Proof
were not talking about, well
Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".
Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.
He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
Blix: weapons and anthrax still unaccounted for - Telegraph
I really am to the point with you guys that you cannot be taken seriously any more
Right. And you pointed to the section about Saddam destroying WMDs and "providing proof". How much proof did Saddam need to provide to convince you and Bush that he did not have something?
Wow, you support the invasion because Saddam didn't give you enough proof of something. Unreal.
Proof
were not talking about, well
Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".
Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.
He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
Blix: weapons and anthrax still unaccounted for - Telegraph
I really am to the point with you guys that you cannot be taken seriously any more
"Strong indications", "failed to account", "no convincing evidence", "not fully accounted for"
And these were reasons enough for you.
That's sad.
Look, un accounted for means exactly what iy says
someone somewhere made account of those weapons at one time
It was not the UN's place to keep track of them
It was not the US
It was Saddam's place to keep track of them, prove they were gone without ANY doubt
The records these weapons existed came from Saddam
All Saddam had to do was produce the weapons, it was that simple
it does that no-one has a reason to attack, NO-ONE
Do not forget we did not go at this alone, there was close to 60 countries went with us, maybe more
It why I started the liberal myth thread. there are so many lies about Iraq, its why there has been over 2000 responses to it
People believe we were fighting Iraqis for 7 years while at the same time we were helping them form a Govt
What concerned me at the time of the build-up to the invasion was that the WH seemed to be demanding that Saddam prove a negative.
"Prove to us that you have no weapons of mass destruction!!"
Then, when the inspections teams could find none, they took that as proof that he was hiding them.
Wrong.
Completely spun.
The white house did not ask him to prove they did not have WMD's.
The White House made it clear that they needed Iraq to adhere to the terms of the treaty and allow UN inspectors to confirm that there were no weapons of mass destruction...and the WH also made it clear that if they do not allow the UN to inspect then it would be logical to assume they had somethiung to hide...
He said it was odd that he UK and the US declared that Saddam was refusing to cooperate with the inspectors when his team was saying the opposite. "I thought it was, both then and in retrospect, a bit curious that precisely at the time when we were going upward in evidencing cooperation, at that very time the conclusion from the UK side and also from the US side was that, 'no, inspections are useless, they don't lead us anywhere'."
Wait a second. We're not talking about Saddam's "My Little Pony" collection.
We're talking about some of the most dangerous weapons on the planet.
That were verified to be in his possession.
Then suddenly disappear.
In a way he can't account for.
Furthermore, it wasn't just the U.S.....it was a group of nations who all decided that getting proof of a negative wasn't just possible, but required.
And the guy had notice of what was required.
Think about that. If a judge in your local city had you in front of the bench and says "Look son, I don't want you hangin' around those druggies" are you going to comply? (This is usually always a condition of probation, btw) But how will you prove it? It's a negative. Well you sure as don't tell the people checking that they can't come into your house!!
He had them. Then he didn't have them. He was told to keep track. Then he actively fought against the people coming in.
What more do you need?
What concerned me at the time of the build-up to the invasion was that the WH seemed to be demanding that Saddam prove a negative.
"Prove to us that you have no weapons of mass destruction!!"
Then, when the inspections teams could find none, they took that as proof that he was hiding them.
Wrong.
Completely spun.
The white house did not ask him to prove they did not have WMD's.
The White House made it clear that they needed Iraq to adhere to the terms of the treaty and allow UN inspectors to confirm that there were no weapons of mass destruction...and the WH also made it clear that if they do not allow the UN to inspect then it would be logical to assume they had somethiung to hide...
Hans Blix at the Iraq war inquiry - live | UK news | guardian.co.uk
He said it was odd that he UK and the US declared that Saddam was refusing to cooperate with the inspectors when his team was saying the opposite. "I thought it was, both then and in retrospect, a bit curious that precisely at the time when we were going upward in evidencing cooperation, at that very time the conclusion from the UK side and also from the US side was that, 'no, inspections are useless, they don't lead us anywhere'."
So the Bush White House was wrong on this too.
Interesting that the UN inspectors claim Saddam was cooperating before Bush invaded. Bush forced the inspectors out of Iraq and didn't let them finish their UN mandate and then tried to use the UN to justify invasion.
Wrong.
Completely spun.
The white house did not ask him to prove they did not have WMD's.
The White House made it clear that they needed Iraq to adhere to the terms of the treaty and allow UN inspectors to confirm that there were no weapons of mass destruction...and the WH also made it clear that if they do not allow the UN to inspect then it would be logical to assume they had somethiung to hide...
Hans Blix at the Iraq war inquiry - live | UK news | guardian.co.uk
He said it was odd that he UK and the US declared that Saddam was refusing to cooperate with the inspectors when his team was saying the opposite. "I thought it was, both then and in retrospect, a bit curious that precisely at the time when we were going upward in evidencing cooperation, at that very time the conclusion from the UK side and also from the US side was that, 'no, inspections are useless, they don't lead us anywhere'."
So the Bush White House was wrong on this too.
Interesting that the UN inspectors claim Saddam was cooperating before Bush invaded. Bush forced the inspectors out of Iraq and didn't let them finish their UN mandate and then tried to use the UN to justify invasion.
Wow.
Hans Blix at the Iraq war inquiry - live | UK news | guardian.co.uk
So the Bush White House was wrong on this too.
Interesting that the UN inspectors claim Saddam was cooperating before Bush invaded. Bush forced the inspectors out of Iraq and didn't let them finish their UN mandate and then tried to use the UN to justify invasion.
Wow.
its confusing to me why its got to this level of denial
Wait a second. We're not talking about Saddam's "My Little Pony" collection.
We're talking about some of the most dangerous weapons on the planet.
That were verified to be in his possession.
Then suddenly disappear.
In a way he can't account for.
Furthermore, it wasn't just the U.S.....it was a group of nations who all decided that getting proof of a negative wasn't just possible, but required.
And the guy had notice of what was required.
Think about that. If a judge in your local city had you in front of the bench and says "Look son, I don't want you hangin' around those druggies" are you going to comply? (This is usually always a condition of probation, btw) But how will you prove it? It's a negative. Well you sure as don't tell the people checking that they can't come into your house!!
He had them. Then he didn't have them. He was told to keep track. Then he actively fought against the people coming in.
What more do you need?
Wait a second. We're not talking about Saddam's "My Little Pony" collection.
We're talking about some of the most dangerous weapons on the planet.
That were verified to be in his possession.
Then suddenly disappear.
In a way he can't account for.
Furthermore, it wasn't just the U.S.....it was a group of nations who all decided that getting proof of a negative wasn't just possible, but required.
And the guy had notice of what was required.
Think about that. If a judge in your local city had you in front of the bench and says "Look son, I don't want you hangin' around those druggies" are you going to comply? (This is usually always a condition of probation, btw) But how will you prove it? It's a negative. Well you sure as don't tell the people checking that they can't come into your house!!
He had them. Then he didn't have them. He was told to keep track. Then he actively fought against the people coming in.
What more do you need?
Look, un accounted for means exactly what iy says
someone somewhere made account of those weapons at one time
It was not the UN's place to keep track of them
It was not the US
It was Saddam's place to keep track of them, prove they were gone without ANY doubt
The records these weapons existed came from Saddam
All Saddam had to do was produce the weapons, it was that simple
it does that no-one has a reason to attack, NO-ONE
Do not forget we did not go at this alone, there was close to 60 countries went with us, maybe more
It why I started the liberal myth thread. there are so many lies about Iraq, its why there has been over 2000 responses to it
People believe we were fighting Iraqis for 7 years while at the same time we were helping them form a Govt
What concerned me at the time of the build-up to the invasion was that the WH seemed to be demanding that Saddam prove a negative.
"Prove to us that you have no weapons of mass destruction!!"
Then, when the inspections teams could find none, they took that as proof that he was hiding them.
Wrong.
Completely spun.
The white house did not ask him to prove they did not have WMD's.
The White House made it clear that they needed Iraq to adhere to the terms of the treaty and allow UN inspectors to confirm that there were no weapons of mass destruction...and the WH also made it clear that if they do not allow the UN to inspect then it would be logical to assume they had somethiung to hide...
I am curious...your spin of the truth.....you know...where you are claiiming that the White House insisted THEY prove that they do not have WMD's....did you do that becuase you are insecure with your position on the topic at hand...or are you simply naive to the truth?
What concerned me at the time of the build-up to the invasion was that the WH seemed to be demanding that Saddam prove a negative.
"Prove to us that you have no weapons of mass destruction!!"
Then, when the inspections teams could find none, they took that as proof that he was hiding them.
Wrong.
Completely spun.
The white house did not ask him to prove they did not have WMD's.
The White House made it clear that they needed Iraq to adhere to the terms of the treaty and allow UN inspectors to confirm that there were no weapons of mass destruction...and the WH also made it clear that if they do not allow the UN to inspect then it would be logical to assume they had somethiung to hide...
I am curious...your spin of the truth.....you know...where you are claiiming that the White House insisted THEY prove that they do not have WMD's....did you do that becuase you are insecure with your position on the topic at hand...or are you simply naive to the truth?
Yes they did. I remember thinking at the time, they are asking Saddam to prove a negative that he can't possibly do,
which meant they were putting him in a position where compliance on their terms was impossible,
thus making their desire for the war all but unstoppable.
Just wondering if Saddam didn't have nerve gas, what killed the Kurds en masse and the Iranian soldiers during the Iran Iraq War. Then where did it go afterwards. Maybe it was the same situation as the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were America's only two.
Its a good thing FDR didn't have this specie of chattering Liberal classes around when he was fighting the Japanese. Imagine how they would have erupted after American soldiers landed on Leyte to find almost no Japanese there. And then how many decibels would the howl out of these chattering Liberals been when the Roosevelt era DOD uttered this response to cries of anguish from the relatives of the 100,000 men trapped on Bataan and Correigeidor, that no possible rescue would be forthcoming. "Sometimes in war, men have to die!"
Just wondering if Saddam didn't have nerve gas, what killed the Kurds en masse and the Iranian soldiers during the Iran Iraq War. Then where did it go afterwards. Maybe it was the same situation as the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were America's only two.
Its a good thing FDR didn't have this specie of chattering Liberal classes around when he was fighting the Japanese. Imagine how they would have erupted after American soldiers landed on Leyte to find almost no Japanese there. And then how many decibels would the howl out of these chattering Liberals been when the Roosevelt era DOD uttered this response to cries of anguish from the relatives of the 100,000 men trapped on Bataan and Correigeidor, that no possible rescue would be forthcoming. "Sometimes in war, men have to die!"
They were almost all destroyed after Iraq was thrown out of Kuwait! The problem is that the UN couldn't verify that a very small % of them were actually destroyed. The real question is how was Saddam able to obtain the technology and the pre-cusor chemicals to develop sarin in the first place. (Look no further than uncle Ronnie)!
FDR was a liberal. News of that war (a real one where the enemy had an army, air force and a navy) was censored from the public.
We lost in Iraq: our national prestige, our international honor, trillions on trillions of dollars, and a weakened position in the Middle East.
We lost in Iraq: our national prestige, our international honor, trillions on trillions of dollars, and a weakened position in the Middle East.
But, but we won the war. We deposed the governement of a country that had been ravaged with war and sanctions for nearly 30 year. The greatest Rah-Rah moment for the psudo-conned (liberal militatrist) since Grenada.
you think anyone is really going to take you serious?
i dont think so,
He's exactly correct.
id the US have the right to take action against Iraq
Yes they did. Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
Resolution 1441 in full
Did the peope of Iraq want the coalition of the willing to remove saddam?
Yes they did. The ICG conducted interviews with Iraqis before the war. Not only did they say that they wanted the coalition of the willing to remove Saddam, they claimed that they were willing to live in occupation and suffer the violence that may follow.
ICG IRAQ Briefing
Do the poeple of Iraq want the Coalition to stay? And do they agree with the removing of Saddam Hussain
The people of Iraq have been polled by Oxford Research International many times since the liberation of Iraq. The polls show that the Iraqi people are positive about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the coalition in Iraq. The 2005 poll was less positive. No poll was done in 2006-2007, but one could guess that things would have been more neagative in 2006 early 2007, since the surge of late 2007 we have seen many tribal leaders have joined with the collation forces to rid Iraq of Al Quada. Deaths are down, loses to US forces are down and one could expect a more positive view again.
Oxford Research International Poll 2003
Oxford Research International Poll February 2004
Oxford Research International Poll March 2004
Oxford Research International Poll June 2004
Oxford Research International Poll November 2005
He's exactly correct.
id the US have the right to take action against Iraq
Yes they did. Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
Resolution 1441 in full
Did the peope of Iraq want the coalition of the willing to remove saddam?
Yes they did. The ICG conducted interviews with Iraqis before the war. Not only did they say that they wanted the coalition of the willing to remove Saddam, they claimed that they were willing to live in occupation and suffer the violence that may follow.
ICG IRAQ Briefing
Do the poeple of Iraq want the Coalition to stay? And do they agree with the removing of Saddam Hussain
The people of Iraq have been polled by Oxford Research International many times since the liberation of Iraq. The polls show that the Iraqi people are positive about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the coalition in Iraq. The 2005 poll was less positive. No poll was done in 2006-2007, but one could guess that things would have been more neagative in 2006 early 2007, since the surge of late 2007 we have seen many tribal leaders have joined with the collation forces to rid Iraq of Al Quada. Deaths are down, loses to US forces are down and one could expect a more positive view again.
Oxford Research International Poll 2003
Oxford Research International Poll February 2004
Oxford Research International Poll March 2004
Oxford Research International Poll June 2004
Oxford Research International Poll November 2005
By recalling the previous resolutions SCR 1441 superceeded them. Having no military trigger 1441's only recourse if Iraq failed to co-operate was for the SC to reconviene to discuss what to do next. That is the only reason it passed the counsul anyway. Bush breached that resolution by starting the invasion and not allowing to inspectors the time they needed to prove Iraq was in compliance.
