Iraq's WMD's.. was Bush not wrong afterall?

[Dr.Worthless]

Required reading to participate in discussion.

 

The following is a short version of the article above. Please read the whole thing, but some of these paragraphs quoted are the meat of the article.

 

When Saddam was defeated, in 1991, a cease-fire was put in place. Then the U.N. Security Council decided that, in order to prevent him from continuing to start wars and commit crimes against his own people, he must give up his arsenal of "weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction."

As late as 1991, he was confirmed to have WMD's.. interesting.

 

Recall the way it was to work. If Saddam cooperated with U.N. inspectors and produced his weapons and facilitated their destruction, then the cease-fire would be transformed into a peace agreement ending the state of war between the international system and Iraq. But if Saddam did not cooperate, and materially breached his obligations regarding his weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction, then the original U.N. Security Council authorization for the use of "all necessary force" against Iraq--an authorization that at the end of Desert Storm had been suspended but not cancelled--would be reactivated and Saddam would face another round of the U.S.-led military action against him. Saddam agreed to this arrangement.

 

 

Self Explanitory.

 

In the early 1990s, U.N. inspectors found plenty of materials in the category of weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction and they dismantled a lot of it. They kept on finding such weapons, but as the presence of force declined, Saddam's cooperation declined. He began to play games and to obstruct the inspection effort.

 

 

They found alot of weapons, yeah we all remember that. We *should* all remember how he then began to give the first round of inspectors the run-around. Denying access to palaces, regulating when the inspectors could perform their jobs, etc.

By 1998 the situation was untenable. Saddam had made inspections impossible. President Clinton, in February 1998, declared that Saddam would have to comply with the U.N. resolutions or face American military force. Kofi Annan flew to Baghdad and returned with a new promise of cooperation from Saddam. But Saddam did not cooperate. Congress then passed the Iraq Liberation Act by a vote of 360 to 38 in the House of Representatives; the Senate gave its unanimous consent. Signed into law on October 31, it supported the renewed use of force against Saddam with the objective of changing the regime. By this time, he had openly and utterly rejected the inspections and the U.N. resolutions.

 

 

Huh? Am I reading this right? 6 years ago congress voted to allow BILL CLINTON to forcably remove Saddam from power? He was openly against UN resolutions?

 

 

 

In November 1998, the Security Council passed a resolution declaring Saddam to be in "flagrant violation" of all resolutions going back to 1991. That meant that the cease-fire was terminated and the original authorization for the use of force against Saddam was reactivated. President Clinton ordered American forces into action in December 1998.

 

But the U.S. military operation was called off after only four days--apparently because President Clinton did not feel able to lead the country in war at a time when he was facing impeachment.

WOW this is a good one. Not only did the UN agree that Saddam was in flagrant violation of the orders, and the use of force granted, but Clinton was ready to kick some -*BAD WORD*-. OH SNAP wait a second, Clinton figured out that it would be PR murder to go into Iraq. Save face, or do what needed to be done. He obviously picked save face.

 

 

 

So inspections stopped. The U.S. ceased to take the lead. But the inspectors reported that as of the end of 1998 Saddam possessed major quan!@#$%^&*ies of WMDs across a range of categories, and particularly in chemical and biological weapons and the means of delivering them by missiles. All the intelligence services of the world agreed on this.

 

From that time until late last year, Saddam was left undisturbed to do what he wished with this arsenal of weapons. The international system had given up its ability to monitor and deal with this threat. All through the years between 1998 and 2002 Saddam continued to act and speak and to rule Iraq as a rogue state.

 

 

Speaks for itself.

 

    * There has never been a clearer case of a rogue state using its privileges of statehood to advance its dictator's interests in ways that defy and endanger the international state system.

 

    * The international legal case against Saddam--17 resolutions--was unprecedented.

 

    * The intelligence services of all involved nations and the U.N. inspectors over more than a decade all agreed that Saddam possessed weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction that posed a threat to international peace and security.

 

    * Saddam had four undisturbed years to augment, conceal, disperse, or otherwise deal with his arsenal.

 

    * He used every means to avoid cooperating or explaining what he has done with them. This refusal in itself was, under the U.N. resolutions, adequate grounds for resuming the military operation against him that had been put in abeyance in 1991 pending his compliance.

 

    * President Bush, in ordering U.S. forces into action, stated that we were doing so under U.N. Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687, the original bases for military action against Saddam Hussein in 1991. Those who criticize the U.S. for unilateralism should recognize that no nation in the history of the United Nations has ever engaged in such a sustained and committed multilateral diplomatic effort to adhere to the principles of international law and international organization within the international system. In the end, it was the U.S. that upheld and acted in accordance with the U.N. resolutions on Iraq, not those on the Security Council who tried to stop us.

Please pay special attention to this quote, its got some major points in it.

 

 

************************************************************

**********

 

 

Clinton ready to remove Saddam in 1998

 

This is the first instance that the United States is ready to forcibly remove Saddam from power due to WMD's. Key points: Clinton admin believed Saddam had WMD's, so did the UN. Unanimous vote for action against Iraq by UN. Everyone believes he has WMD's.

 

Again, take the time to read the whole article.

 

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

 

 

 

 

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

 

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, g!@#$%^&*ing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

Clintons administration sure seemed to believe that he not only had WMD's, but he would sure as -*BAD WORD*- use them, just like he did in the past. Mabye the Bush Administration hasn't flown off their nob.

 

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

 

So wait a second, 6 years ago we had 15-0 support to do this. Which means france, and chirac, were behind us. What has happened in those 6 years? As we read in the last article, Saddam has been virtually unchecked since the last threats. No solid proof provided that he's destroyed the weapons THAT EVERYONE WAS SURE HE HAD IN 1998. Can you say politics?

 

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

 

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Huh, I'm slightly confused, we're giving Saddam yet ANOTHER chance, even though he's constantly told the US and the UN to shove it? *boggle*. Atleast he vows to be strong THE NEXT TIME this happens.

 

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

 

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

 

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

 

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

 

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

 

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying do-*BAD WORD*-ents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

 

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just do-*BAD WORD*-ents but even the furniture and the equipment.

 

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the do-*BAD WORD*-ents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related do-*BAD WORD*-ents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

 

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

 

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

 

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

 

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

 

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

 

 

WOAH NELLY. So by President Clintons mouth, he states that the UN itself said ALL WORK DONE BY INSPECTORS IS A SHAM, because of Saddams tricks.

 

And so we had to act and act now.

 

Let me explain why.

 

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

 

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

 

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

Simply amazing, if I read the second point correctly, it sounds as if Bill Clinton is making a plee to the internation community (read UN) to put some bite behind its bark. If not, Saddam will truely believe we're nothing.

 

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

 

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

 

 

Heh, anyone else know the meaning of Irony? Please read the whole speech, its full of wonderful stuff.

 

 

 

Now with that over, lets get down to the logical. The last unanimous international opinion that Saddam had WMD's was in 1998, 6 years ago. In those 4 of those 6 years, Inspector access to Iraq was completely denied, no UN inspector was allowed into Iraq from 1998-2002. In 2002, a UN inspection team led by Hanz Blix was allowed in, but given restricted access. Hanz Blix reports he can find no evidence of WMD's or ability to produce them, in the 4 months that he's allowed access, facing mixed Iraq cooperation.

 

Source on Hanz Blix, also will be used below

 

February 24, 2003: The United States, United Kingdom, and Spain co-sponsor a new Security Council resolution saying "Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it by Resolution 1441."

The same day, Russia and France submit a memorandum stating that military force should be a "last resort" and that force should not yet be used because there is "no evidence" that Iraq possesses weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction. The memorandum also says, however, that "inspections…cannot continue indefinitely. Iraq must disarm." It further adds that Baghdad's cooperation, although improving, is not "yet fully satisfactory."

HuH? Now lets disect this piece by piece.

The United States, United Kingdom, and Spain co-sponsor a new Security Council resolution saying "Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it by Resolution 1441."

Resolution 1441 information can be found in provided link. Basically says "Last chance, any minor mess up and the games over"

The same day, Russia and France submit a memorandum stating that military force should be a "last resort" and that force should not yet be used because there is "no evidence" that Iraq possesses weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction.

Don't use force, there's no evidence that Saddam has possesses WMD's, Even though we know he had them in 1998, a 4 year inspection hiatus insued, then in a 4 month invesigation of the country, Hanz decides there's no WMD's. Again I emphasize 4 MONTHS. Previous investigation teams spent years in the country.

 

 

The memorandum also says, however, that "inspections…cannot continue indefinitely. Iraq must disarm." It further adds that Baghdad's cooperation, although improving, is not "yet fully satisfactory."

 

So wait, I'm confused. Saddam is supposed to disarm the weapons he doesn't have?

Somethings alittle wrong with the picture.

 

SO, !@#$%^&*uming Hanz was right, there was no evidence of WMD's in the country (which we can only assume is correct, as the US occupation force has yet to find any signifigant stockpilings of WMD's.) Where did the weapons go? Did they go anywhere? France and Russia seems to think there's no proof that he had them, but he's got to disarm. Disarm what? They just got done saying there's no proof that he has ANYTHING to disarm.

 

The last major inspections done in Iraq were in 1998, followed by a 4 year hiatus till 2002, in which a 4 month inspection was conducted, and the inspection determined that Iraq no longer had wmd's. Furthermore keep in mind, Saddam provided no solid proof that he had ever destroyed the WMD's that he claimed he had, in the time between 1998 and 2002.

 

In 1998 UN opinion was UNANIMOUS that Saddam had WMD's and needed to be removed from power. 4 years later, a 4 month investigation changes Russia's and France's mind on the possesion. 4 months of investigation was all that was needed to convince France and Russia that Saddam had gotten rid of the WMD's that he possessed 4 years prior. Why were the two countries minds changed so quickly? Why, after over a decade of investigation and chances, were the two countries so quick to give Saddam and Iraq yet ANOTHER chance, when 4 years prior they all agreed he needed to be removed.

 

*MAJOR POINTS OF THE WHOLE POST*

1) Saddam has weapons in 1998, provides no proof of destruction between 1998-2002, 4 month investigation finds that Iraq has no weapons left in 2002. Where did the weapons go?

 

2.) A convinced UN votes unanimously for invasion in 1998. 4 years later a 4 month investigation changes the minds of 2 countries. Why the sudden change of opinion?

 

3.) Before invasion, Russia and France make a plee against force, stating there is no proof that Iraq has WMD's, yet in the SAME memorandum states that Inspections cannot continue forever and that Saddam must disarm. Disarm what, the weapons he doesn't have?

 

All Interesting questions, I know its a lengthy post, and I know i'll get some off the wall replies, but attempt to stay on target and provide responses to the questions provided.

[Aileron]

Well, it does point out how liberals are trying to rewrite history. Look, before we went into Iraq - ALL of us were convinced Iraq had WMDs. This was not something made up by the Bush administration in 2002. You guys were convinced Hussein had WMDs before Bush even took office.

[MonteZuma]

The article is full of bias.

 

Statements like these are ridiculous:

 

But the U.S. military operation was called off after only four days--apparently because President Clinton did not feel able to lead the country in war at a time when he was facing impeachment.

WTF? You think a president would call off a war after he started because he was 'facing impeachment'? BS. The strikes in Iraq were aimed at destroying infrastructure that could be used to hold or build WMDs. It was called off because the targets had been hit and he didn't think a war was the right thing.

 

In the early 1990s, U.N. inspectors found plenty of materials in the category of weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction and they dismantled a lot of it. They kept on finding such weapons, but as the presence of force declined, Saddam's cooperation declined. He began to play games and to obstruct the inspection effort.

 

Yes. That was the early 1990s. By the late 1990s things were very different.

 

But the inspectors reported that as of the end of 1998 Saddam possessed major quan!@#$%^&*ies of WMDs across a range of categories, and particularly in chemical and biological weapons and the means of delivering them by missiles. All the intelligence services of the world agreed on this.

Wrong. Here is what Richard Butler, the chief weapons inspector at the time said:

 

July 1998: “If Iraqi disarmament were a five-lap race, we would be three quarters of the way around the fifth and final lap.”

 

Let me explain this tidbit for you: Richard Butlers team was considered by many to be full of CIA stooges. Butler always thought that Iraq had WMDs, even at the time of the invasion, but even back in 1998 he conceded that disarmament was 95% complete. Wow. Maybe the actions of Clinton, the weapons inspectors and the UN actually did contain the threat? Why would anyone think that the UN failed and that war was the only solution?

 

* Saddam had four undisturbed years to augment, conceal, disperse, or otherwise deal with his arsenal.... All through the years between 1998 and 2002 Saddam continued to act and speak and to rule Iraq as a rogue state.

 

Those years were hardly undisturbed. There were sanctions and a naval blockade. There was a no-fly zone over northern and southern Iraq. There were US missile strikes on Iraq in January, February, April 1999, February 2001 and August 2001. There was aerial and satellite surveillance the whole time...and weapons inspectors were allowed back in in 2002.

 

Etc, etc, etc.

[MonteZuma]

Look, before we went into Iraq - ALL of us were convinced Iraq had WMDs.  This was not something made up by the Bush administration in 2002.  You guys were convinced Hussein had WMDs before Bush even took office.

The experts at the time were not in agreement.

 

January 2003: Hans Blix, UN weapons inspector before the invasion, thought that Iraq might be telling the truth. Read his report.

 

March 2003: Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency doubted the existence of nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons program. Read his report.

 

The invasion of Iraq occured in March 2003.

 

Its all there in black and white. These dudes thought that Iraq was not a threat, and that Iraq was co-operating well with the inspection teams. This was just before the invasion. Are you people really surprised that there was opposition to a war?

 

Nobody was convinced that there were WMDs in Iraq. We all had suspicions, but these suspicions were being thoroughly investigated by competent investigators. The US propoganda machine has been working overtime on this one. The US government is working on the !@#$%^&*umption that if they say something often enough it will become fact. It won't. The war was started on a false premise.

[Dr.Worthless]

Those years were hardly undisturbed. There were sanctions and a naval blockade. There was a no-fly zone over northern and southern Iraq. There were US missile strikes on Iraq in January, February, April 1999, February 2001 and August 2001. There was aerial and satellite surveillance the whole time...and weapons inspectors were allowed back in in 2002.

Undisputed meaning Saddam did not allow any inspectors into the country of Iraq for those 4 years.

 

1) Saddam has weapons in 1998, provides no proof of destruction between 1998-2002, 4 month investigation finds that Iraq has no weapons left in 2002. Where did the weapons go?

 

Alittle more indepth explination. If Saddam had weapons in 1998, provides no proof of destroying them during the time of 1998-2002, and Hanz didn't find said weapons (that he had in 1998) where did they go?

 

2.) A convinced UN votes unanimously for invasion in 1998. 4 years later a 4 month investigation changes the minds of 2 countries. Why the sudden change of opinion?

 

3.) Before invasion, Russia and France make a plee against force, stating there is no proof that Iraq has WMD's, yet in the SAME memorandum states that Inspections cannot continue forever and that Saddam must disarm. Disarm what, the weapons he doesn't have?

 

I'm not suprised there was opposition to a war. Well actually I kind of am. Why would a UN security councle that just 6 years previous voted 15-0 for invasion of the country suddenly be in opposition of an invasion, when no signifigant cooperation was shown on Saddam's part. Sure, he allowed inspectors back in (after a 4 year hiatus) but refused to answer any questions given to him about weapons. Hanz made his judgment off of 4 months of inspections.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The US propoganda machine has been working overtime on this one. The US government is working on the !@#$%^&*umption that if they say something often enough it will become fact. It won't. The war was started on a false premise.

 

The posted article above is fairly factual. The fact still remains that in 1998 he was confirmed to have WMD's. 6 years later (4 months of that being times of inspection) it was deemed that he no longer had the weapons. Saddam would not provide proof that the weapons were destroyed or answer questions as to where the weapons had gone. So, what happened to them?

 

WTF? You think a president would call of a war after he started because he was 'facing impeachment'? BS. The strikes in Iraq were aimed at destroying infrastructure that could be used to hold or build WMDs. It was called off because the targets had been hit and he didn't think a war was the right thing.

 

I was quoting the article. You no more know Bill Clintons intentions for calling off the War than the man who wrote the article does. Though, It's no secret Bill Clinton wouldn't do much of anything that would cause a drop in his public approval.

[Dr.Worthless]

Butler Interview

 

Richard Butler: Regime change is obviuolsly desirable. Saddam's track record in all fields, including human rights with respect to his own people, his violation of the non-proliferation treaties, make him a really disastrous figure in contemporary international relations. It's highly desirable that there be a different kind of government in Iraq.

To say that it's highly desirable is different from saying that it's essential. If the U.S. or anyone else says it's essential, then it could be setting itself up for policy failure. if you say that something is essential and it doesn't occur, then you've failed. if you say something is essential and you don't robustly persue it, then you're a phony. I think the U.S. must be careful not to set itself up in this way. Because I strongly suspect that the only way there will be a change is the intervention of Allah -- by natural causes -- or by a successful internal political action run by Iraqis. Regime change engineered from the outside is unlikely to succeed, and raises awful political and legal problems. The first of those political problems is how do you know what you'll get instead? And what would other Arab countries think, for example? Does this set a precedent that if the U.S.

 

That's why non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries is the key to international affairs.

 

A regime change is highly desirable. There were many instances in negotiations in Baghdad when I thought this will never work as long as these guys are there. One just got this gut sense that their hold on power was dictatorial and that was everything.

 

I think the U.S. should, at an early opportunity, go to the other permanent members of the security council and say we've got a serious problem with Iraq and we want to have a fresh look at this problem. Iraq has challenged the authority of the council. It for two years has been without arms control or monitoring. On both grounds, we've got to do something about it. This recalcitrant challenge to our authority has ripples throughout the world. The council's authority is important to all of us. Secondly, this challenge is based on the non-proliferation of weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction. The very concern that is motivating the U.S. today to be talking about National Missile defense. That might provide an opportunity for a fresh approach. If that approach were to involve, for example, an agreement to lift the sanctions that we agree aren't working, provided that Iraq would accept into its territory reentry of arms control monitors. That would represent a shift in U.S. policy. This was cooperation among the permanent members of the council in the post-Cold War era.

 

This would address another problem, that three of the other four -- Russia, France, and China -- do have a problem with there only being one super power. We might be able to kill three birds with one stone -- (1) deal with the problem of Iraq's challenge to international legal authority and get monitoring back into Iraq; (2) help that change in approach take place in a way that might be acceptable domestically in the United States; and (3) it might deal with some of the anxiety that is felt, especially by Russia, France and China, about a world dominated by one super power, by including them in this solution, by it being a collegial solution.

 

Make no mistake, France and Russia would have NO part in any invasion of Iraq. In an ideal world they would want an active role in the process, but they didnt. For Chirac, it wasn't about Iraq, it was about wanting to see the lone superpower of the world, and backbone of the UN, fail.

 

The second paragraph also is very interesting, especially coupled with the Clinton speech of how "Saddam must be removed".

[MonteZuma]

Saddam has weapons in 1998, provides no proof of destruction between 1998-2002, 4 month investigation finds that Iraq has no weapons left in 2002. Where did the weapons go?

 

Alittle more indepth explination. If Saddam had weapons in 1998, provides no proof of destroying them during the time of 1998-2002, and Hanz didn't find said weapons (that he had in 1998) where did they go?

In 1998, Richard Butler said that he thought 95% of the WMDs were destroyed. Maybe he was wrong? Maybe it was closer to 100%? Where did they go? Dunno. Perhaps they were destroyed. But it seems that after a war costing hundreds of billions of dollars we are no closer to knowing the truth than we were when Blix asked for more time to carry out his inspections. The war has been a tragic and expensive waste.

 

2.) A convinced UN votes unanimously for invasion in 1998. 4 years later a 4 month investigation changes the minds of 2 countries. Why the sudden change of opinion?

 

No. The Security Council never proposed at invasion. The wording that was used was that failure to co-operate would lead to 'severe consequences'. See -->HERE<--. Bush used this as justification for an invasion in 2003. Clinton used it as justification for a military strike in 1998.

 

3.) Before invasion, Russia and France make a plee against force, stating there is no proof that Iraq has WMD's, yet in the SAME memorandum states that Inspections cannot continue forever and that Saddam must disarm. Disarm what, the weapons he doesn't have?

Russia and France were ridiculed by the US for this decision - but they were right. There was no proof. Subsequent enquiries organised by the governments of the USA, UK and Australia have confirmed that there was no proof and that the intelligence used to justify the war was flawed. Russia and France wanted to continue with inspections. Their position was quite clear.

 

I'm not suprised there was opposition to a war. Well actually I kind of am. Why would a UN security councle that just 6 years previous voted 15-0 for invasion of the country suddenly be in opposition of an invasion, when no signifigant cooperation was shown on Saddam's part. Sure, he allowed inspectors back in (after a 4 year hiatus) but refused to answer any questions given to him about weapons. Hanz made his judgment off of 4 months of inspections.

Please point out which resolution makes this statement calling for an invasion of Iraq. Even Clinton himself only went so far as to say "The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance. "

 

I was quoting the article. You no more know Bill Clintons intentions for calling off the War than the man who wrote the article does. Though, It's no secret Bill Clinton wouldn't do much of anything that would cause a drop in his public approval.

Well I agree that the author has no idea what Clinton's intentions were, but who has ever said that the attacks on Iraq were ever intended to be part of a "war"? Clinton himself said that the attacks were: designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors. He went on to say that we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. Clearly Clinton had no plans whatsoever to conduct a sustained campaign. He simply wanted to destroy some infrastructure and "send a powerful message".

 

He also said that: The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War [and] so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military.

 

Anyway. Time has proven that Clinton's policy was workable and encouraged a degree of cooperation. As frustrating as the deliberation process was, it was a -*BAD WORD*- of a lot better than Bush's 'solution'. Bush has created a quagmire and a climate of fear and mistrust of the US in the international community.

 

For God's sake vote Bush out of office.

 

PS. You wanna know what Clinton was thinking? Read what he said herehttp://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...ts/clinton.html. His intentions are abundantly clear.

[MonteZuma]

The second paragraph also is very interesting, especially coupled with the Clinton speech of how "Saddam must be removed".

How do you know what Chirac was thinking?

 

Regarding Clinton: Wrong.

 

Clinton wanted regime change by encouraging opposition inside Iraq. Not through an invasion.

 

Read Clinton's speech of December 1998.

 

Clinton said:

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

 

I can't believe that you quoted this in your earlier post and used this to claim that Clinton was pro-invasion. He was never in favour of a US led invasion. Never.

[Dr.Worthless]

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

 

 

I can't believe that you quoted this in your earlier post and used this to claim that Clinton was pro-invasion. He was never in favour of a US led invasion. Never.

I intepreted that as what Bush has done, IE invade Iraq, remove Saddam, and install a new Iraqi Government. Believing that it could be done from the inside is wishful thinking, at best. Clinton was ready to send troops into Iraq. You believe that the troops objective was to destroy all wmd sites, and just leave Saddam alone?

 

 

 

 

 

In 1998, Richard Butler said that he thought 95% of the WMDs were destroyed. Maybe he was wrong? Maybe it was closer to 100%

 

Or mabye it was closer to 90%, or %, mabye 40%, or 30% you're guess is as good as mine. The post above pertaining to a dialogue of Butler, he makes it sound pretty strong that he believed Saddam needed to be out of power.

 

 

 

 

 

No. The Security Council never proposed at invasion. The wording that was used was that failure to co-operate would lead to 'severe consequences'. See -->HERE<--. Bush used this as justification for an invasion in 2003. Clinton used it as justification for a military strike in 1998.

In November 1998, the Security Council passed a resolution declaring Saddam to be in "flagrant violation" of all resolutions going back to 1991. That meant that the cease-fire was terminated and the original authorization for the use of force against Saddam was reactivated. President Clinton ordered American forces into action in December 1998.

 

Linkage

 

Alternatively, the U.S. can build a case against Iraq based on how the ceasefire came into existence and the content of the Security Council resolutions that came afterward. The Gulf War was waged under U.N. Res. 678 which would have allowed Saddam’s overthrow to restore international peace and security in the area. But after Kuwait was liberated, the hostilities stopped with a ceasefire. Iraq accepted U.N. Res 686 which demanded full compliance with all relevant resolutions as a condition of commencing the ceasefire. U.N. Res. 687 set out the full terms and obligations Iraq had to adhere to. This included a demand that Iraq unconditionally accept the destruction of all its WMD and not undertake the further development or acquisition of materials for WMD. Authorized under U.N. Chapt. 7 which deals with threats to peace, U.N. Res. 687 does not end the authorization to use force under U.N. Res. 678.

 

Compliance with the ceasefire terms places restrictions on Iraq’s sovereign rights for as long as the ceasefire terms remained unfulfilled. Implicitly sanctioned by the resolutions is the resumption of hostilities if Iraq consistently commits a material breach of the ceasefire terms.

 

Iraq has breached many of these terms. It has refused inspections. It has withheld from UNSCOM information on its CW program and rebuilt key portions of its missile production facilities and chemical production infrastructure for industrial and commercial which can be converted quickly for production of CW agents. Under the guise of legitimate civilian use, it has acquired numerous dual-use items that are subject to U.N. scrutiny and which can be diverted for WMD purposes. In the first FFCD back in 1995, it admitted to having an offensive BW program, the scope and nature of which is difficult to !@#$%^&*ess because its disclosures are incomplete and filled with inaccuracies.

 

Alternativly, while not "voting" on the invasion, stipulations set forth in the 1991 ceasefire agreements state that if Saddam broke any part of the agreement, that the ceasefire would be null and void. In 1998 the security councle voted and unanimously agreed Saddam was in breach of the ceasefire agreement, thus ending the ceasefire agreed to at the end of the first gulf war, and opening the door for the Clinton administration to open an attack. Sorry.

 

 

PS. You wanna know what Clinton was thinking? Read what he said herehttp://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...ts/clinton.html. His intentions are abundantly clear.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

 

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

 

Can only go by what the man says. Somehow I don't truely believe he was wanting the overthrow to happen from the inside, that was already tried, multiple times. I do believe Clinton knew Saddam had to be removed from power, and I believe he was ready to do so before calling off a ground attack. Why he called it off, who knows. I can speculate though =)

 

 

 

 

 

How do you know what Chirac was thinking?

 

BUSTED, (gets out the hypocrite stamp and stamps his forehead). Sorry, let opinion slip in there. Happens to the best of us =)

 

 

Ultimatly I suppose it comes down to where the weapons went. In 1998 we were positive he had them. 4 years of non-investigation insued, who knows what Saddam could have done with them. Destroying them is doubtful.. look at the mans track record. Believing he would destroy the weapons is akin to believing a rabid dog wont bite because it looks cute.

 

While we're in the habit of looking at UN passed resolutions, please browse the many many resolutions passed commanding Saddam to stop suppressing his population, and increase humanitarian efforts. These stem as far back as 1991. Over 10 years of resolutions passed telling him the same thing, with no sign of real action to inforce those resolutions, other than "sanctions" which didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out only hurt the general Iraqi population.

 

Sorry, this dude was s-*BAD WORD*- and needed to be removed from power. I still believe that Saddam possessed "WMDs", and just because there hasn't been any signifigant stockpiles found doesn't mean he didn't hide them, or try to acquire them on the black market. I just don't understand how removing a sadistic tyrant can destabalize a region. Then again I never understood any opposition to the war to begin with. Yeah you have all the oil hypothesis, etc, etc.. Which all very well may be true, all I'm seeing right now is a really son of a -*BAD WORD*- out of power.

 

Its late, I'm tired, and the above probably didn't make sense.

[MonteZuma]

(1) Clinton was ready to send troops into Iraq.  You believe that the troops objective was to destroy all wmd sites, and just leave Saddam alone? 

 

In 1998, Richard Butler said that he thought 95% of the WMDs were destroyed. Maybe he was wrong? Maybe it was closer to 100%

 

(2) Or mabye it was closer to 90%, or %, mabye 40%, or 30% you're guess is as good as mine. The post above pertaining to a dialogue of Butler, he makes it sound pretty strong that he believed Saddam needed to be out of power.

 

How do you know what Chirac was thinking?

(3) BUSTED, (gets out the hypocrite stamp and stamps his forehead). Sorry, let opinion slip in there. Happens to the best of us =)

 

(4) Sorry, this dude was s-*BAD WORD*- and needed to be removed from power. I still believe that Saddam possessed "WMDs", and just because there hasn't been any signifigant stockpiles found doesn't mean he didn't hide them, or try to acquire them on the black market. I just don't understand how removing a sadistic tyrant can destabalize a region. Then again I never understood any opposition to the war to begin with. Yeah you have all the oil hypothesis, etc, etc.. Which all very well may be true, all I'm seeing right now is a really son of a -*BAD WORD*- out of power.

 

(5) Its late, I'm tired, and the above probably didn't make sense.

 

 

(1) Clinton used the threat of military force as leverage. In December 1998 there were about 24,000 US troops in the Persian Gulf. That was not enough to invade Iraq and topple Saddam. That was not Clinton's intention.

 

(2) We don't really need to guess anymore. There are no deployable WMDs in Iraq. Blix and the nuclear inspector dude were right.

 

The fact that Saddam should have been removed from power is pretty much undisputed in the west. Whether or not it needed to be done by an invasion at the cost of tens of thousands of civilian deaths by US and other bombs and bullets is the debatable bit. The casualties and the resultant power vacuum and Islamic anger that has been generated makes me think that it wasn't worth it. We could have kept the lid on Saddam and his WMDs without stuffing up the middle east even more.

 

(3) Heh. No. Not hypocricy. Sarcasm. I have my own ideas about what Chirac was thinking that are much different to yours.

 

(4) I agree. He was a s-*BAD WORD*-bag.

 

(5) Nah. It made sense. But I still disagree.

[Live-Wire]

This article is at coverups.com, huh?

[Aileron]

2) Islamics were fanatical before. Invading Iraq really didn't increase it.

 

Well, if you don't like invasion, lets look at the alternatives:

 

1) !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*inate Hussein and Sons.

Probably a good option, but it was somehow deamed unethical and illegal. Also, if there were WMDs, this would be a good way to ensure that they never get found and wound up in the hands of terrorists.

 

2) Hope the Kurdish rebels take him out.

Clearly wishfull thinking. Rebellions without foreign support rarely work, and if they do it is usually by lucky means that create problems for the new government.

 

3) assist the Kurdish Rebels.

At first glance this appears to be a good option. However, it is really irresponsable from a moral perspective. There would likely have been more civilian and military casualties this way, because the Kurds have nowhere near the training and technology the US does. Thus, they would be more prone to missed shots instead of hits, m!@#$%^&* bombings instead of precision guided, etc. Also, the conflict would have taken longer. Giving them training and technology would mitigate this, but not to the point that they get the same low figures as the US. The resulting government would still be seen as a US-puppet, so islamics would probably still be attacking after the military conflict was over.

 

 

 

There was however something France could have done. It was clear that Hussein was eventually beginning to cave as US forces piled up over Iraq's border. Then, Bush asked that NATO allies be stationed in Turkey. If France was really interested in peace, they would have accepted this idea rather than veto it. If a larger force was threatening Iraq, perhaps Hussein would have "voluntarily" caved in a greater degree. France has the Foreign Legion, that never is allowed to be stationed in France. If they stationed the Foreign Legion in Turkey, it would have cost them NOTHING more than usual. France could have stopped this thing with no cost to them, and what did they do? Opt to use the opportunity to make another emotional !@#$%^&*ualt on the US.

 

More important things are going on to justify this. Thousands are dying, yet France refuses to lift a finger. They just sit and find ways to pin the suffering as US responsability. This is both childish and sick.

 

If France really cared about the suffering of the civilians, they would be helping in Iraq now. We likely will never find out who was right and wrong in the question of whether or not to go in in the first place, likely the action will probably end up in the grey area anyway. What we do know is that French support in Iraq now would help. Remember, this help would cost France nothing, because they still have that Foreign Legion. However, France refuses to help in Iraq. They take the side of the Islamic thugs, because the more innocents that are killed by Islamic thugs, the more suffering they have to try to pin on the US.,

[MonteZuma]

1)  Islamics were fanatical before.  Invading Iraq really didn't increase it.

 

2) Well, if you don't like invasion, lets look at the alternatives:

 

a)  !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*inate Hussein and Sons.

  Hope the Kurdish rebels take him out.

c)  assist the Kurdish Rebels.

 

3) There was however something France could have done.  It was clear that Hussein was eventually beginning to cave as US forces piled up over Iraq's border.  Then, Bush asked that NATO allies be stationed in Turkey.  If France was really interested in peace, they would have accepted this idea rather than veto it.  If a larger force was threatening Iraq, perhaps Hussein would have "voluntarily" caved in a greater degree.  France has the Foreign Legion, that never is allowed to be stationed in France.  If they stationed the Foreign Legion in Turkey, it would have cost them NOTHING more than usual.  France could have stopped this thing with no cost to them, and what did they do?  Opt to use the opportunity to make another emotional !@#$%^&*ualt on the US.

 

4)  More important things are going on to justify this.  Thousands are dying, yet France refuses to lift a finger.  They just sit and find ways to pin the suffering as US responsability.  This is both childish and sick.

...

If France really cared about the suffering of the civilians, they would be helping in Iraq now. 

 

5) We likely will never find out who was right and wrong in the question of whether or not to go in in the first place, likely the action will probably end up in the grey area anyway.  What we do know is that French support in Iraq now would help.  Remember, this help would cost France nothing, because they still have that Foreign Legion.  However, France refuses to help in Iraq.  They take the side of the Islamic thugs, because the more innocents that are killed by Islamic thugs, the more suffering they have to try to pin on the US.,

1) Iraq wasn't the source of much fanatasicm. It is now. Global anti-US sentiment has increased. If you can't see it then your eyes must be closed.

 

2) Jesus. You think the only solution is to send in GI Joe? What about option d) Sanctions, no-fly zones, sustained military presence and strategic air strikes, nuclear and weapons inspections, sustained political pressure, surveillance and subtle encouragement of Saddam's opposition. Maybe even the odd strike aimed at hitting Saddam and his supporters. This is pretty much what the world community wanted. GWB wanted to play with his GI Joe dolls - and so do you.

 

And what the -*BAD WORD*- is this about !@#$%^&*isting the Kurdish rebels? They were always inneffectual. The opposition in Iraq - and now the alternative government - needs to come from the major ethnic/religious groups in Iraq. That is not the Kurds. The Kurds are a minority with their own agenda.

 

3) You think that Hussein was beginning to cave? No. The only thing he caved in on was weapons inspectors. I think he caved on that for 3 reasons 1. He ordered the destruction of all of his WMDs and nuclear facilities in the early 1990s and had nothing to hide and 2. He had a degree of trust in Blix that he did not have in previous weapons inspectors and 3. He wanted to avoid an invasion. France, NATO and Turkey have little to do with anything, except maybe to encourage Saddam to think that an invasion mightn't happen, especially since he had given unprecedented access to the inspection teams. Clearly he didn't count on the fact that GWB could be as stubborn and ignorant as he was.

 

You really think that France and the FFL could have stopped this? Heh. GWB had made up his mind months before the invasion.

 

4) Unbelievable. Thousands are dying because the US government was foolhardy. Blaming France is childish. Do you still call them Freedom Fries? Heh.

 

5) We already know it was wrong. The only people who don't agree are the Republicans. Its too late for the US to ask for help from France. Your government burnt that bridge. Now you have to beg.

[MasterDrake]

if your read all the articles and posts put down my dr worthless you would understand where is coming from. Now shh!

[MonteZuma]

No.

[»Ducky]

Always let the smarter people debate it for us average joes.

Go Monte

[MonteZuma]

Always let the smarter people debate it for us average joes.

Go Monte

 

I ain't smarter. Maybe just a little more passionate? Or maybe I just waste more time than most people learning about this stuff?

 

[»Ducky]

Politics require a more serious peripheral view than most 'minor' things. I suppose that education in this field will do much better than say my own which is literature and the arts. Either way, acclaim is well desearved and often forgotten between the banters.

[MasterDrake]

I reckon u wan urself some fancy awert no wit ur probaly eniglsh n al

[Bacchus]

This article is at coverups.com, huh?

my thoughts exactly.

 

it also said:

 

        It is about TIME that we recognize the GREATNESS of our American Armed Forces!

 

        It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

 

        It took less time to find evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

 

        It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sunk at Chappaquid!@#$%^&*.

 

        It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!

 

        Our military is GREAT!

 

exit objectivity. this is bs.

 

oh, and that also...since shultz is a member of the Hoover ins!@#$%^&*ute..pay attention to the funding sources and members list.

 

Hoover ins!@#$%^&*ute

 

Not just biased; sold, bought and paid for by...

[Aileron]

Logic is logic, whether it is reasoned or rationalized.

 

Please, after we had to argue with so many liberal articles, you don't have the mus-*BAD WORD*- to argue with a conservative one?

[Bacchus]

Even you have to agree that this is not logic...it's almost a paid advertisement.

 

Any discourse, of any kind, can be made into something logical, hence all the confusion. a simple sillogism(spl) will show that fact.

 

But if you want to produce something else than simple opinions (which are quite savory and/or satisfactory sometimes), you have to dig out independant sources. That's why the present USA admin. is the object of so much criticism about the oil industry...they are ALL closely related to it and they ARE still denying they have no interests in it. They give no proof but "intern" reports and obscure sources.

 

This site might be fun and very patriotic, it might even be right to some extend. But from an "outsider" point of view it's utter -*BAD WORD*-. Too many allegations, too many "conflicts of interests", no transparency, no sources apart from the authoritative arguments and a very strong streak for patriotism which amount to being biased.

 

From an "informative" point of view, it's worthless. I'll patiently wait for Live or Nin posts. They aren't lazy as i am, their sources are usually sound (i usually check them out)...now, those are useful (thks to them btw).

[Dr.Worthless]

...

[Bacchus]

...?

[Aileron]

One can tell that the author is conservative minded from the article itself, so it doesn't really matter if he is conservative with official ties or conservative without official ties. Most of the stuff that gets printed comes from members of such clubs anyway. Usually, people get in these clubs AFTER they have proven themselves by writing good arguements.

 

I will agree that it is right wing, and teetering on the brink of illogic, but it still is an interpretation, and more sound than quite a few leftist articles I have seen.

 

I'd say one needs to take this article with a grain of salt, but one should still read it.

 

 

Shultz's biggest point is that the UN was very anti-Iraq, and made a string of resolutions against Iraq, for very good reason. It could be interpreted that the US was the one who actually acted in accord with the resolutions.

 

The bigger question that can be derived from this is - Why the sudden change in opinion in this matter? Whatever the reason, it can't be a good one - because Hussein made no action to merit such faith.

 

 

 

Oh, btw, the last time Live posted an article, it was a Washington Post article which described rallies made by President Bush. I attended one of the rallies in question, and can confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that the reporter was either biased, bribed, drunk, high, stupid, didn't attend the rallies, or for another reason written such a factually flawed article. To say it mildly, the article's information was incorrect. If that is what we get from "unbiased" information, I don't think there is much additional risk reading biased stuff.