The Iraq / war on terror thread

[pilferk]

Resolution 1441 was passed to force iraq to "disarm" and reveal all plans to develop wmd. it wasn't simply to let inspectors in.?

if i'm wrong and someone can show me a link, please do. otherwise, i think we're trying to read the minds of the leaders of various countries here. (most of whom were being bribed via oil for food anyway.)

And then, when the US brought to the floor that they believed Saddam was in violation of 1441 and wanted to use force to "enforce" the Resolution, the UN REFUSED because there was a lack of compelling evidence that there were WMD's. Combine that with the fact the Inspectors were saying there were no WMD's...

The UN didn't create the resolution BECAUSE they thought he had WMD's, they created the resolution to ensure that he COULDN'T and DIDN'T have WMD's.  You can do a google on the resolution in question and hear the reasoning behind other countries voting in favor of it.  No one is "reading minds" on this.

I do like how you revisit the "oil for food" thing as the reasoning behind countries voting the way they did.  It's interesting since, in hindsight, THEY WERE RIGHT so, questioning their motives is, again, pretty petty.

[shades]

Resolution 1441 was passed to point out the other resolutions Sadamm was telling the UN to shove up their ass.
The man was not cooperating as he promised the world he would.
And for a US president just off of an attack by muslim terrorists to take Sadamm at his word AND take the chance of having to come back and explain why he took him at his word 'if' another attack occured would have been simply irresponsible.

you care to read what we based going into Iraq on,
help yourself.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

key word abound being 'disclosure'

[pilferk]

Resolution 1441 was passed to point out the other resolutions Sadamm was telling the UN to shove up their ass.
The man was not cooperating as he promised the world he would.
And for a US president just off of an attack by muslim terrorists to take Sadamm at his word AND take the chance of having to come back and explain why he took him at his word 'if' another attack occured would have been simply irresponsible.

you care to read what we based going into Iraq on,
help yourself.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

key word abound being 'disclosure'

Good, you did some research on your own!

Now, read the whole thing.

And do a bit more research.

Here, I'll "educate" you a bit more.

The resolution was specifically voted on to compel Iraq into disclosing information, that's true.  And it outlines, very specifically, what Iraq needed to do.  It also has no teeth to it, but that's a different argument.

Iraq provided plausible disclosure.  They cooperated with UN inspectors.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0212030274dec03,0,4933468.story

http://www.newsday.com/chi-0212100169dec10,0,7016168.story

We went back to the UN, and said "He didn't make a full disclosure"..specifically to the UN Security council, in Mid December of '03.

We based that assertion largely on the fact that the disclosure Iraq presented didn't have any listings for current bio or chemical weapons, or any new data about their disposal or destruction.

Of course, we now KNOW there were no WMD's to document information about...

See the problem here?  We base our assertions of non-compliance on intelligence that was not compelling and ask the UN to force Iraq to disclose information on SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T EXIST.

Were there errors in the 12000 page report? Yes, everyone acknowledges there were, whether intentional or not.  But, used as a foundation for continued UN Inspections, the UN and the UN inspectors were confident they could get down to the truth of the matters.  That was the course of action THEY favored, since there was nothing compelling that said Saddam was currently any sort of threat.  WE insisted he was, WE insisted he had WMD's, WE pushed for a military response.

Now, can we PLEASE stop rewriting history?

[shades]

NOW, we know he is not a threat.

BAd things happen to bad people.
We may need to focus on another bad seed now, but the Sadaam unknown is gone.
And he was #1. Ghadaffi followed close behind.

maybe Syria,
and
North Korea knows were serious.

The whole idea behind this campaign on terror is to let these thugs know you mean business and there are consequences to your actions. Not just talk.
So that a State sponsored support network is next to impossible.

Ive said it before, you will never stop a moron with a car bomb, but the catastrophic scenario has to put in check.

JMO

[pilferk]

NOW, we know he is not a threat.

BAd things happen to bad people.
We may need to focus on another bad seed now, but the Sadaam unknown is gone.
And he was #1. Ghadaffi followed close behind.

maybe Syria,
and
North Korea knows were serious.

The whole idea behind this campaign on terror is to let these thugs know you mean business and there are consequences to your actions. Not just talk.
So that a State sponsored support network is next to impossible.

Ive said it before, you will never stop a moron with a car bomb, but the catastrophic scenario has to put in check.

JMO

Again, with the history rewriting.? When will it END!

We IGNORED contrary evidence back then.? Powell even says it in his comments.? There were people, THEN, who KNEW there were no WMD's, in our own intel agencies.

OTHER countries provided intel that contradicted our own.

HE WAS NOT A THREAT.  And we had reasonable information to that effect back in mid to late '03.

And, from investigations now, any claims of connections to state sponsered terrorism were and are tenuous, at best.

Saddam was not #1.? Not from a threat perspective (that would be Osama).? Not from a terrorist perspective (again, Osama).? Not from ANY perspective.

[SLCPUNK]

NOW, we know he is not a threat.

BAd things happen to bad people.
We may need to focus on another bad seed now, but the Sadaam unknown is gone.
And he was #1. Ghadaffi followed close behind.

maybe Syria,
and
North Korea knows were serious.

The whole idea behind this campaign on terror is to let these thugs know you mean business and there are consequences to your actions. Not just talk.
So that a State sponsored support network is next to impossible.

Ive said it before, you will never stop a moron with a car bomb, but the catastrophic scenario has to put in check.

JMO

Wow...see my other thread for "crazy people."
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22603.0


May I ask why you won't give it up?

Please admit you are wrong, instead of going on and saying "N Korea knows we are serious".

[Charity Case]

Wow, you are a real piece of work.? Most of the Bible is made up of fables (old testament) and exagerration (new testament).? There is very very little truth in the Bible...and this is coming from somone who was raised Catholic (but am agnostic now).? If you actually believe that ththere is a God that controls all your movememtns and decisions and that there is no free will, you are a pathetic religious nut.? Get a grip!

slc, the old testament is not meant to be read literally...it is mostly fables.? If you can quote the new testament then that would make your point.? Cain never killed Abel, there was no Gareden of Eden and there was no Noah's Ark.? Joana (sp?) never rode in a Whale).? Christians live by the "Ten Commandments", but I doubt very much whether they ever actually existed.? I bet it was just a story told to make a point (like most of the old testament).?

You seem pretty sure of yourself.? In reality, you and others who doubt the biblical record have no more proof of it being false than believers do of it being true.? While there is indeed much symbolism in both Testaments, and some things are not in the literal sense, everything you listed above is held as true; i.e., they actually happened.

Except, of course, for God "controlling our movements."? That is not in accordance of the freedom to choose good or evil which God has given.

If you actually take the fables of "Adam and Eve", "Noah's Ark", "Cain and Abel", and "Jonah and the Whale" to be actual historic events that (in your words) actually happened....then you are too stupid to exist.  You cannot possible say that with a straight face.  I can say with absolute certainty that someone named Noah did not round up a female and male of each species on the plant and put them in a boat he built on the order of some diety.  With certainty!

Buddist believe that Buddha created all of the worlds oceans by pouring all of his good deeds out in the form of water (it is symbolized in the classic statue of him with his hands pointing downward).  Now, if I were a Buddhist would I take this as an account of actualy history or would I take it as a fabel?  hmmmm, let's see? 

[shades]

exactly my point.
believe what you want, its your choice.
Bush believed Al Quaeda was linked to Iraq, like Zarquai never visited
And he chose to 'make sure' the man had no WMD.
He didnt you say? now we know for sure, right? Im convinced myself as a matter of fact.
You guys act like you knew all along.. Thats cowardly know it all banter. Give it a fuckin rest already.
As for Powell, he's a sellout, a turncoat.
You deal with the best intelligence available when you are making decisions concerning national security.
You dont look back and say we shoulda coulda.
As an everyday citizen,I certainly feel better ith Sadaam gone..

look, you dont have to live here, or visit.
you dont have to like the policys of the US government,
just DONT, get in our fuckin way when we are trying to protect our interests.
We got the hammer, too bad.

[pilferk]

exactly my point.
believe what you want, its your choice.
Bush believed Al Quaeda was linked to Iraq, like Zarquai never visited
And he chose to 'make sure' the man had no WMD.
He didnt you say? now we know for sure, right? Im convinced myself as a matter of fact.
You guys act like you knew all along.. Thats cowardly know it all banter. Give it a fuckin rest already.
As for Powell, he's a sellout, a turncoat.
You deal with the best intelligence available when you are making decisions concerning national security.
You dont look back and say we shoulda coulda.
As an everyday citizen,I certainly feel better ith Sadaam gone..

look, you dont have to live here, or visit.
you dont have to like the policys of the US government,
just DONT, get in our fuckin way when we are trying to protect our interests.
We got the hammer, too bad.

I don't often address my arguements AT a poster, rather than their points, but, with the post above, that's fundamentally impossible...because he has no point.? Every assertion he makes has already been deconstructed by history....it's drivel of the most worthless sort.

shades, you're right on one thing.? You can believe WHATEVER you want.? Just realize your opinion is based on bullshit, and not on what actually happened.? 'Cause so far, shades, in almost every post you've made, that's what you've shown....that you have no real idea what has actually happened.? Time and time again, I've had to "educate" you.? Time and time again I've had to show you what's ACTUALLY HAPPENED, rather than your rewritten, or just plain incorrect, version of what you THINK happened.? I'm certainly not going to rob you of your illusions. Quite frankly,? though, I'm getting bored of having to serve you up the reality.

The facts are, he DIDN'T use the best intel available.? And we know it. Every piece of information we have tells us it's true, now, and we had every reason to suspect it back then. Copious amounts of intel called into question the piece of intel he based his decisions on.? Copious amounts of FOREIGN intel did the same.? Powell has said it and so have others. That's not spin. It's fact.? If you'd like to ignore the fact, and stick with what's in your head....keep right on truckin.? At least now we know what context to put your posts into.

Saddam had no connection to Al Queada.? Clinton had the same piece of info that Bush, and his administration, based their assertions on.? BOTH administrations discounted it as being a very likely possibility, and, in fact, thought the source of the intel was NOT credible.? Even at the time the claims were made, OTHERS in both the intel community and from all souces "in the know" said they doubted the claim was true.? Again, that's reality.? If you'd like to ignore it, and stick with what's in our head...keep right on truckin.? It's just more context on where to put your posts.

And revisit SLC's posts...and what few I posted on the subject...WAY back when.? You say we didn't "know it all along"?? Or that our comments are "cowardly know it all banter".? Bullshit.? Utter, complete, total bullshit.? It just so happens it contradicts the world as you have your head wrapped around it.

As for your "sit down and shup up motherfucker" attitude...THANK GOD our forefathers disagreed with you.? Voicing displeasure in our government is EXACTLY the reason for the provisions for free speech, it's EXACTLY what our service people fight, and die, to provide us with.? So, if you'd like to tell a good portion of the population to "shut the fuck up" because "we got the hammer"...once again, you keep right on truckin. It adds even more context to your posts.

Thanks, and have a great night.

[SLCPUNK]

exactly my point.
believe what you want, its your choice.
Bush believed Al Quaeda was linked to Iraq, like Zarquai never visited
And he chose to 'make sure' the man had no WMD.
He didnt you say? now we know for sure, right? Im convinced myself as a matter of fact.
You guys act like you knew all along.. Thats cowardly know it all banter. Give it a fuckin rest already.
As for Powell, he's a sellout, a turncoat.
You deal with the best intelligence available 'make sure' the man had no WMD.'make sure' the man had no WMD.when you are making decisions concerning national security.
You dont look back and say we shoulda coulda.
As an everyday citizen,I certainly feel better ith Sadaam gone..

look, you dont have to live here, or visit.
you dont have to like the policys of the US government,
just DONT, get in our fuckin way when we are trying to protect our interests.
We got the hammer, too bad.

Your entire argument has been proven wrong (by facts), and what do you do?

Change the argument.

Like I said PP to the end!

[shades]

yea, like Im going to be educated by someone with
"Marmite Militia, taking over one piece of toast at a time!!!" in his signature.

You go grow up, then come back and we will try an intelligent conversation...

you quote what you 'read' somewhere.
think for yourself sometime and the light may just come on..blink blink

good night indeed

[sandman]

Resolution 1441 was passed to force iraq to "disarm" and reveal all plans to develop wmd. it wasn't simply to let inspectors in.?

if i'm wrong and someone can show me a link, please do. otherwise, i think we're trying to read the minds of the leaders of various countries here. (most of whom were being bribed via oil for food anyway.)

The UN didn't create the resolution BECAUSE they thought he had WMD's, they created the resolution to ensure that he COULDN'T and DIDN'T have WMD's.? You can do a google on the resolution in question and hear the reasoning behind other countries voting in favor of it.? No one is "reading minds" on this.

i'll ask you again, show me a link that states the UN believed he DID NOT have wmd's....(and passed all those resolutions simply to make sure he never developed them).

the Resolution states the following:


"RECOGNIZING the threat Iraq's noncompliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

DEPLORING the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction

DEPLORING the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction"

[pilferk]

yea, like Im going to be educated by someone with
"Marmite Militia, taking over one piece of toast at a time!!!" in his signature.

You go grow up, then come back and we will try an intelligent conversation...

you quote what you 'read' somewhere.
think for yourself sometime and the light may just come on..blink blink

good night indeed

Ask jarmo about the Marmite Militia, my friend. ?It's called humor. ?Try it sometime.

I haven't quoted what I "read" somewhere. ?I've provided you with events that directly contradict your "rewrites" of history. ?You can't spin actual events. ?And if your opinions are based on fantasy, it sure tells a lot about those opinions.

I seem to have no issue "thinking for myself". While some may disagree with my sentiment, at least I try to make sure I have enough information to actually support my opinion. ?I make sure I actually KNOW something about what's actually happened, about the events that have occured. So far, shades, you've displayed none of that. ?I can respectfully agree to disagree with someone over ideology. ?I can't stomach someone spreading complete horseshit, though. Facts are facts, and, if you choose to found your opinion in fantasy, rather than fact.....well, as I said, you keep on truckin on.

[pilferk]

Resolution 1441 was passed to force iraq to "disarm" and reveal all plans to develop wmd. it wasn't simply to let inspectors in.?

if i'm wrong and someone can show me a link, please do. otherwise, i think we're trying to read the minds of the leaders of various countries here. (most of whom were being bribed via oil for food anyway.)

The UN didn't create the resolution BECAUSE they thought he had WMD's, they created the resolution to ensure that he COULDN'T and DIDN'T have WMD's.? You can do a google on the resolution in question and hear the reasoning behind other countries voting in favor of it.? No one is "reading minds" on this.

i'll ask you again, show me a link that states the UN believed he DID NOT have wmd's....(and passed all those resolutions simply to make sure he never developed them).

the Resolution states the following:


"RECOGNIZING the threat Iraq's noncompliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

DEPLORING the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction

DEPLORING the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction"

You just did.? Read what's written.? It says it right there.?

The resolution doesn't say "We think you have them, turn them over".? The resolution says "We want to make SURE that your claims you don't have them are true, and that you can't develop them in the future".? The wording is pretty specific.? It's talking about "clean up" of the Gulf War weapons (look at the resolution dates).? For further info, just look at the comparisons of the resolutions from the 1st Gulf War when we ordered all his WMD's dismantled. BIG difference in language.  It's also specifically why earlier versions of the Resolution, introduced by the US, contained MUCH stronger language, which other members forced the US to tone down in order to get it approved.   They were forced to remove, in order to get it approved, any mention of specific consequences.  All because, as has been widely publicized, members of the SC were not as convinced about the presence of WMD's as we were.

Then google some of the UN countries (and specifically the UN security council's) comments after the UN resolution was passed, and then again, later, when the US tried to get the UN to use force to enforce it.

If you really need me to do it for you, I will.....but they're plastered all over any google search you do.

[shades]

The resolution doesn't say "We think you have them, turn them over".? The resolution says "We want to make SURE that your claims you don't have them are true, and that you can't develop them in the future".? The wording is pretty specific.? It's talking about "clean up" of the Gulf War weapons (look at the resolution dates).

exactly, then what problem did you have with going in and making sure he didnt when he wouldnt disclose how and when he got rid of them..?
because we all know he 'did' have them?

you're making my argument for me otherwise.

[pilferk]

The resolution doesn't say "We think you have them, turn them over".? The resolution says "We want to make SURE that your claims you don't have them are true, and that you can't develop them in the future".? The wording is pretty specific.? It's talking about "clean up" of the Gulf War weapons (look at the resolution dates).

exactly, then what problem did you have with going in and making sure he didnt when he wouldnt disclose how and when he got rid of them..?
because we all know he 'did' have them?

you're making my argument for me otherwise.

You're rewriting history again.

He DID disclose and comply.? And by the deadline given. I posted the links.? UN inspectors were on the ground and he provided a 12000 page document with the information requested.?

And he didn't have 'em. None of the "expected" (by the US) WMD's materialized in the document because they didn't exist.

So, the US pointed at the fact that the documents he provided didn't show the WMD's they expected there to be (and didn't exist) and said he wasn't in compliance.? Catch-22, eh?? The UN, on the other hand, wasn't so sure, recognizing the Catch-22.  They felt, given Iraqs efforts to comply, that continued inspections would be the way to go. 

Some of the information provided was innacurate, but not a lot of it.? And the UN inspection teams looked at the document and said they could easily handle the leg work in tracking down the innacuracies, and that, given what they were, Iraq was, as they thought all along, not a threat.

[shades]

you have simply lost touch with reality.
You keep talking about 'the facts' and how your entire argument is based on them.
And mine ignores them.

The UN is corrupt..hows that for a fact? debate that one.....

Try and find a suitcase full of biological germ filled test tubes in an area the size of California when you give the owner 8 months of lead time to hide them.
herse a fact for you....you cant..

Fact:
Sadamm would have liked nothing better than to aid in the destruction of as much American property and or citizens as possible. Not going to dispute that one I hope.

Al Zarquawi, In Iraq AND tied to 9/11.... fact?

when you have to deal with reality and not the 20/20 hindsight that your arguments evolve around its a whole different ballgame.
And when you err in judgement you pay dearly.

All Sadaam had to do was what he promised to do in the first place. Comply.

And you know as well as I do he was playing cat and mouse in the years leading up to the invasion.
Dont dispute that please, it takes all the wind out of everything else you say.

Now you go on believing whatever it is you want to belive.
It serves no purpose to try and coach from the future. thats easy.
these are 'real' dangers in a 'real' world.
Somebody has to do something to combat terror.

Im STILL waiting for an idea from your side.
 

[pilferk]

you have simply lost touch with reality.
You keep talking about 'the facts' and how your entire argument is based on them.
And mine ignores them.

The UN is corrupt..hows that for a fact? debate that one.....

Try and find a suitcase full of biological germ filled test tubes in an area the size of California when you give the owner 8 months of lead time to hide them.
herse a fact for you....you cant..

Fact:
Sadamm would have liked nothing better than to aid in the destruction of as much American property and or citizens as possible. Not going to dispute that one I hope.

Al Zarquawi, In Iraq AND tied to 9/11.... fact?

when you have to deal with reality and not the 20/20 hindsight that your arguments evolve around its a whole different ballgame.
And when you err in judgement you pay dearly.

All Sadaam had to do was what he promised to do in the first place. Comply.

And you know as well as I do he was playing cat and mouse in the years leading up to the invasion.
Dont dispute that please, it takes all the wind out of everything else you say.

Now you go on believing whatever it is you want to belive.
It serves no purpose to try and coach from the future. thats easy.
these are 'real' dangers in a 'real' world.
Somebody has to do something to combat terror.

Im STILL waiting for an idea from your side.
 

Rewrite, Rewrite, Rewrite.

And I'm now completely bored of bringing you the doses of reality.? It is you who have most certainly lost touch, if you ever had it to begin with.

Again, questioning the UN's motives, considering they WERE RIGHT, is pretty pointless, and is petty sour grapes.? You can make unfounded, speculative GUESSES at why they voted the way they did if it gets you through the night.

There was nothing to hide.? Saddam said it, Iraq sent documentation showing it.? How do you prove that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist?

What Saddam wanted and what he was actually capable of are two completly different things.? There are LOTS of countries who feel the same way, but are completely incapable of doing anything about it...ie: Not threats.? Should we invade them all, too?

Al Zarquawi, In Iraq AND tied to 9/11.... fact? Yup, and, according to intel, nowhere near Saddam and, instead, meeting with a terrorist organization (not Al Qeada or connected to them) that was actually a thorn in Saddam's side...and certainly not supported by him.? More "education", I guess.

And he did comply.? Again, no matter how much you wish to ignore it, he did, in the end, do what he was supposed to do.?

Did he play cat and mouse? Sure.? So what?? What does that have to do with being justified?? Countries do it with us EVERY day, but....we don't invade.  They do it to gain favor, or because it's the only game they can "play" with the US.  Countries use it to get anything from humanitarian aid to better trade treatise (NAFTA's a GREAT example).  It's not an uncommon tactic, or even one that smacks of aggression.

And again, the assertion that Iraq was in some way connected, on a large scale, with terrorists.? ?

Rewrite, rewrite, rewrite.

Unfounded speculation, complete fabrication, and fantasy.? Those are some nice arguments you're making.

[sandman]

The resolution doesn't say "We think you have them, turn them over".? The resolution says "We want to make SURE that your claims you don't have them are true, and that you can't develop them in the future".? The wording is pretty specific.? It's talking about "clean up" of the Gulf War weapons (look at the resolution dates).

exactly, then what problem did you have with going in and making sure he didnt when he wouldnt disclose how and when he got rid of them..?
because we all know he 'did' have them?

you're making my argument for me otherwise.

You're rewriting history again.

He DID disclose and comply.? And by the deadline given. I posted the links.? UN inspectors were on the ground and he provided a 12000 page document with the information requested.?

And he didn't have 'em. None of the "expected" (by the US) WMD's materialized in the document because they didn't exist.

So, the US pointed at the fact that the documents he provided didn't show the WMD's they expected there to be (and didn't exist) and said he wasn't in compliance.? Catch-22, eh?? The UN, on the other hand, wasn't so sure, recognizing the Catch-22.? They felt, given Iraqs efforts to comply, that continued inspections would be the way to go.?

Some of the information provided was innacurate, but not a lot of it.? And the UN inspection teams looked at the document and said they could easily handle the leg work in tracking down the innacuracies, and that, given what they were, Iraq was, as they thought all along, not a threat.

he USED to have wmd's! that is a fact. therefore, the UN resolution wanted proof that he got rid of them. he never provided that proof.

here is an article from the USA Today. (i have no idea who this writer is and he could be a far right winger for all i know.) he argues that most of the world believed he still had WMDs.

again, if you have credible evidence of anyone stating that they were convinced he did not have wmd's, please provide. (sorry, i have no interest in searching for something i do not believe exists.)



Saddam was a grave threat
By Robert J. Lieber
We now hear the argument that since weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have not ? so far ? been found in Iraq, there has been a massive intelligence failure, and we never should have gone to war. But failure to find stockpiles does not mean the ultimate peril did not exist. Far more important were Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's history, capability and intent, and the serious and long-term threat he posed to a vital region, to America's allies and to our national security.

First, Saddam had used WMD ? against Iran in the mid-1980s, and he later used them against his own people, killing more than 5,000 civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988.

Second, Saddam had possessed WMD, as he acknowledged to the United Nations after his ouster from Kuwait in February 1991. Moreover, until at least the early 1990s, U.S., British, French, German and Israeli intelligence agencies had underestimated his biological and nuclear programs. And all of them ? along with the Clinton administration, the U.N. and both supporters and opponents of last year's war ? assumed Saddam still had substantial quantities of WMD.

Third, Saddam had maintained the capability to produce WMD. In 1991, the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) discovered that Iraq possessed a workable design for an implosion-type nuclear weapon though not yet the necessary fissile material. If the material could be obtained elsewhere ? from Russia, Pakistan or North Korea ? Iraq was believed able to produce a bomb within a year. Iraq retained facilities as well as teams of scientists and engineers. And during the past year, the Iraq Survey Group, the U.S. inspection team, discovered a program to develop long-range missiles. The overall evidence led the team's head, David Kay, to say "Iraq was in clear violation" of a U.N. resolution demanding full accounting of WMD.

Fourth, Saddam had the intent. After the withdrawal of U.N. inspectors in 1998 and the erosion of international support for sanctions, Saddam counted on being free sooner or later to fully resume oil sales and rebuild his weapons. He continued to menace his neighbors, brutalize his people and cooperate with terrorist groups. He told Arab journalists in late 2002 that he was playing for time in the face of renewed American and coalition pressure.

In the aftermath of 9/11 and as murderously evident in Madrid, it is far better to act decisively against the most lethal threats rather than hope to deter them or to retaliate following a mass casualty attack. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said, 9/11 altered the balance of risk. Ultimately, the nature of Saddam's regime, his record of aggression and his capability and intent posed a major strategic threat. Despite the bitter and often partisan controversies that have erupted about the path to war, the case for the use of force remains compelling.

Robert J. Lieber is a professor of government and foreign affairs at Georgetown University. His forthcoming book is titled The American Era: A Guilt-Free Guide to Foreign Policy.

[pilferk]

The resolution doesn't say "We think you have them, turn them over".? The resolution says "We want to make SURE that your claims you don't have them are true, and that you can't develop them in the future".? The wording is pretty specific.? It's talking about "clean up" of the Gulf War weapons (look at the resolution dates).

exactly, then what problem did you have with going in and making sure he didnt when he wouldnt disclose how and when he got rid of them..?
because we all know he 'did' have them?

you're making my argument for me otherwise.

You're rewriting history again.

He DID disclose and comply.? And by the deadline given. I posted the links.? UN inspectors were on the ground and he provided a 12000 page document with the information requested.?

And he didn't have 'em. None of the "expected" (by the US) WMD's materialized in the document because they didn't exist.

So, the US pointed at the fact that the documents he provided didn't show the WMD's they expected there to be (and didn't exist) and said he wasn't in compliance.? Catch-22, eh?? The UN, on the other hand, wasn't so sure, recognizing the Catch-22.? They felt, given Iraqs efforts to comply, that continued inspections would be the way to go.?

Some of the information provided was innacurate, but not a lot of it.? And the UN inspection teams looked at the document and said they could easily handle the leg work in tracking down the innacuracies, and that, given what they were, Iraq was, as they thought all along, not a threat.

he USED to have wmd's! that is a fact. therefore, the UN resolution wanted proof that he got rid of them. he never provided that proof.

here is an article from the USA Today. (i have no idea who this writer is and he could be a far right winger for all i know.) he argues that most of the world believed he still had WMDs.

again, if you have credible evidence of anyone stating that they were convinced he did not have wmd's, please provide. (sorry, i have no interest in searching for something i do not believe exists.)



Saddam was a grave threat
By Robert J. Lieber
We now hear the argument that since weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have not ? so far ? been found in Iraq, there has been a massive intelligence failure, and we never should have gone to war. But failure to find stockpiles does not mean the ultimate peril did not exist. Far more important were Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's history, capability and intent, and the serious and long-term threat he posed to a vital region, to America's allies and to our national security.

First, Saddam had used WMD ? against Iran in the mid-1980s, and he later used them against his own people, killing more than 5,000 civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988.

Second, Saddam had possessed WMD, as he acknowledged to the United Nations after his ouster from Kuwait in February 1991. Moreover, until at least the early 1990s, U.S., British, French, German and Israeli intelligence agencies had underestimated his biological and nuclear programs. And all of them ? along with the Clinton administration, the U.N. and both supporters and opponents of last year's war ? assumed Saddam still had substantial quantities of WMD.

Third, Saddam had maintained the capability to produce WMD. In 1991, the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) discovered that Iraq possessed a workable design for an implosion-type nuclear weapon though not yet the necessary fissile material. If the material could be obtained elsewhere ? from Russia, Pakistan or North Korea ? Iraq was believed able to produce a bomb within a year. Iraq retained facilities as well as teams of scientists and engineers. And during the past year, the Iraq Survey Group, the U.S. inspection team, discovered a program to develop long-range missiles. The overall evidence led the team's head, David Kay, to say "Iraq was in clear violation" of a U.N. resolution demanding full accounting of WMD.

Fourth, Saddam had the intent. After the withdrawal of U.N. inspectors in 1998 and the erosion of international support for sanctions, Saddam counted on being free sooner or later to fully resume oil sales and rebuild his weapons. He continued to menace his neighbors, brutalize his people and cooperate with terrorist groups. He told Arab journalists in late 2002 that he was playing for time in the face of renewed American and coalition pressure.

In the aftermath of 9/11 and as murderously evident in Madrid, it is far better to act decisively against the most lethal threats rather than hope to deter them or to retaliate following a mass casualty attack. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said, 9/11 altered the balance of risk. Ultimately, the nature of Saddam's regime, his record of aggression and his capability and intent posed a major strategic threat. Despite the bitter and often partisan controversies that have erupted about the path to war, the case for the use of force remains compelling.

Robert J. Lieber is a professor of government and foreign affairs at Georgetown University. His forthcoming book is titled The American Era: A Guilt-Free Guide to Foreign Policy.

I said he used to have 'em.? And that they wanted proof he didn't anymore.? Thats precisely the point of my posts.? You just said it: The resolution wasn't about KNOWING he had them, it was about making sure he he didn't have them any longer.? You just said it yourself.  And he DID provide proof (after the resolution was passed, of course, and I'm sure you probably meant he didn't provide proof PRIOR to the resolution)...12000 pages and allowing UN inspectors access.  It took him forever, and he went kicking and screaming, but he did it...in 12000 pages of black and white and blue helmets in his country.

And your article, as posted, is an op/ed piece, not a declaration that any countries shared that opinion.

In addition, please don't rewrite what I've written, or misrepresent what I've said.? I didn't say that countries were convinced he did not have WMD's.? I said, by and large, they WEREN'T sure, one way or the other. Uncertainty, rather than certainty. They wanted proof.? That's what the resolution was all about...proving things one way or the other.? There was enough contradicting evidence that they were unwilling to act, categorically and violently.? Many of them had direct intel that contradicted the assertion that Iraq possessed WMD's.? That's the whole point.

Remember, the crux of OUR discussion goes back to me saying you're assigning certainty where there wasn't any. ANY, at that point.? For either side.? ? Hence, why the Resolution was adopted.