6 months and NO Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Az]

since the inspectors could have pin-pointed him and made the way clear for a missile strike.

pin-pointed him? were they after him, or asking to meet him?
He could've allowed the inspectors into all facilities, and could've struck a later deal with the Clinton admin. to save his regime, and advance it.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by skywalker
So, his word is perfectly believable, but if they put it on paper it doesn't matter what they say?

I don't think either is particularly believable, personally, but you are irrational.

Don't create strawmen. I never said that his word was believable.

If you don't think that documentation is particularly believable, why are you concerned about their 'incomplete' documentation they sent to the UN? Would you have believed it if had been 'complete'? Of course not. The documentation was simply another hoop for the Iraqis to jump through, like the U-2 flights and wooden drones.

[Kuciwalker]

Ok then. If his word was believable, what was wrong with us not believing it? That's what you were implying.

If you don't think that documentation is particularly believable, why are you concerned about their 'incomplete' documentation they sent to the UN? Would you have believed it if had been 'complete'? Of course not. The documentation was simply another hoop for the Iraqis to jump through, like the U-2 flights and wooden drones.

It was a UN requirement.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Azazel
pin-pointed him? were they after him, or asking to meet him?
He could've allowed the inspectors into all facilities, and could've struck a later deal with the Clinton admin. to save his regime, and advance it.

All facilities means presidential sites as well, that is, places Saddam lives. Don't you remember the trouble caused when the inspectors weren't allowed into the presidential sites? And even then, we'd still have had the nonsense about hidden facilities and mobile labs. and double bluffs.

Striking a deal with the Clinton admin sounds like fantasy to me.

Ok then. If his word was believable, what was wrong with us not believing it? That's what you were implying.

Even though his word counted for next to nothing, there was next to no evidence that he had any illegal weapons.

It was a UN requirement

The UN never voted on whether Iraq had complied with 1441 (which the documents were part of), the US decided to go it alone.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by MrFun


Didn't Saddam Insane use chemical weapons on the Kurds in the early 1990s??

1988, I believe.

[Kuciwalker]

Even though his word counted for next to nothing, there was next to no evidence that he had any illegal weapons.

Except the fact that he used to have them and we saw no indication he'd gotten rid them.

The UN never voted on whether Iraq had complied with 1441 (which the documents were part of), the US decided to go it alone.

Actually, the UN never decided what the CONSEQUENCES would be. It was blatantly obvious that Iraq had violated 1441.

[Az]

All facilities means presidential sites as well, that is, places Saddam lives. Don't you remember the trouble caused when the inspectors weren't allowed into the presidential sites?

Bull****. "visiting presidential sites" doesn't mean "shaking Saddam's hand". He has tens of them all around the country. He doesn't have to actually be in one for the inspections to go on.

And even then, we'd still have had the nonsense about hidden facilities and mobile labs. and double bluffs.

Striking a deal with the Clinton admin sounds like fantasy to me.

Bull. You could see the complete lack of care by the Clinton admin when he actually drove the "spying" inspectors away.

[atawa]

Did anyone (even at the time the invasion started) believe this crap about WMD's?

It is and always has been about the oil and the main sponsors of Bush JR's presidential campaign.

And besides, any documentation would be considdered incomplete as long as there wasn't a paper saying "Yes we have WMD's and are funding AQ.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is and always has been about the oil

Thanks for the laught. Your first statement was true, but this one was totally false.

[atawa]

Then what is the reason according to you?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by atawa
It is and always has been about the oil

And doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is wrong, how?

[cinch]

Originally posted by skywalker


And doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is wrong, how?

Because you did it for the wrong reasons.

[PLATO]

Sure it was about the oil. That's why we are footing the bill now, right?

It is really all about power and influence. The financial aspect pales enormously when put up against that. Who will shape the future of the ME was the question? A traditional despotic system now trying (at the very least) to acquire WMD or a more "modern" or "western" democratic process. Given the huge number of people, the population growth, the religious fundamentalism, and the enormous energy resources, the direction this area was heading had to be changed. Was it a selfish move on the part of the US? Of course...We acted inour long term national interest. If your country didn't then maybe you should ask your government why.

It is one thing to not interfer in other nations soverignty...it is quite another to let the situation become one that can ultimately endanger your citizens.

What I am saying is that it was bull$hit to say what we did. We should have been honest and said we were doing what was in the long term interest of our people and to hell with you if you don't like it.

[Sandman]

Except the fact that he used to have them and we saw no indication he'd gotten rid them.

Except he didn't use them in the Gulf war, and his country was crippled by sanctions. Anyway, it was impossible for him to adequately prove the non-existance of illegal weapons to someone who was determined to go to war for that reason.

Actually, the UN never decided what the CONSEQUENCES would be. It was blatantly obvious that Iraq had violated 1441.

The reason they never decided is that America was scared it would lose the vote, and re-interpreted 1441 at the last minute, as was always their contingency plan.

Bull****. "visiting presidential sites" doesn't mean "shaking Saddam's hand". He has tens of them all around the country. He doesn't have to actually be in one for the inspections to go on.

He's a paranoid dictator with a good reason to be paranoid. Eventually the gain from giving the inspectors more freedom would be outwieghed by security concerns. In any case, no matter how much freedom the inspectors were given, the US would continue to press for more (standard invasion tactic, the ever-escalating unreasonable demands). Eventually Saddam would have to choose between giving the inspectors so much freedom that the country is no longer his, or refusing to cooperate any further.

Bull. You could see the complete lack of care by the Clinton admin when he actually drove the "spying" inspectors away.

Excuse me? They engaged in some serious bombing raids on at least one occasion, and they continued to enforce the sanctions and no-fly zones. They kept the conflict warm. There is no way that he could have made a deal with the Clinton admin.

[Spiffor]

I just would like to say that any person who justifies the war because of violations of UN resolutions is either a hypocrite or blind.

The US has "bypassed" (to say the least) the UN process, as no action has been decided. The UN never issued the right to attack Iraq (read it as you want, no military operation is planned in res. 1441), and the UN had not trusted such an operation to any given actor, US included.

The US blatantly mocked the UN process. So saying the US has attacked Iraq for the sake of the UN is pure bull****.

(I wonder how the Yanks here would have felt, if Iran had unilaterally attacked Iraq, "for the sake of the UN" )