Bush was warned there were no WMD, says former CIA man

[germanos]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
If it wasn't for the U.N. Hessein would have been taken easily, and all this avoided.

If it wasn't for the UN, you would have been in the same mess as you are now, only since 1990.

[RGBVideo]

"The revelation

Need I continue?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by dannubis

150 000 Iraqis dead. Is that all ?

Is that the number now? Of course, had we not invaded and instead played around with the sanctions, people would be claiming hundreds of thousands dead because of teh evil sanctions and blame us for that too. Furthermore, while one can certainly argue that the deaths are at least partly our fault, there are two other issues: 1) Many (most?) of the deaths are caused by other Iraqis or jihadis from the surrounding countries; 2) Saddam was brutal, and there are various estimates of how many people he killed per annum.

Please do not construe the above as a defense of the war, which is it not.

-Arrian

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Bull****. The United Nations mandated it, not the USA.
If it wasn't for the U.N. Hessein would have been taken easily, and all this avoided.

Which UN resolution specifically mandated the no fly zones?

[chequita guevara]

Damnit! I wanted to do this thread.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I think there's a reason the UK honestly thought Saddam had or could construst weapons.

One, the UK's government was lying or two, the US lied to the UK and the UK believed it, or Three, both.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Can you explain how responding to a breech of a cease fire makes combat illegal by international law?

Yes, under the U.N. Charter treaty, a country may only respond with enough force to repell an external threat, unless authorized by the security council to go further. This is a treaty which the United States signed and ratified, and thus has the force of law under our Constitution. When we invaded Iraq, we violated not only international law, but our own law. If Iraq violated a cease-fire, it is legal for us to respond to remove the threat . . . no more.

On top of that, Bush lied to Congress, which is a crime, a serious crime. Not only is it an impeachable offense, it is a felony. If Bush went to Congress and said, we need to invade Iraq because he is violating the cease-fire, it is not believable that Congress would have agreed.

[SlowwHand]

1441, Che. Read it, finally. You're making communists look stupid. Oh wait a second.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
Is that the number now?

"Offically," the number of Iraq dead is at 30,000. "Offical" in that it's the number most American media will use if forced to give a number. The Lancet used statistical sampling to come up with a much larger number, but because of their methodology, it didn't actually go as high as their data showed it should. The factored out exceptionally high areas of death, like Falluja, and so their number of 100,000 dead would have come out as 300,000 dead.

One needs to consider that this this number isn't the number of people directly killed by the U.S. That's what the 30,000 number tracks. The larger number also tracks those killed by the insurgency as well as people who've died because of the collapsed infrastructure (rampant crime, no health care, no jobs, polluted water, etc.).

Something to consider, that's the same numbr of Iraqis as Hussein is accused of killing during his 30 year reign of terror (not including war dead from the Iran-Iraq war or who died because of sanctions). He did it in 30. We did it in three.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
1441, Che. Read it, finally. You're making communists look stupid. Oh wait a second.

I have read it. Multiple times. It doesn't say what you think it says. Do they even teach Texans how to read?

[SlowwHand]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,863569,00.html

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

http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/iraq/unscr1441.htm

Pick a reference, any reference. Two U.N. , a British publication, and an Arab. Just read.

[chequita guevara]

I suppose your answer then, is a no, they don't teach Texans how to read.

Show us the paragraph where it says the United States is authroized to use force to invade Iraq and overthrow the government?

[chequita guevara]

Surprise, surprise, no Texas rebuttal.

[Urban Ranger]

To add to che's point, if UNSC resolution 1441 did authorise the US to use force, Powell wouldn't need to lie to the UNSC in an attempt to get that very authorisation.

[germanos]

And offcourse the question remains that if 1441 was based on deliberate lies provided by the US and UK, what would that do to the legality of the invasion? (provided it was given in the first place)