1,200 -- November 16, 2004 -- 608th day

[BBond]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TheNoblePlatypus
It's sad to think that these people arguing for the current administration aren't even on the payroll either. There seems to be a lot of hard work being put into supporting Bushs' lies.

I haven't really seen any of them beat back Conjur's actual facts with anything yet. Except one of them did say "These are facts you cannot change.", without providing any facts or evidence of the "facts". I don't know if that counts or not.

It most certainly does not. CsG is the king of obfuscation and ambiguity and holds everyone to a higher standard than himself.

It's a pity that people like him have no problem with 1,200 American soldiers having lost their lives for a lie.

It's a pity that so many Americans continue to make excuses for the people who misled us to war, refuse to recognize the truth and hold George Bush and his neocon maniacs accountable.

agreed, it's sad to see people still trying to justify the reasons for going into this war at this point. it's also interesting to note how CAD and others got real quiet. kinda hard to argue against the facts isn't it?

No, troll, I didn't get real quiet if you are trying to insinuate that I tucked tail and ran. Some of us WORK for a living during the day, but hey - you can be my guest if you want to build and program these panels for me.

Anyway, if you rabid Bush haters want to keep telling yourself that it was the sole justification - go ahead but it shows your willing ignorance if you do.

CsG

Bush Bushits America into this debacle in Iraq all based on lies, you still won't admit the truth even though it's now public knowledge, and you have the nerve to suggest it is we who are ignorant.

:roll:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
conjur - try thinking for once. You made a claim that gets repeated here often. It is a false claim. There were many justifications for taking action against Saddam - not just one "sole justification", and as I said - many of those justifications can stand on their own.

You can try to quote whatever you wish - it doesn't change the facts.

CsG

More bleating and obfuscating from King Obfuscator.

You can't handle the fact that I'm right and you're 100% wrong on this. The sole justification given to the Senate and the UN for invading Iraq was the known stockpiles of WMDs. Saddam being a dictator was not sufficient reason to invade Iraq. The humanitarian crisis was not justification for invading Iraq. Iraq being a state sponsor of terror (very tenuous claim, at best) was not justification for invading Iraq.

But, go ahead bleating your Bush-God fanboi talking points and living with your head in the sand. You'll lead a very blissful life that way.

How about you start accepting some truth for a change, CsG, and stop with your incessant, unproven bleating?

Why don't you start by re-reading what I posted earlier. Here I'll help you remember since I know you're out of marbles...

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Moral right to invade? WTF?


Uh....WMDs? Where are they?

Those were the sole justification given for the invasion. Why do you chickenhawks keep forgetting that?

There was nothing to forget. You and others seem to be obsessed with the idea that WMDs were the only justification for acting against Saddam. That would be factually incorrect as shown by legislation passed giving President Bush the authority to use force as he saw fit.

But hey - keep telling yourself whatever you wish...

CsG

Now then - tell me how that squares with THIS.

Meh - I'm sure you and the other rage-blinded leftists will continue to bleat your nonsense -but it doesn't mean it's the truth.

CsG

It fits perfectly.

[irrelevant to this issue quote snipped]

Do you understand what that means, CsG? It seems you don't.

The Senate was convinced by Powell that WMDs were the sole justification. Whatever else was in that resolution didn't matter. Without the claim that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMDs, the vote would never have passed.

Wrong. You obviously haven't replaced your reading marble yet. That resolution provides more than just a "sole" justification - however I'm not surprised that you and others completely ignore everything but WMDs in it. There were plenty of justifications to remove Saddam - many would stand on their own.

However with Saddam apologists like you all here - it's no wonder you don't think there was any other justification...

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Anyway, if you rabid Bush haters want to keep telling yourself that it was the sole justification - go ahead but it shows your willing ignorance if you do.

CsG

The only willing ignorance is your own hiding from the truth. What proof do you have that all of us are wrong?

I've already provided the reasons you are wrong in what you keep claiming, you just can't/won't admit it yet - probably due to your blind rage hatred of Bush.

CsG

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Anyway, if you rabid Bush haters want to keep telling yourself that it was the sole justification - go ahead but it shows your willing ignorance if you do.

CsG

The only willing ignorance is your own hiding from the truth. What proof do you have that all of us are wrong?

I've already provided the reasons you are wrong in what you keep claiming, you just can't/won't admit it yet - probably due to your blind rage hatred of Bush.

CsG

Well, there's just no use arguing the point with you any longer. You've crossed the line between reality and fantasy and nothing anyone can say, obviously, can get you to cross back.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Anyway, if you rabid Bush haters want to keep telling yourself that it was the sole justification - go ahead but it shows your willing ignorance if you do.

CsG

The only willing ignorance is your own hiding from the truth. What proof do you have that all of us are wrong?

I've already provided the reasons you are wrong in what you keep claiming, you just can't/won't admit it yet - probably due to your blind rage hatred of Bush.

CsG

Well, there's just no use arguing the point with you any longer. You've crossed the line between reality and fantasy and nothing anyone can say, obviously, can get you to cross back.

Exactly how I feel about you rabid Bush haters. Your 'Bush hate' bubble world is all consuming and has blinded you to the reality of the situation. I understand you can't allow yourself to look at what I've said objectively because it goes against your Bush hatred -but atleast make an attempt at it.

WMDs was not the "sole" justification - nor was it ever. It may be true the action wouldn't have been supported as widely as it was - but there were other justifications that supported the removal of Saddam - like I've said. For you or other Saddam apologists to claim otherwise shows your ignorance of the situation.

CsG

 

[BBond]

1,200 -- November 16, 2004 -- 608th day
All due to Bush's lies...

 

[BBond]

The total number of American troops who have died for Bush's lies is now one thousand two hundred and twelve

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BBond
1,200 -- November 16, 2004 -- 608th day
All due to Bush's lies...

I believe that I will take a share in that Burden of the 1200 souls, if that is okay with you? After-all, I was part of the political process that put him into office. That being said, I believe that you were a part of the Political process that failed to remove him from office. Are you man enough to share the burden with me?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Anyway, if you rabid Bush haters want to keep telling yourself that it was the sole justification - go ahead but it shows your willing ignorance if you do.

CsG

The only willing ignorance is your own hiding from the truth. What proof do you have that all of us are wrong?

I've already provided the reasons you are wrong in what you keep claiming, you just can't/won't admit it yet - probably due to your blind rage hatred of Bush.

CsG

Wow...just..wow.

What is this proof you've provided in this thread? Your opinion? The White House page of the resolution passed by the Senate that I've already explained?

You've offered nothing.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I've already provided the reasons you are wrong in what you keep claiming, you just can't/won't admit it yet - probably due to your blind rage hatred of Bush.

CsG

Wow...just..wow.

What is this proof you've provided in this thread? Your opinion? The White House page of the resolution passed by the Senate that I've already explained?

You've offered nothing.

And he will keep offering it, over and over and over. I don't think he understands that 100 times Zero is still zero.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BBond
The total number of American troops who have died for Bush's lies is now one thousand two hundred and twelve

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I've already provided the reasons you are wrong in what you keep claiming, you just can't/won't admit it yet - probably due to your blind rage hatred of Bush.

CsG

Wow...just..wow.

What is this proof you've provided in this thread? Your opinion? The White House page of the resolution passed by the Senate that I've already explained?

You've offered nothing.

And he will keep offering it, over and over and over. I don't think he understands that 100 times Zero is still zero.

You guys are a trip. You mean to tell me that after reading the joint resolution - you still think the "sole" justification was WMD? Your case of Saddam apologist is worse than I previously thought...

It's pathetic how much people's hatred of Bush has blinded them.

CsG

 

[BBond]

The Generals Speak

Seven retired military leaders discuss what has gone wrong in Iraq

By PAUL ALEXANDER

The nineteen months since the war in Iraq began, some of the most outspoken critics of President Bush's plan of attack have come from a group that should have been the most supportive: retired senior military leaders. We spoke with a group of generals and admirals that included a former supreme Allied commander and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and they all agreed on one thing: Bush screwed up.

Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak
Air Force chief of staff, 1990-94
We have a force in Iraq that's much too small to stabilize the situation. It's about half the size, or maybe even a third, of what we need. As a consequence, the insurgency seems to be gathering momentum. We are losing people at a fairly steady rate of about two a day; wounded, about four or five times that, and perhaps half of these wounds are very serious. And we are also sustaining gunshot wounds, when, before, we'd mostly been seeing massive trauma from remotely detonated charges. This means the other side is standing and fighting in a way that describes a more dangerous phase of the conflict.

The people in control in the Pentagon and the White House live in a fantasy world. They actually thought everyone would just line up and vote for a new democracy and you would have a sort of Denmark with oil. I blame Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the people behind him -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary Douglas Feith. The vice president himself should probably be included; certainly his wife. These so-called neocons: These people have no real experience in life. They are utopian thinkers, idealists, very smart, and they have the courage of their convictions, so it makes them doubly dangerous.

The parallels between Iraq and Vietnam have been overblown, because we were in Vietnam for a decade and it cost us 58,000 troops. We've been in Iraq for nineteen months and we're still under 1,200 killed. But there is one sense in which the parallel with Vietnam is valid. The American people were told that to win the Cold War we had to win Vietnam. But we now know that Vietnam was not only a diversion from winning the Cold War but probably delayed our winning it and made it cost more to win. Iraq is a diversion to the war on terror in exactly the same way Vietnam was a diversion to the Cold War.

Adm. Stansfield Turner
NATO Allied commander for Southern Europe, 1975-77; CIA director, 1977-81
I think we are in a real mess. There are eighty-seven attacks on Americans every day, and our people in Baghdad can't even leave the International Zone without being heavily armored. I think we are in trouble because we were so slow in terms of reconstruction and reconstituting the military and police forces. We have lost the support of the Iraqi people who were glad to see Saddam go. But they are not glad to see an outside force come in and replace him without demonstrating we are going to provide them with security and rebuild their economy. I am very frustrated. Having a convincing rationale for going in gives our troops a sense of purpose. Whatever you call it, this is now an insurgency using the techniques of terrorism. With the borders poorly guarded, the terrorists come in. All in all, Iraq is a failure of monumental proportions.

Lt. Gen. William Odom
Director of the National Security Agency, 1985-88
It's a huge strategic disaster, and it will only get worse. The sooner we leave, the less the damage. In the months since the invasion, the U.S. forces have become involved in trying to repress a number of insurgency movements. This is the way we were fighting in Vietnam, and if we keep on fighting this way, this one is going to go on a long time too. The idea of creating a constitutional state in a short amount of time is a joke. It will take ten to fifteen years, and that is if we want to kill ten percent of the population.

Gen. Anthony Zinni
Commander in chief of the United States Central Command, 1997-2000
The first phase of the war in Iraq, the conventional phase, the major combat phase, was brilliantly done. Tommy Franks' approach to methodically move up and attack quickly probably saved a great humanitarian disaster. But the military was unprepared for the aftermath. Rumsfeld and others thought we would be greeted with roses and flowers.

When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of Iraq, and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn't need that many people to defeat the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath. We knew that we would find ourselves in a situation where we had completely uprooted an authoritarian government and would need to freeze the situation: retain control, retain order, provide security, seal the borders to keep terrorists from coming in.

When I left in 2000, General Franks took over. Franks was my ground-component commander, so he was well aware of the plan. He had participated in it; those were the numbers he wanted. So what happened between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don't know, because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though General Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original number.

Did we have to do this? I saw the intelligence right up to the day of the war, and I did not see any imminent threat there. If anything, Saddam was coming apart. The sanctions were working. The containment was working. He had a hollow military, as we saw. If he had weapons of mass destruction, it was leftover stuff -- artillery shells and rocket rounds. He didn't have the delivery systems. We controlled the skies and seaports. We bombed him at will. All of this happened under U.N. authority. I mean, we had him by the throat. But the president was being convinced by the neocons that down the road we would regret not taking him out.

Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy
Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence, 1997-2000
From the beginning, i was asked which side I took, Shinseki's or Rumsfeld's. And I said Shinseki. I mean, Rumsfeld proudly announced that he had told General Franks to fight this war with different tactics in which they would bypass enemy strongholds and enemy resistance and keep on moving. But it was shocking to me that the secretary of defense would tell the Army how to fight. He doesn't know how to fight; he has no business telling them. It's completely within civilian authority to tell you where to fight, what our major objective is, but it is absolutely no one's business but uniformed military to tell you how to do the job. To me, it was astonishing that Rumsfeld would presume to tell four-star generals, in the Army thirty-five years, how to do their jobs.

Now here's another thing that Rumsfeld did. As he was being briefed on the war plan, he was cherry-picking the units to go. In other words, he didn't just approve the deployment list, he went down the list and skipped certain units that were at a higher degree of readiness to go and picked units that were lower on the list -- for reasons we don't know. But here's the impact: Recently, at an event, a mother told me how her son had been recruited and trained as a cook. Three weeks before he deployed to Iraq, he was told he was now a gunner. And they gave him training for three weeks, and then off he went.

Rumsfeld was profoundly in the dark. I think he really didn't understand what he was doing. He miscalculated the kind of war it was and he miscalculated the interpretation of U.S. behavior by the Iraqi people. They felt they had been invaded. They did not see this as a liberation.

As for the recent news about the 380 tons of explosives that disappeared, it's irrelevant when they disappeared. This was known by the International Atomic Energy Agency as a site to be watched. Here is the issue: Bush tried to turn this into a political matter instead of answering questions about why he didn't follow the warnings of the IAEA. It was another example of Bush being a cheerleader instead of a leader. Nothing in Iraq was guarded except for the oil fields, which tells you why we were there. There are any number of indications that with a larger troop strength we would have been able to deal with such sites. Here is my other concern: The IAEA gave us a list of sites to be watched, so there may have been other dumps that were looted. After all, you don't just put one item on a list.

So what do we do? I think it would be very irresponsible for us to simply pull out. It sounds like a very simple solution, but it would have some complexity and danger attached. Still, Iraq is a blood bath, and we need to be dealing with this in a much more sophisticated way than the cowboy named Bush.

Gen. Wesley Clark
NATO supreme Allied commander for Europe, 1997-2000
Troop strength was not the only problem. We got into this mess because the Bush administration decided what they really wanted to do was to invade Iraq, and then the only question was, for what reason? They developed two or three different reasons. It wasn't until the last minute that they came up and said, "Hey, by the way, we are going to create a wave of democracy across the Middle East." That was February of 2003, and by that time they hadn't planned anything. In October of 2003, Donald Rumsfeld wrote a memo asking questions that should have been asked in 2001: Do we have an overall strategy to win the war on terror? Do we have the right organization to win the war on terror? How are we going to know if we are not winning the war on terror? As it has turned out, the guys on the ground are doing what they are told to do. But let's ask this question: Have you seen an American strategic blunder this large? The answer is: not in fifty years. I can't imagine when the last one was. And it's not just about troop strength. I mean, you will fail if you don't have enough troops, but simply adding troops won't make you succeed.

Adm. William Crowe
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985-89
We screwed up. we were intent on a quick victory with smaller forces, and we felt if we had a military victory everything else would fall in place. We would be viewed not as occupiers but as victors. We would draw down to 30,000 people within the first sixty days.

All of this was sheer nonsense.They thought that once Iraq fell we'd have a similar effect throughout the Middle East and terrorism would evaporate, blah, blah, blah. All of these were terrible assumptions. A State Department study advising otherwise was sent to Rumsfeld, but he threw it in the wastebasket. He overrode the military and was just plain stubborn on numbers. Finally the military said OK, and they totally underestimated the impact the desert had on our equipment and the kind of troops we would need for peacekeeping. They ignored Shinseki. The Marines were advising the same way. But the military can only go so far. Once the civilian leadership decides otherwise, the military is obliged.

There is not a very good answer for what to do next. We've pulled out of several places without achieving our objectives, and every time we predicted the end of Western civilization, which it was not. We left Korea after not achieving anything we wanted to do, and it didn't hurt us very much. We left Vietnam -- took us ten years to come around to doing it -- but we didn't achieve what we wanted. Everyone said it would set back our foreign policy in East Asia for ten years. It set it back about two months. Our allies thought we were crazy to be in Vietnam.

We could have the same thing happen this time in Iraq. If we walk away, we are still the number-one superpower in the world. There will be turmoil in Iraq, and how that will affect our oil supply, I don't know. But the question to ask is: Is what we are achieving in Iraq worth what we're paying? Weighing the good against the bad, we have got to get out.


(Posted Nov 03, 2004)

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You guys are a trip. You mean to tell me that after reading the joint resolution - you still think the "sole" justification was WMD? Your case of Saddam apologist is worse than I previously thought...

It's pathetic how much people's hatred of Bush has blinded them.

CsG

It was all filler.


Yet again, Powell's testimony before the Senate:

SEN. SARBANES: Fine. All right. Now, I want to take you through the rest of them. Do you want authority to go to war in order to accomplish compliance with those resolutions --

SEC. POWELL: The president hasn't asked for any authority -- the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements.

Do you understand what that means, CsG? It seems you don't.

The Senate was convinced by Powell that WMDs were the sole justification. Whatever else was in that resolution didn't matter. Without the claim that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMDs, the vote would never have passed.



And we have the UK's legal justification for invading Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/.../17/sprj.irq.uk.legal/

"Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:

"1. In resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

"2. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.

"3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.

"4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

"5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

"6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

"7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

"8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.

"9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.

"I have lodged a copy of this answer, together with resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 in the Library of both Houses."

It was all about the WMDs.

 

[conjur]

When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of Iraq, and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn't need that many people to defeat the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath. We knew that we would find ourselves in a situation where we had completely uprooted an authoritarian government and would need to freeze the situation: retain control, retain order, provide security, seal the borders to keep terrorists from coming in.

When I left in 2000, General Franks took over. Franks was my ground-component commander, so he was well aware of the plan. He had participated in it; those were the numbers he wanted. So what happened between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don't know, because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though General Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original number.

Wow...that says it all.

Rumsfeld's War, indeed. One of the best PBS Frontline documentaries yet (on Rumsfeld's "transformation" of the armed forces.)

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond
1,200 -- November 16, 2004 -- 608th day
All due to Bush's lies...

I believe that I will take a share in that Burden of the 1200 souls, if that is okay with you? After-all, I was part of the political process that put him into office. That being said, I believe that you were a part of the Political process that failed to remove him from office. Are you man enough to share the burden with me?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You guys are a trip. You mean to tell me that after reading the joint resolution - you still think the "sole" justification was WMD? Your case of Saddam apologist is worse than I previously thought...

It's pathetic how much people's hatred of Bush has blinded them.

CsG

It was all filler.

[irrelevant to this issue quotes and tripe snipped]

It was all about the WMDs.

<sigh>

No, WMD was not the "sole" justification and you can't just dismiss the resolution as "filler" It was a rather nice pathetic attempt though.

CsG

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond
1,200 -- November 16, 2004 -- 608th day
All due to Bush's lies...

I believe that I will take a share in that Burden of the 1200 souls, if that is okay with you? After-all, I was part of the political process that put him into office. That being said, I believe that you were a part of the Political process that failed to remove him from office. Are you man enough to share the burden with me?

How on Earth can you expect 56 million people who voted against Bush to take responsibility for 59 million who were stupid enough to vote for him?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You guys are a trip. You mean to tell me that after reading the joint resolution - you still think the "sole" justification was WMD? Your case of Saddam apologist is worse than I previously thought...

It's pathetic how much people's hatred of Bush has blinded them.

CsG

It was all filler.

[irrelevant to this issue quotes and tripe snipped]

It was all about the WMDs.

<sigh>

No, WMD was not the "sole" justification and you can't just dismiss the resolution as "filler" It was a rather nice pathetic attempt though.

CsG

Ok, Al Gore. Take your <sigh> and stick it. You know I'm telling the truth. You're just arguing to be the troll you are.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You guys are a trip. You mean to tell me that after reading the joint resolution - you still think the "sole" justification was WMD? Your case of Saddam apologist is worse than I previously thought...

It's pathetic how much people's hatred of Bush has blinded them.

CsG

It was all filler.


Yet again, Powell's testimony before the Senate:

SEN. SARBANES: Fine. All right. Now, I want to take you through the rest of them. Do you want authority to go to war in order to accomplish compliance with those resolutions --

SEC. POWELL: The president hasn't asked for any authority -- the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements.

Do you understand what that means, CsG? It seems you don't.

The Senate was convinced by Powell that WMDs were the sole justification. Whatever else was in that resolution didn't matter. Without the claim that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMDs, the vote would never have passed.



And we have the UK's legal justification for invading Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/.../17/sprj.irq.uk.legal/

"Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:

"1. In resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

"2. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.

"3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.

"4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

"5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

"6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

"7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

"8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.

"9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.

"I have lodged a copy of this answer, together with resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 in the Library of both Houses."

It was all about the WMDs.

Come on, CsG.

Show me that Powell was lying when he said it was only the WMDs.

Show me how the British were lying when they found only WMDs provided a legal justification for the invasion.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
However with Saddam apologists like you all here

ROFL. You can just hear this halfwit saying this.
Ole' GWB is my daddy and whatever he says must be right. Yeehaw partner.

I have no hope for my country. Not with morons of this ilk running the show.

I completely believed the Bush administration's claims about Iraq before the war... then slowly I started to realise how stupid and naive I had been to wrap my self in my flag, blind myself to reality, and keep mumbling to myself 'my country right or wrong' despite mounting evidence.

Fuck America if Bush and CAD and cwjerome represent what we are now... let it burn. Good riddance.

 

[randym431]

Many people like me see the value in changing the landscape of the Middle East, and the good that can come of it long-run. We had the moral right to invade, and it's what's best for this country and the world. And many people like me will offer our immense gratitude and respect for our military men and women who are doing a spectacular job in a most noble endeavor.

Makes me remember another war where this thinking was popular, for awhile. Can we say "Vietnam"? So, your going to change these people's thinking to one like "ours", and they will "like it"?
Hell, we cant even get YOU to realize Bush is a awful, just awful leader. So much for making people "think" your way. How many dead till you realize the fact? I can email you the forms to enlist if you like.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Come on, CsG.

Show me that Powell was lying when he said it was only the WMDs.

Show me how the British were lying when they found only WMDs provided a legal justification for the invasion.

:roll: This isn't about what Powell said, nor is it about what the Brits did. This is about the justification of removing Saddam. WMD was NOT the "sole" justification -despite you and the other Saddam apologists repeating it over and over and over again.
The Joint Resolution speaks for itself as do the numerous UNFULFILLED requirements of the cease-fire agreement and the subsequent UN resolutions. But hey - if WMDs was the only justification in your mind -so be it - just quit claiming it was the "sole" justification -because it clearly was not.

CsG

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond
1,200 -- November 16, 2004 -- 608th day
All due to Bush's lies...

I believe that I will take a share in that Burden of the 1200 souls, if that is okay with you? After-all, I was part of the political process that put him into office. That being said, I believe that you were a part of the Political process that failed to remove him from office. Are you man enough to share the burden with me?

How on Earth can you expect the 56 million people who were stupid enough to vote against Bush to take responsibility for 59 million who voted for him?

I fixed your post and I have figured out that for you it is all about blame. It is so much more than that.
Now, In this country we operate on a political theory that we as a country select a president. After that we are one. That is our strength. If you want to tear that down, expect another countless 1200 soul milestones.

I have accepted my part in the responsibility for the deaths of the 1200 souls that you created a thread about, I would expect you and anyone with a spine to do the same. But I already know that you won't.

 

[Taejin]

The only reason this country got off it's ass to go to war was because it felt that WMDs that Saddam Hussein had were going to make it to US soil.

It doesn't matter how much you try to obfuscate the reason for going to war. The WMDs were the end-all, be-all argument in order to justify wasting billions of dollars and wasting American lives to go to war in Iraq.

Please stop your blind Bush parroting - you are the most deluded person I've seen on this forum.