That's a UN resolution. Not a ceasefire agreement between the US and Iraq. Try again.
You didn't read it, did you?
That resolution established the terms of the ceasefire. I guess you're dismissing it as not constituting a ceasefire because it's in the form of a UN resolution? That's dumb.
I gave you the resolution. All you had to do was Google it and you would have found the resolution. Contained in the resolution is the following:
Conscious of the need to take the following measures acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire;
This is the resolution adopted by the Security Council, hence it's Chapter 7 designation, of which the US is a member and under which Iraq was obligated to satisfy.
So, not only are you ignorant of the basic facts in this discussion, but when presented such facts you continue to ignore them...how do you account for that?
Oh for goodness sake. It's obvious my opinion. And many others. I've never claimed it was some official authoritarian determination.
I know it's your opinion. I am telling you that it lacks authority. Hence, it's not very credible.
For other person who could possibly similarly confused, for the record, I make statements and opinions on my own behalf and do not represent some official or authoritarian entity. My statements such as
If Iraq had had WMDs they had had them for 20 years and never supplied them to terrorists. Iraq was no more an urgent threat in Mar 2003 than it was in the previous 20 years.
Iraq was no urgent threat to the US justifying invasion and occupation. The urgent threat was a pretext fabricated by the neocons to generate support for their predisposed plan to assert US control in the ME.
constitute my opinions, based on facts and arguments as I have presented.
No one says they are not your opinions or that you're attempting to pass them off as representative of anyone else's. I merely pointed out that your opinion lacks authority, i.e., credibility.
It was the assessment of the lead UN inspector. In that same report he commented on how the Iraqs were being very cooperative.
Very cooperative? Nowhere does Blix describe it as such. In fact, he describes some improved cooperation while also citing lack of cooperation.
The fact of the matter, though, is that Blix didn't say in that report, as you contend that he was ready within months to conclude that Iraq had completely disarmed. He was speculating that with a not-yet adopted Iraqi positive attitude that such might be determinable within months.
At worst, Blix's assessment might have been wrong, and after a few months he'd report that the Iraqis had stopped cooperating, in which case there would have been more justification for some military action, and quite possibly the UN would have thought so as well.
Irrelevant. Your point was that Blix was ready to make such a determination of complete disarmament within months and you cited the 2003 March report as evidence of this. That report doesn't substantiate your assertion as I clearly showed above.
Given that if Iraq had possession of WMD, they'd had them for 20 years, waiting a few months to make this determination, as well as re-assessing intellegence, would have been the prudent thing to do.
We had been waiting 10+ years, not a few months.
But inconsistent with the neocons predisposed goal of removing Hussein by force, as stated in places like the Downing Street Memo and the Project for a New American Century, in which Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz and others in the Bush administration where founding supporters.
Now, in addition, to abusing the phrase, "neocon" you're abusing governmental documents, too. The Downing Street Memo didn't reveal a neocon goal of removing Hussein. It reflected, as I have noted here before, a fourth-hand account of a discussion of Bush administration principals and British government officials. That memo has been used to suggest that Bush was attempting to manipulate intelligence because the fourth-hand account used the word "fix" to describe the process of gathering intelligence. Now, to argue that you have ignore the British use of the word, "fix" as well as ignore the SSCI's conclusion that no intelligence had been manipulated. And why would it need to be manipulated given that the intelligence estimates given to Bush hardly varied from those issued to the Clinton administration?
Disagree, as demonstrated by Blix's own words. He clearly indicated that it was possible for him to complete his task within months. Others can read them and determine for themselves.
It was only possible if, as Blix also stated, that the Iraqis adopted a positive attitude which had Iraq adopted such an attitude Blix would have no reason to qualify his speculation about completing the inspections as he did in that report.
