- Joined
- Jan 29, 2011
- Messages
- 11,265
- Reaction score
- 2,921
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You said, "obviously, inspectors had not been there since [2002]."That is from 2002, just like in my link. So what are you talking about?
From my link:
Prior to the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1441 in November 2002 giving Iraq a “final opportunity” to comply with its disarmament requirements under previous Security Council resolutions. At issue was Iraq’s failure to provide an adequate accounting of its prohibited weapons programs or to convince UN inspectors that its weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed as Baghdad claimed.
UN weapons inspectors worked in Iraq from November 27, 2002 until March 18, 2003. During that time, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) conducted more than 900 inspections at more than 500 sites. The inspectors did not find that Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons or that it had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.
Although Iraq was cooperative on what inspectors called “process”—allowing inspectors access to suspected weapons sites, for example—it was only marginally cooperative in answering the questions surrounding its weapons programs. Unable to resolve its differences with Security Council members who favored strengthening and continuing weapons inspections, the United States abandoned the inspections process and initiated the invasion of Iraq on March 19.
Better than you, I suspect.
Errors all around then. He underestimated the stupidity of GW Bush. A lot of Americans did that too.
Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?
“The infrastructure, and the services … were bad, but now it is even worse.”Unemployment stands at 15 percent and youth unemployment at 30 percent, according to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Twenty-three percent of the population lives in extreme hunger, it adds.
“Iraq faces considerable challenges in sanitation,” according to a 2010 U.N. report. Only 26 percent of household are covered by the public sewage network, it added.
About two-thirds of homes depend on the public water supply as their primary source for drinking water, but a quarter of these reported that they got potable water for under two hours per day, according to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction’s January 2012 report.
Electricity is the worst-rated service in Iraq, according to the Iraq Knowledge Network, a monitoring system set up by the country’s planning ministry. Households get on average 7.6 hours of electricity from the national grid per day, it said.
Medical services leave much to be desired. In the region, only Yemen has a higher infant mortality rate, for example. Malaria, however, has been almost eliminated, according to the U.N.
“Maybe Iran has benefited more than any other country from what has happened, and some people even say America handed Iraq to Iran. But don’t forget the Iranian regime has had relations with all the Iraqi political forces when they were in the opposition, so this relation has continued after Saddam was toppled.”
Maria Fantappie, Iraq analyst, International Crisis Group:
“Iran's influence, and that of other powers, is directly proportional to the level of instability of the Iraqi government. Potential for Iranian influence increases the moment there is an unstable situation in Baghdad.”
This is totally normal after a war. Do you honestly think that immediately following a war a country is going to be booming and doing well? :roll: PLEASE tell me that you are aware that recovery takes time. If you are not aware of that fact then you probably shouldn't be posting on this subject. You seem very young with a naive world view, so maybe that's what it is with you.
And according to reports, Iran helped persuade the government of Nouri al-Maliki to deny American forces judicial immunity against prosecution. Western countries then canceled plans to maintain a military presence in the country after the 2011 withdrawal.
The links go beyond the political and military: Iranian companies are increasing market share in Iraq’s booming economy, and streams of Iranian pilgrims regularly visit the Shiite holy sites in Karbala and Najaf.
This is a far cry from the 1980s, when the two countries fought a war that killed more than a million people
Peter Batchelor, country director, United Nations Development Program in Iraq:
“Quality of life and access to services in many areas are worse than they were 30 years ago. Violence has dropped, but it is still high enough that it limits people’s access to services.”
Meanwhile, Iraq remains one of the most corrupt countries in the world. According to Transparency International’s widely recognized rankings, the country came 169[SUP]th[/SUP] out of a list of 176."
Iraq, 10 years on: Did invasion bring 'hope and progress' to millions as Bush vowed? - World News
Again, refer to above, and about Iranians making a pilgrimage into Iraq, that's a GOOD thing right? Neighbors getting along and NOT killing one another indiscriminately?
You said, "obviously, inspectors had not been there since [2002]."
I postsed a new article to show what complete and utter bullxit that is. Do you still not understand?
The page you linked only went up to September, 2002. So who knows what page you're reading that from, but it wasn't from the one you linked; which in fact, does not contain any of that.
what else ya got?
Umm, the "public airing" of this already occurred. Regrettably, based on the nonsense you've been posting -- it appears you missed it.
But you are well-armed with talking points, I'll grant you that.eace
I also look forward to the public airing of the lead up to this whole sorry affair.
The Chilcott inquiry, which will be released later this year will provide some interesting reading, and in Australia, only a few weeks ago a former Defence Department Secretary stated that an inquiry into how Australia became involved in the Iraq War would expose the fragility of the decision making process.
the whistleblowers have already revealed that public opinion was manipulated by those who misrepresented information ... but it looks like there is more ....
if so, you may also have a lot invested in dismissing what I say.
far more than I have invested in this matter.
I suspect that many thought Saddam had WMD, but trusted President Bush would use diplomatic efforts, as specified in the resolution, to disarm him. As it turned out, he never did. In fact he refused to extend the time the UN inspectors has in the country.
Excerpt from the Iraq resolution:
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Iraq War Resolution
And they just agreed with all that war stuff in the Resolution because they were tired of haggling over details?
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
No, not lie about the threat Iraq posed. But exaggerate. The full 96 page NIE contained much uncertainty to the reliability of the intelligence. Most people in Congress did not have access to that report. Most were given the heavily redacted 28 page version which did not include much of the uncertainty. Then we're stuck with the fact that many in Congress didn't even bother to read it.
Still, most Democrats in Congress voted against giving Bush the authorization to use military force in Iraq and most Democrats on Intelligence committee (who did have access to the full 96 page NIE) also voted against it.
And again, the bill was not a declaration of war, but an authorization to go war IF the president felt it was the only way to achieve the stated goals in the bill. And if diplomacy wouldn't work.
But Bush didn't give diplomacy the full opportunity it deservered when he pulled the U.N. inspectors out prematurely because he was eager to invade.
Instead, if you recall, he claimed he had to rush to war because he didn't want our troops in Iraq during the summer time because it gets so hot there. So what does that idiot do? Condemns our troops suffer 10 summers in Iraq. The reality is, Bush did not care about our troops having to be in Iraq in the summer time, he wanted to rush to war before the U.N. concluded the WMD for which he invaded weren't there, thereby squashing American support for invading Iraq.
THAT'S the lie. And few, if any in Congress, could know that all along while Bush was insisting that war was a last resort in his feeble mind, it was really his only goal.
Over 35,000 American casualties
Between 1 and 2 trillion dollars
No less than 100,000 Iraqi deaths
Was it worth THAT price? Hell no. Hussein didn't even have the WMD for which Bush claimed he needed to invade.
And that's not even considering other factors, such as how removing Hussein has emboldened Iran to gain nukes, which they are closing in on. One of the best foreign policies Reagan had was to keep Iran and Iraq fighting against each other. Bush idiotically turns into Iraq into West Iran and more than doubles the threat against us.
Happy Easter, JC! :2wave:
Your mailbox is full. Can't respond to your message. Housecleaning time again...sigh...
What's cool about the death and destruction the war has caused? The WMD argument was used to build support in Congress for the Iraq resolution. The Bush administration successfully deceived the American people and Congress, and that's despicable.
Some of you are actually humorous, so thanks for that. :lamo But, but the war is OVER, and Iraq should have a booming economy and all the people should be riding unicorns and eating candy.
That's interesting that Clinton, Biden, and Kerry.....the three most influential Democrats right now outside of Obama, and many other Democrats were foolish enough to get tricked by who the liberals believe to be the dumbest man alive.
It is a puzzle, isn't it? It was the same intelligence information everyone was privy at the time that decided their vote. It's bad form to now say something different, and blame Bush, just because they, and everyone else, believed what they saw and heard, IMO. We could use the same argument...after the fact... on BHO's decisions regarding Egypt and Libya! :thumbdown:
That came from a link within the link which led me to this as well. Just because Saddam let inspectors in, does NOT mean he was cooperative. That is what you seem to be not understanding.
Looking Back: Iraq: Disarmament Without Resolution | Arms Control Association
We have seen. This is now history.We shall see.
Saddam admitted to making it seem as if he was hiding something with the UN inspectors and the rest of the world too. He wanted people to think he had weapons.
Do you realize that the NIE was published (Oct 2, 2002) just 9 days prior to the vote on the Iraq Resolution (Oct 11, 2002)? Very few Congress people had a chance to read it.It is a puzzle, isn't it? It was the same intelligence information everyone was privy at the time that decided their vote. It's bad form to now say something different, and blame Bush, just because they, and everyone else, believed what they saw and heard, IMO. We could use the same argument...after the fact... on BHO's decisions regarding Egypt and Libya! :thumbdown:
We have seen. This is now history.
Do you realize that the NIE was published (Oct 2, 2002) just 9 days prior to the vote on the Iraq Resolution (Oct 11, 2002)? Very few Congress people had a chance to read it.
Yes, Bush rushed into war. The evidence of that is that there were U.N. weapons inspectors there doing the job. Bush rushed to war by pulling them out so he could attack rather than let them finish their job. And it seems you don't recall, but I do, the excuse given for rushing to war even though there were already inspectors in Iraq was that he didn't want the troops to be in Iraq over the summer because it gets too hot in the desert.What a foolish excuse....typical liberal argument full of emotion and void of facts. Bush rushed into war? What, do you think Saddam just started behaving badly the week before the Resolution was signed?
Again, those people didn't have access to the same information Bush had. Hell, some of them didn't even read the information they were given. So the answer to "why" is that they went on the word of others, like the Commander-in-Chief, when his administration stated categorically and undeniably, Hussein had stockpiles of WMDs and was seeking nuclear weapons.Why do you suppose Kerry, Clinton, Biden, and many others would authorize war, which is exactly what they did, if they didn't have the proper information?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?