Iraq Invasion - America's Shame... 10 years on

[bush_cheney2004]

Where is it written or stated that when a country violates the terms of an agreed upon ceasefire, that military action can only be used if a country poses a so-called imminent threat?

North Korea ?

[bush_cheney2004]

I believe some of what you were talking about was written in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441.

Yes, and Hans Blix found that Iraq was in 'material breach' of the GW1 surrender instruments. What fun to review this stuff....seems like old times (on another forum).

[waldo]

Yes....same as the training experience and hardware updates Canada's CF-18 crews and kit received while bombing Iraqis, Serbs or Libyans.

you can continue to play your false equivalencies... clearly, as a claimed American, you're not representative - you'll really need to beef up your Bush legacy drive efforts, hey!

- 10th anniversary polls:

CBS News Poll:

.

HuffPost/YouGov Poll:

[bush_cheney2004]

you can continue to play your false equivalencies... clearly, as a claimed American, you're not representative - you'll really need to beef up your Bush legacy drive efforts, hey!

And as a claimed Canadian, you weren't even asked.

[waldo]

I believe some of what you were talking about was written in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441.

yup... the second resolution would not be forthcoming... so Bush and his poodle Blair went to work setting up the trumped up invasion based on 'preemptive self defense'... against the country of Iraq which posed no, direct or indirect, imminent threat.

[waldo]

And as a claimed Canadian, you weren't even asked.

if you're speaking of the polls I've just presented, clearly... I wasn't a part of those polls - those polls reflect questions asked of Americans, real ones. As I said, as a claimed American your position lies within the polls minority results.

[bush_cheney2004]

if you're speaking of the polls I've just presented, clearly... I wasn't a part of those polls - those polls reflect questions asked of Americans, real ones. As I said, as a claimed American your position lies within the polls minority results.

Great, 'cause I'm a real 'merkin, and at the time, the invasion of Iraq polled much better.

A new poll finds slightly more than half of all Americans favor sending

U.S. ground troops into Iraq to remove President Saddam Hussein from

power.

But the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll also finds that should

that invasion get under way, approval would jump to almost

three-quarters. Americans appear to be split about whether the White

House has gone far enough down the diplomatic road with Iraq.

There is also a lot of difference of opinions on whether President Bush or

Congress should have the final say on ordering an invasion of Iraq. The

poll, conducted before President Bush's speech on Iraq Monday night,

surveyed 1,502 Americans and had a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percent.

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-07/politics/iraq.poll_1_new-poll-iraq-monday-night-americans-favor?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Good thing US presidents don't always lead by polls, huh ?

[DogOnPorch]

Yeah...the mob...always a good indicator of things in general.

Question: Do you like root canals?

Poll results are in.......

[punked]

Yes, and Hans Blix found that Iraq was in 'material breach' of the GW1 surrender instruments. What fun to review this stuff....seems like old times (on another forum).

I believe from reading Blixs book he found the breaches were superficial but had nothing to do with the motivation of the resolution which is why the US could not get the UN to vote for war right?

[bush_cheney2004]

I believe from reading Blixs book he found the breaches were superficial but had nothing to do with the motivation of the resolution which is why the US could not get the UN to vote for war right?

At the time, Blix was very adamant that such violations must be corrected and that more cooperation must be forthcoming. Blair and Bush used the material breach findings as additional rationale for an invasion that was committed to long before. For instance, Saddam was found to have extended missile ranges beyond those permitted.

Agence France-Presse

Sunday 23 February 2003

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has issued an ultimatum to Iraq

to start destroying its stock of banned missiles within a week but

according to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed

ElBaradei, Baghdad is still not co-operating fully over arms

inspections.

By imposing a deadline of March 1 for Baghdad to begin the demolition

of its Al-Samud 2 missiles and warheads, Blix has thrown down the

gauntlet for Iraq to provide rapid proof of its good faith and

willingness to comply with UN demands on disarmament.

http://archive.truthout.org/article/blix-gives-iraq-a-week-start-destroying-missiles

Edited March 20, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

All of the information about Saddam's programs were complete bunk.

Yellow cake from Nigeria? Signed by a Nigerian politician who retired years before he suposedly approved and signed the document? Laughable.

WMDs?? Completely laughable.

Bringing freedom to Iraq? Also laughable.

[waldo]

Great, 'cause I'm a real 'merkin, and at the time, the invasion of Iraq polled much better.

Good thing US presidents don't always lead by polls, huh ?

your poll speaks to American opinion shaped by lies, shaped by the hubris. My poll examples, 10 years after the fact, speak to the American opinion factoring those lies/that hubris.

[punked]

At the time, Blix was very adamant that such violations must be corrected and that more cooperation must be forthcoming. Blair and Bush used the material breach findings as additional rationale for an invasion that was committed to long before. For instance, Saddam was found to have extended missile ranges beyond those permitted.

Agence France-Presse

Sunday 23 February 2003

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has issued an ultimatum to Iraq

to start destroying its stock of banned missiles within a week but

according to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed

ElBaradei, Baghdad is still not co-operating fully over arms

inspections.

By imposing a deadline of March 1 for Baghdad to begin the demolition

of its Al-Samud 2 missiles and warheads, Blix has thrown down the

gauntlet for Iraq to provide rapid proof of its good faith and

willingness to comply with UN demands on disarmament.

http://archive.truthout.org/article/blix-gives-iraq-a-week-start-destroying-missiles

At the time Blix asked the US to but out and let him do his job. No amount of rewriting history is going to change it.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/12/blix.interview.cnna/

Blix says he received little intelligence during his time in Iraq that his teams could ever confirm.

And the former Swedish foreign minister had this warning for the future:

"I think one has to be cautious in making use of the armed forces on flimsy or shaky grounds that it has justification," Blix said.

In the end Powell lied and people died.

Edited March 20, 2013 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

your poll speaks to American opinion shaped by lies, shaped by the hubris. My poll examples, 10 years after the fact, speak to the American opinion factoring those lies/that hubris.

Great....I wonder how slavery would poll today as well? Or how about cigarette smoking in the 1940's ?

[bush_cheney2004]

At the time Blix asked the US to but out and let him do his job. No amount of rewriting history is going to change it.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/12/blix.interview.cnna/

In the end Powell lied and people died.

So what? Blix didn't fight GW1....Powell did. The US and UK gave Saddam and his henchmen more than enough time to capitulate peacefully. Even your favorite war monger Chretien said that Saddam brought it on himself.

[Shady]

All of the information about Saddam's programs were complete bunk.

Yellow cake from Nigeria? Signed by a Nigerian politician who retired years before he suposedly approved and signed the document? Laughable.

WMDs?? Completely laughable.

Bringing freedom to Iraq? Also laughable.

Then that was awfully dumb of Saddam to violate the ceasefire agreement.

[DogOnPorch]

Then that was awfully dumb of Saddam to violate the ceasefire agreement.

Yup...Saddam even offered cash to any Iraqi who could bring down an aircraft in the No Fly Zones...much like paying-off suicide bomber families.

[waldo]

Great....I wonder how slavery would poll today as well? Or how about cigarette smoking in the 1940's ?

you say a lot of nothing... without actually addressing the 10-year after poll results. Why does a significant majority of the American public differ from your position as a claimed American?

[punked]

So what? Blix didn't fight GW1....Powell did. The US and UK gave Saddam and his henchmen more than enough time to capitulate peacefully. Even your favorite war monger Chretien said that Saddam brought it on himself.

No one is talking about Saddam we are talking about the 150,000 Iraqis and 4000 Americans who died. You act like there was no cost. There was a cost not even mentioning the 6 Trillion dollar (when we count in interest) price tag. All about what? WMDs that didn't exist. Powell lied and people died.

[Shady]

you say a lot of nothing... without actually addressing the 10-year after poll results. Why does a significant majority of the American public differ from your position as a claimed American?

What does that have to do with Saddam's violation of the ceasefire agreement?

[Shady]

No one is talking about Saddam we are talking about the 150,000 Iraqis and 4000 Americans who died. You act like there was no cost. There was a cost not even mentioning the 6 Trillion dollar (when we count in interest) price tag. All about what? WMDs that didn't exist. Powell lied and people died.

So there's 5 trillion dollars interest on 1 trillion dollars? Stop making ridiculous things up.

[waldo]

What does that have to do with Saddam's violation of the ceasefire agreement?

what do perceived violations of a 91 ceasefire agreement have to do with the U.S. bypassing the UN and self-authorizing its armed forces to, "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq"? Where was the imminent threat to the national security of the U.S.?

[punked]

So there's 5 trillion dollars interest on 1 trillion dollars? Stop making ridiculous things up.

I am citing numbers quoted from the LA Times story from 3 days ago. I am sorry you don't read any news story after 2004 Shady probably why you still support this war. Maybe if you ever got out of the bubble and picked up a real paper.

In case you were wondering, the price tag for the war in Iraq could eventually top $6 trillion.

Tuesday marks the 10th anniversary of the U.S. invasion, occupation and slugfest of Iraq, which, lest we forget, was begun in the name of protecting us from weapons of mass destruction that never existed.

A study by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies finds that the war has cost $1.7 trillion so far, with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans.

Those costs could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next 40 years, the report concluded.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-iraq-war-cost-20130318,0,1591279.story

I agree the story sounds made up because of how dumb of a decision it was in the first place. Its funny how the deficit hawks around here pretend this war isn't the cause for America's finical troubles even though in the end it will cost half of America's present debt.

Edited March 20, 2013 by punked

[punked]

what do perceived violations of a 91 ceasefire agreement have to do with the U.S. bypassing the UN and self-authorizing its armed forces to, "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq"? Where was the imminent threat to the national security of the U.S.?

It does seem weird that this ceasefire agreement was between Iraq and the UN. Shady keeps pretending it wasn't but it was.

[bush_cheney2004]

No one is talking about Saddam we are talking about the 150,000 Iraqis and 4000 Americans who died. You act like there was no cost. There was a cost not even mentioning the 6 Trillion dollar (when we count in interest) price tag. All about what? WMDs that didn't exist. Powell lied and people died.

It wasn't about WMDs and you know it. WMDs were a pretext for the conclusion of a US/UK Iraq containment policy that pre-dated Bush and was no longer acceptable post 9/11.