AP: $700M and not a single item from WMD list found -- "most secretive, expensive and fruitless weapons hunt in history"

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
It bothers me that our intel and the worlds intel was that far off.
Do you dismiss the complaints that Cheney and Rumsfeld were manipulating and filtering our intelligence to support their agenda? Not only did Rumsfeld set up his own intelligence agency, but it was reported that Cheney personally visited Langley multiple times to "work" with analysts. This level of personal involvement by the VP was called "unprecedented".

Not a flame, I'm curious re. your thoughts.
Do you dismiss that the UN, france and germany that that iraq still had active weapons programs and stockpiles?
I have two thoughts re. this. First, if I accept your premise, there is still a world of difference between (1) having some intelligence that suggests Iraq still has some WMD stocks, and (2) intentionally twisting and inflating intelligence to dramatically overstate both the scale of Iraq's capabilities and our confidence in our assessment. The reports claim that (2) is what Cheney and Rumsfeld did.

I am still interested in your thoughts re. those reports. If you don't want to debate them, just say so. I'd still like to understand what you think, and I will abide by your wishes to not discuss further.


Second, I am unclear on exactly what France, Germany, and the U.N. asserted re. Iraq's WMD capabilities. I acknowledge there was a passive acceptance that Iraq needed to prove it was in compliance; that's why we had inspectors in Iraq. I am not aware that any of the three made any specific claims like the U.S. and Britain. I am not saying they didn't. I'm just saying I don't know what they did and didn't say. If you have any links, etc., I am interested.
THe UN knew how much stock of WMD Iraq had and still does not know where they are, and how they were disposed of. Germany was quite sure Iraq possess small pox( i have posted this link many times). French intel also thought Iraq was up to no good. Other countries made other claims.

The US may have cherry picked intel, but the rest of the world is guilty of ignoring any intel that would make iraq look bad.
We knew Saddam used to have WMDs, but we did not know if he still had them or if he developed new ones. So we sent in UN inspectors, they did their work (destroying the missiles) and Saddam cooperated (getting a 'B' from Blix as I recall).

So why were you and the prowar people so opposed to UN inspectoins? Why all the hurry to get them out of there and start the war? Did you ever even want a peaceful resoluiton, or did you just view the whole UN think as a clever tactic to get the public to do what they did not want to? I honestly do want to know.
I was not apposed to inspections. I was to inspections run by those unwilling to give iraq a bad grade.
Saddam got a B, yet was not allowing interviews, not answering questions, forcing minders on the inspection teams and various other things that were not cooperative.


I would have much prefered a peaceful sollution. Had The world stood together and been tough on iraq, I think a peacefull resolution was possible. But a few members of the UN decided there could be serious consequences for iraq, nor could there be any firm timeline for inspections.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
It bothers me that our intel and the worlds intel was that far off.
Do you dismiss the complaints that Cheney and Rumsfeld were manipulating and filtering our intelligence to support their agenda? Not only did Rumsfeld set up his own intelligence agency, but it was reported that Cheney personally visited Langley multiple times to "work" with analysts. This level of personal involvement by the VP was called "unprecedented".

Not a flame, I'm curious re. your thoughts.
Do you dismiss that the UN, france and germany that that iraq still had active weapons programs and stockpiles?
I have two thoughts re. this. First, if I accept your premise, there is still a world of difference between (1) having some intelligence that suggests Iraq still has some WMD stocks, and (2) intentionally twisting and inflating intelligence to dramatically overstate both the scale of Iraq's capabilities and our confidence in our assessment. The reports claim that (2) is what Cheney and Rumsfeld did.

I am still interested in your thoughts re. those reports. If you don't want to debate them, just say so. I'd still like to understand what you think, and I will abide by your wishes to not discuss further.


Second, I am unclear on exactly what France, Germany, and the U.N. asserted re. Iraq's WMD capabilities. I acknowledge there was a passive acceptance that Iraq needed to prove it was in compliance; that's why we had inspectors in Iraq. I am not aware that any of the three made any specific claims like the U.S. and Britain. I am not saying they didn't. I'm just saying I don't know what they did and didn't say. If you have any links, etc., I am interested.
THe UN knew how much stock of WMD Iraq had and still does not know where they are, and how they were disposed of. Germany was quite sure Iraq possess small pox( i have posted this link many times). French intel also thought Iraq was up to no good. Other countries made other claims.

The US may have cherry picked intel, but the rest of the world is guilty of ignoring any intel that would make iraq look bad.
We knew Saddam used to have WMDs, but we did not know if he still had them or if he developed new ones. So we sent in UN inspectors, they did their work (destroying the missiles) and Saddam cooperated (getting a 'B' from Blix as I recall).

So why were you and the prowar people so opposed to UN inspectoins? Why all the hurry to get them out of there and start the war? Did you ever even want a peaceful resoluiton, or did you just view the whole UN think as a clever tactic to get the public to do what they did not want to? I honestly do want to know.
I was not apposed to inspections. I was to inspections run by those unwilling to give iraq a bad grade.
Saddam got a B, yet was not allowing interviews, not answering questions, forcing minders on the inspection teams and various other things that were not cooperative.


I would have much prefered a peaceful sollution. Had The world stood together and been tough on iraq, I think a peacefull resolution was possible. But a few members of the UN decided there could be serious consequences for iraq, nor could there be any firm timeline for inspections.
Did the support the resolutions put forth by Chile and Canada? You are different perhaps, because I never saw any signs that the Bush admin wanted any kind of peaceful resolution (for example, I recall the US effectively killing the chile plan minutes after it was introduced)
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
It bothers me that our intel and the worlds intel was that far off.
Do you dismiss the complaints that Cheney and Rumsfeld were manipulating and filtering our intelligence to support their agenda? Not only did Rumsfeld set up his own intelligence agency, but it was reported that Cheney personally visited Langley multiple times to "work" with analysts. This level of personal involvement by the VP was called "unprecedented".

Not a flame, I'm curious re. your thoughts.
Do you dismiss that the UN, france and germany that that iraq still had active weapons programs and stockpiles?
I have two thoughts re. this. First, if I accept your premise, there is still a world of difference between (1) having some intelligence that suggests Iraq still has some WMD stocks, and (2) intentionally twisting and inflating intelligence to dramatically overstate both the scale of Iraq's capabilities and our confidence in our assessment. The reports claim that (2) is what Cheney and Rumsfeld did.

I am still interested in your thoughts re. those reports. If you don't want to debate them, just say so. I'd still like to understand what you think, and I will abide by your wishes to not discuss further.


Second, I am unclear on exactly what France, Germany, and the U.N. asserted re. Iraq's WMD capabilities. I acknowledge there was a passive acceptance that Iraq needed to prove it was in compliance; that's why we had inspectors in Iraq. I am not aware that any of the three made any specific claims like the U.S. and Britain. I am not saying they didn't. I'm just saying I don't know what they did and didn't say. If you have any links, etc., I am interested.
THe UN knew how much stock of WMD Iraq had and still does not know where they are, and how they were disposed of. Germany was quite sure Iraq possess small pox( i have posted this link many times). French intel also thought Iraq was up to no good. Other countries made other claims.

The US may have cherry picked intel, but the rest of the world is guilty of ignoring any intel that would make iraq look bad.
We knew Saddam used to have WMDs, but we did not know if he still had them or if he developed new ones. So we sent in UN inspectors, they did their work (destroying the missiles) and Saddam cooperated (getting a 'B' from Blix as I recall).

So why were you and the prowar people so opposed to UN inspectoins? Why all the hurry to get them out of there and start the war? Did you ever even want a peaceful resoluiton, or did you just view the whole UN think as a clever tactic to get the public to do what they did not want to? I honestly do want to know.
I was not apposed to inspections. I was to inspections run by those unwilling to give iraq a bad grade.
Saddam got a B, yet was not allowing interviews, not answering questions, forcing minders on the inspection teams and various other things that were not cooperative.


I would have much prefered a peaceful sollution. Had The world stood together and been tough on iraq, I think a peacefull resolution was possible. But a few members of the UN decided there could be serious consequences for iraq, nor could there be any firm timeline for inspections.
Did the support the resolutions put forth by Chile and Canada? You are different perhaps, because I never saw any signs that the Bush admin wanted any kind of peaceful resolution (for example, I recall the US effectively killing the chile plan minutes after it was introduced)
I dont recall what that resolution was. I do know that any resolution that had a timeline or explicitly stated a threat of war was shot down by france/germany. The UN apposed even using the threat of force. The only reason iraq was cooperating, was the growing number of US troops outside his borders. Granted no one in the UN offered to pay the US to keep our troops stationed there until a peaceful resolution could have been put in place.

This subject has been beat to death and is really irrelivent at this point.
Iraq is heading is heading a new and better direction today, and it does not have the UN to thank.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,412
4,791
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
It bothers me that our intel and the worlds intel was that far off.
Do you dismiss the complaints that Cheney and Rumsfeld were manipulating and filtering our intelligence to support their agenda? Not only did Rumsfeld set up his own intelligence agency, but it was reported that Cheney personally visited Langley multiple times to "work" with analysts. This level of personal involvement by the VP was called "unprecedented".

Not a flame, I'm curious re. your thoughts.
Do you dismiss that the UN, france and germany that that iraq still had active weapons programs and stockpiles?
I have two thoughts re. this. First, if I accept your premise, there is still a world of difference between (1) having some intelligence that suggests Iraq still has some WMD stocks, and (2) intentionally twisting and inflating intelligence to dramatically overstate both the scale of Iraq's capabilities and our confidence in our assessment. The reports claim that (2) is what Cheney and Rumsfeld did.

I am still interested in your thoughts re. those reports. If you don't want to debate them, just say so. I'd still like to understand what you think, and I will abide by your wishes to not discuss further.


Second, I am unclear on exactly what France, Germany, and the U.N. asserted re. Iraq's WMD capabilities. I acknowledge there was a passive acceptance that Iraq needed to prove it was in compliance; that's why we had inspectors in Iraq. I am not aware that any of the three made any specific claims like the U.S. and Britain. I am not saying they didn't. I'm just saying I don't know what they did and didn't say. If you have any links, etc., I am interested.
THe UN knew how much stock of WMD Iraq had and still does not know where they are, and how they were disposed of. Germany was quite sure Iraq possess small pox( i have posted this link many times). French intel also thought Iraq was up to no good. Other countries made other claims.

The US may have cherry picked intel, but the rest of the world is guilty of ignoring any intel that would make iraq look bad.
We knew Saddam used to have WMDs, but we did not know if he still had them or if he developed new ones. So we sent in UN inspectors, they did their work (destroying the missiles) and Saddam cooperated (getting a 'B' from Blix as I recall).

So why were you and the prowar people so opposed to UN inspectoins? Why all the hurry to get them out of there and start the war? Did you ever even want a peaceful resoluiton, or did you just view the whole UN think as a clever tactic to get the public to do what they did not want to? I honestly do want to know.
I was not apposed to inspections. I was to inspections run by those unwilling to give iraq a bad grade.
Saddam got a B, yet was not allowing interviews, not answering questions, forcing minders on the inspection teams and various other things that were not cooperative.


I would have much prefered a peaceful sollution. Had The world stood together and been tough on iraq, I think a peacefull resolution was possible. But a few members of the UN decided there could be serious consequences for iraq, nor could there be any firm timeline for inspections.
A "B" was given because he was cooperating! Interviews were allowed as well as full access, there was no reason for the invasion beyond the Mushroom clouds that would start appearing on US soil.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: glenn1
AP: $700M and not a single item from WMD list found -- "most secretive, expensive and fruitless weapons hunt in history"
Just out of curiousity, have you figured out how to deal with the possibility that once "no WMDs" becomes an unambigiously clear fact, that the majority of the American people may not turn against Bush like you hope, or perhaps won't even notice/care?
It's almost like they expected Bush to lie to us
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Supertool:

Amen, brother!

Do you buy a Lexus when you can't pay your rent?

The Republicans act like college Freshmen with a credit card. This is what repressed anger and hostility brings grown men to do. If Bush had just gotten a blow job from Laura, or one of those hot secretaries, we wouldn't be in this mess. :)

-Robert
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: SuperTool
This war is a giant waste of money and resources. Getting Saddam doesn't mitigate that. If someone asked me if I wanted to pay $1000 to free the Iraqis, I would tell them to FOAD. But that's what it's gonna cost us in either current taxes or with interest in future taxes. We should have built high speed rail from SF to LA to Vegas for a lot less. Now that would be a good use of taxpayer money that would actually improve our infrastructure and make us less dependent on foreign oil at the same time providing jobs. Of course when the federal government is spending money on America the rightwingers get all pissed. They only like when we blow that money on Iraq.
Poor Tool, shame on you saying my hero wasted money and resouces. He got rid of a guy that was going to use WMD on us, he's protecting all that OIL for our Arab friends. We didn't do it to get the oil for ourselves as so many misguided ATers in here believe, it was to make sure that people like Saddam don't spend his OIL riches on buying Weapons and Weapons of Mass Destruction. He wasn't giving his fair share to the Arab family, shame on him.

What's this talk of improving infrastructure with new high speed rails? You can't do that, we have to support our arab friends by pumping massive quantities of gas into huge SUV's, where have you been? Don't you drive one? If you're not shame on you. As soon as I make a ton of money this year in this greatest Economy in over 20 years I'm going to get me a Hummer just like Johnny.



 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
How far this will play with the electorate remains to be seen- depends largely on how the media plays it. So far, not very much play- they're still playing "Rally 'round the Prez" in the name of National Security. Can't see much through all those flags wavin'...

It's amazing how far the neocons can backpedal and maintain credibility. From "We have Proof!" And "Saddam threatens the US!" all the way to post hoc "We freed the Iraqi people!" the illusion of righteousness and legitimate purpose has somehow been maintained.

And it is an illusion, a very deliberate illusion. Either the admin has been lying all along, or they're a dunce-cluster, take your pick... I, for one, don't think they're stupid, huh-uh, not at all.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
It bothers me that our intel and the worlds intel was that far off.
Do you dismiss the complaints that Cheney and Rumsfeld were manipulating and filtering our intelligence to support their agenda? Not only did Rumsfeld set up his own intelligence agency, but it was reported that Cheney personally visited Langley multiple times to "work" with analysts. This level of personal involvement by the VP was called "unprecedented".

Not a flame, I'm curious re. your thoughts.
Do you dismiss that the UN, france and germany that that iraq still had active weapons programs and stockpiles?
I have two thoughts re. this. First, if I accept your premise, there is still a world of difference between (1) having some intelligence that suggests Iraq still has some WMD stocks, and (2) intentionally twisting and inflating intelligence to dramatically overstate both the scale of Iraq's capabilities and our confidence in our assessment. The reports claim that (2) is what Cheney and Rumsfeld did.

I am still interested in your thoughts re. those reports. If you don't want to debate them, just say so. I'd still like to understand what you think, and I will abide by your wishes to not discuss further.


Second, I am unclear on exactly what France, Germany, and the U.N. asserted re. Iraq's WMD capabilities. I acknowledge there was a passive acceptance that Iraq needed to prove it was in compliance; that's why we had inspectors in Iraq. I am not aware that any of the three made any specific claims like the U.S. and Britain. I am not saying they didn't. I'm just saying I don't know what they did and didn't say. If you have any links, etc., I am interested.
THe UN knew how much stock of WMD Iraq had and still does not know where they are, and how they were disposed of. Germany was quite sure Iraq possess small pox( i have posted this link many times). French intel also thought Iraq was up to no good. Other countries made other claims.

The US may have cherry picked intel, but the rest of the world is guilty of ignoring any intel that would make iraq look bad.
We knew Saddam used to have WMDs, but we did not know if he still had them or if he developed new ones. So we sent in UN inspectors, they did their work (destroying the missiles) and Saddam cooperated (getting a 'B' from Blix as I recall).

So why were you and the prowar people so opposed to UN inspectoins? Why all the hurry to get them out of there and start the war? Did you ever even want a peaceful resoluiton, or did you just view the whole UN think as a clever tactic to get the public to do what they did not want to? I honestly do want to know.
I was not apposed to inspections. I was to inspections run by those unwilling to give iraq a bad grade.
Saddam got a B, yet was not allowing interviews, not answering questions, forcing minders on the inspection teams and various other things that were not cooperative.


I would have much prefered a peaceful sollution. Had The world stood together and been tough on iraq, I think a peacefull resolution was possible. But a few members of the UN decided there could be serious consequences for iraq, nor could there be any firm timeline for inspections.
A "B" was given because he was cooperating! Interviews were allowed as well as full access, there was no reason for the invasion beyond the Mushroom clouds that would start appearing on US soil.
Interviews are real effective when the interviewees are threatened with death. From what i gathered the interviews where not worth much because they were to scared to say anything. But that is ok, the UN calls this cooperation and it earns a B
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
It bothers me that our intel and the worlds intel was that far off.
Do you dismiss the complaints that Cheney and Rumsfeld were manipulating and filtering our intelligence to support their agenda? Not only did Rumsfeld set up his own intelligence agency, but it was reported that Cheney personally visited Langley multiple times to "work" with analysts. This level of personal involvement by the VP was called "unprecedented".

Not a flame, I'm curious re. your thoughts.
Do you dismiss that the UN, france and germany that that iraq still had active weapons programs and stockpiles?
I have two thoughts re. this. First, if I accept your premise, there is still a world of difference between (1) having some intelligence that suggests Iraq still has some WMD stocks, and (2) intentionally twisting and inflating intelligence to dramatically overstate both the scale of Iraq's capabilities and our confidence in our assessment. The reports claim that (2) is what Cheney and Rumsfeld did.

I am still interested in your thoughts re. those reports. If you don't want to debate them, just say so. I'd still like to understand what you think, and I will abide by your wishes to not discuss further.


Second, I am unclear on exactly what France, Germany, and the U.N. asserted re. Iraq's WMD capabilities. I acknowledge there was a passive acceptance that Iraq needed to prove it was in compliance; that's why we had inspectors in Iraq. I am not aware that any of the three made any specific claims like the U.S. and Britain. I am not saying they didn't. I'm just saying I don't know what they did and didn't say. If you have any links, etc., I am interested.
THe UN knew how much stock of WMD Iraq had and still does not know where they are, and how they were disposed of. Germany was quite sure Iraq possess small pox( i have posted this link many times). French intel also thought Iraq was up to no good. Other countries made other claims.

The US may have cherry picked intel, but the rest of the world is guilty of ignoring any intel that would make iraq look bad.
We knew Saddam used to have WMDs, but we did not know if he still had them or if he developed new ones. So we sent in UN inspectors, they did their work (destroying the missiles) and Saddam cooperated (getting a 'B' from Blix as I recall).

So why were you and the prowar people so opposed to UN inspectoins? Why all the hurry to get them out of there and start the war? Did you ever even want a peaceful resoluiton, or did you just view the whole UN think as a clever tactic to get the public to do what they did not want to? I honestly do want to know.
I was not apposed to inspections. I was to inspections run by those unwilling to give iraq a bad grade.
Saddam got a B, yet was not allowing interviews, not answering questions, forcing minders on the inspection teams and various other things that were not cooperative.


I would have much prefered a peaceful sollution. Had The world stood together and been tough on iraq, I think a peacefull resolution was possible. But a few members of the UN decided there could be serious consequences for iraq, nor could there be any firm timeline for inspections.
Did the support the resolutions put forth by Chile and Canada? You are different perhaps, because I never saw any signs that the Bush admin wanted any kind of peaceful resolution (for example, I recall the US effectively killing the chile plan minutes after it was introduced)
I dont recall what that resolution was. I do know that any resolution that had a timeline or explicitly stated a threat of war was shot down by france/germany. The UN apposed even using the threat of force. The only reason iraq was cooperating, was the growing number of US troops outside his borders. Granted no one in the UN offered to pay the US to keep our troops stationed there until a peaceful resolution could have been put in place.

This subject has been beat to death and is really irrelivent at this point.
Iraq is heading to a new and better direction today, and it does not have the UN to thank.
Well, then the US certainly did a good job of preempting france and germany. IIRC, this proposal was rejected about 20-30 mins after it was introduced.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81108,00.html

And since when are conservatives worried about spending money?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Did the support the resolutions put forth by Chile and Canada? You are different perhaps, because I never saw any signs that the Bush admin wanted any kind of peaceful resolution (for example, I recall the US effectively killing the chile plan minutes after it was introduced)
I dont recall what that resolution was. I do know that any resolution that had a timeline or explicitly stated a threat of war was shot down by france/germany. The UN apposed even using the threat of force. The only reason iraq was cooperating, was the growing number of US troops outside his borders. Granted no one in the UN offered to pay the US to keep our troops stationed there until a peaceful resolution could have been put in place.

This subject has been beat to death and is really irrelivent at this point.
Iraq is heading is heading a new and better direction today, and it does not have the UN to thank.

charrison, You were unaware of the resolution proposed by Chile...were you also unaware that France would've accepted a resolution that extended the deadline for Iraq a month or so?

link

French President Jacques Chirac said Sunday he was willing to accept a one-month or two-month deadline for Iraq to disarm, provided the move was endorsed by the chief U.N. weapons inspectors.

Now that you are aware of it, does it do anything as far as your opinion of France goes? How about your opinion that we NEEDED to attack when we did...if that's your opinion?

Do these two revelations (Chile & France) have any influence over any of your opinions about this war at all?

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Summer was coming soon. We needed to attack in Spring. The UN simply had bad timing that didn't coordinate well with the US Military -- just like Saddam had a paperwork problem that led to the US invasion. Sorta like a cop shooting you for having an expired registration in your car.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Summer was coming soon. We needed to attack in Spring. The UN simply had bad timing that didn't coordinate well with the US Military -- just like Saddam had a paperwork problem that led to the US invasion. Sorta like a cop shooting you for having an expired registration in your car.
Funny how Bush tried to mask that fact by insisting it was the expected mushroom cloud over Washington that was the reason.

But waiting til the summer was out could have worked too, its not like Saddam would have been any more prepared in the autumn than he was in the spring.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Well, I think it was more that we didn't want to be rolling across the Iraqi desert mid-summer. Extreme heat and all that.
 

dualsmp

Golden Member
Aug 16, 2003
1,617
30
91
Don't worry, the Bush administration will find (*cough* plant) some WMD before the 2004 elections. Also, expect a Bin Laden appearence (either dead or alive) as they parade him around like some trophy.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Did the support the resolutions put forth by Chile and Canada? You are different perhaps, because I never saw any signs that the Bush admin wanted any kind of peaceful resolution (for example, I recall the US effectively killing the chile plan minutes after it was introduced)
I dont recall what that resolution was. I do know that any resolution that had a timeline or explicitly stated a threat of war was shot down by france/germany. The UN apposed even using the threat of force. The only reason iraq was cooperating, was the growing number of US troops outside his borders. Granted no one in the UN offered to pay the US to keep our troops stationed there until a peaceful resolution could have been put in place.

This subject has been beat to death and is really irrelivent at this point.
Iraq is heading is heading a new and better direction today, and it does not have the UN to thank.

charrison, You were unaware of the resolution proposed by Chile...were you also unaware that France would've accepted a resolution that extended the deadline for Iraq a month or so?

link

French President Jacques Chirac said Sunday he was willing to accept a one-month or two-month deadline for Iraq to disarm, provided the move was endorsed by the chief U.N. weapons inspectors.

Now that you are aware of it, does it do anything as far as your opinion of France goes? How about your opinion that we NEEDED to attack when we did...if that's your opinion?

Do these two revelations (Chile & France) have any influence over any of your opinions about this war at all?
This is after several months of killing every resolution that had a timeline or the threat of war written into it. Too little to late. The second resolution was nothing more than a reiteration of 1441 that passed with no opposing votes. Why did france have a problem with this?

I guess france still thinks that serious consequeses meant we were going to take saddams play station away.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Did the support the resolutions put forth by Chile and Canada? You are different perhaps, because I never saw any signs that the Bush admin wanted any kind of peaceful resolution (for example, I recall the US effectively killing the chile plan minutes after it was introduced)
I dont recall what that resolution was. I do know that any resolution that had a timeline or explicitly stated a threat of war was shot down by france/germany. The UN apposed even using the threat of force. The only reason iraq was cooperating, was the growing number of US troops outside his borders. Granted no one in the UN offered to pay the US to keep our troops stationed there until a peaceful resolution could have been put in place.

This subject has been beat to death and is really irrelivent at this point.
Iraq is heading is heading a new and better direction today, and it does not have the UN to thank.

charrison, You were unaware of the resolution proposed by Chile...were you also unaware that France would've accepted a resolution that extended the deadline for Iraq a month or so?

link

French President Jacques Chirac said Sunday he was willing to accept a one-month or two-month deadline for Iraq to disarm, provided the move was endorsed by the chief U.N. weapons inspectors.

Now that you are aware of it, does it do anything as far as your opinion of France goes? How about your opinion that we NEEDED to attack when we did...if that's your opinion?

Do these two revelations (Chile & France) have any influence over any of your opinions about this war at all?
This is after several months of killing every resolution that had a timeline or the threat of war written into it. Too little to late. The second resolution was nothing more than a reiteration of 1441 that passed with no opposing votes. Why did france have a problem with this?

I guess france still thinks that serious consequeses meant we were going to take saddams play station away.
huh?

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Did the support the resolutions put forth by Chile and Canada? You are different perhaps, because I never saw any signs that the Bush admin wanted any kind of peaceful resolution (for example, I recall the US effectively killing the chile plan minutes after it was introduced)
I dont recall what that resolution was. I do know that any resolution that had a timeline or explicitly stated a threat of war was shot down by france/germany. The UN apposed even using the threat of force. The only reason iraq was cooperating, was the growing number of US troops outside his borders. Granted no one in the UN offered to pay the US to keep our troops stationed there until a peaceful resolution could have been put in place.

This subject has been beat to death and is really irrelivent at this point.
Iraq is heading is heading a new and better direction today, and it does not have the UN to thank.

charrison, You were unaware of the resolution proposed by Chile...were you also unaware that France would've accepted a resolution that extended the deadline for Iraq a month or so?

link

French President Jacques Chirac said Sunday he was willing to accept a one-month or two-month deadline for Iraq to disarm, provided the move was endorsed by the chief U.N. weapons inspectors.

Now that you are aware of it, does it do anything as far as your opinion of France goes? How about your opinion that we NEEDED to attack when we did...if that's your opinion?

Do these two revelations (Chile & France) have any influence over any of your opinions about this war at all?
This is after several months of killing every resolution that had a timeline or the threat of war written into it. Too little to late. The second resolution was nothing more than a reiteration of 1441 that passed with no opposing votes. Why did france have a problem with this?

I guess france still thinks that serious consequeses meant we were going to take saddams play station away.
huh?
Several months passed while the US tried to pass a 2nd resolution.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Gaard
But what are all these other resolutions?
The US tried several. The first one was just a reiteration of the 1441. The following ones spelled out timelines and consequences and all were sunk by the french.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Gaard
I don't remember any proposals being voted on. Got any links?
They did not get voted on, but they got floated. The one you mention that chili proposed, it was floated, but not voted on.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
So, uhh, lemme get this straight- The US invoked those serious consequences for violations that didn't exist, correct? And we had nothing more than suspicion when said actions were taken?

That can't be right- Dubya, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld and whole chorus of Admin officials claimed to have proof. Maybe "proof" and "evidence" aren't the same thing? We started out with proof of actual WMD's, then backpedalled to proof of weapons programs, then to proof of potential for weapons programs, then to "we're still looking" and now, nothing- zero, zip, zilch, nada... yeh, but we "freed the Iraqi people", whatever that means... as if the war could have been sold on that basis...

Maybe the American Public has been suckered into a monumentally expensive and foolish military blunder, but are too well indoctrinated to see it, let alone admit it? Or maybe it was blind rage, lust for islamic blood, any islamic blood, that allowed us to be manipulated into it?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
charrison, do you remember what some of the consequences were that were in the floated proposals? Do you remember what some of the timelines were in those same proposals?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Gaard
charrison, do you remember what some of the consequences were that were in the floated proposals? Do you remember what some of the timelines were in those same proposals?
As I recall, after the US tried to reiterate 1441, they added one with a short time extension(2 months or less), and was debated for about 2 months. I dont think anythjing more specefic than serious consequences was used, but we all know that means we were not going to take their play stations away.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY