Hussein Was Right & Bush Was Wrong

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Are you denying that US and UK were the forces behind maintaining the sanctions on Iraq? Where have you been for the last 12 years? Do your own research. Even the administration claims that one of the reasons for going to war was because the sanctions regime could weaken and Iraq could get WMD's.

Did you even read your own article? Nowhere in does it state the US or UK were going to block lifting of the sanctions. China, France, and Russia wanted to ease the sanctions a bit. But nowhere in it does it state the sanctions will be lifted outright. The resolution you are referring to is 1284. Go look it up and read what it says. It clearly states Iraq must still comply with their ceasefire agreement to allow inspections.

btw it doesnt surprise me at all China, Russia, and France wanted to expand the program. They were making billions already off the backs of the Iraqis. Why not make it easier and more lucrative for themselves?

So you are saying US and UK wanted to lift the sanctions, but they didn't want to ease them?
What absurd arguement are you making now?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Same place we are now. The US would never acknowledge his cooperation. They would say he is lying about destroying those weapons, etc. It's impossible to prove a negative.
Anyways, US got what it wanted, now what? It's stuck in a quagmire with no honorable way out.

Wasnt just the United States.

Unless of course you consider kicking out the UN staff in 1998 cooperating. :disgust:

Well, if you have no WMD's and UN has been in your country for 7 years keeping sanctions in place for no reason, you would kick them out too. What's the point of cooperating with UN if the US and UK would block any lifting of sanctions?

 

[Genx87]

Here you go with your linking 911 and Iraq. Your arguements are bankrupt. They led to nothing but squander of 1500 and rising US lives, countless thousands Iraqi lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, US international prestige and credibility, preparedness and morale of US armed forces, etc and so on. If you want to continue on this path for another 4 years, I feel bad for this country.

I have never linked 9-11 and Iraq. If you think otherwise then Ill type this slow for you.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

My last paragraph was putting the mindset of people who dont get it in writing.

 

[kage69]

a lot of human intelligence could have been compromised by countries that arn't exactly interested in the best for the US.

Yet it's fine and dandy for Bush to rely mainly on China for pressuring NK over their nuke program. How odd.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond
Here we go once again...

PNAC -- note the signatories.

The Long Road to War -- read it. Or watch it. But please stop ignoring it.

The War Behind Closed Doors -- see above.

I linked to PBS Frontline because they do such a good job of compiling and presenting the information. There are myriad news reports that do the same but here they are all in one place.

Have a good read.

Yes notice the statement of principles of pnac

IRAQ = end of PNAC

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Here you go with your linking 911 and Iraq. Your arguements are bankrupt. They led to nothing but squander of 1500 and rising US lives, countless thousands Iraqi lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, US international prestige and credibility, preparedness and morale of US armed forces, etc and so on. If you want to continue on this path for another 4 years, I feel bad for this country.

I have never linked 9-11 and Iraq. If you think otherwise then Ill type this slow for you.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

My last paragraph was putting the mindset of people who dont get it in writing.

That mindset would have prevented the things I mentioned above. Your mindset will lead to ruin of this country.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Continuously for those 12 years. They fought any efforts to lift or relax the sanctions. That's why I think the countries that went around the sanctions regime were right. You can bash them all you want, but there was no reason for those sanctions to be in place except to keep Iraq weak for eventual unjustified US invasion.
Well, be careful what you wish for, because the US got it.

I need an instance of this, not a general blanket statement of "Through the 12 years".
That is a pointless thing to say and lends zero credibility to the argument.

If the UN wanted to lift the sanctions I am surprised there wouldnt have been a single resolution addressing it or a vote in the general assembly asking the security council to lift the sanctions.

Surely you will come back with something more concrete next time right?

P.S. Your justifying the stealing by certain countries from the Iraqis is quite sad.

Sanctions Against Iraq

The UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq on August 6, 1990, just after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. When the coalition war had ousted Iraq from Kuwait the following year, the Council did not lift the sanctions, keeping them in place as leverage to press for Iraqi disarmament and other goals. The sanctions remained in place thereafter, despite a harsh impact on innocent Iraqi civilians and an evident lack of pressure on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. A UN "Oil-for-Food Programme," started in late 1997, offered some relief to Iraqis, but the humanitarian crisis continued. The US and UK governments always made it clear that they would block any lifting or serious reforming of sanctions as long as Hussein remained in power. After more than twelve years of sanctions had passed, the US and the UK made war on Iraq again in March, 2003, sweeping away Hussein's government. Soon after, Washington called for and obtained the lifting of sanctions, a step that gave the US occupation authority full control over Iraq's oil sales and oil industry. This section covers a wide range of sanction issues, including the humanitarian impact, the Oil-for-Food Programme, criticisms of the sanctions and the debate that took place about their termination.

Get me a resolution or general assembly vote. If the UN felt strongly about it they would have made their voice heard.

The simple fact is there were no resolutions brought to the table to lift sanctions and absolve Iraq from their ceasefire agreement.

If you can provide me with a link to one then Ill change my mind.

 

[Genx87]

So you are saying US and UK wanted to lift the sanctions, but they didn't want to ease them?
What absurd arguement are you making now?

What I am saying is the UN never wanted to lift the sanctions but instead ease them at best.

Totally different from taking sanctions off Iraq and giving them a clean bill of health.

 

[Genx87]

Well, if you have no WMD's and UN has been in your country for 7 years keeping sanctions in place for no reason, you would kick them out too. What's the point of cooperating with UN if the US and UK would block any lifting of sanctions?

At least you are admitting Iraq was not in compliance with the ceasefire agreement.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: raildogg
Do you have posters of Saddam in your bedroom? BBond

So, do you have posters of babies with limbs blown off in your bedroom?

wow. wow

You started it? What did you expect???

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Genx87

So you are saying US and UK wanted to lift the sanctions, but they didn't want to ease them?
What absurd arguement are you making now?

What I am saying is the UN never wanted to lift the sanctions but instead ease them at best.

Totally different from taking sanctions off Iraq and giving them a clean bill of health.

Well, easing sanctions is a step towards lifting them. You ease ease ease until they are gone.

 

[Genx87]

That mindset would have prevented the things I mentioned above. Your mindset will lead to ruin of this country.

That mindset is why we had 5 significant terrorist attacks on US properties in 8 years and we didnt do anything about it except lob a few cruise missiles into an Aspirin factory.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Well, if you have no WMD's and UN has been in your country for 7 years keeping sanctions in place for no reason, you would kick them out too. What's the point of cooperating with UN if the US and UK would block any lifting of sanctions?

At least you are admitting Iraq was not in compliance with the ceasefire agreement.

It was in compliance, but it didn't lift to lifting of the sanctions. UN was the one not in compliance with its end of the bargain.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Well, if you have no WMD's and UN has been in your country for 7 years keeping sanctions in place for no reason, you would kick them out too. What's the point of cooperating with UN if the US and UK would block any lifting of sanctions?

At least you are admitting Iraq was not in compliance with the ceasefire agreement.

No they weren't, however Iraq was not a threat because of this. Saddam was an irritation to us.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Genx87

That mindset would have prevented the things I mentioned above. Your mindset will lead to ruin of this country.

That mindset is why we had 5 significant terrorist attacks on US properties in 8 years and we didnt do anything about it except lob a few cruise missiles into an Aspirin factory.

And how many Americans died in those terrorist attacks in those 8 years.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Here you go with your linking 911 and Iraq. Your arguements are bankrupt. They led to nothing but squander of 1500 and rising US lives, countless thousands Iraqi lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, US international prestige and credibility, preparedness and morale of US armed forces, etc and so on. If you want to continue on this path for another 4 years, I feel bad for this country.

I have never linked 9-11 and Iraq. If you think otherwise then Ill type this slow for you.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

My last paragraph was putting the mindset of people who dont get it in writing.

Oh please, that was the whole RRR FLL base before the Election as reason to support the Fearless Liar, now after the Election you're going to try a claim you FLL's never said that, come on, sick.

 

[Genx87]

Well, easing sanctions is a step towards lifting them. You ease ease ease until they are gone.

Maybe but it isnt lifting them. To lift them Iraq was required to provide full disclosure and allow access to any facility the UN inspections teams ask for.

Kicking out the UN in 1998 and submitting unfinished documentation does not show a sign of cooperation at all.

 

[Genx87]

It was in compliance, but it didn't lift to lifting of the sanctions. UN was the one not in compliance with its end of the bargain.

According to whom? The UN didnt even want to lift sanctions on Iraq after the war because they didnt think it was in compliance with the ceasefire agreement. I find it hard to believe they thought otherwise before the war. If they did then why would they vote in resolution 1440 in Oct before the war?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Continuously for those 12 years. They fought any efforts to lift or relax the sanctions. That's why I think the countries that went around the sanctions regime were right. You can bash them all you want, but there was no reason for those sanctions to be in place except to keep Iraq weak for eventual unjustified US invasion.
Well, be careful what you wish for, because the US got it.

I need an instance of this, not a general blanket statement of "Through the 12 years".
That is a pointless thing to say and lends zero credibility to the argument.

If the UN wanted to lift the sanctions I am surprised there wouldnt have been a single resolution addressing it or a vote in the general assembly asking the security council to lift the sanctions.

Surely you will come back with something more concrete next time right?

P.S. Your justifying the stealing by certain countries from the Iraqis is quite sad.

Sanctions Against Iraq

The UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq on August 6, 1990, just after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. When the coalition war had ousted Iraq from Kuwait the following year, the Council did not lift the sanctions, keeping them in place as leverage to press for Iraqi disarmament and other goals. The sanctions remained in place thereafter, despite a harsh impact on innocent Iraqi civilians and an evident lack of pressure on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. A UN "Oil-for-Food Programme," started in late 1997, offered some relief to Iraqis, but the humanitarian crisis continued. The US and UK governments always made it clear that they would block any lifting or serious reforming of sanctions as long as Hussein remained in power. After more than twelve years of sanctions had passed, the US and the UK made war on Iraq again in March, 2003, sweeping away Hussein's government. Soon after, Washington called for and obtained the lifting of sanctions, a step that gave the US occupation authority full control over Iraq's oil sales and oil industry. This section covers a wide range of sanction issues, including the humanitarian impact, the Oil-for-Food Programme, criticisms of the sanctions and the debate that took place about their termination.

Get me a resolution or general assembly vote. If the UN felt strongly about it they would have made their voice heard.

The simple fact is there were no resolutions brought to the table to lift sanctions and absolve Iraq from their ceasefire agreement.

If you can provide me with a link to one then Ill change my mind.

No resolutions were brought because the US and UK made it clear, as two permanent members of the Security Council, that they would block any attempts to end sanctions so long as Hussein was in power. Those are the facts. If you choose to ignore them then live in your ignorance.

Have you read the links from PBS Frontline yet? No? I didn't think so. The truth hurts. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Well, easing sanctions is a step towards lifting them. You ease ease ease until they are gone.

Maybe but it isnt lifting them. To lift them Iraq was required to provide full disclosure and allow access to any facility the UN inspections teams ask for.

Kicking out the UN in 1998 and submitting unfinished documentation does not show a sign of cooperation at all.

Inspectors had access to all facilities in 2002, and all that got Iraqis was an invasion. So there goes that theory.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Genx87

It was in compliance, but it didn't lift to lifting of the sanctions. UN was the one not in compliance with its end of the bargain.

According to whom? The UN didnt even want to lift sanctions on Iraq after the war because they didnt think it was in compliance with the ceasefire agreement. I find it hard to believe they thought otherwise before the war. If they did then why would they vote in resolution 1440 in Oct before the war?

US and UK would block any UN resolution that would find Iraq in compliance. So there was no way for Iraq to be in compliance, even if they allowed inspectors to do an anal probe on Saddam.

 

[Genx87]

And how many Americans died in those terrorist attacks in those 8 years.

Does a bodycount determine our response? If for instance a terrorist blows up a school bus and kills 15 kids should we only throw 2 cruise missiles at their training camp? If it is 100 people killed in a mall attack then we throw 6?

The point is there were 5 of them and we didnt do much of anything about it. There was a pattern growing upto 9-11 that we would get hit and do nothing about it. Of course they are going to hit us harder and harder every time.

You will note however since 9-11 we have not had any attacks outside of the warzone. Knocking on wood of course but it is an improvement.

 

[Genx87]

Oh please, that was the whole RRR FLL base before the Election as reason to support the Fearless Liar, now after the Election you're going to try a claim you FLL's never said that, come on, sick.

I dare you to show me once where the Bush administration said they had solid proof of Iraqi connections to 9-11.

We have gone over this before, but lets see if you can find anything this time.

 

[Genx87]

No resolutions were brought because the US and UK made it clear, as two permanent members of the Security Council, that they would block any attempts to end sanctions so long as Hussein was in power. Those are the facts. If you choose to ignore them then live in your ignorance.

Have you read the links from PBS Frontline yet? No? I didn't think so. The truth hurts. Ignorance is bliss.

Oh please what would stop the general assembly from asking the security council to lift the sanctions?

The simple fact is the UN did not believe Iraq was in compliance. To throw it onto the shoulders of "The US and UK said they wouldnt allow it" is a strawman argument.

 

[Genx87]

Inspectors had access to all facilities in 2002, and all that got Iraqis was an invasion. So there goes that theory.

Now why did they get access?

Ever heard of the phrase "Too little, too late"?