Iraq War Resolution...

[Larry Gude]

...because there are so many who seem to have not read it or wish to ignore it, I will endeavor to once a day or so post a section for debate and general understanding.

The FACTS are we did not rush to war and after taking forever to get around to it, allowing PLENTY of time for dissent, debate, hearings and diplomacy, especially in regards to the blessed UN, we, our, Congress VOTED on it.

http://www.hnn.us/articles/1282.html

First big bite:

Congressional Resolution on Iraq (Passed by House and Senate October 2002)


Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;



Me: Any questions so far?

 

[willie]

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
.
When did they discover the large stockpiles? Is this what you want to debate

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by willie
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
.
When did they discover the large stockpiles? Is this what you want to debate

This has never been in question, not even by Hans Blix, who claims there's none there now. They HAD them. Some were dismantled and destroyed and this was verified by the UN inspectors. Others - weren't. The UN was supposed to just take the Iraqis at their word.

No, they HAD huge stockpiles of the stuff. That's what the fuss has been about - where the hell did all that stuff go? Saddam said "we destroyed it all, trust us".

 

[SmallTown]

Powell did come out recently and say that the "intelligence" regarding WMD probably was not accurate. Funny he didn't mention that during his UN speech.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Powell did come out recently and say that the "intelligence" regarding WMD probably was not accurate.

Okay, ST, but we KNOW there were WMD at one time - they have the bills of lading. So exactly WHAT was inaccurate, who knows? But the goods were there at one point - what happened to them?

I don't know - I hear so many tidbits on the news that seem extremely important to me, then they're never followed up or expanded upon. But, somehow, Mary McGrory's passing is so important it's the subject of every column in the Wash Post for two days (so far).

Go figure.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Okay, ST, but we KNOW there were WMD at one time - they have the bills of lading. So exactly WHAT was inaccurate, who knows? But the goods were there at one point - what happened to them?

True, but I really don't think going to war over something we THINK should be there is a good thing. The whole point was to "disarm" Iraq (at least, that was one of the original rationals behind going to war). Bush's words were along the lines of - Saddam must diarm, or we'll disarm him. Kind of hard to disarm someone who doesn't have arms in the first place. Regardless of what we think may be there. Chances are he didn't destroy them, I would have thought we would spend more time figuring out just where the heck they went to (terrorist groups, other countries, etc)

 

[willie]

Originally posted by SmallTown
True, but I really don't think going to war over something we THINK should be there is a good thing. The whole point was to "disarm" Iraq (at least, that was one of the original rationals behind going to war). Bush's words were along the lines of - Saddam must diarm, or we'll disarm him. Kind of hard to disarm someone who doesn't have arms in the first place. Regardless of what we think may be there. Chances are he didn't destroy them, I would have thought we would spend more time figuring out just where the heck they went to (terrorist groups, other countries, etc)

.
Saddam himself had the world convinced he had a lot of bad stuff in inventory and when he only produced a portion of what he said he had, what are NORMAL people to believe? The Bush haters will believe the Tooth Fairy blew the remainder away and forget that they also voted for forcible disarming him. My personal opinion is that the fuzzy headed libs will stretch any situation around and flip flop positions without regard for the USA as long as it will help destroy Bush.

 

[Larry Gude]

Time to pass out cookies...

Sam has been paying attention...

This has never been in question, not even by Hans Blix, who claims there's none there now. They HAD them. Some were dismantled and destroyed and this was verified by the UN inspectors. Others - weren't. The UN was supposed to just take the Iraqis at their word.

Sam is good.


Vrai is a good girl, she's been paying attention...

But the goods were there at one point - what happened to them?

ST is a bad boy...

True, but I really don't think going to war over something we THINK should be there is a good thing.

He did his homework but doesn't want to look at the total picture.

Willie asks a good question...

When did they discover the large stockpiles? Is this what you want to debate

...and then, for extra credit, answers it himself...

Saddam himself had the world convinced he had a lot of bad stuff in inventory and when he only produced a portion of what he said he had, what are NORMAL people to believe?

Good willie.

Now remember class, this is ONLY the begining of the justification to retire Saddam and his regime.

For 12 years and umpteen UN resolutions Saddam did not do what ONLY he and his regime could do; come clean.

This part of the equation is simply stated as "After 12 years, is it NOW time to enforce what Saddam agreed to and the UN demanded?"

The answer, so far, is an easy...yes.

Saddam had from October '02 (13 months AFTER 9/11) to April '03 (6 plus MORE months) to forestall our 'mad rush to war' in addition to the 12 years already passed where he continued to FIRE missiles at our air force, continued to stall and obstruct inspectors and continued to make any rational person take the position that he is still a dangerous person and it is only a matter of time until he does more bad things.

 

[Sparx]

as long as it will help destroy Bush.


before he and his regime of over the top zealots destroy:

1. The first amendment
2. Workers rights
3. The right of choice
4. Anything else he decides in his mind is bad for US

 

[itsbob]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Okay, ST, but we KNOW there were WMD at one time - they have the bills of lading. So exactly WHAT was inaccurate, who knows? But the goods were there at one point - what happened to them?

I don't know - I hear so many tidbits on the news that seem extremely important to me, then they're never followed up or expanded upon. But, somehow, Mary McGrory's passing is so important it's the subject of every column in the Wash Post for two days (so far).

Go figure.

WMD's are probably in the same place his war planes all vacated to during the first war.. Syria, Jordan, even IRAN.... we're going to find them one day.. I just hope it's not when they are used against us!

 

[SamSpade]

The UN inspectors actually DID destroy some of his WMD capability. For example, in June 1996 they oversaw the destruction of one of his biological weapons facilities (Al Hakam). They monitored the destruction of the missiles he had then. They were *there*.

In addition to the "bad" intelligence the US had, most of the world's intelligence communities, including Great Britain, Canada, Germany, Japan, France, Spain, Australia and Iran all concluded the same thing. Were they all wrong, too?

He HAD them. We don't just have Saddam's lying mouth on it, we have the UNSCOM teams who saw them destroyed. The only way they AREN'T there would be if he chose to destroy them while the UN teams were gone. That's exactly what Blix believes. I think he's an idiot who wants to believe that Iraq destroyed them.

Does anyone think it weird that our troops, while never exposed to chemical and biological weapons, came across facilities with hundreds of protective masks and gear to outfit an army for such a purpose?

Oh they're there, or they were shipped out. But yeah, our intel sucked on the matter.

 

[itsbob]

Originally posted by Sparx
as long as it will help destroy Bush.


before he and his regime of over the top zealots destroy:

1. The first amendment
2. Workers rights
3. The right of choice
4. Anything else he decides in his mind is bad for US

and just as Spain.. this is exactly how they want you to think, that he is destroying the country.. fighting a losing battle. If we elect Keryy they will have in office who they(the terrorists, AlQueada and Ted Kennedy) want, and will make it look like a victory for them, and rally around the defeat of the superpower!!
It's going to get REAL bad just prior to the election, and I'll put money on it they are working on a major attack on our soil just prior to the elcection just like they did in Spain.. it worked there, and I'm sure they think it will work here too!

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Sparx
as long as it will help destroy Bush

Why do you want Bush destroyed? I know it's futile asking you to explain your views because you just hit and run, so never mind.

 

[SamSpade]

Unlike Spain, a series of attacks on our soil will almost assure Bush a victory. Americans rally around their leader in times of crisis. You can no more intimidate Americans by attacking them than you can intimidate a beehive by hitting it with a stick.

 

[Sparx]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Why do you want Bush destroyed? I know it's futile asking you to explain your views because you just hit and run, so never mind.

I even numbered some of the reasons. OK just read what you want

 

[itsbob]

Did anyone else catch the irony...

The leader of the Shiite Muslims.. Sadr I believe is his name.. came out and proclaimed that Iraq will be Bush's Vietnam.. and the SAME day, Kennedy used the EXACT same word in a speech in DC....

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by Sparx
I even numbered some of the reasons. OK just read what you want

Sure, but they were all stupid. He hasn't destroyed the first amendment, nor is he ever going to have the power to come close. He definitely hasn't destroyed worker's rights, and despite all the boo-hooing of the left, or the outrage of the right, abortion is more or less the same since Roe v Wade took effect, not after Reagan, not after Bush I, not after four years of Bush II.

And number 4 is just ridiculous. I could just as easily say the same about Kerry. "Stop Kerry before he destroys anything else I imagine he intends to ....".

Tell me - can you be LESS vague?


I knew you couldn't.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Sparx
I even numbered some of the reasons. OK just read what you want

Because you're afraid Bush is going to destroy:

1. The first amendment
2. Workers rights
3. The right of choice
4. Anything else he decides in his mind is bad for US

Is that right? Then please answer this:

1. What First Amendment rights of yours have been destroyed?
2. What rights of yours, as a worker, have been destroyed?
3. What choices would you like to make that Bush has said No to?
4. What at all have you lost over the last 3 1/2 years? How is your different from what it was before?

 

[Larry Gude]

And we have another cookie...

...

WMD's are probably in the same place his war planes all vacated to during the first war.. Syria, Jordan, even IRAN.... we're going to find them one day.. I just hope it's not when they are used against us!

...itsbob has been paying attention to!!!

itsbob seems to KNOW that, in addition to the old Iraq, there are some bad actors in the region.

I've read in a few places that one of the reason so many public libs have panties in knots is that they or surrogates ENSURED at cocktail parties and the like, word reaching Hussein, that we would NOT invade and it was all a bluff.

Can you imagine how things might have turned out if the Bush haters in this country had actually vented their rage (and support) against the gomers who truly threaten all our freedom, like Osama and Saddam and Syria and a few others?

Dear Sparx, this is an advanced class and you are to dumb to participate. Go work on your Shrub Jihad elsewhere. The person you're after is Ms. Gorelick. She helped raise the wall between our intelligence services (CIA) and our law enforcement services (FBI).

Her work helped protect the civil liberties and freedom of speech of 19 Saudi foreign nationals not to long ago.

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by itsbob
Did anyone else catch the irony...

The leader of the Shiite Muslims.. Sadr I believe is his name.. came out and proclaimed that Iraq will be Bush's Vietnam.. and the SAME day, Kennedy used the EXACT same word in a speech in DC....

Yeah, except the parallels between the two are like --- well, really zero. I mean, did we CAPTURE North Vietnam at any time? Do we have a major world power supplying the Iraqis? Did we overthrow the Communist government of North Vietnam? Did we completely rout the entire North Vietnamese military, so they were down to tossing grenades and loading car bombs?

The insurgency in Iraq is getting desperate, which is what makes them dangerous. Without help, they can't last very long.

I mean, let's be real, they were calling Iraq a "quagmire" on day **8** of the war. There's no comparison.