|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reconmike
UN resolution 1441, enough reason to go to war with Iraq.
Bill Clinton's spineless action towards Iraq, enough reason to go to war with Iraq.
Do I realy need to paste a crap load of text?
|
No reconmike, you are not required to post anything to back your opinions.
I am attempting to extend a courtesy to others who read my posts, by referring them to the information that I found relevant to the forming of my opinions in these especially sensitive and controversial matters. If you can offer something that counters what I offer, and is as signifigant as....say.... a direct quote of Powell, posted on the State Department's own website, I would have a reason to consider it, if it served to enhance the credibility of my opinions.
I wish that I possessed your confidence, this is a lot of work.....and I have to keep posting the items below, repeatedly, because a lot of people who evidently "know what they know", post opinions that are similar to yours, but that is all they are.....opinions.....not backed by anything that would strengthen the premise that these opinions have any basis in fact.
Read the dates in the quote boxes, the information that I am presenting shows that Rice and Powell are directly quoted saying that they believed the measures practiced by Bush 41 and Clinton had rendered Saddam unable to even threaten his neighbors, let alone pose a security threat to the U.S.
Time reported on May 5, 2002, that even war hawks Rumsfeld,
"Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe."
I'm convinced that your Clinton references and your reference to my work here as a "crap load", are not constructive to the dialogue here, or are accurate. Annan's opinion and the Time.com report of March 13, 2003, dampen your undocumented opinion that invasion of Iraq was justified, under the circumstances, especially without a second UN resolution.
Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3661134.stm
Thursday, 16 September, 2004, 09:21 GMT 10:21 UK
Iraq war illegal, says Annan
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally. .................
.........'Valid'
"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.
He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.
And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.
When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.".............
|
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...431645,00.html
Why Bush Struggles to Win UN Backing
Inspections have found Iraq in violation of disarmament requirements, but have not confirmed Anglo-American claims of an imminent danger. Can the President still convince the UN?
By TONY KARON
Posted Thursday, Mar. 13, 2003
The Bush administration has always insisted it doesn't need UN permission to invade Iraq. President Bush has never left any doubt that the outcome of Security Council deliberations won't stop him from acting to eliminate what he perceives as an imminent threat to U.S. and allied security. When Bush first raised the issue at the UN Security Council last Fall, he did so in the form of a challenge to the international body — follow us to war, or render yourselves irrelevant. And his administration underlined the point by deploying an invasion armada and planning for a U.S.-administered post-Saddam Iraq. The two-track policy of using the UN process as a means to build diplomatic support for a war already in the making may have helped build domestic backing for an invasion — and chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has affirmed that the military buildup has been the key factor promoting Iraqi cooperation — but the sense of inevitability about the war may have backfired on the international stage.
This week's failure by the U.S. and Britain to win backing for a UN ultimatum to Iraq authorizing force if Baghdad fails to meet a 10-day disarmament deadline underscores the fact that the UN process has, if anything, weakened rather than strengthened international support for a war. Halfway through March, the supposed critical climatic window for military action is closing fast and the UN Security Council looks unlikely to authorize force against Iraq anytime soon. Nobody expected the French and Russians to be brandishing a veto this late in the game, much less the failure of the Bush administration to persuade the likes of Chile, Cameroon, Guinea, Angola and even Pakistan to declare unambiguous support for the U.S. position. And few would have predicted that U.S. vessels would, at this stage, be stuck in Turkish ports awaiting a change in heart of the reluctant Turkish parliament on making their territory available for a northern front.
Suddenly, even Britain, the Bush administration's stalwart ally on Iraq, is looking a little shaky — a fact underlined Tuesday when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested the U.S. may have to consider going to war without the British troops currently deployed alongside the American invasion force. Prime Minister Tony Blair faces a high level of opposition from within his own party to invading Iraq without UN authorization, and he may not survive politically if he goes ahead without UN backing. Failure to pass a compromise ultimatum resolution setting a longer deadline and making specific disarmament demands of Iraq will leave Blair — and possibly other key European supporters of the U.S. position, such as Spain and Italy — deeply mired in domestic political crisis.
The reason for the administration's difficulties may be, in part, the nature of the evidence revealed by the UN process. The Bush case for war against Iraq is premised on the idea that not only has Saddam failed to complete the disarmament required of him by the Gulf War truce, but that he is actively pursuing new chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs; and that these, together with what Washington insists is an alliance between Iraq and al-Qaeda, represent a clear and present danger to U.S. security.
But the inspection process has tested some of these claims, and in the process undermined the Bush administration's case. The inspectors found that Iraq has failed to destroy or account for substantial the stocks of chemical and biological weapons left over from its war with Iran, but they have found nothing to back claims of current, active chemical, biological or nuclear programs. Inspectors have made clear to the Council that they have investigated a number of U.S. and British allegations and intelligence tips, which came to naught. The inspectors are not saying Iraq has disarmed, and they're setting specific disarmament targets such as the destruction of the al-Samoud 2 missiles whose range exceeds UN limits. But the inspections have done little to support the U.S. characterization of Saddam as a growing or imminent threat to Western and Arab security. For many the reluctant Council members, a war becomes permissible only if the threat posed by the regime in Baghdad is greater than the risks attached to an invasion. When they hear President Bush, regardless of the findings of the inspection process, speaking of regime-change and evil, and of a grand design to remake the Middle East, their skepticism is deepened.
The Bush administration's patience for the UN process is almost certainly finite. Polls find that half of America's electorate is ready to go to war without UN backing and a growing number express frustration with the UN. Once the bombs are flying, support for the action will almost certainly increase. And some of the morbid symptoms of the war are already upon America — a plunging stock market, a soaring oil price and continued anxiety over terror attacks. That and the onset of Iraq's sweltering spring months are likely to create pressure for action. But that pressure may be felt more strongly in Washington than at the UN.
|
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
............Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week...............
|
Quote:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/forme...s/2001/933.htm
Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001
(lower paragraph of second Powell quote on the page)
.............but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.................
|
Quote:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html
...........KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?
RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.
We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that..............
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061100723.html
Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan
Advisers to Blair Predicted Instability
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 12, 2005; Page A01
...........The Bush administration's failure to plan adequately for the postwar period has been well documented. The Pentagon, for example, ignored extensive State Department studies of how to achieve stability after an invasion, administer a postwar government and rebuild the country. And administration officials have acknowledged the mistake of dismantling the Iraqi army and canceling pensions to its veteran officers -- which many say hindered security, enhanced anti-U.S. feeling and aided what would later become a violent insurgency.
Testimony by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of Iraq policy, before a House subcommittee on Feb. 28, 2003, just weeks before the invasion, illustrated the optimistic view the administration had of postwar Iraq. He said containment of Hussein the previous 12 years had cost "slightly over $30 billion," adding, "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years." As of May, the Congressional Research Service estimated that Congress has approved $208 billion for the war in Iraq since 2003..............
|
Last edited by host; 06-18-2005 at 08:18 PM..
|