John kerry out of touch with UN - Page 2

Good job ^^^^^.
And just in case some one missed it

HE COMPLIED, BUSH just LIED.

I just read UN 1441. There was nothing that gave the US sole authority to invade.

_________________________________________
So-dam Insane was hiding something, this is true, but no inspector, no world leader, nobody except our President thought it was worth going to war over. Why? Why were they so driven to attack when they knew they had faulty intelligence on WMD's, the 9/11 connection, and who knows what else.
_________________________________________
The President and his advisors, weren't the ONLY ones who believed it:

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMDs and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's WMD program."

- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998: "What happens in (Iraq) matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

- Letter to Clinton signed by Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, etc., Oct. 9, 1998: "We urge you ... to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspected Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs."

- Congressman (now House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

- Sen. Bob Graham and other Democratic senators in a letter to President Bush, Dec. 5, 2001: "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status."

- Sen. Levin, Sept. 19, 2002: "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building WMDs and the means of delivering them."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002: "We know that (Saddam) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing WMDs."

- Sen. Robert Byrd, Oct. 3, 2002: "We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002: "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of WMDs in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct. 10, 2002: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

Even with a breakdown of the U.S. Intelligence gathering agencies, both foreign and domestic & further complicated by the Iraqi Baath Party running an excellent counter – intelligence operation against the U.N., how can so many knowledgeable people been wrong about WMDs? Why do so many Americans point blank say the Dubya lied to us and used WMDs as a thin excuse to finish is father's war? All of these people believed the same thing. Am I the only American that believes taking out Saddam was a good idea?

wow, if nothing else your thorough.
I'm impressed, though I do think Bush for war far too fast, that's why the situation down there is so bad right now.

[quote] Am I the only American that thinks taking out Saddam was a good idea?

NO, Bush thought so too.

Hello Squatteam!!
I have posted that same "only American" line on multiple boards and you have gave back the best answer.

We all thought he had WMD. But was there ever a valid threat against the United States. I never thought so.

Iraq did not compy with resolution 1441! He had 30 days to comply and he did not. Don't know where you are getting your information, but it is absolutely wrong. As far as dropping bombs on military targets, yes, we did. The most surgical attack ever in the history of mankind. So, you want the US to apologize for removing one of the most brutal dictators ever. Now I have heard everything. A man who orders the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people. A man who would throw dissadents in a wood chipper feet first so he would die slower and you want us to apologize for removing him.

[...and you want us to apologize for removing him]

Well why not go after every other brutal dictator? Lets spend even more money to create more quagmires that we can't get out of!

[Don't know where you are getting your information, but it is absolutely wrong.]

Have you read UN1441? Like I said before, I did. Show me where, if you think you're right, that it specifies that the US can attack alone.

FederalistU, nice compilation. Very impressive. Chronologically unimportant though. Think about it, the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq, not because we found something, but because where we wanted to look. The arrogance of Hussien frightened everyone back then. His thumbing his nose at the world provided suspicion that he was up to something. And maybe he was, we may find a mass stockpile of WMD's, in which case I'll change my tune. Until then, it's ironic that his persistent egoism, and his ultimate bluff, has cost us the respect of the world and a financial debt that we can never repay.

While I'm at it, the 9/11 hearings are a waste of time. What's done is done, don't let it happen again. Why not have Iraq War hearings instead? Rather than focusing on the intelligence failures that lead up to 9/11, lets look at the failures (if that is indeed the case) that started this war. If Bush truley believed in the evidence presented to him, and he presented this very same evidence to the world, then he should have no problems.

I don't like the governor of Oklahoma, he's mean and makes me do what he wants me to, I work hard all day and hardly have nothing to eat. So the governor of Arkansas is going to save me, he bombs the hell out of Oklahoma City. Now, I don't have running water or electricity, my son is dead and my wife and daughter are injured, I'm still hungry. I don't work so hard anymore except maybe cleaning the mess around my house. Not that there isn't plenty of work to do now that the city is blown to pieces, but they're bringing people in from other states to do that work and paying them plenty, and I'm just supposed to be thankful.

You can't drop bombs on a city and miss innocent people. All this talk about how many lives we lost, don't we care about the lives of the Iraqis. Ok, Saddam's a bad dude, but what gave us the right to do what we did. How many people did we have to kill to take Saddam out and why? There is no good reason, we owe those people an apology and they have a right to be angry. We thought we had a reason, but we were wrong.

http://www.theinsideout.us/Clark04_Leader_hi.mpeg

Everyone agrees, War is bad - People die, combatants, non- combatants, kids, animals, men, women, children, war kills. You can find the same issues from France, Germany, Poland, Hawaii, Iwo Jima, Japan – all WWII. The Democracy that the US is looking for in Iraq will take time. Japan & Germany have benefited from American democracy, neither wanted it prior to their defeats, neither had a choice afterwards. We spent a long time in both countries after the war ended. Our own American democracy wasn't complete in 1776, it took us years to get all of the colonies to agree on our governmental system & we didn't have daily car bombings, suicide bombers, etc.. Did we go to Iraq for the right reasons? Will the Iraqis be better off in the long term, with free elections and time to rebuild?

All of this just so they can have free elections. Gosh, I thought this was about oil, how did I get so lost.

The last few days before the war, arrangements were being made to have Saddam step down. Hmmm - I guess that wouldn't have worked.

Federal - I used to have the same argument as you. But the way things are going in Iraq recently, I suspect the US is gonna pull out and let Iraq sort itself out (like Afganistan for example).

Yes I have read resolution 1441. You are correct in that it does not stipulate that the US can go it alone. Powell went be fore the UN security council and UN approval was not obtained. The US led coalition made the decision to go it alone. P.S. With Russia, France, China and Britain as permanent members, we knew we would not get 3 out of the five votes.
Countries with Troops in Iraq
United States - 135,000 troops, expansion planned.
United Kingdom - 8,700 troops
Italy - 2,950 troops
Poland - 2,500 troops; See Polish contribution to the 2003 Gulf War.
Ukraine - 1,650 troops in Kut, currently not leaving their base, but intend to stay in Iraq
Spain - 1,300 troops. Prime minister in waiting José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero intends to pull out of Iraq after taking office.
Romania - 700 troops
Netherlands - 850 troops
Australia - 850 troops. Under discussion in view of the upcoming elections in Australia. See Australian contribution to the 2003 Gulf War.
Japan - 600 troops in Iraq, currently not leaving their base, but intend to stay in Iraq. However, this discussion is still ongoing within Japan. See Deployment of Japanese troops to Iraq.
Bulgaria - 480 troops, working with the Polish forces near Kerbala
Thailand - 460 troops
Denmark - 500 troops, (submarine & warship, and a medical team)
South Korea - 400 non-combat troops (Sending 3,000 combat troops planned, but still under discussion)
Honduras - 370 troops
El Salvador - 360 troops
Hungary - 300 troops
Dominican Republic - 300 troops
Nicaragua - 230 troops
Mongolia - 180 troops
Azerbaijan - 151 troops
Norway - 150 troops
Latvia - 121 troops
Portugal - 128 troops
Lithuania - 105 troops
Slovakia - 105 troops
Philippines - 96 troops
Czech Republic - 80 troops
Albania - 70 troops
Georgia - 70 troops
New Zealand - 60 army engineers, intended pull out in September.
Estonia - 55 troops
Kazakhstan - 27 troops working with the Ukrainian troops in Kut, currently not leaving their base, withdrawal considered
Macedonia - 28 troops
Moldova - 24 troops
Not exactly going it alone.

Apart from British, Italian and Polish troops, the contribution of is weak at best.
This US lead coalition is reminiscent of the US lead force (under the UN banner) during the Korean War : its basically a US operation.

From a military point of view, there's no way the contributions of Britain and 30 wavering and weakly commited minors is going to help the US decisively.