So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[Boss]

Congress obligated Bush to enforce all relevant Security Council Resolutions when 1441 did not exist.

And he did.

Bush violated the AUMF when he chose to ignore 1441...

He didn't ignore it, he enforced it.

...against the will of the majority on the Council.

Bush wasn't obligated to the will of the majority of the council.

You avoid all discussion that Bush accepted 1441 for the United States and then backed out of it...

Again, he did not back out... he enforced it.

...he didn't give a Damn about what the inspectors didn't find...

Inspectors weren't there to search for and find things.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

boss 11855829

. NF 11855645

Congress obligated Bush to enforce all relevant Security Council Resolutions when 1441 did not exist.

And he did.

NF 11855645

Bush violated the AUMF when he chose to ignore 1441...

He didn't ignore it, he enforced it.

NF 11855645

...against the will of the majority on the Council.

Bush wasn't obligated to the will of the majority of the council.

NF 11855645

You avoid all discussion that Bush accepted 1441 for the United States and then backed out of it...

Again, he did not back out... he enforced it.

NF 11855645

...he didn't give a Damn about what the inspectors didn't find...

Inspectors weren't there to search for and find things.

The UNSC majority determined early in March 2003 that inspections were working and no consequences were appropriate or needed. Enforcement of 1441 was appropriate and satisfactory for inspections to continue.

What did Bush decide to do early in March 2003? His dumb decision had absolutely nothing to do with 1441 and the will of the UNSC. You should be put away in an asylum forever for believing that Bush enforced the most relevant UN Resolution that his Admin wrote, negotiated and approved and signed into international law. Saddam Hussein had no legal obligation to Bush. Iraq's obligation was to the UNSC under the terms that Bush agreed to under UNSC 1441. SH complied with those terms and more when he offered to let the CIA enter Iraq to show where exactly the thought the WMD was being hidden.

 

[Boss]

The UNSC majority determined early in March 2003 that inspections were working and no consequences were appropriate or needed.

Hmm... AUMF doesn't give the UNSC the authority of when to use force. It doesn't matter what they determined. Inspections weren't working because Saddam wasn't cooperating immediately as he was ordered to do by UN1441. Bush was given specific authority to enforce the resolutions and he did.

Saddam Hussein had no legal obligation to Bush. Iraq's obligation was to the UNSC under the terms that Bush agreed to under UNSC 1441.

Again, Bush did not "agree" to UN1441, he's not a signatory and not mentioned in it. He is not obligated to surrender his authority to the UNSC. His congress gave him specific authority to enforce the UN resolutions. Saddam was told if he did not cooperate immediately there would be serious consequences... He didn't cooperate immediately and there were serious consequences as promised.

 

[Boss]

SH complied with those terms and more when he offered to let the CIA enter Iraq...

No he didn't. Nothing in UN1441 about CIA having to go hunt up his WMDs or even being allowed in Iraq. Nothing in there about ANYONE going on an easter egg hunt for WMDs.

The terms were clear, he was to turn over information to inspectors immediately and proactively... he didn't do that. Bush made it clear that if the terms weren't met there would be serious consequences... as did UN1441... as did the AUMF.

 

[Faun]

Again, Bush did not "agree" to UN1441, he's not a signatory and not mentioned in it.

That is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

The U.S. voted for U.N. resolution 1441. That is Bush agreeing to it. Not to mention, we wrote it along with the U.K. You really must be a special kind of stupid to think our country votes on U.N. resolutions without the consent and approval of the president.

 

[Faun]

SH complied with those terms and more when he offered to let the CIA enter Iraq...

No he didn't. Nothing in UN1441 about CIA having to go hunt up his WMDs or even being allowed in Iraq. Nothing in there about ANYONE going on an easter egg hunt for WMDs.

The terms were clear, he was to turn over information to inspectors immediately and proactively... he didn't do that. Bush made it clear that if the terms weren't met there would be serious consequences... as did UN1441... as did the AUMF.

What WMD was Hussein supposed to turn over given he didn't have any?

 

[Boss]

Again, Bush did not "agree" to UN1441, he's not a signatory and not mentioned in it.

That is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

The U.S. voted for U.N. resolution 1441. That is Bush agreeing to it. Not to mention, we wrote it along with the U.K. You really must be a special kind of stupid to think our country votes on U.N. resolutions without the consent and approval of the president.

It is not a matter of whether Bush agreed with what was in UN1441, I am sure he did... especially that "serious consequence" part. He did not "agree" to allow the UNSC to determine when UN1441 needed to be enforced. There is nothing in UN1441 which limits Bush's authority as president in any way. UN1441 calls for Saddam to cooperate fully and immediately, which he did not do.

 

[Faun]

Again, Bush did not "agree" to UN1441, he's not a signatory and not mentioned in it.

That is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

The U.S. voted for U.N. resolution 1441. That is Bush agreeing to it. Not to mention, we wrote it along with the U.K. You really must be a special kind of stupid to think our country votes on U.N. resolutions without the consent and approval of the president.

It is not a matter of whether Bush agreed with what was in UN1441, I am sure he did. He did not "agree" to allow the UNSC to determine when UN1441 needed to be enforced. There is nothing in UN1441 which limits Bush's authority as president in any way. UN1441 calls for Saddam to cooperate fully and immediately, which he did not do.

You're so fucked in the head, you don't know what you're saying. Out of one side of your mouth, you're saying Bush invaded Iraq because Hussein was in violation of 1441 -- but then out of the other side of your mouth, you claim we didn't invade because Hussein violated 1441.

How lucky are you to only have two sides of your mouth which with to speak from? Otherwise, you would have even more stories to make up.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It doesn't matter what they determined. Inspections weren't working because Saddam wasn't cooperating immediately as he was ordered to do by UN1441.

Why does it not matter what the majority UNSC determined along with both Chief Inspectors that Saddam began cooperating proactively on substance in February. Bush did sign the USA up to 1441 but when he heard from Blix that SH was cooperating And inspections were yielding results he decided to do what ever stupid thing he wanted to do as president of the U.S. The invasion of Iraq was An atrocity that was not committed through or for or on behalf as a member of the UNSC or any Resolution that the UNSC as s body passed. That clearly makes it Bush's war. It certainly was not the UNs authorized war.

It was solely Bush's war.

.

Whether it was because of the visible military build-up or our warnings that if Iraq was not more helpful our reports would remain critical, or a combination of these factors, the Iraqis were becoming much more active during February. We reported this shift in attitude to the Security Council and to the US, British and Australian governments.

Iraq 2003 what the leaders say and what they leave out Inside Story

. ” And yet, at the very time when war preparations were accelerating and the three leaders would have dearly liked to hear that Iraq was obstructing inspections or that WMDs had been found, the inspectors were reporting cautiously but positively that inspection work – as I told the Security Council on 7 March – “is moving on and may yield results.”

"the inspectors were reporting cautiously but positively that inspection work – as I told the Security Council on 7 March – “is moving on and may yield results.” Dr Blix same link
above.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

LMFAO... the ones he wasn't gassing to death, raping, mutilating or feeding into wood-chippers?

I see you could not respond to my full statement so you cut my statement in half..

3000 lives were lost to foreign terrorists on US soil on Bush's watch in September 2001 How many Iraqis were killed in suicide attacks by foreign or domestic terrorists in Iraq in September 2001 all the way up to the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003. When did the first foreign terrorists start killing Iraqis Boss. Surely you know.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11827803 page 84

And again... an Authorization to Use Military Force is very clear and unambiguous... it is certainly not an order to continue unlimited and never-ending diplomatic efforts.

Where is the time limit on the pursuit of and continuance of diplomatic efforts if such efforts can avoid war located in the AUMF? There is none so you just made it up didn't you. And you claim in your fantasy world that the AUMF is clear and unambiguous but you cannot find a drop dead date when diplomacy must end and war must start. So where is the clear and unambiguous deadline to end diplomacy Boss?

 

[Boss]

Why does it not matter what the majority UNSC determined along with both Chief Inspectors that Saddam began cooperating proactively on substance in February.

Because the Congress of the US didn't give the UNSC the authorization to use military force at their discretion. Nor did it state the president was obligated to the UNSC in any way. It was understood the administration would attempt one last effort at diplomatic resolution but it did not stipulate the results of that attempt would be determined by the UNSC or that it's evaluation would have any bearing on the president's authority.

 

[Boss]

"the inspectors were reporting cautiously but positively that inspection work – as I told the Security Council on 7 March – “is moving on and may yield results.” Dr Blix same link
above.

Proving once again that Saddam was not in compliance because his cooperation was supposed to be immediate and proactive. In March, there should have been no speculation on what "may yield results" because the results should have been yielded already... immediate means immediate.

Again... the inspectors were not there to search for things like detectives. Lots of dumb twits like you seem to think that was the case. They were there to confirm the status of known WMD stockpiles and the associated programs. None of this information was forthcoming, we still do not have the information.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

11859996

Proving once again that Saddam was not in compliance because his cooperation was supposed to be immediate and proactive. In March, there should have been no speculation on what "may yield results" because the results should have been yielded already... immediate means immediate.

I have posted Blix saying inspections should have continued because they were yielding results. The cooperation was immediate enough because Bush did not argue that point when he decided to go outside the UN and invaded Iraq because he claimed to have at the last minute some intelligence that he did not share with the inspectors that supposedly told him that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised. If Bush43 claimed what you claim about immediate cooperation on substance and proactive cooperation he would have been laughed off the podium. You want to invade Iraq because he cooperated fully but not fast enough? You could not make up a poorer and more pitiful justification for war than that, Boss.

 

[Boss]

11859996

Proving once again that Saddam was not in compliance because his cooperation was supposed to be immediate and proactive. In March, there should have been no speculation on what "may yield results" because the results should have been yielded already... immediate means immediate.

I have posted Blix saying inspections should have continued because they were yielding results. The cooperation was immediate enough because Bush did not argue that point when he decided to go outside the UN and invaded Iraq because he claimed to have at the last minute some intelligence that he did not share with the inspectors that supposedly told him that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised. If Bush43 claimed what you claim about immediate cooperation on substance and proactive cooperation he would have been laughed off the podium. You want to invade Iraq because he cooperated fully but not fast enough? You could not make up a poorer and more pitiful justification for war than that, Boss.

Again, the AUMF didn't obligate Bush to Blix or cede his power to him. It also did not authorize Blix to determine when to use force. So whatever Blix thought or wanted is irrelevant.

Saddam didn't cooperate fully OR fast enough. There is an entire laundry list of chemical weapons agents Iraq never accounted for that we know they had in 1998. UN1441 called for him to cooperate immediately and proactively. It did not afford him the luxury of time or stipulate that he could parse out cooperation based on how much pressure he felt.

You can spin it however you please, the bottom line is, we still do not have the information requested in UN1441... to this day... after all is said and done. It's impossible to argue that Saddam had complied.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11872220

Again, the AUMF didn't obligate Bush to Blix or cede his power to him. It also did not authorize Blix to determine when to use force. So whatever Blix thought or wanted is irrelevant.

i never wrote that the AUMF obligated Bush to Blix or ceded his power to him. You need to quit falsifying my argument. Bush willfully ceded the decision as to whether SH was or was not complying with 1441. That is a fact. When Bush43 saw that Iraq was complying in accordance with Blix, Bush first tried to get another resolution to gain UN approval through 1441 but was denied for obvious reasons. The inspections were working. At that point Bush withdrew his obligations to the UNSC and dumped 1441 altogether. That is exactly why it is Bush's war and Bush's war all alone. And the credit goes to Bush for the development of Daesh last summer because Bush did not go through the UN as the AUMF expected him to do if inspections begun anew. And they did.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11872220

Saddam didn't cooperate fully OR fast enough.

Then why didn't Bush make the case when he justified war based upon having supposed new intelligence that he did not share with inspectors that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors after March 7, 2003?

If Bush said Iraq did not fill out some paperwork related to 1991 issues Bush would have been laughed off the podium. That is why most people hearing you say this would laugh at you now. Because you are being really stupid about this document stuff.

 

[Boss]

Then why didn't Bush make the case...

Because Bush had already made a case to his Congress and got an AUMF that did not tie his hands or cede his authority to the UN. There was no other case to be made. You keep erroneously concluding that Bush was obligated to the UN and he wasn't.

If Bush said Iraq did not fill out some paperwork related to 1991 issues...

Had nothing to do with paperwork... that continues to by a meme you promote but it's rhetoric.

 

[Faun]

Then why didn't Bush make the case...

Because Bush had already made a case to his Congress and got an AUMF that did not tie his hands or cede his authority to the UN. There was no other case to be made. You keep erroneously concluding that Bush was obligated to the UN and he wasn't.

If Bush said Iraq did not fill out some paperwork related to 1991 issues...

Had nothing to do with paperwork... that continues to by a meme you promote but it's rhetoric.

Of course the AUMF tied Bush's hands to the U.N., don't be ridiculous. One of the conditions to use military force was to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

And of course, no relevant U.N. resolution called for military intervention. So which U.N. resolution was Bush enforcing?

 

[Boss]

Then why didn't Bush make the case...

Because Bush had already made a case to his Congress and got an AUMF that did not tie his hands or cede his authority to the UN. There was no other case to be made. You keep erroneously concluding that Bush was obligated to the UN and he wasn't.

If Bush said Iraq did not fill out some paperwork related to 1991 issues...

Had nothing to do with paperwork... that continues to by a meme you promote but it's rhetoric.

Of course the AUMF tied Bush's hands to the U.N., don't be ridiculous. One of the conditions to use military force was to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

And of course, no relevant U.N. resolution called for military intervention. So which U.N. resolution was Bush enforcing?

That doesn't tie his hands at all. It gives him unilateral authority to use military force to enforce their resolutions. UN1441 called for "serious consequences" if Saddam did not comply immediately and proactively. He didn't... Bush unleashed a serious consequence.

AUMF does not stipulate that Bush has to allow the UN to determine what serious consequences are or even to determine whether Saddam was in compliance. Durbin and others attempted to add these kinds of stipulations in amendments to the AUMF and they all FAILED.