So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11872220

It's impossible to argue that Saddam had complied.

There you go falsifying more of my argument. I have never argued that Saddam Hussein had complied with 1441. The correct way of saying it was that SH was complying. And there was no deadline set for when SH needed to be found in compliance with all relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding WMD in Iraq. It would have taken a few more months and nothing in 1442 stated that short amount of time was not allowable.

Bush wanted to invade in March so the mission accomplished would happen before the 2004 elections started gearing up. That is why it is Bush's war,

 

[Boss]

The correct way of saying it was that SH was complying.

No... the correct way of saying it is, he WASN'T complying and did not have intention to comply.

And there was no deadline set for when SH needed to be found in compliance

Well, technically, yes there was. He was to cooperate immediately and proactively. He did not. There was no deadline because there was no time allowed for "immediate" cooperation.

 

[Boss]

Bush wanted to invade in March so the mission accomplished would happen before the 2004 elections started gearing up. That is why it is Bush's war,

The problem here is, all the advisers who worked with Bush on this have written books and talked about the various considerations and NONE of them seem to confirm what you are claiming here. Rumsfeld said the primary concerns of urgency regarding the invasion was prompted by the climate. You can't send 100k troops in with full chem/bio protection when it's 120 degrees in Iraq. In order to complete their mission and disarm Saddam before the brutal summer hit, they needed to go in by a certain time.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11878367

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.

The AUMF could not tie Bush's hands to the UN because 1441 did not exist yet. The AUMF said Congress members supported diplomatic efforts to avoid war by going through the UNSC to obtain new resolution such as what finally resulted in 1441. Bush tied his hands to 1441 by signing it and committing the U.S. to it.

1441 produced a result that Bush would not accept; the avoidance of war to remove the threat of possible WMD located in Iraq. So Bush rejected 1441 and the legal language to unilaterally start a war.

Bush could have at anytime unilaterally started a war with Iraq. He didn't need a new AUMF or an UNSC Resolution to do it.

You argue as if it was smart to unilaterally start a war while Iraq was in fact being disarmed peacefully. No one dying under American bombs.

But your argument is a perfect admission that the invasion of Iraq was entirely Bush's war. Daesh is on him to as you explain Bush did what he wanted not what Congress and the UNSC wanted.

 

[Boss]

You argue as if it was smart to unilaterally start a war while Iraq was in fact being disarmed peacefully. No one dying under American bombs.

Well first of all, we didn't "unilaterally" start a war. It was the 2nd largest military coalition in human history. Secondly, Saddam was NOT being disarmed, he continued to obfuscate and delay, hinder inspections, harass and complain, try to derail the process, organized protests, tried to pass off old documentation as new... anything and everything he could do to keep from cooperating as he was ordered to do by UN1441.

Bush tied his hands to 1441 by signing it and committing the U.S. to it.

No he didn't. Read UN1441 again. It does not state that Bush cannot invade Iraq or that he must wait for an okay from the UN to do so. Bush would have never agreed to that, nor did his Congress... and that option was presented by one Senator Dick Durbin.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11878856

No he didn't. Read UN1441 again. It does not state that Bush cannot invade Iraq or that he must wait for an okay from the UN to do so.

I did not say that the UNSC could not invade Iraq if Bush decided on his that he wanted to. You need to read 1441. 1441 days exactly what's to be done if Iraq made inspections a waste of time and would not have yielded a the result of disarming Iraq peacefully, it said the Council was to reconvene if a member state or the inspectors saw a material breach and the the fifteen members were to decide what the consequences were to be. Bush agreed to the language in November 2002. Bush disagreed with the language he voted in for in March 2003. Bush revised his position. The language in 1441 did not change.

And you claim SH did not begin cooperating immediately which means you are a dingbat. The inspectors were not all in place immediate as you seem to think was deadlines at mid February. Colin Powell did not present his flawed evidence until the end of January 2003. Blix began reporting active cooperation on substance in Mid February. The U.S. Did not present all of its WND Intel to inspectors by then. So your idea of immediate is about two weeks.

Bush should have called to reconvene a meeting log before he sent Colin Powell to theUN with the evidence. Bush never did becsuse on an idiot bigger than him would go around saying that Iraq did not comply immediately and war was absolutely necessary.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Bush would have sounded like a warmongering clown had he mentioned starting a war because cooperation was not fast enough. His very own Secretary of State went on "ABC This Week" around New Years Day 2003 and announced very early and immediate in the 1441 inspection process that Iraq was cooperating and that war was not inevitable.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11878856

No he didn't. Read UN1441 again. It does not state that Bush cannot invade Iraq or that he must wait for an okay from the UN to do so.

I did not say that the UNSC could not invade Iraq if Bush decided on his that he wanted to. You need to read 1441. 1441 days exactly what's to be done if Iraq made inspections a waste of time and would not have yielded a the result of disarming Iraq peacefully, it said the Council was to reconvene if a member state or the inspectors saw a material breach and the the fifteen members were to decide what the consequences were to be. Bush agreed to the language in November 2002. Bush disagreed with the language he voted in for in March 2003. Bush revised his position. The language in 1441 did not change.

And you claim SH did not begin cooperating immediately which means you are a dingbat. The inspectors were not all in place immediate as you seem to think was deadlines at mid February. Colin Powell did not present his flawed evidence until the end of January 2003. Blix began reporting active cooperation on substance in Mid February. The U.S. Did not present all of its WND Intel to inspectors by then. So your idea of immediate is about two weeks.

Bush should have called to reconvene a meeting log before he sent Colin Powell to theUN with the evidence. Bush never did becsuse on an idiot bigger than him would go around saying that Iraq did not comply immediately and war was absolutely necessary.

UN1441 is a UN resolution. It applies to the UN, not to Bush. The language didn't change, it called for serious consequences if Saddam's cooperation were not immediate and proactive. It wasn't. We still don't have the information requested. We're missing information on what happened to about 800 liters of chemical agents we know he had.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11884153 page 97

UN1441 is a UN resolution. It applies to the UN, not to Bush.

Is the USA a Permanent Member of the UNSC? Is it one of five with Veto Power?

 

[Idadunno]

I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.

I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.

You were repeatedly warned of the dangers in ignoring the threat of radical Islamic terrorism, and you would have no part of it. Nothing was going to do until you ended the war and destroyed Bush. So we abandoned the War on Terror, we abandoned the few people over there who were helping us build democracy and restore peace, and we moved toward your policies of appeasement and diplomacy. Now we're paying the price for not eliminating the threat when we had the chance.

Where are the WMDs? Well it turns out they were in Syria, where Saddam's WMD technology is currently being deployed. Actual chem/bio weapons have short shelf life, but the technology is what was important and it all went to Syria.

Radical Islam is not a joke. It wasn't something to take lightly. It certainly wasn't something that should have been turned into a political football for the purpose of bringing down a president. But.... that's our history in this country! We are constantly following the liberal heart and then having to pay the price in the end with more loss of life and greater wars.

Technically, the end of the Cold War birthed the future of groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS, which are the same "gang" but different leader and name---you know, new and improved. When the Cold War ended, both the US and Russia had to reduce the amount of arms they both had been building up in their stare off. Where do two power houses get rid of that much weaponry? They sell it of course, and both sides began an arms race of a different nature--in sales to the Middle East. The two countries have been turning the Middle East and Asia into arms addicts, and addicts become erratic. The groups we deal with today are spawns of our actions in since before 1990. Arms sales are still our main export--we cannot compete in the world market with much of anything except oil crap and weapons. So you cannot really blame any one president, although Bush Sr was president then and he did piss off some people over there... but still, the Russians were doing it too. The difference is when we have a weak president. No one messes with Putin. 9/11 happened right when Bush Jr took office, and our misery has continued. The thing with Bush though is that he proved to be a loose cannon and would shoot anything that moved, so that might have actually scared them a tiny, little bit. I have said before and I will say it again... the worse thing that happened for the Us and Europe was the end of the Cold War. After WWII, Israel was the Middle East nanny--Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria were constantly playing with each other, but it stayed there... with Israel being the bad ass. Oh, but Israel and Palestine just could never get along, and the US made the mistake of taking sides.... long story short (too late) one of bin Laden's excuses for 9/11 was the US involvement in the Palestine/Israel affair, and I think he was rebelling against his father who was a guest at the Bush Sr ranch, etc, etc. You know how those rich spoiled brats can be. Bush Sr made the mistake of taking sides, and Bush Jr wanted to settle a score (dramatic version), but all in all.. if the US and Russia had just destroyed or kept all that weaponry and not gotten so far into arms sales.... there's your real blame. They also sold off chemical weapons so you cannot blame Saddam for that, unless it just makes you feel good.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Debunking the AUMF was not a 'never ending diplomacy efforts' document.

We can see how out of touch with reality Boss is on Iraq. Here is one of the multitude of Boss's fantasies going back to page 80 of this thread:

Boss 11820874 page 80

The AUMF was not an authorization to continue never-ending diplomacy efforts. It specifically gave Bush authority to use military force if Saddam failed to comply with this "one last chance" resolution from the UN.

So two pages later I tried to point out 'reality' to Boss:

NF 11823897 page 82

No Boss, here [is] what it specifically says. <> SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-- (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts;

I reiterated it again 12 pages later:

NF 11853203 page 94

The statute said 'through' the UNSC not 'for' the UNSC as you are making it all up in your head.

Here is the result of trying to teach reality to Boss on the actual language contained within the AUMF:

Boss 11854827 page 94

Nope... doesn't say Bush must "go through" the UN.

Faun asks Boss a very pertinent question:

Faun 11877868 page 96

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

Of course Boss cannot respond to the question.

Boss 11878367 page 96

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.

The reason there was a horrific disaster of a war in Iraq is because Bush did not heed the AUMF which told him to go through the UN not around the UN. That must be why Boss will not accept that reality that the AUMF says (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council . Going through the UNSC's peaceful means as the AUMF language says had no time limit at all. Therefore Boss's myth that the AUMF was not a 'never ending diplomacy efforts' document has been debunked. One primary reason is that Boss could not answer Faun's question.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Debunking "UN RES 1441 applies to the UN not to Bush/USA"

Boss 11884153 page 97

UN1441 is a UN resolution. It applies to the UN, not to Bush..

NF 11887679 page 97

Is the USA a Permanent Member of the UNSC? Is it one of five with Veto Power?

Boss is not interested in answering a question that clearly debunks his nonsense. The UN is inseparable from its member states and specifically the USA as one permanent member of the UNSC that voted in favor of UNSC Res 1441.