Using the 5 whys to understand GWB and BHO performance

[JakeStarkey]

The neo-cons still pant and chant with nothing to control their bed wetting.

Sooner or later, Bush will be caught and tried.

 

[asterism]

From your link:

"Before employing military force in Iraq, the resolution requires that the president first determine that continued diplomatic efforts "or other peaceful means alone," will not "adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

There was no continued threat to the worlds remaining super power from Iraq. The UN's diplomatic effort was underway and by Blix's final report showed that it was well on it's way to confirming Iraq had complied with the demands of the UN.

The UN's "diplomatic effort" was merely cover for the Oil for Food operation.

ODS HOME PAGE

From your link:

There is an end-user problem. If you have reached this site from a web link,
- Through your internet options, adjust your privacy settings to allow cookies or
- Check your security settings and make sure this site has not been blocked or
- You are probably using a very slow link that may not work well with this application.
Otherwise you have reached this site through unauthorized means.

 

[BlindBoo]

The UN's "diplomatic effort" was merely cover for the Oil for Food operation.

ODS HOME PAGE

From your link:

There is an end-user problem. If you have reached this site from a web link,
- Through your internet options, adjust your privacy settings to allow cookies or
- Check your security settings and make sure this site has not been blocked or
- You are probably using a very slow link that may not work well with this application.
Otherwise you have reached this site through unauthorized means.

Weirds, works fine on my box.......

here try this one

Full text: UN security council resolution 1441 on Iraq | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[JRK]

nice try velveeta, but american kids are still dying in afghanistan for nothing, gitmo is still open, and al qaeda is stronger than ever.

obozo may have pulled most of our troops out of Iraq, but he did not listen to the russian warnings about the boston bombers. Incompetence comes in all colors and party labels.

The bed wetters really stretch to give their messiah credit for ending the OIF war, when all he did was follow the Bush timeline. As unpopular as the war became, no sane Americans believed running away in the fashion the left championed was the proper solution.

Afghanistan is a complete goat fuck now. When I left in 2009 after 2 years I could see how things on the ground deteriorated. There was a vacuum of leadership from the top, and people were placed in jobs based on their political loyalty, over their competence.

Indeed AQ is significantly stronger, more so than they could have dreamed of. They've destabilized most of the middle east, they have sleeper operatives on our soil that can't even seem to be tracked when our "intelligence" agency is told about them, and they can attack our embassies without retaliation.

This isn't even about party anymore. It's about stupidity, incompetence, and a focused effort to harm this country.

Right .vs wrong, is right vs. left.

I have little doubt the left wants this country knocked down several notches. The "moderate" republicrooks are just along for the ride, and to try and make a few bucks. They'll work with whomever fullfils that end alone.

The "right" are people who have advanced fiscal sanity and want to empower individual citizens over corrupt buearucracies yet we are demonized as extremists, and of course racists by the bed wetters.

Thnaks for your service
I have heard the same about the fall of morale and "winning" form others
Saddam had to go in my opinion post 9-11
AL qaeda was setting camp there
Once we invaded the rest showed up. Saddam was stealing money by selling oil on the black market and never telling the truth about weapons
he had 18 months to bury/ship most out

good reading here
Update 27 January 2003 - the United Nations



www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm*




Jan 27, 2003 – THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION. Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix ...

 

[JRK]

ot sure if you understand how our govt works
please read
U.S. Congress Authorizes Bush to Use Military Force Against Iraq

From your link:

"Before employing military force in Iraq, the resolution requires that the president first determine that continued diplomatic efforts "or other peaceful means alone," will not "adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

There was no continued threat to the worlds remaining super power from Iraq. The UN's diplomatic effort was underway and by Blix's final report showed that it was well on it's way to confirming Iraq had complied with the demands of the UN.

The UN's "diplomatic effort" was merely cover for the Oil for Food operation.

And as I stated
the US congress stated 10-2002 to remove Saddam as per the details within the legeslation
those details were met 1-27-2003 by the speech Hans Blix presented to the UN
It was clear Saddam was in Violation
It was known that Al Qaeda was there
It is this simple. all of the hub bub about this and that, none of this has ever beeen reported
Saddam had WMDs
no-one disputes that
WHere did they go is this question, nonthing else

 

[BlindBoo]

From your link:

"Before employing military force in Iraq, the resolution requires that the president first determine that continued diplomatic efforts "or other peaceful means alone," will not "adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

There was no continued threat to the worlds remaining super power from Iraq. The UN's diplomatic effort was underway and by Blix's final report showed that it was well on it's way to confirming Iraq had complied with the demands of the UN.

The UN's "diplomatic effort" was merely cover for the Oil for Food operation.

And as I stated
the US congress stated 10-2002 to remove Saddam as per the details within the legeslation
those details were met 1-27-2003 by the speech Hans Blix presented to the UN
It was clear Saddam was in Violation
It was known that Al Qaeda was there
It is this simple. all of the hub bub about this and that, none of this has ever beeen reported
Saddam had WMDs
no-one disputes that
WHere did they go is this question, nonthing else

If it was so clear then where is the UN resolution. As a member of the Security Council the US has responsiblibities to follow the rule of law. In this case President Bush has thrown out the precident his father worked so hard to create during the first gulf war. It was a breach of the UN Charter.

 

[Pete7469]

Thnaks for your service
I have heard the same about the fall of morale and "winning" form others
Saddam had to go in my opinion post 9-11
AL qaeda was setting camp there
Once we invaded the rest showed up. Saddam was stealing money by selling oil on the black market and never telling the truth about weapons
he had 18 months to bury/ship most out

good reading here
Update 27 January 2003 - the United Nations



www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm*




Jan 27, 2003 – THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION. Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix ...

Thank you.

The AQ that existed in Iraq wasn't the same as Bin Laden's. They were motivated by the same dogma though. In Iraq we had local groups of displaced Sunni's who weren't concerned with "jihad". They wanted things to return to the Ba'athist power structure they enjoyed before. These groups ended up working with us to combat the foreign based jihadists. Some came from as far as indonesia, pakistan, yemen and chechnya, but their religious focus alienated them from the locals more concerned with their financial standing than their devotion to a cult.

When I left in Dec 05 after 11 months near An Nasiryah I was confident the war would be over in a couple years and that we had won.

I turned on CNN when we got home (as mistake I'll never make again) and was "informed" that we were lossing. We even had a senator insist we had lost.

Well quess what bed wetters, YOU and the jihadists lost. In spite of all your efforts to undermine the outcome.

All the WMD bullshit aside, saddam was a sociopathic despot that got what he deserved. Had we not allowed the leftwing UN to interfere in 1991, we could have solved the problem right away.

 

[JRK]

Thnaks for your service
I have heard the same about the fall of morale and "winning" form others
Saddam had to go in my opinion post 9-11
AL qaeda was setting camp there
Once we invaded the rest showed up. Saddam was stealing money by selling oil on the black market and never telling the truth about weapons
he had 18 months to bury/ship most out

good reading here
Update 27 January 2003 - the United Nations



www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm*




Jan 27, 2003 – THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION. Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix ...

Thank you.

The AQ that existed in Iraq wasn't the same as Bin Laden's. They were motivated by the same dogma though. In Iraq we had local groups of displaced Sunni's who weren't concerned with "jihad". They wanted things to return to the Ba'athist power structure they enjoyed before. These groups ended up working with us to combat the foreign based jihadists. Some came from as far as indonesia, pakistan, yemen and chechnya, but their religious focus alienated them from the locals more concerned with their financial standing than their devotion to a cult.

When I left in Dec 05 after 11 months near An Nasiryah I was confident the war would be over in a couple years and that we had won.

I turned on CNN when we got home (as mistake I'll never make again) and was "informed" that we were lossing. We even had a senator insist we had lost.

Well quess what bed wetters, YOU and the jihadists lost. In spite of all your efforts to undermine the outcome.

All the WMD bullshit aside, saddam was a sociopathic despot that got what he deserved. Had we not allowed the leftwing UN to interfere in 1991, we could have solved the problem right away.

amen on 1991
And any respect I had for the left was gone after those events just to get there power back
I read the book by Chris kyle (the navy seal who was murdered) and the true amount of terrorist in Iraq boggles the mind
they where from every where and you men and womne kicked there asses

god Bless you brother

 

[JRK]

ODS HOME PAGE

From your link:

There is an end-user problem. If you have reached this site from a web link,
- Through your internet options, adjust your privacy settings to allow cookies or
- Check your security settings and make sure this site has not been blocked or
- You are probably using a very slow link that may not work well with this application.
Otherwise you have reached this site through unauthorized means.

Weirds, works fine on my box.......
Update 27 January 2003 - the United Nations



www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm*




Jan 27, 2003 – THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION. Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix ...
here try this one

Full text: UN security council resolution 1441 on Iraq | World news | guardian.co.uk

Update 27 January 2003 - the United Nations



www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm*




Jan 27, 2003 – THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION. Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix ...

google blix 1-27-2003
The UN probably trying to end this link for good reasons

 

[BlindBoo]

From your link:

Weirds, works fine on my box.......
Update 27 January 2003 - the United Nations



www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm*




Jan 27, 2003 – THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003: AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION. Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix ...
here try this one

Full text: UN security council resolution 1441 on Iraq | World news | guardian.co.uk

Update 27 January 2003 - the United Nations

www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm*

...

The 12th quarterly report is the first that describes three months of inspection. They come after four years without inspections. The report was finalized 10 days ago, and a number of relevant events have taken place since then. Today's statement will supplement the circulated report on these points to bring the council up to date.

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix's U.N. presentation - Mar. 7, 2003

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months.

Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programs.

So instead of waiting for what we had agree t,o the President made his determination based on what?

 

[asterism]

The UN's "diplomatic effort" was merely cover for the Oil for Food operation.

And as I stated
the US congress stated 10-2002 to remove Saddam as per the details within the legeslation
those details were met 1-27-2003 by the speech Hans Blix presented to the UN
It was clear Saddam was in Violation
It was known that Al Qaeda was there
It is this simple. all of the hub bub about this and that, none of this has ever beeen reported
Saddam had WMDs
no-one disputes that
WHere did they go is this question, nonthing else

If it was so clear then where is the UN resolution. As a member of the Security Council the US has responsiblibities to follow the rule of law. In this case President Bush has thrown out the precident his father worked so hard to create during the first gulf war. It was a breach of the UN Charter.

There's no resolution because the UN leadership was corrupt and waist-deep in the Oil for Food scheme.

Oil-for-food report condemns 'corrupt' UN | World news | The Guardian

As to the requirements:

In 1991, resolution 687 (1991), adopted unanimously as a part of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, had five major elements. The three first related to disarmament. They called for :

declarations by Iraq of its programmes of weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles;

verification of the declarations through UNSCOM and the IAEA;

supervision by these organizations of the destruction or the elimination of proscribed programmes and items.



Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

Update 27 January 2003

 

[JakeStarkey]

If it was so clear then where is the UN resolution. As a member of the Security Council the US has responsiblibities to follow the rule of law. In this case President Bush has thrown out the precident his father worked so hard to create during the first gulf war. It was a breach of the UN Charter.

George the Younger instituted the Rule of Man for the Rule of Law of his father.

The USA had no legal cover to invade Iraq.

Bush will be taken sooner or later for trial.

 

[asterism]

If it was so clear then where is the UN resolution. As a member of the Security Council the US has responsiblibities to follow the rule of law. In this case President Bush has thrown out the precident his father worked so hard to create during the first gulf war. It was a breach of the UN Charter.

George the Younger instituted the Rule of Man for the Rule of Law of his father.

The USA had no legal cover to invade Iraq.

Bush will be taken sooner or later for trial.

10 years later there is no substance to that argument, no trial. How long do we have to wait? 24 business hours?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If it was so clear then where is the UN resolution. As a member of the Security Council the US has responsiblibities to follow the rule of law. In this case President Bush has thrown out the precident his father worked so hard to create during the first gulf war. It was a breach of the UN Charter.

George the Younger instituted the Rule of Man for the Rule of Law of his father.

The USA had no legal cover to invade Iraq.

Bush will be taken sooner or later for trial.

10 years later there is no substance to that argument, no trial. How long do we have to wait? 24 business hours?

It is has been the fact since the day of invasion when Bush became a war criminal.

 

[whitehall]

Hussein is in his 2nd term. How long is it going to take for lefties to stop whining about the previous administration and deal with today's scandals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hussein is in his 2nd term. How long is it going to take for lefties to stop whining about the previous administration and deal with today's scandals.

Our sillies whining about everything today is the same as the lefties whining about boooosh.

Both are irrelevant

 

[asterism]

George the Younger instituted the Rule of Man for the Rule of Law of his father.

The USA had no legal cover to invade Iraq.

Bush will be taken sooner or later for trial.

10 years later there is no substance to that argument, no trial. How long do we have to wait? 24 business hours?

It is has been the fact since the day of invasion when Bush became a war criminal.

How long is it going to take for you kooks to actually do anything about it? Why isn't he being tried in absentia in The Hague?

No Fitzmas on this one either.

 

[whitehall]

Will you lefties ever quit whining about Iraq? 42% of democrats in congress approved using combat Troops to enforce UN sanctions in Iraq and then they became criminals and undermined the mission. If you want to use the same standards for democrat administrations Harry Truman was a criminal because he had no congressional permission to engage Troops in Korea and we lost 55,000 in three years. Bill Clinton was certainly a criminal when he authorized the US Military to bomb a defenseless European country into the stone age.

 

[BlindBoo]

If it was so clear then where is the UN resolution. As a member of the Security Council the US has responsiblibities to follow the rule of law. In this case President Bush has thrown out the precident his father worked so hard to create during the first gulf war. It was a breach of the UN Charter.

George the Younger instituted the Rule of Man for the Rule of Law of his father.

The USA had no legal cover to invade Iraq.

Bush will be taken sooner or later for trial.

I seriously doubt that any US president will ever face trial, unless we were to lose a war like Germany did and the enemy occupies our country and capture our leaders. I just don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I seriously doubt that any US president will ever face trial, unless we were to lose a war like Germany did and the enemy occupies our country and capture our leaders. I just don't see that happening any time soon.

Oh, I agree. It's just driving neo-cons wild with the idea that most Americans hold their principles in contempt and their heroes in disdain is a worthwhile thing to do on the Board.