Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Gabe Lackmann]

It's amazing after ALL these years. After all that has transpired. All of the lies, wasted lives, and treasure, that people still try to pass off the same lines.
It's incredible. People just never learn. They would completely support us attacking any one for any reason, with out question.

I consider Correll and 9thIDdoc to be like those WWII Japanese soldiers who never got word about Hiroshima and the end of war.

They have built their own little desolate island of reality. Correll says SH was ‘poking the bear’ during the 1441 inspections not cooperating so he had to be taken out. 9thID came with the 1991 invasion of Kuwait never ended as if SH was invading Kuwait again in 2003.

Sad. All very sad.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The primary reason for the 2nd invasion was to remove Saddam from power and finally end the war.

There was no ongoing war to end in March 2003. A new war was officially started in March 2003 because W decided on March 8 that Iraq could not be disarmed of WMD by the ongoing peaceful means of inspections followed by long term monitoring.

When it was discovered by the invading army that there were no WMD to be found in IRAQ the original deluded supporters of the March 8 justification for a war of aggression and invasion of Iraq fell back to the post-invasion delusion that SH was a threat that had to be removed because we already invaded. In others words the invasion justified the invasion and they started shouting back when W said bring em on. So Americans always back our boys when they are getting shot at and blown to bits because they patrolled the streets in Humvees with shields sandbags and plywood.

That support should not be confused with supporting the lies that led to the Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe on March 19 2003 in the first place.

Fact: Saddam was given the ultimatum that he must step down from power or be removed forcefully. The fact that he refused to do so was the ultimate cause of the 2nd invasion. Not inspections. Not WMDs. Saddam.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

It was all over for @Correl when the lie that SH was “poking the bear” in 2002 and the first few months of 2003 in post27082899

A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit. It is strange with the benefit of hindsight that what he was hiding was that he ACTUALLY destroyed his wmds, as required.

An odd choice for him. Especially as America had been terribly attacked and was not in a mood to put up with any shit.

Would have been a good time to walk softly, instead of poking the bear

Why would anyone believe it when you wrote what SH “was hiding was that he ACTUALLY destroyed his wmds, as required” when the facts are that SH declared once again in December 2002 in response to the requirements of 1441 that he had no WMD and had no plans to make any.

It was W that was lying not the evil dictator that just happened to control a country that sat upon the best grade of crude oil that is close to the surface of the earth and therefore the easiest and cheapest to extract.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Fact: Saddam was given the ultimatum that he must step down from power or be removed forcefully.

Why was the ultimatum given on March 17 2003.

Did W just wake up one morning and decide to give SH an ultimatum because he could?

 

[Correll]

It was all over for @Correl when the lie that SH was “poking the bear” in 2002 and the first few months of 2003 in post27082899

A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit. It is strange with the benefit of hindsight that what he was hiding was that he ACTUALLY destroyed his wmds, as required.

An odd choice for him. Especially as America had been terribly attacked and was not in a mood to put up with any shit.

Would have been a good time to walk softly, instead of poking the bear

Why would anyone believe it when you wrote what SH “was hiding was that he ACTUALLY destroyed his wmds, as required” when the facts are that SH declared once again in December 2002 in response to the requirements of 1441 that he had no WMD and had no plans to make any.

It was W that was lying not the evil dictator that just happened to control a country that sat upon the best grade of crude oil that is close to the surface of the earth and therefore the easiest and cheapest to extract.

Or, it was President Bush who sincerely thought that Saddam had the wmds, and was lying.


I mean, seriously. Did you think I was going to let you get away with that idiocy?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Or, it was President Bush who sincerely thought that Saddam had the wmds, and was lying.

How does W ‘sincerely’ think SH had WMD’s, willing to start a war that could kill thousands and be entirely wrong?

To start a war I’d expect a POTUS to demand solid irrevocable evidence from his or her sources on the location and existence of WMD stockpiles before committing troops to a ground invasion to take control of a Muslim Nation for the purpose of finding hidden stockpiles of WMD.

Your low tribal standard that W needed only to THINK that SH was hiding WMD to justify a war as long as his thinking was sincere is immoral unChrustian and dangerous.

I can understand why you as a cultural non-religious white Christian can look at our country engaging in a war of aggression against a Muslim nation can hold such a low standard for W’s reckless and nonchalant decision to start a war in Iraq. Its because the brunt of war’s death and destruction would hit a Muslim population the hardest. And that fact is low on your concern list when you want America to go around the world starting wars because it can.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Why was the ultimatum given on March 17 2003.

Why do you disagree with a question?

Don’t you know why W gave the ultimatum on March 17 when there was no escalation of a threat to peace and security if SH stayed in power until inspections were finished.

Did you know that BLIX and El Beradai had sole authority to verify that Iraq was disarmed and recommend that sanctions be lifted against IRAQ. It would be a decision that UK and US could not VETO.

The consequences for the UK and US would be that American and British oil companies could be shut out from contracts to develop IRAQ’s oil fields due to the history of hostilities since 1991 when is cleared of possession of WMD.




HERE’s Some good ‘in the moment’ reading about oil in the ramp up to war :

Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacy
Manoeuvres shaped by horsetrading between America, Russia and France over control of untapped oilfields
Ed Vulliamy in New York, Paul Webster in Paris, and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow

Oil is emerging as the key factor in US attempts to secure the support of Russia and France for military action against Iraq, according to an Observer investigation.
The Bush administration, intimately entwined with the global oil industry, is keen to pounce on Iraq's massive untapped reserves, the second biggest in the world after Saudi Arabia's. But France and Russia, who hold a power of veto on the UN Security Council, have billion-dollar contracts with Baghdad, which they fear will disappear in 'an oil grab by Washington', if America installs a successor to Saddam.

Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacy

Oil is emerging as the key factor in US attempts to secure the support of Russia and France for military action against Iraq, according to an Observer investigation.

www.google.com

Washington's predatory interest in Iraqi oil is clear, whatever its political protestations about its motives for war. The US National Energy Policy Report of 2001 - known as the 'Cheney Report' after its author Vice President Dick Cheney, formerly one of America's richest and most powerful oil industry magnates - demanded a priority on easing US access to Persian Gulf supplies.
Doubts about Saudi Arabia - even before 11 September, and even more so in its wake - led US strategists to seek a backup supply in the region. America needs 20 million barrels of crude a day, and analysts have singled out the country that could meet up to half that requirement: Iraq.
The current high price of oil is dragging the US economy further into recession. US control of the Iraqi reserves, perhaps the biggest unmapped reservoir in the world, would break Saudi Arabia's hold on the oil-pricing cartel Opec, and dictate prices for the next century.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Fact: Saddam was given the ultimatum that he must step down from power or be removed forcefully.

Why was the ultimatum given on March 17 2003.

Did W just wake up one morning and decide to give SH an ultimatum because he could?

Are you trying to claim you know the answer to your own question? The only person who can know the answer was the President himself. All the rest of us (especially you) can do is speculate. And you've proven that you would rather imagine than indulge in rational speculation. IMO it is obvious that the President finally decided Saddam was never going to allow an acceptable through inspection to verify an absence of WMB or long range missiles as he had pledged in the cease fire agreement. And that the possible existence of WMD in the hands of a proven murderous madman and dictator willing to wage war against peaceful neighbors as well as his own countrymen is simply unacceptable.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Or, it was President Bush who sincerely thought that Saddam had the wmds, and was lying.

How does W ‘sincerely’ think SH had WMD’s, willing to start a war that could kill thousands and be entirely wrong?

To start a war I’d expect a POTUS to demand solid irrevocable evidence from his or her sources on the location and existence of WMD stockpiles before committing troops to a ground invasion to take control of a Muslim Nation for the purpose of finding hidden stockpiles of WMD.

Your low tribal standard that W needed only to THINK that SH was hiding WMD to justify a war as long as his thinking was sincere is immoral unChrustian and dangerous.

I can understand why you as a cultural non-religious white Christian can look at our country engaging in a war of aggression against a Muslim nation can hold such a low standard for W’s reckless and nonchalant decision to start a war in Iraq. Its because the brunt of war’s death and destruction would hit a Muslim population the hardest. And that fact is low on your concern list when you want America to go around the world starting wars because it can.

How does W ‘sincerely’ think SH had WMD’s, willing to start a war that could kill thousands and be entirely wrong?
The President hasn't been proven to have been wrong. Saddam had used WMD and also started an aggressive war that had killed (and was continuing to kill) thousands.

 

[surada]

The primary reason for the 2nd invasion was to remove Saddam from power and finally end the war.

There was no ongoing war to end in March 2003. A new war was officially started in March 2003 because W decided on March 8 that Iraq could not be disarmed of WMD by the ongoing peaceful means of inspections followed by long term monitoring.

When it was discovered by the invading army that there were no WMD to be found in IRAQ the original deluded supporters of the March 8 justification for a war of aggression and invasion of Iraq fell back to the post-invasion delusion that SH was a threat that had to be removed because we already invaded. In others words the invasion justified the invasion and they started shouting back when W said bring em on. So Americans always back our boys when they are getting shot at and blown to bits because they patrolled the streets in Humvees with shields sandbags and plywood.

That support should not be confused with supporting the lies that led to the Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe on March 19 2003 in the first place.

Fact: Saddam was given the ultimatum that he must step down from power or be removed forcefully. The fact that he refused to do so was the ultimate cause of the 2nd invasion. Not inspections. Not WMDs. Saddam.

Yes. Israel wanted him gone.. Operation Mass Appeal began in 1997-1998 to sell the war. Sir Derek Plumbly did a good job although he really screwed up the Booze Wars in November 2000. Sloppy operation .. The Brits were blowing each other up.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Why was the ultimatum given on March 17 2003.

Why do you disagree with a question?

Don’t you know why W gave the ultimatum on March 17 when there was no escalation of a threat to peace and security if SH stayed in power until inspections were finished.

Did you know that BLIX and El Beradai had sole authority to verify that Iraq was disarmed and recommend that sanctions be lifted against IRAQ. It would be a decision that UK and US could not VETO.

The consequences for the UK and US would be that American and British oil companies could be shut out from contracts to develop IRAQ’s oil fields due to the history of hostilities since 1991 when is cleared of possession of WMD.




HERE’s Some good ‘in the moment’ reading about oil in the ramp up to war :

Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacy
Manoeuvres shaped by horsetrading between America, Russia and France over control of untapped oilfields
Ed Vulliamy in New York, Paul Webster in Paris, and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow

Oil is emerging as the key factor in US attempts to secure the support of Russia and France for military action against Iraq, according to an Observer investigation.
The Bush administration, intimately entwined with the global oil industry, is keen to pounce on Iraq's massive untapped reserves, the second biggest in the world after Saudi Arabia's. But France and Russia, who hold a power of veto on the UN Security Council, have billion-dollar contracts with Baghdad, which they fear will disappear in 'an oil grab by Washington', if America installs a successor to Saddam.

Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacy

Oil is emerging as the key factor in US attempts to secure the support of Russia and France for military action against Iraq, according to an Observer investigation.

www.google.com

Washington's predatory interest in Iraqi oil is clear, whatever its political protestations about its motives for war. The US National Energy Policy Report of 2001 - known as the 'Cheney Report' after its author Vice President Dick Cheney, formerly one of America's richest and most powerful oil industry magnates - demanded a priority on easing US access to Persian Gulf supplies.
Doubts about Saudi Arabia - even before 11 September, and even more so in its wake - led US strategists to seek a backup supply in the region. America needs 20 million barrels of crude a day, and analysts have singled out the country that could meet up to half that requirement: Iraq.
The current high price of oil is dragging the US economy further into recession. US control of the Iraqi reserves, perhaps the biggest unmapped reservoir in the world, would break Saudi Arabia's hold on the oil-pricing cartel Opec, and dictate prices for the next century.

Don’t you know why W gave the ultimatum on March 17 when there was no escalation of a threat to peace and security if SH stayed in power until inspections were finished.
Saddam had already spent 10 years without allowing the acceptable inspections he had agreed to. There was no reason to believe he ever would.

Did you know that BLIX and El Beradai had sole authority to verify that Iraq was disarmed and recommend that sanctions be lifted against IRAQ. It would be a decision that UK and US could not VETO.
Untrue. The US and the UK are sovereign entities whose foreign polices are not, and cannot be, dictated by the UN.

And we must not forget Saddam's attempt to steal Kuwait's and SA oil fields and the people killed in the attempt.

 

[surada]

Why was the ultimatum given on March 17 2003.

Why do you disagree with a question?

Don’t you know why W gave the ultimatum on March 17 when there was no escalation of a threat to peace and security if SH stayed in power until inspections were finished.

Did you know that BLIX and El Beradai had sole authority to verify that Iraq was disarmed and recommend that sanctions be lifted against IRAQ. It would be a decision that UK and US could not VETO.

The consequences for the UK and US would be that American and British oil companies could be shut out from contracts to develop IRAQ’s oil fields due to the history of hostilities since 1991 when is cleared of possession of WMD.




HERE’s Some good ‘in the moment’ reading about oil in the ramp up to war :

Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacy
Manoeuvres shaped by horsetrading between America, Russia and France over control of untapped oilfields
Ed Vulliamy in New York, Paul Webster in Paris, and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow

Oil is emerging as the key factor in US attempts to secure the support of Russia and France for military action against Iraq, according to an Observer investigation.
The Bush administration, intimately entwined with the global oil industry, is keen to pounce on Iraq's massive untapped reserves, the second biggest in the world after Saudi Arabia's. But France and Russia, who hold a power of veto on the UN Security Council, have billion-dollar contracts with Baghdad, which they fear will disappear in 'an oil grab by Washington', if America installs a successor to Saddam.

Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacy

Oil is emerging as the key factor in US attempts to secure the support of Russia and France for military action against Iraq, according to an Observer investigation.

www.google.com

Washington's predatory interest in Iraqi oil is clear, whatever its political protestations about its motives for war. The US National Energy Policy Report of 2001 - known as the 'Cheney Report' after its author Vice President Dick Cheney, formerly one of America's richest and most powerful oil industry magnates - demanded a priority on easing US access to Persian Gulf supplies.
Doubts about Saudi Arabia - even before 11 September, and even more so in its wake - led US strategists to seek a backup supply in the region. America needs 20 million barrels of crude a day, and analysts have singled out the country that could meet up to half that requirement: Iraq.
The current high price of oil is dragging the US economy further into recession. US control of the Iraqi reserves, perhaps the biggest unmapped reservoir in the world, would break Saudi Arabia's hold on the oil-pricing cartel Opec, and dictate prices for the next century.

Don’t you know why W gave the ultimatum on March 17 when there was no escalation of a threat to peace and security if SH stayed in power until inspections were finished.
Saddam had already spent 10 years without allowing the acceptable inspections he had agreed to. There was no reason to believe he ever would.

Did you know that BLIX and El Beradai had sole authority to verify that Iraq was disarmed and recommend that sanctions be lifted against IRAQ. It would be a decision that UK and US could not VETO.
Untrue. The US and the UK are sovereign entities whose foreign polices are not, and cannot be, dictated by the UN.

And we must not forget Saddam's attempt to steal Kuwait's and SA oil fields and the people killed in the attempt.

LOLOL.. Saudi's oilfields are nowhere near Kuwait.

Kuwait was stealing from Iraq.

Saudi Arabia had forgiven Iraq's OPEC quota debt.. Kuwait did not.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The primary reason for the 2nd invasion was to remove Saddam from power and finally end the war.

There was no ongoing war to end in March 2003. A new war was officially started in March 2003 because W decided on March 8 that Iraq could not be disarmed of WMD by the ongoing peaceful means of inspections followed by long term monitoring.

When it was discovered by the invading army that there were no WMD to be found in IRAQ the original deluded supporters of the March 8 justification for a war of aggression and invasion of Iraq fell back to the post-invasion delusion that SH was a threat that had to be removed because we already invaded. In others words the invasion justified the invasion and they started shouting back when W said bring em on. So Americans always back our boys when they are getting shot at and blown to bits because they patrolled the streets in Humvees with shields sandbags and plywood.

That support should not be confused with supporting the lies that led to the Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe on March 19 2003 in the first place.

Fact: Saddam was given the ultimatum that he must step down from power or be removed forcefully. The fact that he refused to do so was the ultimate cause of the 2nd invasion. Not inspections. Not WMDs. Saddam.

Yes. Israel wanted him gone.. Operation Mass Appeal began in 1997-1998 to sell the war. Sir Derek Plumbly did a good job although he really screwed up the Booze Wars in November 2000. Sloppy operation .. The Brits were blowing each other up.

Again wildly off topic. If you are confused please be advised that America is not Israel nor is America the UN (we just mostly finance it).

 

[surada]

The primary reason for the 2nd invasion was to remove Saddam from power and finally end the war.

There was no ongoing war to end in March 2003. A new war was officially started in March 2003 because W decided on March 8 that Iraq could not be disarmed of WMD by the ongoing peaceful means of inspections followed by long term monitoring.

When it was discovered by the invading army that there were no WMD to be found in IRAQ the original deluded supporters of the March 8 justification for a war of aggression and invasion of Iraq fell back to the post-invasion delusion that SH was a threat that had to be removed because we already invaded. In others words the invasion justified the invasion and they started shouting back when W said bring em on. So Americans always back our boys when they are getting shot at and blown to bits because they patrolled the streets in Humvees with shields sandbags and plywood.

That support should not be confused with supporting the lies that led to the Blitzkrieg Shock and Awe on March 19 2003 in the first place.

Fact: Saddam was given the ultimatum that he must step down from power or be removed forcefully. The fact that he refused to do so was the ultimate cause of the 2nd invasion. Not inspections. Not WMDs. Saddam.

Yes. Israel wanted him gone.. Operation Mass Appeal began in 1997-1998 to sell the war. Sir Derek Plumbly did a good job although he really screwed up the Booze Wars in November 2000. Sloppy operation .. The Brits were blowing each other up.

Again wildly off topic. If you are confused please be advised that America is not Israel nor is America the UN (we just mostly finance it).

LOLOL.. and you claim Saddam was stealing Saudi oil..

Read Clean Break Strategy.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Why was the ultimatum given on March 17 2003.

Why do you disagree with a question?

Don’t you know why W gave the ultimatum on March 17 when there was no escalation of a threat to peace and security if SH stayed in power until inspections were finished.

Did you know that BLIX and El Beradai had sole authority to verify that Iraq was disarmed and recommend that sanctions be lifted against IRAQ. It would be a decision that UK and US could not VETO.

The consequences for the UK and US would be that American and British oil companies could be shut out from contracts to develop IRAQ’s oil fields due to the history of hostilities since 1991 when is cleared of possession of WMD.




HERE’s Some good ‘in the moment’ reading about oil in the ramp up to war :

Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacy
Manoeuvres shaped by horsetrading between America, Russia and France over control of untapped oilfields
Ed Vulliamy in New York, Paul Webster in Paris, and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow

Oil is emerging as the key factor in US attempts to secure the support of Russia and France for military action against Iraq, according to an Observer investigation.
The Bush administration, intimately entwined with the global oil industry, is keen to pounce on Iraq's massive untapped reserves, the second biggest in the world after Saudi Arabia's. But France and Russia, who hold a power of veto on the UN Security Council, have billion-dollar contracts with Baghdad, which they fear will disappear in 'an oil grab by Washington', if America installs a successor to Saddam.

Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacy

Oil is emerging as the key factor in US attempts to secure the support of Russia and France for military action against Iraq, according to an Observer investigation.

www.google.com

Washington's predatory interest in Iraqi oil is clear, whatever its political protestations about its motives for war. The US National Energy Policy Report of 2001 - known as the 'Cheney Report' after its author Vice President Dick Cheney, formerly one of America's richest and most powerful oil industry magnates - demanded a priority on easing US access to Persian Gulf supplies.
Doubts about Saudi Arabia - even before 11 September, and even more so in its wake - led US strategists to seek a backup supply in the region. America needs 20 million barrels of crude a day, and analysts have singled out the country that could meet up to half that requirement: Iraq.
The current high price of oil is dragging the US economy further into recession. US control of the Iraqi reserves, perhaps the biggest unmapped reservoir in the world, would break Saudi Arabia's hold on the oil-pricing cartel Opec, and dictate prices for the next century.

Don’t you know why W gave the ultimatum on March 17 when there was no escalation of a threat to peace and security if SH stayed in power until inspections were finished.
Saddam had already spent 10 years without allowing the acceptable inspections he had agreed to. There was no reason to believe he ever would.

Did you know that BLIX and El Beradai had sole authority to verify that Iraq was disarmed and recommend that sanctions be lifted against IRAQ. It would be a decision that UK and US could not VETO.
Untrue. The US and the UK are sovereign entities whose foreign polices are not, and cannot be, dictated by the UN.

And we must not forget Saddam's attempt to steal Kuwait's and SA oil fields and the people killed in the attempt.

LOLOL.. Saudi's oilfields are nowhere near Kuwait.

Kuwait was stealing from Iraq.

Saudi Arabia had forgiven Iraq's OPEC quota debt.. Kuwait did not.

Saddam captured Kuwait for it's oil and was massing to do the same with SA until they got their as kicked.

 

[surada]

Why was the ultimatum given on March 17 2003.

Why do you disagree with a question?

Don’t you know why W gave the ultimatum on March 17 when there was no escalation of a threat to peace and security if SH stayed in power until inspections were finished.

Did you know that BLIX and El Beradai had sole authority to verify that Iraq was disarmed and recommend that sanctions be lifted against IRAQ. It would be a decision that UK and US could not VETO.

The consequences for the UK and US would be that American and British oil companies could be shut out from contracts to develop IRAQ’s oil fields due to the history of hostilities since 1991 when is cleared of possession of WMD.




HERE’s Some good ‘in the moment’ reading about oil in the ramp up to war :

Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacy
Manoeuvres shaped by horsetrading between America, Russia and France over control of untapped oilfields
Ed Vulliamy in New York, Paul Webster in Paris, and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow

Oil is emerging as the key factor in US attempts to secure the support of Russia and France for military action against Iraq, according to an Observer investigation.
The Bush administration, intimately entwined with the global oil industry, is keen to pounce on Iraq's massive untapped reserves, the second biggest in the world after Saudi Arabia's. But France and Russia, who hold a power of veto on the UN Security Council, have billion-dollar contracts with Baghdad, which they fear will disappear in 'an oil grab by Washington', if America installs a successor to Saddam.

Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacy

Oil is emerging as the key factor in US attempts to secure the support of Russia and France for military action against Iraq, according to an Observer investigation.

www.google.com

Washington's predatory interest in Iraqi oil is clear, whatever its political protestations about its motives for war. The US National Energy Policy Report of 2001 - known as the 'Cheney Report' after its author Vice President Dick Cheney, formerly one of America's richest and most powerful oil industry magnates - demanded a priority on easing US access to Persian Gulf supplies.
Doubts about Saudi Arabia - even before 11 September, and even more so in its wake - led US strategists to seek a backup supply in the region. America needs 20 million barrels of crude a day, and analysts have singled out the country that could meet up to half that requirement: Iraq.
The current high price of oil is dragging the US economy further into recession. US control of the Iraqi reserves, perhaps the biggest unmapped reservoir in the world, would break Saudi Arabia's hold on the oil-pricing cartel Opec, and dictate prices for the next century.

Don’t you know why W gave the ultimatum on March 17 when there was no escalation of a threat to peace and security if SH stayed in power until inspections were finished.
Saddam had already spent 10 years without allowing the acceptable inspections he had agreed to. There was no reason to believe he ever would.

Did you know that BLIX and El Beradai had sole authority to verify that Iraq was disarmed and recommend that sanctions be lifted against IRAQ. It would be a decision that UK and US could not VETO.
Untrue. The US and the UK are sovereign entities whose foreign polices are not, and cannot be, dictated by the UN.

And we must not forget Saddam's attempt to steal Kuwait's and SA oil fields and the people killed in the attempt.

LOLOL.. Saudi's oilfields are nowhere near Kuwait.

Kuwait was stealing from Iraq.

Saudi Arabia had forgiven Iraq's OPEC quota debt.. Kuwait did not.

Saddam captured Kuwait for it's oil and was massing to do the same with SA until they got their as kicked.

No. Saddam had NO troops massed on the Saudi border. Cheney flat out lied.. and admitted he lied.

You're too much of a smart Alec to learn anything.

Oral History - Richard Cheney | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS

Oral History - Richard Cheney | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS

Cheney: I told King Fahd that the Iraqis were amassed on his border and we briefed him on the intelligence in terms of the size of the force that the Iraqis had already used in Kuwait.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Saddam had already spent 10 years without allowing the acceptable inspections he had agreed to.

Actually with 250 thousand troops assembled on his border there is absolutely no reason to believe SH Was not cooperating.

In March 2003 SH was cooperating more than he ever had before. So why the ultimatum on March 17?

1441 demanded that SH cooperate. It was not a matter of belief - it was a master of if. There was not a deadline to wrap up inspections. A few more months the world would have known the ultimate reality that WMD did not exist.


Colin Powell said Iraq was cooperating from the beginning and war would be avoided if it continued.

What changed? Why the ultimatum in March? It made absolutely no sense other than to beat the summer heat and end inspections before the truth became known. W was lying about the intelligence he claimed to have. intelligence was the one curtain he could hide behind when the truth came out.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Why was the ultimatum given on March 17 2003.

Why do you disagree with a question?

Don’t you know why W gave the ultimatum on March 17 when there was no escalation of a threat to peace and security if SH stayed in power until inspections were finished.

Did you know that BLIX and El Beradai had sole authority to verify that Iraq was disarmed and recommend that sanctions be lifted against IRAQ. It would be a decision that UK and US could not VETO.

The consequences for the UK and US would be that American and British oil companies could be shut out from contracts to develop IRAQ’s oil fields due to the history of hostilities since 1991 when is cleared of possession of WMD.




HERE’s Some good ‘in the moment’ reading about oil in the ramp up to war :

Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacy
Manoeuvres shaped by horsetrading between America, Russia and France over control of untapped oilfields
Ed Vulliamy in New York, Paul Webster in Paris, and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow

Oil is emerging as the key factor in US attempts to secure the support of Russia and France for military action against Iraq, according to an Observer investigation.
The Bush administration, intimately entwined with the global oil industry, is keen to pounce on Iraq's massive untapped reserves, the second biggest in the world after Saudi Arabia's. But France and Russia, who hold a power of veto on the UN Security Council, have billion-dollar contracts with Baghdad, which they fear will disappear in 'an oil grab by Washington', if America installs a successor to Saddam.

Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacy

Oil is emerging as the key factor in US attempts to secure the support of Russia and France for military action against Iraq, according to an Observer investigation.

www.google.com

Washington's predatory interest in Iraqi oil is clear, whatever its political protestations about its motives for war. The US National Energy Policy Report of 2001 - known as the 'Cheney Report' after its author Vice President Dick Cheney, formerly one of America's richest and most powerful oil industry magnates - demanded a priority on easing US access to Persian Gulf supplies.
Doubts about Saudi Arabia - even before 11 September, and even more so in its wake - led US strategists to seek a backup supply in the region. America needs 20 million barrels of crude a day, and analysts have singled out the country that could meet up to half that requirement: Iraq.
The current high price of oil is dragging the US economy further into recession. US control of the Iraqi reserves, perhaps the biggest unmapped reservoir in the world, would break Saudi Arabia's hold on the oil-pricing cartel Opec, and dictate prices for the next century.

Don’t you know why W gave the ultimatum on March 17 when there was no escalation of a threat to peace and security if SH stayed in power until inspections were finished.
Saddam had already spent 10 years without allowing the acceptable inspections he had agreed to. There was no reason to believe he ever would.

Did you know that BLIX and El Beradai had sole authority to verify that Iraq was disarmed and recommend that sanctions be lifted against IRAQ. It would be a decision that UK and US could not VETO.
Untrue. The US and the UK are sovereign entities whose foreign polices are not, and cannot be, dictated by the UN.

And we must not forget Saddam's attempt to steal Kuwait's and SA oil fields and the people killed in the attempt.

LOLOL.. Saudi's oilfields are nowhere near Kuwait.

Kuwait was stealing from Iraq.

Saudi Arabia had forgiven Iraq's OPEC quota debt.. Kuwait did not.

Saddam captured Kuwait for it's oil and was massing to do the same with SA until they got their as kicked.

No. Saddam had NO troops massed on the Saudi border. Cheney flat out lied.. and admitted he lied.

You're too much of a smart Alec to learn anything.

Oral History - Richard Cheney | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS

Oral History - Richard Cheney | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS

Cheney: I told King Fahd that the Iraqis were amassed on his border and we briefed him on the intelligence in terms of the size of the force that the Iraqis had already used in Kuwait.

No. Saddam had NO troops massed on the Saudi border. Cheney flat out lied.. and admitted he lied.
The fact is that Iraqi forces attacked across the border into SA where they engaged US troops. Where did they come from?

February 1, 1991

A U.S. victory The Battle of Khafji was fought between American and Iraqi forces. The Iraqis were driven out of Saudi Arabia for an American victory.

Persian Gulf War Timeline

The Persian Gulf War was a fight that went by many names such as Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, the Iraq War, and more. It was led by the United States against Iraq after Iraq invaded and captured Kuwait.

www.softschools.com

Persian Gulf War | Summary, Dates, Combatants, Casualties, Syndrome, Map, & Facts | Britannica

Persian Gulf War, conflict (1990–91) triggered by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait with the apparent aim of acquiring its large oil reserves, canceling a large debt owed to Kuwait, and expanding Iraqi regional power. A U.S.-led invasion ended Iraq’s occupation and required Iraq to divest of its weapons...

www.britannica.com

Persian Gulf War, also called Gulf War, (1990–91), international conflict that was triggered by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, ordered the invasion and occupation of Kuwait with the apparent aim of acquiring that nation’s large oil reserves, canceling a large debt Iraq owed Kuwait, and expanding Iraqi power in the region. On August 3 the United Nations Security Council called for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, and on August 6 the council imposed a worldwide ban on trade with Iraq. (The Iraqi government responded by formally annexing Kuwait on August 8.) Iraq’s invasion and the potential threat it then posed to Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer and exporter, prompted the United States and its western European NATO allies to rush troops to Saudi Arabia to deter a possible attack. Egypt and several other Arab nations joined the anti-Iraq coalition and contributed forces to the military buildup, known as Operation Desert Shield.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Persian Gulf War, also called Gulf War, (1990–91), international conflict that was triggered by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990.

Why is the end date of the War to liberate Kuwait always listed as 1991.

You’d think it would be updated to today since there still is ongoing fighting going on in Iraq, if anybody listened to you.

But who listens to crackpots except Trump voters.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Persian Gulf War, also called Gulf War, (1990–91), international conflict that was triggered by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990.

Why is the end date of the War to liberate Kuwait always listed as 1991.

You’d think it would be updated to today since there still is ongoing fighting going on in Iraq, if anybody listened to you.

But who listens to crackpots except Trump voters.

Most people with an interest in world history is aware of the fact that the names of wars and their dates is a matter of opinion and viewpoint. The First World War wasn't called that until there was a Second World. Before that in the US most people knew it as the Great War. It started and ended on different dates depending on the Nationality of the speaker or writer. And was also thought to be caused by different events. For example the First World War had different lengths and causes to the British than to the Americans. Whatever a conflict is called doesn't change historical facts. Call it what you will but whatever you call it doesn't change the facts of the conflict. Your game playing with semantics can't change reality.