Andylusion 14292886
I believe Bush hoped to avoid violence. I don't think he lied at all. The problem is, Saddam refused to allow unconditional weapons inspections. He even said as much. Saddam claimed that he believed the UN inspection teams were filled with CIA operatives. First I highly doubt that. Second, even if it was true, so what? Saddam didn't have any important information we didn't already know.
So Saddam put his own head in the noose and hanged himself on the US military. I don't think Bush lied about anything.
Doesn't really matter what Clinton said, when Saddam refused. She didn't give another option.
You suffer much misinformation on the UN inspections of 2003. Iraq was credited with cooperating on process and substance proactively according to Dr Blix in February and early March 2003 prior to Bush deciding to use military force. Do you think bombing and a blitzkrieg like invasion is not resorting to violence?
Saddam Hussein alleged UN inspectors were spies in 1998. Get with it Bush invaded on March 20 2003. Saddam had invited Bush to send the CIA into Iraq directly to find WMD along with the UN. That was December 2002. He could not have cooperated any more than that. Bush refused to consider the offer.
Bush said using military force would be his last resort and he wanted peaceful disarmament of Iraq.
Bush was getting exactly that when Bush terminated the inspections that were doing just that. It was not Saddam Hussein that forced the inspectors to leave. It was Bush who announced the start of violent inspections coming soon in March 17, 2003.
You are so wrong there is no excuse for it.
We had been dealing with Saddam since 1991. The fact we waited 12 years before dealing with him, shows we used violence as a last resort. You morons act like the whole thing started in 2002, and Bush only gave him a year. We gave him 12 years. He had TWELVE YEARS to prove he had destroyed all his WMDs, and he refused.
Honestly, I'm annoyed Bush waited until 2003 to invade.
Now you mentioned Hans Blix. You cited him as your credible argument. Therefore I am going to cite Hans Blix myself, to prove my case.
Hans Blix December 7th, 2002 to the UN- "During the period 1991–1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the 7 December report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light.
Hans Blix changed his mind, only after the war started in 2003.
Blix was responding to Iraq which filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN, in response to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which was passed November 8th, of 2002, which said the following.....
- "In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq supports terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."
- The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2001 found "extremely grave" human rights violations
- Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.
- Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
- Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.
Resolution 1441 passed 5 to 0 support in favor, and had wider general support, than did the Gulf War resolution of 1990.
The moment that you cited Hans Blix, you lost the entire argument. You are so wrong there is no excuse for it.
