Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?

[elvis]

you think anyone is really going to take you serious?
i dont think so,

He's exactly correct.

id the US have the right to take action against Iraq

Yes they did. Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
Resolution 1441 in full
Did the peope of Iraq want the coalition of the willing to remove saddam?

Yes they did. The ICG conducted interviews with Iraqis before the war. Not only did they say that they wanted the coalition of the willing to remove Saddam, they claimed that they were willing to live in occupation and suffer the violence that may follow.
ICG IRAQ Briefing
Do the poeple of Iraq want the Coalition to stay? And do they agree with the removing of Saddam Hussain

The people of Iraq have been polled by Oxford Research International many times since the liberation of Iraq. The polls show that the Iraqi people are positive about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the coalition in Iraq. The 2005 poll was less positive. No poll was done in 2006-2007, but one could guess that things would have been more neagative in 2006 early 2007, since the surge of late 2007 we have seen many tribal leaders have joined with the collation forces to rid Iraq of Al Quada. Deaths are down, loses to US forces are down and one could expect a more positive view again.
Oxford Research International Poll 2003
Oxford Research International Poll February 2004
Oxford Research International Poll March 2004
Oxford Research International Poll June 2004
Oxford Research International Poll November 2005

did japan have the right to take action against the United States? they used the same reasoning Bush did when they attacked Pearl harbor. "take away their ability to make war."

 

[Jarhead]

Hey ass wipe, check your hate at the door for 2 seconds.

If the cops arrived at your house and said you had illegal drugs, because they know you smoked them 10 years ago, and you said you didn't have any now and they then arrested you for lying because "Obviously you were hiding them" and the court said "OK Jarhead, prove to us you don't have them" ... what do you think would happen?

Look, un accounted for means exactly what iy says
someone somewhere made account of those weapons at one time

It was not the UN's place to keep track of them
It was not the US
It was Saddam's place to keep track of them, prove they were gone without ANY doubt

The records these weapons existed came from Saddam
All Saddam had to do was produce the weapons, it was that simple
it does that no-one has a reason to attack, NO-ONE
Do not forget we did not go at this alone, there was close to 60 countries went with us, maybe more

It why I started the liberal myth thread. there are so many lies about Iraq, its why there has been over 2000 responses to it
People believe we were fighting Iraqis for 7 years while at the same time we were helping them form a Govt

What concerned me at the time of the build-up to the invasion was that the WH seemed to be demanding that Saddam prove a negative.
"Prove to us that you have no weapons of mass destruction!!"
Then, when the inspections teams could find none, they took that as proof that he was hiding them.

Wrong.
Completely spun.
The white house did not ask him to prove they did not have WMD's.

The White House made it clear that they needed Iraq to adhere to the terms of the treaty and allow UN inspectors to confirm that there were no weapons of mass destruction...and the WH also made it clear that if they do not allow the UN to inspect then it would be logical to assume they had somethiung to hide...

I am curious...your spin of the truth.....you know...where you are claiiming that the White House insisted THEY prove that they do not have WMD's....did you do that becuase you are insecure with your position on the topic at hand...or are you simply naive to the truth?

 

[8537]

Another thread wherein JRK will go on for pages on end attempting to justify the Iraq war?

Precious, but this script has already been written. Four times.

And you still don't get it. No shock there.

Oh, I get it just fine. Water carriers and boot lickers will never admit that we wasted thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

You and JRK, for instance. Perfect examples of what the rightwing echo chamber.

 

[Jarhead]

He's exactly correct.

id the US have the right to take action against Iraq

Yes they did. Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
Resolution 1441 in full
Did the peope of Iraq want the coalition of the willing to remove saddam?

Yes they did. The ICG conducted interviews with Iraqis before the war. Not only did they say that they wanted the coalition of the willing to remove Saddam, they claimed that they were willing to live in occupation and suffer the violence that may follow.
ICG IRAQ Briefing
Do the poeple of Iraq want the Coalition to stay? And do they agree with the removing of Saddam Hussain

The people of Iraq have been polled by Oxford Research International many times since the liberation of Iraq. The polls show that the Iraqi people are positive about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the coalition in Iraq. The 2005 poll was less positive. No poll was done in 2006-2007, but one could guess that things would have been more neagative in 2006 early 2007, since the surge of late 2007 we have seen many tribal leaders have joined with the collation forces to rid Iraq of Al Quada. Deaths are down, loses to US forces are down and one could expect a more positive view again.
Oxford Research International Poll 2003
Oxford Research International Poll February 2004
Oxford Research International Poll March 2004
Oxford Research International Poll June 2004
Oxford Research International Poll November 2005

did japan have the right to take action against the United States? they used the same reasoning Bush did when they attacked Pearl harbor. "take away their ability to make war."

that is not what congress voted in favor of.

They voted in favor of invading Iraq to either confiscate wmd's or ensure there were no wmd's as Iraq was bound by a treaty that was designed to allow Iraq its sovereignty despite its actions against kuwait but ensure it could not take the same kind of action again or any other hostile action against its neighbors.

Interesting hoiw all of you seemed to have forgotten.

I blame the media.

 

[JRK]

Look, un accounted for means exactly what iy says
someone somewhere made account of those weapons at one time

It was not the UN's place to keep track of them
It was not the US
It was Saddam's place to keep track of them, prove they were gone without ANY doubt

The records these weapons existed came from Saddam
All Saddam had to do was produce the weapons, it was that simple
it does that no-one has a reason to attack, NO-ONE
Do not forget we did not go at this alone, there was close to 60 countries went with us, maybe more

It why I started the liberal myth thread. there are so many lies about Iraq, its why there has been over 2000 responses to it
People believe we were fighting Iraqis for 7 years while at the same time we were helping them form a Govt

What concerned me at the time of the build-up to the invasion was that the WH seemed to be demanding that Saddam prove a negative.
"Prove to us that you have no weapons of mass destruction!!"
Then, when the inspections teams could find none, they took that as proof that he was hiding them.

Wrong.
Completely spun.
The white house did not ask him to prove they did not have WMD's.

The White House made it clear that they needed Iraq to adhere to the terms of the treaty and allow UN inspectors to confirm that there were no weapons of mass destruction...and the WH also made it clear that if they do not allow the UN to inspect then it would be logical to assume they had somethiung to hide...

I am curious...your spin of the truth.....you know...where you are claiiming that the White House insisted THEY prove that they do not have WMD's....did you do that becuase you are insecure with your position on the topic at hand...or are you simply naive to the truth?

Facts about the Iraq War

This web site jarhead is the best I have found for the truth
just found it today

 

[8537]

Another thread wherein JRK will go on for pages on end attempting to justify the Iraq war?

Precious, but this script has already been written. Four times.

Actually, I see him justifying the actions of a President...you know...something people do day in and day out on this board.[/quote[

You can justify the Iraq war in one thread, not four.

And to be honest, I beleived there were WMD's as well in Iraq....and if not, then I am confident Hussein did everything he could to make us think there were.

That's fine. A lot of people felt the war was justified. I disagreed with those people, but that's how things go.

But the handling of it was very poor and the claims about it costing 2-3B dollars and Iraqis greeting us as liberators? I'm quite certain the people making those claims knew them to be untrue.

 

[Jarhead]

Another thread wherein JRK will go on for pages on end attempting to justify the Iraq war?

Precious, but this script has already been written. Four times.

And you still don't get it. No shock there.

Oh, I get it just fine. Water carriers and boot lickers will never admit that we wasted thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

You and JRK, for instance. Perfect examples of what the rightwing echo chamber.

lives were not wasted. They were lost.
As for the money......what if there were WMD's? Would iut have been a waste of money?

 

[DontBeStupid]

did japan have the right to take action against the United States? they used the same reasoning Bush did when they attacked Pearl harbor. "take away their ability to make war."

that is not what congress voted in favor of.

They voted in favor of invading Iraq to either confiscate wmd's or ensure there were no wmd's as Iraq was bound by a treaty that was designed to allow Iraq its sovereignty despite its actions against kuwait but ensure it could not take the same kind of action again or any other hostile action against its neighbors.

No. That is not what Congress voted for.

You should read the resolution. Specifically Section 3.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

 

[elvis]

id the US have the right to take action against Iraq

Yes they did. Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
Resolution 1441 in full
Did the peope of Iraq want the coalition of the willing to remove saddam?

Yes they did. The ICG conducted interviews with Iraqis before the war. Not only did they say that they wanted the coalition of the willing to remove Saddam, they claimed that they were willing to live in occupation and suffer the violence that may follow.
ICG IRAQ Briefing
Do the poeple of Iraq want the Coalition to stay? And do they agree with the removing of Saddam Hussain

The people of Iraq have been polled by Oxford Research International many times since the liberation of Iraq. The polls show that the Iraqi people are positive about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the coalition in Iraq. The 2005 poll was less positive. No poll was done in 2006-2007, but one could guess that things would have been more neagative in 2006 early 2007, since the surge of late 2007 we have seen many tribal leaders have joined with the collation forces to rid Iraq of Al Quada. Deaths are down, loses to US forces are down and one could expect a more positive view again.
Oxford Research International Poll 2003
Oxford Research International Poll February 2004
Oxford Research International Poll March 2004
Oxford Research International Poll June 2004
Oxford Research International Poll November 2005

did japan have the right to take action against the United States? they used the same reasoning Bush did when they attacked Pearl harbor. "take away their ability to make war."

that is not what congress voted in favor of.

They voted in favor of invading Iraq to either confiscate wmd's or ensure there were no wmd's as Iraq was bound by a treaty that was designed to allow Iraq its sovereignty despite its actions against kuwait but ensure it could not take the same kind of action again or any other hostile action against its neighbors.

Interesting hoiw all of you seemed to have forgotten.

I blame the media.

It was still a preventive war and I haven't forgotten anything. One could also blame the media for the drum beating that led up to the war.

 

[JRK]

Another thread wherein JRK will go on for pages on end attempting to justify the Iraq war?

Precious, but this script has already been written. Four times.

And you still don't get it. No shock there.

Oh, I get it just fine. Water carriers and boot lickers will never admit that we wasted thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

You and JRK, for instance. Perfect examples of what the rightwing echo chamber.

Boot lickers?
Boot lickers?
what exactly is it that you do not understand about fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq for the reasons as put forth in Resolution 1441?
you think that fighting these people who want to kill us would be free?
al-Qaeda in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
what do you think we were doing over there?
why do you think we did anything wrong?
Water carriers?

 

[JRK]

did japan have the right to take action against the United States? they used the same reasoning Bush did when they attacked Pearl harbor. "take away their ability to make war."

that is not what congress voted in favor of.

They voted in favor of invading Iraq to either confiscate wmd's or ensure there were no wmd's as Iraq was bound by a treaty that was designed to allow Iraq its sovereignty despite its actions against kuwait but ensure it could not take the same kind of action again or any other hostile action against its neighbors.

No. That is not what Congress voted for.

You should read the resolution. Specifically Section 3.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

this will do

Has Iraq complied with resolution 1441?

No, they have not complied with resolution 1441 or any other resolution over a period of over 12 years they did anything but; they went to great lengths to avoid complying with the resolution. 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
Resolution 687
Key points of resolution 1441
Resolution 1441

What was required by resolution 1441?

Iraq was required by many resolutions including resolution 1441 to destroy their WMD and supply proof of doing so. Among other points 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
Resolution 687
Key points of resolution 1441
Resolution 1441

Now you understand why I go back to the Blix speech of 1-27-2003

Facts about the Iraq War

 

[DontBeStupid]

that is not what congress voted in favor of.

They voted in favor of invading Iraq to either confiscate wmd's or ensure there were no wmd's as Iraq was bound by a treaty that was designed to allow Iraq its sovereignty despite its actions against kuwait but ensure it could not take the same kind of action again or any other hostile action against its neighbors.

No. That is not what Congress voted for.

You should read the resolution. Specifically Section 3.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

this will do

Has Iraq complied with resolution 1441?

No, they have not complied with resolution 1441 or any other resolution over a period of over 12 years they did anything but; they went to great lengths to avoid complying with the resolution. 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
Resolution 687
Key points of resolution 1441
Resolution 1441

What was required by resolution 1441?

Iraq was required by many resolutions including resolution 1441 to destroy their WMD and supply proof of doing so. Among other points 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
Resolution 687
Key points of resolution 1441
Resolution 1441

Now you understand why I go back to the Blix speech of 1-27-2003

Facts about the Iraq War

Wait, did you just say we invaded them because they didn't show sufficient proof of destroying their WMDs?

 

[Vanquish]

I've already posted in one of these war threads that I believe that we achieved goals after invading that I think were praise-worthy and noble.

1. Dictator deposed
2. Democratic constitution drafted with diverse input from citizens
3. Military and Police gathered and trained
4. Democratic elections held
5. Infrastructure rebuilt (only in part, but that's noteworthy)

One of my legal mentors is a soldier-lawyer who helped draft the Iraqi constitution and train the Iraqi police force. One war story he loves to tell (I think to remind himself how lucky he is to be alive) involves his explanation to the local equivalent of a sheriff how you can't just put someone in jail for revenge. As he was leaving the next day, his transport barely made it over a bridge that "popped". Later he was told that relatives of the sheriff did that just to let him know they didn't like what they'd been taught.

Now I don't see that story as proof for either side of any partisan points. Simply that the work our servicemen and women is dangerous, slow, and unfair.

That being said, inspectors were in Iraq prior to the war...they just weren't allowed full access. The tug of war was whether diplomatic efforts could, given more time, get us access to those places. I surely do remember that the threat was termed immanent based on the believed forward push in delivery methods.

I must profess, this isn't my area of expertise.

 

[JRK]

No. That is not what Congress voted for.

You should read the resolution. Specifically Section 3.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

this will do

Has Iraq complied with resolution 1441?

No, they have not complied with resolution 1441 or any other resolution over a period of over 12 years they did anything but; they went to great lengths to avoid complying with the resolution. 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
Resolution 687
Key points of resolution 1441
Resolution 1441

What was required by resolution 1441?

Iraq was required by many resolutions including resolution 1441 to destroy their WMD and supply proof of doing so. Among other points 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
Resolution 687
Key points of resolution 1441
Resolution 1441

Now you understand why I go back to the Blix speech of 1-27-2003

Facts about the Iraq War

Wait, did you just say we invaded them because they didn't show sufficient proof of destroying their WMDs?

I did not say nothing
you provided a link to the resolution
I provided the info in the resolve that simply gives reason to the invasion
Saddam had a mandate, he ignored it
Look dude, I am sorry you have been lied to
this is as black and white as it gets and none of it is mine
why would you question the obvious is beyond me

 

[idb]

Look, un accounted for means exactly what iy says
someone somewhere made account of those weapons at one time

It was not the UN's place to keep track of them
It was not the US
It was Saddam's place to keep track of them, prove they were gone without ANY doubt

The records these weapons existed came from Saddam
All Saddam had to do was produce the weapons, it was that simple
it does that no-one has a reason to attack, NO-ONE
Do not forget we did not go at this alone, there was close to 60 countries went with us, maybe more

It why I started the liberal myth thread. there are so many lies about Iraq, its why there has been over 2000 responses to it
People believe we were fighting Iraqis for 7 years while at the same time we were helping them form a Govt

What concerned me at the time of the build-up to the invasion was that the WH seemed to be demanding that Saddam prove a negative.
"Prove to us that you have no weapons of mass destruction!!"
Then, when the inspections teams could find none, they took that as proof that he was hiding them.

Wrong.
Completely spun.
The white house did not ask him to prove they did not have WMD's.

The White House made it clear that they needed Iraq to adhere to the terms of the treaty and allow UN inspectors to confirm that there were no weapons of mass destruction...and the WH also made it clear that if they do not allow the UN to inspect then it would be logical to assume they had somethiung to hide...

I am curious...your spin of the truth.....you know...where you are claiiming that the White House insisted THEY prove that they do not have WMD's....did you do that becuase you are insecure with your position on the topic at hand...or are you simply naive to the truth?

Neither, just relating how I observed it at the time...

 

[JRK]

I've already posted in one of these war threads that I believe that we achieved goals after invading that I think were praise-worthy and noble.

1. Dictator deposed
2. Democratic constitution drafted with diverse input from citizens
3. Military and Police gathered and trained
4. Democratic elections held
5. Infrastructure rebuilt (only in part, but that's noteworthy)

One of my legal mentors is a soldier-lawyer who helped draft the Iraqi constitution and train the Iraqi police force. One war story he loves to tell (I think to remind himself how lucky he is to be alive) involves his explanation to the local equivalent of a sheriff how you can't just put someone in jail for revenge. As he was leaving the next day, his transport barely made it over a bridge that "popped". Later he was told that relatives of the sheriff did that just to let him know they didn't like what they'd been taught.

Now I don't see that story as proof for either side of any partisan points. Simply that the work our servicemen and women is dangerous, slow, and unfair.

That being said, inspectors were in Iraq prior to the war...they just weren't allowed full access. The tug of war was whether diplomatic efforts could, given more time, get us access to those places. I surely do remember that the threat was termed immanent based on the believed forward push in delivery methods.

I must profess, this isn't my area of expertise.

The effort I put forth in these threads about this war is for those who have sacrificed it all, they need the truth
This has never been about me

 

[elvis]

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

this will do

Has Iraq complied with resolution 1441?

No, they have not complied with resolution 1441 or any other resolution over a period of over 12 years they did anything but; they went to great lengths to avoid complying with the resolution. 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
Resolution 687
Key points of resolution 1441
Resolution 1441

What was required by resolution 1441?

Iraq was required by many resolutions including resolution 1441 to destroy their WMD and supply proof of doing so. Among other points 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
Resolution 687
Key points of resolution 1441
Resolution 1441

Now you understand why I go back to the Blix speech of 1-27-2003

Facts about the Iraq War

Wait, did you just say we invaded them because they didn't show sufficient proof of destroying their WMDs?

I did not say nothing
you provided a link to the resolution
I provided the info in the resolve that simply gives reason to the invasion
Saddam had a mandate, he ignored it
Look dude, I am sorry you have been lied to
this is as black and white as it gets and none of it is mine
why would you question the obvious is beyond me

Yeah. we've been lied to

It has nothing to do with the fact that Bush's cabinet was comprised of a group of people who had wanted to conquer Iraq for years.

 

[DontBeStupid]

you provided a link to the resolution
I provided the info in the resolve that simply gives reason to the invasion

Right. And you pointed to the section about Saddam destroying WMDs and "providing proof". How much proof did Saddam need to provide to convince you and Bush that he did not have something?

Wow, you support the invasion because Saddam didn't give you enough proof of something. Unreal.

 

[idb]

It's only opinion I know, but this guy agreed with me in June 2002;

The latest threat from the Bush administration, articulated by the President himself, is that by Sunday, December 8, Saddam must produce 'credible' proof that he has no weapons of mass destruction or face likely US attack. With that, Saddam Hussein faces probably the toughest challenge of his long and bloody career: How to prove that he has not done something. The only thing he has going for him may be the conventional wisdom that proving a negative is impossible. But the choice confronting Saddam is tough, because he faces a US President who chooses to put aside the norms of American justice and apply the Code Napoleon.

Saddam's Dilemma - How To Prove A Negative

 

[JRK]

you provided a link to the resolution
I provided the info in the resolve that simply gives reason to the invasion

Right. And you pointed to the section about Saddam destroying WMDs and "providing proof". How much proof did Saddam need to provide to convince you and Bush that he did not have something?

Wow, you support the invasion because Saddam didn't give you enough proof of something. Unreal.

Proof
were not talking about, well
Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, [/U]adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".
Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.
He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
Blix: weapons and anthrax still unaccounted for - Telegraph
I really am to the point with you guys that you cannot be taken seriously any more