Thread: Saddam Hussein
View Single Post
      01-21-2007, 12:56 AM   #176
dr335is
Brigadier General
 
Drives: GTI
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,973
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
The point of my post on debt to GDP ratios was not to show how great we are but to show how misleading you were. You stated that our debt would cause us to collapse as a great power, I said our debt to GDP ratio was within the norm for an advanced economy. You cherry picked statistics to imply our ratio was abnormally high. I merely corrected the record.

If you believe that 65% of Americans believe Bush is incompetent and a liar than you are delusional.

See if you can follow this simple timeline:
1990 - Iraq invades Kuwait, UN orders Iraq to leave Kuwait (UNSCR 660), US authorizes member nations "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.'

1991 - UNSCR 687 sets conditions for a cease-fire between Iraq and member states implementing UNSCR 678. The cessation of military action is contingent on Iraqi compliance with all conditions. UNSCR 707, "Condemns Iraq's serious violation of a number of its obligations under section C of resolution 687"

1994 - UNSCR 949 Recalls "that Iraq's acceptance of resolution 687 (1991) adopted pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations forms the basis of the cease-fire, and again demands Iraq comply.

1996 - UNSCR 1060 again Deplores the refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission, which constitutes a clear violation of the provisions of Security Council resolutions 687 (1991) and Demands that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission in accordance with the relevant resolutions."

1997 - UN condemns Iraqi refusal to comply with 687 in UNSCR's 1115, 1134, and 1137.

1998 - UNSCR 1194 again demands that Iraq comply.

2002 - UNSCR 1441 reads in part:

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,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as
a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991)...

...

Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its
obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)

...

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
If the 1990-91 resolutions were no longer valid, you would have thought the UN would have known. Don't you?

Now, re-read the resolutions -- I highlighted the points for you:
- peace in the region
- hiding the WMD

Both things did not exist on Iraqi side in 2003. There was a peace in the region, definitely no threat from Iraq, and according to Hans Blix, who reported days before Bush attacked -- there was nothing from resolution 1060. 3 years later, Bush admitted that there was no WMD in Iraq. So, the resolution 1060 and all after that are worrthless.
Previous resolutions, 660 and 687 clearly pertain to the Kuwait situation from the 1991, and have nothing to do with the situation in Iraq in 2003.

The resolutions that you keep re-pasting here have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the UN agreeing to support the attack on Iraq in 2003. They clearly, with no doubt, pertain to two things -- Iraqui offensive in Kuwait and the WMD -- clearly none of those existed in 2003.

As for Bush, if you really believe that the majority of Americans believe any of the following:
- that he knowlingly lied about the WMD
- that he planned (and his military guys) correctly this war and the exit strategy
- that we're safer now
- that we're not causing more trouble by this than good...
is not true -- please tell me, so we can wrap up this conversation. If your thinking is so much f'ed up, please let us know, I think I am wasting my time here.
dr335is is offline  
0
Reply With Quote