Some US companies did as well, but it doesn't appear that the US governments policy was to violate it. After all, the US was the one with egg on their face should Saddam be able to violate it. No skin off of France or Russia.

Hundreds of U.S. Troops to Search Al Qaeda Caves

Sounds to me like Tora Bora took one hell of a beating... I'm not sure what more you could have practically done.

Exactly...they didn't give a shit about Americans getting killed they didn't want to see Saddam gone.

Seems there wasn't much to worry about related to Saddam...we saw to that when we bombed the crap out of Iraq and then weapons inspectors took care of most of the rest.

He sure got ready pretty quick...I say he saw it coming and just needed to put together the coalition and resolutions...it would have been a bit difficult to do that prior to Saddam making his move, lol.

I wish if you would cite a report that you would quote whatever it is that you feel makes your case...I appreciate the links and followed them but when I do and read, from the first link and then from the second, Here's some more:

Certainly they show some questions persist but nowhere do I see anything that would lead to proof of any threats...if you do, please quote them.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



OBAMA/PEROT

They are not separate now. they've had plenty of time to do so.....

__________________
The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw.
- Jack Handy

Hi Cord,

I agree with what you are saying here....every decision action has its upsides/benefits and its downsides/risks. In my opinion, given the action taken in March, the risks far outweighed the benefits. I felt that way from day one. The threat didn't warrant the risk. Is it possible that Iraq could have became a graver theat? Sure, but there are different ways to deal with threats...diplomatically, clandestinely, etc. I haven't seen anything that can convince me that US action in March 2003 was the best/optimal action....or anywhere close to it.

It makes the problem more difficult, Cord. No doubt. And if a similar situation happened say in one of the Stans, then we probably just point our fingers. But, we are talking Kuwait here...heart of the Middle East...lots of oil. We would have acted....I don't have any doubt in that.

And Kuwait has lots and lots of oil. I think that may even be a bigger motivator.

Yeah, but Cord...it's always been that way with North Korea. Their addition to the nuclear club just adds to it slightly. North Korea is a far different situation than both Iran and Iraq....as the city of Seoul sits about 100 miles from the DMZ with thousands of Scud missiles just waiting to rain down on it. Oh, and not to mention, many feel that the guy is a few beers (Molsen Goldens) short of a six-pack.

Hmmm, everyone always refers to Chamberlain as the master of appeasement.

And lasted for about one month and got decisively beat up....clearly, no match. And Iraq in 2003 was less than a third of their strength in 1991. Germany on the other hand was the real deal sitting in the heart of Europe....very different situations, Cord.

Do you think bombing the bridges that spanned the river required a Security Council Resolution....in both reality and on paper?

Most definitely. I have no problem slapping down aggressive and dangerous nations...nations that take what's not theirs...be it Germany or Iraq. What makes you think Churchill would've have chosen to invade and occupy Iraq in 2003?

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...

But you believe it was practical to invade Iraq? Okay, I'll throw in Jalalabad.

U.S. Cites Big Gains Against Al-Qaeda
Group Is Facing Setbacks Globally, CIA Chief Says

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 30, 2008; A01



Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda's allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group's core leadership.

While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.

All that has changed, Hayden said in an interview with The Washington Post this week that coincided with the start of his third year at the helm of the CIA.

"On balance, we are doing pretty well," he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam," he said.

The sense of shifting tides in the terrorism fight is shared by a number of terrorism experts, though some caution that it is too early to tell whether the gains are permanent. Some credit Hayden and other U.S. intelligence leaders for going on the offensive against al-Qaeda in the area along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where the tempo of Predator strikes has dramatically increased from previous years. But analysts say the United States has caught some breaks in the past year, benefiting from improved conditions in Iraq, as well as strategic blunders by al-Qaeda that have cut into its support base

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Gee...

What held-back your enlistment, commie?

I did my time. U.S. Air Force 1969-1973. Ground crew on the BUFs at Utapao, Kadena and Guam.

I hear you did some time in the Brownies until they found out you liked getting your fudge packed. Just think, you could have had yourself a career if they'd have had Don't Ask, Don't Tell back then.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What a load of rubbish. You're getting away with murder in this thread. The burden of proof is on the accuser in all known civilized forms of conduct. What Saddam should have done is referenced the American position on the UN's edicts and said "The UN is irrelevant". He would, after all, only be quoting and following the example of the world's greatest democracy. (Or maybe even "Go fuck yourself").

You are getting away with murder because of your comparison of Saddam and Hitler. The two cannot be compared. Saddam did a stupid attack on Kuwait and paid heavily for it. However he didn't have the massive high tech fighting force and competent and inspired army behind him that Hitler had. The persons entertaining this debate should not let you get away with speculating what Saddam may have done. All you are doing there is repeating the false line taken by Bush to create a looming threat that did not exist. No civilized court in any place anywhere would ever allow someone to hang the contentions you pose on such a laughably weak argument. Saddam was nearly 70. He was beaten, had no WMD, no army, and no real economy to develop any serious weapons. The real reason US invaded was to take the heat off its cruel embargo that was beginning to make us look bad for killing Iraqi children and making the Iraqi people live miserable existences - and PNAC. 'No-Fly' took care of any real threat from Saddam. The rest is just arguing convenient excuses for an aggressive and illegal invasion.

I especially like the way you blow away UN conventions, international law and other international restraints and agreements to reduce this whole thing to King George deciding what is best for Iraq and the world. As if he was some kind of world king and all those other institutions and laws didn't exist. While you make a well referenced argument it is basically simple in its contempt for the generally accepted international order of things and - yes - dishonest in its ignoring exactly how Bush went about it. You simply can't get away with that.

In 2002 the Israelis sent a document to Washington telling them that Saddam had no viable army, no WMD's, and was broken as far as being any threat. Your quote above suggests things that the US was already informed did not exist. That, no matter what you think, is dishonest.