Resolution 678 authorized "all necessary means" to enforce 660 and the subsequent relevant security council resolutions. Resolution 687 and 1441 were both subsequent relevant resolutions. What don't you get here, Areyou? The meaning of the word all or the concept of subsequent relevant security council resolutions?

*L* Well, you gotta start somewhere....

All means to do what?

How have our actions provided for what the resolutions called for...especially bringing peace and security to the region?

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

__________________
"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

All necessary means to enforce the relevant Security Council resolutions and to restore international peace and security.... the same international peace and security which Resolution 1441 recognized as threatened by Iraq's non-compliance.

Is there peace and security there now? Perhaps not... but the threat isn't international anymore, and it is different than the one the Security Council was addressing in the relevant resolutions, and the US is still there - you haven't given up on trying to restore peace and security, have you?

Perhaps not? areyoushittin'me?

Considering our actions have further empowered al-Qaeda and Iran, I'd submit that it still is an International threat to peace and security.

I agreed with Bush Sr/Scowcroft and did not see an invasion of Iraq as something that would bring peace and security to the region...do tell...what in the centuries old fighting in the region led you to believe that we might?

You're correct, the threat we are faced with today is different, it's much worse than that which we faced from a nearly powerless Saddam.

__________________
"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

So, Saddam's "primary goal" from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted.....sounds to me like the sanctions had some teeth after all....or else why would Saddam be so concerned with ending them?
Perhaps, Cord, perhaps, but are the hurdles we are facing now any less insurmountable? That is, the establishment of a strong, unified, democratic Iraq. I've got a feeling that both the Turks and Saudis/Kuwaitis may have to deal with the new states you mentioned....sooner or later. Maybe my off the cuff idea would not have worked....I can admit that. But, I don't see how the chosen COA has worked out any better....not to mention, it sure has cost us a lot more...don't you think?

That's true, but how would've an occupation of Belgrade and Serbia proper....and all the fun that would've ensued.....made the situation any more palatable?


Maybe...then, again, maybe not. Now, speaking quality of intelligence, do you know what happened to those Ansar al-Islam camps in the Kurdish territory of the Northeastern Iraq?

OK, Cord, I threw some ideas out there...some may have been half baked, I admit. So, now, you are GWB in March 2003....what an honor, huh.....what do you plan to do about Iraq?? Do you invade and occupy as we have done or do you chose another path? What are your contingencies (ifs and buts)?

__________________
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...

incredibly stupid poeple. See this is a calssic example of all the most well typed posts still absolutley full of shit and dumb as hell.

Cord, I ask again...why the rush to war?

Perhaps some of the other countries weren't in a hurry to go to war in part because they were looking at the same intelligence reports...difference being they weren't as selective about it?

Bush ignored doubts on Iraq arms: Senate report - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and top administration policy makers ignored doubts among intelligence agencies over Saddam Hussein's arms programs as they made their case for war with Iraq, a Senate committee reported on Thursday.

The Senate Intelligence committee said in a study that major administration statements on Iraq before the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion in most cases were substantiated by available U.S. intelligence, but that they failed to reflect internal debate over those findings.

It also said that Bush administration statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda and provided it with weapons training were unsupported by intelligence.

The Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration's main case for war -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction -- was inaccurate and deeply flawed.

Many intelligence conclusions that Iraq had or was developing weapons of mass destruction turned out to be inaccurate.

The report also said cited at least one statement -- by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, that the Iraqi government operated underground weapons of mass destruction facilities -- was not backed up by intelligence information.

__________________
"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

That is the important part. You can have argument all you want, but eventually a choice has to be made based on the evidence at hand. If the vast majority of the major statements had evidence to support it, then the decision they made was a valid one, even if they were later proven to be wrong.

There is seldom a 100% certainty on anything in this world, it is easy after the fact to point out the decisions that should have been made. However we don't live the world backwards.

There were slightly under 2 million people on welfare last year a 54% decrease since 1996. Of those 2 million 2/3rds were children with single mothers under 24 years of age. They have two years or 4 years 5 lifetime max to get off nowdays so who is it that is taking too much in taxes ? All those kids with young mothers stupid enough to believe some man loved them and was going to marry them? Is it all those kids you hate ?

You should look in the mirror instead, its people like you the world could do without not those poor kids with uneducated stupid mothers.

__________________
American Politics and More the forum for smart people.


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