Quote:
Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?
Interesting questions...short of going back and once again reading 687, on the surface I'd say that anything Saddam agreed to was definately relevent...beyond that we could look at it from the concept of another body making some sort of agreement that we don't ratify...is it legitimate in their eyes? yes In ours? no Regardless, the UN could have also gone back and determined that it would have been legitimate to remove Saddam...he may not have agreed but that might have justified it in the minds of many...does that make it right? That's all relative I suppose...depending on which side of the agreement you are on.
|
Given the situation at the end of the Gulf War, though, don't you think Saddam had to pretty much accept any terms the Security Council put before him? The point I wanted to get settled with you was this... if the Gulf War was about getting Saddam out of Kuwait, pure and simple, then what justification was there for the Security Council to go beyond that in Resolution 687?
Quote:
Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?
Don't be absurd...I said what I meant and I meant what I said...of course you are entitled to an opinion...simply a matter of what has it cost you...what percent of your tax dollar goes to fighting the war in Iraq? How many Canadians have died fighting this war in Iraq?
|
We're paying an indirect cost in Afghanistan - every US soldier in Iraq is one that isn't fighting there, and so casualties among all the combatants there - US & Canadian alike - are higher there than would otherwise be the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?
Yes, shouldn't they consider all of it? What about presenting their case to the public...we are a democratic republic and an informed electorate is part of the program...should the leaders cherry pick to make their case?
|
Absolutely leaders should cherry pick! What are you arguing? That the public should be privy to every piece of intelligence that crosses the President's desk?
Quote:
Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?
You'd fit right in down here...we have a leader that doesn't let intelligence get in his way.
|
*LOL*
Quote:
Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?
Which brings us back to inspectors...if we were truely interested in a peaceful settlement if possible, we could have given the information that we claimed to be true to the inspectors for them to check out...we didn't bother...why?
|
And if Saddam were truly interested in a peaceful settlement, he could have given the inspectors unfettered access starting in 1991. He was given every opportunity to comply with Resolution 687, Areyou. For 11 years. Why didn't
he bother? And even after all of that, when he was given a final opportunity to comply by finally submitting his long-overdue WMD declaration, he still didn't cooperate. How many chances was he supposed to get?
As far as US and UK information-sharing with the inspectors, was it ever a complaint from Blix (or Butler before him) that that information wasn't forthcoming?
Quote:
Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?
If they check out every lead and get full cooperation from Saddam that would shoot your argument full of holes though regarding full compliance and if they followed every claim we made and found them to be false it could have saved us over 4,000 lives and about a trillion bucks...so far...not to mention all the innocent Iraqi's and others that we've wasted.
|
Where was the evidence of "full cooperation" from Saddam, though? The WMD declaration was a test of Iraq's sincerity to comply and they failed it. What makes you think that they would have been any more forthcoming with the inspectors?
Linear Mode
