Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionist and rebel men and women who dare dissent from accepted doctrine... As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion...

Wars are all about chaos and castastrophes, death and suffering, and lifelong grief, which is why we should go to war when it's absolutely unavoidable. Wars tear families apart as surely as they tear apart the flesh of those killed and wounded... (pardon the graphic speech) Since we learned nothing from Vietnam, we are doomed to repeat this agony...

{Former Secretary of State } Powell said of the tsunami, " The power of the wave to destroy bridges, to destroy factories, to destroy homes, to destroy crops, to destroy everthing in it's path is amazing. " He said" I have never seen anything like it in my experience."

Yes, he has. It was in Iraq. The tsunami was us.
Blood shed in Iraq does not honor the memories of the heroes of September 11, nor will it reduce the likelihood of future attacks. In fact, it seems to be having the opposite effect.

The liberation of Iraq is a welcome outcome, but the pretexts for the war "were false"and the costs of the war in human lives has been to great...
" Pre-emptive self-defense"is a new doctrine of warfare that sets an incredibly dangerous precedent...

can you show us where the pretex for war was false............


you know what i will show you where it isn't

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secu...lution_on_Iraq

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and


Resolution Statement

Resolution 1441 specifically stated:

1) That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.

2) That 1441, and its deadline, represented Iraq's final opportunity to comply with disarmament requirements. In accordance with the previous Resolutions, this meant Iraq not only had to verify the existence or destruction of its remaining unaccounted-for WMD stockpiles, but also had to ensure that all equipment, plans, and materials useful for the resumption of WMD programs was likewise turned over or verified as destroyed.

3) That "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations".

Iraq agreed to the Resolution on November 13. Weapons inspectors returned on November 27, led by Hans Blix of UNMOVIC and Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA. The inspectors had been absent from Iraq since December 1998 when they were withdrawn immediately prior to Operation Desert Fox

Inspectors began visiting sites where WMD production was suspected, but found no evidence of such activities, except for 18 undeclared 122mm chemical rockets that were destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision. P. 30 As was discovered after the invasion of Iraq, no production of WMDs was taking place, and no stockpiles existed. U.N. inspectors also found that the Al-Samoud-2 and Al-fatah missiles violated U.N. range restrictions, the former also being partially destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision. Debate about Resolution 1441 therefore turns on whether, despite the absence of WMDs and the acceptance of inspections, Iraq failed to comply with the terms of the Resolution, and whether an invasion was justified in the absence of any further UN Security resolutions on the subject.

On December 7, 2002, Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The five permanent members of the Security Council received unedited versions of the report, while an edited version was made available for other UN Member States. On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light.

Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[1] [2]. On January 30, 2003 Blix said that Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm, and by mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."

At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".

Before the meeting took place, French president Jacques Chirac declared on March 10 that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the US and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a "second resolution" was effectively abandoned at that point.

In the leadup to the meeting, it became apparent that a majority of UNSC members would oppose any resolution leading to war. As a result, no such resolution was put to the Council.

At the Azores conference of March 16, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, and Spanish prime minister José María Aznar announced the imminent deadline of March 17 for complete Iraqi compliance, with statements such as "Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world". On the 17th, speeches by Bush and UK foreign secretary Jack Straw explicitly declared the period of diplomacy to be over, as declared by Resolution 1441's prohibition on giving Iraq new opportunities for compliance, and that no further authorization from the UN would be sought before an invasion of Iraq (see 2003 invasion of Iraq). The USA and Britain, while admitting that such a resolution was diplomatically desirable, insisted that Iraq had now been given enough time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to disarm or provide evidence thereof, and that war was legitimized by 1441 and previous UN resolutions. Non-permanent Security Council member Spain declared itself with the USA and Britain. Nevertheless, this position taken by the Bush administration and its supporters, has been and still is being disputed by numerous legal experts. According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced.[3][4][5]

More information is found in United Nations actions regarding Iraq.

[edit] Passage of resolution

Gix, disarm what? Stop the WMD program?
Your kidding, right?

I can remember when we first invaded Iraq. America could just taste victory. I waited to see what WMD'S would be discovered. Did Saddam have a nuclear arsenal? How lucky we are that he didn't attack...

Well, 4 years and 3000 dead soldiers later, what did we find? Gix, we haven't found anything except for gas masks... Well, if he had gas masks, he must must WMD'S...
This is the rationalization given by GWB?

this is the United Nation Speaking.............. NOT George Bush..... For Us to of gone into iraq under flase pretenses perpertrated by Bush then the rest of the world would of had to be in on the lie..............

Iraq was never able to acount for countless of Known WMD in it's arsenal.... Thus in clear violation

this debate is over

Gix, I think that GWB owes you at least a bday card...
If it's where your heart is, then let is be.....

Over? ...LMAO.... not so fast skippy. The day you are qualified to declare a debate over is the day the earth is ruled by monkeys. ...and to my knowledge there is only one chimp in power at the moment, and he doesn't rule the world, no matter what he humiliates his wife into telling him in bed.....

Yes gix, Saddam was in violation of 1441. Keep in mind however that every time the Iraqis made an effort to disclose, the bar would be raised. It was unattainable. But that's neither here nor there.

If I understand your argument correctly, failure of Iraq to comply with the resolution was an automatic global endorsement for invasion and protracted war. Or at the very least, it was a passable reason. And this is where your line of reasoning fails.

Resolution 1441 says nothing specific about the consequences for failure to comply beyond referral to the security council. In fact, in case you didn't notice gix... the UN didn't vote for war. They voted it down. There is a very good, sane and productive reason for this. Quite simply, there were better options for everyone involved, the Iraqi people, the US citizens and it's soldiers, and the world at large. The Neo-Con Cheneyites thumbed their nose at the entire world, to the people of Iraq, and worst of all, to it's own citizens.

See, all that "evidence" that Powell presented, aside from being complete fabrications, were highly implausible. We had complete control of the skies with the worlds most sophisticated weaponry. We had missiles we could fire from destroyers that can hit a target with pinpoint accuracy from thousands of miles away. We could have easily taken out any suspect site with far less cost and with nearly complete safety. The "mobile bio labs", two missiles at most, gone. Palaces... dust. Bunkers... graves.

1441 did not imply, suggest, or in any way give sanction to war with Iraq. It simply recognized non-compliance and referred it to the security council, which said war was not the answer.

So no... the entire world wouldn't have to be in on the lie. They would just have to believe the crap this admin spewed just long enough to get the ball rolling.

Also, you (or rather the person you quoted) quoted Hans Blix and El Baradei. Both of these men specifically stated that while Iraq was in breach of it's obligations, more could be accomplished with more time. War was not, in their opinions, in the best interest of anyone involved.

So little man, you can crow all you want about 1441. 1441 was a tool by the US to try to gain international support for an unnecessary war. It failed. The international community told us that war was the wrong path. And since the UN itself suggested other paths than war for violation of it's own resolution you can hardly hold up 1441 as evidence for war, can you? There is no connection between the two. War was not waged because of anything the UN decided, voted on, debated... nothing.

How many different ways can I say it?

Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rummy, and about four score more wanted war, They wanted war with Iraq specifically. They'd wanted it for a very long time. And if you were HALF the party guys you think you are, you would have read what these men have written a long time ago. How is it that I know much more about the minds of these men than the people that support them? Oh yeah... I just told you... I READ WHAT THEY HAVE WRITTEN!

THE WAR WAS NOT STARTED BECAUSE OF UN RES 1441. THERE WERE MANY IN THE WORLD AGAINST THE US POSITION. Gix... now the debate is over.

__________________
S.O.S. ------ United We Stand, Divided We Fall

Beautiful, I agree with you 100%.....