Yeah. When was the last time Bush used nerve agent on the US populace?
I said he was not of the same cloth (I certainly don't think he'd personally shoot people as Saddam did), and he certainly would not use exactly the same methods. I am uncertain why not using a particular weapon prevents a person from being brutal. That said Rumsfeld and Bush's father did defend Hussein's use of the nerve agents on his own people. Remember? Rumsfeld was clearly influential on Bush's policies, right?
Hmmmm.
No, but all of those combined makes it pretty clear, except to France, Russian, and Germany.
No, those combined do not make a justification for war clear. Note you are only listing three countries that disagreed with the war. There were more nations opposed to this war than for it, and even in those where the government's sided with Bush the populations were not. But its fun to keep playing like France was a bad guy right? That makes it easy to sleep at night?
Oh yeah, for the record, France and the other nations opposed had their arguments vindicated, Bush's arguments were refuted, including by our own official revue. Check out Colin Powell's address to the UN where he laid out the best case for war. They were turned down by a majority of nations and then the facts refuted.
We can't take it back now, so it is important to make a much "lemonade" as we can, but let's not get delusional about it.
We put Saddam on notice Jan 02. We finally took action in Mar 03. Why? It can be summed up quite simply by quoting Mr. Blix.
Look at that timeline again. You are quote mining. Blix said there was trouble with compliance but it was not insurmountable, indeed right before your quote it specifically states that the official report WAS NOT DAMNING.
Blix also said...
Feb. 14, 2003- In a report to the UN, Hans Blix indicates progress has been made in Iraq's cooperation.
You will note that was before the March invasion. On that timeline can you see where diplomacy failed and our point of last resort was reached? Please elucidate.
For the record, Blix opposed the rationale for war and was proven correct. You use of his words to try and say there was support for our decision is almost obscene.
What nation in history has ever declared that it would invade unless X demands were met; waited 14 months, using diplomacy the whole time, before it attacked said nation?
I don't know.
What nation declared it must invade a nation unless X demands were met (despite the fact that some charges would be impossible to prove if innocent), waited 14 months, using diplomacy to try and get people to side with its invasion scheme and undercutting any attempts at peaceful settlement, and when diplomacy was shown to be working at reaching the demands, dropped diplomacy and invaded anyway?
Oh yes, and then had all of its rationales for the war refuted?
That would be the US.
What difference does it make how long a nation waits for war, when in reality it can wait further? Believe it or not international law is not written that a powerful nation gets to unilaterally announce it will invade a weaker nation unless it meets X demands.
Seems to a pattern there?
You are fighting a strawman and building a lie at the same time. It has already been agreed that Iraq had WMDs and an intent to build more as well as conceal developments from the international community (as well as inspectors post 91).
In addition, there was a valid question as to what became of some really old stock that Iraq had. That is why inspections were certainly called for, including increased numbers and more vigorous inspection regimes.
If threat of force to achieve this was necessary, then that would be fine.
There is a vast gulf between this state of affairs and announcing we know Iraq has WMDs (not just old stocks, but ongoing programs), we know where they are (but can't tell anyone) and can prove it (and remove the imminent threat they pose) only if we invade.
This latter statement was the position of the US at the UN (and so the world). It was opposed by the majority of nations, and the opposition was led by Fr, Ru, Ge. It was rejected by the UN inspections teams, and after the invasion we have now proven the opposition's position (as well as the UN inspectors) correct.
There may even still be some old WMD stock, but it is clearly not of the size nor quality and so a threat that the US described to make its case.
You can talk about all the pie in the sky stuff all you want, the devil is in the details. Bush's rationale for war was not only wrong, parts are known to be falsified and more of it seems to be falsified.
As it is much of the pie in the sky stuff you are talking about now would never pass international law as a justification for war. And when I mention international law, I mean the law we would expect other nations to adhere to.
Because it was a false and "bad" war does not mean that something good cannot come out of it, nor that we must leave right now. Just as it was more disastrous to go to war, than to let inspections work while focusing on AQ elsewhere, it would now be more disastrous to pack up and leave, rather than fixing what we just smashed.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
™ Version 4.2