O'Reilly: "This Iraq war is on Chirac"
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly blamed French President Jacques Chirac for the war in Iraq, claiming that if "Chirac had stepped up and looked Saddam in the eye and said, 'You either let those U.N. [United Nations] inspectors do their job unfettered, or I'm going with the U.S.A. and Britain,' Saddam would have blinked. There wouldn't have been an Iraq war." Speaking on his November 7 radio show, O'Reilly added: "This Iraq war is on Chirac. It's right on his head. That's where it is."
From the November 7 broadcast of Fox News' The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: But this French thing, I mean to us -- just remember this: If Jacques Chirac had stepped up and looked Saddam in the eye and said, "You either let those U.N. inspectors do their job unfettered, or I'm going with the U.S.A. and Britain," Saddam would have blinked. There wouldn't have been an Iraq war. This Iraq War is on Chirac. It's right on his head. That's where it is.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
But it appears the UN inspectors, and the sanctions regime, had done their job, as no banned weapons were found. What in the world is O'Reilly talking about? The war in Iraq falls on one person, and one person alone: President George W. Bush.
"Hey Jacque, help me go jump Saddam."
"Sorry George, I am not going to help you jump him, I don't think he deserves it."
***Next Day*** "Jacque, its all your fault I had to kill Saddam, if you had helped me jump him I wouldn't have had to kill him... you're in trouble now!"
Anyone who could make the statement O'Reilly made has a mentality that is so warped that no rational discourse can be had with him. I truly am flabbergasted by this one.
Oh man, this guy is slipping further and further into dementia as time wears on.
So now the blood of 2,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi's is now on the hands of Chirac???
Chirac could have prevented this war? What makes Bill think that Saddam would have listened a threat from Chirac? Saddam didn't listen to Bush when he threatened him and Bush is the one with the BOMBS!!!
(deep breath)
Now that the original reasons for war are all bogus, the righties just keep grasping for whatever they can hold on to. The latest one was their hypocritical grasp of the UN Resolutions. Now Bill is going to start a new one with a cascade of blame for the President of France.
How pathetic.
In every failed war, the Right blames the loss on the supposed wimpy liberals (although Chirac is a conservative in France).
Look at Vietnam. I have heard people blame Jane Fonda, the liberal media, etc., but I rarely hear a conservative admit it was pretty stupid to get involved in the first place or lay blame at the hands of the main political cheerleaders for that war.
The most famous example of this is how Hitler and other NAZI's blamed the October Criminals (i.e. the liberal Jews in the government) for losing WWI despite the fact that the actual decision to surrender came from the upper echelons of the military at the time.
I remember the French pushing for inspections. I remember the U.S. pretty much saying they weren't conclusive. Looks like Billy skipped his meds again.
Your point is well-taken. O'Reilly is counting on people not remembering that.
BO's distortion of history is a close cousin of the Japanese approach to teaching new generations about Japan's role in WW II.
The distortions are the same, only the names and other facts have been changed to protect the guilty.
Whatever he does after leaving his current job, I hope BO doesn't return to teaching.
Billy's obsession with Franco-bashing is getting out of control. Was he abused by someone who resembled Maurice Chevalier when he was younger? Did he choke on a falafel after drinking too much French wine? Did he have a subordinate who refused to french kiss? Was he mauled by a French poodle? What's going on here? He should quit fooling around and just change the name of his show to the "I Hate The French Factor".
Going to O'reilly for anything that resembles journalistic integrity is like asking Jerry springer for political advice, HE IS A TABLOID T.V. SHOW HOST!!!! I have heard that he use to be a teacher which makes me scared to think of the idiots that could running around after a couple of years of schooling from that fool. MMFA will always have stuff for their site as long as this idiot continues to be on air and have diahrea of the mouth. Anyone who defends O'reilly doesnt need to be debated, they need to seek medication. The only thing O'reilly cares about is loving O'reilly and selling junk to his faithful losers.
Right on! What galls O'Reilly and the whole host of FNC nutcases is that, gulp, France and Chirac were right!!
All the commentators on FNC did in the run-up before the war was attack the UN and Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baraday.
Watching Fox now is like watching the Kevin Bacon character in Animal House saying remain calm while he is being trampled. Bush world is crashing. Thanks to MMFA for keeping them honest.
ALL IS WELL!! ALL IS WELLL!!!
Oh brother. What next? Blame Kerry voters for the fact Bush got elected?
Bill's is a parallel universe.
Yes, and if O'Reilly and the balance of the neocon hucksters had urged the White House to let the weapons inspectors FINISH THE JOB, just what the French were urging, there would've been no Iraq War, that is until the Iraqi hurricane machine destroys New Orleans, or the Iraqi tornado machine annihilates a trailer park, and even if he doesn't have a hurricane or tornado machine, isn't the fact that he snickers when bad things happen to freedom loving folks proof enough that Saddam is evil and needs to be overthrown?
How did Saddam not cooperate with the UN? This stikes me as outright wrong. Iraq was cooperating, except in minor, technical ways.
Interestingly enough, I think what O'Reilly said reveals somenthing. It reveals that even he also believes that it was the wrong war at the wrong time. He just won't admit it.
It also sounds to me that he thinks Chirac didn't do enough to stop Bush.
But of course we all should know by now that there was no stopping the Bush administration which was dead set on going to war, which is contrary to what Bush has claimed. The Downing Street memo clearly illustrates this fact. What we know about WHIG (White House Iraq Group) illustrates it.
Even conservatives talking point claiming that Democrats in Congress "voted for the war" illustrates that fact. Let me explain this last part. When a liberal points out that the Democrats only voted to give the President the authority to declare war in Iraq, conservatives then say that Democrats SHOULD HAVE KNOWN what Bush was going to do. That's why they call it a "vote for war." This further confirms that even conservatives believe that Bush was dead set on going to war and they support Bush anyway.
Short Attention Span Theatre.
The war is not going well, public opinion on the war and Bush are down, have to keep providing rationalization to the neo-con policy supporters, so it is time to find someone else to blame for the war.
O'Reilly's statement is so ridiculous, I can't believe he even believes it. How curious that this "new" argument comes up when the all of a sudden the public support for Bush and the war is eroding. It sounds like more talking point propaganda.
See, this is why us froggies are such a threat to the US. Behold the terrible power of Freedom Country (a.k.a. the-Country-formerly-known-as-France):
Now, if this is not power, I don't know what is...
You are too funny.I almost choked on my tea reading your post.But hey,since we have you here, What's going on in Paris? Are they going to start giving them jobs now or what?
freedom4all, you miss the point, I'm sure intentionally. I'm not a BO apologist, but I do like accurate dialog and understanding. I think, actually no, I'm sure what BO meant was the Saddam would have been less inclined to ignore UN threats and sanctions had there been complete commitment by ALL parties, instead of an obvious break in the solidity of the UN. That's easy to understand and also easy to mock, as you have done by feigning misunderstanding. I think you, and others are fully aware not only of what exactly BO meant, but the validity in his concept. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say the war is Chirac's fault entirely, there was also Germany and Russia and China that said ONE THING and did another when the time came to seperate the men from the boys and follow through on the worlds collective words.
Dagweer, you miss the point, I'm sure intentionally. I'm not an apologist for anyone, but I do like accurate dialog and understanding. I think, actually no, I'm sure what the representatives of France, Germany, Russia, China, and a number of other countries meant was that Saddam would have been less inclined to ignore UN threats and sanctions had there been complete commitment by ALL parties, instead of an obvious break in the solidity of the UN. That's easy to understand and also easy to mock, as you have done by feigning misunderstanding. I think you, and others are fully aware not only of what exactly the representatives of those countries meant, but the validity in their concept. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say the war is Bush's fault entirely, there was also Blair, Berlusconi, Aznar and a few others that said NOTHING and did what Bush told them to do when the time came to separate the responsible men from the sheep and follow through on the worlds collective words.
Freedom for all said,
"I'm not sure I would go so far as to say the war is Bush's fault entirely, ...."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, but it was my friend.I was indeed.
freedom, Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, many of these countries, specifically France, voted for the resolution, 1441, that demanded that Iraq meet certain commitments that Saddam had failed to meet for 12 years, and threatened him with military action if he failed to do so. He did not follow through, and when it was time to fulfill the words of the United Nations, France backed down. As we have found, or at least I have found so, since this time, France had monetary reasons for not wanting to follow through on the UN resolution that France voted for. I consider myself a reasonable individual, willing to consider both sides of any argument and do my best to see all perspectives. Having said that, I find France's behavior deplorable and NOT the actions of a friend. This is NOT the first time that France has, in my view, betrayed my country, there was the incident with Libya in the 1980's. France is a sovereign country and free to behave and proceed as she wishes. I feel however that France has indicated with its action and its words that it is NOT a friend of the US and in many instances its activities are in direct conflict with US interests. Once again, they are completely free to do so. But we, I, am free also to consider France unworthy of US friendship.
"But we, I, am free also to consider France unworthy of US friendship."
==============
Is Germany unworthy also? How about Russia? India? China? Sweden, Norway, Greece? All of those countries, and others, did not support the Iraq invasion. As it turns out, they, and France, were right.
dave, The conversation was specifically about France, not to say that your comments are not relevant, they are. I question the friendship of all these countries that you mention, but France specifically worked very hard behind the scences in the runup to the war in Iraq to undermine our position. That's perfectly alright as far as I'm concerned. However, I question why they voted for Resolution 1441 that was a prelude to the war, and then, in my view betrayed us by working actively against carrying out the very threats and actions contained in 1441. Additionally, there is the Libya incident in the 1980's that has always stuck in my craw. All I'm saying is that while France is certainly free to carry on its own foreign policy, to say one thing and then do something else altogether is questionable to me, it may not be to you. The subject of this thread was Oreilly suggesting that France caused the war by showing a crack in the solidarity of the world that had incidentally just spoken in complete unison (Res 1441) just a few weeks prior. His point, which I tend to agree with, in concept, is that had Saddam seen a completely united world, all against him, he may have been more inclined to bow to the world's demands and fulfill HIS OWN agreements.
"His point, which I tend to agree with, in concept, is that had Saddam seen a completely united world, all against him, he may have been more inclined to bow to the world's demands and fulfill HIS OWN agreements."
=================
That the US and UK invaded without a united world -and the fiasco that has resulted- is the fault of their leaders, Bush and Blair. There are no WMD, no chemicals, no nuclear weapons or means to build them. The US and UK were wrong. Those that opposed the war, like France, were right. We should have listened to them.
To think that there is such a thing as friendship between country is naïve. Countries, or better yet, people have interests. Sometimes they have common interests. Sometimes they don't. In this case, the US and France both had differing interests in this conflict. As allies they tried their best to work it out but clownish behavior from both side of the fence lead to this mess. Maybe it's time O'Reilly stops slamming them if he wants them on his side. Though logic seems to be in shortage in that angry man's head.
"...France, voted for the resolution, 1441, that demanded that Iraq meet certain commitments that Saddam had failed to meet for 12 years, and threatened him with military action if he failed to do so."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Here is the text of resolution 1441:
[link to www.un.int]
Military action is not specified anywhere in it that I can see. Can you find it specified in the resolution? There are other options besides a military invasion.
wanderwoman, surely you jest. What do you think that they intended to do? The United States and our allies had been positioning troops in the area for months. Be realistic here, they certainly weren't threatening that if Saddam doesn't comply, then our action will be just to ignore it and move.
wanderwoman, surely you jest. What do you think that they intended to do? The United States and our allies had been positioning troops in the area for months.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I suspect you are correct that our government never intended anything other than military action, despite the fact that they said they were saving it as a last resort. However, the U.N. resolution did not mention military action, as you said it did. It mentioned "serious consequences". Serious consequences other than military action should have been, but never were, explored by our government.
wanderwoman, all due respect, that's misguided, seriously so. The restrictions on Iraq were part of an agreement for the cessation of violence that was the 91 Gulf War that had full United Nations authority. It seems that common sense would tell you that if Saddam did not comply, then the agreement to stop the violence would no longer hold, meaning violence would be reintroduced. That's just every day old fashion common sense.
It seems that common sense would tell you that if Saddam did not comply, then the agreement to stop the violence would no longer hold, meaning violence would be reintroduced.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Common sense did not dictate invading and occupying the country...as time has revealed and we learn more about the run-up to the war, the invasion had very little to do with common sense. But tell me, because you keep evading the issue; why did you say the resolution called for military action when it didn't? Do you think the U.N. translators don't know how to spell "military action"? If that's what they meant, that's what they would have said. They were very specific about the requirements for inspections, etc.
wanderwoman, No, I fully believe that the UN knew how to spell military action, so that answers your rather absurd question. Please note the following from 1441:
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
That's fairly clear language that there was merely a "cease fire" in affect and threatening that the cease fire would cease (which would mean a resumption of fire) if Iraq did not comply.
Listen, if your argument is based on the fact that 1441 did not intend for the use of force, then I can't have a reasonable conversation with you, we operate on different planes of common understanding.
Fact is, as of this date of Resolution 1441, the United Nations, including France which is the subject of this thread, agreed that Saddam was not at that time, and had not been in compliance with the agreements that were the basis of the cease fire in 1991(that means to stop hostilities and the opposite of that would be continued hostilities). It is stated clearly:
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
When it says the government of Iraq "has failed" to comply, that means that THEY DIDN'T DO IT, so this nonsense about Iraq was complying is completely contradicted by the words of the United Nations as of November 7, 2002.
dagweer, isreal is in violation of un resolutions. invade?
mefirst, yes, immediatly. If they are in non compliance with any resolution that is the basis for a cease fire with Israel, not only invade, nuke them. Are you familiar with any UN Resolition against Israel that is the basis for a cease fire? I'm not.
dagweer, so nuke israel?
mefirst, Obviously that was tongue in cheek, perhaps I should be more literal with you. If they are in material breach of any UN resolution that is the basis for a cease fire against Israel, then yes, we should invade Israel. As they are not, as you well know which is why you sidetracked with the nuke comment clearly unable to confront the fact of my post, then your comment about Israeli non compliance is not germane.
dagweer, you keep talking about being in violation of un resolutions as a reason to invade. no matter the basis, israel is in violation of un resolutions. if you get caught by your own contradiction, not my fault. and are you still claiming the inspectors weren't in iraq going where they wanted?
mefirst, That's NOT a contradiction, why not address the very valid distinction in my post. I know I took away one of the left's favorite tools that provide cover for ignoring its responsiblities as it relates to Iraq. All I asked is that you show me where Israel is in non compliance with a UN resolution that is the basis for a cease fire on a previous UN Resolution that authorized force against Israel. If you'll show me that, I'll be fully on your side. I fear that you can't, so once again the word games as opposed to intelligent interface. I am tiring quickly with the self inflicted ignorance on this site. It's like arguing with a tire tool, except a tire tool has better comebacks I'm afraid. With that, babble away my confused friends, babble away, I'm outta here!
dagweer: "another" one bites the dust. have "libby" tuck you in tonight.
I don't know mefirst, but I've been monitoring the debate betweem the two of you, and it seemed he/she ate your lunch. You were never able to respond to his/her reasonable and sensible distinction regarding the United Nations resolutions against Israel. I realize its easy for you to claim victory since it appears dagweer has left, but he/she made some very good points that neither you or wanderwoman were able to dispute. Do you have an answer for the point about the basis of the cease fire? Dancing around proclaiming victory is probably easier than actually presenting facts though.
goddagigen maybe you can answer the question he couldn't. didn't we have the inspectors back in iraq going where they wanted? and maybe you cowards could have the brass to stop changing names every half hour. answer the question please.
mefirst, listen, sorry I didn't mean to tick you off, no need to jump on me. I was just monitoring the debate and found it interesting. As of the date of the resolution, 1441, Iraq was not in compliance according to the United Nations. That was part of you and daggwer's debate and provided you with the wording of the resolution. You never answered his question about that distinction, which you have to admit is a good and valid point, between Israeli resolutions and 1441. Will you answer that question straightforward. I mean, if you can.
goddaggigen you answer my question. were the inspectors in iraq going where they wanted? it's you who cannot answer because you know the answer is yes and therefore there was no reason to invade. all the other stuff is a sideshow. were the inspectors in iraq?
by mefirst - Friday November 11, 2005 11:24:37 AM EST
I can answer it. This is from resolution 1441 and it states perfectly clear that Iraq was not and had not been in compliance. Does that clear it up for you?
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
ciaoancora - Friday November 11, 2005 11:36:50 AM EST
None of this authorized war, 1441 used the language serious consequences. The language used to authorize war as in for instance the First Gulf War was 'by any means necessary'.
It's like arguing with a tire tool, except a tire tool has better comebacks I'm afraid.
by dagweer - Friday November 11, 2005 11:00:28 AM EST
LMFAO!
ciaoancora - Friday November 11, 2005 11:36:50 AM EST
This argument falls down as the ONLY resolution authorizing military action against Iraq was the one that called for removing them from Kuwait, once they were removed from Kuwait that one was over. Show me where military action is authorized in ANY other resolution. It absolutly ISNT authorized by 1441. I am not sure how Iraq WASNT in compliance with 1441 anyway since we know they HAD rid the country of WMDs, the missiles that went beyond the range allowed was a technical violation they only went about 15 miles beyond and it is questionable, at least the argument made was that when equipped with a warhead they would NOT be in violation, in any event the al Samouds WERE being destroyed so exactly HOW were they in breach considering the FACT THERE WERE NO WMDs?
Do you know how ridiculous the Un resolutions against Isreal are? They are not allowed to protect themselves from sworn enemies. They are not allowed to build a fence to keep suicide bombers out. When you get a chance take a look at what the resolutions against Isreal are all about. It the UN took its role seriously there are much bigger issues they should be dealing with.
so now you're selective on the resolutions? not what dagweer said. and really, "libby" there's no need to come on and warn the "new" guy about this site. that's so old. you guys get in trouble and then someone pops up to "warn" them.
libby - Friday November 11, 2005 10:42:20 AM EST
Yeah ridiculous, they are supposed to comply with the fourth geneva convention on occupation by NOT building settlements in occupied territory and they are supposed to cede territory they took militarily, hey that one sounds familiar, isnt that about the same as the resolution we used to kick Saddam out of Kuwait? Why is it ok for Israel to keep territory THEY gained through military invasion but not Iraq?
When it says the government of Iraq "has failed" to comply, that means that THEY DIDN'T DO IT, so this nonsense about Iraq was complying is completely contradicted by the words of the United Nations as of November 7, 2002.
by dagweer - Friday November 11, 2005 10:19:49 AM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
There's a difference between threatening a use of force and launching an invasion. The resolution left room for many variations in between. It appears, however, that our government never considered anything short of an invasion, and in fact gave the impression that Iraq was a direct threat to the U.S., which it wasn't.
Also, how do you argue for military action based on a U.N. resolution, when the U.S. went against the U.N. when it decided to invade? Either we work with the U.N., or we don't use them as an excuse for doing what our government intended to do all along.
wanderwoman, we worked completely within and with the UN. Resolution 1441 gave us, the United States, the authority and indeed the mandate to carry out the UN's resolutions to which Iraq did not comply. It was France that chose NOT to work with the UN, choosing one day to resolve one thing within the UN, and the next to act differently on its own. We, the United States, were fully within UN mandate and instruction as per resolution 1441. You are mistaken.
wanderwoman, we worked completely within and with the UN. Resolution 1441 gave us, the United States, the authority and indeed the mandate to carry out the UN's resolutions to which Iraq did not comply.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So I imagine you can show me the U.N. resolution authorizing the U.S. to invade, or supporting the invasion? Resolution 1441 certianly didn't authorize the overthrow of the government. How about the U.N. troops assigned to help with security after the invasion? Any evidence that the U.N. supported the invasion? As I recall, the president was quite ticked that the U.N. did not support the invasion.
wanderwoman, Which part of not being in compliance with agreements that are the basis of a cease fire, would render that cease fire invalid are you confused about? If the basis for the cease fire are violated, it is only common sense, at least common in most places, that the opposite of cease fire, is resume fire. I would note to you that the resolution that authorized the 1991 war states that member states may use "all means necessary" to force Iraq into compliance. It didn't specify "military force," throwing spitwads, calling Iraq bad names, or any other activity specifically. The invasion was an extension of that resolution based on the fact that the provision of the CEASE FIRE had not been met. I find it hard to understand how anyone can find that difficult to grasp.
I would have more respect for you if you just said, "look, I don't give a crap what the UN said, and I don't give a crap that the United States was fully authorized to conduct itself as it did, I just don't like war under any circumstances." To play silly word games does not garner respect. It's putting political gain before the pursuit of TRUTH, remeber that?
wanderwoman, Which part of not being in compliance with agreements that are the basis of a cease fire, would render that cease fire invalid are you confused about?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I'm not confused at all. There is a world of other possibilities between ending a cease fire and invading a country. Especially a country that, just a few months earlier, our Secretary of State and National Security Advisor were saying was not a threat to its neighbors, let alone the U.S.
dagweer, bush said regime change in iraq was not enough reason to go to war. it was the threat of weapons. that's why poppy bush opposed the war. and i'll ask again. are you denying that the inspectors were in iraq going where they wanted. and if you say no then you need to explain why the un disagrees.
"You are mistaken."
============
Bush and Blair were the ones who made the big mistake.
"On January 20, 2003, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution."
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
France was right. It was the worst possible solution-and not a solution at all. We should have listened to them. We didn't, and we are continuing to pay a heavy price or the mistake.
Dagweer, memories here are very short. They don't realize that Saddam broke resolution after resolution after resolution. According to the left Saddam allowed the inspectors in and gave them everything they asked for. He did not engage US planes in the no-fly zone and he legally slaughtered his own people based on their very moral system of laws. They also do not realize that EVERY single country considered Saddam a threat but it was Bush and Bush alone who lied about the threat. Revisionist history is huge on this site. Please do not try to provide any evidence for it will be discounted as lies. Also this site really has become a bash O'reily site so try not to bring up any relevant issues. (also if Race is a discussion please check with Sagra before posting. She is the resident Race PC check)
libby, I don't think memories are short, I think they're convenient. It is politically convenient for them to have certain recollections while at the same time eliminate other recollections. Fact is, Iraq was and had NEVER been in compliance and Resolution 1441, a statement agreed upon by the United Nations, including France, clearly states that fact. As the agreements that Saddam made were that basis for a CEASE FIRE or a halt to hostilities, his non compliance it a clear bases for the resumption of hostilities, that seems abundantly clear. It's unfortunate that we have an ENTIRE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY in this country more concerned with political advantage than national security and more importantly, THE TRUTH! It saddens me.
"Fact is, Iraq was and had NEVER been in compliance and Resolution 1441, a statement agreed upon by the United Nations, including France, clearly states that fact."
-----
My neighbor has flat bed trailer that he parks in his driveway. It is against the home owner's association bylaws to leave a trailer in your driveway for more than 48 hours. I've appealed to him to move the trailer, he agrees but then doesn't move it. On three separate occasions the home owner's association has asked him to move it, he always agrees but then never moves it. Using right-wing logic, I only have one option and that is to burn his house down.
"I've appealed to him to move the trailer, he agrees but then doesn't move it. On three separate occasions the home owner's association has asked him to move it, he always agrees but then never moves it. Using right-wing logic, I only have one option and that is to burn his house down." --phreak
======
I like your analogy. Except I'd add that the home owner's association takes your word for it, and ignores your other neighbors who say he does not, in fact, have a trailer in the driveway at all.
That would be true, if the trailer was filled with thousands of innocent civilians, and your neighbor was raping them, then killing them and stashing them in his basement.
"That would be true, if the trailer was filled with thousands of innocent civilians, and your neighbor was raping them, then killing them and stashing them in his basement."
You forgot to mention that was all done with my help 15 to 20 years ago.
"That would be true, if the trailer was filled with thousands of innocent civilians..."
========================
That wasn't the reason the association gave before burning down the house, which, by the way, was filled with thousands of innocent civilians, who as a result were incinerated. Along with thousands of fire fighters.
"Revisionist history is huge on this site."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Irony alert...libby completely mischaracterizes what I am saying, then accuses others of revisionist history.
libby - Friday November 11, 2005 10:38:35 AM EST
According to the left Saddam allowed the inspectors in and gave them everything they asked for.<<
Well Hans Blix, you remeber the guy RUNNING the inspections said at the end that he was going everywhere he wanted and not getting any obstruction. HMMMM, whose word should I take the guy actually DOING the inspections or the delusional poster who has consistantly shown she has no idea what she is talking about spewing fantasy on a website.
He did not engage US planes in the no-fly zone <<
The no fly zone was a US/Briatian creation, it had nothing to do with the UN. The US and Britian were bombing the heck out of Iraq before the invasion are you saying they had no right to defend themselves against us?
he legally slaughtered his own people based on their very moral system of laws. <<
At least this is true, too bad we didnt care beans about it while it was actually happening. We sold him more precursers for WMDs and gave him a one billion dollar loan AFTER Halabja. We never even broke diplomatic relations with him, there is a photo all over the internet showing Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam AFTER Halabja. To use it as an excuse to invade now doesnt pass the laugh test.
They also do not realize that EVERY single country considered Saddam a threat but it was Bush and Bush alone who lied about the threat. Revisionist history is huge on this site.<<<
I will admit that you are the resident expert on attempting revisionist history through your persona experience trying it though you still arent very good at it. For instance Kuwait opposed the invasion so I guess THEY didnt see Iraq as much of a threat.
(also if Race is a discussion please check with Sagra before posting. She is the resident Race PC check)
I guess that makes YOU the resident delusional
I guess that makes YOU the resident delusional
by solon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah, she's got plenty of company.
dagweer - Friday November 11, 2005 09:59:51 AM EST -
There are international experts that disagree
[link to www.casi.org.uk]
There are three problems with this part of the argument that I can identify. These are, in some sort of logical order: the absence of a Security Council finding of a material breach relevant to present circumstances; that the finding of the material breach is not equivalent to a decision to suspend the ceasefire; and that a decision to declare the suspension of a ceasefire does not allow one of the parties to recommence the use of armed force.
whether we were positioning tropps had nothing to do with the un resolutions. the idea was to get the inspectors in. we did, they went to the sites we gave them, found nothing, and we still invaded.
mefirst, not true. Please note the following excerpts from Resolution 1441:
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
Now I could go on, but these statements, agreed to by ALL of the Security Council are pretty clear about Iraq's compliance, or non compliance. We were not given full access and Iraq DID NOT COMPLY. It's that simple.
dagweer, you're quoting stuff from 1998. the inspectors were in iraq, going where they wanted and found nothing. come out of that dream world you live in.
Actually, Resolution 1441 dates November 8, 2002. But regardless, I noticed that dagweer left out this little tidbit:
"Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;"
This was the declaration by the UN that Iraq had one last opportunity to comply.
And we all know what happened next...
The inspectors went in, found nothing, continued to find nothing, and in March of 2003, Bush went to war anyway.
by pete592 - Friday November 11, 2005 11:44:32 AM EST -
That's not supported by facts. Can you point to me the United Nations resolution that rescinds 1441 and acknowledges that Iraq was indeed in compliance? Can you even point to me where a resolution stating those facts was even introduced? Until you can, your assertions are unsupported by the facts.
ciao, can you show where bush went back to congress and said he had no choice but to go to war, as the use of force resolution required?
by mefirst - Friday November 11, 2005 12:20:35 PM EST -
Can you show me where that was required, or even suggested in the Senate's resolution to use force?
Were you asleep in 2003?
The UN was not able to assess the compliance because the inspectors had to stop what they were doing and get out so Bush could have his war. That's the only fact you need.
by pete592 - Friday November 11, 2005 12:28:32 PM EST -
So the short answer would be that NO, you can't point to another UN Resolution rescinding resolution 1441 which declared Iraq in material breach. Of course, that would mean that 1441 is in effect to this very day and it's declarations of fact are in direct conflict to your unsubstantiated allegations. Consequently, your comments carry no real weight at all beyond your personal feelings. Let's try to stick to factual, binding information if you don't mind. It'll keep the dialog from becoming a contest on who can make the most absure, unsubstantiated allegations.
Why even bother looking to further UN Resolutions? I'm talking about historical events.
Since the invasion we've had completely unfettered access to every part of Iraq. In January of 2005 US Intelligence officials stopped the search for WMD's. Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials. Do you call this unsubstantiated?
Did you not read my excerpt from Resolution 1441? Not only does 1441 declare that the UN 'Decides' that Iraq IS in material breach, it also declares that the UN 'Decides' that Iraq has a final opportunity to comply with disarmament obligations. Is this unsubstantiated?
if the resolution meant military action, it would have stated so clearly. these things don't work by someone's definition of the "spirit" of the resolution, they are strictly by the "letter"
I love when you call me that...
Ah, you and BO got me there, if by "words of the UN" you mean the US asking for a war:
That was The Right Time.
Yes, this was clearly the time. I mean, Condi was talking about mushrooms. Either she was back from a special Cafe in Amsterdam, or it was time to go to war.
Reasons that you did not specify because, well, we all know about them, I mean, they exist, right?
You are so "Fair and Balanced".
Holy rumsfeld, the Truth is uncovered: A real friend would have been blind to the world. A real friend would have been a yes-man.
See how stupid some people are: we thought that the activities of the neocons were the ones in direct conflict with US interests.
Anyway, go dagweer! Let's bomb France! That's how civilized people solve problems, right?
Oh nooooo...
dagweer, you who dig war, you who are so representative of the best 80%, oops I mean the best 60%, er, no, even better, you who are part of the best 40% (and falling) of the US population, the Real Men not the boys...
Please do come back and be my friend. I miss you already. You are so cute when you try to be outraged.
Love,
First BO is as full as crap as a Christmas, excuse me Hoiday, goose -- I hate to not offend BO.
However, I think that as the resolution says:
" Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"
I think all means would include the threat and use of force. That being said our Allies and yes the French, Germans, and Swedes are our allies, had the right to say no, especially given hindsight, and decry our excesses. Also, according to the resolution as I read it nowhere does it say the US and the UK gets to decide when to invade and go it on our own. As we signed this resolution, I would consider us in breech of the resolution as our (US/UK) invasion has done little at this point to "...to restore international peace and security in the area". You could even argue we have damaged it, very reasonably.
Were you asleep in 2003? The UN never had a chance to assess the compliance because the inspectors had to stop what they were doing and get out so Bush COULD HAVE HIS WAR. That's the only fact you need.
--ah, so i guess those are FRENCH tanks all over iraq..
tralfaz - Friday November 11, 2005 05:29:33 PM EST
--ah, so i guess those are FRENCH tanks all over iraq..<<
No but they are all over Afghanistan:
[link to www.centcom.mil]
In total, some 5,500 French service members were sent to the region.
Today: Today, the French OEF commitment is the following.
• Army: 200 Special Forces troops are fighting alongside American troops against the remnants of the Taliban by conducting armed reconnaissance in the south of Afghanistan. • Navy: 350 Several French war ships are operating along with the allies to fight against illegal maritime smuggling. French contribution accounts for approximately a quarter of the OEF naval force. In order to show the European Union’s political involvement, these French ships are not a national contribution. They participate in OEF through the European Maritime Forces. France took command of the main Task Force within OEF on 1 June 2004 for 4 months. Maritime patrol aircraft deployed in Djibouti (ATL2) under national control are participating daily in Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance missions. • Air Force: 120 Based in Douchanbe (Tajikistan), two French C-160 perform regular missions to Kabul and Kandahar for logistical support. • Liaison teams: France has embedded liaison officers at all HQ levels: - Office of Military Cooperation (OMC-A) and Combined Forces Command (CFC-A) in Kabul - Combined Task Force (CTF 76) in Bagram - Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Mazar-e-Sharif and Konduz - Combined Task Force Horn Of Africa (CJTF HOA) in Djibouti - Regional Air Movement Coordination Center (AMCC) in Al-Udeid - US Naval Central (NAVCENT) in Bahrain
I wish ignorant people would stop denigrating one of our main partners in the war on terrorism just because they were smart enough NOT to go against 80% of their peoples stated opinion and help us invade Iraq. Here is a clue, soveriegnity isnt doing what the US tells you to do
How the HELL would France's addition to the coalition changed ANYTHING.
How the HELL would France's addition to the coalition changed ANYTHING.
by smoothmedia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya got a point. It still would've been a bad idea.
Then again, when Germany doesn't want to go to war, that oughta tell ya somethin'.