why are we wasting time in iraq

What if I came over to your place, beat the living daylights out of you, raped all your female relatives then stole all your stuff?
Would a guy who busted in and beat me up, but took a good 15 minutes to do it (a 15 minute fight is a very long fight!) be wasting his time? Should he just ignore the screams coming from your home and just merrily go off on his way home even though he knows that he has the power to stop it?
It's just a bigger version of that.

If you say that's just an invasion, then imagine you live in a house where your father (or stepfather) is extremely abusive and has done pretty much everything I listed above on a pretty regular basis.

Sometimes it helps to think of a situation in the abstract.
 
The war there will never end you cant just defeat geurilla warfare+ all the international terrorists that arrive there
Actually there is a very simple way: Get rid of their training and financing. We've done that with Al-Queada in Afghanistan. Note that Americaa has NOT been attacked on its homeland since 9/11. That is because we removed finamcing and many, many training centers. I do believe we have made a mistake in not occupying other countries. (namely Sria, Iran, Jordan, and Yemen) If we take these areas of finance/training out, we will more than likely see a dramatic drop in terrorist activity. Although we will never get rid of ALL nsurgents, we will, eventually remove most. And if we take some casualties then we will. The American soldier, when he takes the oath of service, knows he is protecting not just US interests, but the people of the world, from tranny, persecution, and fear. :rambo:
 
You won't get rid of it entirely yes, this is very true. But you can reduce it.
It's like how crime will never go away. You don't respond to that by scrapping the police.
 
Xion said:
Seems that you did not get me. Don't include me in the whiners list nor the lovers list of the US. What united states does (diplomatically or militarily) is their own business, I never said the US should have handled the situation diplomatically, what i wanted to point out was how what you posted about the righteousness of united states in invading iraq (freeing all the ppl of the world and all that political propaganda) was not the case.

And it seems that you did not "get me," either, seeing as I posted some of the reasons why I believe we are justified in our action in Iraq. I'm sorry if I missed another memo here, but last time I checked, my personal opinions and beliefs didn't quite fall under the category of propaganda. And I'm afraid you have included yourself on the "whiners list" by your own statements on this forum (which is fine, it is your opinion).
 
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass
destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll
find something.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to
use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we
went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those
weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend
themselves.

Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had
all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those
weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those
weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam
Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade
another country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic
competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in
sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.

Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American Corporate
gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government.
People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and
tortured.

Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while
China is Communist.

Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba
are sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.

Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other
hand, is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some
laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business
with Cuba until they stopped being communists and started being
capitalists like us.

Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and
started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become
capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.

Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam
Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a
legitimate leader anyway.

Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a
country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the
United States.

Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan
is our friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by
forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an
illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he
helped us invade Afghanistan.

Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi
Arabians, hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into
buildings, kiilling over 3,000 Americans.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive
rule of the Taliban.

Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off
people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off
people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.

Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars
back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job
fighting drugs.

Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing
opium poppies.

Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban
would have their hands and heads cut off.

Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing
flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off
for other reasons?
A. Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off
people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off
people's hands for stealing bread.

Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy
that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were
in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not
comply.

Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest
yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for
her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of
patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for
her eyes and fingers.

Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis
are our friends.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th
were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.

Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet
Invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald
Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or
thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We
call them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets, I mean, the Russians, are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years
after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support
our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the
French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French
fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what
we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him
our friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked
the other way, to show him we were his friend.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically
becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can
profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the
better.

Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for
America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war
is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we
attacked Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.

Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells
him what to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because
George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your
eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.

Good night, Daddy
 
Gunner13 said:
OK, Xm 8, please square up the following statements for me:

I'm a American patriot and ready to serve.

So why are we "wasting our time" there? h**l, my family's never been massacred by Saddam, why should I care? THANK YOU!!!!!!! Thats exactly right!!!!!!!!!!

I don't get it.

BTW, have any of you noticed that by engaging and killing them in Iraq and Afghanistan that they can't direct their efforts against us here or at our allies? :idea:


Opps kindof missunderstood what Redneck said. My bad.
 
Chocobo_Blitzer said:
Ugh, Xion's little jig was torture, needlessly long and narrow. Keep it PITHY!

LORD, YES. Please, please, Please.

XION what are you trying to say here :?: that we, and many nations around the world, had what turned out to be bad intel? Ok, we sure did. However, Sadam & Company WERE rearming using the Oil for Food Program and the sanctions against Iraq were darn near inop. Just look at the information coming out of the investigation. It was only a matter of time before Sadam restarted his biological and chemical weapons programs and developed a nuclear device. THEN where would we all be :?:

There is also the tiny little matter of the 17+ UNSR resolutions failed to comply with. If the UN is too lame to enforce it's own resolutions, then someone has to, or the UN just goes out of business.

Your attempt at humor kind of left me cold too. Don't worry, the US and it's Allies will do the heavy lifting here, never fear ;)
 
There is also the tiny little matter of the 17+ UNSR resolutions failed to comply with.

Care to name them?.
I hear a lot about these "other" resolutions but I have only ever seen some rather tenuous arguments over missile production as an example.

If the UN is too lame to enforce it's own resolutions, then someone has to, or the UN just goes out of business.

I think you are jumping to conclusions, it wasnt a matter of the UN being too lame to enforce its resolutions it was a case of them not believing the evidence you put to them as enough justification to enforce the rules, oddly enough you seem happy to simply pass that off now as "had what turned out to be bad intel".
 
Ok, let's try this (probably a few mistakes here, but you get the point :) )

660 - 2 August 1990. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and demands Iraq's immediate and unconditional withdrawal

687 - 3 April 1991. Declares effective a formal cease-fire (upon Iraqi acceptance), establishes the UN Special Commission on weapons (Unscom), extends sanctions and, in paragraphs 21 and 22, provides ambiguous conditions for lifting or easing them.

688 - 5 April 1991. "Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population" in the post-war civil war and "[d]emands that Iraq ... immediately end this repression".

706 - 15 August 1991. Decides to allow emergency oil sale by Iraq to fund compensation claims, weapons inspection and humanitarian needs in Iraq.

707 - 15 August 1991. Condemns Iraq's non-compliance on weapons inspections as a "material breach" of Resolution 687, and incorporates into its standard for compliance with SCR687 that Iraq provide "full, final and complete disclosure ... of all aspects of its programmes to develop" prohibited weaponry. Also grants permission for Unscom and the IAEA to conduct flights throughout Iraq, for surveillance or logistical purposes.

712 - 19 September 1991.
Rejects the Secretary-General's suggestion that at least $2 billion in oil revenue be made available for humanitarian needs; instead allows total sale of $1.6 billion. Eventually rejected by Government of Iraq.

715 - 11 October 1991. Approves the plans of Unscom and the IAEA, including for long term monitoring. Iraq agreed to the monitoring system established by this resolution on 26 November 1993.

778 - 2 October 1992. Deplores Iraq's refusal to implements SCRs 706 and 712 and recalls Iraq's liabilities. Takes steps to transfer funds (including Iraqi assets overseas) into the UN account established to pay for compensation and humanitarian expenses.

949 - 15 October 1994. "Condemns recent military deployments by Iraq in the direction of ... Kuwait", demands an immediate withdrawal and full co-operation with Unscom. According to a spokesman for the US Central Command, the resolution was passed following a threatening buildup of Iraqi forces near the border with Kuwait, and bars Iraq from moving SAMs into the southern no-fly zone.

986 - 14 April 1995. New "oil for food" resolution, allowing $1 billion in oil sales every 90 days. Memorandum of understanding signed by UN and Government of Iraq on 20 May 1996; Phase I begins on 10 December 1996.

1051 - 27 March 1996. Establishes mechanism for long-term monitoring of potentially "dual use" Iraqi imports and exports, as called for by SCR 715.

1060 - 12 June 1996. On Iraq's refusal to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission.

1115 - 21 June 1997. "Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites" and "demands that they cooperate fully" with Unscom. Suspends the sanctions and arms embargo reviews (paragraphs 21 and 28 of SCR 687) until the next Unscom report and threatens to "impose additional measures on those categories of Iraqi officials responsible for the non-compliance".

1134 - 23 October 1997. Reaffirms Iraq's obligations to cooperate with weapons inspectors after Iraqi officials announce in September 1997 that "presidential sites" are off-limits to inspectors. Threatens travel ban on obstructive Iraqi officials not "carrying out bona fide diplomatic assignments or missions" if non-cooperation continues.

1194 - 9 September 1998. "Condemns the decision by Iraq ... to suspend cooperation with [Unscom] and the IAEA", demands that the decisions be reversed and cancels October 1998 scheduled sanctions review.

1205 - 5 November 1998. Echoes SCR 1194, demands that the Iraqi government "provide immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with inspectors and alludes to the threat to "international peace and security" posed by the non-cooperation.

1284 - 17 December 1999. Replaces Unscom with Unmovic, demands Iraqi co-operation on prisoners of war, alters the "oil for food" program.

1441 - 8 November 2002. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687.


http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

I jump to no conclusions - the League of Nations was ineffective and went out of business partly because it could not enforce anything and could be ignored. If nations want the UN to help mediate disputes and keep the peace, then they have to back it up, or act for it when it lacks backbone or determination. Otherwise if becomes an irrelavant debating society.

Note that the US worked overtime to go thru the UN and work with other nations. What we got for our pains was a lot of pious nonsense from double dealing countries (France and Russia) that stood to gain more from the deals that Saddam was working than complying with international law and UNSR Resolutions THEY VOTED FOR.
 
Seems like it was all a matter of "interpretation" of resolution 1441, if you think France, China, and Russia interpreted it correctly, then well, the coalition did an illegal invasion. Course some folks say they interpreted it that way because they had lots of money invested in Iraq. Then you can flip it the other way around, with the US wanting to help themselves economically and slap tags on the rest of the coalition as "coerced" or "disillusioned" or whatever.

I personally think both sides were working on a vague technicality. But that the coalition was ultimately in the right because the goals were positive. Positive for Iraq, not so much for this scarred generation, but for the generations to come. For the middle-east, perhaps, because of the possibility of a "democracy domino", not to mention the local threat of the Saddam's Ba'ath government and the instability it created. And the coalition.... perhaps must settle with what chaos they stopped, including whatever the future may have brought.
 
Thats simply a list of resolutions that involve Iraq, some of them Iraq complied with through force in the Gulf war ie 660 and 687, the bulk of them are "reafirming obligations" and modifying the oil for food program which isnt really earth shattering stuff.

The worst area of that list would be the area between June 1996 and December 1999 where they refused entry to inspection teams however the readmission of UN teams in 2002 after resolution 1441 should have more than covered those issues.


I jump to no conclusions - the League of Nations was ineffective and went out of business partly because it could not enforce anything and could be ignored. If nations want the UN to help mediate disputes and keep the peace, then they have to back it up, or act for it when it lacks backbone or determination. Otherwise if becomes an irrelavant debating society.

Yes indeed however you have to understand that just because the US puts a case forward doesnt mean that it is actually right nor does it mean that the world has to accept it as right.
The UN cannot be expected to be effective when one of the parties involved is going to do what it wants regardless of the UNs decissions and quite frankly it doesnt matter whether that party is Iraq or the US.

Note that the US worked overtime to go thru the UN and work with other nations.
Yes and it still didnt convince them now given the benefit of hindsight it would appear that the UN made the right call.

Essentially the case I am hearing constantly from Americans boils down to one of "The US wanted it therefore the UN should have rubberstamped it and because it didnt it is worthless".
Unfortunately if its only option is to agree with the US or be worthless then no matter what it chose it would still be worthless.
 
OK, you wanted me to list the UNSCR that Iraq violated, I did and now you dismiss them. If the US really didn't care about world opinion and we are the bullies that certain circles make us out to be, why would we keep going back to the UN?

We sought and gained the approval of the recognized world body and the international community BEFORE we acted. How is this a rubber stamp?

1441 is pretty clear that if Saddam did not comply that there would be serious consequences and the Security Council voted for that. France and Russia tried to weasel out after the US and the Coalition of the Willing made it clear they would act, if I recall correctly. We are now finding out WHY they didn't want their cozy, profitable and illegal deals with Saddam & Company to end.

If an order to comply has no force behind it, then it is meaningless. You keep dancing around this point and not acknowledging it as if it's OK to do whatever with NO consequences.

Have you ever tried rasing a child or training a dog or another pet this way? The results will not be to your liking :(
 
America: "You have two options. Option A, you give us what we want."

France, Russia, and China: "And Option B?"

America: "We take it. The choice is yours.."

Is that what it sounds like to non-US citizens, be honest, do you view the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 as the US bullying around other countries?

This is my perspective on it. I would much rather that we had invaded North Korea and remove Kim Jung-Il as he is by far worse than Saddam when it comes to being an evil dictator, but then we have to contend with China and the United States decided that Kim was not worth a Nuclear Confrontation with China. The US is not infallibe and we are not all powerful. Our military has limits just like everyone else, we can not be everywhere doing everything at once. Do I think that invading Iraq was the right thing to do? No. But there are different degrees of right and wrong. Invading Iraq, that was wrong, but letting the Iraqi's suffer under 12 years of UN sanctions after Bush Sr. decided to pull out American troops in hopes of gaining support in his race for re-election, that was even more wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right, but given the two options, lift sanctions or invasion, I think the US made the right choice. (Don't try to twist my words to make it look like I just called the invasion of Iraq righteous.) I still maintain my opinion that in the future I see Iraq has a prosperous republic able to rule itself and the leader of the Muslim world, which ironically enough was one of Saddam's goals.

If you disagree with me keep it to yourself, if you think I am right be kind and call me a freakin genious. ;) :lol:

(just kidding on the last part guys and gals)
 
Gunner13 said:
OK, you wanted me to list the UNSCR that Iraq violated, I did and now you dismiss them. If the US really didn't care about world opinion and we are the bullies that certain circles make us out to be, why would we keep going back to the UN?

We sought and gained the approval of the recognized world body and the international community BEFORE we acted. How is this a rubber stamp?

1441 is pretty clear that if Saddam did not comply that there would be serious consequences and the Security Council voted for that. France and Russia tried to weasel out after the US and the Coalition of the Willing made it clear they would act, if I recall correctly. We are now finding out WHY they didn't want their cozy, profitable and illegal deals with Saddam & Company to end.

If an order to comply has no force behind it, then it is meaningless. You keep dancing around this point and not acknowledging it as if it's OK to do whatever with NO consequences.

Have you ever tried rasing a child or training a dog or another pet this way? The results will not be to your liking :(

Indeed I did ask and in all fairness you are the only one who has been able to provide them however you have to also accept that Iraq met some of those resolutions ie the demand to leave Iraq and the ceasefire with coalition forces (admittedly they didnt do it volunteerily) and at least 3 of those resolutions deal with alterations to the food for oil program which I dont think anyone could possibly consider earth shattering stuff.

The real and only resolution that applies here is 1441 as it is the last in the line of resolutions demanding a return to inspections "or else" which like it or not Iraq did comply with which oddly enough the UN weapons inspectors said was a real possibility.

f an order to comply has no force behind it, then it is meaningless. You keep dancing around this point and not acknowledging it as if it's OK to do whatever with NO consequences.

I am not dancing around it at all I have now and always will maintain that the problem was not that the UN would not have enforced the resolution it was that it didnt accept that the US's "evidence" was enough to warrant enforcing the resolution and like it or not hindsight has proven the UN was right not to enforce it.

It strikes me is that where we disagree is you believe that because the resolution threatened force it became mandatory for it to be used and I believe that the UN chose to operate on a "convince us that it needs to be used first" policy which is the way I would hope the UN would operate.

I will now acknowledge that it is not ok to do whatever you want with no consequences but I also believe that until a case is PROVEN to those judging it a verdict can not be rendered.


America: "You have two options. Option A, you give us what we want."

France, Russia, and China: "And Option B?"

America: "We take it. The choice is yours.."

Is that what it sounds like to non-US citizens, be honest, do you view the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 as the US bullying around other countries?

I think you are partially correct in your post however its not as one sided as you make it, by the end of the process France was not going to play ball either it had reached the point where you have two parties who had painted themselves into a corner (The US was going to war come hell or high water and France was going to veto it regardless).
 
Actually all parties had agreed if Saddam did not comply, there would be "severe consequences" for him. This actually meant going to war since they had already slapped sanctions on him.
But when the moment of truth came, everyone except the US and the UK backed up on the agreement. Suddenly the UN was trying to veto something it even started... a UN resolution "rubbished" by the UN.
So it was a bit more complicated.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Actually all parties had agreed if Saddam did not comply, there would be "severe consequences" for him. This actually meant going to war since they had already slapped sanctions on him.
But when the moment of truth came, everyone except the US and the UK backed up on the agreement. Suddenly the UN was trying to veto something it even started... a UN resolution "rubbished" by the UN.
So it was a bit more complicated.

This is getting silly now.

Actually all parties had agreed if Saddam did not comply, there would be "severe consequences" for him. This actually meant going to war since they had already slapped sanctions on him.

Yes but the resolution is not in question here, IF Saddam didnt comply there would be "serious consequences" which more than likely meant war no arguments here.
The argument is not in the resolution itself but whether the UN felt that Saddam was in compliance (or near enough to compliance), the US put its case forward and the UN weapons inspection teams put their case forward and in the end the UN chose to accept its own inspectors over the US.
Now the inspection teams didnt say that Iraq was in compliance they said that there was no evidence that they werent and requested more time to complete the job.

So please understand that just because the resolution had a clause that allowed for war it didnt make war inevitable.
 
Back
Top