The prior inspection routine was like trying the case in front of the judge and jury before the search warrant was issued. None of the Presidential Palaces were searched at the time, and yet both the inspectors and the US knew that's where the inspectors should have done at least some of their work.

A clean bill of health by UN inspectors would have allowed Iraq to rid itself of all UN imposed sanctions. One would have thought the sensible thing to do was to aid the inspectors. Instead,
well, I'll let Richard Butler, former head of the UNSCOM program say it:
So, we knew they had violated the sanctions already. Get it? We knew then.
True, Pat. Why did the US send bombs flying into Iraq during the Clinton administration? The US has been killing Iraqis for years. Here, international reaction after the US tossed lethal weapons in 1996: In other words, this problem with Iraq resulting in the use of deadly force against Iraq did not start with Bush Jr. Did the world countries listed above believe the evidence the US acted on in 1996? If they even believed that evidence, what was their reaction then? Not much change, was it?

The difference was the level of deadly force used by the US, not the use of it.

But as much as Iraq's violations of the sanctions on the chemical and biological weapons that was to worry about. Someone may find something, and use that as some justification.

To me, I believe it's the nuclear capability. Whether that nuclear capability, bombed in the 80s by Israel, brought almost to fruition before the 1990 conflict, was really there or not, I believe that someone in our govt. believes it.

I truly believe it's the nuclear option that was the reason for the attack. And that information may be kept quiet or released - I honestly can't say.

As I said in the earlier post, I believe that the nucler complex was improved in the 1990s, and if that is truly the case, it means something significant.

One last item, speaking of evidence shown to the world to justify the attack. See if you can find out exactly what it was that spooked Spain into joining the Coalition. Spanish Secret Police discovered something related to all of this in some case(s), and I don't know what it ever was. Spain was not simply minding their own business before all of this. They reportedly found something that made their government vocally side with the US/UK Coalition. It was enough to justify committment, yet not released to the UN or the public to my knowledge.

I don't think we know all there is to know on the actual justification of things at this point.

Here\'s a book that was written well eno... WarTard side.
Read a couple of the reviews and see what you think.
Here\'s one CenterLeftist that was convinced, however reluctantly, by this book several months back.

Wow, it's almost like something important and fundemental happened after he was elected. Maybe like A MAJOR TERRORIST ATTACK?

But thanks, you illustrated the key staple of the Left's opposition to the war. You simply hate Bush. It's as petty as that, and about as deep as a birdbath.

Tidbits of evidence for the "Iraq never wished harm on the US" crowd:

Can you even fucking read, you inbred moron? I was making a point THAT PEOPLE CHANGE THEIR MINDS about things. I wasn't saying that Bush didn't have a right to change his mind (although I do think he should admit he was wrong and apologize to Gore and Clinton for believing what he now believes). But I ALSO think that the French have the same right to change their mind.

I guess you cannot detect irony. Actually, I think you can, or you wouldn't have deleted the next line in my post: "Get real, Sludge. The French did exactly what Bush did. They CHANGED THEIR MINDS. Countries are allowed to do that, you know."

And your posts demonstrate a big problem with the Right. You wanted this war for no other reason than the fact your hate foreignors and minorities. You used an event perpetrated by roughly 50 to 1000 people (9/11) to justify waging an endless war against 1 billion people purely because they are of the same religious background. That is bigotry. And it is the same sort of thinking that led to the Holocaust.

Wow, that's a shock! You are surprised that Saddam started to take steps to attack us after the last 2 years in which we have been endlessly PROMISING them that we would soon invade? After 2 years when the President has talked of virtually nothing else (while his Wall Street buddies loot the treasury and the economy collapses)?

Wow, SockPuppet... are you saying that if China spent 2 years promising to attack us, you would be advocating that we do nothing to defend ourselves.

This is like that Onion story, "Bush Demands Iraq Disarm Before We Attack Them"

And of course, we don't even know if that story is true. It could be just like these 30 or 40 announcements by the military that they "just found" WMDs in Iraq. The military make 5 or 6 claims like that a day, then an hour later, quietly retracts them. As I have said before, the military has done this so much, I'm sure 80% of the public thinks we HAVE found WMDs in Iraq. Who knows? Maybe we will? And maybe we'll plant some. It will create foreign relation and election problems for Bush if we do not, and Bush is a real "ends justifies the means" type.

Bottom line is that Iraq was a paper tiger. They put up virtually no opposition. Was it a good regime? No. But I'm sorry if I do not think it was worth pissing off the whole planet, ruining our historical strategic alliences, wrecking the world economy, and destabalizing the Middle East. I'm happy the Iraqis do not have to live under that kind of tyranny anymore, but I care about American asses more than I do Iraqi asses. And in the end, I doubt the Iraqis will appreciate us.

I was just thinking, I sure hope the Iraqis don't pay us back for liberating them the same way that Osama and the Afghanis repayed us for liberating them from the Soviets.

You people are fools if you think the Iraqis will do anything other than grow to hate us.

You won't even consider the possibility that your crystal ball is cracked?

Korvac has it right, here, Slush. The French were opposed to any plan for military action while the inspections were ongoing, and opposed to prematurely ending the inspections. The US had essentially given Iraq a Catch-22 situation:

"If we don't find the WMD, then you're hiding them and you're in violation; if you show us where they are, you have them, and you're in violation."

Either way, Dubya was going to have his war.

Sockpuppet, the two links you posted were somewhat interesting, but did not present any evidence that would make me reconsider my opinion.
The book you mention was written by a former CIA analyst; it is said that you never truly leave "the company", so I would assume he wrote the book to voice the CIA's position on Iraq, which is basically whatever Bush wants it to be.
The book says that the containment policy wasnt working; how do know this? Saddam didn't have nukes, although he wanted them; but other countries in the general area such as Iran, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Algeria all have nuclear programs. India, Pakistan, and Israel already have nukes. Iraq hadn't made any effort to control the gulf region since his thwarted Kuwait invasion 12 years ago. And if he did control the gulf, the only way it would affect the US is through our dependence on oil from the gulf region.
The article about the Iraqi-Uganda terrorist link presents a stronger argument for US military intervention in Uganda than Iraq. It is unknown whether the Iraq terrorist plan was ever even put into action. Don't forget that the CIA funded the Saddam-opposition group Iraq National Congress, plus we have bombed them on several occasions prior to latest war, so are you suprised that some Iraqi bureocrat would try to dream up some form of revenge? We have contingency attack plans prepared for every potential adversarial nation on the planet, it doesn't mean we're at war with them.

And again:
April 3, 1991 U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), Section C, declares that Iraq shall accept unconditionally, under international supervision, the "destruction, removal or rendering harmless" of its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometers (emphasis added). One week later, Iraq accepts Resolution 687. Its provisions were reiterated and reinforced in subsequent action by the United Nations in June and August of 1991.

May 1991 Iraq accepts the privileges and immunities of the Special Commission (UNSCOM) and its personnel. These guarantees include the right of "unrestricted freedom of entry and exit without delay or hindrance of its personnel, property, supplies, equipment ... (emphasis added)."

June 1991 Iraqi personnel fire warning shots to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles.

September 1991 Iraqi officials confiscate documents from the inspectors. The inspectors refuse to yield a second set of documents. In response, Iraq refuses to allow the team to leave the site with these documents. A four-day standoff ensues, but Iraq permits the team to leave with the documents after a statement from the Security Council threatens enforcement actions.

October 11, 1991 The Security Council adopts Resolution 715, which approves joint UNSCOM and IAEA plans for ongoing monitoring and verification. UNSCOMs plan establishes that Iraq shall "accept unconditionally the inspectors and all other personnel designated by the Special Commission" (emphasis added).

October 1991 Iraq states that it considers the Ongoing Monitoring and Verification Plans adopted by Resolution 715 to be unlawful and states that it is not ready to comply with Resolution 715. I'll point out here that 715 deals with who specifically carries out Resolution 687, which Iraq has already accepted unconditionally

February 1992 Iraq refuses to comply with an UNSCOM/IAEA decision to destroy certain facilities used in proscribed programs and related items.

July 6-29, 1992 Iraq refuses an inspection team access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture. UNSCOM said it had reliable information that the site contained archives related to proscribed activities. Inspectors gained access only after members of the Council threatened enforcement action. Sense a theme here?

January 1993 Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM to use its own aircraft to fly into Iraq.

June-July 1993 Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM inspectors to install remote-controlled monitoring cameras at two missile engine test stands.

November 26, 1993 Iraq accepts Resolution 715 and the plans for ongoing monitoring and verification. Then what the %#@& was the problem? It was adopted 10/11/91, two years earlier?

October 15, 1994 (a year after Iraq agreed to accept 715, which put UNSCOM in place to inspect)The Security Council adopts Resolution 949, which demands that Iraq "cooperate fully" with UNSCOM and that it withdraw all military units deployed to southern Iraq to their original positions (emphasis added). Iraq withdraws its forces and resumes working with UNSCOM.

March 1996 Iraqi security forces refuse UNSCOM teams access to five sites designated for inspection. The teams enter the sites after delays of up to 17 hours. (Aren't you at all worried about what might have happened to the sites in those 17 hours? Not even a little?)

March 19, 1996 The Security Council issues a presidential statement expressing its concern over Iraq's behavior, which it terms "a clear violation of Iraq's obligations under relevant resolutions." The council also demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to all sites designated for inspection (emphasis added). (Wasn't Tom Daschle advocating regime change about this time?)

March 27, 1996 Security Council Resolution 1051 approves the export/import monitoring mechanism for Iraq and demands that Iraq meet unconditionally all its obligations under the mechanism and cooperate fully with the Special Commission and the director-general of the IAEA (emphasis added).

June 1996 Iraq denies UNSCOM teams access to sites under investigation for their involvement in the "concealment mechanism" for proscribed items. (Am I going to do the next 6 years of "Iraq refuses" and "The Security Council demands", all of that, and finally have you still sit there whining "But they were working! Just give them more time! Bush just has to have his war!!!")

June 12, 1996 The Security Council adopts Resolution 1060, which terms Iraq's actions a clear violation of the provisions of the council's earlier resolutions. It also demands that Iraq grant "immediate and unrestricted access" to all sites designated for inspection by UNSCOM (emphasis added).

June 13, 1996 Despite the adoption of Resolution 1060, Iraq again denies access to another inspection team.

November 1996 Iraq blocks UNSCOM from removing remnants of missile engines for in-depth analysis outside Iraq.

June 1997 Iraqi escorts on board an UNSCOM helicopter try to physically prevent the UNSCOM pilot from flying the helicopter in the direction of its intended destination.

June 21, 1997 Iraq again blocks UNSCOM teams from entering certain sites for inspection.

June 21, 1997 The Security Council adopts Resolution 1115, which condemns Iraq's actions and demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any sites for inspection and officials for interviews (emphasis added).

September 13, 1997 An Iraqi officer attacks an UNSCOM inspector on board an UNSCOM helicopter while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site designated for inspection. Yep, the regime cooperates all right.

September 17, 1997 While seeking access to a site declared by Iraq to be "sensitive," UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape Iraqi guards moving files, burning documents, and dumping ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river.

November 12, 1997 The Security Council adopts Resolution 1137, condemning Iraq for continually violating its obligations, including its decision to seek to impose conditions on cooperation with UNSCOM (emphasis added). The resolution also imposes a travel restriction on Iraqi officials who are responsible for or participated in instances of non-compliance.

November 3, 1997 Iraq demands that US citizens working for UNSCOM leave Iraq immediately. Only US citizens? That's not a warlike move, is it?

December 22, 1997 The Security Council issues a statement (Note: They're no longer demanding) calling upon the government of Iraq to cooperate fully with the commission and stresses that failure by Iraq to provide immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any site is an unacceptable and clear violation of Security Council resolutions (emphasis added) (NO IT HASN'T!!! RESOLUTION AFTER RESOLUTION!!! DEFIANCE AFTER DEFIANCE!!! STILL THE UN TAKES NO ACTION!!! WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT TAKE TO GET THIS STUFF THROUGH TO YOU PEOPLE???)

February 20-23, 1998 Iraq signs a Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations on
February 23, 1998. Iraq pledges to accept all relevant Security Council resolutions, to cooperate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, and to grant to UNSCOM and the IAEA "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access for their inspections (emphasis added).

I didn't write the "(emphasis added)"s.

Now, from another timeline...

Oct. 29, 1997: Iraq demands that Americans on the U.N. Special Commission inspection team leave; the Americans leave temporarily but return Nov. 20.

Jan. 13, 1998: Iraq temporarily withdraws cooperation, claiming that the inspection team had too many U.S. and British inspectors.

Jan. 22, 1998: Iraq refuses inspection of presidential sites.

Feb. 20-23, 1998: U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan secures Iraq's cooperation and unrestricted access to inspectors.

Oct. 31, 1998: Iraq ends all forms of cooperation with UNSCOM. UNSCOM withdraws. [This goes back to Resolution 715, remember?]

Nov. 14, 1998: Iraq allows inspections to resume.

Dec. 16, 1998: UNSCOM removes all staff from Iraq after inspectors conclude Iraq is not fully cooperating. Four days of U.S. and British airstrikes follow.

June 30, 1999: Richard Butler completes his two-year term as executive chairman of UNSCOM.

Dec. 17, 1999: U.N. replaces UNSCOM with UNMOVIC, the U.N. Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission. Iraq rejects the resolution. They rejected the first resolution, remember?

March 1, 2000: Hans Blix assumes post of executive chairman of UNMOVIC.

November 2000: Iraq rejects new weapons inspections proposals.

July 5, 2002: In talks with Annan, Iraq rejects weapons inspections proposals.

Aug. 1: In a letter to Annan, Iraq invites Blix to Iraq for technical discussions on remaining disarmament issues. They already agreed to accept inspections unconditionally. There's nothing technical to discuss.

Aug. 6: Annan writes to Iraqis pointing out that what they are proposing is at odds with U.N. resolutions and asks that Iraq accept inspections. If he was white, this would still be a stupid thing to say.

Sept. 12: President Bush tells the United Nations it must rid the world of Saddam's biological, chemical and nuclear arsenals, or stand aside as the United States acts. Hey, the world does not just stand aside and let other people act... oh...

Sept. 16: Iraq unconditionally accepts the return of U.N. weapons inspectors.

:rolleyes: