How many UN resolutions did Saddam Hussein break?

[LynnTheDem]

Well gee, considering the fact that, just as Hussein had said all along, there were NO "wmd" in Iraq...hmmm...this is a tough one. Let's see if we can figure this toughie out;

-All the UN resolutions were about Iraq not having any "wmd"...

-Iraq in fact had no "wmd"...

That must mean Hussein broke ALL the UN resolutions, right?

:eyes:

*sigh*

Rightwingnuts; possessing the analytical skills of an amoeba. Aka; stupidest MFers on the planet.

[applegrove]

1. It broke all of them. And tried to start up nuclear facilities after the

Kuwait invasion.

Saddam was no good.

WMD? No. But mocking the UN yes. Allowing his people to starve so as to get out of sanctions? Yes. Genocidal maniac? Yes.

I don't have all the answers, but going in on a dream and a Utopian Myth is not the way to go. Far as I can tell - Wolfowitz was the only one reading any books on the world. And he was deluded with utopia.

They could have sent in arms inspectors, allowed them to find no WMD, then told Saddam he had a few weeks to find a new place. No need to invade then. UN occupying force and procurement laws. Enough troops to keep the peace.

If they had to go - they should have gone in on more than a dream.

[Brundle_Fly]

5. the Kuwait invasion was

unspokenly agreed too, by bush 1 iraq embassy.

Saddam told them ( US Gov) three times unless they paid the 40 billion they owed him he would have to invade to get it.

as quoted here

What’s important to understand about Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait is that right up to the invasion American leadership was giving him every sign that he was an American golden child. That’s what American Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie essentially told Saddam, that, “We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. "

So essentially Saddam thought he had been greenlighted, by the US to reclaim a massive debt owed to him, for perfectly legal trade issues.... Sorta like asking permission to invade someone who had not been honest to said country....

Other actions of the Bush administration after the invasion of Kuwait make a strong case that Saddam was baited into the invasion of Kuwait on purpose in order to give he Bush administration an excuse to use military force against Iraq, which had become a growing power in the Middle East through US assistance.

After the invasion of Kuwait there was a strong opinion in the intelligence community, as well as the Middle Eastern community, that the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam should be handled in an Arab context, not by Western powers. The Saudi defense minister noted immediately that the Kuwaiti situation should be handled by the Arab community and was against foreign intervention.

That changed when Bush showed the Saudi's sat imagery of hundreds of tanks amassing on the Saudi border, preparing to invade.

Essentially, Iraq was becoming too powerful. Despite its setbacks during the Iran/Iraq war Iraq was still a “well run” and progressive country in 1990. The Iraqi people were well educated, healthcare was good, and the military strength of Iraq was still strong. On top of that the Bush administration was well aware of the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction programs because America was partly responsible for the development of the Iraqi weapons programs.

Because of all these factors, the Bush administration was intent on being able to destroy Iraqi infrastructure as well as significantly hurting the Iraqi military in such a way that Iraq would be greatly set back developmentally so that Iraq would not be able to become increasingly successful, at least not under Saddam.

There was no attempt to overthrow Saddam at the time because it was felt that it may destabilize the region, and because there had not been enough time to put together a satisfactory replacement government. There were many other political issues involved as well, such as George Bush’s fear that American casualties in a push towards Baghdad would lower his popularity rating and hurt his chances at re-election.

[Brundle_Fly]

8. FYI

the Iraqi's NEVER amassed tanks on the Saudi border....

Just another little Bush white lie to get what he wanted.

[Brundle_Fly]

FYI part deux

Despite its setbacks during the Iran/Iraq war Iraq was still a “well run” and progressive country in 1990.

The Iraqi people were very well educated

healthcare was good

and the military strength of Iraq was still strong.

On top of that the Bush administration was well aware of the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction programs because America was partly responsible for the development of the Iraqi weapons programs.

DUH.

oh and we trained osama too...... that was bush 1 as well... fuckwads

[LynnTheDem]

Powell actually admitted to that lie in 1993. Too late by then of course.

Or too late for all the dead Iraqis, anyways.

[Bozita]

13. NO newborns were thrown on the floor from their incubators

Liberal media, my ass.

[LynnTheDem]

15. 7 US senators used that lie right before war vote; the vote passed by 5.

And so many Americans wonder why the world hates us.

[applegrove]

22. That was war propaganda. Everyone fell for it. But Saddam was the aggresor

in Kuwait. And he was a homocidal maniac. And he did murder babies in Kurdish villages. And toddlers, kids, tweens, teens, etc.

He was a maniac. As those school-girls who were regularly kidnapped from school, raped by Uday, and then sent home to a ruined life because they were not virgins anymore.

Not a good place to be a girl. Not a good place to be a human being. You may have been free from fear if you were an non-human animal or a plant. They may have done well under Saddam. Don't know. But if you were conscious - you were terrified.

[LynnTheDem]

24. Oy vey.

[Bozita]

48. Not sure whether to laugh or cry. Leaning toward laughing.

[LynnTheDem]

54. Yeah, laughing is good.

Crying damages the skin.

[Zhade]

53. Keep in mind that Kuwait was slant-drilling into Iraq's oil fields.

Not to say Hussein was awesome (he certainly was NOT), but you should realize that it's not all about his alleged cartoonish supervillainy.

More complex than a lot of people know, actually.

[Spazito]

151. Wow, you really do live in an alternate reality given the facts that

have been pointed out to you yet you ignore. I must say, it is ......fascinating to watch.

[O.M.B.inOhio]

144. And post Bush II invasion pre and neonatal services unavailable to many..

[oasis]

60. Like his bogus "baby incubator" story. (eom)

[applegrove]

20. You lost me at "well run" & "progressive country" "in 1990". Genocidal

maniac. Murdered thousands of people. Babies. Family or community of political opposition. Even Galloway was against him in the mid 1980s.

Saddam = bad man

Giving women the vote when you will murder the families of any effective opposition is not giving them the vote. Terrorism - of your people - no good.

[LynnTheDem]

21. Why do you hate FACTS?

Iraq was a well run nation and was one of the most progressive nation in the mideast. Just fact.

Like it or not.

[applegrove]

25. You can put on a secular suit to curry favor with the US and then get

away with political killings, genocide, destroying farmland of millions, torture, food genocide (by going around the UN sanctions). No human rights - no progressive country.

For sure the secular nations have a better record in the middle east. Iraq was not a secular nation. It was a cult of personality. You could put on love pumps and walk down the street and get a great job, make lots of money and marry a millionaire. But you had to be a bathist and you had to report anyone who acted outside the cult of personality. You had to report them to be tortured.

That is no life. No life at all. I'm not saying.. cry for the baathists. I am saying that these were the people who thrived. The others were terrified. Poor. Their human rights null and void. Terrified to think or speak.

Not a great country.

Cult of personality is often worse than right wing fundamentalist islamists. Human rights in Iran better than human rights under Saddam. And women have to cover their heads.

[Brundle_Fly]

28. isnt that what they have RIGHT NOW?

[applegrove]

31. Oh - hell - I would have had the UN go in. I would have had enough

troops. War would have been the last option instead getting Saddam to agree to move to another country (which he said he would in the end apparently).

Criminal the laxidaisical way the "all US" "all the time" war was carried out. And borders not sealed. And all the rest.

[LynnTheDem]

38. The UN said NO.

So NO you would NOT have had the UN go in. The UN said NO. There was NO CAUSE for war. NO cause for an invasion. NONE.

So what would your "last option" be??? There was NO CAUSE for war. PERIOD.

YOU would have INVADED an innocent nation with MORE TROOPS. Gee, that sure makes YOU a good guy!

Jeebus fucking cripes.

[LynnTheDem]

32. WORSE OFF NOW.

That and the 150,000 to 600,000 dead.

That he hadn't been doing much of anything to anyone the past decade of his rule is immaterial, ya see.

Retro-war.

:sarcasm:

[applegrove]

34. 100,000 starving a year in the 1990s.

[LynnTheDem]

40. From US-enforced sanctions against world outcry.

When Iraq was in complaince.

But then that never mattererd, did it; the US said don't care if Iraq's in compliance or not, gonna starve them until we get what we want.

The usual MO for America.

[Spazito]

152. Over 100, 000 dead now, gosh, guess bush is worse than Saddam

except in your, very special, world.

[Brundle_Fly]

44. I will agree that Saddam

in the terms of a western country, or by western standards, Saddam was a bad guy.

If you look at the way the country is now falling into civil war now, you can make the educated guess he had to be somewhat of a tyrant to maintain order. There are many groups vying for control, always has been.

I don't think car mechanics, or doctors, or engineers or anyone getting along in society had anything to fear from the Saddam regime.


The people giving the info about Uday or Saddam taking young girls off the street and raping them are the same ones who brought us all the great FACTS for our current WAR, so please, grain of salt with the talking points please.

[LynnTheDem]

47. Don't forget the Purple Plastic People Shredder!

So many Idiot Americans still believe that shit. Fucking unreal. ONE PERSON came up with that story, no proof whatsoever, and so many Idiot Americans believe(d) it.

It ain't any surprise that the #1 nation for conmen is America.

[applegrove]

52. You don't think that for sociopaths like Saddam & Uday - looking for

one victim after the other to satisfy is part of the reason for getting power and changing all the rules?

The whole country becomes their sadistic asses. And millions live diminished lives - wracked with fear and terror - and millions die.

Iraq was not a good place. Not since Saddam got power especially. And often not before.

[LynnTheDem]

55. Where do you get this shit from???!

You're a lifetime subscriber to the Mirror, aren't you.

[applegrove]

57. I have no idea what the mirror is. Actually - I read an article in the

Nation.

[LynnTheDem]

66. And they knew this "fact" how? Oh let me guess...exiles!

Funny thang how the NGOs who were actually in Iraq for decades never reported on such happenings. Them exiles, they just knew everything! Like them incubator babies and purple plastic people shredders. Like Iraq being able to deploy "wmd" in 45 minutes. Or how they'd welcome us with rose petals and choccie.

Or there's that Iraqi woman who was raped and imprisoned by Hussein. Her hubby was murdered for having married her, him not being an Iraqi. Remember that? Oh wait, that's right....turns out her hubby, an Iraqi, is alive and well and divorced her when she became a prostitute and was sent to jail for fraud & theft. He warned she had a habit of lying.

But hey, one article is good enough evidence for reason to invade (cept shoulda been with more troops!) and slaughter 150,000 - 600,000 innocent men, women & kids, I totally agree.

Not. ;)

[applegrove]

70. I'm saying that Saddam is bad, was bad, and the world has to do

something when monsters like that get into power. The twentieth century has been the century of genocide. Maybe it has to do with technology & mass media. Don't know. When it happens, you stop it.

I am not a fan of Bush or what they did or the real reasons they went for war (neocon experiment, oil, pump up the US stock market without causing inflation at home, protecting US oil dollar markets, setting precedent for pre-emptive war, all things they didn't talk about, Rummy/Cheney legacy issues, etc.).

So don't accuse me of that. Cause I am against what they did.

But that doesn't make Saddam some innocent. He was a genocial maniac & he remains one.

Could not the UN have better spend the 1990s focussing on something other than keeping him to not start wars, muder people, do genocides? Couldn't that time the Saddam took up in the world - couldn't that time have been better used?

When totalitarian genocidal maniacs get into control you stop them. You don't let them go on for generations. Thankfully - even the right in the USA has learnt that democracy is by far and above better than dictators. A little too late. Would have been great if that was the policy in the 1950s - but there again another homocidal maniac named Stalin had the world's attention. And the whole world revolved around fear of him.

[Brundle_Fly]

71. OMG

The twentieth century has been the century of genocide. Maybe it has to do with technology & mass media. Don't know. When it happens, you stop it.

WHAT ABOUT SUDAN? We don't stop shit.

[applegrove]

75. I'm there on Sudan. I want NATO to go in. I want the UN to fund the

biggest kick ass army to go it. I've posted about the Sudan and nobody responds. It isn't where it is supposed to be.

Even the right wing evangelicals get upset.

But not on the pre-emptive war agenda of some folk. Plus there is oil there. Plus - by funding dictators in the middle east and handing so much money to wahabis - extremist islam erupted instead of democracy and a decent distribution of wealth & now has a plan to control all Islamic nations.

Oil money bad.

***holes.

[LynnTheDem]

80. You DO know the UN is not there to go to war, right?

That's not their purpose. You know that, right?

UN "kick-ass army".

OY.

[applegrove]

88. Well some people would like to see a UN with teeth - instead of one

that relies on France, England, USA, Russia & China all agreeing before any intervention takes place. Lucky Congo. The UN soldiers there can barely keep the number of deaths by starvation down to 30,000 a month.

Send them home!

And Rwanda - it would have taken an invasion of 10,000 soldiers to stop the genocide. Genocidal maniacs had no guns. Turns out some teenagers with AK-47 from Tanzania were the ones who put a stop to the genocide one fine spring day. Teenagers with guns.

Yes - would that the UN could have gone in without the approval of the USA!

[LynnTheDem]

90. .All I can say is I'm very happy you're not in charge of the UN.

:)

[applegrove]

100. Why they'd be rules to follow if I was in charge of the UN. Genocidal

maniacs all stand trial at the International Criminal Court.

Shame on me. All elected world leaders would have to pass some psychological tests. Especially if they were "elected" in funcky situation. Otherwise the internet - also controlled by the UN - gets turned off and mobile phone relayers are jammed from space.

You murder systematically - the lights go off.

[LynnTheDem]

104. First you need proof.

Then ya go to court.

What you DON'T do is INVADE and OCCUPY a nation TWENTY FUCKING YEARS AFTER THE FUCKING FACT, slaughtering 150,000 - 600,000 Iraqis although of course YOU'D invade with more troops so that makes everything ok.

[LynnTheDem]

78. Rwanda. 100 days. 800,000 dead.

And no one said dick.

RETRO-WAR!

Watch out, Rwanda...one day we'll invade you for that 1994 slaughter!

[LynnTheDem]

74. Oy vey.

Far too much comic-book reading as a child, perhaps?

[applegrove]

77. Reading about the 20th century & all the genocides - including the

first big one.. Namibia by the germans... not comic books to me.

[Brundle_Fly]

79. I think Lynn is referring to the

Biggest most kick-assed Army comment.

[LynnTheDem]

82. Hrmmmm...

Applies equally to pretty much every comment, actually. lol!

[applegrove]

84. No comment on Sudan, Rwanda, WWII, ? Cambodia or Uganda now?

How bout Congo? Should the UN troops pull out? Up to you.

[LynnTheDem]

91. Ummm...I'm the one brought Rwanda up.

And no dear it ain't up to me. It's up to the UN. Peacekeeping. Not wars or invasions.

The UN ain't much into RETRO-WAR. Thankfully.

[Brundle_Fly]

93. The UN ain't much into RETRO-WAR

thank god cause I think the british would have a lot to answer for the last 3 centuries or so.

[LynnTheDem]

99. UK and the USA; responsible for largest genocides in human history

And that's a fact.

Oh wait...Americans don't know yet about the huge genocide of the Native American, where it was legal to go out and hunt Indian men, women & kids for sport. We're only supposed to believe a few thousand were murdered.

The Brits though are aware of their country's history of genocide.

Some day the majority of Americans may become aware. Like the US being found guilty in the terrorist deaths of 30,000 Nicaraguan civilians and then reneged on the reparations. Then they'd understand exactly why so much of the world hates us and no freeps it sure as fuck ain't coz of our "freedoms" (#14 in the world ranking).

WAKE UP, LYNN! Of course most Americans are never gonna know their own country's history, duhhh me! *smack*

[applegrove]

109. Oh yes - genocide was around for a long time. People learnt. They

learnt in Europe war was bad and genocide worse. That is what going after the genocidal maniacs will do to the next crop who come along... don't do this. See - learning!

But if the Bush WH doesn't want the precedent for humanitarian intervention to continue, so invades Iraq on "other issues" - that is crap.

Perhaps the neocons have learnt from this. I doubt it. But - the world cannot forget and they have to keep on learning. Human rights or nothing.

[LynnTheDem]

112. Apple...LAST time. There was NO genocide going on in Iraq for the past

decade.

You DO NOT go INVADE and OCCUPY a nation and slaughter people TWENTY YEARS LATER.

THERE WAS NO NEED OF ANY HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IN IRAQ.

What the hell do you NOT understand about this???

[applegrove]

116. So the UN should have lifted sanctions. And stopped pushing to inspect?

Or should they have continued to let people starve at 100,000 a year.

Which is it?

[LynnTheDem]

126. Unreal.

Yes the UN should have lifted non-arms sanctions, as the UN and the world wanted to do by 1994.

No the UN should not have stopped weapons inspections and the UN never had any plans to stop weapons inspections.

Cute how you phrase it as an either/or situ, which it never was.

LIFT the economic sanctions (as the UN and world wanted years ago) AND keep up the weapons inspections.

WOW! Hey I can talk, walk AND xchew gum all at the same time!

[applegrove]

165. There are three options here. 1) Continue as they were, 2) stop all UN

actions (and since there was UN resolution after UN resolution.. I doubt anyone can say the world wanted to give up sanctions in 1994, cause that is not what the UN did), or 3) accept Saddam's offer to go into a third country and send the UN in.

4) was what the bushites did and we all know that was a disaster.

Neither of us agree with 4). I'm for 3). You say I am wrong. That leaves 1 or 2.

[julianer]

148. Yes, of course the sanctions should

have been lifted.

That would have weakenedSaddam. Under sanctions he could say 'look at the threat we are under - gather round your strong leader who will protect you' (sound familiar?). Sanctions were great for Saddam - he could blame the US for all the faults in Iraq, though he obviously didn't care about the Iraqis any more than Clinton did.

In any case you either support the rule of law or you don't. You are quite clear that you don't. You support illegal attacks against people the US govt has decided are 'bad'.

You have no moral authority as a result.

[applegrove]

166. There is no rule of law in a non-democracy with a genocidal maniac

in power. It is against the rule of law to kill civilians in your own country, constantly, relentlessly, over time.

[applegrove]

105. The whole point of Rwanda is that it would have taken so little to

stop it. But it would have taken 'army soldiers' from afar. The Tutsi teenagers in Tanzania had to wait for some guns and retool. Then they went in on foot and did the job. Stopped the genocidal maniacs cold.

I'm just saying - airlifts of soldiers (and I think you could find 10,000 chomping on the bit to see some actions the world over) would have been much faster.

And yes - UN force in Iraq - after Saddam had skedaddled would have been a peace-keeping force. As opposed to the Rummy plan where not enough of anything was sent in.

I am for peacekeeping.

I see you in fact do not like genocide. Yes Rwanda is a sorry example of what happens when you do nothing. Thankfully the UN did try to contain Saddam after the first murderous decade. But when some freak like saddam starves his people to get out from under control - you do something. And handing him rights to absolute power again is not the answer.

[LynnTheDem]

108. But the UN does NOT have the right to determine what leaders

nations can have. Nor should they.

Your little scenario would still be an INVASION AND OCCUPATION, and against the wishes of the people of Iraq and what gives you or the UN or bush or anyone else the right???

International law says you DO NOT have any such right. Thank god!

[applegrove]

111. If there is a UN resolution to go into a country under the thumb of

a gross murdered and maniac..why not? They did so in WWII. WWI. They should have gone into Rwanda.

We do get to make choices. I prefer only humanitarian interventions.

[LynnTheDem]

113. NO. In WWI and WWII there were CURRENT ATROCITIES.

In Iraq there was NOTHING TO INTERVENE.

You do NOT go in and invade & occupy a nation ten or twenty years AFTER the fact.

OY!!! This ain't rocket science, Apple!

[applegrove]

115. People were starving. The world was loosing control of Iraq. So the UN

should have just thrown up their hands and said "gee - I hope he doesn't comit war or genocide again - he's out from under our control - bye bye - have fun building the bomb!"


He offered to have elections. He offered to leave. UN should have been able to take him up on this. Bush didn't want that to happen. Wanted so many things - but security for the people there was not one of them - which is sick and creepy. UN would have followed a battle plan.

[LynnTheDem]

122. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

1. No they were not starving. They were better off then than they are now. Iraq life was improving, despite the US-enforced sanctions. That's a fact.

2. No the world was not "losing control of Iraq"...again, WTF do you get this shit from??? Geez even Rice & Powell admitted Iraq was under total control.

3. YES if NO genocide was happening the UN should NOT interfere. AGAIN I ask you, WHY do you ignore the Iraqi people who did NOT want outside interference? You sure are willing to ignore a nation's own people.

4. The UN is NOT THERE to make war. The UN is NOT THERE to "follow a battle plan". You sure want war, dontcha.

The PEOPLE OF IRAQ should have decided, NOT you, NOT me, NOT the UN, NOT bush. The PEOPLE OF IRAQ said NO to interference. How come you keep ignoring that?

[applegrove]

83. Was a kick ass army in WWII. What would you have happen in Sudan or

Rwanda. Appropriate size for troops in Rwanda would have been about 10,000 kick assed troops. Everyone agrees that would have stopped it.

[LynnTheDem]

92. "kick assed"...

Ya gotta stop reading those comic books, I tell ya!

;)

[applegrove]

106. I'm so sorry. Professional peacekeepers. With body armour too!

[LynnTheDem]

110. There was NO NEED for peacekeeping in Iraq.

Wow ya really can't understand that, can you.

You just wanna be the world's dictator; you decide who can and who can't be a nation's leader, regardless what that nation's people do or don't want.

Over & over you post how you'd INVADE AND OCCUPY Iraq (but with more troops!) totally ignoring the FACT that the majority of the people of Iraq (gee even Talabani the Kurd leader) DID NOT WANT anyone to interfere with THEIR nation.

YOU know better tho, eh?

[applegrove]

114. Saddam Hussein was destabilizing the middle east. Awfully hard

for peace in Israel when any suicide bomber's family gets rich.

Awfully hard to deal with issues when this maniac is slipping away and has shown a pattern of genocide and aggressive war.

Going to war, like Rummy did, without enough troops or UN cooperation and laws - is a crime.

[LynnTheDem]

123. Oh pulleese don't EVEN spew that garbage!

That is straight from Faux Moos and it's BULLSHIT. Absolute utter BULLSHIT.

There was NO NEED for war; NO NEED for invasion; NO NEED for humanitarian intervention.

Oy.

[applegrove]

168. No need for humanitarian intervention. Anywhere in the world? Or just

because Saddam was such a decent leader and running his country so well?

[rman]

167. Then you know many a genocide is not reported in the western MSM,

many a dictatorship is supported by the US.
Coincidentally those that work out in favor wrt "defending US interests" (which is such things as resources and cheap labor - anywhere, though primarily in Latin America).

[leftchick]

146. Yeah! Let's get that people boiler in Uzbekistan, Karimov!!!

scratch that, he is our friend.... :eyes:



<snip>

"The OSCE focuses only on establishment of democracy, the protection of human rights and the freedom of the press. I am now questioning these values." - President Karimov, after the OSCE criticized the 1999 parliamentary elections. Agence France-Presse, January 8, 2000.

"Such people must be shot in the forehead! If necessary, I'll shoot them myself…!" - President Karimov, upon the 1998 adoption of a highly restrictive religion law, warning parliament not to be soft on "Islamic extremists." Many peaceful Muslims have also been rounded up in the sweeps of "fundamentalists." BBC Monitoring report of Uzbek Radio second program, May 1, 1998.

"I'm prepared to rip off the heads of 200 people, to sacrifice their lives, in order to save peace and calm in the republic…If my child chose such a path, I myself would rip off his head." - President Karimov reacting to acts of violence in Uzbekistan in March 1999. The government originally blamed the incidents, including a bus hijacking, on "criminals" and later on "Islamic extremists." Agence France-Presse, April 2, 1999.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/03/karimovprof.htm

<snip>

Boiling to death is a method of execution.

The condemned are either plunged into already boiling water, or tied up and placed in a giant cauldron of cold water, under which the executioner then lights a fire, which heats the water until it boils. This is a very slow and painful form of capital punishment.

While not as common as other methods of execution, boiling to death has seen widespread use in Europe and Asia over the past two to three thousand years. For example, it was a legal form of capital punishment during the reign of Henry VIII, reserved for poisoners.

In recent times, Idi Amin of Uganda and the government of Uzbekistan under the regime of Islam Karimov are alleged to have boiled a number of political dissidents, such as Muzafar Avazov.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_to_death

[LynnTheDem]

150. He better watch out tho...so was Hussein until the neocons

decided they could do better.

Funny thang is, they're doing WORSE than Hussein did on the #1 thing the neocons care about...OIL.

[leftchick]

160. do you want to know why I think bush is WORSE than saddam?

Because saddam did not slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and say he was doing it for their "freedom and Democracy" like the asshat.

[LynnTheDem]

173. bush IS WORSE than Hussein, and imo this article proves it;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=94456&mesg_id=94456

This makes me so ill...

[CJCRANE]

158. Millions did not die.

Saddam was a dictator but no worse than dozens of others around the world.

He should not have been a priority.

The clear priorities after 9/11 should've been:

#1 Al-Qaeda
#2 North Korea
#3 Iran

[Brundle_Fly]

26. yeah yeah...

don't forget the infamous rape rooms.

In fact Egypt had/has a much much more radical dictatorship than Iraq did, christ the Saudis are much worse and we wine and dine em.



The Kurdish gassing was horrible, but I have still to read a decent evidential piece on whether Saddam did it, or Iran did it, or the Turks did it.

wonder where the gas came from?

I know when it happened and was making news, you didn't have one senator, or congressman jumping up and down about it. They said NOTHING.

[applegrove]

33. 50,000 political murders at least. Saddam went to war to please &

curry favor with the U.S. in Iran. One million dead there. Swamp people's land drained to punish them for being against Saddam in the Kuwait war: 200,000 displaced & empoverished and many dying. I have not even mention what happened to the Kurds. Saddam skirting the UN sanctions and diverting funds away from food - starving 100,000 a year.

Bad man.

[LynnTheDem]

37. 20 years ago.

And the Iraqis are WORSE OFF NOW than they were the past decade of Hussein's rule.

But that's ok with you, right?

[applegrove]

43. No it is not. I never said that. Not okay with me. But neither was people

starving under Saddam. Nor was the genocide. Or the 50,000 murders. Or the one Million dead from war.

[LynnTheDem]

51. TWENTY YEARS AGO.

For the past DECADE Hussein wasn't doing much of anything to anyone...so in your books that's ok to go in and kill 150,000 - 600,000 Iraqis because of what Hussein did TWENTY YEARS AGO???

Starving under US SANCTIONS. Not even gonna bother with your "murder/genocide/war" figures.

TWENTY YEARS AGO.

All the human rights groups say there was NO NEED for humanitarian intervention in Iraq.

There was NO WMD, NO threat, NO humanitarian intervention needed...so you'd invade (with lots more soldiers!) because he was nasty 20+ years ago when we supported him, fuck the Iraqis now dead who would NOT have been dead if we hadn't invaded.

Hmmmm...don't think most Iraqis would agree with ya.

As for the Iran-Iraq war, maybe SOMEday you'll actually bother learning the FACTS of that war, rather than the usual bullshit. But I doubt it, coz I know I've given you links after links after links to the facts and still you post bullshit.

That's ok, you're of course totally entitled to your opinions. However, they aren't facts.

[Usrename]

58. Rummy.

I think the gas came from Rumsfield.

[julianer]

147. 'Even Galloway was against him'

You slip in a right wing smear without noticing it! Perhaps you hope we won't either?

You imply that Galloway regularly supports dictators but that Saddam was too much 'even' for him.

Proof or withdrawal please.

[Erika]

6. He tried to start up nuclear programs after Kuwait?

I guess I missed out on those facts. Please post.

[applegrove]

41. Didn't UN inspectors shut it down?

[LynnTheDem]

46. What the UN inspectors said;

"Through a crash nuclear program launched in 1990, Iraq succeeded in enriching nearly enough uranium for one bomb before its plans were disrupted in 1991 by the start of the Gulf War, according to U.N. weapons inspectors."

[Zhade]

61. That's because it's propaganda, not fact.

I have little doubt Hussein would have loved a nuke program, but he didn't really have one, contrary to the assertion.

[applegrove]

121. Because it was shut down. First by Israel. Then by the UN.

[LynnTheDem]

124. Ya didn't bother to read the FACTS did ya.

Iraq NEARLY had enough enriched uranium to make ONE bomb...NEARLY.

The Gulf War shut that down and Iraq NEVER came any closer to nukes.

FACT.

[applegrove]

161. And was it not the IAEA that did the final shut down? Yes. So Saddam

has shown a pattern of wanting nukes. Perhaps not in the 1990s - when he was sanctioned. But he was interested in ruling the world. Pakistanis were handing out the technology. Saddam had scientists.

Do you - as the UN say - okay sanctions are not working you are on your own Saddam? Cause that seems to be what you are saying.

[Zhade]

171. If you consider illegal bombing by Israel a justifiable way to "shut down"

...then we have nothing further to discuss (especially since, as Lynn keeps demonstrating, you don't have a handle on the actual facts).

[LynnTheDem]

7. That's incorrect.

The UN resolutions came AFTER Iraq's invasion of Kuwait; prior to that, there were no UN resolutions against Iraq. No, Iraq didn't start up their nuclear facilities. A rightwing myth that was busted quite awhile ago.

Iraq did not break ANY of the UN resolutions.

In your books, "MOCKING" the UN is grounds for war & killing hundreds of thousands of people? And just how was "No we don't have any wmd" 'mocking' the UN?

They didn't have to go in; there was no wmd, there was no threat. There was no need of humanitarian intervention. Since when is it the right of the USA (or any other nation) to order other nations' leaders to "find a new place"?

There's a bloody good reason the UN said HELL NO to bush's invasion.

NO amount of troops could keep the peace.

And now 150,000 - 600,000 people are dead. For a pack of lies.

Now the people of Iraq are worse off than they'd been under Hussein the past decade.

But hey, we shoulda just invaded BETTER. :sarcasm:

[Erika]

11. Yes, the U.N. said no to the invasion as did most of Europe

There was no proof that Iraq was a danger. Much less an imminent one.

[LynnTheDem]

16. And most of the entire world.

And of those few nations who said hey sure to bush's invasion, NONE of them had a population that supported the invasion of Iraq. NOT ONE.

Not the UK. (avg 72% opposed)

Not Spain. (avg 90% opposed)

Not Italy (avg 94% opposed)

Even the US of A didn't have a majority who supported bush's invasion until after the bombs were "shock and awe"ing innocent Iraqi men, women and babies.

[Bozita]

17. Poland's air force is sporting a bunch of new F-16s

Guess how they got 'em.

[LynnTheDem]

23. Poland's PM publicly admitted he wanted Iraq's oil.

Of all nations that you'd think would well remember what it was like to be invaded & occupied...

But hey, at least he was honest about why he supported the murdering of 150,000-600,000 Iraqis. :sarcasm:

[oblivious]

27. "They could have sent in arms inspectors"

They were sent in. They did find nothing. They followed up every single US lead including each of Colin Powell's accusations in his SC speech. Nothing. They wanted more time to investigate, but the US and UK refused.

[applegrove]

39. I know. Bush is a creep. They should have let the inspectors finish

the job - but they knew they would not have gotten into Iraq without WMD as a rattle. I agree. Once they had proof Saddam had nothing - the game was up. Saddam offered to move onto - some other place. If the inspectors had been allowed to report back - UN may not have been so afraid.

[LynnTheDem]

42. The UN was not "afraid". Good grief!!!

There was NO CAUSE FOR WAR.

NONE.

And THAT is why the UN said NO.

[ComerPerro]

155. Yeah, but according to the Conservative, Islolationist philosophy

We don't really care about the UN, and we are not in business of enforcing UN sanctions with military action (that's what the Conservatives reminded us constantly during the nineties). If we were, and if we did care about the integrity of the UN, we would have been a lot more involved right away, not just the invasion of Iraq.

And we aren't in the business of human rights or humanitarian missions. Any conservative would have told you that in the 1990's. Its not our business, and we aren't the world's police. And if we were, we would be in a lot of places, not just Iraq...

[hughee99]

2. If i'm not mistaken, Iraq had WMD's after GW1

and the resolutions go back that far. At some point, probably by the mid to late 90's he no longer had them, so all resolutions after that relating to WMD's would not have been broken and if they had cooperated in the UN supervised destruction of the WMD's in the 90's then they wouldn't have violated those resolutions either.

[Erika]

4. Uh, how could they cooperate in the destruction of

non-existant WMD's?

[sandnsea]

10. They did exist

That's what UNSCOM and the IAEA were doing over there between 1991 and 1998, uncovering and destroying WMD sites and programs.

[applegrove]

45. Exactly!

[LynnTheDem]

56. HOW MANYresolutions was Iraq in violation of when bush invaded?

NONE.

[applegrove]

64. He was balking UN inspectors. You can call it what you want - nobody

could test what he was up to. And history had shown it was bad. And it was bad for the people starving there.

Do not paint Saddam as some innocent. He was not.

[Brundle_Fly]

68. the grand old US of AAAAA

gave Saddam pounds and pounds and pounds and pounds of Anthraxxxx, and weapons grade good ol' fashioned botulism.

2,000 gallons of Sarinnnn, and happy pee dappy doo Mustard gases....

( sing to deep in the heart of texas )

it was funneled in by the CIA in the seventies to fight the war on the Iranian menace. I wonder who was heading the CIA back then?



Director George H. W. Bush Tenure - January 30, 1976 - January 20, 1977

[applegrove]

72. I know. USA and some parts of the WEst worked through dictators.

To fight other dictators (Stalin). Now they see that democracy is the only way - well :applause: to them. When did it happen? 1993?

A homicidal dictator is still a homicidal dictator.

[LynnTheDem]

73. 20+ years ago. But see, that's why we had to invade and slaughter

150,000 to 600,000 Iraqis NOW, 20+ years later, coz we didn't do nuthin' back when Hussein was our buddy during his worst excesses.

That he hadn't been doing anything the past decade doesn't matter, it's irrelevant.

That we slaughtered Iraqis that would still be alive coz Hussein wasn't going around slaughtering Iraqis the past decade is irrelevant.

That the UN, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the ICRC, the vast majority of the world's nations and the majority of every nation's citizens all said NO NO NO to bush's invasion is irrelevant.

That even the Kurds said NO doesn't matter.

RETRO-WAR! WE know what's best for the little Iraqis! Cept we shoulda invaded with more troops.

:sarcasm:

[applegrove]

81. Lynn - I give up. I'm obviously not ever going to convince you that

Saddam was a bad man. Or that war based on human rights - like WWII were & are justified.

I don't think this Iraq war was justified - nobody deserved the way it was carried out.

But Sudan yes.

So we disagree.

[Brundle_Fly]

85. what about North Korea

that is the madman, that is the guy starving his people for military might.

he consistently hold executions, and tortures his populous.

and he actually DOES have WMD.

he might just be the worst most dangerous and evil person, compared to him Saddam was an angel, his population was happy.


I think you drank a little kool-aid and watched a little too much fox mr. apple grove.

and 13,000+ posts in less than a year? maybe you are needed in the lounge.

[LynnTheDem]

87. Apple; of course he was a "bad man". That doesn't give anyone the

right to INVADE a sovereign nation that hadn't been doing anything to anyone.

It's called INTERNATIONAL LAW. As a Canadian myself, I am very saddened that you, a fellow Canadian, have no regard for the law.

This I will say for the last time to you; Iraq WAS NOT in need of any humanitarian intervention; there was NOTHING to intervene. That is the considered opinion of experts such as the ICRC, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International.

YOU think the invasion WAS justified; you just don't like how bush did it. MORE TROOPS! Then you'd be fine with the ILLEGAL INVASION and OCCUPATION of a nation that hadn't been doing anything to anyone. And hearing that shit froma fellow Canadian saddens me deeply.

[Brundle_Fly]

89. Hey!

we're all canadians.

some more kick assed than others.

[LynnTheDem]

95. LOL!

:rofl:

[applegrove]

94. I am sorry you are sad. I am sad that you think genocidals should be

allowed to take over the world's agenda for a decade. Without an attempt to seriously slap them down.

Like I've always said - so you must know it - it shouldl have been the UN - once they got in a new there were no WMD - taking the offer of Saddam to leave and going in with enough troops to keep the peace for a time.

That would have made all the difference. No need for war then?

But thank you for admitting that SAddam was a bad man. And Amnesty International had files on Iraq that were 1/2 the size of human right violations in China. 1.5 Billion people living under totalitarianism in China. 25 million people living under Saddam. Which country would you have wanted to live in?

Sixty times more dangerous to live in Iraq.

[Brundle_Fly]

96. you could actually go into Iraq though

I think China has just recently opened up their horrors to the world.

[applegrove]

98. The fetus loose out in China. The human being in Iraq. By 60 times.

And human rights in China have just been improving. Though they still should be sanctioned and will not be because they will rule the world in 50 years and everyone wants to be connected.

[LynnTheDem]

107. Bullshit.

RIGHT NOW it's 58 times deadlier in Iraq for Iraqis than it was under Hussein. Want the link to that yet again? I know I've posted it for you many times previously.

[applegrove]

117. I agree. The Rummy plan was criminal. He went in with 1/3 the troops.

And undid all nationalized jobs and de-bathed. And didn't have control of the country at any point.

I agree. Stop throwing this in my face. It was criminal to do it as Rummy did.

No question.

[LynnTheDem]

125. You're ok with INVASION and OCCUPATION; you just want MORE TROOPS

NEWS for ya Apple...more troops don't make it right or just or legal.

It just makes it a bigger crime.

[applegrove]

164. You know what Lynn - I give up. I am talking about UN peacekeepers

after SAddam had given up power. You read what you want to read into it. There is no point in discussing if someone will not listen.

You say Rwanda was a tradgedy but I am not allowed to use that as an example of what the world should be doing at a time of genocide.

I value human rights before all else. It seems to me that if Saddam had agreed to leave Iraq - you would have stopped the process there and told him to stay.

[LynnTheDem]

103. Iraqis could leave Iraq, too, and often did; holidays, business, college.

Apparently rightwingnuts think Iraq had an Iron Curtain around it or something.

Funny how the freeps screech "LEAVE AMERICA if you don't like it!!!" yet they didn't screech that to the Iraqis (who actually said they did NOT want the US to invade their nation but then who gives a fuck what the IRAQIS want coz after all we know what's best for them. :eyes: )

[applegrove]

119. Yeah - if you were baathist and had a job you could vacation. The other

90 % of the country faced a human rights situation 60 times worse than China. China was a poor, poor country. And a human rights nightmare. Iraq was a rich nation and a human rights nightmare much worse!

[LynnTheDem]

133. That is not true.

But you don't really care to know the facts. Why?

[applegrove]

162. You say that Lynn and then you just disregard the fact he was a

psychopath on a mission. And that the UN sanctions had worked, were no longer, people were starving. And you say that that should have continued - or should the people have been able to eat? So sanctions should have been stopped and Saddam given power.

I'm not disregarding facts Lynn.

[LynnTheDem]

101. Apple...the invasion of Iraq IS A GENOCIDE.

Hussein WAS NOT doing anything. How many times do ya gotta be told this??!

There was NO NEED for any humanitarian intervention because there was NOTHING HAPPENING to intervene!

TWENTY YEARS AGO SURE.

How the fuck can you possibly justify a war TWENTY YEARS after the fucking fact???!

Who the fuck gave the USA or any other nation the right to order another nation's leader out? As I said before (so many times, sigh) even the Kurds said HELL NO to interference.

The UN SAID HELL NO to invading Iraq because there was NO NEED for an invasion; NO NEED for a war; NO NEED for an intervention. NO NEED.

I know exactly what HRW and AIs files on Iraq say and they sure as hell do NOT say the crap you post and that's a fact.

:)

[applegrove]

118. Lynn - 100,000 people a year were dying. In the 1990s. Do you 1)

undo all UN control over the freak or 2) enforce a change.

He offered to go. When it came down to it - he did.

[LynnTheDem]

127. WHY were people dying?

Because the US refused to lift economic sanctions even if Iraq could prove 110% compliance.

The UN WANTED the economic sanctions lifted.

The world WANTED the economic sanctions lifted.

USA said NO. Coz the MOS for the USA is to starve a nation's peoples in the hopes the people will oust their government and put in an American-approved regime.

What the fuck has lifting economic sanctions got to do with "undo all UN control"???

NO you DO NOT "enforce a change". Ya never bother to answer this but I'lla sk it again anyways; who the fuck gives YOU or ME or BUSH or the UN or any nation on this fucking planet the right to "enforce a change" of another nation's government???!

I realize you don't give a fuck about the LAW; but regime change is ILLEGAL.

[applegrove]

163. So someone who had started two wars and done genocide and killed

50,000 people for their politics, and killed 500,000 all along the way - and was starving his people to break the rights the UN had to go and investigate - you think he should have been let free. To build nuclear facilities to start more wars and to kill another 500,000 of his political opposition? Draining swamp farmland?

Just let him go.

"Hey let's take another chance on him".

That is what you are saying.

And the only people who wanted his sanctions lifted were the French & the Russians who would then (and were being) his partners in oil?

[Spazito]

156. Don't worry, Lynn, the position taken by the poster is UNIQUE

and the rest of Canada does live in the REAL world, lol.

[LynnTheDem]

69. NO he was not.

He said many times, publicly, that Iraq does NOT have WMD.

How the hell is that "balking" the UN imspectors?

Did you ever read the UN report??? They sauid they were getting "unprecedented cooperation".

How is that "balking" the UN?

And the UN itself said NO NO NO to war against Iraq.

THE US was starving Iraq. But hey, it's ok that we went in, invaded an innocent nation that wasn't doing anything to anyone, slaughtering 150,000 to 600,000 men, women & kids. Other than we shoulda invaded with more troops, of course. :eyes:

NO ONE is painting ANYONE as "innocent". How about you stop demonizing, and stick with facts?

[bpilgrim]

157. thats bullshit

the inspectors had unprecedented access.

you are now lying for the boosh regime, you realize that don't you?

peace

[applegrove]

169. The inspectors got kicked out.

[bpilgrim]

170. yeah, first by CLINTON then by BOOSH

thats the point

peace

[LynnTheDem]

9. They in fact DID cooperate.

Until the USA kicked the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq.

[buzzard]

18. Lynn you are the only one I agree with most of the time. The US did

indeed boot the inspectors out of Iraq

[LynnTheDem]

29. And yet STILL the rightwinngnuts claim Hussein kicked them out.

TWICE the US kicked them out.

Hussein NEVER did.

But hey, must demonize the chosen enemy! WORSE THAN HITLER! MILLIONS MASS-GRAVED! INCUBATOR BABIES! WOODCHIPPERS!

Gee...and the people of Iraq are WORSE OFF NOW than they were under Hussein. What does that say about us? Oh right, I forgot; anything we do is "good".

:eyes:

[Brundle_Fly]

30. thats right Lynn

and the only problem they had with Iraqi's was when they tried to go into Saddam's Palaces.....

Which they did in 2002-03 with full yet angry cooperation.

[Chipper Chat]

102. Lynn - a tangent off topic, but what's your opinion on -

Tariq Aziz? I consider him the most credible of the Baathists. Are we hiding him until after Sadam is executed, thereby making moot any mitigating circumstances? I would like to hear what Aziz has to say.

[LynnTheDem]

120. From personal accounts I'm told he's a nice man, intelligent, polite.

Very Christian. But that's from people who've met him as acquaintances, not as bosom buds, so who knows if he's really like that.

"Ba'athist" isn't the demon-thang bushCartel make out; it's a political party and one you really had to belong to to rise through the ranks. Like how you have to be a republican to rise thru the bushie ranks. The Ba'ath are secular, (meaning NOT fundamental religious nuts, freeps). I know several Ba'athists and find them all to be credible. I also know several republicans,(and a Dem) who haven't an ounce of credibility in them. Actually, Hussein told the truth where bush lied, so who's more credible?

Anyhoo yes I believe Aziz is as credible as the next man and my guess is bush would prefer Aziz not speak out because he is very personable, speaks excellent English, and is Christian. That makes him difficult to demonize. But that's just IMO.

[Chipper Chat]

145. Thx. I feel same way. I wonder if he's being treated humanely?

You know-lemon-baked fish and 2 pieces of fruit!! I recall Aziz was always willing to come on talk shows & give the Iraqi point of view. Sorta like Mr. Hamdoon in the early 90s (I think he was the ambassador or spokesman then that was expelled by Bush 41. Shrub doesn't want us to be exposed to the credible Iraqis.

[LynnTheDem]

153. No, shrub gives us scum like Chalabi.

Makes sense, I spose, given that bush is scum himself.

I hope Mr. Aziz is being well-treated. I hope all Iraqis are, but know that isn't the case.

I also hope whenever our troops are rounded up & imprisoned by a foreign power that they will be well-treated...but I fear that may not happen, given what the world knows we did to prisoners and how the President of the United States of America says he has the right to order the torture of anyone he wants to as he is above any and all laws.

Let's hope the rest of the world has far higher standards than the USA under bush does.

[Chipper Chat]

172. The world is a tinder box.

Let's say in the near future 20 American soldiers are beheaded by "Somalian insurgents." Shrub will claim they are "killers" and "that's why we need to spy and intercept calls-yadda yadda yada. His brain wouldn't comprehend the basic fact that HE might have caused the beheadings. (I hope nothng like this happens of course)

[hughee99]

19. I didn't mean to imply that they weren't cooperating

but since I hadn't done any research on this, I didn't want to say for sure. IIRC, the UN found Iraq "not in compliance" with some of the resolutions, but I don't recall which ones.

[LynnTheDem]

35. The UN found no evidence of violations.

Other than missiles that exceeded the allowable limit...by 15 miles.

(And they were conventional missiles, not "wmd".)

The inspectors were literally in the middle of destroying these 15-mile violation missiles when bush ordered them out of Iraq so he could bomb the fuck out of the men, women and kids of a weak defenseless 3rd world nation.

[hughee99]

49. According to this...

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=6383&Cr=iraq&Cr1=inspect

It looks like Iraq had Anthrax and VX after GW1 that were destroyed at some point around 1991, though they seem unclear on how much Iraq had, and how much was destroyed.

[LynnTheDem]

59. Yes, and Iraq was sanctioned by the UN.

And how many UN resolutions was Iraq in violation of when bush invaded?


None.

[hughee99]

67. Iraq was found by the UN to not have complied

with several resolutions between the end of GW1 and the start of the current war.

8/11/02
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Which isn't to say that they had WMD's, just that they had been found in violation of UN resolutions.

[LynnTheDem]

128. Iraq had NO wmd; therfore they were, in fact, not in violation.

:)

[Erika]

3. The Bushbot rightwingers would back W if he shot Reid and

Pelosi in cold blood. We're not talking about critical thinking skills with these Bushbots.

Israel had more U.N. sanctions against them than did Iraq.

W wanted the oil for his corporate donors and went for it paid for by the U.S. military. View at www.icasualties.org Bush's legacy.

[LynnTheDem]

14. Israel STILL has a slew of UN resolutions they're still violating.

As do many nations. But that's ok as long as you're a pal. Only non-pals can violate UN resolutions (and have "wmds"). Until you're no longer a pal and we stab you in the back.

Ask Omar. Or OBL. Or Ho Chi Minh.

Or Saddam Hussein.

[Brundle_Fly]

12. kicked & nommed because so many

need to read a little history from time to time.

[Bozita]

36. Saddam's self-disclosure: What about all that redacted stuff?

IIRC, over 800 pages of stuff were deleted.

On the eve of the invasion. Stuff included CDs.

[LynnTheDem]

62. bush took out 800+ pages where Hussein named US firms who'd

supplied contraband and/or were illegally dealing with Iraq against US/UN sanctions (such as Cheney).

[Zhade]

50. K&R just to piss off the rightwingers, liars and fools on this thread.

LTD, you are the queen of linkage!

[LynnTheDem]

65. I love it when you K&R just to piss off RWers, liars & fools!

:rofl:

:hug:

[Behind the Aegis]

63. 12

UN Resolutions pertaining to Iraq:

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

It still doesn't excuse the illegal invasion, but you asked.

[Brundle_Fly]

76. okay then

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002

Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons. HAD NONE
Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents. WERE DOING SO
States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations. NO WEAPONS, NO VIOLATION.

UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999


Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM). BOMBING IRAQ UPGRADES
Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities. THEY DID, EXCEPT PALACES, THEY DID FINALLY RELENT
Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners. THEY DID.
Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination. AGAIN THEY DID, THATS WHY THE UN WAS IN THERE, DOING THAT.

UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998


"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions. THEY ARRESTED THE COMMANDERS WHO STOPPED THE BLOCKING OF PALACES
Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors. THEY DID. USA WAS BOMBING THEM HEVILY AT THAT TIME.

shall I continue?

[Behind the Aegis]

86. your point?

The thread is titled: How many UN resolutions did Saddam Hussein break?

I provided that.

Continue all you want.

[LynnTheDem]

130. Obviously Iraq was NOT in any violation.

They had no wmd.

[Behind the Aegis]

132. That wasn't your assertion.

You said: How many UN resolutions did Saddam Hussein break?"

I told you.

[LynnTheDem]

134. When bush invaded Iraq, how many UN resolutions was Iraq in

violation of?

NONE.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear enough for you. :)

[Behind the Aegis]

136. Then, that should have been your question.

But it wasn't.

[LynnTheDem]

139. Thank you very much, Aegis.

And I have already apologized to you for not making myself more clear.

:)

[Behind the Aegis]

142. And, thank you, Dem.

I didn't require an apology. I was simply answering your post.

[tritsofme]

97. The UNSC found Iraq in "material breach" in 1441

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 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,

" 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), 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 (1991);"

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

[LynnTheDem]

131. Iraq in fact had NO wmd. Therefore Iraq in fact was NOT in violation.

Which we all would have known beyond a shadow of doubt IF bush hadn't kicked the inspectors out of Iraq 90 days before they could finish their work.

It's pretty simple tho, imo; Iraq in fact had no wmd. If they in fact had no wmd, they were in fact NOT in violation.

[tritsofme]

135. They were in violation because the UNSC said they were

We cannot speculate as to what might have happened.

There were some weapons materials that remained unaccounted for in 2003.

Because of Bush's illegal invasion those materials are now probably in the hands of terrorists.

[LynnTheDem]

137. But in fact Iraq was NOT in violation.

And that is more than just obvious. They had no wmd; therefore they were not in violation.

Even poor rightwingnut bush-pal and weapons inspector Duelfer was forced to admit the last thing he ever wanted to admit;

Report: Iraq had no WMD since '91
Inspector says Saddam had destroyed them all

If Iraq had no wmd, then they were not in violation.

[tritsofme]

141. I'll repeat again, the Security Council found Iraq to be in violation

Therefore Iraq was in violation.

For Iraq not to be in violation they would have had to prove so by completely complying with all relevant UNSC resolutions, then the UNSC could declare that they were no longer in violation.

Until that happened Iraq was in violation of those resolutions, and that was your question.

[LynnTheDem]

154. The SC was in error.

They were wrong.

Iraq was in fact in compliance.

[bpilgrim]

159. no, that was enacted to get weapons inspectors back in...

once they were allowed back in, given full access, they were complying.
since we know they had no wmds, they actually have been in full compliance since 91

i wonder what nation is next?

peace

[LynnTheDem]

129. Iraq in fact had NO wmd; therefore Iraq was not in violation.

:)

[Behind the Aegis]

138. That wasn't the question.

:hi:

[LynnTheDem]

140. Shall I just apologize to you again for not making myself more clear?

I apologize to you again, Aegis, for not making myself more clear.

If Iraq hasn't had wmd since 1996 (bush's inspector duelfer says since 1991) then ipso facto Iraq was not in violation since 1996 (1991?).

I will endeavor to be more pedantic and clear in my psts in future. :)

:hi:

[Behind the Aegis]

143. No need for apologies.

You made a post, I responded.

Does this mean because I didn't respond the "correct" way, I must support the war?

:hi:

[LynnTheDem]

149. I've no idear whether you did or didn't support bush's illegal immoral

war of aggression.

You can probably surmise where I stand on that issue. LOL!