Author Topic: Saddam's Mig buried in sand....photo (Read 1476 times)

NUKE · « **Reply #45 on:** September 22, 2004, 11:58:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Oh fer sure Nuke... Iraq wouldn't have aquiesced without the pressure. Totally...

I hear that all the time here though: "Oh the irony"...

Thing is, so WHAT?

The show of force was neccessary... and it worked. So far, so good.

So why was it neccessary to actually go in again?

My point is: Iraq would have NEVER allowed inspections unless FORCED. Right?

Nash · « **Reply #46 on:** September 23, 2004, 12:00:57 AM »

Again, you are correct.

And again, my question is, so what. Why did you need to actually go in?

The show of force worked.

Why invade?

NUKE · « **Reply #47 on:** September 23, 2004, 12:03:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Again, you are correct.

And again, my question is, so what. Why did you need to actually go in?

The show of force worked.

Why invade?

Show of force brought inspections back, not full cooperation.

Force brought full cooperation and compliance.

Nash, what more could you ask for? Iraq in full compliance and ZERO Canadian risk. Why *****?

Nash · « **Reply #48 on:** September 23, 2004, 12:06:50 AM »

And again - I'm not saying it didn't.

Because it did.

Resulting in full access being granted by Iraq.

Then on the 18th of March, despite being told things were peachy WRT the inspections, Bush suddenly and for seemingly no reason yanked the inspectors out of there.

Why did he do that?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #49 on:** September 23, 2004, 12:09:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Good quotes Holden.

How about one from the actual Security Council report just two weeks before the invasion:

Is that the one that starts out:

Quote

Chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix reported to the Security Council this morning that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there had been an acceleration of initiatives by Iraq since the end of January, including an acceptance that its Al-Samoud 2 missiles must be destroyed.

As to whether Iraq had cooperated “immediately, unconditionally and actively”, Mr. Blix, the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), said that the Iraqi side had tried on occasion to attach conditions, but so far had not persisted in those or other conditions. The initiatives now taken by the Iraqi side, three to four months into resolution 1441, could not be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation.

From Security Council 4714th Meeting (AM)?

All I was pointing out was that "Golden" would not be my choice for a descriptor of Hussein's cooperation.

NUKE · « **Reply #50 on:** September 23, 2004, 12:13:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
And again - I'm not saying it didn't.

Because it did.

Resulting in full access being granted by Iraq.

Then on the 18th of March, despite being told things were peachy WRT the inspections, Bush suddenly and for seemingly no reason yanked the inspectors out of there.

Why did he do that?

The problem was that is was not full access. Saddam continued to play games. The war was Saddam's to prevent.

Nash · « **Reply #51 on:** September 23, 2004, 12:14:30 AM »

(response to Holden McGroin)

Okay, yeah... Inspections didn't start out golden, but they certainly where by the time Bush yanked the inspectors - as your last quote shows.

My question still stands (not to make a point, but because I'm still sincerely curious):

Why did they all of a sudden get yanked that day?

NUKE · « **Reply #52 on:** September 23, 2004, 12:17:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
(response to Holden McGroin)

Okay, yeah... Inspections didn't start out golden, but they certainly where by the time Bush yanked the inspectors - as your last quote shows.

My question still stands (not to make a point, but because I'm still sincerely curious):

Why did they all of a sudden get yanked that day?

The UN issued a "final" warning for Iraqi full compliance. The date passed, still no full compliance and no consequences.

Nash · « **Reply #53 on:** September 23, 2004, 12:18:54 AM »

That's sure as hell not what the inspectors said.

Nash · « **Reply #54 on:** September 23, 2004, 12:20:54 AM »

And what dates are you reffering to? What transpired didn't conform to any official dates laid out by anyone.

But there were official dates involved. Like the time-frame for the inspections. Bush all of a sudden cut that short, based on nothing I can see.

NUKE · « **Reply #55 on:** September 23, 2004, 12:22:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
That's sure as hell not what the inspectors said.

The inspectors didn't find the 500 tons of uranium, 1.8 tons enriched uranium, strands of bio WMD, buried migs, and more.

Nash · « **Reply #56 on:** September 23, 2004, 12:24:28 AM »

Whaaa?

You are telling me now, with that, that WMD was discovered in Iraq?

Why oh why isn't Bush saying the same thing?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #57 on:** September 23, 2004, 12:25:20 AM »

As I remember it Nash, there was a weather consideration about the force. (which constituted a the threat to SH)

Either they were going to fight in spring at the latest or they would have to fight in Iraqi summer heat in chem suits. The biggest casualty would have been heat stroke.

The other option would have been to demobilize, remove the threat to SH regime that was starting to work, and remobilize the next year.

Go thru all the diplomacy BS again, probably more SC meetings, rebuild a coalition, etc. This was the option SH was hoping GWB would choose.

It was a use it or lose it situation.

NUKE · « **Reply #58 on:** September 23, 2004, 12:25:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Whaaa?

You are telling me now, with that, that WMD was discovered in Iraq?

Why oh why isn't Bush saying the same thing?

WMD have been found in Iraq. Not in significant amounts.

Nash · « **Reply #59 on:** September 23, 2004, 12:29:14 AM »

Okay lets backtrack then, and try to sum this up...

There is currently a bloodbath in Iraq (and holy, the foreign policy rammifications are... nuts) because of "insignificant" amounts of WMD that the pulled inspectors would have discovered anyways?