Originally posted by NUKE
Bush had no choice but to use the forces we deployed in the region. The forces we put on the ground made Saddam allow inpections again, yet he was still playing games with everyone.
Not according to the UNMOVIC. According to UNMOVIC SH was being completely cooperative with them before the invasion.
http://www.unmovic.org/We had the forces in place, we had what was presented by almost the whole world as a threat,
Bull****. Can you please provide documentation to prove this.
we had Saddam fediddleing us around and we had a large force sitting on thier hands while Saddam played the UN like a cheap piano.
Not according to the UNMOVIC. According to UNMOVIC SH was being completely cooperative with them before the invasion.
http://www.unmovic.org/And yes, it was a tough call. Bush had NOTHING to gain politically or economically in going to war in Iraq. He made the decision to not take a chance with Iraq.
But he had alot to gain as far as an attempt at an experiamunt to bring democracy in the middle-east, as well as line the pockets of his friends and families. PS: Is he going to inherit any of his dad's Carlyle Group stock?
Too many things were unresolved rergarding Iraq's compliance.
Not according to the UNMOVIC. According to UNMOVIC SH was being completely cooperative with them before the invasion.
http://www.unmovic.org/The decision to go to war was made based on sound judgment using all the factors at the time, as well as the past 12 years of experience dealing with that Clown in Iraq.
Except the fact that UNMOVIC wasn't turning up squat, even when the CIA (based on thier intelligence) asked to inspect specific sites.
"In fact, the U.S. claim that Iraq is developing missiles that could hit its neighbors – or U.S. troops in the region, or even Israel – is just one of the claims coming from Washington that inspectors here are finding increasingly unbelievable. The inspectors have become so frustrated trying to chase down unspecific or ambiguous U.S. leads that they've begun to express that anger privately in no uncertain terms.
U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.
Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing."
Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing."
Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight."
The inspectors do acknowledge, however, that they would not be here at all if not for the threat of U.S. military action.
So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word. The inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis, who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game, and the United States, whose intelligence they've found to be circumstantial, outdated or just plain wrong."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0220inspectorcall.htmIf someone does not see this, I can't change their mind.
It's hard to see you point of view when you invent the facts they are based on.
