Today’s update.
The list is in Magiver.
again, this was why the resolution was made in the first place. There were already a dozen resolutions condemning Saddam. It’s never been challenged by the UN.
Yes and Iran says it’s not building a nuclear weapon which is what N Korea said.
This puts you in an awkward dilemma. Assad said he didn’t use CW’s. Which means he’s either a liar or innocent. If he’s telling the truth then we’re sending arms to the same people who did use the CW’s. If he’s lying then your list is the product of trees and has the same value as most Indian treaties in the United States.
Since the UN isn’t blaming him for the CW’s where does that put the United States in relationship to attacking Syria? Right back to where Obama started with no support or international backing.
1441 did not authorize war by the UNSC. The purpose of 1441 was to give Iraq one final opportunity to comply without the use of military force. Iraq was not found in further material breach therefore there was no call to reconvene the members to decide if military force was necessary. Iraq complied with 1441.
Bush could not get majority support for a draft resolution to modify the terms in 1441 that triggered the use of force in ten days if inspections were not completed by then.
1441 would never have passed if it had a trigger or a drop dead date when use of force would be automatically authorized. China France and Russia would have vetoed it if it did.
You are wrong and your wrongness messes up your argument on Syria.
The US and other nations are pressing for that automatic trigger to use force in whatever UNSC Resolution on Syria comes about. They might get nine members to support it but Russia can still veto it, but that puts Putin in a bad light.
So you are wrong.
How do you explain the US and UK using Miltary Force for years enforcing the non-UN-authorized No-Fly-Zones over Iraq long before 1441 was written adding language that there were no constraints on member states using military force on their own.
How do you explain Pres Clinton using military force on Iraq without constraint by the UNSC. That was four years prior to 1441 being written?
Kofi Annan said the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not in compliance with the UN Charter. You are avoiding a response to that so I’d like to hear your explanation as to why.
I’m glad you and I agree about Obama then 
They got the CWs. Who cares who gets blamed for them as long as they’re gone
Same thing, different names. That Bush really screwed up huh?
Its not nice to blame Bush for that, you really should be blaming Obama :dubious:
Do you have evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon?
Assad has admitted to having chemical weapons and turned over a list of them to the international authorities.
You have written that the list does not exist. You are completely wrong.
Saddam Hussein said he did not have WMD and that Bush and Blair were lying. And SH turned out to be correct.
So on the past decade or so of dealing with dictators and WMD the only players actually found to be wrong or lying were Bush and Blair.
That lying and ineptness by Bush and Blair contributes highly to the lack of support for military strikes against Assad today, but there is overwhelming support for a diplomatic way to dismantle Asssd’s CW arsenal and you can do nothing about it.
Think about Magiver, you have no solution or plan to decrease the threat from Assad’s arsenal except to throw stones at all the people involved in the best plan available at this time.
well The Iranians and Kurds who died from CW’s would disagree with you on that one.
Yes and the US has never subjected itself to UNSC approval for permission to use force against Iraq. That includes Clinton in 1998 and Bush in 2003 and both during the NFZ enforcement interim years.
The US has never been constrained by UN membership from using force against Iraq or Melosivich or wherever. Where do you get that 1441 was the first time constraint was lifted.
Was that during the last decade. Please read my post again.
Obama is easily the worst president in my lifetime.
It’s already been cited that terrorists were caught trying to cross the Turkish border with Sarin gas. It matters greatly who has them.
Yes, Bush screwed up. Obama doubled down on stupid and got border agents killed. We went down the path of helping jihadists when we armed Osama Bin Laden. How’d that work out for us?
are you suggesting it didn’t happen?
No not even close.
OK, then Saddam had CW’s.
He did not have them in March 2003 when Bush said he had them. My response was to your implication that Assad is lying somehow about chemical weapons and cooperation with inspections. I told you that Bush and Blair told the big lie in March 2003 that Iraq was not cooperating with inspectors and was hiding WMD from them.
Saddam was right and Bush was wrong. That is a fact.
Now we have the Syrian dictator attempting to come clean on WMD and we hear the same Bushisms coming from those who believed Bush on that day in March 2003.
I was not fooled by Bush then and I will not be fooled by Bush supporters now who strut about screaming that Assad has to be lying.
Except that he routinely didn’t cooperate with inspections and built items like mobile calutrons so they could be moved around.
A better comparison is Libya. That was another “voluntary” turning over of CWs, that turned out to be incomplete. That’s the funny thing about this stuff-- you really only know for sure once you can get in, unfettered by dictators.
But let’s see how this all plays out. It’s already dropped off the news cycle, but maybe it get some legs again if there are any actual developments. I’ll be surprised if the US and Russia don’t disagree about the completeness of the list, but we’ll know soon enough.
In the meantime, we’re not bombing Syria, so that is some solace.
Except that a “calutron” is a gadget for separating isotopes of uranium.
Absolute fail. Neutron density stupid, so stupid it has its own event horizon.
Look I wrote “in March 2003”. There were no curveball trailers. That has been proven to be flawed intelligence.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘routinely’ but in 2003 and by March 2003 Iraq’s cooperation was identified as proactive according to Dr. Blix.
My point stands. Bush lied - Saddam spoke the truth from 2002 on about WMD. You need to accept that reality or provide some substantive info that it is not the reality.
What turned out to be incomplete in Libya?
That is after Bush gave Gadhafi diplomatic recognition
after Bush invaded Iraq.
I guess you were born in 2009 then?
Great, they got caught. Tell me again why I should care who should get blamed for it
If Obama had been president, we would have gotten him within 2 years.
We had UN inspectors who said they didn’t exist. Plus, those mobile trucks were a lie.