Putins Letter to the US

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're just talking now, trying to find things to object to.

-spence

Spence, you said that what Bush faced in Iraq did not rise to the level of being an issue. That's what you said. Your words. Nonsensical words, but your words nonetheless.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you said that what Bush faced in Iraq did not rise to the level of being an issue. That's what you said. Your words. Nonsensical words, but your words nonetheless.

No, you're just hearing what you want to hear, that's why is sounds like nonsense.

-spence

[scottw]

this is pretty funny....

"United Nations Security Council resolution 678, adopted on 29 November 1990, after reaffirming resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674 and 677 (all 1990), the Council noted that despite all the United Nations efforts, Iraq continued to defy the Security Council

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]

Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments........


"4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach."


Iraq didn't really rise to the level of being an issue and the threat was "perceived" ? Spence should have notified the UN and they could have saved all of that time pounding out all of these resolutions and threats of consequences for nothing......But now Syria....there's s SERIOUS threat from a tiny country

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, you're just hearing what you want to hear, that's why is sounds like nonsense.

-spence

OK. So now, you are denying that you said the events leading up to the second Gulf War didn't rise to the level of being called an "active issue"

here is an exact quote.

"The regret is because like many they (those dealing with Saddam) were caught up in the post 9/11 world led by few with an agenda. Very different than the coalition in 1991 when, like with Syria, there was an active issue at hand."

You say here that there was no active issue. You also say that the war was launched by a few with an agenda.

Spence, read the Senate vote on authorizing the use of force. Those in favor included the current Vice President, as well as senators Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, Boxer, Edwards, all those neocons. You're saying they all had an agenda?

What was Joe Biden's agenda, Spence? Enlighten me. What was Senator Clinton's agenda, and Senator Kerry?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK. So now, you are denying that you said the events leading up to the second Gulf War didn't rise to the level of being called an "active issue"

here is an exact quote.

"The regret is because like many they (those dealing with Saddam) were caught up in the post 9/11 world led by few with an agenda. Very different than the coalition in 1991 when, like with Syria, there was an active issue at hand."

You say here that there was no active issue. You also say that the war was launched by a few with an agenda.

Spence, read the Senate vote on authorizing the use of force. Those in favor included the current Vice President, as well as senators Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, Boxer, Edwards, all those neocons. You're saying they all had an agenda?

What was Joe Biden's agenda, Spence? Enlighten me. What was Senator Clinton's agenda, and Senator Kerry?

Iraq's status (from bad to critical) was elevated because those in power at the time had an agenda. I don't think there's any question that the Admin had an Iraq fixation.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Iraq's status (from bad to critical) was elevated because those in power at the time had an agenda. I don't think there's any question that the Admin had an Iraq fixation.

-spence

"I don't think there's any question that the Admin had an Iraq fixation."

If that's true, it wasn't just the administration Spence. You must necessarily concede, then, that most of the Democrats in the Senate also had that same fixation, and many of those democrats are in the current administration. Shouldn't that frighten you? If senators Biden, Kerry and Clinton all agreed to war because of some irrational fixation, do they belong in the positions of VP and Secstate? Good luck! Let's see how you move the goalposts on this one!

also Spence, do you agree that Saddam repeatedly kicked out the weapons inspectors? And that was in violation of the terms that ended the first war? What would you have done with that fact? Nothing? The US-led coalition gave him all kinds of chances to comply with the weapons inspectors, and there would have been no war had he agreed to the treaty that he signed.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I don't think there's any question that the Admin had an Iraq fixation."

If that's true, it wasn't just the administration Spence. You must necessarily concede, then, that most of the Democrats in the Senate also had that same fixation, and many of those democrats are in the current administration. Shouldn't that frighten you? If senators Biden, Kerry and Clinton all agreed to war because of some irrational fixation, do they belong in the positions of VP and Secstate? Good luck! Let's see how you move the goalposts on this one!

also Spence, do you agree that Saddam repeatedly kicked out the weapons inspectors? And that was in violation of the terms that ended the first war? What would you have done with that fact? Nothing? The US-led coalition gave him all kinds of chances to comply with the weapons inspectors, and there would have been no war had he agreed to the treaty that he signed.

Bush's and the UN's red lines were clear to the world . They didn't go to save face or to back up tough talk. The reason Bush had support was because he had credibility and a incredible talented cabinet .
Not so much this time around .
I'm thinking the negotiations are coming along much like Obamas try at securing the Olympics for the US
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Bush's and the UN's red lines were clear to the world . They didn't go to save face or to back up tough talk. The reason Bush had support was because he had credibility and a incredible talented cabinet.

Hey, after 9/11 I thought the same thing. Thank god we have that team in place...

Makes it even more astounding that they got nearly everything wrong.

-spence