Well, that's the official reason anyway:
Yes, it is.. And it was the rationale for why Bush went to congress for an authorization to use force, since the containment of Saddam was continuing to pose a threat to US forces and allies in the region...
And why Bush challenged the UNSC to get off it's @ss and enforce those binding resolutions it has continuously imposed upon Saddam's regime because of his continuing intransigence.
Again.. The UN had MORE THAN SUFFICIENT reason to terminate the cease-fire agreement of 1991 and recommence hostilities back in 1995, when Saddam was caught red-handed attempting to hide his continuing research into WMDs. But it chose not to use the military option.
But furthermore, in 1998
cia.gov
UNSCOM discovered a document at Iraqi Air Force headquarters in July 1998 showing that Iraq overstated by at least 6,000 the number of chemical bombs it told the UN it had used during the Iran-Iraq War—bombs that remain are unaccounted for.
cia.gov
Where are these warheads Thames?? The discovery of this document was the eventual pretext Saddam used for refusing to cooperate further with UNSCOM inspectors, which led to their removal, and then Clinton's limp-wristed "Operation Desert Fox"...
And then there is this glaring example of non-accountability (since they acknowledged possessing them):
Iraq has not accounted for 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred means for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent.
ALL OF THESE ISSUES REMAIN UNRESOLVED THAMES!!!!
It's not like we're making this stuff up.. WE'RE USING IRAQI PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION!!!
Obviously, people like yourself find it convenient to accuse Bush of falsifying such information, but that's because you wish to ignore the documentation we were able to extract during UNSCOM inspections.
But you STILL CANNOT ANSWER where those ACKNOWLEDGED WMDs ARE LOCATED. You're merely content to put your heads in the sand and believe a regime that spent 12 years trying to hide them.
And the logic that suggests that a totalitarian regime, which would be loath to permit such weapons enter into the hands of opponents to the regime, would not maintain proper accountability over the location of such powerful weapons is SIMPLY RIDICULOUS!!!
I don't believe those documents obtained during the UNSCOM inspections are false. In fact, the reaction of Saddam's regime was one of someone who was quite irate that he had been "found out" and wished to stop cooperation until he was able to, once more, insure that he had properly hidden or evacuated everything that might implicate him in violating the cease-fire agreements.
And YOU, and people who think like you, ARE TRYING TO FACILITATE THIS DECEPTION!!
Again, neither Clinton, Bush, or UNSCOM falsified those documnents. Why are you willing to just ignore them?? Why don't you want to know where 6,000 chemical munitions ended up? Why don't you want to know the final disposition of tonnes of material acknowleged being produced by Iraq??
I am not prepared, as of yet, to believe that you are merely being stupid.. I have to believe you're just in denial because your ignorant of the facts.
If an investigator has found documentation obtained during a raid, that illegal drugs were produced by someone, and you discover the equipment for producing such substances, does it mean that he has to wait until he actually recovers some drugs to prove that the individual was in violation of the law and engaged in such activities? There have been many people convicted on such evidence (and rightly so, since what other purpose could such equipment have?)
So I have to ask why you are willing to ignore evidence provided by Iraq itself (albeit, unwillingly)??
Why Thames? Do you have another agenda here??
Hawk |
