Isn't it interesting that, for years, inspectors were randomly denied access and upon returning to the same sites hours/days later were then ALLOWED access? I think even Decker could figure that one out.
See how many times Iraq fails to comply or cooperate:
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron
Some interesting links:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2004/me_iraq_06_11.html
Thank you for not answering the question. gutless....punk.....(Stripes)
You lie and push other's lies to make your point. The best way to handle the likes of you is a little veracious disinfectant.
Bush broke the law the second he ordered the invasion of Iraq without UN Security Council approval.First of all, 1441 lays out the process to be followed. Any alleged Iraqi violations are to be reported to the Security Council, which will then "convene immediately ... in order to consider the situation." Only the Council can then decide what to do next.
Secondly, 1441 does not authorize the use of "all necessary means"--the only language recognized as authorizing force. The U.S. and U.K. tried to get this phrase into the resolution, but other Security Council members rejected it. The replacement language, "serious consequences," is not, and was not intended to be, synonymous.
Third, after 1441 was adopted, every Security Council member--including the U.S. and U.K.--affirmed that it did not provide for "automaticity"--the automatic resort to force. It was this very issue over which the Council struggled for weeks. It's simply fraudulent to now claim that 1441 incorporated automaticity.
As U.S. ambassador John Negroponte said at the time, 1441 contained "no hidden triggers and no automaticity with the use of force. The procedure to be followed was laid out in the resolution."
Fourth, any Security Council authorization for the use of force must be unambiguous, to avoid exactly the present disagreement. Clearly, 1441 is not.
Fifth, only the Security Council itself can authorize the use of force under Article 42 of the Charter. The Council cannot cede that decision to individual member states.
And sixth, an authorization for the use of force always specifies the intended objective of that force. U.N. resolutions do not empower nations to use force for whatever reasons they wish. Even if 1441 did authorize the use of force to enter Iraq and detect and destroy Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, that would not authorize the stated--and quite different--purpose of this invasion: the removal of the present government from power.
In fact, Security Council resolutions cannot authorize "regime change." The U.N. Charter gives the Council no such power, and even the Council may act only within the limitations of the Charter.
http://www.robincmiller.com/iraq6-fr.htmYour feverish attempt at conspiracy nonsense
Saddam hides weapons programs:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/10/iraq-031003-afps02.htm
also falls flat. Read your fucking link. It says nothing about proof of any WMDs moved by Hussein. In fact, the hero of your piece, Dave Kay has noted the following:
Two days after resigning as the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said Sunday that his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/index.htmlNow BB, do you admit you're are wrong about the "threat" posed by the feeble and broken Iraq and that President George Bush is a mass murderer for ordering the slaughter of men, women, and children without justification?
