General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Are we really going to pretend we were fooled into the Iraq War? [View all]stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441
"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, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by Iraqi troops during the 19901991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."
.
.
.
"The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:
[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[2]"
.
.
.
"The ambassador from Syria said: "Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[4]"
-----------------------------------------
Here is my main concern with many comments I see Warren. They blame Democrats who voted for IWR, they call them complicit, etc. IWR happened within a few days of UN Sec Res 1441. As we can see, virtually the entire world believed that Iraq had WMD and was in violations of various UN Resolutions and they voted to express that in UN SEC Res 1441.
If you are going to blame Democrats for voting for IWR, the same arguments can be used to attack 99.9% of the rest of the world who believed the same things. I think those who were against IWR are generally anti-war or distrustful of the establishment. They weren't against IWR because they "knew there were no WMD in Iraq in November of 2002" because no one knew that. Any suggestions otherwise are suppositions and non-factual. We didn't factually know that until the Weapons inspectors returned later that month (Nov of 2002) and began to issue reports on their (non)findings.
But we did know for sure and without any argument March 7, 2003 when the final UN Weapons Inspector reports were made that there were no WMD in Iraq. We invaded 13 days later anyway.