I know that after operation desert storm, an order was given stating that saddam hussein had to concede to random inspections of his nuclear weapons production. I can't remember what the order was called. It was like 4 or five numbers.
205933
For a list of UN Sanctions and Resolutions regarding Iraq from 1990-Current visit:\n\nhttp://www.iraqwatch.org/un/Index_SecCounRes.html\n\nResolution 687, Section C (April 1991) established the weapons inspection requirement. Resolution 707 (August 1991) further established Iraq's need to fully comply with weapons inspectors.\n\nThese two are not exclusive, as the Iraqi government failed to comply with almost a dozen resolutions in the years following the Gulf War. \n\nAs a direct result of these failures the UN passed resolution 1441, which was designed to force them to cooperate, or suffer the massive consequences that have since been brought to bear.
96345
The goal of gulf war 1 was to get Saddam out of Kuwait. That was accomplished. The goal of gulf war 2 was to enforce over a decade of United Nations resolutions that were not being met. also, the terms of surrender that Saddam agreed to in gulf war 1 were not met. whether or not WMD were found is irrelevant, Saddam was not meeting his obligations that he agreed to. Saddam would not allow confirmation of the status of his WMD capability, and given his prior record, i am certainly glad we didn't take his word for it. One thing i will agree with you on, without question, is i wish the best for your son and all the other brave men and women deployed around the world. No matter what you believe about how we got into this situation, everyone needs to get behind that!
662741
Wow, thanks for the clip. Right out of his own mouth... by the way, the general in the clip who called for his resignation was the soldier the Pentagon chose as the most ruthless and cunning officer to place in charge of the counter forces in the Millenium Challenge War Exercise. Here is part of the article on him:\n\nAt the height of the summer, as talk of invading Iraq built in Washington like a dark, billowing storm, the US armed forces staged a rehearsal using over 13,000 troops, countless computers and $250m. Officially, America won and a rogue state was liberated from an evil dictator. \n\nWhat really happened is quite another story, one that has set alarm bells ringing throughout America's defence establishment and raised questions over the US military's readiness for an Iraqi invasion. In fact, this war game was won by Saddam Hussein, or at least by the retired marine playing the Iraqi dictator's part, Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper. \n\nIn the first few days of the exercise, using surprise and unorthodox tactics, the wily 64-year-old Vietnam veteran sank most of the US expeditionary fleet in the Persian Gulf, bringing the US assault to a halt.
348650
"Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors."\n\nThat says it all, doesn't it?
67670
If the order was lawful it could range from NJP to Courts Marshal, (and theoretically execution although I don't think that's happened for a long time).\n\nBut what you are describing doesn't really seem to be a lawful order. And disobeying a unlawful order isn't punishiable...theoretically. But after what happend to the lower enlisted at Abu Ghraib...\n\nPersonally, I would refuse the order. Remember we are supposed to be the good guys.\n\nFind a copy of the UCMJ
538294
Politically, it obviously wasn't a very good move, but other than that?  People seem to have forgotten the satellite images-they were hauling something...could this have been the WMD that was gone before the war was started?  Aside from that, though, we went in by using the UN resolutions as justification.  These **NUMEROUS** resolutions did not state that we could attack if Iraq has WMD, they put the burden of proof on Saddam-he had to prove that he didn't have WMD; that he had destroyed the KNOWN WMD from the 1st Gulf War.  He couldn't account for the WMD, therefore, we went in to uphold our side of the resolutions.
591988
Now they are saying they have nuclear warheads.  Before they weren't.  \n\nHowever, I read in the papers during the early days after the fall of Baghdad that Saddam had had a pact with North Korea, that when one of them would become the focus of western enforcement, the other would start a diversion.  They didn't think we could focus on both of them.  No clue if Iran has such a pact with them now, but I did think of that.
553019
I think everyone envisioned a sequel to the first Gulf War.  What was that like 91 days?  Most critics in 2003 said it would be much more difficult and the war hawks dismissed all of that talk.
350690
Could be lazyness or lack of resources to check all the documents. The idea being that other people would check them out. Maybe they thought if dangerous plans from Saddam Hussein had to be pulled off the web site, it would prove they were right. Never mind it could be dangerous and pre-1991 WMD evidence doesn't count for complaints about  NOT finding WMD after this war.
564742
Typical partisan bulls***. There have been reports of chemical and biological weapons being found since the war started. All have been determined to be either pre-1991 or post-2003 invasion. \n\nWhere are the nuclear weapons we were talking about with a "mushroom cloud"? Saddam lied? Who would have though that a politician could be dishonest? The point is that we have NO evidence he was pursuing chemical or biological weapons while he was prohibited from doing so, and only doctored and falsified evidence he was pursuing nuclear weapons. All we have is a bunch of old, degraded munitions.\n\n"Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out," \nI cannot rule out that North Korea has the capacity to launch nuclear missiles at the US, either. Should we attack them next? Israel and India have nuclear and biological weapons and the capacity to strike the US. Are they next?\n\nWhere do we draw the line?\n\nWould we have found these weapons without the loss of 2500+ American lives and 100,000+ Iraqi lives? I guess we'll never know, will we?
674478
The French are one of the main countries that were helping arm Saddam and making illegal oil deals with him while he was under sanctions from the UN.I think you should find out what your own country has been up to before you comment on mine.
206259
Yes, Seneca said that.  Interesting that you would quote him. Do you know what his point was in saying "Be careful that your enemies dont get your weapons"?  Sounds a lot like that quote is very much in support of limiting nuclear proliferation Would it be best if nobody had nukes?  In the 50 years before nuclear weapons were invented, over 100 million people were killed in wars.  And in the 60+ years since, is that true?  If the US destroyed all of it's nuclear weapons, do you seriously believe this would end the problem?  That countries like North Korea and Iran would generously quite trying to build them?  The US, along with the EU, is trying to stop other countries from building nuclear weapons.  Are you trying to say that because the US, France, and the UK, among others, have nuclear weapons, that they should not try to stop proliferation?  Are you saying that the US and those other countries should get rid of their nuclear weapons, and thus would miraculously cause everyone else to stop building them?  Think about it-the US is hated by many powerful countries.  If the US got rid of their nuclear weapons, would that tend to make those countries more eager, or less, to build a weapon that, once the US had none, could aid these other countries in actually defeating the US on a battlefield?  Think through your argument- The US having nuclear weapons may be a problem, but it is unrelated to nuclear proliferation.  And, the US is not leading the battle to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the EU is.
558746
Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction was not captured by US forces who heroically brought down Saddam Hussein's regime three years ago this week. It vanished before they arrived.\nIsraeli intelligence reported before the US-led invasion that starting in late summer 2002 Saddam's WMD arsenal was shipped by truck convoy to Syria. Recently, documents seized from Iraq after the fall of the regime were released to the public. Those documents revealed that under the direct command of former Russian prime minister and KGB boss Yevgeny Primakov, Russian Spetnaz forces oversaw the transfer of Iraq's WMD to Syria ahead of the US-led invasion. These reports have been corroborated by Saddam's Air Vice Marshall General Georges Sada.\n\nSo rather than being destroyed or secured, Saddam's WMD arsenal was simply moved from one rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations to another rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations.\n\nOf course, American Media will NOT report this, it will prove Bush right, and then they would look stupid.\n\nMichael Moore, thanks:\nFriday, 23 June 2006 \nWhen News Lies \n\n\nWHEN NEWS LIES\nMedia Complicity and The Iraq War\n\n\nBy Danny Schechter, The News Dissector\n\n\n\nA new book from Danny Schechter offers an up to date indictment of the role media played in promoting and misreporting the war on Iraq. It is an analysis of how and why the media got it wrong that pinpoints the failures of journalism and the collusion of media companies with the Bush Administration. The author of EMBEDDED: Weapons of Mass Deception (Prometheus 2003), an account of the TV coverage of the US invasion, returns with a more comprehensive, updated and insider look at the media complicity that Schechter argues "made the war possible."\n\n\n\n"Most of the anti-war movement focused on the crimes of the Bush Administration ignoring the mainstream media, its far more effective accomplice," says former network producer Danny Schechter (ABC, CNN). "The government orchestrated the war while the media marketed it. You couldn't have one without the other."\n\n\n\nWHEN NEWS LIES includes the feature -length DVD of the prize-winning film WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception). The book will also include the complete script as well as a discussion of the challenges of exposing media with media with a documentary. It chronicles the media war fought alongside the military campaign and the struggle to stand up for truth.
406790
We didn't give them to Saddam.  Somebody sold them to Saddam, so he could use them against whomever he wished.  Then they were blown up so he could buy more.  And of course we had to buy more all the time as well.  Somebody is making a "killing" in all this alright.  And they don't want to change this formula that has worked for so long down through the ages.  I think they call it "business as usual."  It is time we all woke up to this game you are calling attention to, and put an end to it.\nYou bet they will be armed, even if they ask us to leave!  An arms dealer never met a client he didn't like doing business with.  And they may well be used against us yet again in the not to far distant future.  It is a most disgusting practice.
533549
Many resons, the UN security council stated they had WMD. Iraq is a stratigic point in controlling the middle east. It keeps the fight off American soil to keep the civiilian causalities down.
338588
Not only that. The same sequence of warnings could happen for Iran also. These things happen as long as there is ground to believe US (and other nations of the nuclear club) are not fair in their demands when they themselves indulge in nuclear weapons. Something like saying "I am a thief and will steal whatever I can. But anything you steal is a crime and so don't do it"
590134
Yeah, Saddam used WMDs IN THE 80'S. Fair enough. Bad guy. But did he actually have WMDs that he could actually use in 2003? No way. They were, even by Santorum's account degraded at that time.