Reply #32: Iraq DID comply with the UN inspectors

[happyslug]

That is the finding of the UN inspectors. Now Saddam did kick them out in the late 1990s, but he left them back in with FULL RUN OF IRAQ after 2001. Thus Saddam Complied with the UN resolutions, he did not want to but he did comply. Look at how many nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons were found by the US AFTER we took Iraq (i.e. none, except recently some degraded old shells were found but the UN knew of them and no one, not even the US Military viewed them as VIOLATIONS of the UN resolutions).

As to the Invasion of Kuwait in 1991. How does THAT justify the US invasion of 2001? Saddam was driven out of Kuwait and the issue was ended. Kuwait had the right to go back to its feudal state (Best comment on Gulf War I was that the "US fought to make the world safe for Feudalism").

Anyway, while Saddam opposed the UN Resolutions, and he suffered bombardments for his violations while Clinton was in Office, but he eventually did comply. Once Saddam complied they was NO JUSTIFICATION TO INVADE. The US invaded anyway. The fact the Invasion of Iraq was illegal was, except for Britain, NO OTHER MAJOR COUNTRY COMMITTED ANY TROOPS TO THE INVASION. Poland, Japan and a few other provided some troops after the invasion was over to help occupy Iraq, but most of them have since pulled out. They was some countries still supporting the US, but no one who can provide financial or Military support (Most are financially or military depended on the US).

That is the point here, The US did not use the Alamo as justification to invade Mexico in 1846 (The Alamo had occurred in 1836), it was to far in the past, just like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. When the US invaded Mexico it was do to the alleged act of Mexican Soldiers shooting at American Soldiers on American Soil (The actual incident was when a Mexican Patrol north of the Rio Grand ran into a US Army Patrol what had just cross the Nueces River. Mexico claimed the Southern Border of Texas was the Nueces River, the US claimed the border was the Rio Grand thus the two forces meet in an area claimed by both countries. Texas had been annexed the previous year, 1845 and thus Texas's claim to the Rio Grand became the US claim as to the border with Mexico).

My point is even in the 1800s the US Could NOT use some old incident to justify a war, thus in the 21st century what Saddam did to Kuwait in 1991 was unimportant to any reason to invade Iraq in 2002. The reason the US use to invade Iraq, was Saddam refusal to admit the Weapons inspectors. When Saddam admitted the Weapons inspectors and gave them complete freedom of operation Saddam complied with the UN Resolutions. Once Saddam complied he was no longer in violation of those Resolutions and unless the US faced some sort of "Immediate harm" from Iraq the US had no legal right under International law to invade Saddam. As to "Immediate Harm" even the US knew even if Saddam had Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons Saddam had no way spread such weapons to any US territory or even Ship, thus Bush could not even rely on "Immediate harm" to invade Iraq. The war was and is illegal under International law.