Her's Part II Frank:

On WMD
1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003.

"This is true and has been substantiated for some time. – Frank Hamilton"

Really Frank? Substantiated by who? Look down the thread, both Bruce and myself have quoted the report written, and signed off, by Dr. Hans Blix that completely contradicts the statements made by yourself and Bobert. Perhaps you could likewise come up with a source that clearly states that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully in accordance with the requirements of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441.

"2. This claim has been disproved from at least two quarters purely by direct quotations from the same report which stated quite clearly that Iraq was not co-operating to the level required by UNSC Resolution 1441 or as claimed by Bobert, i.e. Bobert is knowingly misrepresenting the situation or he is deliberately lying."

"No, the lies are coming from the "two quarters" that are not being mentioned. – Frank Hamilton"

Huh? Are you trying to tell us that Hans Blix was lying in his own report? The same report that Bobert was quoting? Your comment makes no sense at all.

"Iraq was indeed cooperating with 1441 and there was propaganda to insist that Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda which is also incorrect. – Frank Hamilton"

Well that is only your opinion Frank and extremely ill-informed opinion at that. The reference to Al Qaeda is somewhat baffling as it bears no relation to anything being discussed.

"3. On the "Prove a negative" aspect, BB has laid it out very well:
- Iraq was asked to submit a full declaration of what they had.
- UNSCOM/UNMOVIC have purchase orders, shipping records, import licences, manufacturing records, munitions records, disposal records.
- The Iraqis claim to have disposed of, or unilaterally destroyed it all."

"It was in Bush's interest to ignore this claim because he had intended to go to war with Iraq even prior to his election so that he could gain "political capital" according to his own statements. – Frank Hamilton"

Utter hogwash Frank, "he had intended to go to war with Iraq even prior to his election" ludicrous. Neither George W. Bush, or any member of his Administration, were part of the evaluation made by UNSCOM in 1998 and UNMOVIC in 2003

"- UNMOVIC point out that the Iraq disposal records do not accord with the amounts manufactured, that there is a shortfall that needs to be explained, to which the Iraqis offer no explanation."

"The US supplied Iraq with these nuclear materials at the time of the war with Iran. – Frank Hamilton"

This of course is as factual as the US no longer being a signatory to the Nuclear NPT. Tell us what nuclear materials the US supplied Iraq with during the war with Iran, could you also tell us exactly what use they would have been to the Iraqi's at that time Frank? Any idea why they weren't used Frank?

"The shortfall has been addressed by some who claim that they were sold on the black market."

What was sold/disposed of on the "black-market" Frank? Those nuclear materials that the US didn't supply Iraq with? Now if as those "some" said they had been sold, the "some" could also detail what was sold, to whom and when, couldn't they Frank? Especially if Iraq was co-operating fully with UNMOVIC as both you and Bobert claim. But they didn't did they Frank? Which, oddly enough Frank, was exactly Dr. Blix's point in his report of the 27th January 2003.

"It wouldn't have mattered one bit what explanation the Iraqis offered because Bush's plans were already in place to invade Iraq. – Frank Hamilton"

Nothing whatsoever to do with Bush, Frank, at the point we are talking about it was a matter between the Iraqi Authorities and the United Nations UNMOVIC Inspectors, the USA didn't even enter the equation.

" If unilaterally destroyed outwith the supervision of the UN there would be traces found at the disposal sites, none were found, surely the Iraqis would know where they had destroyed these items?"

"They were destroyed under UN supervision. Pure and simple. – Frank Hamilton"

What is evident "Pure and simple" Frank is that you have read nothing written by Dr. Hans Blix in all his time as head of UNMOVIC. It is obvious that you have not read the terms/requirements of 1441, otherwise there is absolutely no way that you would have come up with that ridiculous statement. If they had been destroyed under UN supervision I would at least have expected the good Dr., or one of his inspectors to mention it at some point or other - once again they didn't.

"4. That France stated quite categorically that it would allow no "second resolution" that presented Saddam Hussein with an ultimatum to be tabled. This in effect eliminated the UN from the process of resolving what the USA and the UK saw as the clear threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq to the peace and security of the region."

"Only Bush and Blair were under the misapprehension that there was a clear threat. – Frank Hamilton"

Again your opinion Frank, not many Kuwaiti's, or others in the region would share it.

"5. Faced with the prospect of Saddam, supported internationally by France, Russia and China, playing the same old game he had successfully employed between 1991 and 1998, the US acted, they gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to quit and avoid the coming war. Saddam refused the offer and suffered the consequences."

"This is patently false information. Saddam was never unilaterally supported by France, Russia or China. – Frank Hamilton"

Really Frank? Patently false information? Well tell us Frank, the Iraqi Republican Guard, what equipped their armoured formations? Russian T-72 tanks weren't they Frank? Between Russia/France/China you have the trading partners who for the some thirty years supplied Saddam Hussein with 93.4% of all his arms. Take a look at the list of currently active oil related contracts in Iraq Frank and tell us how many pre-date the March 2003 invasion and how many are held by Russian/French/Chinese Oil Companies.

"As to playing any game, of course he (Saddam) was not to be trusted. – Frank Hamilton"

"Of course Saddam was not to be trusted", yet he posed no threat? Bit of a contradiction there Frank.


"Conclusion #2:
It would appear that Bobert is 100% wrong about his claims relating to Iraqi compliance with UNSC Resolutions."

"No, not enough legitimate evidence has been presented to support this claim. These speculative enumerations are based on hypothesis, not fact and reflect the opinion of the writer. – Frank Hamilton"

Well in that case Frank the writer you are talking about is Dr. Hans Blix, which of course you would have realized if you had actually bothered to read his reports and terms of reference.