BS: NON-Partisan political comments

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 08:42 AM

"First link: Date Nov. 8, 2002
Second link: Date Nov. 8, 2002 (and a repeat of the first one)"

If you show no comprehension of what 1441 says, it is reasonable to present it to you before discussing the failure of Saddam to comply with it.



"Holding Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).



By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations.



Under the new inspection regime established by the resolution, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to any sites and buildings in Iraq, including presidential sites. They would also have the right to remove or destroy any weapons, or related items, they found.



The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material. Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment."

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 09:03 AM

"Endless repetition of the same ol' crap is not any kind of proof"

THIS I can agree with- so when will you show me where Saddam COMPLIED with 1441????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 09:32 AM

From Little Hawk

"there is no rule anyone can make up that won't provide an occasional exception somewhere. That's why we have to use our own minds to decide, in the final analysis, regardless of what we think the "rules" are. "

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:16 AM

Slick lawyers can always find some legal excuse with which to justify a war, but try justifying it to the millions of people who are in the line of fire.

This Iraq War was unnecessary, unprovoked, unjustified, and it was launched upon incorrect assumptions, largely false conclusions, and largely false propaganda...for reasons that were never publicly admitted by the US administration.

The Security Council is treated (and quoted) as if it were God by America when it agrees with what America wants...and treated with complete contempt and dismissal when it does not. America has no respect for the U.N. (or anyone else), it just uses the U.N. as a covenient political tool whenever it's able to.

In the end America does exactly what America wants to do, regardless of what the Security Council might have to say about it. America, like Saddam's Iraq, is an outlaw nation. But it's a really, really BIG outlaw nation. Saddam's Iraq was a small one.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:22 AM

Much like Canada, shipping asbestos out to kill asians.


"This Iraq War was unnecessary, unprovoked, unjustified,"

This is a JUDGEMENT that some of us do not agree with. And how many demonstrations demanding that Saddam comply with the UN did YOU see?

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:24 AM

It was a crisis about nothing. He had no weapons of mass destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:36 AM

But did not prove it, nor comply with the inspection requirements until military force was brought into play. AS FAR AS the UN, the US, the EU, and anyone wlse you ask was concerned, he was still working on them, whether he had them in place or not.

Would you say that we should not have gone into Germany in WWII because Hitler had NOT conquered the world, as he stated was his intention? Or admit that sometimes force is needed to prevent a greater problem?

It was a judgement call as to whether Iraq qualified: BUT there were points on both sides, and the dismissal of the reasons TO attack seems unwarrented by what was know ( or thought) at the time. READ the reports that were being used: IF they were false, Saddam had a large hand in trying to make the world think that he was more dangerous than he was. If someone tells a policeman "I have a gun", the policeman can shoot (when needed) without being accused of attacking an unarmed man- even if the person was lying.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:38 AM

The reason there weren't significant mass demonstrations against Saddam over here, BB, was that Saddam was no real danger to anyone over here, and he had no jurisdiction here against which to demonstrate or which could presumably be influenced by such a demonstration, so what would be the point? ;-)

People demonstrate against something that matters, not something that doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:45 AM

I think you just can't admit to the possibility that the US administration knew very well all along that Saddam was no threat, but simply pretended he was, because they had other reasons for wanting to invade Iraq.

I remember when the Iraqis dismantled those not very formidable short range missiles they had...and were bitter about it. What a joke. It was pathetic. They could have done anything, complied with anything, and they would still have been invaded. The decision had already been made way in advance by Washington and the UK, the rest was just phony PR to make it look good to the public.

Hitler was a real threat. Saddam was not. He couldn't even defeat Iran in the 80's, and he got a lot of outside help in the form of high tech weapons to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:47 AM

So, if you see a policeman catching a criminal violating the law, you would tell the POLICEMAN to stop what he was doing because someone might get hurt, and the criminal would not listen to you?

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:49 AM

I do not regard that as an even remotely valid analogy.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:52 AM

Silly analogy.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:56 AM

crossposted...


So, what do you think would have happened if Saddam had opened his borders, NOT tried to use military force against the coallition, and declared Iraq to be an open country- and allowed meaningfull inspections?

We will never know, since he CHOOSE TO NOT COMPLY with UN1441.


With WMD such as biological agents, ANYONE is a real threat.

When someone is making threats, has shown in the past to be willing to carry out those threats, and appears to have all the materials to carry out those threats, would YOU consider that he should just be ignored until he carries those threats out? You need to come live in a target zone for a while...

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:57 AM

I do not regard the idea of NOT enforcing the terms of the 1991 cease-fire as being even remotely reasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 01:18 AM

BeardedBruce:

[Arne, quoting from Bruce's proffered link]: "the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq."

Never said they were, JUST THAT THE UN DECLARED SADDAM WAS IN NON-COMPLIANCE with 1441, his LAST AND FINAL chance.

Ummmm, Brucie: I'm quoting from the link you provided as evidence that "THE UN DECLARED SADDAM WAS IN NON-COMPLIANCE with 1441, his LAST AND FINAL chance" (or alternatively that "the UN report required by 1441 stated that Saddam was in substantial non-compliance, and [Bruce gave] a clicky to it so that all can read it and see."), and I did this to show that these links are far from frinedly to your point of view, and in fact can be taken as evidence against the assertion you claim they support. In fact, I did that repeatedly, just so the cognitively challenged such as (mainly) you might start to catch on. And I pointed out that some of the links you gave didn't use "material breach" much at all, and only once as an assertion, and that they mentioned "substantial non-compliance" not at all). But the cure is yours, Brucie: You can go into those links and show where they say "THE UN DECLARED SADDAM WAS IN NON-COMPLIANCE with 1441, his LAST AND FINAL chance".

Read what has been said, not wwhat you want to see.

Ummm, that's what I was doing. And I just quoted it right back at you. Maybe you ought to read (and post excerpts from, if you find any helpful) the links you're providing.

"IF Iraq chose to cooperate fully, as required. It was a challenge to the Council and an affront to the international community that Iraq was withholding full cooperation. "

Ummm, that "IF" there is Blix's assessment at that time as to whether "the period of disarmament through inspections could be 'short'". So what's the opposite of "short", Brucie?

[from Brucie's third link]: "Similarly, the representative of Canada said that more time for inspections could be useful, but only IF Iraq decided to cooperate fully and transparently, starting now. While that cooperation was beginning, it was being offered grudgingly and only after intense pressure and the deliberate build-up of MILITARY FORCES in the region."

Oh, you snipped the rest of this paragraph, Brucie: "To make clear to Iraq what was expected, the Council must lay out a list of key remaining disarmament tasks and establish an early deadline for compliance. That would allow the international community to judge whether Iraq was cooperating on substance, and not just on process."

IOW, the Canadians, favourable to the idea that Saddam's co-operation was somewhat lacking, also were of the opinion that clear and definitive milestones should be laid out to measure whether co-operation was in fact coming and if progress was being made. Hardly sounds like they thought a "last and final chance" had been used up.

Yes, Brucie, a threat of military force seems to have done the trick. But the way this kind of s*** works is: You say, "Gimme my rent, or I'll blow your kneecaps off", while cocking your .45 auto. Then the person gives you the rent money and you leave; you're happy and he's happy (he's alive), and eveyone else on the street is prompt on their rent as well. Works wonders even if the ethics may be a little shady. But it doesn't work if he gives you the money, and you tell him it was in the wrong colour of envelope, or he didn't turn all the bills the same way, or he didn't kiss your rosy while handing it over, and then you pop him one anyways. See, then, he's an angry cripple, you're a bullying a$$hole, and the neighbours don't see any purpose in paying up on time because you're gonna pop them no matter what they do. Matter if fact, they may even think about getting guns themselves....

So why'd you snip the Indonesian's comments, Brucie? Because they said that "the objectives of resolution 1441 could still be met"? Doesn't exactly fit your storyline here, so no wonder you ignore it. But the Indonesians' view of the Iraq situation is just as germane to the (supposed) "U.N. position" as is the view of Canada, Norway, or the U.S. They're all members of that body. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, Mr. "Bruce" Phelps, is to find where the U.N. decides as a democratic deliberative body, that "SADDAM WAS IN NON-COMPLIANCE with 1441, his LAST AND FINAL chance". Views of individual members count only as their own.

As for "but I know you don't give a damn about them or their families, Brucie...."

The blood is on the hands of those, like yyou, who DID NOT DEMAND THAT SADDAM COMPLY, but instead did all they could to lead him to believe that he could get away with continued violation, as he had for 14 years. LOOK at who was making money off the violations of sanctions, and who voted against holding Saddam to the terms of 1441.

Ummm, who didn't demand that Saddam comply? The Europeans were all over it, begging Saddam to do everything, anything, even kissing Dubya's a$$ if asked, so war could be avoided. And Saddam did do a hell of a lot (for a sovereign nation) to "comply" as best he could. In fact, his compliance with the required documentation was about as good as he could do, and the accuracy of this document, dissed and dismissed by Dubya and company, was far better than the U.S. presentation to the U.N.. You do agree with that, don't you? So instead of talking about whether Dubya thought that Saddam was complying (when Dubya was a doofus, ignoramus, and first-class jerk), why not talk about whether he actually was complying? Your real problem with the "tu quoque" you're asserting above is that the facts prove that the sanctions did work, and that Saddam was complying with the restrictions on WoMD. Even before the threat of military force!

But just one curious question, Brucie: Who did (in your hallucinatory imagination) "vote against holding Saddam to the terms of 1441"? Just curious, you know....

Second thought, another curious question: Who's making money off the occupation? Hmmmm?

""But he toowk a more positive line than in his report two weeks ago, "
WELL AFTER THE DEADLINE FOR COOPERATION IN 1441- see note above about Saddam only cooperating AFTER the military buildup.

What "deadline"? He met the deadline for the documentation. And he was letting the inspectors do their jobs. What makes you think that a "military buildup" done by the U.S. unilaterally is some kind of U.N. "deadline"? If you think your links prove that the U.N. declared he missed a deadline, feel free to quote the specific language from your links that state this, so we can all stand back in amazement.

[Arne]: "First link: Date Nov. 8, 2002"
[Arne]: "Second link: Date Nov. 8, 2002 (and a repeat of the first one)"

If you show no comprehension of what 1441 says, it is reasonable to present it to you before discussing the failure of Saddam to comply with it.

I'm not interested in UNSCR 1441 declaring Saddam in violation of previous resolutions. I'm interested in the U.N. declaring that he was in "material breach" or "substantial non-compliance" with UNSCR 1441 (something that was pointed out to him would be met with "serious consequences"). And to my mind, the gravamen of UNSCR 1441 was that Saddam disarm any WoMD (and do so to the satisfaction of the U.N.) But that he was doing (and would have completed had Junior not started crossing his legs and squirming too much). If just the fact of non-compliance with U.N. resolutions (historical or otherwise) is enough justification for any other county to unilaterally invade, then you'd agree that any Arab state (or even Upper Phlogistan, if they feel like it) should be able to invade (or attempt to invade) Israel for its longterm disregard for the requirements of far more U.N. resolutions than Iraq. Right???

"Holding Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991)....

See above comment.

... By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations....

The inspections began. And Saddam gave over the documents required. In fact, UNSCR 1441 also required that any member states having information pertinent to the matter turn that information over to the inspectors. But the U.S. balked on that, refusing to give the inspectors the specifics of this information until much later (and only under duress) ... and when the U.N. inspectors finally got the information, they did try to check it out, and termed it "garbage, garbage, and more garbage". So if we're talking contempt of the U.N, shouldn't we invade ourselves?

... Under the new inspection regime established by the resolution, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to any sites and buildings in Iraq, including presidential sites. They would also have the right to remove or destroy any weapons, or related items, they found....

And they got it. They checked under the palaces for the "bio-labs" the U.S. said were there (and followed many other wild-goose chases after U.S. "intelligence"). And came up with zip.

... The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material. Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment."

Yep. Did that. As I said, a much more accurate (and timely) report than the U.S. gave.

[Arne]: "Endless repetition of the same ol' crap is not any kind of proof"

THIS I can agree with- so when will you show me where Saddam COMPLIED with 1441??????

Ummm, it's your assertion (that the U.N. said that Saddam didn't comply). Don't try to shift the burder of production to me. But as I've noted (and as your lying eyes told you, with TV of Blix on the ground, the documentary evidence of the Iraqi weapons report, the video clips of the al Samouds being destroyed, etc.), Saddam did comply.

But did not prove it, nor comply with the inspection requirements until military force was brought into play....

Funny. I thought that the U.S. insisted the U.N. inspectors get out of Baghdad before the U.S. invasion, not that they insisted that the U.N. inspectors be let in after the invasion. Guess we live on different worlds, Brucie. Perhaps universes.

AS FAR AS the UN, the US, the EU, and anyone wlse you ask was concerned, he was still working on them, whether he had them in place or not.

Nope. Many thought he may have them (some thought wrongly that he did), but when the evidence on the ground showed that there was little if anything there, and that the U.S. "intelligence" and their repeated assertions before the U.N. and elsewhere was "garbage, garbage, and more garbage", many had a more sceptical and jaundiced view towards pulling the trigger. Which is why Dubya would have failed to get the U.N. to go along and agree with Dubya that Saddam had blown hos chance and needed to be invaded (despite Dubya's promise to force such a vote, a promise he later reneged on).

Would you say that we should not have gone into Germany in WWII because Hitler had NOT conquered the world, as he stated was his intention? Or admit that sometimes force is needed to prevent a greater problem?

Totally stoopid attempt at an analogy. But right off the pages of the RNC "spin points" (and the propaganda campaigns of the likes of Rummy and Condi).

It was a judgement call as to whether Iraq qualified: BUT there were points on both sides, and the dismissal of the reasons TO attack seems unwarrented by what was know ( or thought) at the time.

To morons, if I may say so. But (not surprisingly) a large percentage of people around the entire world are not morons. Sorry to hear about your handicap, Brucie. But: "WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!"

READ the reports that were being used: IF they were false, Saddam had a large hand in trying to make the world think that he was more dangerous than he was.

A different point (and another RNC "talking point"). One I'll disagree with. I think I hear it mostly from people trying to justify why they were so freakin' wrong. The main "evidence" (if you can call it that) for the many horrible WoMDs that Saddam supposedly had came from maladministration hawks with their own agenda (and secret purposes; Google "PNAC" [and add in "Netanyahu" and "Bamford" for some really fun stuff]) ... and from Chalabi's INC thugs (that even Clinton's CIA thought were useless). Unless you can show that Saddam was in cahoots with Libby, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Chalabi's INC, you're full'o'it.

If someone tells a policeman "I have a gun", the policeman can shoot (when needed) without being accused of attacking an unarmed man- even if the person was lying.

Saddam did nothing of the sort. You're just being dishonest here. A little confession is good for the soul, Brucie.

With WMD such as biological agents, ANYONE is a real threat.

Oh. Like the U.S., you mean????

When someone is making threats, has shown in the past to be willing to carry out those threats, and appears to have all the materials to carry out those threats, would YOU consider that he should just be ignored until he carries those threats out? You need to come live in a target zone for a while...

Hmmmmmm. *searching fuzzy folds of long-term memory* Ummmmmm. Yeaaaahhh. That's right, Brucie! There is one country that has positively demonstrated the will to use nuclear weapons (the really big threat that such as Cheney, Dubya, and Rice kept harping on), that is known to possess such, and in fact has even talked recently about maybe using them under the right circumstances. Now who could that be? On the tip of my tongue....

I do not regard the idea of NOT enforcing the terms of the 1991 cease-fire as being even remotely reasonable.

I don't regard you as "being even remotely reasonable". Guess we're even.

Say, why did Dubya think he'd have to produce a "provocation" (that U-2 scheme you've studiously ignored) in order to be able to go to war? Doesn't say much for your case for war when even your hero thought he had to "game" the system....

I'll be looking for those quotes from U.S. resolutions declaring Saddam in "substantial non-compliance" with UNSCR 1441. But I promise you I won't hold my breath.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 06:18 AM

back to thread topic- (I think the last post exceeded the allowed size)

From Little Hawk

"Science and advanced religion are natural allies. They ask the same great questions: What is life? Where did it come from? Where did we come from? What is our nature and the nature of other things around us? Why do things function as they do? How can we improve what we see around us? How can we achieve greater things? How can we be happy? "

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 11:24 AM

IOW, Bruce has no response, and is going to ignore me. Imagine that.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 11:27 AM

Arnie,

See the thread I will start.

Cheers

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 06:26 AM

Sorry, Arnie- I did start the thread, but it has been removed...

You have been given my response, yet keep insisting on the lie that Saddam HAD complied with UNR1441- If the UN is not a valid source for you, I guess there can be no discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 08:05 AM

BeardedBruce:

You have been given my response, yet keep insisting on the lie that Saddam HAD complied with UNR1441-...

Oh, nonsense. I keep seeing you say that Saddam didn't comply with UNSCR 1441, but you have yet to post any link or reference to where the UN says such.

Then your further task -- should you decide to accept, Mr. Phelps -- is to show where the UN then deemed it justified, based on the level of such alleged non-compliance, to initiate an armed invasion, much less authorised anyone to do such. While you're at it, why don't you post the pictures of all the "Blue Helmets" going in to Iraq, in March 2003, OK?

... If the UN is not a valid source for you, I guess there can be no discussion.

If pig had wings, we'd all need cast-iron umbrellas.... Do feel free to show where the UN said such a thing (a suggestion I believe I made before, but which for some reason you ignored).

OBTW, I responded to your (not the UN's) repeated assertions above at quite some length and in detail. I guess I'm just not seeing why you think that simply reasserting your conclusion for the Nth time without any supporting references or backup constitutes some kind of "argument" ... unless you're of the Monty Python school of argument.... Perhaps you'd like to take the time to respond to what I said, eh?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 08:36 AM

from one of the clickies I posted earlier:
"UNITED NATIONS

March 12, 2003




In a two-day debate, that began yesterday and concluded this afternoon, the Security Council heard from 51 Member States and two regional organizations on the crisis surrounding Iraq's disarmament. The request to hear non-Council members in open debate was made by the 116-member Non-Aligned Movement, as closed consultations continued on the draft resolution co-sponsored by the United Kingdom, United States, and Spain that would set a clear deadline for Iraq to comply with its obligations or face military action.


Today, several speakers, among them the representatives of Japan, Latvia, Georgia and the Dominican Republic, voiced support for the draft resolution. Japan's representative said that even though some progress had been observed recently, Iraqi cooperation was still insufficient and limited. The proposed draft resolution was truly a 'final effort' to place the consolidated pressure of the international community on Iraq, and to lead it to disarm voluntarily. If it was not adopted and the international community was divided, not only would that benefit Iraq, but it would also raise grave doubts about the authority and effectiveness of the United Nations. "

NOTE that this is AFTER the date by which Iraq was required to comply.

"The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material. Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment."

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 08:46 AM

from UNR 1441

"Holding Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991)."


Is there some problem with the word FINAL, that you do not understand what it means?

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 01:21 PM

BeardedBruce:

from one of the clickies I posted earlier:
"UNITED NATIONS

March 12, 2003

In a two-day debate, that began yesterday and concluded this afternoon, the Security Council heard from 51 Member States and two regional organizations on the crisis surrounding Iraq's disarmament. The request to hear non-Council members in open debate was made by the 116-member Non-Aligned Movement, as closed consultations continued on the draft resolution co-sponsored by the United Kingdom, United States, and Spain that would set a clear deadline for Iraq to comply with its obligations or face military action.

Today, several speakers, among them the representatives of Japan, Latvia, Georgia and the Dominican Republic, voiced support for the draft resolution. Japan's representative said that even though some progress had been observed recently, Iraqi cooperation was still insufficient and limited. The proposed draft resolution was truly a 'final effort' to place the consolidated pressure of the international community on Iraq, and to lead it to disarm voluntarily. If it was not adopted and the international community was divided, not only would that benefit Iraq, but it would also raise grave doubts about the authority and effectiveness of the United Nations. "

Yeah, what happened to the draft resolution, Brucie? Dubya promised he'd force an "up or down" vote on it regardless, and call the alleged bluff of those that might vote against it or veto it, but when it became apparent that, despite bribery and arm-twisting by the U.S., it was not even going to get a majority vote (that would require a veto if someone actually had that intention), Dubya reneged on his promise and shelved the resolution. So where's that leave you, Brucie? They didn't pass this resolution, much as the U.S. wanted it. But the wants of the maladministration don't count as to what the U.N. decides.

NOTE that this is AFTER the date by which Iraq was required to comply.

"The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material. Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment."

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce. Don't be so dense. Did you read what I wrote above? This is from the UNSCR 1441, and Iraq complied with both these demands. In fact, as I've pointed out multiple times, Iraq's declaration was far more accurate ... and more timely ... than the U.S. information provided the weapons inspectors and their little dog'n'pony show for the U.N.

from UNR 1441

"Holding Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991)."

Is there some problem with the word FINAL, that you do not understand what it means?

Nope. Iraq did take this "final" chance and comply. Not that it mattered. Every day brings new evidence that Dubya was determined to invade no matter what. "F*** Saddam, we're taking him out." Ring a bell there, Brucie? You're also ignoring my comment about Dubya trying to provoke a casus belli with the U-2 shenanigans ... so clearly Dubya wasn't all that confident about his "authorisation". Why bother with the hijinks if the UN Security Council was behind him all the way? To appease the RW foamers here in the States that don't believe in UN authority?

*sheesh* Give it a rest, Brucie. You've shot your wad and you sunk below the waves long ago.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 01:31 PM

" Iraq complied with both these demands. In fact, as I've pointed out multiple times, Iraq's declaration was far more accurate ... and more timely ... "

Nope

"Why bother with the hijinks if the UN Security Council was behind him all the way?"

You have stated this: I never said the UN was behind him all the way. I said that they declared Saddam in non-compliance with 1441.

"Iraq did take this "final" chance and comply"

Nope, again.
Try showing me a statement where the UN declares that Saddam HAD complied.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:45 PM

BeardedBruce:

[Arne]: "Iraq complied with both these demands. In fact, as I've pointed out multiple times, Iraq's declaration was far more accurate ... and more timely ..."

Nope

Iraq announced their intention to comply before the deadline. See this:

Although Iraq was given until November 15 to accept the resolution, they agreed on November 13. Weapons inspectors, absent from Iraq since December 1998, returned later that month, led by Hans Blix of UNMOVIC and Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA.

As for the timely delivery of the declaration, put this in your pipe and smoke it. Better than that crack you're seemingly toking. Once again, turned over before the deadline (by a day).

See also this and this.

Now that you're shown to be a liar and/or an ignoramus, what have you to say, Brucie?

For the Iraqi timeliness and accuracy, we have the above links. What about the U.S.?:

The accuracy of the U.S. "intelligence"? ROFLMAO!!!!! That's a pretty sick joke by now (although Dubya seems to have thought it was a riot at the Gridiron Club). But here's what was said about it even before Dubya invaded:

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word.

The timeliness? Despite the UNSCR 1441 resolution provision requiring that any nation with relevant information turn such over to the UN inspectors, the U.S. stonewalled them as long as possible and only reluctantly turned over the "garbage after garbage after garbage". See here and here.

Your goose is cooked, Brucie. In fact, toast. Charred to a crisp.

[Arne]: "Why bother with the hijinks if the UN Security Council was behind him all the way?"

You have stated this: I never said the UN was behind him all the way. I said that they declared Saddam in non-compliance with 1441.

You've stated the latter (repeatedly). I've said that repeated assertion is hardly evidence, much less proof. The former is just my pithy way of characterising your claim that the U.N. found Saddam in contempt of UNSCR 1441 and thus had authorised "serious consequences" (i.e., militgary action) begin.

[Arne]: "Iraq did take this "final" chance and comply"

Nope, again.

*sheesh* See above.

Try showing me a statement where the UN declares that Saddam HAD complied.

Shifting the burden of proof, eh? No, I made no such assertion. It is your assertion that "they declared Saddam in non-compliance with 1441" that needs to be backed up with some kind of evidence. The "evidence" you have produced has been countered and completely rebutted by me (yet you ignore what I said and continue yapping your RNC "talking points" over and over like the good sock puppet you are).

And I say that for the googlth time. Maybe one of these days you will start to understand plain English and figure out what it means.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:27 AM

and from TIA,

"Political party loyalty is far more important that principles these days."

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 12:37 PM

BeardedBruce:

"Political party loyalty is far more important that principles these days."

Think that refers to the Republicans. You've been working overtime (see above), but there has to be a point where you start to say "It's just not worth the enduring harm to my own integrity to spew the same old 'talking point' propaganda and lies...", eh? Did we reach that point, I hope?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 12:57 PM

Arne,

I was trying to get back to the intent of THIS thread- and I think that the quote applies EQUALLY to both political parties. If you cannot see that, you are blinder than I had thought.

It does not matter how many times I point out that THE UN DECLARED, in the final report required by UNR1441, that Saddam HAD NOT COMPLIED. You will keep saying that , "IF" we just gave him enough time, he would have complied. BUT the resolution HAD a time limit for the report- and THAT report said that he had NOT complied. Any statement you make otherwise is "propaganda and lies".


IF I believed that you had any interest in the truth, the discussion might be worthwhile- As it is, you have never given me any of the "STATEMENTS" that support what you say happened- just comments that it looks like, someday, maybe, he might have given the UN some of what it required. It is clear you can't read the text of UNR1441,
nor the report that it mandated.

Now, if you want to keep at spewing the same old 'talking points' PLEASE OPEN ANOTHER THREAD. I tried to, but was informed it might be insulting to you, so it was removed.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 02:03 PM

and from Little Hawk:

"People with opinions are blockheads. They search out whatever shreds of information they can find to support their opinion. They discount or ignore what does not support it. They are almost impermeable to anything that doesn't support it. They have no patience for another point of view. They are NOT truly objective."

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Arne
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 05:05 PM

BeardedBruce:

It does not matter how many times I point out that THE UN DECLARED, in the final report required by UNR1441, that Saddam HAD NOT COMPLIED.

You misspelled "allege". ;-)

You're right, it doesn't matter. Your assertions aren't worth a bucket of warm spit. What does matter is whether the UN "declared Saddam in non-compliance with 1441", and that they didn't do (much less authorise military invasion as the "serious consequences" that should ensue if Saddam was in fact declared to be in material non-compliance with UNSCR 1441 [which he wasn't]).

Slender reed to hang 2300+ dead U.S. soldiers, maybe a trillion is U.S. money, and an Iraq in total shambles and a far greater threat to U.S. security and interests than it was, on. You have no shame, Brucie, defending the indefencible here. If there is a god, your soul will burn in hell.

You will keep saying that , "IF" we just gave him enough time, he would have complied.

He was complying. No one (at least no sapient person) thought the inspections and verification could be done instantaneously. Even those that were taken in by the U.S. "garbage, garbage, and more ga...." -- ummm, sorry, they were calling it "intelligence -- and as you point out, that included quite a number of folks in Europe and elsewhere before the inspections began, decided after the inspections were turning up zilch that the most prudent course was to let them have more time to complete the process and then assess what the next course of action should be. This included El Baradei and Blix, of course, who, while initially given some resistance from Saddam, thought (correctly) that they could finish the job withough getting hundreds of thousands (including mostly civilians) killed.

IF I believed that you had any interest in the truth, the discussion might be worthwhile-

If you ever meet up with truth in your peregrinations, Brucie, you should try to strike up an acquaintance. I've provided links in my last long post proving you to be a liar or a moron.

As it is, you have never given me any of the "STATEMENTS" that support what you say happened-....

I just gave you a passel of links, dear Brucie. You totally ignored them.

... just comments that it looks like, someday, maybe, he might have given the UN some of what it required.

Ummm, what was "required", Brucie? In the grand scheme of things, not a damn thing! Saddam didn't have any WoMD. How's Saddam supposed to comply in 'turning over any WoMD' and "disclosing his secret weapons programs' when he doesn't have any. They gave a report (as required) that was pretty much accurate ... but the U.S. tossed it of as garbage (while the U.S. "intelligence" was the real "garbage") and wouldn't accept that answer. The U.S., on manufactured and shoddy evidence, presented a picture in front of the U.N. about all kinds of nefarious programs, none of which existed. That would be perjury in a court of law, Brucie. The U.N., rightly so, remained sceptical of the U.S. crapola and took a "wait and see" attitude. It is my opinion that the U.S., rather than letting themselves be shown to be fools or worse, quickly decided to attack knowing that it was all based on a lie. Only problem with this strategy was that they needed to find at least enough old WoMD still around to make for a superficially plausible case for starting hostilities ... and/or they needed to "free" Iraq so that people would forget about the WoMD rationale and say "well, it turned out for the best anyway, so let's just ignore the false pretenses. But neither of these things came to pass, and Dubya managed to make a complete SNAFU of it just like he's done with everything else in his miserable life. He deserves to be tried and convicted of crimes against humanity.

It is clear you can't read the text of UNR1441,
nor the report that it mandated.

Nonsense. I can read both. But Blix doesn't get to call in the Air Force. As I pointed out above, it is the prerogative of the U.N., in deliberation and decision by its member states, to decide what should happen if UNSCR 1441 was not being heeded (and based on how and how substantially it wasn't being heeded). Blix's reports of some non-compliance, resistance, or non-co-operation in some areas has to be taken as a whole, particularly when Blix's latest reports were indicating substantial improvement in compliance, and when Blix himself pleaded for more time to finish the job. If you think, like Dubya, that any hint of non-compliance (and failure to kiss Dubya's a$$ as well) is sufficient reason to go to war, then you, like Dubya, think that war is the first option and not the last despite Dubya once again recently spewing the outright lie than war ... and the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers ... is the last alternative. Just a FYI, Brucie: The American public ain't buying it any more, and there will be hell to pay for the maladministration here.

Say, you never answered my question: Seeeing as Israel is in non-compliance with many U.N. resolutions, is it perfectly OK for anyone to attack them any time they want?

Now, if you want to keep at spewing the same old 'talking points' PLEASE OPEN ANOTHER THREAD. I tried to, but was informed it might be insulting to you, so it was removed.

My, my, my, Brucie. Got caught wid' yer pants down, eh? LOL.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:43 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the Mudcat Iconoclasts?
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:15 PM

It is better for a party to be in opposition and explaining how they would make things better - than it is for them to be in power and having to find excuses for why things are not.

Prentice Worthrope-Manly

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:05 PM

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 07:58 AM

Subject: RE: BS: End War on Terror criteria
From: Foolestroupe - PM
Date: 11 May 06 - 10:45 PM

Little Hawk

If you sit on the fence, both sides throw rocks at you.

Subject: RE: BS: End War on Terror criteria
From: Little Hawk - PM
Date: 11 May 06 - 11:54 PM

Yes, they do...because most people would rather just automatically jump onto their familiar favorite side than think. It's too much work thinking. It's too much work seeing yourself in the other person, and admitting that he too may have a point that's worth considering. And that is precisely what poisons partisan politics in every election and turns the debate into nothing more than a useless battle of competing egos.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 07:59 AM

Subject: RE: BS: End War on Terror criteria
From: Little Hawk - PM
Date: 12 May 06 - 12:25 AM

.....

The objective of a discussion shouldn't necessarily be to "win" or "lose", it should be to explore the subject thoroughly, discover some new things, and arrive at a deeper understanding. Any clearly conducted discussion or debate between people who are willing to honestly listen to one another ought usually to lead to greater mutual respect, and to discovery of common ground...but it doesn't if one or both are simply set on "winning".

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 06 - 01:49 PM

Subject: RE: BS: End War on Terror criteria
From: Foolestroupe - PM
Date: 12 May 06 - 07:44 AM

Yeah, debating taught me that.

"Your emotions may have been what betrayed you when it came to arguing on the side you naturally favored."

Nope - you just get lazy tracing out the logic to defend what you 'know' when you are bigoted... ;-)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: End War on Terror criteria
From: Little Hawk - PM
Date: 12 May 06 - 01:42 PM

Yeah, that makes sense.

I'm going to look up "bigot" and find out exactly what it means, according to the dictionary. Hang on...

Ah... "someone obstinately and intolerantly devoted to his own beliefs, creed or party" "someone who is narrow-minded or prejudiced".

Well, all I can say about that is that 99.999 % of all human beings who have ever lived were and are bigots. Including me and everyone else who has ever posted to a political thread on this forum. Teribus was right in his post awhile back then...I am a bigot, so is he, and so are the rest of us! ;-)

But I'll tell you what "bigot" means in normal usage as most people use it. It means only this: "someone who is obstinately and intolerantly devoted to beliefs that differ from MINE! (because MINE are the only valid beliefs)"

This is why I can laugh at myself as well as others. I know I'm prejudiced, just like other people are. I wish more people had enough self-awareness to do that. It would make human relations a lot more reasonable around here.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 06 - 10:36 AM

From LH

as something on Mudcat they find deeply objectionable in the same way. Wow! That surprised me. That, I was not expecting at all. My goodness!

All I can do is shrug wearily and say..."C'est la vie!" No matter what anyone's personal style is, some people will hate it, some will love it, and others will be largely indifferent toward it or only slightly affected by it. That's the way it goes when you throw together many different personalities and they have to deal with one another in one venue or circumstance.

No matter how hard I...or anyone...has ever tried, they could not please everybody. I am certainly glad not to be a politician, and not to be famous either. It would be like being in hell, trying to meet all those expectations other people have of you.

The best anyone can hope for in this life is to be left alone by other people, in my opinion, and not to be judged by them. Who has ever been so lucky as that?

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 01:58 PM

From LH

"Party politics divides people against each other in a very bad way. That's one reason why I really DON'T like political parties. And that goes for ALL of them. "

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 06 - 01:53 AM

From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Oct 06 - 06:44 PM

People like it when you say stuff they agree with, and they praise you for it. They dislike it when you don't say stuff they agree with, and they question your thinking, your intelligence, and your character. There's really not much more to it than that.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 01:34 PM

Subject: RE: BS: David Lynch and 9-11
From: Bill D - PM
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 12:25 PM


People's minds can be set to sort data to please themselves, independent of reality.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 08:38 AM

Bot politicl, but too good to let it go...



From: kendall
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 08:33 AM

One should be always drunk. That is all: the whole question. In order not to feel the horrible burden of Time, which is breaking your shoulders and bearing you to earth, you must be drunk without cease. But, drunk on what? On wine, poetry, or whiskey, as you choose. But get drunk.
And if sometimes, on the steps of a palace, on the green grass of a moat, in the dull solitude of your chamber, you awake with your intoxication already lessened or gone, ask of the wind, the wave, the star, the clock, of everything that flies, sobs, rolls, sings, talks, what is the hour? and the wind, the wave, the star, the bird, the clock will answer, "It is the hour to get drunk!" Not to be the martyred slave of time, get drunk; get drunk unceasingly. Wine, poetry, or virtue, as you choose.
(Baudilaire)

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:36 AM

From Bobert:

"It all depends on the wording, meathodology and the motives of the pollster/s... I don't trust any poll that is released by a party that has soemthing to gain from the results of the poll... This, of course, includes all politicans and political parties and many so-called objective organizations which have their own axes to grind... "

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:27 PM

maybe not overtly political, but sensible: Thank you, lox.

8-{E


"Subject: RE: BS: sissy crap...
From: GUEST,lox - PM
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:15 PM

I agree with just about nothing Tarheel says when he posts on matters political,

But I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that he is a genuine person who believes that his approach to life and his understanding of the world is the best way forward for humans and in the best interests of humanity.

He posts with self assurance, tenacity and belief. He believes passionately in his point of view and states it, not to offend, but because he thinks he has something to say that matters and is relevant.

I respect him for these things and would rather see his perspecetive as a welcome challenge, to sharpen my wits and test my understanding, than slag him off because he posts something that he finds funny.

So you don't find it funny.


Big Mick


I respect you too. But I think you are wrong on this one. I think you are guilty of a different type of Machismo in this instance.

The criticism you make of Tarheel is mere recognition of his special brand of weakness and frailty. The way you slag it off, and the language you use are very much about "talking tough"

"little boy" etc

Perhaps we're all scared little boys (and girls) sometimes and it's nothing to be ashamed of - you make it sound like a reason to despise him -> cos you're tougher than that?

So what if he got it from someone else?

None of us are truly original.

So what if he finds it funny?

I think some of it is. "

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 10:02 AM

A search for truth has nothing to do with political leanings.


from Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 10:57 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Free speech- IF they agree with you
From: McGrath of Harlow - PM
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 06:18 PM

It's not a bad idea to make some effort to get at the actual facts in an incident before passing judgement on the basis of a snippet in the press.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 May 07 - 01:38 PM

"DonMeixner - PM
Date: 22 May 07 - 01:34 PM

It is fine with me if ... wants to have an opinion and state it. I have a personal philosophy of "Speak your Mind." This means words I get to hear words I want as well as words I don't. You just can't develop an intelligent opinion until you hear what the other guy has to say."

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Dickey
Date: 22 May 07 - 02:13 PM

"we-won-so-kiss-our-asses" I think it is a more like we-think-you-cheated-so-we-will-kick-your-asses.

Like those old confederates that said "the south shall rise again"

People need to realize that nobody is right all the time and nobody is wrong all the time. They need to search for when someone is right and when they are wrong rather than label someone good or bad.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 May 07 - 10:25 AM

BB since you changed the subject, the traditional moderate Democrat is a myth. There are Right-leaning Dems and Left-leaning ones. The idea of "centrist" is a ruse used by those who claim impartiality. When you scratch that surface, the impartiality is gone.

Christopher Hitchens has a definition of the term "bullshitter". This is someone who attempts to manipulate and control others by their ideology without giving credence to another point of view.

I think that in many instances there are no non-partisan comments that are political.
Politics is the art of persuasion and often bypasses critical thinking in its application.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 May 07 - 10:44 AM

???????????????????

Please let me know what that last came from.

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 May 07 - 03:14 PM

From: Wesley S - PM
Date: 24 May 07 - 02:10 PM

Anyone who has an opinion - and shares it on the www - is bound to be able to find someone who will disagree with that opinion. Overall most of us think the Mudcat is worth it. But if you were hoping to find a place where everyone agreed with you all the time - then the Mudcat isn't it. And just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them an "arsehole".

Subject: RE: BS: NON-Partisan political comments
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 07 - 09:24 PM

Sorry for the editing, but names are not needed...

Lonesome EJ - PM
Date: 31 May 07 - 09:13 PM

... Now if you want to argue about something I actually said instead of setting up a strawman of what you think I believe, I'll deal with you the same way, and we can have an honest disagreement. Or you can stand on your soapbox and fume. If it's the soapbox, just leave me out of it, please.

I often disagree with ... and with ..., but I respect them, and you don't find me putting words in their mouths to try to slant the argument. That's what separates this forum from many of the slam-arenas on the net.