BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:08 AM

An impressive but irrelevant and meaningless list Stigweard, particularly when you consider much of the period is covered by international "ping-pong" match that was known as "The Cold War".

Have a ramble through your list and see how many items are duplicated, which sort of begs the question if a Resolution was proposed once and vetoed, why would its chances of not being vetoed increase with the passage of time.

Liked the ones about human rights and Israel, where were the ones about human rights and Iraq/Syria/Egypt/Saudi Arabia/USSR/China/North Korea/Libya/etc/etc/etc??

The one in 1979 calling for the return of all those expelled by Israel - Now where in that Resolution did it mention the return of all Jews expelled by Arab States and/or compensation for their loss of property?

I could go on, but won't. The United Nations is an absolute disgrace, and it always has been. It has resolved little or nothing in the entire term of its sorry existence. In short it is a complete and utter joke and needs to radically reform itself or be consigned to the dustbin of insignificance.

By the bye I was not aware that the US had ever lent a hand in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The USSR yes, China yes, North Korea yes, but the USA No.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 11:04 AM

This from the following site we can see who has used the veto over the period from 1946 to 2007 inclusive:

Stigweard you might be interested in the results

China - 6 times
France - 18 times
United Kingdom - 32 times
United States of America - 82 times
USSR/Russia - 123 times (Bit of a difference there from 2 times Stig, Eh??)

The link is here:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 12:02 PM

>>What I have previously referred to were the UNSCOM Reports to the United nations security Council of January 1999 and the later Report of March 1999 in which they Reported the status regarding WMD, WMD Research & Development programmes, stockpiles of WMD agents & precursors, munitions and missile inventory. It was those reports that detailed the discrepancies that existed between raw materials purchased and used, agents produced and weaponised, munitions made and used against what they could verify as having been destroyed. The information used was that supplied by the Iraqi Authorities, their suppliers, manufacturing records, etc. The UNSCOM Reports were careful to state that the shortfalls as detailed could only indicate what Iraq might possess. In my posts I have provided links to both those reports by way of substantiation.<<

Yeah, I read those. So, you lied earlier when you asserted that the bullshit Bush put in his SOTU 03 was detailed in a 1999 UN report authored by Blix and Ritter. They wrote no such report. They wrote about discrepancies that were still on their books that they wanted to get cleared up. At no time did they say Iraq actually HAD that stuff or any stuff.

>>Now how exactly did us Brits embarrass ourselves fighting a ragtag bunch of kids in the Falkland Islands? - the floor is yours<<

The Falklands was the greatest, most decisive victory in the history of warfare. All hail Britain. what ho, pip pip, cheerio, right! Happy now?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 12:22 PM

The information Stigweard has given (only two vetoes by Russia) is of course completely correct (truth and nothing but the truth; though perhaps not the whole truth). It is an instance how one can deliberately misinform by giving completely correct information. Politicians often use this ploy. This way they have not lied and only the recipients of the information are to be blamed for being dumb.

"Russia" has vetoed only twice since the founding of the UNO. Period.

"USSR", "Soviet Union", "Russian Federation" are of course something completely different which we may disregard.

Stigweard has posted in a very creative way the truth and nothing but the truth to the effect of giving a wrong impression.

(Or has used information from an unreliable source without thinking. It was immediately obvious for instance to me that the number of two vetoes made no sense at all)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 12:31 PM

Back to Iran which interests me more than the blunder in the Iraq.
Mohammed Mohaddessin (NCRI) claims today to know the nuclear program was resumed in 2004.

The NCRI has its own agenda and I wouldn't trust it without more independent corroboration, but what M.M. says is a possibility that should not be overlooked.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 01:48 PM

"Stigweard has posted in a very creative way the truth and nothing but the truth to the effect of giving a wrong impression."

Much as I would like to take credit for being a creative disseminator of misinformation, the actual truth is not as flattering. I did of course cut and paste the list, and I left the Russian vote bit in out of laziness as I've had a busy day and problems with a blocked drain and sewage overflow in my back garden (This makes reading BB's hysterical defense of Monkey Boy's actions a bit like smellyvision - you can smell the shite as you read).

My intention was to illustrate how the list gives a general idea of the way the US votes on the various issues before the UN - in a manner bordering on cynical and with a general disdain/ignorance/lack of moral integrity and above all hypocrisy that is quite impressive to observe (unless you're born a Palestinian, and therefore and an object of particular revulsion to US politicians it seems).

For instance . . . 1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction - vetoed! Unless you're the US of course, in which case, fill your boots with weapons-grade plutonium!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 01:58 PM

Guest 282RA taken verbatum from the Presidents 2003 State of the Union Address as delivered on 29th January, 2003:

"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

Now those were the actual words of the President.

From Guest 282RA we got:
"So, you lied earlier when you asserted that the bullshit Bush put in his SOTU 03 was detailed in a 1999 UN report authored by Blix and Ritter. They wrote no such report. They wrote about discrepancies that were still on their books that they wanted to get cleared up. At no time did they say Iraq actually HAD that stuff or any stuff."

Now correct me if I am wrong but does the President refer to conclusions that the UN drew from the Reports that I have previously provided links to? Yes he most certainly does.

Does he at anytime state that Iraq actually HAD that "stuff"? No he does not he states that they have the materials to produce that "stuff". Which pretty much matches up with what BB and myself have been saying all along.

When, oh when, are you Bush-bashers ever going to just pause and read, or listen to, what is actually being said, instead of listening to sound bytes of what some dumb-ass reporter, or editor, is trying to tell you he is saying.

So I take it Guest282RA that when you came out with your line:

"It shows how stupid Bush is to want Britain on his side after the way they embarrassed themselves a fighting a ragtag bunch of kids in the Falkland Islands."

That you were spouting a load of shit and knew damn well that you were spouting a load of shit.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 04:43 PM

>>So I take it Guest282RA that when you came out with your line:

"It shows how stupid Bush is to want Britain on his side after the way they embarrassed themselves a fighting a ragtag bunch of kids in the Falkland Islands."

That you were spouting a load of shit and knew damn well that you were spouting a load of shit.<<

Of course I was! I just wanted to piss you off. Who cares? Man, you're desperate, aren't you? Gotta love it!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:17 PM

Bobert wrote:

"Saddam and the Iraqi governemnt were allowing Hanz Blix to inspect where ever they wanted..."

BB wrote:

"NOT according to the report to the UN by Blix that was required under 1441- the last chance for cooperation.

So, Bobert, is that your final answer?

Seems that your arguments come up short of reality.

I know, Danged!!! But when you have something to refute what *I* have stated, feel free to present it."

Hanz Blix, in his January 27, 2003 reprot to the UN said:

"Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our hilicopters have been good. The environment has been workable."

Hmmmmmm, bb... I told you do read a little slower... You are missing the big picture with your biases and/or prejudices... These were the actual words that came out of Dr. Blix's mouth before the UN. Do you refute them???

And as for your assertion that Iran had a "nuclear program", I have never suggested that the didn't... It is not relevant to this subject... Yes, I know that Bush has tried to save face with this argument but, like, who cares... What does matter is what Iran is doing now... And that is where you and Bush;s argument lose traction...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Arne
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:26 PM

GUEST,282RA:

"Bruce. I've asked you and Teribus at least a dozen times now to produce the 1999 UN report authored by Blix and Ritter that said Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and you both not only failed to direct me to this report, you pretended like you didn't notice anyone was requesting it. That pretty much makes you a goner in my book. Two complete shit-talking idiots without a shred of credibility."

Teribus and BB are both RWAs. They're the 28% "dead-enders". They'll defend to their dying breath the honesty and integrity of the Deciderator-In-Chief despite the fact that he's a proven liar and a thug, and they'll never admit they were wrong ... tragically wrong (which, of course is why they won't admit it; see the above link for the description of this pathology). They've been singing this same gawdawful tune for years now and they won't stop. Makes you wish there was a law mandating post-delivery abortions for bone-stoopid Republicans and their sycophants....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:50 PM

Thanks for that heads up Guest 282RA serves as a good baseline for future reference.

Arne Langsetmo, how are things going my little viking? I don't know about defending anybody to my dying breath. On this forum its more about filling some of the more dearly held left-wing, anti-Bush, anti-war, socialist myths full of holes. And in concert with some others we haven't been doing too shoddy a job of it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:56 PM

Sorry, Bobert.

You are missing the big picture with your biases and/or prejudices...

"On December 7, 2002, Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The five permanent members of the Security Council received unedited versions of the report, while an edited version was made available for other UN Member States. On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light.

Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[2] [3] [4]. On January 27, 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[5] Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced "1,000 tonnes" of VX nerve agent -- one of the most toxic ever developed.[6]

By mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."

At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security"."






**********************************************************************
"On January 27, 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[5] Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced "1,000 tonnes" of VX nerve agent -- one of the most toxic ever developed.[6]

By mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."
*********************************************************************
These were the actual words that came out of Dr. Blix's mouth before the UN. Do you refute them???


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441#Aftermath

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 05:59 PM

UNR 1441:
"...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".



On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light.

Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:07 PM

"What does matter is what Iran is doing now"

On this I agree with you:

At the moment, Iran is still enriching fissionable material beyond the requirements for peaceful purposes.

The NIE does NOT address whether there is a present program active: It declares that there is not enough information to knbow one way or the other.

Iran continues to work on its IRBM and ICBM programs, and has NOT complied with it's obligations under the NPT.


So just what is it that gives you any reason to think that Bush is not at least as truthful as yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:34 PM

Well, firstly, bb...

I haven't got upwards of a million people killed!!!

Ahhhhh, that's just for starters...

But most recently here in Mudville I made a statement about Hanz Blix, you countered by challenging my source and actaully saying that what I said came up short of reality???

Now I have provided the actual quote by Blix and rather than you sayin', "Geeze, Bobert, you were right" you change the subject???

Talk about coming up short of reality?!?!?!?....

But forget that... Here's my beef with Bush's foriegn policy toward Iran:

In a nutshell, it is more of the same failed thinking that got US into Iraqmire in the first place... Bush thinks that the US can shoot, threaten and bomb its way in the world... It can't.. First of all it cost one hack of a lot more than diplomacy... The US can't afford to shoot it out with everyone that Bush doesn't like... Heck, it can't afford to shoot it out with everyone that Hillary doesn't like...

This is a very expensive foriegn policy and one that has the ability to cripple our economy... Every empire before US has gone down becuase of military expansion... As grusome as it sounds, Hitler might have succeeded if he hadn't been so hellbent on expansion... Bush is making the same mistakes as Hitler did... He loves war... He loves to pump out his chest and say he's doing this dumbass stuff to protect US...

Problem is that there are more terrorism today then before he decided to attack Iraq... Before you challenge me on that, better do a little actaul fact checking or you'll end up on the wrong side of the "facts" yet again... Just as you were just shown to be...

Now, lastly... Tell me why what Iran was doing 5 years ago is *more important* than a sane approach to what Iran is doing today... You place too much importance of stuff that no one can change and too little importance of things that we can change... What is that about???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:40 PM

Oh Bobert, my apologies I forgot.

Do you know that Report you got the Hans Blix quote from. Can you refresh everyones mind about what he said about co-operation being a two part process. Then we will all know that you have actually read it and then we can compare that to what I said previously.

Dr. Hans Blix - 27th January, 2003:
I turn now, Mr. President, to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access.

A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course.

An initial minor step would be to adopt the long overdue legislation required by the resolutions."

Teribus: "The wording of 1441 allowed for no "material breach" of its provisions - all in all there were seven such instances, while the Iraqis co-operated fully on matters relating to access, they were very reluctant when it came to the area of disclosure and Blix was still complaining about this in his last report to the Security Council."

Now going back to that Report delivered by the good Dr. Blix, Bobert:
- Can you recall him mentioning any problems?
- Did Dr. Blix mention any conflict between the information provided by the Iraq Authorities and hard evidence gathered by his inspection teams?
- Was there any mention of the discovery of some 3000 documents hidden at an Iraqi scientist's house related to enrichment of uranium?
- Did the good Dr. Blix table his concerns about this discovery and the implications of this discovery?
- Did he detail how many U2 Flights, specifically requested by UNMOVIC and required under the terms of 1441, had taken place?
- Did he mention how many names out of the 3500 Iraqi scientists and engineers known to have worked on Saddam's WMD programmes, the Iraqi Authorities submitted to UNMOVIC for interview?
- Did he mention how many of those scientists and engineers were interviewed?

Or did Dr. Blix clearly state that everything was sweetness and light.

Bobert rest assured of one thing - if you don't answer the above questions, I will.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:54 PM

My reply was to quote the same person making quite different claims:

"On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported
or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light."

and

" Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such
documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections.""

So do you refute what Blix's March 7th report states?

The deadline was December. The terms of the resolution were not met- Do you claim otherwise?



"Tell me why what Iran was doing 5 years ago is *more important* than
a sane approach to what Iran is doing today"

I agree- A sane approach, ie, demanding that Iran comply with its obligations to the NPT, is more important. Yet I do not hear that as a demand: ONLY that the US should not make any effort to enforce that

compliance.

Same as before the invasion of Iraq- You demand that the US NOT take action, and fail to demand that Iran comply with the demands of the international community. The signal that is being sent to Iran, (and other possible violators of the NPT) is that it is ok, and you encourage a siutuation that is FAR more likely to lead to thermonuclear war than anything that Bush has proposed or attempted.



Sorry, in this case I consider that you are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 06:58 PM

"Well, firstly, bb...

I haven't got upwards of a million people killed!!! "


IMO, those who opposed the war with Iraq WITHOUT demanding that Saddam comply with the UNR bear some responsibility in the subsequent war: Had the Left made it clear to Saddam that they would NOT support his continued violations of UNR, it would seem likely that Saddam would have left Iraq rather than to try to tough it out.

So, tell me again how you demanded that Saddam comply?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 07:50 PM

Well, sure, I know of the report, bb... I've had a copy of it in my filing cabinet going back to when it was issued...

And, yeah, I've read it... Yes there is some back-and-forth in it but on the central issue of cooperation I believe that Dr. Blix's statement was an indication that Dr. Blix felt good about Iraq's level of cooperation...

We need to put some historical perspective on this, however... Yes, Saddam we now learn was doing a lot of bluffing... That much I think we can all agree on... But, if one puts himself in Saddam's shoes, what would you ahve done... No, don't think like an American, or a Brit, here but as the leader of a Middle East country... I can understand why Saddam bluffed...

But bluffing isn' the issue, is it???

No, the issue comes down to the inspectors... And Dr. Blix gave an upbeat assessment of Iraq's finally getting it...

Like I asked before... Why so much importance on things that happened in the past which can no longer be changed and so little importance on those things that can be changed???

I guess, bb, that you are incapable of admitting that the light had gone off in Saddam's head... Dr. Blix saw it... He reported it to the UN...

In a way, you will always be fighting with the past, bb... I don't get it... Nothin' happens in the past... Things happen in the here and now and that's why Dr. Blix was willing and anxious to continue and that is what the US should be doing right now rather than blowing a lot of Bush hot air up people's posteriors...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:13 PM

BTW, bb...

Perhaps you'd like to share Dr. Blix's last paragraph of his report to the UN with the folks here...

...or maybe not which...

...given your repulsion for accepting either the word or the spirit of the report would be consistent with your myoptic views of just why the US invaded Iraq to begin with...

B~

p.s. It is a given that if you can't find the closing statement of Dr. Blix's report of Jan. 27th that I sho nuff can... and will...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Arne
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:28 PM

Teribus:

Arne Langsetmo, how are things going my little viking?

A whole lot better that you, it seems. You're still spending your effin' life trying to defend the indefencible, same ol' shite, over and over again, no matter how many times you get slapped down and no matter how much an eedjit you look in the process. Why you think this is a good way to spend your days is beyond me ... but then again, I'm not a RWA.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Arne
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:31 PM

Teribus:

And in concert with some others we haven't been doing too shoddy a job of it.

A legend in his own mind, he is. But that comes with the territory of being a RWA and stoopid to boot. Studies have shown that RWAs can't figure out they're wrong, and stoopid people are too stoopid to know they're stoopid.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Arne
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:41 PM

Teribus:

Can you refresh everyones mind about what he [Blix] said about co-operation being a two part process.

Whereas, Dubya's idea of a two part process is: We stop the inspections. We bomb the living crud out of Iraq, and end up with over a half million Iraqis dead (as well as nigh 400 of our own soldiers).

Oh, yeah, there is a part three. There has to be a part three. We get mired in an insurgency for decades, bleeding our coffers of $2 trillion(!!!) and a whole lot more Iraqis of their blood.

No thanks to Dumbya's 'alternative'. Blix's approach, for all Teribus seems to hate it, was doing just fine, as was shown by even the U.S. gummint's Duelfer Report.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 08:46 PM

Yup, Arne... That's 'bout it... Eric Hoffer coined the term "True Beleiver" for folks like teribus and his bud, bb... They are the ultimate brownshirts of modren times... The horses in "Animal Farm"... They wil fight the losing fight with every breath in their body...

What they will never, never, never, ever do is look themselves in the mirror and ask, "Is this all worth it???"

No, they are totaly incapable of reason... Of facts... Of vision... No, they just go out an pull the plows and they drop in the fields as if the pigs actually could give a rat's ass...

Well, the pigs don't give art's ass about either bb or T-Bird... When it comes down to it these two miserable people are cared for more by the folks here in this little folk musicans web site then in the house that the pigs have taken over and the same pigs they defend...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:02 PM

BB, ole chum, there is a wide spectrum of reality lying in between "any effort" to enforce compliance and "invasion and war". Surely even you can see the extremism of Mister Bush's decisions and recognize that there were other factors involved in the decision than the ones acknowledged. Either that, or the man was a madman. But that is ruled out because the American people would never elect a madman.


A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:07 PM

Perhaps you'd like to share the substance of Dr. Blix's report to the UN with the folks...


"On 7th of December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to Paragraph 3 of Resolution 1441 and within the time stipulated by the Security Council.

In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward. This is welcome.

One might have expected that in preparing the declaration, Iraq would have tried to respond to, clarify and submit supporting evidence regarding the many open disarmament issues, which the Iraqi side should be familiar with from the UNSCOM documents (of 1994 ?) and the so-called Amorim report of March 1999. These are questions which UNMOVIC, governments and independent commentators have often cited.

While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current unresolved disarmament issues and key remaining disarmament tasks in response to requirements in Resolution 1284, we find the issues listed in the two reports I mentioned as unresolved professionally justified. These reports do not contend the weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq; but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies which raise question marks, which must be straightened out if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM.

Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the president of the Security Council on 24th of January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.

I shall only give some examples of issues and questions that need to be answered, and I turn first to the sector of chemical weapons. The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization, and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost due to bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

I would now like to turn to the so-called Air Force document that I have discussed with the council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force headquarters in 1998, and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC. The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocked warheads in a bunker at the storage depot 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad was much-publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved here in the past two years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. Investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve, but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard, and has set up a committee of investigation.

Since then, it has reported that it has found further four chemical rockets at a storage depot in al-Taji.

I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site the laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard precursor.

Whilst I'm addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19th of December last year, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at al-Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision and had installed at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.

I turn to biological weapons. I mentioned the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasion, and I come back to it, as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which, it states, it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision, or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.

As I reported to the council on the 19th of December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilos, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged, as reported, in Iraq's submissions to the Amorim panel in February of 1999. As a part of its 7 December, 2002, declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate, as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.
In a letter the 24th of January, this year, to the president of the Security Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that, I quote, "All imported quantities of growth media were declared," unquote. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of the media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.

I turn, Mr. President, now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained Scud-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of Scud missiles as targets in the development of anti-ballistic missile defense system during the 1980s, yet no technical information has been produced about that program, or data on the consumption of the missiles.

There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years, presented by Iraq in the declaration as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions. Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fueled missile named Al-Samoud II, and a solid propellant missile called Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 kilometers, with the Al-Samoud II being tested to a maximum of 183 kilometers, and the Al Fatah to 161 kilometers. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi armed forces, even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development. The Al-Samoud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 millimeters. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 millimeters. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.

During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programs. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum of 150 kilometers.

These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 kilometers are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the meantime, we have asked Iraq to cease flight test of both missiles.

In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile-production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM's supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles.

Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers.
Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import which has been taking place during the last two years of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December -- (inaudible word). Foremost among these is the import of 300 rockets engines which may be used for the Al-Samoud 2.

Iraq has also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation, and guidance and control system. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq. That is, Iraq or some company in Iraq circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.

Mr. President, I have touched upon some of the disarmament issues that remain open and that need to be answered if dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. Which are the means at the disposal of Iraq to answer these questions? I have pointed to some during my presentation of the issues. Let me be a little more systematic.

Our Iraqi counterparts are fond of saying that there are no proscribed items and, if no evidence is presented to the contrary, they should have the benefit of the doubt, be presumed innocent. UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq; but nor is it or, I think, anyone else, after the inspections between 1991 and '98, presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem. Evidence and full transparency may, may help.

Let me be specific. Information provided by member states tells us about the movement and concealment of missiles and chemical weapons and mobile units for biological weapons production. We shall certainly follow up any credible leads given to us and report what we might find, as well as any denial of access.

So far, we have reported on the recent find of a small number of empty 122-millimeter warheads for chemical weapons. Iraq declared that it appointed a commission of inquiry to look for more. Fine. Why not extend the search to other items, declare what may be found, and destroy it under our supervision?
When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents; all existing relevant documents have presented, we are told; all documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons.

However, Iraq has all the archives of the government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds, and reports on how they have been used. It should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports on production and losses of material.

In response to the recent UNMOVIC request for a number of specific documents, the only new documents Iraq provided was a ledger of 193 pages, which Iraq stated included all imports from 1983 to 1990 by the Technical and Scientific Importation Division, the importing authority for the biological weapons program. Potentially, it might help to clear some open issues.
The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their workplaces. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated, and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:09 PM

Any further sign of the concealment of documents will be serious. The Iraqi side committed itself, at our recent talks, to encourage persons to accept access also to private sites. There can be -- (brief audio break) -- for proscribed items, activities or documents. A denial of prompt access to any site would be a very serious matter.

When Iraq claims that tangible evidence in the form of documents is not available, it ought at least to find individuals, engineers, scientists and managers to testify about their experience. Large weapons programs are moved and managed by people. Interviews with individuals who may have worked in programs in the past may fill blank spots in our knowledge and understanding. It could also be useful to learn that they are now employed in peaceful sectors. These are the reasons why UNMOVIC asked for a list of such persons, in accordance with Resolution 1441. Some 400 names for all biological and chemical weapons programs, as well as their missile programs, were provided by the Iraqi side. This can be compared to over 3,500 names of people associated with those past weapons programs that UNSCOM either interviewed in the 1990s, or knew from documents and other sources. At my recent meeting in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to supplementing the list, and some 80 additional names have been provided.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:10 PM

In the past, much valuable information came from interviews. There were also cases in which the interviewee was clearly intimidated by the presence of an interruption by Iraq officials. This was the background of Resolution 1441's provision for a right for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to hold private interviews, I quote, "in the mode or location," unquote, of our choice in Baghdad or even abroad.

To date, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have invariably been that the individual would only speak at Iraq's Monitoring Directorate or at any rate, in the presence of an Iraq official. This could be due to a wish on the part of the invited to have evidence that they have not said anything that the authorities did not wish them to say. In our recent talks in Baghdad, the Iraqis had committed itself (sic) to encourage persons to accept interviews in private; that is to say, alone with us. Despite this, the pattern has not changed. However, we hope that with further encouragement from the authorities, knowledgeable individuals will accept private interviews in Baghdad or abroad."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 07 - 10:12 PM

Amos,

The point is that Bush has NOT called for invasion- He has called for Iran to comply with the UN. It is the actions of certain nations, in supporting Iran's continued violation of the terms of the NPT that bring a threat of war.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 12:11 AM

Already covered by T. YES, under earlier UNR.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 12:13 AM

As the one person responsible for looking after the security and interests of the United States of America. Was it ever a requirement that he had to?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 12:23 AM

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

Did they convene to consider the situation or did Bush invade?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 12:53 AM

Read, and I mean read, the UN' authorisation for the use of force with regard to Resolution 678.

Then read, and I mean read, the terms and conditions detailed in Resolution 687 that Iraq agreed to as part of a cease-fire agreement.

Tell us all hand on heart whether or not Iraq complied with those cease-fire terms - They had 12 years to do so. By the bye, Dr. Blix reports on 27th January 2003 that they did not.

Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance - actually in UN-speak they had already had several.

Read Stigweards "Hansard" link which details France's absolute refusal to consider any resolution that would present an ultimatum to Iraq regarding compliance with any of the above outstanding UN Security Council Resolutions.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stu
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 05:27 AM

"IMO, those who opposed the war with Iraq WITHOUT demanding that Saddam comply with the UNR bear some responsibility in the subsequent war: Had the Left made it clear to Saddam that they would NOT support his continued violations of UNR, it would seem likely that Saddam would have left Iraq rather than to try to tough it out. "

This is superb - not content with supporting the debacle in Iraq you are trying to shift some of the blame for this mess onto people who opposed it? Is your conscience eating you away so much the only way you can assuage your guilt is by transferring it to people who don't agree with you? Is the only way you can deal with the bloodied consequences of the actions you so vigorously defend the abdication of responsibility?

This shows such a lack of moral integrity it can only be described as right-wing. Have some bollocks, stand by your convictions and have the courage not to attempt to implicate those who objected to your ill-conceived venture.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 09:14 AM

Hans Blix was interviewed on BBC Radio Four earlier this year.
I can not make this download play but I do remember him giving his opinion that removing Sadam justified all the pain that his removal brought about.
He believed that the war was justified.

http://onebigtorrent.org/torrents/1675/Hans-Blix-On-the-Ropes-BBC-Radio-4

Subject: don't trust a bald faced LIAR
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 10:46 AM

however bearded bruce may believe any liar of his choosing. Thats the beauty of America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd7LvJBIaNo&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 12:07 PM

bb,

Try again... We are talking about the January 27 address to the UN which, if I am not mistaken, was his last address to the that body before Bush decided to short circuit the process...

Hint: The very last word is "Council"...

As for Dr. Blix saying the war was "justified", this purdy much flies in the face of spirit of what he said in is Jan. 27th report to the UN...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:05 PM

Bobert , Regarding Blix what you said is a fact

however facts are optional for neocon military industrial purposes.

We have been at war with Iraq for how many years now?

12-18 years depending on how you measure it.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:14 PM

I couldn't open that Blix interview either. What Keith says there doesn't sound consistent with what Blix has said on other occasions. Of course he might have modified his views - but I wonder if there might be a misunderstanding of what he said, with him expressing a hope that on balance it might turn out that the invasion didn't make things worse, or perhaps saying that for some people it did make things better.

For many people the invasion and its aftermath has undoubtedly made things even worse - for example it appears that the freedom of women to lead independent lives, or to dress as they choose has been greatly restricted, and the situation of religious minorities, notably Iraq's Christian ancient community, has got incomparably worse. For all its horrible aspects, Baathist Iraq was a secular, and in some ways a relatively open, society.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:17 PM

Bobert,

My post WAS of the 27 January address. Care to read it ( for a change) before you make statements about what it says?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:21 PM

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/blix_report.html

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:22 PM

And Donuel and Bobert may believe any liar of their choosing. Thats the beauty of America.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 02:26 PM

"the substance of Dr. Blix's report to the UN"

In case you were not aware, it is standard policy to ALWAYS end a report on a positive note,. One might want to read the whole report, or at least the summary, as opposed to basing one's conclusion on what is said by a single paragraph at the end.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 03:38 PM

"the abdication of responsibility?"

It seems that those here who opposed action against Saddam have already abdicated any responsibility FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS and WORDS.


Just pointing it out.


You seem to protest too much: If it was not true, why does it bother you so much???

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 03:39 PM

From MGOH this is an astonishing example of denial and abdication of responsibility:

"For all its horrible aspects, Baathist Iraq was a secular, and in some ways a relatively open, society."

Really Kevin? In roughly the same way it could no doubt have been claimed:

For all its horrible aspects, Nazi Germany was a secular, and in some ways a relatively open, society.

Result 15 million deaths.

Or maybe considering your socialist background:

For all its horrible aspects, Soviet Russia was a secular, and in some ways a relatively open, society.

Result over 38 million deaths.

I'll make the point now, those constrained to live under the Ba'athist Rule and whims of Saddam Hussein and his sons in secular Iraq, did not have to suffer such a fate because somebody acted to deliver them from it. Bad enough as it was - for 24 years Saddam butchered the people of Iraq achieving an average of 282 per day - higher if you take into account those killed during the Iran/Iraq War.

I would strongly recommend Kevin that you read some of the survivors stories and do a great deal of research into what Saddam was responsible for in Iraq and the suffering he visited upon its citizens - The horrible bits Kevin, not the bits about dress code for women.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Amos
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 03:58 PM

BB:

It is not abdicating responsibility to oppose the accelerating spiral of violence espoused by the Bushites. It is,m in fact, more responsible to NOT pull the trigger when you don't fully understand the situation, as it is certainly true GWB did not, than to pull the trigger on the hunch you might understand it. It takes a certain centered, compassionate intelligence to look further into a scene and find out what is going on it before jumping in like a commando to shoot it up. W did not have this quality, does not have it now, and I feel sure never will.

That is why he is dangerous. The rush to violence is an insane trait except where imminent threat can be demonstrated, which in this case it was not.

THis in now way is meant to make less of your argument about the madness of Saddam Hussein. I see no reason to believe he was the maddest of world leaders or the most destructive. If the rationale of the invasion was purely that he was killing 28 people a day, we would have invaded Darfur long since.


A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 04:11 PM

Amos,

And I would support a UN invasion of Sudan.

But my point is that those "opposed " to the war were in fact opposed to any Bush action against Iraq: They made NO effort to even hint that Saddam should comply, and I DID post the article about the Iraqi group that was prevented from marching in the "anti-war" protests BECAUSE they were stating that Saddam should step down.

You are entitled to think that Bush jumped the gun: I am entitled to think that, had the Left, and those countries that prevented effective UN action bothered to tell Saddam to give up power in as strong terms as they told Bush to NOT take action, there would have been mo war, no insurgency, and no occupation of Iraq by outside troops.

Saddam had the option of opening his borders, and not resisting any invasion ( prior to the start of combat). Did you ever wonder why he thought that he would NOT be held accountable?

Millions of protesters telling Bush to stop, and saying NOTHING about Saddam.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 05:18 PM

Guess again, bb...

But this is your last guess 'cause if you get it wrong again then I'll just have to print the Closing statement of the report... I think you are depending on one of your rightie blogs that conviently leaves out anyything that they don't like... You know, kinda like Bush...

And, oh, BTW, just, the closing statement (parargraph), por favor... Not a War and Peace lenght cut and paste or a bb tirade where the closing statement get smothered with the usual crap...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 05:28 PM

Bush wants to control the mid-East. He wants to be alpha dog in the nuke department so he can make more money for the defense industry, the leading US export business.

This is not incompetence but based on a world view that will bring the US into another war so that the defense industry can become more wealthy.

Iran is probably like Pakistan in that they see their nukes as a deterrant from US occupation.

Bush has no intention of introducing peace, justic or freedom to the Mid-East.

The winning ticket goes to Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, Canopy, and Boeing, Lockheed,
etc.

This may be the worst president in the history of the country whose foreign policy is based on economic dominance and suppression of human rights, not to mention the wholesale slaughter of Iraqi citizens.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 07 - 05:29 PM

What the heck...

..200!!!