 sj |
||
|
||
BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:16 PM It appears that there were no Biological or nuclear weapons in Iraq, but there were chemical weapons. The problem with finding them is that nobody was looking for them among coalition ordnance which was where they were. "We only used white phosphorus as an illuminant or as a smoke screen", they said. Well it now seems that it lit up a number of Iraqis quite effectively, and they'd probably still be burning quite brightly if they hadn't then been blown out with HE. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Teribus Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:54 PM Here we go Arne, Just for you - THE BIRTH OF UNMOVIC - Otherwise known and loved as: UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1284 (1999) Adopted by the Security Council at its 4084th meeting, on 17 December 1999 The Security Council, A. 1. Decides to establish, as a subsidiary body of the Council, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) which replaces the Special Commission established pursuant to paragraph 9 (b) of resolution 687 (1991); 2. Decides also that UNMOVIC will undertake the responsibilities mandated to the Special Commission by the Council with regard to the verification of compliance by Iraq with its obligations under paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of resolution 687 (1991) and other related resolutions, that UNMOVIC will establish and operate, as was recommended by the panel on disarmament and current and future ongoing monitoring and verification issues, a reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification, which will implement the plan approved by the Council in resolution 715 (1991) and address unresolved disarmament issues, and that UNMOVIC will identify, as necessary in accordance with its mandate, additional sites in Iraq to be covered by the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification; Now then Arne, where in the above text is UNMOVIC's instruction to search for proscribed weapons and materials - Remember the Iraqi's are required to co-operate fully. Now then what were the other points you wanted to draw my attention to: Oh yes a return to the searching for WMD thing. Arne - "Because they brought a lot of equipment and instrumentation in to do precisely that, and in fact that's what they were doing." Well now Arne having waded through the UN text bringing UNMOVIC into existence we now all know that they were not there to search for WMD. This was further reinforced in UNSC Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq's full co-operation. Now Arne IF UNMOVIC are getting IRAQ's full co-operation, they wouldn't have to search would they? But you state above that UNMOVIC were having to search - In which case Iraq by your observation is in Material Breach of UNSC Resolution 1441 knowing full well that such a breach would result in 'serious consequences' Arne - "What you're quoting is a bit of politicking, a bit of fluff that was intended to nudge Saddam into fuller co-operation and trotting out any WoMD (which he didn't have)." A bit of politicking? Clearly stated requirements outlined in a UNSC Resolution, 'a bit of politicking?' Iraq's full and pro-active co-operation was required by the UN from DAY ONE - without any nudging, Saddam sent the UN a nice letter agreeing to do that very thing - Didn't he Arne? Arne - "But make no mistake, Blix wasn't as stoopid as you seem to be here, and wasn't going to settle for Saddam to come rolling the WoMD up to the Hotel Palestine for him to bless; he was going to check on his own to make sure that Saddam was being forthright." By Christ Arne, I do believe you are beginning to get the gist of it. Saddam and his lads tell the good Dr. Blix what they've got then the good Dr. and his team go down there to check it out. That is more or less what "a reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification," does - still not having to search you see Arne - are you quite clear on that simple point - or do we have to go over it again. Arne - "But Saddam's co-operation was hardly necessary for the success of Blix's actual mission" Oddly enough Arne the UN Security Council unanimously decided that Saddam's co-operation was essential. The 'Worst case Scenario' Thing Arne - Well here Arne doesn't actually have any point to make at all. He just witters on about absolutely nothing, which I suppose is fairly reasonable because in doing so he is talking about something he knows alot about - Nothing. Point being made Arne was as follows. The function of the Joint Intelligence Committee when tasked to make an evaluation is to address the subject matter, review the intelligence and make an assessment that outlines the situation viewed from the perspective of 'Worst' and 'Best' cases. It is then a Cabinet decision which to adopt in order to formulate Government Policy. In matters relating to security or defence it is normally prudent to adopt 'Worst' case - that way you tend not to get caught out. Was the intelligence 'doctored' Arne - "The best evidence was on the ground. Hell, that's why we pushed to get the inspectors in there." "That's why WE pushed.." Who are the WE Arne? Only person I can remember pushing to get inspectors into Iraq in the summer of 2002 was George W Bush - everybody else seemed to be decidedly cool towards the idea. Not all intelligence was garbage - The evaluation of Iraq's missile testing and development programme was 100% correct. The following are UNMOVIC's conclusions on a couple of points as of 7th March 2003 On Anthrax UNMOVIC concludes: - About 10,000 additional liters of anthrax were not destroyed and may still exist. On VX Nerve Agent UNMOVIC's concludes: - Iraq provided false and misleading declarations in order to retain production equipment specifically modified to produce VX. - Direct physical evidence contradicts Iraq's claim that it never weaponized VX. - Iraq failed to provide any credible evidence to support its claims of unilateral destruction of VX and VX precursors. - UN inspectors reported to the UN Security Council that "UNMOVIC has information that conflicts with [Iraq's] account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problems of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared." THE DISASTER according to Arne Langsetmo: Arne - Its a disaster "..if you bother reading a newspaper...." Aw well there you go then, must be! The newspapers Arne reads never tells lies, never shows any bias and is always completely truthful - well at least to their certain knowledge. Arne what goes into to newspapers is what the editor thinks will sell them. Iraq's Constitution: Arne - "My, the U.S. woudl have had quite the constitution with Tories installed in power and a spate of recoats in every town...." I dare say that they would Arne, there wouldn't be so many guns floating about as a right and fewer of the country's citizenry would be getting shot because of them. Apart from that your comment signifies what exactly? Are you implying that the presence of US troops influenced the vote? Have you got any proof of that? Or is it mere conjecture on your part - Just stirring the mud up Arne because you've run out of any facts to counter the points made. Arne - "But I'd note that the success of the constitution was remarkable ... with some Sunni areas reporting that 99% or so of eligible voters were in favour of it. Will miracles never cease?" If what you state above is an example of what you read in your newspapers Arne start listening to the news. The only reference I got to your Sunni 99% figure was this - "In Falluja, where thousands of insurgents battled US troops a year ago, some 90 per cent of registered voters turned out, local election chief Saadullah al-Rawi said, and 99 per cent of them voted "No" to a constitution that Sunni leaders say may tear Iraq into powerful Shi'ite and Kurdish regions." Eh? Arne, they voted NO to the constitution - that's them voting in favour of it? The Forthcoming Elections on 15th December: Arne's worried that these elections will take place - "Under the benevolent eye of a force of 140K foreign troops which are the only things keeping the polliticans and candidates (or at least a substantial portion of them) from a quick and gruesome death...." Well as we've seen all those troops really influenced the results in the Sunni areas. By and large those 140K troops, their MNF partners and the Iraq forces are actually managing to keep the vast bulk of Iraq's 25.4 million people from quick gruesome deaths, or at least they were the last time I checked. I'd say that counted as being pretty benevolent. Arne asks - out of the blue - "What does that have to do with WoMDs?" To which I can only reply - ? But one thing is for certain Iraq doesn't have any WMD now, and has no plans to acquire them, that's a change for the better. Arne - "And I'd note the ultimate silliness of a constitution as the hallmark of legitimacy, human rights, or a stable and just state" Maybe so Arne - but having one gives a reasonable indication. Your example Arne, of Stalin in the USSR. Did the Communist Party of the Soviet Socialist Replublics have an opposition party to contend with? If my memory serves me correctly the USSR, like most Communist countries at the time was a One Party State - so it doesn't matter who counts the votes under that system you will end up with a Communist Government - Even if the votes remain uncounted - TRUE? The world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before: The advice of Arne the wise - "just go read the latest State Department report on world terrorism." Oh latest State Department Report - now on that topic if they operate along the same lines as the JIC in the UK they will address the subject matter, review the intelligence and make an assessment that outlines the situation viewed from the perspective of 'Worst' and 'Best' cases. In matters relating to security or defence it is normally prudent to adopt 'Worst' case - that way you tend not to get caught out......;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: akenaton Date: 15 Nov 05 - 09:26 PM I think you better give up Teribus, you've at last met someone who's prepared to play you at your own game...and beat you. In your last post all you've done is bluster, patronise and name call. Like Blair and Bush your time is up sonny...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Bobert Date: 15 Nov 05 - 09:48 PM Well, Ake... Seems that the once great T has been freduced to T-Bluster and T-Patronize so, yeah, I'd have to agree with you that Arne is chippin' away at T's stature... I keep askin' the same question that T-Distration has never answered about offin' Saddam if he was Bush's big problem... But to date, Bush has off'ed tens upon thousands of innocent women and kids in Iraq and Saddam is quite comfy??? Hmmmmm? Talk about avoidin' one single questoion??? I've asked it now maybe 20 times and all I get from the Bush apologists is......ahhhhh, friggin' silence... No, occasionally they will point out my bad spellin' whe I ask it but I will guraentee you, Ake, that T-Avoid will never answer it other than in a "War 'n Peace" lenght about international law, which he loves when it suits his purpose, but he'll ignore if his boy, Bush, is in conflict with.... Noraml, fir T-Distract... He want's to kepp the discuassion well in in ***his*** comfy zone... Proble is that the real world ain't got nuthin' to T-Distratc's comfy zone... Oh yeah, he won't answer this question... I guarentee he won't even think about answering this questionj... What T-Shift will do is try to shift the question back on me... He'll make fun of my spellin' 'er typin' but he won't come right out and answer this question... Why? Because he can't... If he were to got there then he coul;d no longer hide behind his stone wall and have to actaully discuss ideas... You notice that T-Machine has no real ideas... Just endless. UN crap... Like who cares about the UN??? Bush doesn't so why, all of a sudden, should we??? The UN didn't want Bush to invade Iraq. Busgh invaded Iraq. End of UN story... Time to get some new material on the juke box... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: akenaton Date: 15 Nov 05 - 10:04 PM Yes Bobert and with the latest revelations regarding torture and the use of "chemical weapons" against the people we were supposed to liberate, there will be many more questions for Teribus, Hubby and Bruce to avoid. Its all gone horribly wrong for our "warriors", but we shouldn't feel too sorry for them, they're fortunate compared to the Iraqis. Teribus's biggest nightmare is Arne.... not white phospherus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST Date: 15 Nov 05 - 10:10 PM Teribus: ... reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification; ... and: Now then Arne, where in the above text is UNMOVIC's instruction to search for proscribed weapons and materials... I'm having no problems with the English. Are you perhaps not a native speaker? I really am serious here, Teribus: Are you just daft, or do you really think that the job of the inspectors is to sit sipping tea at the Palestine Hotel while the Iraqis trundle the stuff in for approval? Or perhaps you're just being intellectually dishonest. Car eto explain why they needed U-2s, radiation monitors, earth-penetrating radar, helicopers and other vehicles, and a whole raft of other stuff? C'mon, fess up, you were just funning me there, right? Arne - "Because they brought a lot of equipment and instrumentation in to do precisely that, and in fact that's what they were doing." Well now Arne having waded through the UN text bringing UNMOVIC into existence we now all know that they were not there to search for WMD. Ummm, maybe not. Which leave pretty much the earlier possibilities I mentioned. Clue us in, Teribus, which one is it? Daft, Dumb, or Dishonest, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis.... Now Arne IF UNMOVIC are getting IRAQ's full co-operation, they wouldn't have to search would they? I'll play you some poker any day, Teribus. I have a royal flush. OK, now just push that money my way, and no, you can't see it. Why do you insist on repeating your stoopidity? Do you really think that Blix should have just took them at their word as longs as they were "co-operating full[y]"? I certainly don't and I doubt that Blix did either. By Christ Arne, I do believe you are beginning to get the gist of it. Saddam and his lads tell the good Dr. Blix what they've got then the good Dr. and his team go down there to check it out. You missed the part where Saddam didn't have the stuff. So he trots out the stuff he doesn't have and Blix doesn't destroy it. BTW, that's not too far from what happened; Saddam did say they'd destroyed a bunch of CW previously unaccounted for, but the good doctor, being a much wiser man than you, went anyway to the site in question, and they checked and indeed found residue consistent with the Iraqi claims. But that still leaves Blix to go check whereever else he wants to make sure that there's nothign squirreled away. That what's called "inspection". Arne - "But Saddam's co-operation was hardly necessary for the success of Blix's actual mission" Oddly enough Arne the UN Security Council unanimously decided that Saddam's co-operation was essential. Whether "co-operation was essential" is a factual issue. Declarations (care to trot out a reference to such?) don't change facts. "That's why WE pushed.." Who are the WE Arne? Only person I can remember pushing to get inspectors into Iraq in the summer of 2002 was George W Bush I had no problem with putting inspectors in ... in fact I think it was a good idea. Dubya's first inclination was to invade ... and then public pressure made him go to the Security Council, and the reinstitution of inspections was deemed the best action. The entire Security COuncil agreed on this, and in fact, in March 2003, most nations thought that this was producing results, and was still the best course of action. Not so, Dubya, who needed a war for reasons best known to himself and the PNAC.... Not all intelligence was garbage - The evaluation of Iraq's missile testing and development programme was 100% correct.... And pretty much immaterial. The stated limit on missile range was 150 Km. Perhaps a couple of the Al Samoud missiles had exceeded that nominal range by a few Km (but the Iraqis claimed only with no actual warhead). But the 150 Km is a pretty arbitrary limit; those less that 150 Km were legal, but those over illegal, but there ain't a heack of a lot of difference with a few extra Km in terms of significance as "WoMD". Nonetheless, rather than give the Dubya gunslingers something to yell "Gotcha" for, the Iraqis agreed to destroy the Al Samoud missiles, and Blix was supervising this very effort when Dubya got his panties soiled and started screaming for a change. But as to missile intelligence, it wasn't all that good, either, really. The U.S. had claimed that Saddam retained SCUDs, but the U.N. teams, checking the 'intelligence', found a load of chickens*** ... literally; at one site supposedly a secret SCUD site, they found a chicken farm. Dem's da facts, ma'am. - About 10,000 additional liters of anthrax were not destroyed... Actually, IIRC, it was growth media for said quantitites, and was unaccounted for, but not at all certain that it wasn't destroyed or decayed... ... and may still exist. No. Do pay attention. On VX Nerve Agent UNMOVIC's concludes: Ummm, so where's the VX? Dubya been hiding it? Aw well there you go then, must be! The newspapers Arne reads never tells lies, never shows any bias and is always completely truthful - well at least to their certain knowledge. Arne what goes into to newspapers is what the editor thinks will sell them. I take everything I read with a grain of salt. But there's certain things that are pretty d*** certain, such as the attacks on troops, suicide bombings, slayings of high Iraqis, lack of power, water, etc., just the freaking' airport-Baghdad dash, the thousands of tonnes of explosives and weapons the U.S. allowed to be looted, the horrible and climbing toll of Iraqis dead, anonanonanonanon.... If what you state above is an example of what you read in your newspapers Arne start listening to the news. The only reference I got to your Sunni 99% figure was this - .... Just a quick Google shows this and this. Granted, I didn't find the explicit claims about the very high "Yes" votes in Sunni areas, but that may have been early reports; but these here indicate similar if not identical problems. Well as we've seen all those troops really influenced the results in the Sunni areas. By and large those 140K troops, their MNF partners and the Iraq forces are actually managing to keep the vast bulk of Iraq's 25.4 million people from quick gruesome deaths, or at least they were the last time I checked. I'd say that counted as being pretty benevolent. The number of deaths is vastly greater than under Saddam's regime. Maybe most people are not being killed, but methinks you set the bar a bit too low.... Arne asks - out of the blue - "What does that have to do with WoMDs?" Well, this thread is about whether Dubya's invasion of Iraq was justified by the WoMD rationale he put forth, not whether a post facto nation-building excuse could be cobbled together to save his sorry ass... To which I can only reply - ? But one thing is for certain Iraq doesn't have any WMD now, and has no plans to acquire them, that's a change for the better. He didn't have them before. He doesn't have them now. And we have 2000+ dead U.S. soldiers and many more Iraqis. Not to mention a couple hundred billion down the drain killing people. Don't knwo where you side on that equation, but I know which side I think is the dead weight. . . . Maybe so Arne - but having one [a constitution] gives a reasonable indication. Balderdash. A constitution without a functioning civil government or even society is probably best used to replace the toilet paper that is impossible to find. I'd note that it was quite some time before the United States put together a constitution after the Revolutionary War ... and even then they deferred the Bill of Rights that some champions of all that is good and great in a constitution seem to think is the fundamental thing there. Not to mention, we're in the process of dismantling the Constitution here purportedly under the rationale that "being in a war changes things".... But we don't have rampant lawlessness, daily mortar attacks here, fighting in the streets on a daily basis, no jobs, no security, random slayings, food and power shortages (yet, it's still imperative that the Great Writ be suspended here, as well as our Fourth and Fifth Amendment privileges). But you think the constitution (which isn't all that great a harbinger of good things to come in Iraq even as written is a great thing? To me, it's smearing the lipstick pretty think on a pig..... The world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before. Here I'll agree with you, strangely enough. It never was in danger from terrorists. Terrorists don't win; they use terror because it is the weapon that they do have (one Palestinian, IIRC, had said something to the effect of "sure, give us the F-16s and Cobra gunships, and we'll forgo the suicide bombings", or somethig to that effect). Their fondest hope is to make you lose your cool. But you have the power over that; you can refuse to be cowed by the terrorist and you can refuse to over-react. If you do the moral thing, they may even lose their support from the vast majority of people that think that terrorism is intrinsically wrong, and they may give up or just dissipate. Or the may not. But in either case, you've at least kept your own morals ... but that is something that it seems is less and less a consideration for Republicans and their supporters that have little left to lose in this respect. But AAMOF, terrorist attacks are on the rise. Thought you might want to know that. In matters relating to security or defence it is normally prudent to adopt 'Worst' case - that way you tend not to get caught out......;-) Nonsense. But it's easy to see you don't get out much. ;-) And with that, I have a sweetie to go home to. Ciao. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Bobert Date: 15 Nov 05 - 10:50 PM Ake, No disrespect intended but T's worst enemy is T!!! Yeah, he is incapable of discssing ideas... I have asked him on countless occasions about why Bush didn't have Saddam assinated... No answer.... I have asked him why the US went to war when the majority of the UN was against it... No answer.... I've asked why ther big hurry with the invasion when Hans Blix was sayin' the the Iraqia were cooperatin'... No answer.... No, what I continuely get is being called a "fu*k" 'er given a "War'n Peace" length rebuttal with a lot of meaningless crap... So, this evening I have challenged Terrible to a battle of bands... When he looses then he has to stop this blind allegence to George Bush... Plain and simple challenge here... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: dianavan Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:27 AM Teribus, you say, "Iraq no longer sponsors international terrorists, or pays Palestinian children to blow themselves up - If you want to see the effect of that take a look at the dip in the incidents in Israel before and after March 2003 - probably just a coincidence, eh Arne?" The incidents in Israel may or may not have decreased but the terror in Iraq is ongoing. Didn't the U.S. overthrow Saddam because he incarcerated without trial, he tortured and he killed his own people? With the help of the U.S. government, it looks as if the new Iraqi govt. is guilty of the very same thing. They have recently discovered torture chamber in the interior ministry. The Wolf brigade and many other paramilitary groups are springing up everywhere. Answer this question teribus, "Are the lives of Israelis more important than the lives of Iraqis?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 05 - 07:52 AM Ake, In your reply to T: "In your last post all you've done is bluster, patronise and name call." He brings out facts, and the UN report, and YOU "bluster, patronise and name call" " the use of "chemical weapons" " If you want to insist that any weapon with chemicals is a "chemical weapon", YOU have to concede that any weapon with atoms is an "atomic weapon"- THUS Saddam not only had them, but used them, and ALL of your comments are worthless. Think again, unless you want to make this concession and admit you are wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Teribus Date: 16 Nov 05 - 11:24 AM I am assuming that GUEST 15 Nov 05 - 10:10 PM is Arne Langsetmo, if not I apologise Guest. So Arne - with your outstanding command of the English Language you tell us that - To verify is to search - or at least you try to Well Arne I have no trouble with the English language, and I have no trouble in the comprehension of it, as you appear to. Source - Websters Monitor: 1 a : a student appointed to assist a teacher b : one that warns or instructs c : one that monitors or is used in monitoring : as (1) : a cathode-ray tube used for display (as of television pictures or computer information) (2) : a device for observing a biological condition or function 2 : any of various large tropical Old World lizards (genus Varanus of the family Varanidae) closely related to the iguanas 3 [Monitor, first ship of the type] a : a heavily armored warship formerly used in coastal operations having a very low freeboard and one or more revolving gun turrets b : a small modern warship with shallow draft for coastal bombardment 4 : a raised central portion of a roof having low windows or louvers for providing light and air Inspect: 1 : to view closely in critical appraisal : look over 2 : to examine officially (inspects the barracks every Friday) intransitive senses : to make an inspection synonym see SCRUTINIZE Verify: 1 : to confirm or substantiate in law by oath 2 : to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of synonym see CONFIRM Any mention of the word search there Arne? I can't see it. Any time that you do want a lesson on English Comprehension just let me know. Arne...."I really am serious here, Teribus: Are you just daft, or do you really think that the job of the inspectors is to sit sipping tea at the Palestine Hotel while the Iraqis trundle the stuff in for approval? Or perhaps you're just being intellectually dishonest. Care to explain why they needed U-2s, radiation monitors, earth-penetrating radar, helicopers and other vehicles, and a whole raft of other stuff? C'mon, fess up, you were just funning me there, right?" These guys with all that stuff were who again Arne - UNMOVIC - any idea what that stands for? If you don't then your skills in relation to comprehension are even worse than I thought, but we'll go through your list of 'search' stuff shall we: - U-2's (liked their music maybe, and Bono does give ones organisation a certain Je ne sais quios - naw only takin' the piss Arne) The infamous Gary Powers Spy Plane, very difficult to fly and with an appalling safety record - most that were built crashed. Now why did the good Dr. Blix need those and why did Saddam do his best to stop them. Well UNMOVIC stands for United Nations MOnitoring Verification Inspection Committee. Spy planes are very good at monitoring - it is what they built for - not so good at searching, which is why SAR organisations don't fly U-2's, they use other types of aircraft far better suited to the task. Radiation Monitors - Inspection, verification and safety, or is that a little too prosaic for you Arne (Prosaic doesn't mean search either Arne - Relax) Earth-penetrating radar - Used to verify the extent of sites inspected. Helicopers and other vehicles - Eh? Transport maybe? AND- "a whole raft of other stuff" - well you got me there Arne I suppose that includes St.Bernards Dogs, they're used to search for things. Is this really the best you can do Arne???? Pathetic!!! So Arne you'd like to play poker would you, judging by your skills of reasoning you would play it just about as well as Saddam Hussein did - He lost and so are you, if this sort or tripe is the best arguement you can muster. Now at what point did I say that "Blix should have just took them at their word as longs as they were "co-operating full[y]"? I certainly didn't and the good Doctor's organisation's procedures were pretty specific remember - Inspect, critically appraise, examine officially, scrutinize - Verify, confirm, substantiate, establish the truth, accuracy and reality of any given statement, situation or event. Oh Arne, NOW, in the light of inspections subsequent to March 2003, I am perfectly prepared to believe that he didn't have the stuff. Nobody was prepared to believe that back in 2002, on the totally reliable evidence and reporting of the UN (AT THAT TIME) On this following one Arne you are being rather selective: "Saddam did say they'd destroyed a bunch of CW previously unaccounted for, but the good doctor, being a much wiser man than you, went anyway to the site in question, and they checked and indeed found residue consistent with the Iraqi claims. But that still leaves Blix to go check wherever else he wants to make sure that there's nothign squirreled away. That what's called "inspection". Point 1. The unilateral and unauthorised destruction of WMD weapons, agents and materials was forbidden under UNSC Resolutions and by the agreement reached at Safwan. UNSCOM was supposed to supervise, authenticate and verify the destruction of ALL such material - So Saddam ended up getting shafted for jumping the gun, for having destroyed these items without the presence of UNSCOM to authenticate it he could not prove that he had done it - pity he thought it best to kill the poor beggars who had destroyed them as they could not be questioned by the good Dr. Blix. The good Dr, Blix and his merry men did check and indeed found residue consistent with the Iraqi claims - NOW COMPLETE WHAT DR: BLIX STATED IN HIS REPORT - but those results were inconclusive with regard to the amount destroyed. Sure they could say something had been destroyed there but no definitive what and no definitive quantity. Arne - an easy sentence for you to comprehend the meaning of - The UN Security Council unanimously decided that Saddam's co-operation was essential to the success of UNMOVIC's mission in Iraq. FACT. "That's why WE pushed.." Who are the WE Arne? Only person I can remember pushing to get inspectors into Iraq in the summer of 2002 was George W Bush I had no problem with putting inspectors in ... in fact I think it was a good idea. Dubya's first inclination was to invade ... and then public pressure made him go to the Security Council, and the reinstitution of inspections was deemed the best action. The entire Security COuncil agreed on this, and in fact, in March 2003, most nations thought that this was producing results, and was still the best course of action. Not so, Dubya, who needed a war for reasons best known to himself and the PNAC.... Not all intelligence was garbage - The evaluation of Iraq's missile testing and development programme was 100% correct.... And pretty much immaterial. The stated limit on missile range was 150 Km. Perhaps a couple of the Al Samoud missiles had exceeded that nominal range by a few Km (but the Iraqis claimed only with no actual warhead). But the 150 Km is a pretty arbitrary limit; those less that 150 Km were legal, but those over illegal, but there ain't a heack of a lot of difference with a few extra Km in terms of significance as "WoMD". Nonetheless, rather than give the Dubya gunslingers something to yell "Gotcha" for, the Iraqis agreed to destroy the Al Samoud missiles, and Blix was supervising this very effort when Dubya got his panties soiled and started screaming for a change. But as to missile intelligence, it wasn't all that good, either, really. The U.S. had claimed that Saddam retained SCUDs, but the U.N. teams, checking the 'intelligence', found a load of chickens*** ... literally; at one site supposedly a secret SCUD site, they found a chicken farm. Dem's da facts, ma'am. - About 10,000 additional liters of anthrax were not destroyed... Actually, IIRC, it was growth media for said quantitites, and was unaccounted for, but not at all certain that it wasn't destroyed or decayed... ... and may still exist. No. Do pay attention. On VX Nerve Agent UNMOVIC's concludes: Ummm, so where's the VX? Dubya been hiding it? Aw well there you go then, must be! The newspapers Arne reads never tells lies, never shows any bias and is always completely truthful - well at least to their certain knowledge. Arne what goes into to newspapers is what the editor thinks will sell them. I take everything I read with a grain of salt. But there's certain things that are pretty d*** certain, such as the attacks on troops, suicide bombings, slayings of high Iraqis, lack of power, water, etc., just the freaking' airport-Baghdad dash, the thousands of tonnes of explosives and weapons the U.S. allowed to be looted, the horrible and climbing toll of Iraqis dead, anonanonanonanon.... If what you state above is an example of what you read in your newspapers Arne start listening to the news. The only reference I got to your Sunni 99% figure was this - .... Just a quick Google shows this and this. Granted, I didn't find the explicit claims about the very high "Yes" votes in Sunni areas, but that may have been early reports; but these here indicate similar if not identical problems. Well as we've seen all those troops really influenced the results in the Sunni areas. By and large those 140K troops, their MNF partners and the Iraq forces are actually managing to keep the vast bulk of Iraq's 25.4 million people from quick gruesome deaths, or at least they were the last time I checked. I'd say that counted as being pretty benevolent. The number of deaths is vastly greater than under Saddam's regime. Maybe most people are not being killed, but methinks you set the bar a bit too low.... Arne asks - out of the blue - "What does that have to do with WoMDs?" Well, this thread is about whether Dubya's invasion of Iraq was justified by the WoMD rationale he put forth, not whether a post facto nation-building excuse could be cobbled together to save his sorry ass... To which I can only reply - ? But one thing is for certain Iraq doesn't have any WMD now, and has no plans to acquire them, that's a change for the better. He didn't have them before. He doesn't have them now. And we have 2000+ dead U.S. soldiers and many more Iraqis. Not to mention a couple hundred billion down the drain killing people. Don't knwo where you side on that equation, but I know which side I think is the dead weight. . . . Maybe so Arne - but having one [a constitution] gives a reasonable indication. Balderdash. A constitution without a functioning civil government or even society is probably best used to replace the toilet paper that is impossible to find. I'd note that it was quite some time before the United States put together a constitution after the Revolutionary War ... and even then they deferred the Bill of Rights that some champions of all that is good and great in a constitution seem to think is the fundamental thing there. Not to mention, we're in the process of dismantling the Constitution here purportedly under the rationale that "being in a war changes things".... But we don't have rampant lawlessness, daily mortar attacks here, fighting in the streets on a daily basis, no jobs, no security, random slayings, food and power shortages (yet, it's still imperative that the Great Writ be suspended here, as well as our Fourth and Fifth Amendment privileges). But you think the constitution (which isn't all that great a harbinger of good things to come in Iraq even as written is a great thing? To me, it's smearing the lipstick pretty think on a pig..... The world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before. Here I'll agree with you, strangely enough. It never was in danger from terrorists. Terrorists don't win; they use terror because it is the weapon that they do have (one Palestinian, IIRC, had said something to the effect of "sure, give us the F-16s and Cobra gunships, and we'll forgo the suicide bombings", or somethig to that effect). Their fondest hope is to make you lose your cool. But you have the power over that; you can refuse to be cowed by the terrorist and you can refuse to over-react. If you do the moral thing, they may even lose their support from the vast majority of people that think that terrorism is intrinsically wrong, and they may give up or just dissipate. Or the may not. But in either case, you've at least kept your own morals ... but that is something that it seems is less and less a consideration for Republicans and their supporters that have little left to lose in this respect. But AAMOF, terrorist attacks are on the rise. Thought you might want to know that. In matters relating to security or defence it is normally prudent to adopt 'Worst' case - that way you tend not to get caught out......;-) Nonsense. But it's easy to see you don't get out much. ;-) And with that, I have a sweetie to go home to. Ciao. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Just Curious Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:50 PM Who is Teribus anyway, and how does he have so much time to devote to this? And what's his motivation? I get the impression that he may very well be about five or six staff members working for a neo-conservative think-tank. Lots of what he posts appears to be cut-and-paste from a library of right-wing tracts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:24 PM Teribus: Yep, it was me (don't always remember to fill in the "From" field...) Any mention of the word search there Arne? You weren't on Clinton's legal defence team, were you? Well, let me tell you, Scooter and ROve might be able to use your "talents" right now.... Oh Arne, NOW, in the light of inspections subsequent to March 2003,.... Ummmm, Saddam certainly wasn't "co-operating" with these "inspections". Or perhaps you misspelled "searches". Pretty d*** lame excuse-making here. And just a FYI, it wasn't me that wanted the U-2 overflights; it was Blix, so if you want to argue about the efficiency of such (as if that makes any difference to your evasions here), go argue it with him. But don't think you're making any useful points here with your "red herrings". Rather than try and tell me that Blix is an eedjit, try and figure out for yourself why he asked for all that stuff. He asked for this sutff and he got it, so plenty of pretty smart people thought it a useful thing to have.... Yes, Blix (and the U.N.) thought that a detailed and accurate report on the alleged disposition/destruction of any suspected WoMD or materials would help them to verify those cases where the weapons actually had been disposed of (and in fact, as I pointed out, this was used to verify to a reasonable degree that the stories matched the evidence). In cases where the stories matched what the inspectors found, the inspectors could at least provisionally cross off specific items of concern. But as everyone here (and elsewhere) but you seems to have figured out, that was only half the job (a half made easier by specific information about positive evidence that could be checked out). The other half, necessary (at least I'd think so to you, who seem overly concerned with the slightest possibility of a hint of the tiniest amonts of "weapons related program activities" so as to ward off your nightmares about muchroom clouds), was to check to make sure there weren't any other WoMD that might not have been suspected or known about, new programs, hidden facilities, oh, say, things like "mobile bioweapons labs" that the U.S. knew he had, but which he disclaimed any knowledge of. For that, you have to jus go search. It's not too hard to understadn, Teribus. You ought to at least make the effort.... Nobody was prepared to believe that [Saddam no longer had weapons] back in 2002, on the totally reliable evidence and reporting of the UN (AT THAT TIME). Not true (and more so when you include the early months of 2003). Quite a number of people thought there was little chance he had any significant weapons, and a lot of people thought that the U.S. 'intelligence' to the contrary was in fact far more full'o'sh***. If you want my take, I've been in business long enough to know a "dog and pony show" when I see one, and Powell's presentiation at the U.N. was just that. I criticised the U.K. dossier when it first came out (and then there were the subsequent revelations that the U.K dossier was largely plagiarized from a pre-GW1 grad stundent's paper, leading to even greater scepticism as to its value). When these things start becoming apparent, you have to take a step back and say that your "worst case" analysis might be just that ... but in a quite unintended sense ... and that you might need to reconsider what a reasonable course of action is under the circumstances. OF course, this was never done, and this will become more and more apparent over time (as Dubya's honesty ratings go down the toilet). Pretty sad, Teribus, but you'd do yourself a favour if you'd show the intellectual honesty and intelligence to jump the sinking ship before the patent dishonesty of your position becomes so obvious as to permanently stain your reputation. Lots of folks are doing it, certainly the Democrats who have seemingly evolved a backbone, and now even Republicans who are more and more worried that they personally will be taken down in the sucking whirlpool when the good ship Dubya slips under the waves.... Point 1. The unilateral and unauthorised destruction of WMD weapons, agents and materials was forbidden under UNSC Resolutions and by the agreement reached at Safwan. They did it right after the war. Maybe a bad idea, but it's a hard thing to undo (and kind of pointless to try). You really gong to hold it against them that they destroyed stuff in an unauthorised manner? NOW COMPLETE WHAT DR: BLIX STATED IN HIS REPORT - but those results were inconclusive with regard to the amount destroyed. Indeed. Which is why Blix had no problems with searching elsewhere to make sure none had been squirreled away. The UN Security Council unanimously decided that Saddam's co-operation was essential to the success of UNMOVIC's mission in Iraq. FACT. Once again, simply declaring somethign doesn't make it so. Perhaps you think that Russia needs to invade Iraq now to make sure that there's no WoMD hidden there, seeing as we never got the "co-operation" of Saddam in doing our survey. Maybe they can go do it "right" and trot him along and do it the way you insist. Then we can finally sleep peacefully, eh? You really do have a perverse idea of the way things work in the real world. Or you're just intentionally intellectually dishonest..... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:30 PM Arne, Does it really matter whether there were wmd? Firstly, the 'reason' of wmd wasn't the real reason we invaded Iraq. Secondly, if it were the real reason it would not have mattered. If you believe in UN (which I don't) and are willing to give up sovereignty, then you must enforce its rules. Name one credible organization that did not believe that Iraq had wmd before the invasion? So I ask, does it really matter whether there were wmd? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: beardedbruce Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:34 PM Arne, "simply declaring somethign doesn't make it so" "You really do have a perverse idea of the way things work in the real world. Or you're just intentionally intellectually dishonest....." I agree with these statements, entirely- in reference to your presentation of evidence and/or UN reports... ie, NONE. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Teribus Date: 16 Nov 05 - 04:57 PM My apologies I hit the submit button by mistake in that last post of mine. Arne was telling us that he didn't have any trouble putting inspectors in. Remarkable achievement the UN had been trying for the best part of five years without success and George W Bush had to park an American Army on Iraq's border before Saddam caved in and invited them back - we should have left it to Arne, who no doubt can provide some evidence of his "pushing" to get inspectors into Iraq. But Arne said "we" now he could not have meant the likes of Jacques (The Crook) Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, Vlad Putin, because with regard to inspectors returning to Iraq there was not a peep out of them between 1998 and summer 2002, not surprising they were making too much money out of Saddam. It was GWB that got them back in - The good Doctor acknowledged that to the UNSC and to the world's press. Now I don't know what business or profession you are/were in Arne, considering your later mail possibly a vet, whatever, it seems to require a rather twisted brand of logic. You see Arne would have us believe that he, along with the UN and a whole bunch of allies go to war to drive an aggressor out of a UN member state that the aggressor has invaded and plundered. Having been expelled from that country the aggressor aggressor agrees to "Ceasefire" conditions formalised by The UN that requires in no uncertain terms that the aggressor does: A. B. C. D. E. F. No sooner than the ink is dry on the page along comes Arne and tells the Aggressor not to worry, don't bother complying with B, D and F, as in the scale of things they could be considered immaterial. Arne tells us that with regard to newspapers he takes everything he reads with agrain of salt. Not surprising when his font of all truth with regard to what is happening in Iraq is Aljazeere, that was one of two sites Arne linked to. Aljazeere.net says nothing about what Arne orginially contended - 99% of Sunni's in some places voting for the new Iraqi Constitution, and shock and surprise neither does the other link BBC News. Arne then must have read those links for he goes on to say - "Granted, I didn't find the explicit claims about the very high "Yes" votes in Sunni areas, but that may have been early reports; but these here indicate similar if not identical problems." - Well Arne in fact no they didn't, go back and read them, I know that you have problems with English Comprehension. Arne....."The number of deaths is vastly greater than under Saddam's regime." Well Arne Saddam was in power for a fair old time, depending on what figures you believe Saddam's 'average' per day in office amounted to somewhere between 154 and 282 of his own citizens. They of course are the ones who until recently inhabited over 300 Mass Grave Sites dotted around the countryside of Iraq. One thing is for certain Iraq doesn't have any WMD now, and has no plans to acquire them, and the world and its dog KNOW that. I am NOW quite prepared to accept that he didn't have them before. Nobody KNEW that AT THE TIME - but we do now, because the President of the United States of America made sure that he did not have them. Yes the US Constitution took time to put together, what about The Declaration of Independence, upon which the Constitution is based, when did they go into print with that? It gave enough heart and hope for the people to fight and gain that independence. The world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before. Go to http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/17/war.un.ap/index.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Bobert Date: 16 Nov 05 - 05:39 PM Well, I guess that I'll never get an answer from any Bush apologist about how many Iraqis Saddam was killing on a daily basis in the year leading up to the invasion... Seems all I get is an average which can be very misleading... It is entirely fiesable that he didn't kill anyone but like no one here know that fir sure... Alll they have is this average which is speread over how many years??? Okay, if we take the United States and want to do an average with the beginning time line being the day that Hiroshima was bombed and throw in Korea, Vietnem and now Iraq it might provide an interesting stat??? But lets firget stats fir now and go back to the summer before the invasion... Remember that dreaded August where Bush was beginning to try to sell the war to the American people and havin' to admit that it was a bad month to market a war??? I remember thinkin' that entire summer while arguin' with folks here, "Hey, even Bush ain't this dumb..." as probably most folks around the world were thinking as well... Well come September when he got that big old war drum out it became apparent that the man was act5ually "mad" enough to do it and in that current of fear that he was gonna do it no matter, yeah, alot of countries came on board to support the inspections... Anything but a friggin' invasion!!! And jsut as Hans Blix started making some positve progress and saying so publicly, Bush turned the amp up on the War Drum to 10 and drowned out all reasonable thought... He was gonna invade no matter... Yeah, he was gonna give his cheering section something to hoop and holler about... It was no longer about intellegence... But a testeserone and politically driven decision that had nuthin' to do with intellegence... So, it's no wonder that evn today when I, or others, print the exact words of Hans Blix that folks don't remember it that way... Like, unless they were deaf and couldn't hear4 the incessant 24/7 pounding of the Wra Drum, hey, it was purdy hard to hear much of anything else... But Blix said in his report to the UN, "the most important" aspect of this report is the Iraqi "cooperation"!!! Like what is so difficult with comprhending what the word "most" means here, folks... Most means exactly that.... MOST, fir gosh sakes... And now the Bush apologists say that it is the anti-war folks who are trying to revise the story???? What a joke... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 16 Nov 05 - 07:57 PM Bobert: Your history must not include muffdiver Clinton. Read his history. His crowning achievement was pardoning Mark Rich in exchange for campaign money for Hillary. By the way are you happy that Bob Woodward blew the case against Scooter out of the water? If you want to talk about all of the wars the US had fought and all the wrongdoings you have to go back to the American Indians. All of their land was stolen by foreign invaders, our ancestors. You want to give it all back. Bobert please move to Canada or France where your crybaby, chickenshit attitudes will be appreciated. Presently you sounfd like a teenager that is not satisfied with his parents. Grow up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:04 PM And another thing Mr Saddam apologist Bobert: Do you consider 1.77 tons of semi enriched uranium a weapon of mass destruction or not? To support your claim that no WMDs were found in Iraq, you have to deny that the uranium was not found or you must deny that The uranium is a WMD. So quit talking like a man with a paper asshole and say something conclusive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Amos Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:06 PM Old Guy: Lessee....your definition of "maturity" is engaging in public slaughter and deception whenever you feel like it? By the way, Scooter lied -- just like he was charged with. Doesn't much matter whether he had sex with Judy or not, because what he is charged with is falsifying evidence before the committee. And that doesn't change even if Valerie's job description turns up on the Internet from 1997, or som'pn. Incidentally, the lying, not the muff-diving, is what got Clinton framed. You feel like playing softball on liars, ya gotta treat them all with the same brush -- even so your team would come out way ahead on the deal. Besides, what do you have against muff-diving? Or is that a taboo subject where you come from? Finally, let me point out that in most parlance, maturity involves NOT repeating the crazy mistakes of the past. That includes the crazy and murderous mistake of unleashing war machines under any circumstances where a better solution is available. It takes REAL ignorance and obsessive juvenile self-centeredness to try and rationalize away that kind of offense. And it takes real maturity to know when the dogs of war are a BAD idea, in the broader interests of national integrity, repute, and humanity as a whole. Mebbe you'd rather work for the bloodthirsty lizard-brains of the world. At least if you're killing people, you won't have to put up with their different points of view!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Don Firth Date: 16 Nov 05 - 09:59 PM Things must be going badly for the righties on this thread. They're resorting to bringing up Clinton--again. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Bobert Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:14 PM Read my lips, Old Guy.... SCREW CLINTON!!! What does he have to do with the subject at hand??? Well, don't bother answerin that 'cause I'm about to tell you... NUTHIN, that's what!!! None of any of this has any thing to do with Clinton... Hey, that dog don't hunt no more... Do you have the slightest clue of how friggin' dumb you sound when you bring up Clinton??? Like you hated him when he was presdient and now, pushin 6 years later, yer still draggin' him into yer arguements... Yer the one who needs to grow up, pal!!! Not me.... Think about it... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 07:33 AM "By the way, Scooter lied -- just like he was charged with. Doesn't much matter whether he had sex with Judy or not, because what he is charged with is falsifying evidence before the committee." Amos, The following is also true: By the way, Clinton lied -- just like he was charged with. Doesn't much matter whether he had sex with Monica or not, because what he is charged with is falsifying evidence before the committee. The law works on precedence: The DEMOCRATS have established that lying to a grand jury is no big deal. I think BOTH of them should be jailed: BUT if you let Slick Willy off, you have to let Scooter off, to be fair. Isn't that what justice is about? Or are you saying there are two sets of laws, one for those you agree with and one for those you dislike? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 07:40 AM Sorry about the thread drift- Back top our regularly scheduled arguement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:03 AM Amos, "That includes the crazy and murderous mistake of unleashing war machines under any circumstances where a better solution is available." THAT is what is under discussion. IF there were programs for WMD and prohibited material, a very good case was made that teh 14 years of "better solutions" had failed, and military action was required. Please explain why, if Saddam ever intended to comply, he did NOT after 14 years and a stated "LAST CHANCE"? Could it have been all those anti-war protests that gave him the idea he could continue to work on whatever he wanted, and get away with it? WHen the coalition forces were lined up on his border, why didn't he just declare the country open, and invite them in unopposed? He CHOSE to put up a fight. Do you really think he was NOT trying to hide his violations of the cease-fire? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Nov 05 - 09:55 AM Amnesty International Report 2001 Iraq Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Nov 05 - 09:57 AM Amnesty International Report 2003 Iraq (covers 2002) Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:02 AM "Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq, Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein, Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance," |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:24 AM Bobert, I have a question for you. Knowing what you know now, would you have invaded Iraq? If the answer is no, what would you have done to stop Islamic terrorists? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:03 AM If the answer is no is the puzzling part for me in the questions for Bobert. A slight variation makes more sense to me: Knowing what you know now, would you still have invaded Iraq? But that's not a question to Bobert. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:15 AM Amnesty International about the Human Rights situation in Iraq You'll find links to all major AI reports about Saddams Iraq: Human rights violations have been committed on a massive scale against all sectors of society in Iraq. But you'll find also AI warning that those reports should not be taken as an argument for invasion: The international community should pursue solutions which lead to improvement in the human rights situation in Iraq, not further deterioration, needless loss of life and increased suffering. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:36 AM "solutions which lead to improvement in the human rights situation in Iraq, not further deterioration, needless loss of life and increased suffering" And the proper solutions are not always NOT taking action. Other than the activities of the insurrectionists, where are the Iraqis now? And should not those who are fighting against the present government of Iraq be held responsible for their own actions? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Don Firth Date: 17 Nov 05 - 12:10 PM GUEST,rarelamb asks, ". . .what would you have done to stop Islamic terrorists?" Well, I wouldn't go to war with a country that didn't have anything to do with the 9/11 terrorist attack. Although terrorism is often used in wartime, the 9/11 attacks were not an act of war, they were a crime, and should have been treated as such. This calls for acute intelligence (in both senses of the word), accurately identifying who was involved (and Saddam Hussein was not—in fact, he and Osama bin Laden hated each others' guts), track them down, and bring them to justice. If we had done that, the whole world would have been with us wholeheartedly in the effort. The Bush administration has made a pig's breakfast of the whole thing, and in the process, has lost whatever prestige the United States had and equated us, not with a beacon of democracy and a moral leader in the world, but with the international equivalent of the schoolyard bully. Don Firth P. S. Bush is now saying that those who accuse him of misleading the country into going to war with Iraq are "irresponsible." Well, misleading the country in order to launch an illegal war—now that's really irresponsible! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 17 Nov 05 - 12:25 PM *you knew it was a set up ** Your solution is.....? I don't see a solution. I also don't see how you understand the situation that exists/existed. Let's back up a little bit and review the sequence of events. 1. Saddam attacks Kuwait 2. US and allies free Kuwait 3. Saddam attacks Kurds and Shia 4. US imposes no fly zones 5. US establishes bases in several Mideast countries including Saudi Arabia 6. OBL becomes agitated that non muslims are on holy land and takes it up with Sauds 7. Sauds take the strategic choice of relying on the US for security. This effectively puts the Sauds in opposition to OBL 8. This leads to his expulsion. 9. OBL fights the 'infidel' through a number of terrorists attacks against US ship and embassies. 10. This leads to 911 The neo cons thought they would remove Saddam. This had the virtue of: 1. eliminating a threat to Iraqs neighbors, including SA 2. This would end the necessity to have no fly zones 3. Which would end the necessity to have the large force structure in the middle east. 4. This would remove the principal cause of agitation for Al Queda and other islamic terrorists 5. This would allow the US to help form a democratic Iraq 6. Which would allow the US, through a proxy to export democratic values in the region 7. including the use of soft power to effect change in Saudi Arabia. Given the geopolitic situation that existed on 911 and given the stated aims of securing middle east oil, this plan of action is very reasonable and pretty clever. It hits 2 birds with one stone so to speak. I have not seen where anyone on this board has proposed any sort of plan that would have achieved the objectives that the invasion of Iraq is trying to accomplish. I ask anyone to feel free to put up a plan and let the mudcatters treat unto it the same respect the Bush policies have received to date. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST Date: 17 Nov 05 - 01:55 PM CarolC posted way back when, during the aftermath of 9/11 ...she had some sensible, non-reactionary ideas that were well thought out and well reasoned. Hopefully she'll step in here and do a cut and paste of her own plan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:52 PM I look forward to it. I have found her posts interesting. At least the ones that aren't laden with insults. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: kendall Date: 17 Nov 05 - 05:07 PM As I understand it, Kuwait was part of Iraq in the first place, and Bush number 1's ambassador told Saddam that we don't care what he does over there. Dean Acheson made the same statement about Korea which led to the north invading the south. Will we ever learn? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Teribus Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:41 PM Kendall, "As I understand it, Kuwait was part of Iraq in the first place, and Bush number 1's ambassador told Saddam that we don't care what he does over there." You are a poor student of history, and if given what you state on the same line line of reasoning what reparations are you prepared to pay for those you and your forebearers have robbed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:56 PM Rarelamb: Secondly, if it were the real reason it would not have mattered. If you believe in UN (which I don't) and are willing to give up sovereignty, then you must enforce its rules. Sure, you're free to hold your own opinions. But, just for the record, let's see if we can figure out under what circumstances you think that: 1). Starting aggressive wars against someone who hasn't attacked you is justified. 2). Getting 2000 U.S. soldiers killed, only to be in a worse situation that what pertained before you started, is justified. As for "enforc[ing] the U.N.'s rules", we hardly gave up an "sovereignty" in going to war despite the wishes of the majority of the U.N. Security Council that the inspections be given more time to complete (and then seeing what further action if any was needed). Where you ever got the ide that Dubya knuckled under to the wishes of the Security Council that he invade -- despite his reluctance to do so -- is quite beyond me. Perhaps you have a secret stashj of some really powerful stuff.... Rarelamb again: So I ask, does it really matter whether there were wmd? I think so. I'm afraid many of the U.S population think so (and many more across the world). Why you think differently is quite mystifying. BB: Arne, "simply declaring somethign doesn't make it so" "You really do have a perverse idea of the way things work in the real world. Or you're just intentionally intellectually dishonest....." I agree with these statements, entirely- in reference to your presentation of evidence and/or UN reports... ie, NONE. I'm not disputing that the U.N. declared that co-operation was "essential". What I'm saying is that whether "co-opertion" was "essential" to the primary task of determining whether there were WoMD is far from clear. In fact, I'd submit that it was not (primarily, for the reason I've explained to Teribus, because even if they do "co-operate fully", you need to go an check anyway to make sure that they did co-operate and that they didn't hide anything away). Seeing as you need to double check, it's the efficiency of that process, not the level of "co-operation" that determines whether you can really do the job. Clear now? Teribus: Remarkable achievement the UN had been trying for the best part of five years without success and George W Bush had to park an American Army on Iraq's border before Saddam caved in and invited them back.... Yeah, we park a bunch of soldiers there and say "if you don't let us inspect, we'll invade". Not surprisingly, they do let the inspectors back in with unprecedented freedom (contrary to the more recent hallucinations of Dubya to the effect that Saddam didn't let them in; see my early posts on this subject for Dubya's strange statement to that effect). So it works, and you get what you want. Then the numbnutz Dubya and his PNAC folks say "we're going to invade you anyway!!! Ha-ha!" Now that's real bright thinking. First off, you end up squandering a couple thousand troops lives (and billions of dollars) to "accomplish" what you have already managed to do. Secondly, now you've told the world that there's no percentage in them letting inspectors in; they'll get invaded even if they do "co-operate", so they may as well stiff-arm any inspections down the road. Now that's real stoopid, in my book, but it seems that Teribus and BB think it's a swell idea.... Teribus: One thing is for certain Iraq doesn't have any WMD now, and has no plans to acquire them, and the world and its dog KNOW that. Oh, yeah, one other thing that we also know now is that he didn't have any back then. But that same fact could have been determined without Teribus throwing away the lives of 2000 U.S. soldiers. Life is cheap to Teribus ... at least soldiers' lives ... but you won't find Teribus signing on for any unit besides the Fighting 101st Keyboarders. Teribus: The world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before. Go to http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/17/war.un.ap/index.html Here ya go. Actually, if you look at the State Department's web page, it ain't there. It got hanked, because the maladministration wants to keep you in the dark rather than admit that things ain't looking up,so they won't post it. But they wrote it, and it ain't a prtty sight. Teribus: Aljazeere.net says nothing about what Arne orginially contended - 99% of Sunni's in some places voting for the new Iraqi Constitution, and shock and surprise neither does the other link Pick and choose, eh?: Among the allegations are that police took ballot boxes from heavily "no" districts and that some "yes" areas had more votes than registered voters. and The main electoral battlegrounds were provinces with mixed populations, two of which went strongly "yes". There were conflicting reports whether those two provinces were among those with questionable figures. and But the commission found that the number of yes votes in most provinces appeared unusually high and would be audited, with random samples taken from ballot boxes to test them. and But the official with knowledge of the counting process said the unexpected results were not isolated to the Shia and Kurdish provinces and were "all around the country". and Sunnis had to get a two-thirds no vote in any three of Iraq's 18 provinces to defeat the charter, and they appeared to have got it in western Anbar and central Salah al-Din, both Sunni. and Earlier, United Nations election officials in Iraq said the vote had gone well, but some Sunni Arab politicians have alleged corrupt practices were allowed to boost the "yes" vote. and The IECI said votes in several governorates required "re-examination, comparison and verification because they are relatively high compared with international averages for elections". and But Ninevah and Diyala provinces, which are thought to have slight Sunni majorities, appeared to have voted in favour. You might try reading more than the first paragraph, difficult as that may be, Teribus.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:20 PM USA Military Intelligence Advisor: Mr President, I've got some good news and some bad news. Dubya: Okay....ummm....what's the good news? Advisor: The good news, Mr President, is that we've finally FOUND WMDs in Iraq. Duya: AwRIGHT!!! (smacks down fist in other hand) Now we've got 'em dead to rights! I knew it! Ummm....so what's the bad news? Advisor: They're all ours. Dubya: You're shittin' me. No? You're not shittin' me. How the hell did the Eye-raqis get ahold of OUR WMDs? How many are there? Where are they now? Advisor: The Iraqis don't have them sir. We do. On our aircraft carriers, in our hangars, on our airplanes and our other equipment. More WMDs than you can spit on. (long silence) Dubya: So, you're sayin' the WMDs are ours? Advisor: Yessir. Dubya: Well, what about back before we invaded? Were they ours then too? Advisor: Yessir. Dubya: Well...look, I don't exactly get what is the problem here. We are the good guys. They are the bad guys. We are supposed to have the WMDs aren't we? That's what this was all about. Advisor: Yes, but we wanted to prove that the Iraqis had them, sir. So we could invade. ('nother long silence) Dubya: I get your point. Maybe we should've given them some WMDs first, and then invaded. Then we could have found the WMDs. Advisor: Well, we did that, sir, but it was a long time ago. It was back when Reagan was president, and all those WMDs were pretty much either used up or gone after the Gulf War when your dad kicked ass over there. Dubya: So...you're saying President Reagan was to blame for Iraq's WMDs???? Advisor: Well, I don't know if I'd exactly say that.... Dubya: Shit! And all the time I thought he stood tall for America. I thought he was a Republican. This whole thing makes me feel sad for America and sad for our World. Who can you trust??? (deep and heartfelt silence) Dubya: Look, I tell you what. Just...lose some of our WMDs. Misplace them, know what I mean? Then find 'em again. Then we blame the Iraqis and say it's their WMDs that got found. That oughta work. They ARE the bad guys...(I mean like the insurgents are, not the nice ones who voted for our guy.) It's the kind of thing they would do if they had half a chance. You think you can do that? Advisor: Sounds like a plan, sir. I'll get right on it. Dubya: Good boy. Right will triumph in the end. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Teribus Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:07 PM Oh Arne Langsetmo, you are a God-send, how I do love rippin' you to shit! Keep it comim' pal, now lets take a look at your latest offering: Point 1. OK Arne let us all hear you clearly state that you are fully prepared to live in a country where the, presumably elected, political representatives delegate responsibility and all matters relating to your security and national interests to others. Arne apart from your personal attack on the the person posting, what have you actually got to say? One rather obvious point Arne that you seem to continually over look. Saddam and his pet regime in Iraq had had over 12 years to do what was required of them under the auspices of the UN. First via UNSCOM and then by UNMOVIC, whose presence in Iraq was down purely to American pressure. So how much MORE TIME should they have been given - another 12 years? - No, definitely NO, your pal Saddam came up against the only man in the world who could guarantee that he was holding a royal flush and Saddam was stupid enough to try and bluff. The result, a foregone conclusion, Saddam lost. The way you play poker, Saddam would have got away clear and complete, within months the sanctions would have been lifted and he would have been free to pursue any path he wished - well done Arne. Oh! and Arne, give me one bloody example where in conflict situations the UN has actually ever resolved anything - So don't put too much faith in them, because without the US firmly onboard they ain't worth a shit. Rarelamb's question: "...does it really matter whether there were wmd?" No it doesn't. What the world wanted to know was whether or not Iraq did posses WMD. And for as long as Saddam(Bloody)Hussein was in power you would never get an honest answer to that question in a verifiable form that you could have any degree of confidence in. Now another Arne-ism - "simply declaring something doesn't make it so" Which he then backs up by saying: "I'm not disputing that the U.N. declared that co-operation was "essential". What I'm saying is that whether "co-opertion" was "essential" to the primary task of determining whether there were WoMD is far from clear. In fact, I'd submit that it was not (primarily, for the reason I've explained to Teribus, because even if they do "co-operate fully", you need to go an check anyway to make sure that they did co-operate and that they didn't hide anything away)." Now what Arne fails to recognise is that we are talking about a land mass the size of California, or France. To do things Arne's way successfully requires how many inspectors? I could not begin to fathom, which was why full and pro-active co-operation was required from the outset. The checking relates to records of how much they have made, how much they have weaponised, how many shells/warheads they have armed, how many are offered up for destruction. Arne it is a very simple process - Now you tell me why the Iraqi Government of the day did not play ball. Either they HAD something to hide, or they wanted to create the ILLUSION that they HAD something to hide. "Teribus: Remarkable achievement the UN had been trying for the best part of five years without success and George W Bush had to park an American Army on Iraq's border before Saddam caved in and invited them back...." And the evidence that you Arne Langsetmo were pushing was what? That by the bye Arne was what you were asked. Now, please either you answer that question or let it go and acknowledge that the only reason UN inspectors EVER got back into Iraq was because of the actions of GWB ( Shouldn't be too difficult Hans Blix is already on record as saying as much) "Teribus: One thing is for certain Iraq doesn't have any WMD now, and has no plans to acquire them, and the world and its dog KNOW that." Arne..."Oh, yeah, one other thing that we also know NOW is that he didn't have any back then. But that same fact could have been determined without Teribus throwing away the lives of 2000 U.S. soldiers." How Arne?? Saddam was going to tell us and we were going to believe him, Or does your reasoning rely on an American Army of 250,000 being parked on Iraq's borders? Arne..."Life is cheap to Teribus ... at least soldiers' lives ... but you won't find Teribus signing on for any unit besides the Fighting 101st Keyboarders." Really Arne? Now come on tell the truth, you know absolutely nothing about me. What you state above is nothing but pure conjecture, but that is always good enough for you, whereas anyone who dares question or doubt your reasoning must jump through how many hoops in order to disprove your groundless assumptions. But I will tell you this sunshine, I have been in harms way for a damn sight greater proportion of my life than not. Whether you have or not is not of the slightest interest to me, but, by what you say and the way you say it, I would rather think not. "Teribus: The world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before. Go to http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/17/war.un.ap/index.html" Now this was a source that Arne actually asked for. Did he read it? did he comment on it - did he fuck. What we got from Arne was - "Here ya go. Actually, if you look at the State Department's web page, it ain't there. It got hanked, because the maladministration wants to keep you in the dark rather than admit that things ain't looking up,so they won't post it. But they wrote it, and it ain't a prtty sight." Now just exactly what is our Yank of Scandinavian descent trying to say here - That he takes as gospel what the Government is telling him about Iraq? You see Arne can do that when it suits him. "Teribus: Aljazeere.net says nothing about what Arne orginially contended - 99% of Sunni's in some places voting for the new Iraqi Constitution, and shock and surprise neither does the other link Pick and choose, eh?" Well you picked 'em Arne. Now you show me in either of those articles where 99% of Sunni voters ANYWHERE voted for the Iraqi Constitution - that is what you were originally implying - IT DIDN*T HAPPEN you pig ignorant stupid bastard - IT DIDN'T HAPPEN - So stop trying to tell people that it did. Arne's advice to me - You might try reading more than the first paragraph, difficult as that may be" Mine to him - Try understanding what it is that you are reading, you may find that of some use in formulating a coherent arguement, which you have failed to do so far. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,watching... Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:49 PM He's a godsend? Hell, you two are each other's mutual godsend... *grin* You should marry or become business partners or something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 18 Nov 05 - 06:19 PM I've always thought that the amount of 'discussion' between bbruce and carol and between dianavan and teribus that they must be married. Who but a married couple could 'discuss' so much :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Bobert Date: 18 Nov 05 - 07:52 PM Rarelamb: If you will take the time to search my postings here in Mudville during the Bush administrations run-up to war you will find that not only did I not approve of going into Iraq but I also offered alternatives... The first and formost alterbative that Bush poopooed was the Saudi Proposal... Without gettin' into a lot o detail her if You'd like to learn the specfics of it a Google search is highly recommended... A similar proposal was made here in the US known as the "Mitchell Plan"... These two plans were darned good plans that would have averted this war and the world would undoubtedly been better off with either of them and thwe utter chaos that Bush has created in Iraq... But, hey, unlike many here, I am not a one trick pony... Upon wakin' up one morning and saying to myself, "Hey, this nut is actaully going to start a war" I reluctantly suggested that rather then go off and kill a lot of innocent people that maybe Bush should just order that Saddam be assassinated... No, this ain't really the kind of stuff I would thibnk of doing but when it became painfully clear to the entire world that Bush was gonna have his war, come Hell 'er high water, I figured offin' Saddam was better tha a stupid friggin' war... So I suggested that as my second option... I hope this clears things up fir you, rarelamb, and I would highly recommend a Google search of the Saudi Plan and maybe you'd like to come back and tell the good folks here, most of whom were poopooin' the Saudi Plan 'cuase their fearless leader told them to, what it actually was all about... If you don't, maybe I will... It really would have put a lot of the security of the Middle East on the Middle East... Something that the US is now struggling to do... But with no war... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 18 Nov 05 - 09:42 PM Amos: My Idea is to say what I want, When I want, where I want about anybody I want. You and everybody else is invited to do the same. In addition anybody can think whatever they want and not be told what to think. Gee ain't this a great country? Those that are Fed up can leave whenever thay want and go wherever they want. I can't think of any other country that needs to put up a fence to keep people out. Usually it is the other way around. Maybe it is the miserable governenbt here that attracts them. They can't wait to be in America where they can cry, piss and moan about how horrible it is here but hey, a few hours reading your shit can turn most anybody in a crybaby. That is your objective isn't it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Peace Date: 18 Nov 05 - 09:50 PM As long as everybody's gettin' along. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Geoduck Date: 18 Nov 05 - 09:53 PM Hey Peace: Go strap some leaky worn out innertubes together, go down to Key West and float over to Cuba. You and Castro would make good friends. Both of you hate the US. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Peace Date: 18 Nov 05 - 09:59 PM Dear Geoduck. FUCK YOU! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: Teribus Date: 19 Nov 05 - 04:45 AM On the Saudi Proposal that Bobert mentioned (Source BBC News - Caroline Hawley found by Google "Iraq Saudi Proposal"): "The US wants it (A Muslim Force) to be within the framework of the coalition efforts it leads, and the Saudis want it to be distinct, in order to be acceptable to public opinion in the Muslim world. Mr Powell said both he and Mr Allawi favoured the Saudi initiative. "We discussed the Saudi initiative. It is interesting," he said at a news conference after meeting the Iraqi prime minister. "We welcomed the idea to have Muslim troops either part or separate from the coalition forces." He suggested that the force could provide protection to the UN or security for facilities. "This is a global war. These are forces of evil who are acting against us," he said. "I call upon the leaders of the Islamic countries and the Arab countries to close ranks." He repeated the government's view that Iraq's neighbours - Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Syria and Turkey - would not be included. But the world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia, said it was only interested in sending troops under United Nations command. And the Arab League ambassador in London told the BBC that Arab countries were not interested in sending troops to a country with occupation forces on its territory. The Americans have to leave before any such contributions are discussed, Ali Mohsen Hamed told BBC World Service's Newshour programme." Bobert claimed that - "The first and formost alterbative that Bush poopooed was the Saudi Proposal" Reading the above, if Ms Hawley got her facts right, it does not appear to be the Americans that are placing obstacles in the way with regard to this proposal - they say they actaully welcome it. But somehow I don't think the above was the Saudi Proposal that Bobert was really referring to, because he also mentions "The Mitchell Proposal". Both the proposals that Bobert may be referring to relate to the Arab/Israeli peace process, not Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Geoduck Date: 21 Nov 05 - 09:17 PM Peace: This is not time to talk about love. We have a national crisis to solve. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 21 Nov 05 - 10:47 PM Notice to former Clinton Supporters that now claim they don't like Clinton and get hostile when someone brings up Monica Gate: Hillary will be the next Democratic Presidential candidate. A vote for Hillary will be supporting Bill. Are you ready for that or would you rather immigrate to Canaduh? Amos: So you do not object to the commander in chief of the US having oral sex in the oral office with a girl half his age on company time? I do. I would think he would be conducting the business of the United States instead of adultery. If Hillary wasn't a power hungry scumbag like him she would want a divorce but instead she stays with him. |
