Dubya, Tough Commander or incompetent dolt who leads US into disaster?

[a_unique_person]

Turns out 9/11 may have been prevented, it's just that Dubya and Condi were more interested in missile defence systems and striked fighters.

Afghanistan is still a shambles.

Iraq, no one forced him into it.

So, is he a good leader because he isn't afraid to fight to tough to defend America, or is he just an incompetent dolt who stumbles around from one disaster to the next, all of his own choosing.

[Scott]

I know, I just know, that I'm going to be sorry for asking, but I must, I just must, know how a_u_p could have prevented 9/11 from happening. (I bet, I just bet, it has something to do with Isreal and/or oil.)

So tell us, a_u_p, how could 9/11 have been prevented?

[a_unique_person]

I am not saying it would have been prevented if he had done the right thing, just that he had warnings that something was coming. But rather than give any consideration to these warnings, him and Condi had their heads in the clouds about missile defence systems. Not a guarantee that the hijackers would have been caught, but you do have to wonder what would have happened if he had concentrated on real threats rather than pie in the sky stuff.

On the morning of 9/11, Condi was due to give a speech on how the US was not looking back, but forward to a brave new world of hi-tech missile defense systems. The speech was never given.

[Scott]

You said they may have been prevented.

I didn't ask you how they would have been prevented, I asked you how they could have been prevented.

So, let me rephrase the question:

What evidence have you found that indicates, shows, or otherwise leads you to believe that the current Bush administration may have prevented the 9/11 attacks?

[Scott]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
On the morning of 9/11, Condi was due to give a speech on how the US was not looking back, but forward to a brave new world of hi-tech missile defense systems. The speech was never given. So what?

What time was the speech scheduled for a_u_p?

[a_unique_person]

The reason it wasn't given on the day was pretty obvious. What is interesting is that it was buried and never given.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

So, is he a good leader because he isn't afraid to fight to tough to defend America, or is he just an incompetent dolt who stumbles around from one disaster to the next, all of his own choosing.
He is a commander in chief who made four bad assumptions before ordering a pre-emptive strike on Iraq:

1. That Dr Ahmad Chalabi would be accepted by the Shi'a Muslims as a legitimate leader.

2. That Iraqi oil would make the enterprise self financing.

3. That the bulk of US troops would be able to leave the country soon after.

4. That occupying US troops would be accepted by a majority of Iraqis as liberators.

[subgenius]

Well what's really funny about the assumption about Chalabi (who was a main conduit of false information) is that when he returned, ostensibly as a hero, they had to escort him out immediately, lest riots break out, and he be lynched.

His son-in-law, a convicted perjurer, was accepted by us as a credible source of information on mobile weapons labs.

This is not even a close question folks.

[subgenius]

Virtually NONE of the assertions leading to war have proven even close to being true.

[demon]

Hope this isn`t hijacking...anyone heard anything about this book?

They`re doomed according to Nixon's man...and he should know!
Just out.

Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush
by John W. Dean

Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
The most facile presidential comparison one could make for George W. Bush would be his father, who presided over a war in Iraq and a struggling economy.

Some "neocons" reject the parallel and compare Bush to his father's predecessor, Ronald Reagan, citing a plainspoken quality and a belief in deep tax cuts.

But John Dean goes further back, seeing in Bush all the secrecy and scandal of Dean's former boss, the notorious Richard Nixon.

The difference, as the title of Dean's book indicates, is that Bush is a heck of a lot worse. While the book provides insightful snippets of the way Nixon used to do business, it offers them to shed light on the practices of Bush.

In Dean's estimation, the secrecy with which Bush and Dick Cheney govern is not merely a preferred system of management but an obsessive strategy meant to conceal a deeply troubling agenda of corporate favoritism and a dramatic growth in unchecked power for the executive branch that put at risk the lives of American citizens, civil liberties, and the Constitution.

Dean sets out to make his point by drawing attention to several areas about which Bush and Cheney have been tight-lipped: the revealing by a "senior White House official" of the identity of an undercover CIA operative whose husband questioned the administration, the health of Cheney, the identity of Cheney's energy task force, the information requested by the bi-partisan 9/11 commission, Bush's business dealings early in his career, the creation of a "shadow government", wartime prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, and scores more.

He theorizes that the truth about these and many other situations, including the decision to go to war in Iraq, will eventually surface

and that Bush and Cheney's secrecy is a thus far effective means of keep a lid on a rapidly multiplying set of lies and scandals that far outstrip the misdeeds that led directly to Dean's former employer resigning in disgrace.

Dean's charges are impassioned and more severe than many of Bush's most persistent critics. But those charges are realized only after careful reasoning and steady logic by a man who knows his way around scandal and corruption. --John Moe

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/031600023X/ref=pd_nfy_gw_nr/102-3939020-5468131?v=glance

[subgenius]

Yes, but of course it will be dismissed out of hand.
Remember, Bush only got a minority of the vote last time.
Is anyone who DIDN'T vote for him last time, going to vote for him this time?
Watch that E-voting thing.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Turns out 9/11 may have been prevented, it's just that Dubya and Condi were more interested in missile defence systems and striked fighters.

Afghanistan is still a shambles.

Iraq, no one forced him into it.

So, is he a good leader because he isn't afraid to fight to tough to defend America, or is he just an incompetent dolt who stumbles around from one disaster to the next, all of his own choosing.

And things are heating up in Kosovo again. You must feel like you've just been dealt a full house.

[subgenius]

Dean, by the way, is one of the most incisive legal minds, I've ever seen:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/

No way anyone can refute his argument except by the usual slurs.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


And things are heating up in Kosovo again. You must feel like you've just been dealt a full house.

Kosovo has been going on for hundreds of years. It is hardly going to be solved in a few years. I take no pleasure in it. I was only interested in the question, is someone who leads you into war

a) Tough
b) Stupid

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

He is a commander in chief who made four bad assumptions before ordering a pre-emptive strike on Iraq:

1. That Dr Ahmad Chalabi would be accepted by the Shi'a Muslims as a legitimate leader.

2. That Iraqi oil would make the enterprise self financing.

3. That the bulk of US troops would be able to leave the country soon after.

4. That occupying US troops would be accepted by a majority of Iraqis as liberators.

Let me add: 5) Assumed fewer American casualties than has turned out.

On top of which are the assumptions that in fairness can't be labeled bad out of hand, though highly questionable, and history will tell:

a) That the danger posed by Iraq warranted near unilateral action, and a new preemptive doctrine

b) That the danger posed by Iraq warranted alienating traditional allies

c) That the danger posed by Iraq warranted the inevitable negative reaction throughout the Islamic world that would result from invasion and occupation

d) That invading Iraq would not create fertile grounds for al Qaeda recruitment to a counter-productive extent

e) That the danger posed by Iraq warranted shifting military assets away from Afghanistan, despite that the real 9/11 perps had yet to be captured or killed

[subgenius]

If the question is "you/him"
the answer is (b)...what do I win?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Kosovo has been going on for hundreds of years. It is hardly going to be solved in a few years. I take no pleasure in it. I was only interested in the question, is someone who leads you into war

a) Tough
b) Stupid

If the question is "you/him"
the answer is (b)...what do I win?

[RandFan]

I'd respond but I've learned that those who support what Bush has done in Iraq and the reasons for it are held in contempt. So I will just say that I support Bush and give you guys someone that you can directly vent your hate and anger at.

Sorry for the interuption. Please carry on.

[demon]

subgenius:
"Dean, by the way, is one of the most incisive legal minds, I've ever seen"

I agree. I`m not unfamilair with the guy myself and this is where this whole fiasco just gets more and more bizzare.
The more adept the critic, the more vapid the apology and smears will be.
I see it all the time here (Uk). It`s like the top heirarchy of apologists deal with the lesser anti Blair/Bush critiques (you should see the amount of airtime that Ken "cakewalk" Adleman has had on the tv here talking pure nonsense) while the cretins get wheeled on to deal with the most severe critiques...I think it works because it reduces a debate which should be informative into tabloid nonsense.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'd respond but I've learned that those who support what Bush has done in Iraq and the reasons for it are held in contempt. So I will just say that I support Bush and give you guys someone that you can directly vent your hate and anger at.

Sorry for the interuption. Please carry on.

Oh poor pitiful you. You are loved universally. Don't ever change into someone who might question ANYTHING that your hero does. He needs the minority.
How do you like your emperor's new clothes? Spiffy, no?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by demon
subgenius:
"Dean, by the way, is one of the most incisive legal minds, I've ever seen"

I agree. I`m not unfamilair with the guy myself and this is where this whole fiasco just gets more and more bizzare.
The more adept the critic, the more vapid the apology and smears will be.
I see it all the time here (Uk). It`s like the top heirarchy of apologists deal with the lesser anti Blair/Bush critiques (you should see the amount of airtime that Ken "cakewalk" Adleman has had on the tv here talking pure nonsense) while the cretins get wheeled on to deal with the most severe critiques...I think it works because it reduces a debate which should be informative into tabloid nonsense.
You're just an elitist. (You have a brain, don't you?)

[demon]

RandFan:
"I'd respond but I've learned that those who support what Bush has done in Iraq and the reasons for it are held in contempt. So I will just say that I support Bush and give you guys someone that you can directly vent your hate and anger at.

Sorry for the interuption. Please carry on."

You still accept the reasons Bush gave?
We have crossed swords once or twice and I respect you ...I`m honestly confused why you aren`t livid about how your country was lead into this. I think you asked me a similar question once ie: If you don`t have it yet, what evidence would you need to convince you that you got suckered into this?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'd respond but... I will just say that I support Bush...
Cool. Live with it. Deal with it. You don't mind if others would rather lick it?

You were a minority last time. You think more have joined you?
Ask Pat Buchanan.

[demon]

subgenius:
"You're just an elitist. (You have a brain, don't you?)"

haha! An elitist? Makes a change I can tell you. Quite a few around here have me down as the next leader of Hamas!
Thanks sub, I`m really rather touched;)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
You still accept the reasons Bush gave?
We have crossed swords once or twice and I respect you ...I`m honestly confused why you aren`t livid about how your country was lead into this. I think you asked me a similar question once ie: If you don`t have it yet, what evidence would you need to convince you that you got suckered into this? Hi Demon,

I'm really bothered by the deaths of young Americans. I suffer guilt for supporting a war when I am sitting fat and happy in my home. I wonder if the cost will be justified by the end results. I admit that it looks questionable.

I respect our political system and if George Bush is turned out in November then I will accept it and understand. However, I will be voting for Bush.

I'm not livid at all. The world truly believed that Saddam had WMD and regime change was a priority for Clinton et al. The most important piece of evidence was Saddam's refusal to comply. I think this was reason enough to respond. I have debated at length this issue and I understand the arguments. I wanted the bast*rd gone and I was worried that he was going to wait us out. He almost succeeded at one time.

Evidence that I/we got suckered into this? Fair question.

I think George Bush over-played the WMD. I think the reasons for going to Iraq include oil, geo politics (a dream of democracy in the middle east), revenge, a desire to do something for the people of Iraq and other issues (not necessarily in that order).

I don't know how you can make a valid case that we were suckered into this. To accept that conclusion I would have to assume that Bush knew what congress, the UN and many experts didn't know, that the intelligence was false. Yes, many believed that the intelligence was false but believing and knowing are two different things. It is arguable and quite plausible that George Bush gave greater weight to information that supported his desire to invade than counter information.

There is no direct evidence that George Bush knew that there was no WMD and invaded anyway.

To be fair and answer your question. If there was testimony that Bush hard evidence that there was no WMD and that he admitted that fact and made a statement that he didn't care and wanted to deceive the people or something along those lines.

I would be happy to consider any points or arguments that you have to support your contention. I'm really not a Bush sycophant and I'm willing to keep an open mind.

Thanks again,

RandFan

[demon]

Thanks for the reply RandFan.

You say "I'm not livid at all. The world truly believed that Saddam had WMD and regime change was a priority for Clinton et al. The most important piece of evidence was Saddam's refusal to comply."

I have to disagree with you on both accounts. I`ve put down the details a few times here that the often repeated story that the world believed Saddam had WMD is just not so. I`ll lay out my reasons again incase you haven`t seen them before. To me it is a great example of just how the media manipulated the evidence and portrayed it to the public...they did the same with "weapons inspectors kicked out" too...if you look at the media presentation of that story from when they were actually withdrawn until the media decided they had been kicked out I think you have to concede there might be some sort of agenda here.
As to Saddam`s compliance with said inspectors, we seem to be at odds again but one thing at a time.

Ok, from a former post of mine:
The rest of the world did not think Saddam retained any useable WMD. The UN never did; only that Iraq had possessed certain amounts of weapons or material, prior to 1991, for which it had failed to account satisfactorily. Hans Blix said in September 2002, "this is not the same as saying there are weapons of mass destruction. If I had solid evidence that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction or were constructing such weapons I would take it to the Security Council." (Quoted in The Independent, September 11th 2002).
Blix’s predecessor, Scott Ritter, has been even more definite, and has argued for several years that Iraq was "effectively disarmed" and that any attempt to reconstitute programmes would have been "impossible" (Press Association, July 16th 2002).

David Kelly, in his draft article published posthumously by the Observer (31/08/03) did not state that Iraq definitely had WMD, either. Indeed, he concedes that UNSCOM and the IAEA "destroyed or rendered harmless all known weapons and capability." The problem, Kelly argued, lay in what was unknown; i.e. for which inspectors could not account. According to Kelly, what was unaccounted for was "8,500 litres of anthrax VX, 2,160 kilograms of bacterial growth media, 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, 6,500 chemical bombs and 30,000 munitions." To reiterate Blix’s caution, because we cannot account for these weapons, it does not mean they actually existed. Even if they had, as Ritter and others have pointed out on numerous occasions, they would have all been useless sludge by 1995. Further, Kelly conceded that these figures are based "in no small part on data fabricated by Iraq". The threat from Iraq -which was so "modest" that it was "unlikely to substantially affect the operational capabilities of US and British troops" or "likely to create massive casualties in adjacent countries" was a "long term" one: that they might -one day- be developed to "military maturity". This is hardly the "serious" or "current" threat concocted by Blair, Bush, Powell and Co.

Nor did the unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 1441 demonstrate that everyone accepted that Iraq possessed prohibited weapons. The text of 1441 makes clear that Iraq was not complying with inspectors, but it nowhere asserts that Iraq possessed these weapons. Moreover, while it states, as a matter of abstract principle, that proliferation of WMD is a threat to international peace: it did not accuse Iraq of proliferating, because most countries on the Security Council (US and UK excluded) did not believe that Iraq (the most heavily monitored and contained country in history) was engaged in proliferation.

Nor did the US Government believe Iraq was a threat prior to February 24th 2001, when Colin Powell stated –on the record and on camera in Cairo- that "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours" (US Department of State website at http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm).

Prior to this, it seems unlikely that the US seriously believed that Iraq had WMD -at least if their behaviour is a guide. In August 1998, The Washington Post reported that the "US has been blocking UNSCOM searches since last November". In August 2000, the same paper reported that the US was urging UNMOVIC not to "force the issue" regarding the return of inspectors and, in September, Madeleine Albright announced that the US would not use force to compel the return of the inspectors.

The Daily Telegraph (17th June 2002) reported that "Senior German and French politicians argue that negotiations and a resumption of United Nations arms inspections are the way forward - a view that provokes exasperation in Washington."
Seymour Hersh, writing in the New Yorker (24th December 2001) reported that the consensus in the Bush administration was that there would be no effort to revive the inspections process and the Washington Post reported on the 11th of January of 2002 that US was refusing to make any efforts to get the inspectors back in.

Nor does it seem that WMD has ever been the US’s real concern. The Washington Post also reported on April 15th 2002 of the concerns of "Wolfowitz and his civilian colleagues in the Pentagon that new inspections -- or protracted negotiations over them -- could torpedo their plans for military action to remove Hussein from power." Colin Powell, the supposed dove, also affirmed that "US policy is that, regardless of what the inspectors do, the people of Iraq and the people of the region would be better off with a different regime in Baghdad. The United States reserves its option to do whatever it believes might be appropriate to see if there can be a regime change." (Quoted in the Guardian, May 6th 2002).
Time magazine made it explicit on the 13th of May 2002, quoting a "top Senate foreign policy aide" who said that "The White House’s biggest fear is that the UN weapons inspectors will be allowed to go in."

And, if the US and UK’s only motive for war was the threat from Iraqi WMD -and wished to avoid war if possible- why did they reject so many Iraqi offers out of hand? Why did the US not pursue any of the repeated concessions made by Iraq in the final days -including internationally supervised elections within two years, the admittance of FBI agents to search for weapons, and the handover of suspected terrorist Abdul Rahman Yasin? (New York Post 06/11/03), (AFP 07/11/03), (Guardian 07/11/03). True, they may have been a ruse, but we shall never know. The US was in an ideal position to force concessions from Iraq and bring about democratization and "disarmament" without military force -a policy it claims to favour in other instances- yet, in this case, it rejected the option out of hand. Was not the US under a moral duty to test these offers and possibly avoid killing thousands of people?

So, Blix did not say Iraq had WMD, the UN did not say Iraq had WMD, David Kelly did not say Iraq had WMD, and the US either did not think they did and or, if they did, certainly did not consider them a threat worth inspecting.
We also know that credible sources were contending that Iraq was disarmed for months before the attack. So don't attempt to argue that everybody was duped because we weren't. The only people duped were those who believed the US and UK governments.

[Skeptic]

I am not saying it would have been prevented if he had done the right thing,

So what the hell are you blabbering about?

[fishbob]

Seems like a pretty good compilation of the events leading up the the sudden appearance of WMDs as an immediate threat.

Dubya, Tough Commander or incompetent dolt who leads US into disaster? Sorry for the levity but my first thought was about Monty Python's Upper Class Twit of the Year skit.

[Skeptic]

Dubya, Tough Commander or incompetent dolt who leads US into disaster?

Churchill, tough commander or incompetent dolt who lead Britian into an unnecessary war by refusing der Fuhrer's generous peace offer in 1940, after Dunkirk?

[fishbob]

Hahahahaha - comparing Bush with Churchill. Good one.

[shecky]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Churchill, tough commander or incompetent dolt who lead Britian into an unnecessary war by refusing der Fuhrer's generous peace offer in 1940, after Dunkirk?

There goes the Hitler reference....


Perhaps the comparison gives Hussein way too much credit.

I guess Dubya could have held a candle to Churchill...

Your two comparisons are too broken to even be sarcastic.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'd respond but I've learned that those who support what Bush has done in Iraq and the reasons for it are held in contempt. So I will just say that I support Bush and give you guys someone that you can directly vent your hate and anger at.

I hope you are kidding and if not am sorry you feel that way. It would be boring if a variety of viewpoints were not represented, and I often enjoy your posts despite often disagreeing.

Back on topic... Even if administration is given benefit of doubt that evidence on WMDs was strong, we are left with this:

1. If the evidence was so strong, then Bush should have been able to build a broader coalition. This failure was exacerbated by having come in with an arrogant attitude towards the world.
...Poor diplomacy, poor leadership

2. The administration hyped the 9/11 connection, sometimes subtly sometimes not. This resulted in the now famous polling data showing that that a majority of the public believed (still?) that Saddam was directly involved with 9/11. This was an absurd stretch then, still is now.
...Intentionally misleading the public

[RandFan]

So much to respond to. I had not really intended on debating all of this again. I have done it so many times. I'll make a few remarks now and delve into the rest later.

Originally posted by demon
Thanks for the reply RandFan.

...

[quote][b]And, if the US and UK’s only motive for war was the threat from Iraqi WMD I have stated that I don't believe it was the only motive. Please read my post again.

-and wished to avoid war if possible- why did they reject so many Iraqi offers out of hand? I find this statement rather odd. The U.S. bent over backwards to accomodate Saddam. He had 12 years. He was never in compliance. Up to the first war we pleaded and pleaded for Saddam to comply. There were many overtures and he rejected all of them. After the war the man only knew obfuscation. He was caught on many occasions lying. So please don't charachterize this regime as something that it wasn't.

Why did the US not pursue any of the repeated concessions made by Iraq in the final days -including internationally supervised elections within two years... Saddam's modus was clear. Stall and wait. It almost succeded. He would promise when he needed then back out of his promise when it suited him. The world would get tired of the whole mess as they had before. Do you really trust Saddam to keep a promise to have elections?

Was not the US under a moral duty to test these offers and possibly avoid killing thousands of people? Thosands were already dying. Saddam had proven his track record. How many times were we supposed to "test" him? Hadn't he already flunked? This guy had 12 years of history and it was obvious that he wanted to keep power, kill and torture his people and not comply.

We also know that credible sources were contending that Iraq was disarmed for months before the attack. So don't attempt to argue that everybody was duped because we weren't. The only people duped were those who believed the US and UK governments. I didn't say we knew. I said we didn't know for sure. And you have not made a case that we knew that he didn't have them.

The case that Saddam did not have WMD is not the clear cut case you make it out to be. Some believed he didn't have WMD. No one knew he didn't have WMD. I'll make a case for why there was reason to believe Saddam had WMD. But I am tired now and it is not my first priority.

Thanks Demon

[Ion]

What a moronic brain:
Originally posted by RandFan

...
The U.S. bent over backwards to accomodate Saddam. He had 12 years. He was never in compliance.
...

U.S. was not in compliance with U.N. to attack Iraq in 2003.

[demon]

RandFan:
"The case that Saddam did not have WMD is not the clear cut case you make it out to be. Some believed he didn't have WMD. No one knew he didn't have WMD. I'll make a case for why there was reason to believe Saddam had WMD. But I am tired now and it is not my first priority."


No sweat. I`ll just comment that you've made a variety of assertions there. If you can back any of them up with evidence, then we'll have a debate.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Dubya, Tough Commander or incompetent dolt who leads US into disaster?

Churchill, tough commander or incompetent dolt who lead Britian into an unnecessary war by refusing der Fuhrer's generous peace offer in 1940, after Dunkirk?

If you cast your mind back a few more years, you get to Gallipoli. Churchill's cunning plan to defeat Germany by attacking it's allies who were not white, and hence, not very good at anything worthwhile.

I think worthwhile to distinguish between Churchill, the military strategist, and Churchill, the polemecist. For backs to the wall oratory, Churchill was a master, for actually planning an attack, he was lacking in some areas.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by demon
Thanks for the reply RandFan.


Ok, from a former post of mine:

/snip/

The only people duped were those who believed the US and UK governments.

Nice resumé demon, says it all really.

Oh and when you quote another poster please, please, bold what you are quoting.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


If you cast your mind back a few more years, you get to Gallipoli. Churchill's cunning plan to defeat Germany by attacking it's allies who were not white, and hence, not very good at anything worthwhile.

I think worthwhile to distinguish between Churchill, the military strategist, and Churchill, the polemecist. For backs to the wall oratory, Churchill was a master, for actually planning an attack, he was lacking in some areas.

Well one thing Gallipoli did was to catatlyse Turkish national revival under the leadership of Kemal Ataturk who led the defending forces at Gallipoli.

President Al Sadr anyone?

[am7a]

there is no doubt that Bush does have a great responsibility of his policy however it doesn't mean that it is only a dubya fault. there is a bunch of people govering espeacially those who gather information and interpret it. the 9/11 could have been prevented if the information was interpretted in a more sensible way, but before the war on iraq there was also a clear mistake in interpretting information about WMD of saddam.

As if Bush realized how important considering information was before 9/11 so he decided not to make this mistake twice. it is the whole system that is doing bad, it seems like they are running a business interprise where every thing is dependent on the information system to make decisions rather than politicaly deal with people like saddam husein or osama bin laden.

Bush makes the dicision and Blair creates the political image to cover it up such as every excuse you hear about the war on iraq.

The question is, if clinton was instead of Bush, what's the significant difference between the outcomes would have been then?

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by varwoche

The administration hyped the 9/11 connection, sometimes subtly sometimes not. This resulted in the now famous polling data showing that that a majority of the public believed (still?) that Saddam was directly involved with 9/11.

According to a new PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll, a majority of Americans (57%) continue to believe that before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, including 20% who believe that Iraq was directly involved in the September 11 attacks. Forty-five percent believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found. Sixty percent believe that just before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38%) or a major program for developing them (22%).

Despite statements by Richard Clarke, David Kay, Hans Blix and others, few Americans perceive most experts as saying the contrary. Only 15% said they are hearing “experts mostly agree Iraq was not providing substantial support to al Qaeda,” while 82% either said that “experts mostly agree Iraq was providing substantial support” (47%) or “experts are evenly divided on the question” (35%). Only 34% said they thought most experts believe Iraq did not have WMD, while 65% said most experts say Iraq did have them (30%) or that experts are divided on the question (35%).


SNIP


Perhaps most relevant politically, perceptions of what the experts are saying are also highly correlated with intentions to vote for the President in the upcoming election. Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq had WMD, 72% said they would vote for Bush and 23% said they would vote for Kerry, while among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq did not have WMD, 23% said they would vote for Bush and 74% for Kerry.

Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq had supported al Qaeda, 62% said they would vote for Bush and 36% said they would vote for Kerry. Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq was not supporting al Qaeda, just 13% said they would vote for Bush and 85% for Kerry.


SNIP


Beliefs about prewar Iraq appear to be also sustained by perceptions of claims by the Bush administration. Fifty-six percent said it was their impression that the Bush administration is claiming the US has found clear evidence that Saddam Hussein was working closely with al Qaeda, and 38% perceived the administration saying the US has found clear evidence that just before the war, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Interestingly, varying perceptions of US troop fatalities does not appear to have much impact. Asked to estimate the number of US troop fatalities in Iraq, the median estimate was fairly accurate at 500. However, estimates varied widely, providing the opportunity to assess attitudes among those with high estimates as compared to those with low estimates. In fact, there were no significant differences between these groups when it came to support for the war or intention to vote for the President.

On the other hand, a factor that did appear to be strikingly influential was perceptions of world public opinion on the war with Iraq. Despite polling showing that the majority of world public opinion is opposed to the US war with Iraq, only 41% were aware that this is the case. A 59% majority was unaware of this, with 21% saying that a majority of world public opinion favored the US having gone to war, and 38% saying “views are evenly balanced.”

Among those who knew that world public opinion opposed the US going to war with Iraq, only 25% thought that going to war was the right decision. Among the group that thought world public opinion was about evenly balanced, 70% said going to war was the right decision, and among those who perceived world public opinion as favoring the war, 88% said going to war the right decision.


SNIP


Perceptions of world public opinion are also related to voting intentions. Among those who are aware that world public opinion is critical of the war, only 22% said they intended to vote for President Bush’s reelection (Kerry: 75%). Among those who thought world public opinion was about evenly balanced, Bush received support from a modest majority--53%, with 40% preferring Kerry. In the group that perceived world public opinion as favoring the war, 71% said they intended to vote for the president and only 25% said they would vote for Kerry.



http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/html/new_4_22_04.html#1

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
No sweat. I`ll just comment that you've made a variety of assertions there. If you can back any of them up with evidence, then we'll have a debate. I'm a bit confused. I thought that I had made points that were not in dispute. I will bullet my points and you can tell which you need evidence for.

[list=1] Saddam had WMD.

Saddam proved he was willing to use WMD to kill innocent civilians.

In 12 years Saddam never fully complied with UN resolutions.

Saddam was caught lying on many occasions and was even found with biological agents for weapons production when he said he didn't have them.

In the 12 years since the end of the first Gulf War the U.S. went to great lengths to get Saddam to comply.

Prior to 9/11 the international community pressured the U.S. to drop the sanctions against Iraq citing humanitarian concerns.

That Saddam had or didn't have WMD was not empirical and had not been demonstrable at the time of the invasion.

Saddam was not in compliance.

Saddam's strategy was clear to anyone who was willing to look at his record. He was playing a waiting game by obfuscating and stalling.[/list=1] I will ad more as I think of them. Please point out which items are in dispute and add any that you feel that I have left out.

RandFan

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by am7a
it seems like they are running a business interprise where every thing is dependent on the information system to make decisions rather than politicaly deal with people like saddam husein or osama bin laden.


Although I don't personally agree with this assesment, the idea that Saddam could be handled with diplomacy is still a rational one. But what in the world makes you think diplomacy is at all possible with someone like bin Laden? Bin Laden declared war against the U.S., and he has never asked for or offered negotiations. What is there to negotiate with him? Our surrender? I understand some of your perspective, am7a, but then you say things like this that make me wonder what you could possibly be thinking. If you're suggesting negotiating with bin Laden (and I can't imagine what else you mean by dealing with him politically), then I don't think you really understand him, and I'm absolutely positive you don't understand the U.S. at all.

[a_unique_person]

I don't think anyone has claimed that Osama is going to be dealt with diplomatically. But someone who can't distinguish between Osama and Saddam has to be mentally deficient.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I don't think anyone has claimed that Osama is going to be dealt with diplomatically. But someone who can't distinguish between Osama and Saddam has to be mentally deficient.


Its pretty obvious that Saddam was not a part of Al-Ikhwan or its many offshoots. It would have been nice if Al-Ikhwan had 86'ed him at some point in their campaign to keep arab countries theocracies.

[demon]

RandFan:

1 Saddam had WMD.

"When I left Iraq in 1998... the infrastructure and facilities had been 100% eliminated. There's no doubt about that. All of their instruments and facilities had been destroyed. The weapons design facility had been destroyed. The production equipment had been hunted down and destroyed. And we had in place means to monitor - both from vehicles and from the air - the gamma rays that accompany attempts to enrich uranium or plutonium. We never found anything." (Scott Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, ‘War On Iraq’ Profile Books, 2002 p.26)

"If no one were watching, Iraq could do this. But just as with the nuclear weapons programme, they'd have to start from scratch, having been deprived of all equipment, facilities and research. They'd have to procure the complicated tools and technology required through front companies. This would be detected. The manufacture of chemical weapons emits vented gases that would have been detected by now if they existed. We've been watching, via satellite and other means, and have seen none of this. If Iraq was producing weapons today, we'd have definitive proof, plain and simple." (Ibid p.32-3)

There is no way that Iraq could have developed any WMD since 1998 without us knowing about it. Even David Kelly described the threat posed by Iraq as ‘modest’ and ‘long term’. Moreover, if they had, why has none of the ‘evidence’ the US presented to the world proven correct -the Niger uranium yellowcake debacle, for example. Furthermore, if they had such compelling evidence, why did they have to rely on plagiarized PHD thesis from eleven years ago (praised by Colin Powell in front of the UN as ‘exquisitely detailed’) and why, after months of pressing, was the British Government forced to concede that the weapons, supposedly launchable in 45 minutes, which were the headline of the September dossier, were only ‘battlefield munitions’ (and hence no threat).

2 Saddam proved he was willing to use WMD to kill innocent civilians.

Yes, but only when we provided financial aid, military intelligence, and planning advice to Saddam, while fully aware that he was using chemical weapons against Iran. As one insider recounted, the Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas. It was just another way of killing people — whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference." (NYT 18/08/2002). Reagan blocked the US Senate from punishing Iraq for violating the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons and, after Halabja, the US refused to pressure its client to cooperate with UN investigators (The Nation, 26/08/2002). "The U.S.-Iraqi relationship," wrote Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy at the time, "is ... important to our long-term political and economic objectives" (Washington Post, 30/12/2002). Even as a simple point of logic, the fact that he had used such weaponry with our aid and approval does not mean that he would use them against us in the future. After all -what value would there be in it to him? Try specifying a situation were Saddam could use weapons against us and profit by it and, if you can (and you think he had WMD after 1995) explain why he didn’t.

3 In 12 years Saddam never fully complied with UN resolutions.

Why should he have done and what difference would it have made? The most senior members of the United States and British governments had repeatedly stated that sanctions would not be lifted whilst Saddam Hussein was in power.

"All possible sanctions will be maintained until Saddam Hussein is gone."
- Marlin Fitzwater, former White House Press Spokesman, May 1991

"Iraqis will be made to pay the price while Saddam Hussein is in power. Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new government."
- Robert Gates, former US National Security Advisor, Los Angeles Times, 9th May 1991 (Note that Gates said "Iraqis", not the Iraqi regime.)

"We do not agree with those nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its "obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted."
- Madeleine Albright, former US Secretary of State, addressing a symposium on Iraq at Georgetown University, USA, 26th March 1997

"Sanctions will be there until the end of time, or as long as he [Hussein] lasts."
- Former US President Bill Clinton, quoted in The New York Times, 23rd November 1997

This remained the policy -enshrined in the Iraqi Liberation Act (If I recall its name correctly) until 2003.

4 Saddam was caught lying on many occasions and was even found with biological agents for weapons production when he said he didn't have them.

Evidence?

5 In the 12 years since the end of the first Gulf
War the U.S. went to great lengths to get Saddam to comply.

Not true -in fact, as I think I noted this on the forum before, in August 1998, The Washington Post reported that the "US has been blocking UNSCOM searches since last November’" In August 2000, the same paper reported that the US was urging UNMOVIC not to "force the issue" regarding the return of inspectors and, in September, Madeleine Albright announced that the US would not use force to compel the return of the inspectors.

The Daily Telegraph (17th June 2002) reported that "Senior German and French politicians argue that negotiations and a resumption of United Nations arms inspections are the way forward - a view that provokes exasperation in Washington." Seymour Hersh, writing in the New Yorker (24th December 2001) reported that the consensus in the Bush administration was that there would be no effort to revive the inspections process and the Washington Post reported on the 11th of January of 2002 that US was refusing to make any efforts to get the inspectors back in.

6 Prior to 9/11 the international community pressured the U.S. to drop the sanctions against Iraq citing humanitarian concerns.

Yes, and what’s your point? Are you honestly saying that invasion was the only alternative to sanctions? If liberation from the sanctions was the issue, why all the stuff about WMD? And if you're right and it was about WMD, what would have happened if Saddam had cooperated fully -would the US have not "liberated" them? And if it was about Saddam's evil regime, why did the US say that it would invade even if Saddam went into exile?

7 That Saddam had or didn't have WMD was not empirical and had not been demonstrable at the time of the invasion.

Negatives are by definition not provable (?). In any case, nobody had to prove that Iraq didn’t have WMD -you don’t need reasons NOT to kill people -you need reasons -compelling reasons- to do so. Besides which, US representatives have said since that inspections could never have proved that Iraq didn’t have weapons (can’t recall a reference off the top of my head) and Bush has admitted that "Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would've called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein." (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040414/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_no_mistakes_4). So he’s saying that even if he had "officially" known that there were no weapons, they would still have invaded.

8 Saddam was not in compliance.

Iraq was not found to be "in breach" of 1441. For that to have been decided it had to be decided by the UN Security Council, not the US and UK. Member states are utterly forbidden from unilaterally enforcing Resolutions as they choose –this is laid out in Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter. It is also given away by the fact that the UK –in the extracts of the Attorney General’s advice that the Government published- tried to justify military action based on the original UN Resolutions (687, principally). It was precisely because the UN refused to authorize an attack that the US and UK bullied it and made it clear that, unless the UN obeys orders, it is "irrelevant".

9 Saddam's strategy was clear to anyone who was willing to look at his record. He was playing a waiting game by obfuscating and stalling.

A waiting game for what, though? He wasn’t proven to have been +doing+ anything to threaten us. No one proved that he was developing new weapons and, if youy’re referring to his treatment of his people, his worst crimes were during the 80s when the US/UK Government supported him wholeheartedly. By the mid 1990s the number of deaths attributable to him (as recorded by Amnesty) was in the low hundreds per year and mostly his direct political enemies. If you’re concerned about the civilian population, why "liberate" them in 2003, when deaths from sanctions had long since flattened off anyway? Please, explain what the rush was (apart from the Election this year).

demon

[am7a]

i never mensioned that osama and saddam are the same at all, but america delt with both of them the same way which is what is called the war on terror.
as for saddam, he could be compared with Lybia president who i thimk prooved to br even more dangerous than saddam to america, he is a dectator, and is responsible for unimaginable torture and violations to human rights in lybia, was involved in terrorist acts yet his problem was solved politically were the UN was involved and many europian countries as well.

as for Osama bin ladin, i think no body can negotiate with this man except saudi arabia. if the US tried politically to gain arabs on its side, Osama's hands would be cut, or in other words he would get no support for whatever source from the arab world. instead the US has declaired a war on muslim(even not all muslims are ment by this statment but many of them certainly feel so). the iraq invasion has made this relationship even worse and not to mention many islamic countries are in the evil list for americans

[a_unique_person]

Libya has been managed in a much more proficient way than Iraq, and the results were already in before the Iraq invasion that diplomacy was producing results. The one thing Saddam wanted above anything else was to stay as head of Iraq. He had already stopped much of his trouble making.

[demon]

RandFan...
"7 That Saddam had or didn't have WMD was not empirical and had not been demonstrable at the time of the invasion."

I decided to throw some evidence your way before dealing with this point in detail. Quite simply, this point is nonsense and undermines virtually your entire case.

Firstly, the existence or not of WMD in Iraq was clearly an empirical matter.

Secondly, if Saddam's possession of WMD was not demonstrable either way then this means that the entire inspections process was futile. You seem to be arguing that the inspectors could never have proved that Iraq didn't have WMD. In which case, no country can ever prove it does not have WMD -short of x-raying the planet, it can't be done. Are you therefore saying that Iraq's declaration, cooperation or not, the whole thing was pointless? If so, you must also be saying that the US is entitled to invade any country it chooses?

What happens when the US says Syria or Venezuela is a threat and has secret stocks of WMD? There'll be no point in admitting inspectors, will there -because by your reasoning, their existence can never be disproved. Would it not be quicker for you simply to say that the US should be allowed to attack whomever it chooses, regardless of evidence?

After all, let's look at the countries the US has attacked recently:

South Vietnam
Cambodia
Laos
Cuba
Panama
Libya
Nicaragua
Grenada
Haiti
Iraq
Yugoslavia
Iraq again

Any of those countries remotely a threat to the US -no. Yet it was claimed that they were. They're all virtually defenceless -as demonstrated by the massively disproportionate casuality figures (and I include Vietnam). Not that we should be surprised that the US attacks much weaker enemies as a leaked document from the first Bush Administration in 1989 described how the U.S. had to fight much weaker enemies, and that victory must be rapid and decisive, as public support will quickly erode.

So, if as you say the US could not demonstrate that Iraq had WMD and Iraq could not demonstrate that it did not (your words: That Saddam had or didn't have WMD was not empirical and had not been demonstrable at the time of the invasion ) then by your own reasoning WMD COULD NOT have been the reason for the attack. In which case George Bush and Tony Blair are absolutely, categorically liars:

"In the speech today, Bush called on the world body to force Iraq to disarm and said that failing that, "action will be unavoidable."" (Washington Post 13/09/02)

"President Bush put Saddam Hussein and the world on notice yesterday that "action will be unavoidable" unless the United Nations forces Iraq to disarm." (London Times 13/09/02)

"Mr Bush said yesterday that Iraq could avoid war if it surrendered its weapons of mass destruction. "Hopefully, we can do this without military action.""(The Age (Melbourne) 18/10/02)

"President Bush: If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein… All patriotic Iraqis should embrace this resolution as an opportunity for Iraq to avoid war and end its isolation." (Federal Document Clearing House Political Transcripts 08/11/02);

"The burden now is on Iraq's dictator to disclose and destroy his arsenal of weapons," [Bush] said in a radio address. "If he refuses then for the sake of peace, the United States will lead a coalition to disarm the Iraqi regime and free the Iraqi people." (Scotland on Sunday 29/12/02)

"President George W Bush said yesterday he hoped the North Korean nuclear crisis could be resolved peacefully. But he added that it appeared Saddam Hussein had "not heard the message" that he must disarm to avoid war.’"(Daily Telegraph 01/01/03)].


See? By your reasoning, Bush was deliberately setting a condition for Iraq to avoid war which could not possibly have been met -since Iraq could not have proven that it had disarmed.

demon

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm a bit confused.
...
Saddam was not in compliance.
...
RandFan
I know you are.

I said it, when mentioning your moronic brain.

Was Saddam not in compliance after 1992?

Because U.S. was not in compliance in 2003 when attacking Iraq.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Churchill, tough commander or incompetent dolt who lead Britian into an unnecessary war by refusing der Fuhrer's generous peace offer in 1940, after Dunkirk?
Skeptic, you've just basically summed up the conservative view on how to deal with the bad guys. Conservatives don't believe in giving into the demands of the bad guys unless they have to. Conservatives believe that good deeds should be rewarded, a lack of good deeds shouldn't be rewarded, bad deeds should be punished, and a lack of bad deeds shouldn't be punished.

[Skeptic]

The one thing Saddam wanted above anything else was to stay as head of Iraq. He had already stopped much of his trouble making.

If you discount a few ongoing genocides against Iraqis of tribes he didn't like, running an insane police state, funding suicide bombers, hosting Abu Nidal & co., and a few other innocent pasttimes of that nature.

[demon]

jar:
"the bad guys"

Ah, there lies the dependent vairiable behind which any moveable feast of morality can hide in shame.
Is Islam Karimov (you know, the guy who boils people alive and has been visited by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright, General Tommy R. Franks, General Richard B. Myers, General Anthony Zinni, and numerous Senators and Representatives from both parties, including McCain, Lieberman, Daschle, Gramm, and Shelby) one of the good guys or the bad guys right now?

[JAR]

Originally posted by demon
jar:
"the bad guys"

Ah, there lies the dependent vairiable behind which any moveable feast of morality can hide in shame.
Is Islam Karimov (you know, the guy who boils people alive and has been visited by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright, General Tommy R. Franks, General Richard B. Myers, General Anthony Zinni, and numerous Senators and Representatives from both parties, including McCain, Lieberman, Daschle, Gramm, and Shelby) one of the good guys or the bad guys right now?
Islam Karimov is a bad guy.

[am7a]

Originally posted by Skeptic

If you discount a few ongoing genocides against Iraqis of tribes he didn't like, running an insane police state, funding suicide bombers, hosting Abu Nidal & co., and a few other innocent pasttimes of that nature.

well Moammar Kaddafi is a dectator who also commitied genocides against libyans who didn't like his policy. he created that green book which has become almost as holy as the koran itself in Libya and maybe more important.
Libyans need not to study more than this book at school to become philosophers.

As for the middle east conflict his excellency philisopher claims that israelis and palestinians should together create one country name it isratine and live together, that would certainly solve the problem.

oh i should mension that saddam never crashed an american plane like kaddafi did, and his charity to palestinians only happened few times before the war in order to gain popularity among arabs and surprisingly he almost succeeded with that.
kaddafi after all have been delt with deplomatically and he is still the dectator president of Libya ruining Libyans life.

[demon]

JAR:
"Islam Karimov is a bad guy"

What about those who befriend him...help keep him in power...who is worse in your opinion.

[JAR]

Originally posted by demon
JAR:
"Islam Karimov is a bad guy"

What about those who befriend him...help keep him in power...who is worse in your opinion.
Well, you know how politics are. Sometimes you have to pretend to befriend enemies and scheme a little. There's also lesser threats and greater threats and lesser evils and greater evils. You know how it is. In politics there's no rules, there is just that which will benefit mankind, and that which won't.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The one thing Saddam wanted above anything else was to stay as head of Iraq. He had already stopped much of his trouble making.

If you discount a few ongoing genocides against Iraqis of tribes he didn't like, running an insane police state, funding suicide bombers, hosting Abu Nidal & co., and a few other innocent pasttimes of that nature.

Iraq was hardly paradise on earth, but compared to what it is now, and the loss of faith with the torture pictures now published, then you have to wonder if the cure isn't worse than the disease. I think plenty of countries told him as much before Iraq, as did Colin Powell. I also don't think that France passing on being involved was for highly ethical reasons, but more likely sheer practicality.

[waitew]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Iraq was hardly paradise on earth, but compared to what it is now, and the loss of faith with the torture pictures now published, then you have to wonder if the cure isn't worse than the disease. I think plenty of countries told him as much before Iraq, as did Colin Powell. I also don't think that France passing on being involved was for highly ethical reasons, but more likely sheer practicality.




When you've proved a half million Iraqi dead at US hands..ie..Sadddame's mass graves,rape rooms etc...perhaps then I'll concede the cure is worse than the disease..until then..Not!

Ps...Bush is a puppet whose strings are pulled by even higher ups..he's just a talking head who appeals to many common Americans..not unlike your Queen!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
I decided to throw some evidence your way before dealing with this point in detail. Quite simply, this point is nonsense and undermines virtually your entire case.

Firstly, the existence or not of WMD in Iraq was clearly an empirical matter. You completely misunderstood my position. At the time of the invasion it had not been prove empirical. I didn't say that it couldn't.

Secondly, if Saddam's possession of WMD was not demonstrable either way then this means that the entire inspections process was futile. Again, it hadn't been demonstrated.

Saddam's records were incomplete. There were documented agents and weapons that were unaccountable. The U.N. Ruled that Iraq was not in compliance. The argument was since it was in Saddam's best interest to comply why wouldn't he comply?

{snipped due to missunderstanding}

I apologize if I had not been clear.

RandFan

[demon]

Ok RandFan....
I take you at you word that you misphrased yourself...then what you’re saying is that Iraq’s alleged possession of WMD had not been demonstrated.

In which case, you are presumably arguing that Iraq was under a burden of proof to prove that it DID NOT possess WMD. I’ll return to this in a moment but I first want to deal with the issue of compliance.

Firstly, it is beyond doubt that Iraq was not in full compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions up to but not including 1441. UNSCR 1441 gave Iraq a ‘final opportunity’ to comply at risk of facing serious consequences. There are two relevant points here.

Firstly, Iraq was never judged in violation of 1441. On December 20th 2002, the US (in the person of the delightful John Negroponte) ‘declared’ that Iraq was in material breach, following Iraq’s submission of its Declaration (LA Times, 20/12/02). Nobody in the American press at the time seemed to question whether the US had any authority to pronounce on a UN matter, but I’ll come back to that in a moment. Blix, the day before was far more measured. To quote the text of his assessment as reproduced in the NYT (19/12/04)

“The first point to be made is that Iraq continues to state in the Declaration, as it has consistently done before its submission, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, when inspectors left at the end of 1998 and that none have been designed, procured, produced or stored in the period since then.

"While individual governments have stated that they have convincing evidence to the contrary, UNMOVIC at this point is neither in a position to confirm Iraq's statements, nor in possession of evidence to disprove it.”

Returning to the broader issue of compliance, clearly, such matters were a matter for the Security Council to decide. Unilateral action (ostensibly) to enforce the will of the Security Council is forbidden by Article 2(4) -precisely because it can be abused in the manner it was by the US and UK. Item 14 of Resolution 1441 clearly states that the Council ‘Decides to remain seized of the matter,’ meaning that it had not specified what action would be taken if it decided that Iraq had breached 1441, let alone derogated responsibilities or powers to member states pursuant to that.

Nor did 1441, even if breached, authorize war. Indeed, 1441 was only passed at the Security Council precisely because it DID NOT automatically authorize war. To quote the Financial Times at the time ‘…when Resolution 1441 was adopted on November 8. The British Ambassador said: "There is no 'automaticity' in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12." The US Ambassador made a similar statement. The unanimous vote in the Security Council on November 8 was gained only because of these promises. It remains a matter of dispute between the US and the UK and the other members of the UN over what would happen were the Council to be unable to pass a second resolution.’ (FT December 18th 2002) 1441 did not authorize war, as the phrase ‘serious consequences’ is not the diplomatic phrase for war –that is ‘by all means necessary’ as you will see if you consult the Resolution which enabled the original Gulf War.

In fact, the Security Council was never allowed the opportunity to assess Iraq’s compliance with 1441 because the US and UK made it clear that they would attack Iraq regardless, despite the fact that they were not competent to decide whether the Security Council had received sufficient cooperation. When, on February 24th, the UK introduced the text of a draft resolution to the Security Council, stating that Iraq has "failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441" it was rejected by the Security Council -on the perfectly sensible grounds that Iraq was actually cooperating quite well -even if imperfectly and that there was no need for military action. As Blix said in his final report before the US and UK started bombing:

“the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:

"The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

"It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.”

Blix went on,

“Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks;…”

“How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.”

In other words, inspections were proceeding -with problems, yes- but sufficient that UNMOVIC was able to plan a draft work programme and anticipated that remaining tasks would only take a few months, providing pressure was sustained. All of this was unilaterally and illegally disregarded by the US and UK. Without support in the Security Council, at the Azores summit (March 16th) Bush and Blair announced a 24 hour deadline for the UN support. When the UN refused to back down and authorize the attack, the UK withdrew the draft resolution.

demon.

[Skeptic]

Iraq was hardly paradise on earth, but compared to what it is now, and the loss of faith with the torture pictures now published, then you have to wonder if the cure isn't worse than the disease.

When US troops torture a million Iraqis to death, or genocide the Kurds with nerve gas, I'll agree.

They key word in your post is published. Obviously, for you, what makes something real is whether or not the situation is bad somewhere is if there are cameras to record it.

Saddam was torturing thousands in his jails every day; but there were no cameras, so for you it doesn't count.

I think plenty of countries told him as much before Iraq, as did Colin Powell. I also don't think that France passing on being involved was for highly ethical reasons, but more likely sheer practicality.

Or even more likely, the fact that Saddam bribed UN officials with over $2 billion dollars stolen from the "oil-for-food" program.

Yes, it's a real shame the US doesn't want this august organization to be in charge in Iraq.

[billydkid]

If there was anyway on earth that I could construe the occupation of Iraq as a defense of the United States in my mind I would wholeheartedly support the administration. In as much as I see a bunch of young Americans (not to mention countless Iraqis) dying for God knows what reasons, really, I can only look on in horror. If there are actual legitimate reasons for us to have attacked and to occupy Iraq I think it would behoove Dubya to let us in on them.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by billydkid
If there was anyway on earth that I could construe the occupation of Iraq as a defense of the United States in my mind I would wholeheartedly support the administration. In as much as I see a bunch of young Americans (not to mention countless Iraqis) dying for God knows what reasons, really, I can only look on in horror. If there are actual legitimate reasons for us to have attacked and to occupy Iraq I think it would behoove Dubya to let us in on them.



what are you some kind of liberal? the WMD, the WMD, c'mom man Don't make me send you to Cuba.

edit forgot to put
with Sarcasim
Virgil

[kittynh]

dolt:(

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by billydkid
If there was anyway on earth that I could construe the occupation of Iraq as a defense of the United States in my mind I would wholeheartedly support the administration. In as much as I see a bunch of young Americans (not to mention countless Iraqis) dying for God knows what reasons, really, I can only look on in horror. If there are actual legitimate reasons for us to have attacked and to occupy Iraq I think it would behoove Dubya to let us in on them.

It's a perception problem. For many Americans, the war was justified by reasons that seemed clear: freeing the Iraqi people, taking a dictator out of power, disarming him.
Not as many people think as you and I: that the war was unnecessary, Hussein was contained.

People like ourselves see a rush to war with laughable diplomatic efforts, a small coalition built with promises and deals, predicated on misinformation or outright lies. We see troops dying every day and that the people of the region are hating the United States more and more. We see a bumbling, empty-suit President who took the eye off of terrorism to attack a sure-victory target that had nothing to do with 9/11 and stopping actual terrorists.

But like I said, perception. This is what we perceive, and we may be wrong. My personal leanings skew my thinking on the matter, and as a result I may tend to see idiotic decisions where I want to see them. There were reasons that justified going to war with Iraq... and to be honest, I can't think of one at the moment. Reasons that justified continued sanctions and a watchful eye, but not war, or risking the lives of our soldiers.

I'm trying not to let my perception of this administration and our President color what I see going on in Iraq, but it's kinda hard...

[Ion]

Originally posted by waitew

...
..ie..Sadddame's mass graves,rape rooms etc...perhaps then I'll concede the cure is worse than the disease..
...

Saddam's mass graves after 1992?

You have illusions.

[demon]

kittynh:
"dolt:(

care to elaborate?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
In which case, you are presumably arguing that Iraq was under a burden of proof to prove that it DID NOT possess WMD. I’ll return to this in a moment but I first want to deal with the issue of compliance. Not really, they had the burden to account for or prove how they had destroyed documented WMD and biological agents.

“The first point to be made is that Iraq continues to state in the Declaration, as it has consistently done before its submission, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, when inspectors left at the end of 1998 and that none have been designed, procured, produced or stored in the period since then. This kind of glosses over the fact that Saddam had been obfuscating for 12 years. And while he never "kicked" the inspectors out he reached a point where he would not allow them to do their job. Remember that this is the reason that Clinton launched an attack.

The point being that Saddam had waged a war of stalling and the U.N. was all to willing to play his game.

Returning to the broader issue of compliance, clearly, such matters were a matter for the Security Council to decide. Unilateral action (ostensibly) to enforce the will of the Security Council is forbidden by Article 2(4) -precisely because it can be abused in the manner it was by the US and UK. Item 14 of Resolution 1441 clearly states that the Council ‘Decides to remain seized of the matter,’ meaning that it had not specified what action would be taken if it decided that Iraq had breached 1441, let alone derogated responsibilities or powers to member states pursuant to that.

...

In other words, inspections were proceeding -with problems, yes- but sufficient that UNMOVIC was able to plan a draft work programme and anticipated that remaining tasks would only take a few months, providing pressure was sustained. All of this was unilaterally and illegally disregarded by the US and UK. Without support in the Security Council, at the Azores summit (March 16th) Bush and Blair announced a 24 hour deadline for the UN support. When the UN refused to back down and authorize the attack, the UK withdrew the draft resolution. The U.N. does not necessarily seek the best interests of the United States. The U.N. demonstrated an unwillingness to press Saddam to comply. He had been given an ultimatum and he did not live up to that ultimatum. You say "proceeding with problems". I say continuing in his same old tactics of stalling and lying.

yes- but sufficient that UNMOVIC was able to plan a draft work programme and anticipated that remaining tasks would only take a few months, providing pressure was sustained. This is simply naive. Saddam had successfully weathered 12 years and had at one point stopped the U.N. action all together. The U.N. was powerless to act against Saddam. It was only after 9/11 and it became obvious that the U.S. was not going to play anymore games that there existed any real pressure.

Please think about that? Where was the pressure before 9/11? It didn't exist. Where was the pressure without the U.S. and U.K.? It didn't exist. In fact, France, Russia and Germany IIRC all called for the end of sanctions and the U.N. was waffling under pressure to do just that.

You say we acted unilaterally, perhaps. But we are the only ones ultimately who care or who can defend us.

It had been 12 years. Saddam had two choices, comply or face an invasion by the United States. He chose not to comply.

RandFan

[RandFan]

Originally posted by No Answers
It's a perception problem. For many Americans, the war was justified by reasons that seemed clear: freeing the Iraqi people, taking a dictator out of power, disarming him.
Not as many people think as you and I: that the war was unnecessary, Hussein was contained.

People like ourselves see a rush to war with laughable diplomatic efforts, a small coalition built with promises and deals, predicated on misinformation or outright lies. We see troops dying every day and that the people of the region are hating the United States more and more. We see a bumbling, empty-suit President who took the eye off of terrorism to attack a sure-victory target that had nothing to do with 9/11 and stopping actual terrorists.

But like I said, perception. This is what we perceive, and we may be wrong. My personal leanings skew my thinking on the matter, and as a result I may tend to see idiotic decisions where I want to see them. There were reasons that justified going to war with Iraq... and to be honest, I can't think of one at the moment. Reasons that justified continued sanctions and a watchful eye, but not war, or risking the lives of our soldiers.

I'm trying not to let my perception of this administration and our President color what I see going on in Iraq, but it's kinda hard... Yes, perception. We all suffer from it. It is something that we must all strive to overcome. I can respect your opinion. But I don't see Saddam as contained. He had played a waiting game. He wanted sanctions lifted and he made it clear that he was never going to fully comply. He had shown his willingness to seek out and use WMD.

"Perception"? I see your perceptions as Chamberlain-esque and in an era following 9/11 the notion that we can pressure someone like Saddam into complying after 12 years of obfuscation and lying is wrong headed and naive.

That being said I admit that I could also be wrong. I see our soldiers dying and wonder if we had made a mistake. On the other hand, I wonder, if Chamberlain had stood up to Germany and his decision had cost the lives of British soldier but had saved perhaps millions more, would we today be questioning his lack of diplomacy?

I respect the opinion of those who disagree. I wonder if those who disagree can agree with me?

[demon]

FandRan:
"It had been 12 years. Saddam had two choices, comply or face an invasion by the United States. He chose not to comply."

Returning to the issue of who has authority to decide whether a UN Resolution has achieved compliance, this is fairly clear. It was the UN Security Council that gave Iraq one last chance to cooperate and it was only the Security Council that was competent to decide when/if Iraq had failed to take that chance. In fact, the Council was illegally denied the chance to pronounce on its own Resolution because the US and UK pre-empted them and made it clear that they were not subject to international law. Despite a string of reports by UNMOVIC detailing increased cooperation, including permission for over flights by US U-2 surveillance flights (Feb 10) and the destruction of al-Samoud II missiles, the US, UK would have none of it. Every time that UNMOVIC reported new cooperation, the US came back with yet more unproven allegations, such as the ‘Al-Qaeda link’ and general deception -while never offering any evidence of it.
Indeed, as I’ve written else where on this board, if the US had so much killer intelligence, it’s a wonder they seemed so reluctant to share it with UNMOVIC as they were legally obliged to do. In fact, as the London Independent reported at the time (10/01/03), the US did not even start to share intelligence with UNMOVIC until January 2003 and even then not all that it claimed to possess. As The Economist and others pointed out at the time, the US was violating Paragraph 10 of Resolution 1441, which requested all countries to hand over 'any information related to prohibited programmes' in Iraq. The US actually violated 1441 long before there was any question that Iraq may have done (Economist, 14 Dec., p. 58). Moreover, the intelligence it did share amounted to nothing -no smoking guns were ever found (and a year on still have still not).

Now, you might choose to respond here, as have various legal sophists including the British Attorney General, that the US and UK attacked under the authority of Resolutions 678 and 687 -this is not tenable, however.

Firstly, it is a matter of commonsense that 1441 superseded all previous Resolutions on the matter. The reason for this is simple. If an attack on Iraq was legitimatized by prior Resolutions then this would have been the case during the formulation and negotiations over 1441 and at any time during the inspections process until a Resolution was passed declaring that Iraq had fulfilled its obligations.

If this were true, then any state could have attacked Iraq under the same Resolutions at any point; for example during the 45 days that Iraq was granted to comply with 1441’s demand that inspectors be readmitted. Imagine, for a second, that inspections had been proceeding entirely to the satisfaction of the US and UK, yet China had attacked anyway, based on previous Resolutions. This is clearly absurd.

Furthermore, both resolutions 661 and 678 (which the US and UK used to justify the attack) were adopted solely for the purpose of securing Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait. Once that withdrawal occurred, the use of force authorisation no longer applied. The Council did not, indeed constitutionally could not, issue an authorisation that applied for all time to come. In any case, the ceasefire of 1991 was between the UN and Iraq, not the US and Iraq, since the coalition rejected Iraq from Kuwait under UN authority and the actions taken were a combined UN operation.

I think that’s dealt with the issue of who judges compliance and whether Iraq was found not to have done so. Let me deal briefly with the matter of Iraq’s records. It’s true that Iraq’s records were incomplete but this is to be expected. Iraq was massively bombed during the first Gulf War and many records were naturally lost or destroyed. It is unreasonable to expect otherwise. Further it was perfectly known that Iraq had previously falsified data and that at least partially, this was what our estimates of unaccounted material were based on. David Kelly conceded this in his posthumous article in the UK Observer (31 August 2003 ). Moreover, the unaccounted material (8,500 litres of anthrax VX, 2,160 kilograms of bacterial growth media, 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, 6,500 chemical bombs and 30,000 munitions) would have been useless after 1995, anyway -as Scott Ritter and other have observed. And, to reiterate, even those estimates are based on data which is unreliable.

On the matter of ‘why Saddam didn’t comply’, arguably he did - even though the US and UK had arbitrarily removed any reason for them to do so and, by 1998, Iraq was ‘fundamentally disarmed’ (Ritter’s phrase). Moreover, as Ritter said, If this were argued in a court of law, the weight of evidence would go the other way. Iraq has in fact demonstrated over and over a willingness to cooperate with weapons inspectors." (Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, War On Iraq, Profile, 2002, p.25) Even Richard Butler’s own report in 1998 stated that, out of 300 inspections, there had only been incidents at a mere 5 (according to the Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov in December 1998, as quoted by Associated Press 17/12/98). Then there is the whole matter of US duplicity, including spying and deliberate manipulation of UNSCOM to the point where, as Richard Butler was forced to concede in his memoirs, the death of UNSCOM ‘effectively became US policy’. I can detail this in another post, if need be.

To conclude, Iraq was never in violation of 1441. 1441 did not authorize war, no weapons were found, and the US never provided any intelligence to prove otherwise. Iraq’s cooperation was imperfect but increasing, and sufficient for all members of the Security Council bar the obvious two, and UNMOVIC was optimistic that it could establish a full scale verification programme within a few months. In short, why kill tens of thousand of people?

With the greatest respect, I think you are defending a dubious position here. You asked me once before about what it would take to make me change my position...what evidence would it take you to change yours on this?

demon.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
It had been 12 years. Saddam had two choices, comply or face an invasion by the United States. He chose not to comply.

RandFan
RF,

Bush had two choices, comply with U.N. or not comply with U.N. and make a catastrophe in the world. He chose not to comply.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
On the matter of ‘why Saddam didn’t comply’, arguably he did Not by my reading.

even though the US and UK had arbitrarily removed any reason for them to do so... Could you explain this?

...and, by 1998, Iraq was ‘fundamentally disarmed’ (Ritter’s phrase). Some believed this but it was not proven. And there were many who did not agree with this assesment. Your "proof" is cherry picked and does not reflect the whole picture (see below)

Moreover, as Ritter said, If this were argued in a court of law, the weight of evidence would go the other way. Iraq has in fact demonstrated over and over a willingness to cooperate with weapons inspectors." (Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, War On Iraq, Profile, 2002, p.25) Even Richard Butler’s own report in 1998 stated that, out of 300 inspections, there had only been incidents at a mere 5 (according to the Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov in December 1998, as quoted by Associated Press 17/12/98). Then there is the whole matter of US duplicity, including spying and deliberate manipulation of UNSCOM to the point where, as Richard Butler was forced to concede in his memoirs, the death of UNSCOM ‘effectively became US policy’. I can detail this in another post, if need be.It's hard to respond when to something that is so one sided and certainly controverted by Butlers own book "The Greatest Threat: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the Crisis of Global Security "

Synopsis

Much of the book details the two wars that UNSCOM waged. Sadly, it lost both. The first and the better known is the daily war of attrition it fought with Iraq, which used ceaseless tactics of cheat, retreat and cheat in order to thwart UNSCOM. As Butler explains, Saddam Hussein did not believe he lost the Gulf War. Though Saddam was driven from Kuwait, he viewed the Dessert Storm coalitions real aim as to remove him from power or turn Iraq into a vassal state. Thus, for Iraq the battle with UNSCOM was simply the last battle of the Gulf War. And for Iraq to "cement its "victory" in that war they had to defeat both UNSCOM in general and Richard Butler personally. In fact, Iraq paid Butler an ironic compliment when it demanded his removal as item 9 of a list of demands presented to the Security Council in November 1998 in its attempt to forestall the Clinton bombing.

To conclude, Iraq was never in violation of 1441. 1441 did not authorize war, no weapons were found, and the US never provided any intelligence to prove otherwise. Iraq’s cooperation was imperfect but increasing, and sufficient for all members of the Security Council bar the obvious two, and UNMOVIC was optimistic that it could establish a full scale verification programme within a few months. In short, why kill tens of thousand of people? I would disagree.

1441

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material. Iraq was given a set amount of time to provide an accurate, full, final and complete disclosure and they did not. That some people think Saddam was trying to comply does not make a silk purse out of a sows ear (see below).

With the greatest respect, I think you are defending a dubious position here. You asked me once before about what it would take to make me change my position...what evidence would it take you to change yours on this? It would take more than cherry picked and one sided information. I think there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of the Administrtions position. There is also plenty to be skeptical of the opposition view. It serves political purpose to paint the war in a way that makes Saddam look as if he was cooperating when in fact he was playing a game of getting away with as much as he could. 12 years Demon. This did not need to be 12 years. Sddam didn't need to fire at our planes. Regardless of whether the fly overs were warranted or not (he was murdering people). He could have complied in a year or two.

In his book "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq", Kenneth Pollack make a compelling argument for the actions that Bush has since taken. This book was written in 2002 and it should be remembered that Pollak was Clinton's chief Iraq expert.

Pollack has grudgingly concluded that the post-Gulf War policy of containment deployed against Saddam by the United States has irretrievably broken down. Pollack believes that Saddam can no longer be safely deterred by our military might, and instead must be deposed by invasion.Ok, you say Iraq was arguably in compliance. Let's look at the facts.

Iraqi Compliance: An Oxymoron (http://www.truthlaidbear.com/archives/2003/01/26/iraqi_compliance_an_oxymoron.php)

The Security Council...[list=1] Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991)

Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

Note the word "final" in there. Not "an opportunity to comply which, if it fails to act immediately upon, we'll offer another chance." Not "an opportunity to comply which, if it doesn't seize, we'll negotiate some more, and then extend the time period allowed for compliance."

Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, subcomponents, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

Decides that 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 and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

Secretary of State Colin Powell, December 2002: "(the Iraqi declaration contains a) pattern of systematic…gaps (that constitute) another material breach"

Hans Blix, 1/18/03: "Twelve years later (since the end of the 1991 Gulf War) we're still uncertain of whether they have weapons of mass destruction... We are not closer because there are too many gaps in it (the Iraqi declaration) and the world would like to be assured that Iraq is rid of weapons of mass destruction. And until we inspectors have been convinced of that we cannot so report to the Security Council."

Hans Blix, 1/21/02: "We feel the declaration (by Iraq to the United Nations) has not answered a great many questions of the past which still remain open. "

Is there anyone, anywhere who believes that the Iraqi declaration was "accurate, full, and complete" ? And in the absence of such an absurd belief, how is it possible to avoid concluding Iraq is in violation of this clause of the resolution?

Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

As has become clear, Iraq has not provided its scientists to the UNMOVIC teams for private interviews. Let's even forget for a moment that, according to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the United States has intelligence proving that Hussein has indeed ordered the death of any scientist who cooperates with inspectors -- along with their family, of course.

No, let's just pretend, for one delirious moment, that we actually believe Iraq is attempting to get its scientists to comply with the request for private interviews. Do we seriously believe that the government of Iraq has no tools at its disposal to compel obedience to such a request?

I'm not talking torture or threats of violence. How about a simple, "You will answer the inspectors' questions fully and completely in private, or you will be fired." That's the kind of instructions that are given all the time in criminal investigations around here; am I to believe that Iraq is so respectful of its scientists "rights" that it can't bring itself to issue a similar order?

So: Until and unless I hear that such a "talk-or-get-fired" message has been delivered by Iraq to its scientists, I will continue to believe the obvious: that Iraq has no intention of abiding by this clause of the resolution, and never did.


Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

I won't go through every detail of the Chairman's letter, but here's one high point:

"On the question of aerial imagery, UNMOVIC may wish to resume the use of U-2 or Mirage overflights. The relevant practical arrangements would be similar to those implemented in the past..."

Iraq has refused to allow U-2 flights.


Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998) of 2 March 1998;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

We know that Iraq's list of scientists is incomplete: it ends with those who worked in the program in 1991.

Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;


Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC nd the IAEA;

Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

A brief note here: I would question whether Dr. Blix has fulfilled his responsibilities as stated in this clause. His reaction, when faced with the breaches I have noted above, has not been to "report immediately to the Council" --- it has been to negotiate, discuss, cajole, and otherwise attempt to provide additional chances for Iraq to do what it should have done immediately.

And finally, the wrap-up, including the always-impressive-sounding standard Security Council closing line:


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;

Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Decides to remain seized of the matter.
[/list=1]

I don't know how to make it any clearer that Iraq has failed, again, to fulfill their obligations to the United Nations. And I'm not interested in any comments that begin "But you've only highlighted the negative, look at all the positive steps they've taken..."

There should be no negatives. Any one of the failures I describe above is sufficient cause to declare Iraq to have failed its final chance to prove itself serious about disarming.

This is not a surprise to anyone paying attention.

The United States has displayed patience. We've worked through the U.N.; provided Iraq with one more "final chance" to go with all the others that they've had in the past twelve years. They have rejected that chance.

If the U.N. is willing to look honestly at its own resolution, it cannot fail to conclude that Iraq is in breach: that diplomacy, and inspections, are a fool's game. Saddam Hussein will continue to manipulate and deceive for as long as we let him: but he will never, ever, disarm.

Time's up. With or without the U.N., the U.S. must act, and swiftly.

[Ion]

RF,

you got this one:
Originally posted by RandFan

...
Iraq was given a set amount of time to provide an accurate, full, final and complete disclosure and they did not.
...

wrong, again.

You have the record in this forum of wrong things in this matter:

Iraq was given a set amount of time to provide an accurate, full, final and complete disclosure and U.N. judged there is no need for war.

Also RF, I give you this advice:

instead of rambling old repeats of obsolete arguments, you should better start thinking now ink/data ratio, you know?

[RandFan]

Ion,

If you ever say anything of substance I will respond to you. Until then you are just the Liberal version of "American" (JREF poster).

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Not by my reading.

Could you explain this?

Some believed this but it was not proven. And there were many who did not agree with this assesment. Your "proof" is cherry picked and does not reflect the whole picture (see below)

It's hard to respond when to something that is so one sided and certainly controverted by Butlers own book "The Greatest Threat: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the Crisis of Global Security "



I would disagree.

Iraq was given a set amount of time to provide an accurate, full, final and complete disclosure and they did not. That some people think Saddam was trying to comply does not make a silk purse out of a sows ear (see below).

It would take more than cherry picked and one sided information. I think there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of the Administrtions position. There is also plenty to be skeptical of the opposition view. It serves political purpose to paint the war in a way that makes Saddam look as if he was cooperating when in fact he was playing a game of getting away with as much as he could. 12 years Demon. This did not need to be 12 years. Sddam didn't need to fire at our planes. Regardless of whether the fly overs were warranted or not (he was murdering people). He could have complied in a year or two.

In his book "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq", Kenneth Pollack make a compelling argument for the actions that Bush has since taken. This book was written in 2002 and it should be remembered that Pollak was Clinton's chief Iraq expert.

Ok, you say Iraq was arguably in compliance. Let's look at the facts.



Makes sense to me, I take the US will invade Israel tomorrow because it didn't comply with the UN resolutions directed at it.

Either way, it was a stupid way to solve a problem that wasn't going to be solved like that. Also, the UN did no give a final approval. I mean, before you start a war, doesn't it make sense to make really sure of what you are doing.

You can go on with all the legalistic nit picking you want, but it doesn't amount to an ounce of common sense.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Ion,

If you ever say anything of substance I will respond to you.
...

Here:

Bush broke the U.N. international law and killed Iraqis, for his agenda of oil and power.

Bush's interest since the spring of 2001 in looting Iraq's oil on a long-term basis at the expense of existing contracts for oil in between Iraq and Europe is well documented in the forum, and once again it is documented here:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm

Since February 2003 you pretend that these are of no substance to you, when in fact they defeat you from a humanitarian point of view.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion

Here:

Bush broke the U.N. international law and killed Iraqis, for his agenda of oil and power.

Since February 2003 you pretend that this is of no substance to you, when in fact this defeats you from a humanitarian point of view.

France, Russia, and the UN itself propped up Saddam for oil, and abetted his killings and his strangling of the Iraqi populace while breaking their own laws to take bribes. You pretend this is of no substance, when in fact this defeats you from a humanitarian point of view.

Oh, but we're pretending the oil-for-food scandal never happened, aren't we? Sorry, but when you need to resort to the UN for moral standing, you've already lost.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

France, Russia, and the UN itself propped up Saddam for oil, and abetted his killings...
...

Ziggy,

don't start your dumb record again about France and Russia, given that Saddam didn't kill nearly as much since 1992 as Bush Jr. does since 2001.

Oil-for-food -you 'ace' argument here- was made in U.N. in 1991 by Bush Sr..

Since 1992, Bush Jr. overtakes in killings France, Russia and Saddam, for the same oil.

Compared to France, Russia and Saddam since 1992, Bush Jr. is a champion murderer of the world.

Ziggy, you play the self-righteous preacher here, but since 1992 you have more killings on your side for the same oil.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion

Ziggy, you play the self-righteous preacher here, but since 1992 you have more killings on your side for the same oil.

We've been through this before. But Saddam's death toll during the 90's (and yes, even if we artificially constrain ourselves to after '92) reaches into the hundreds of thousands. The Iraqi children who died because there was no real medical care in Iraq are Saddam's fault, they're on his head, and France, Russia, and the UN share guilt in their deaths because they helped Saddam divert the oil-for-food money from legitimate spending (like medicine) to building palaces and bribing foreign diplomats and politicians. So don't you dare have the audacity to say that Saddam is less evil than Bush, worm.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


We've been through this before. But Saddam's death toll during the 90's (and yes, even if we artificially constrain ourselves to after '92) reaches into the hundreds of thousands. The Iraqi children who died because there was no real medical care in Iraq are Saddam's fault, they're on his head, and France, Russia, and the UN share guilt in their deaths because they helped Saddam divert the oil-for-food money from legitimate spending (like medicine) to building palaces and bribing foreign diplomats and politicians. So don't you dare have the audacity to say that Saddam is less evil than Bush, worm.
We have been through this before, Zugga:

oil-for food was made in U.N. by Bush Sr..

Again Zugga:

Bush Jr. overtakes in killings since 2001 France, Russia and Saddam since 1992.

[Ion]

Zugga,

I know your handicaps in learning, so I give you again my link from a few posts ago:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm

Bush Jr. killings in Iraq for oil are explained in the link.

Learn about Bush Jr. motivation for Iraq's oil and war, Zugga, learn!

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion
Zugga,

I know your handicaps in learning, so I give you again my link from a few posts ago:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm

Learn about Bush Jr. motivation for Iraq's oil and war, Zugga, learn!

Learn about France's real motivation for opposing the war, from your own source:

"A recent court case in France, involving high officials of the national oil company Elf Aquitaine, provides a glimpse of more recent operations in this world of oil intrigue and covert competition between the giant companies. The case revealed bribes, espionage, mistresses, arms smuggling, civil strife and plots to overthrow governments, all with the complicity of French military and intelligence services. These actions had a terrible effect on a number of oil-producing countries, mostly in Africa."

Considering the cost of French backing of Saddam and the corrupt oil-for-food program to the Iraqi people (again, estimates range from several hundred thousand to over a million dead from the collapse of medical care from Saddam's intentional neglect), one wonders why you side with the French even if you think the worst of the US's motivations. Oh, but then you don't care about Iraqi deaths unless you can blame the US. Sorry, I forgot for a second what a worm you are.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Learn about France's real motivation for opposing the war, from your own source:
...
Considering the cost of French backing of Saddam and the corrupt oil-for-food program to the Iraqi people
...

Zoggo,

give Bush Sr. credit for the oil-for-food program in Iraq since 1991.

France didn't kill as many Iraqis as Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. each one did for the same oil.

[Ion]

I mean France's bribes are bad, but the killings by Bush Sr. (including from his oil-for-food program started in 1991) and by Bush Jr. war now are worse.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion

Zoggo,

give Bush Sr. credit for the oil-for-food program in Iraq since 1991.

France didn't kill as many Iraqis as Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. each one did for the same oil.

Saddam was the one who corrupted the oil-for-food program, who diverted money from what it was intended for. And it was France, Russia, and the UN who primarily benefitted from the kickbacks for helping to enable this corruption. Had Bush Sr. handled it the way I think it should have been handled, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But what you are engaged in is blaming everyone EXCEPT those truly responsible.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Saddam was the one who corrupted the oil-for-food program,...
...

Still the credit of oil-for-food goes to the creator of it, Bush Sr..

Also the credit for the killings in the first Golf War of 1990, goes to Bush Sr..

Man, that's a lot of killings for oil by Bush Sr..

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion

Still the credit of oil-for-food goes to the creator of it, Bush Sr..

How bloody stupid are you? It wasn't the existence of the oil-for-food program that killed those Iraqis, it was the abuse of the program, the fact that money didn't get spent on what it was supposed to be spent on, the fact that Saddam decided it was more important to build palaces than provide medical care, the fact that Saddam WANTED to have Iraqis dieing so he could score propaganda points. I guess he didn't even need those points with you.

[Ion]

Just get rid of these Bushes (Sr. and Jr.) and their obsession with killings for oil.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


How bloody stupid are you?
...

Less than you:

1.) food for oil = Bush Sr.;

2.) wars for oil = initiative of (Bush Sr. + Bush Jr.).

I don't see initiative from France in 1.) and 2.).

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion

Also the credit for the killings in the first Golf War of 1990, goes to Bush Sr..


And the responsibility for all those deaths in WWII belong to Churchill. Is that the idea, worm? Is there an anti-American dictator you WON'T back?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


And the responsibility for all those deaths in WWII belong to Churchill. Is that the idea, worm? Is there an anti-American dictator you WON'T back?
Listen worm:

wars for oil in Iraq = initiative of (Bush Sr. + Bush Jr.).

There is no France initiative in wars for oil in Iraq.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion

Listen worm:

wars for oil in Iraq = initiative of (Bush Sr. + Bush Jr.).

There is no France initiative in wars for oil in Iraq.

Translation: stop refuting my arguments!

You conveniently ignore that Saddam was plenty capable of killing Iraqis without war, and made it a regular habit. Yes, France didn't back war, it backed the strangulation of the Iraqi people under Saddam, which was killing even more people killed. But that's not war, that can't be blamed on the US, so you don't care.

[Ziggurat]

Oh yes, I'd still like an answer: is there ANY anti-American dictator you wouldn't back against us? Can you name even one? If not, then I think it's quite clear where you really stand.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

...
You conveniently ignore that Saddam was plenty capable of killing Iraqis without war, and made it a regular habit.
...

Zoggo,

wars for oil = initiative of (Bush Sr. + Bush Jr.).

Can't negotiate this.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Oh yes, I'd still like an answer: is there ANY anti-American dictator you wouldn't back against us? Can you name even one? If not, then I think it's quite clear where you really stand.
Why?

wars for oil = initiative of (Bush Sr. + Bush Jr.).

No change.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion

Why?


Simple: because I'd like to see how one-note you really are. If you can't name a single anti-American dictator you wouldn't back against the US, then your concern really isn't principled at all, it's simply anti-American, and you'll join cause with any dictator so long as they're anti-American. I want to see if you can do it. Since I smell a weasel move coming on, make it a current dictator, but all I'm asking for is one.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

...
Yes, France didn't back war, it backed the strangulation of the Iraqi people under Saddam,...
...

Don't lecture like a self righteous priest, now.

Bush Jr. backs up a dictator similar to Saddam, in Uzbekistan.

Bush Jr. does strangulation of the Uzbekistan people.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Simple: because I'd like to see how one-note you really are.
...

Still:

wars in Iraq = initiative of (Bush Sr. + Bush Jr.).

Let me fine tune the motto:

wars in Iraq for oil = initiative of (Bush Sr. + Bush Jr.).

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion

Still:

wars in Iraq = initiative of (Bush Sr. + Bush Jr.).

Yup, pretty damned one-note. You can't name a single anti-American dictator whom you wouldn't join cause with. Just repeat the same old accusation over and over. And hey, maybe it'll even work. I've certainly grown tired of your tirades. Goodbye for now.

[Ion]

You ask me whether oil in Iraq is worth wars, I say:

no.

Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. do these wars, though.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Learn about France's real motivation for opposing the war, from your own source:

"A recent court case in France, involving high officials of the national oil company Elf Aquitaine, provides a glimpse of more recent operations in this world of oil intrigue and covert competition between the giant companies. The case revealed bribes, espionage, mistresses, arms smuggling, civil strife and plots to overthrow governments, all with the complicity of French military and intelligence services. These actions had a terrible effect on a number of oil-producing countries, mostly in Africa."

Considering the cost of French backing of Saddam and the corrupt oil-for-food program to the Iraqi people (again, estimates range from several hundred thousand to over a million dead from the collapse of medical care from Saddam's intentional neglect), one wonders why you side with the French even if you think the worst of the US's motivations. Oh, but then you don't care about Iraqi deaths unless you can blame the US. Sorry, I forgot for a second what a worm you are.

Hmmm, so, because France is not the be all and end all of ethical actions, (And I agree, it certainly isn't), then the US can start a war in Iraq.

No, I don't quite understand this logic.

I do understand that the leadership of France is not as stupid as the leadership of the USA, however.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

...
You can't name a single anti-American dictator...
...

I even don't consider this.

For me:

wars for Iraqi's oil = initiative of (Bush Sr. + Bush Jr.).

[Ion]

I agree with the last post by a_unique_person.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Hmmm, so, because France is not the be all and end all of ethical actions, (And I agree, it certainly isn't), then the US can start a war in Iraq.

No, I don't quite understand this logic.


That's because that's not what I'm saying. My point is that taking the position that oil concerns are the main guiding force in international relations, as Ion seems to, then countries like France still come out smelling worse than us, and that oposition to the war from France was driven by oil concerns at the cost of Iraqi lives and NOT for any real principles. I am not of the opinion, however, that everything we or even they do is guided by oil, I don't buy worm's rants about this being solely for oil to begin with. I'm not in the mood right now to rehash all the reasons I think we were right to invade Iraq (they've been posted before by both me and others), and I know you don't agree with me on them anyways, but it's sufficient for now to say that there are reasons other than oil.


I do understand that the leadership of France is not as stupid as the leadership of the USA, however.

I wouldn't count on that. See how they got trounced in local elections recently? And what the hell was France thinking when it joined with China in naval exercises meant to frighten Taiwan back in March? If that's intelligence, it's a cynical, sell-your-own-grandmother kind of intelligence, and I'll gladly do without it. France needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs France, and pissing us off for the sake of their arab "allies" (does France even have allies where quotation marks aren't needed?) wasn't a smart move. Americans are pissed, with good reason, and they're not going to forget. Neither was banning the Hijab a smart way to counteract the threat of internal Islamists - it's their new Maginot line, but it will avail then naught.

[Lurker]

Ion:

I don't get your blaming Bush for the abuse of the Oil for food program. It is not logical.

If I pass a law and someone subverts that law to commit a crime, am I then responsible for the crime?

Please explain why you think Bush is responsible for Iraqi deaths due to the Oil-For-Food program. Thanks!

Lurker

[Skeptic]

Still the credit of oil-for-food goes to the creator of it, Bush Sr..

That's absolutely correct. Behold the slight differences:

GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH: Created the oil-for-food program, making sure that Iraqis at least have enough food and medicine.

SADDAM HUSSEIN AND THE UN: Stole billions from the oil-for-food program, making sure the Iraqis don't have enough foor or medicine.

[Skeptic]

If I pass a law and someone subverts that law to commit a crime, am I then responsible for the crime?

Only if you're an American. Remember all the "progressive" and "activist" studies the claimed the 1970s and 80s crime wave was due to "the racist laws passed by late capitalism" (or the equivalent)?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I'm not in the mood right now to rehash all the reasons I think we were right to invade Iraq (they've been posted before by both me and others), and I know you don't agree with me on them anyways, but it's sufficient for now to say that there are reasons other than oil.

Well, FWIW, I do not think that we were right to invade Iraq, but still, the "No Blood For Oil" rant has always been pablum down the bib.

So, for that matter, were nearly all the arguments against invading Iraq.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Makes sense to me, I take the US will invade Israel tomorrow because it didn't comply with the UN resolutions directed at it.

Either way, it was a stupid way to solve a problem that wasn't going to be solved like that. Also, the UN did no give a final approval. I mean, before you start a war, doesn't it make sense to make really sure of what you are doing.

You can go on with all the legalistic nit picking you want, but it doesn't amount to an ounce of common sense. You are entitled to your opinion. You obviously see the war from a one sided ideological point of view.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Since February 2003 you pretend that these are of no substance to you, when in fact they defeat you from a humanitarian point of view. And this has been debated and opposing points of view of been presented. You pick and choose that which you think proves your point of view.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Hmmm, so, because France is not the be all and end all of ethical actions, (And I agree, it certainly isn't), then the US can start a war in Iraq. This was not his argument. Nice straw man.

No, I don't quite understand this logic. Wonder why?

I do understand that the leadership of France is not as stupid as the leadership of the USA, however. This is just rhetoric. It fits your world view and mollifies your ego but it doesn't advance the discussion. Hey, why don't we all call each other stupid and stick our fingers in our ears?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
You are entitled to your opinion. You obviously see the war from a one sided ideological point of view.

No, I'm just saying that not complying with UN resolutions is not a reason for invasion. Half the world would be invaded if that was the case.

Here is a good reason not to invade. You can make things worse than they were before you invaded, not just for Iraq, but for yourself. Dubya isn't going to be getting all these airports and universities named after him now. He should have learnt from Ronnie and only invaded little islands small populations.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, I'm just saying that not complying with UN resolutions is not a reason for invasion. Half the world would be invaded if that was the case. It was, in part, reson for us to invade. I know you disagree but there it is and some of us think it was appropriate.

Here is a good reason not to invade. You can make things worse than they were before you invaded, not just for Iraq, but for yourself. Dubya isn't going to be getting all these airports and universities named after him now. He should have learnt from Ronnie and only invaded little islands small populations. You are perhaps correct. Only time will truly tell. I haven't seen any evidence that Bush has any interest in his legacy. On the contrary, it would appear that Bush has acted because he chosen a course of action and not waffled or worried about the ramifications to him but acted on what he believed was in the best interest of the U.S.

You think this makes him an idiot. That is fine, like I said, you are entitled to your opinion.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


That's because that's not what I'm saying. My point is that taking the position that oil concerns are the main guiding force in international relations, as Ion seems to, then countries like France still come out smelling worse than us, and that oposition to the war from France was driven by oil concerns at the cost of Iraqi lives and NOT for any real principles. I am not of the opinion, however, that everything we or even they do is guided by oil, I don't buy worm's rants about this being solely for oil to begin with. I'm not in the mood right now to rehash all the reasons I think we were right to invade Iraq (they've been posted before by both me and others), and I know you don't agree with me on them anyways, but it's sufficient for now to say that there are reasons other than oil.



You accused Ion of favouring France over the US. I don't see him doing that at all. I don't see where it was claimed that France was acting on principles. He was pointing out the place of oil in world politics, which, in general, stinks. Many countries with oil seem to suffer the most, not benefit from it.

Most of the justifications for the invasion of Iraq are either Post Hoc, morally dubious, (i.e. I don't agree with the reason for the invasion, but it just happens that it may achieve something else that I do agree with), or acting on the principal that since everyone else is doing it, I will too.

I am not shedding any tears for Elf, but I'm not shedding them for those who hoped to make an easy dollar from taking over the oil rights with the invasion either.



I wouldn't count on that. See how they got trounced in local elections recently? And what the hell was France thinking when it joined with China in naval exercises meant to frighten Taiwan back in March? If that's intelligence, it's a cynical, sell-your-own-grandmother kind of intelligence, and I'll gladly do without it. France needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs France, and pissing us off for the sake of their arab "allies" (does France even have allies where quotation marks aren't needed?) wasn't a smart move. Americans are pissed, with good reason, and they're not going to forget. Neither was banning the Hijab a smart way to counteract the threat of internal Islamists - it's their new Maginot line, but it will avail then naught.

That's the thing, who wants to be associated with the US now? It has arms aplenty, but they aren't going to be any use for the war that is being fought. The worlds best strikefighter is being developed (for god knows how many billions, and god knows how many years late it will be) to take on what? Osama doesn't have an fighter planes to take on. He doesn't need them.

Dubya and his friends are fighting a war they don't understand, the worst situation a general can be in. Colin Powell understood what was coming. That was why they froze him out, they not only didn't know what was coming, they actively sought to not hear what saner minds were counselling.

Remings me of my sister in law buying a second hand car. She deliberately didn't take along her brother, who knows all about cars, because she knew he would tell her not to buy most of the cars she looked at, as he would see all the faults in them. Well, she bought a pile of junk that ended up costing 3 times what it would have cost if she had listened to him.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
It was, in part, reson for us to invade. I know you disagree but there it is and some of us think it was appropriate.

You are perhaps correct. Only time will truly tell. I haven't seen any evidence that Bush has any interest in his legacy. On the contrary, it would appear that Bush has acted because he chosen a course of action and not waffled or worried about the ramifications to him but acted on what he believed was in the best interest of the U.S.

You think this makes him an idiot. That is fine, like I said, you are entitled to your opinion.

No, he acted on what he thought god was telling him to do. Are you getting worried yet. Plenty of politicians spout pious verbiage and don't believe a word of it, Dubya, apparently, does.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, he acted on what he thought god was telling him to do. Are you getting worried yet. Plenty of politicians spout pious verbiage and don't believe a word of it, Dubya, apparently, does. Seeking divine inspiration is not the same as hearing voices. Why would I be getting worried?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

...
My point is that taking the position that oil concerns are the main guiding force in international relations, as Ion seems to, then countries like France still come out smelling worse than us, and that oposition to the war from France was driven by oil concerns at the cost of Iraqi lives and NOT for any real principles.
...

My point is that taking the position that oil concerns are the main guiding force in international relations, then countries like U.S. still come out smelling worse than France, and that the drive to the war from U.S. was driven by oil concerns at the cost of Iraqi lives and NOT for any real principles.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Lurker
Ion:

I don't get your blaming Bush for the abuse of the Oil for food program. It is not logical.

If I pass a law and someone subverts that law to commit a crime, am I then responsible for the crime?

Please explain why you think Bush is responsible for Iraqi deaths due to the Oil-For-Food program. Thanks!

Lurker
Regarding:

"...If I pass a law and someone subverts that law to commit a crime, am I then responsible for the crime?..."

I am afraid that you are responsible about the state of affairs due to your law.

The blaming of Bush Sr. for the abuse of the oil for food program is in a matter of Bush Sr. not being competent when dealing with dictator Saddam.

So it is not a matter of blame due to malice, but a matter of blame due to incompetence.

Still, this blame is Bush's.

But the blame for the first Gulf War in Iraq in 1990 because of oil (see link that I provided), is due to malice and goes to Bush Sr..

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
And this has been debated and opposing points of view of been presented. You pick and choose that which you think proves your point of view.
U.S. companies lay off people from work because of the drive for higher profits.

By the same token of disrespect for lives, in a graver setting, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. kill people because of the drive for higher profits, these profits to come from oil.

To them, profits rank higher than lives.

Me , I am different:

profits rank lower than life, so for me there is no positives in lay offs and oil for blood.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Ion

Regarding:

"...If I pass a law and someone subverts that law to commit a crime, am I then responsible for the crime?..."

I am afraid that you are responsible about the state of affairs due to your law.



What does this mean? Are you blaming Bush because France and Iraq circumvented the law? I can understand that Bush may be responsible for policing laws but in this case we are talking international. How should Bush have policed his law?

Or are you saying that Bush's law created an environment that was cozy to corruption? Somehoe, I don't see the connection.

This seems like a "blame the victim" mentality. Sorry.

Lurker

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

U.S. companies lay off people from work because of the drive for higher profits.

By the same token of disrespect for lives, in a graver setting, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. kill people because of the drive for higher profits, these profits to come from oil.

To them, profits rank higher than lives.

Me , I am different:

profits rank lower than life, so for me there is no positives in lay offs and oil for blood. I don't accept your assumption. Again, you assume facts not in evidence. It IS arguable that Bush has only done this for the reason you state. However, there is a valid argument that the war in Iraq was fought for reasons other than or including oil. I'm willing to accept that oil played in the equation. However I'm not willing to blindly ignore the evidence supporting other reasons. I have detailed some of that evidence in this thread. Apparently you simply dismiss it since you already know the truth. Your conclusion supports your world view so why question that held view. Skepticism is difficult. It requires that we accept the fact that we could be wrong and a willingness to look at ALL of the evidence with an open mind.

Me, I am different. I hold the view that I could be wrong and that my political leaders have motive to lie to me and am willing to look at opposing points of view and THINK rather than accept the propaganda that is spoon fed to the rank and file of the opposing factions. I dunno, that is just me

RandFan

[Ion]

Originally posted by Lurker

What does this mean? Are you blaming Bush because France and Iraq circumvented the law?
...
Lurker
Yes.

But make no mistake about Bush Sr.:

he went to war in 1990 for oil.

It's in my link, in my first post of this page.

Also, from the same link, Bush Jr. went to war in 2003 for oil.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't accept your assumption. Again, you assume facts not in evidence.
...
RandFan
Bush Jr. went to war in Iraq for oil.

It's in my link, in the first post of the previous page.

This war for oil is not an assumption.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

Bush Jr. went to war in Iraq for oil.

It's in my link, in the first post of the previous page.

This war for oil is not an assumption. So your link is the only evidence that you will consider? Any other evidence or argument is DOA and not worthy of consideration?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

You accused Ion of favouring France over the US. I don't see him doing that at all.


No, I accuse him of much more than that. I accuse him of favouring ANYONE over the US, no matter how badly they behave, so long as they oppose us. That's why I asked if he could name a single anti-American dictator he wouldn't favor over us. And he hasn't.


Many countries with oil seem to suffer the most, not benefit from it.


Yes indeed. The curse of oil keeps countries from having to fix their own problems, keeps them from needing to become competitive economies, and allows dictators to maintain their power even without any cooperation from the populace.


That's the thing, who wants to be associated with the US now? It has arms aplenty, but they aren't going to be any use for the war that is being fought. The worlds best strikefighter is being developed (for god knows how many billions, and god knows how many years late it will be) to take on what? Osama doesn't have an fighter planes to take on. He doesn't need them.


Yes, but Iran does. And some day we may need to take them on. France, however, is militarily impotent, and could do nothing against Iran. And given their declining population, expanding welfare state, and love for socialist policies, they aren't likely to be willing to spend the kind of money they need to in order to be able to defend themselves. So who becomes a likelier target for Iranian-backed terrorists: France, with its growing and disaffected muslim immigrant population which can be used for cover and even aid, and who do not have the power to strike back, or the U.S., who now has a track record of taking down oppressive dictatorships in the middle east? When the terrorists start targeting France (and no appeasement will stop that), they better pray that we aren't too pissed at them to pull their backsides out of the fire they helped light. But of course, hope is not a plan. The question isn't who will help the US, but who will help Europe? Because WE are the only ones who can, unless they get off their asses and build a real military (which we WANT them to do), but it's not looking like they will.

[Lurker]

Ion:

Again, how is it Bush's fault if someone has circumvented the law?

Do you also blame Congress when someone breaks a US law? After all, the Congress created the law.

I guess we will just have to disagree on this one.

Lurker

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
So your link is the only evidence that you will consider? Any other evidence or argument is DOA and not worthy of consideration?
Yes, that link is the only kind of evidence I consider.

That kind of evidence has many other testimonies appearing in the news.

[Ion]

Irrelevant:
Originally posted by Ziggurat

No, I accuse him of much more than that. I accuse him of favouring ANYONE over the US, no matter how badly they behave, so long as they oppose us. That's why I asked if he could name a single anti-American dictator he wouldn't favor over us. And he hasn't.
...

I don't want to dilute the fact that Bush Jr. makes war in Iraq for oil, with side dicussions.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Lurker
Ion:

Again, how is it Bush's fault if someone has circumvented the law?

Do you also blame Congress when someone breaks a US law? After all, the Congress created the law.

I guess we will just have to disagree on this one.

Lurker
Lurker,

we disagree on this one, but I agreed with you on some posts in the past even though I wasn't saying it.

Regarding Bush Sr., yes he is responsible about the state of affairs in Iraq due to his oil for food program and Saddam's dictatorship.
Bush Sr. is also responsible about promising in 1992 help to insurgents fighting Saddam and not helping them.

Regarding blaming Congress when someone breaks the law, I have to analyze the Congress' law and the lawbreaker before deciding, like in the case with Bush Sr. and his oil for food program in Iraq.

[demon]

RandFan...OK you’ve obviously put in a lot of ‘effort’ so I’ll do my best to respond to your points one by one. I have to say I am extremely disappointed though...you`ll see why later.

Point One.

You ask me to explain my contention that the US and UK had removed any incentive for Saddam to cooperate. Certainly, a sampling of US and UK Government statements does this quite well (in fact, I thought I had already posted these in response to you a couple of days ago):

‘All possible sanctions will be maintained until Saddam Hussein is gone.’
- Marlin Fitzwater, former White House Press Spokesman, May 1991

‘Iraqis will be made to pay the price while Saddam Hussein is in power. Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new government.’
- Robert Gates, former US National Security Advisor, Los Angeles Times, 9th May 1991 (Note that Gates said 'Iraqis', not the Iraqi regime.)

‘We do not agree with those nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its 'obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted.’
- Madeleine Albright, former US Secretary of State, addressing a symposium on Iraq at Georgetown University, USA, 26th March 1997

‘Sanctions will be there until the end of time, or as long as he [Hussein] lasts.’
- Former US President Bill Clinton, quoted in The New York Times, 23rd November 1997

There are more but I trust that is enough. Certainly Saddam Hussein knew that his removal from power was an explicit policy aim of the US Government, enshrined in the Iraq Liberation Act 1998 (PL 105-338) that stated: ‘It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.’ A laudable aim, I agree, but hardly an incentive for Saddam to cooperate.

Point Two.

Here is where I’m disappointed.
I offer you quotes by the former UN Chief Weapons Inspector, the former Russian Ambassador to the UN, and a quote from the former Director of UNSCOM’s memoirs (p 288). In return you say that this is insufficient and cherry-picked. Then you respond that much of what I have offered is ‘controverted by Butlers own book "The Greatest Threat: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the Crisis of Global Security "’. You then offer the quote beginning,

‘Much of the book details the two wars that UNSCOM waged. Sadly, it lost both. The first and the better known is the daily war of attrition it fought with Iraq...’

Is this a quote from the book? No. Is it your opinion after having read the book? No. Have you even read the book? It’s an Amazon.com CUSTOMER REVIEW written by someone who had bought Richard Butler’s book "The Greatest Threat: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the Crisis of Global Security" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1586480391/qid=1083677128/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0785402-7124969?v=glance&s=books ).
With all due respect to the customers of Amazon (I’m one myself), is this what you consider a credible source? An Amazon customer review -against a direct and sourced quotation from the former chief UN Weapons Inspector? You didn’t mention this or source it.

Point Three.

And this is a substantial one, so let’s be clear. 1441 laid out various obligations on Saddam and gave him one last chance. However, Saddam was not in violation of 1441 UNTIL the UN Security Council decided that he was - and it never did. In fact, it explicitly refused to accept that Saddam has wasted his ‘final opportunity’. Nobody other than the Security Council has the legal or moral right to decide when a Security Council Resolution has received compliance -not the UK, not Spain, not Chad and not the UK. The Security Council was the competent authority and it never declared Iraq in breach of 1441. This is obvious since the US and UK spent so long trying to secure a second Resolution that would specify precisely that -they failed.

Point Four.

You move on to mention the ‘compelling case’ laid out by Kenneth Pollack in ‘The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq’. My heart leapt when I read this, I have to admit, because for a second I thought you might have read the book I think I`m wrong in this initial thought.

Instead you copy from a review written by Stanley Kurtz, a contributing editor for the National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz092602.asp ). Now, not only are you using other people’s reviews, presumably in an attempt to give the impression that you’ve read the book, but even Mr Kurtz admits that he has ‘only read selected chapters of this large and important book’ and that he ‘cannot offer a definitive summary, much less a thorough analysis or review’. So, not only are you passing off unattributed reviews of other people of books you appear not to have read, but you taking from reviewers who themselves admit to not having read the whole book. At least Mr Kurtz has the honesty to admit in his review that he is taking ‘the unusual step of discussing a book that I have only partially read’ -that’s still more research than you’re willing to do. This is genuinely disappointing as it doesn`t do much to enhance your credibility.

Point Five.

So, with due trepidation, let’s take a look at your next killer source. This one’s a lengthy quote from an article posted on ‘The Truth Laid Bear’ (sic), which is available at http://www.truthlaidbear.com/archives/2003/01/26/iraqi_compliance_an_oxymoron.php This is an article written by ‘A software development manager with delusions of journalism.’ (http://www.truthlaidbear.com/FAQ.php ). The article in question (actually, it looks to be more of a blog, really) was posted January 26th 2003, which accounts for its various anachronisms. You see, RandFan I suspected rather quickly that something was awry when I read here that ‘As has become clear, Iraq has not provided its scientists to the UNMOVIC teams for private interviews’ because, they actually did do this in February. In fact, the whole of your third post is just a cut and past of this article. At another section, it also makes the point that ‘Iraq has refused to allow U-2 flights’ -again, true on January 26th but not true a few weeks later when they did allow them.

You haven’t even bothered to edit or footnote it to make it look convincingly or contemporary. Hence it ends with, ‘Time's up. With or without the U.N., the U.S. must act, and swiftly.‘ Notice the present tense -rather gives the game away...it`s like the dodgy dossier all over again.

This is shocking stuff. I may be completely wrong in everything I say in this board, but I put the effort in as much as I can. I read what I can, I consider it and I always try and cite my sources. You, on the other hand, have cobbled together a string of inept reviews from some remarkably feeble sources and tried to pass it off as an argument. Isn`t this a waste of my time and yours?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
This is shocking stuff. I may be completely wrong in everything I say in this board, but I put the effort in as much as I can. I read what I can, I consider it and I always try and cite my sources. You, on the other hand, have cobbled together a string of inept reviews from some remarkably feeble sources and tried to pass it off as an argument. Isn`t this a waste of my time and yours? Demon,

I sincerely apologize. I did not try to do as you characterize. I admit that the appearance looks bad from your stand point. I had not considered it might look that way. I admit that I failed to link the quotes. Please note that I did put the remarks in quotes. This should have been an indication that I was not trying to say that the information quoted was my own. I don't usually quote myself in that fashion.

I was trying to show that there was another point of view and that the argument was not as one sided as you claim.

If you think it is a waste of your time then fine. I think there are valid points to the opinions of people you call feeble and I think you are making a fallacious argument to simply dismiss the information because of a mistake that I made.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
You ask me to explain my contention that the US and UK had removed any incentive for Saddam to cooperate. Certainly, a sampling of US and UK Government statements does this quite well (in fact, I thought I had already posted these in response to you a couple of days ago):

‘All possible sanctions will be maintained until Saddam Hussein is gone.’
- Marlin Fitzwater, former White House Press Spokesman, May 1991

‘Iraqis will be made to pay the price while Saddam Hussein is in power. Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new government.’
- Robert Gates, former US National Security Advisor, Los Angeles Times, 9th May 1991 (Note that Gates said 'Iraqis', not the Iraqi regime.)

‘We do not agree with those nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its 'obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted.’
- Madeleine Albright, former US Secretary of State, addressing a symposium on Iraq at Georgetown University, USA, 26th March 1997

‘Sanctions will be there until the end of time, or as long as he [Hussein] lasts.’
- Former US President Bill Clinton, quoted in The New York Times, 23rd November 1997

There are more but I trust that is enough. Certainly Saddam Hussein knew that his removal from power was an explicit policy aim of the US Government, enshrined in the Iraq Liberation Act 1998 (PL 105-338) that stated: ‘It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.’ A laudable aim, I agree, but hardly an incentive for Saddam to cooperate. While it is true that the quotes do in fact give Saddam little incentive to cooperate there was in fact reason for him to cooperate. I'll get in that later.

Point Two.

Here is where I’m disappointed.
I offer you quotes by the former UN Chief Weapons Inspector, the former Russian Ambassador to the UN, and a quote from the former Director of UNSCOM’s memoirs (p 288). In return you say that this is insufficient and cherry-picked. Then you respond that much of what I have offered is ‘controverted by Butlers own book "The Greatest Threat: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the Crisis of Global Security "’. You then offer the quote beginning,

‘Much of the book details the two wars that UNSCOM waged. Sadly, it lost both. The first and the better known is the daily war of attrition it fought with Iraq...’

Is this a quote from the book? No. Is it your opinion after having read the book? No. Have you even read the book? It’s an Amazon.com CUSTOMER REVIEW written by someone who had bought Richard Butler’s book "The Greatest Threat: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the Crisis of Global Security" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1586480391/qid=1083677128/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0785402-7124969?v=glance&s=books ).
With all due respect to the customers of Amazon (I’m one myself), is this what you consider a credible source? An Amazon customer review -against a direct and sourced quotation from the former chief UN Weapons Inspector? You didn’t mention this or source it.

Point Three.

And this is a substantial one, so let’s be clear. 1441 laid out various obligations on Saddam and gave him one last chance. However, Saddam was not in violation of 1441 UNTIL the UN Security Council decided that he was - and it never did. In fact, it explicitly refused to accept that Saddam has wasted his ‘final opportunity’. Nobody other than the Security Council has the legal or moral right to decide when a Security Council Resolution has received compliance -not the UK, not Spain, not Chad and not the UK. The Security Council was the competent authority and it never declared Iraq in breach of 1441. This is obvious since the US and UK spent so long trying to secure a second Resolution that would specify precisely that -they failed.

Point Four.

You move on to mention the ‘compelling case’ laid out by Kenneth Pollack in ‘The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq’. My heart leapt when I read this, I have to admit, because for a second I thought you might have read the book I think I`m wrong in this initial thought.

Instead you copy from a review written by Stanley Kurtz, a contributing editor for the National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz092602.asp ). Now, not only are you using other people’s reviews, presumably in an attempt to give the impression that you’ve read the book, but even Mr Kurtz admits that he has ‘only read selected chapters of this large and important book’ and that he ‘cannot offer a definitive summary, much less a thorough analysis or review’. So, not only are you passing off unattributed reviews of other people of books you appear not to have read, but you taking from reviewers who themselves admit to not having read the whole book. At least Mr Kurtz has the honesty to admit in his review that he is taking ‘the unusual step of discussing a book that I have only partially read’ -that’s still more research than you’re willing to do. This is genuinely disappointing as it doesn`t do much to enhance your credibility.

Point Five.

So, with due trepidation, let’s take a look at your next killer source. This one’s a lengthy quote from an article posted on ‘The Truth Laid Bear’ (sic), which is available at http://www.truthlaidbear.com/archives/2003/01/26/iraqi_compliance_an_oxymoron.php This is an article written by ‘A software development manager with delusions of journalism.’ (http://www.truthlaidbear.com/FAQ.php ). The article in question (actually, it looks to be more of a blog, really) was posted January 26th 2003, which accounts for its various anachronisms. You see, RandFan I suspected rather quickly that something was awry when I read here that ‘As has become clear, Iraq has not provided its scientists to the UNMOVIC teams for private interviews’ because, they actually did do this in February. In fact, the whole of your third post is just a cut and past of this article. At another section, it also makes the point that ‘Iraq has refused to allow U-2 flights’ -again, true on January 26th but not true a few weeks later when they did allow them.

You haven’t even bothered to edit or footnote it to make it look convincingly or contemporary. Hence it ends with, ‘Time's up. With or without the U.N., the U.S. must act, and swiftly.‘ Notice the present tense -rather gives the game away...it`s like the dodgy dossier all over again. I did link it didn't I.

Demon,

Your argument is roughly equivelant to ad hominem. You are attacking my credibility which is fair considering that I did not link or make clear the source of the quotes. I should tell you that when ever I quote something like I did it is from somewhere else.

However I should have sourced it and for that I appologize.

The point of my post stands though. There is another side to the story. The picture that you paint IS cherry picked. You do find only that data that supports your thesis. And there is other inforation and data out there.

And so what if it is a BLOG. Is the information correct or not? Is it accurate? I will detail more later.

RandFan

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


No, I accuse him of much more than that. I accuse him of favouring ANYONE over the US, no matter how badly they behave, so long as they oppose us. That's why I asked if he could name a single anti-American dictator he wouldn't favor over us. And he hasn't.



That's a big call. All I could see is, he criticised the US for doing something wrong. Then you appeared to say that everyone else is doing it too, whay doesn't he pick on them.

No other western nation has unilaterally gone out and started a war recently. (You can count hangers on like the Australia, but that was only because we have a neanderthal monarchist running the place at the moment. Oh, and there is also a rag tag contingent of mercenary nations who will support anyone who pays them, and others seeking to curry favour).

[RandFan]

Demon,

It is true that the United States were actively seeking regime chnage. Still, the Pope, Humanitarian organizations and other world leaders were calling for the end of sanctions.

Question, if Saddam had complied and not obfuscated, would the world's call to end sanction have carried the day the way they almost did?

[Ion]

For a while now I learn from the posts by a_unique _person, but I discover here also demon's posts, and for example demon's last post to me is stunning in meticulous critical thinking research.

Minds like these, that's amazing...

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That's a big call.


Yes, I realize that. And I'm not basing it solely on this thread, but on past interactions as well. And his refusal to name an anti-American dictator he wouldn't side with suggests very strongly to me that I'm right in my assesment.

All I could see is, he criticised the US for doing something wrong. Then you appeared to say that everyone else is doing it too, whay doesn't he pick on them.

Not exactly. He didn't only accuse the US of wrongdoing, he ascribed specific motivations to that wrongdoing. I disagree about our wrongdoing as well as the ascribed motivation. And I pointed out that what France and Russia did was not only worse, but that the evidence that oil was the primary motivator for their actions was even stronger. I agree that showing others do worse doesn't invalidate the initial criticism. But in Ion's case, I think we're dealing with willful disregard for the sins of anyone with an anti-American agenda. And it's that bias that I'm interested is showing.


No other western nation has unilaterally gone out and started a war recently.

I'm not sure what you think this statement means. But if you're trying to imply that we're wrong to invade Iraq BECAUSE nobody else has done anything like that recently, you're out on a limb, because the primary reason no other western power uses military power like the US does is because nobody else has the capability. And doing something that nobody else does because they can't doesn't make something wrong. If you want to argue that the consequences will be hard to predict because nobody has done this recently, you certainly have a point, but if you want to argue that we're wrong for doing this, you're going to have to use a different argument.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
Question, if Saddam had complied and not obfuscated, would the world's call to end sanction have carried the day the way they almost did?
After 2000 it was too late for Saddam to attempt compliance, it is documented that Bush Jr. was since then after regime change in Iraq for oil grab, no matter what.

When France and Russia wanted to lift thru U.N. the oil for food program in Iraq that was harming Iraqis, when the case of WMDs in Iraq was debunked as phoney in U.N. in February 2003, it fell on Bush's deaf ears and blind eyes:

Bush Jr. was set to do regime change in Iraq for oil grab, no matter what.

Hence his war.

Just the reasons needed to be made up, and the word 'liberation' came into the picture.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

...
Not exactly. He didn't only accuse the US of wrongdoing, he ascribed specific motivations to that wrongdoing. I disagree about our wrongdoing as well as the ascribed motivation.
...

Then read the link that I provided.

It explains you the motivations of the U.S. wrongdoing.

Make no mistake:

Chevron-Texaco is raking profits right now from refined Iraqi oil.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
After 2000 it was too late for Saddam to attempt compliance, it is documented that Bush Jr. was since then after regime change in Iraq for oil grab, no matter what.

When France and Russia wanted to lift thru U.N. the oil for food program in Iraq that was harming Iraqis, when the case of WMDs in Iraq was debunked as phoney in U.N. in February 2003, it fell on Bush's deaf ears and blind eyes:

Bush Jr. was set to do regime change in Iraq for oil grab, no matter what.

Hence his war.

Just the reasons needed to be made up, and the word 'liberation' came into the picture. Ad Demon points out, Regime change went back to the Clinton administration. I have shown you why Bush could have made allot more money by cutting a deal with Saddam than going to war. I have also shown why there were valid reasons for Bush to go to war besides oil. You have only made claims with no evidence to back up your claims. In the end you haven't answered the question as to what would have happened if Saddam had complied.

Thanks anyway.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Yes, I realize that. And I'm not basing it solely on this thread, but on past interactions as well. And his refusal to name an anti-American dictator he wouldn't side with suggests very strongly to me that I'm right in my assesment.



Not exactly. He didn't only accuse the US of wrongdoing, he ascribed specific motivations to that wrongdoing. I disagree about our wrongdoing as well as the ascribed motivation. And I pointed out that what France and Russia did was not only worse, but that the evidence that oil was the primary motivator for their actions was even stronger. I agree that showing others do worse doesn't invalidate the initial criticism. But in Ion's case, I think we're dealing with willful disregard for the sins of anyone with an anti-American agenda. And it's that bias that I'm interested is showing.



I'm not sure what you think this statement means. But if you're trying to imply that we're wrong to invade Iraq BECAUSE nobody else has done anything like that recently, you're out on a limb, because the primary reason no other western power uses military power like the US does is because nobody else has the capability. And doing something that nobody else does because they can't doesn't make something wrong. If you want to argue that the consequences will be hard to predict because nobody has done this recently, you certainly have a point, but if you want to argue that we're wrong for doing this, you're going to have to use a different argument.

No one else is keen to invade another country, full stop. Take the US with Grenada. No one else, that I can recall, has the front to do anything like this in recent history.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Ad Demon points out, Regime change went back to the Clinton administration. I have shown you why Bush could have made allot more money by cutting a deal with Saddam than going to war. I have also shown why there were valid reasons for Bush to go to war besides oil. You have only made claims with no evidence to back up your claims. In the end you haven't answered the question as to what would have happened if Saddam had complied.
...

I know you are behind the subject RF:

.) Clinton doesn't matter in the ways that Bush blunders now;
Clinton didn't blunder in Iraq, Bush does blunder in Iraq;

.) you did not show that there were valid reasons for Bush to go to war, it's a war for oil that I showed and that's not a valid reason to war;

.) the claims that I made are backed up in the link that I gave; more testimony corroborates it in this forum when I posted in the past, as well as in the news;

.) what would have happened if Saddam was showing compliance with WMDs and refrain from torture, has no bearing to what Bush's U.S. was set on that Saddam had to comply with, in oil for U.S. only;

.) demon pointed out that you are copying reviews of books that you haven't read; that's further proof of your dishonesty.

[Ion]

Much honesty going on in your life RF?

Because this:
Originally posted by demon

...
Point Four.

You move on to mention the ‘compelling case’ laid out by Kenneth Pollack in ‘The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq’. My heart leapt when I read this, I have to admit, because for a second I thought you might have read the book I think I`m wrong in this initial thought.

Instead you copy from a review written by Stanley Kurtz, a contributing editor for the National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz092602.asp ). Now, not only are you using other people’s reviews, presumably in an attempt to give the impression that you’ve read the book, but even Mr Kurtz admits that he has ‘only read selected chapters of this large and important book’ and that he ‘cannot offer a definitive summary, much less a thorough analysis or review’. So, not only are you passing off unattributed reviews of other people of books you appear not to have read, but you taking from reviewers who themselves admit to not having read the whole book. At least Mr Kurtz has the honesty to admit in his review that he is taking ‘the unusual step of discussing a book that I have only partially read’ -that’s still more research than you’re willing to do. This is genuinely disappointing as it doesn`t do much to enhance your credibility.
...

dismantles your pretense at honesty, you know?

Tell me more RF, how is it does Iraq was not in compliance with U.N. Resolution 1441?

Because U.N. sure doesn't know that Iraq was not in compliance with 1441...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
.) demon pointed out that you are copying reviews of books that you haven't read; that's further proof of your dishonesty. First, I quoted the material that you are referring to. I did not really try and pass it off as my own material. I did want to point out a differing point of view. I'm not sure if Demon realized this. I regret that I have let him down. It was not intentional to win a debate but to make what I believe is a valid point. I'm willing to bet that he will forgive me my transgression. I can't force him though. Let's wait and see. You can't speak for him anymore than I can.

You on the other hand lack the ability to forgive someone of his mistake or try and honestly understand. For that I don't think anyone cares about your opinion. I do care about Demon's however. If he thinks that I am a dishonest and without any credibility then there is little that I can do about it but try and not make the same mistake again and hope that he doesn't simply put me on his ignore list. I don't think he is that shallow though. I will try to rectify it and we will see.

You however haven't shown anything but to argue by proxy. You could learn something from Demon. He doesn't argue by proxy. He is one of the best on this forum when it comes to effort.

As to you, I don't really care what you think anymore than I care what American thinks. You are his (American's) twin, just ideological opposite.

Thanks anyway.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Because U.N. sure doesn't know that Iraq was not in compliance with 1441... It's unfortunate that you did not read my post. {sigh} I can't force you to understand what you refuse to read.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
First, I quoted the material that you are referring to. I did not really try and pass it off...
...
Thanks anyway.
That's not what demon shows.

How many years of dishonesty do you have?

40?

50?

More?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
It's unfortunate that you did not read my post. {sigh} I can't force you to understand what you refuse to read.
I did read you posts.

Saddam was not in compliance?

1441 from U.N. sure doesn't know that Saddam was not in compliance.

But 'honest' RF, 'knows' better than U.N..

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

I did read you posts.

Saddam was not in compliance?

1441 from U.N. sure doesn't know that Saddam was not in compliance.

But 'honest' RF, 'knows' better than U.N.. I don't having anything more to say to you. Let's see what Demon has to say?

If you think that I am dishonest then fine. I have in the past been willing to admit and apologize when I was wrong. This of course means nothing to you because you are not interested in the truth just your blind obedience to your ideology.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't having anything more to say to you. Let's see what Demon has to say?

If you think that I am dishonest then fine.
...

Sure you were dishonest in 2003 and now:
Originally posted by demon

...
Point Four.

You move on to mention the ‘compelling case’ laid out by Kenneth Pollack in ‘The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq’. My heart leapt when I read this, I have to admit, because for a second I thought you might have read the book I think I`m wrong in this initial thought.

Instead you copy from a review written by Stanley Kurtz, a contributing editor for the National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz092602.asp ). Now, not only are you using other people’s reviews, presumably in an attempt to give the impression that you’ve read the book, but even Mr Kurtz admits that he has ‘only read selected chapters of this large and important book’ and that he ‘cannot offer a definitive summary, much less a thorough analysis or review’. So, not only are you passing off unattributed reviews of other people of books you appear not to have read, but you taking from reviewers who themselves admit to not having read the whole book. At least Mr Kurtz has the honesty to admit in his review that he is taking ‘the unusual step of discussing a book that I have only partially read’ -that’s still more research than you’re willing to do. This is genuinely disappointing as it doesn`t do much to enhance your credibility.
...

Notice in it what demon after his proofs had to say:

"...as it doesn`t do much to enhance your credibility."

so don't mumbe jumble a dishonest:

"...Let's see what Demon has to say?..."

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

Sure you were dishonest in 2003 and now:

Notice in it what demon after his proofs had to say:

"...as it doesn`t do much to enhance your credibility."

so don't mumbe jumble a dishonest:

"...Let's see what Demon has to say?..." Hey Ion,

I made a mistake and appologized. Obviously you don't care. There is nothing that I could ever do to make you think that I am honest. Since I don't share your ideology then I am by default dishonest as far as you are concerned. You simply find what you think proves your point and refuse to accept my explanation and appology.

You have no right to speak for Demon. He has not had an opportunity to respond to my appology and explanation. Should he find me insincere in my apology and find my explanation to be wanting and conclude that I have no credibility then that will be something for you to crow about. I will live however knowing that I have never tried to intentionally decieve anyone. Not that you care.

My post was directed to Demon so I think Demon should have the opportunity to respond. I already know that there is nothing that would change your mind about anything. I have demonstrated that I am capable of admitting when I'm wrong.

So think what ever you want. No one that I know of cares.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hey Ion,

I made a mistake and appologized. Obviously you don't care. There is nothing that I could ever do to make you think that I am honest.
...

No, you didn't make a mistake, it's your life pattern that is a mistake.

demon's post was showing not a mistake, but a pattern.
I only quoted a portion of demon's post, but the entire post highlights a pattern.

Also, demon made efforts to explain things that were debunked to you before, like for example that Iraq didn't break 1441.

I know I posted 1441's text and U.S. promise to not break 1441 on its own but wait for the U.N. assessment in Iraq, in threads where you were participating, four times.

It's a pattern of dishonesty for you to bring up debunked arguments, in new threads, hoping for a new audience that falls for obsolete arguments.

[Ion]

This:

"...Table 2 below uses the four variables to estimate potential profits for the oil companies in Iraq. In order to understand the magnitude of these profits, it is useful to know that the worldwide profits of the world’s five largest oil companies in 2002 were $35 billion. Our estimate of the “most probable” annual profits in Iraq are $95 billion, three times this sum! Total company profits in Iraq, over time, would be an enormously large sum – ranging from a low of about $600 billion to a high of about $9 trillion..."

comes from a reputable source (like my first link on the previous page):

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2004/0128oilprofit.htm

I guess that WMDs, 'liberation' and 'mass graves' are for the under twelve year olds, the gaga over ninety year olds, the dishonests, and the sentimentally tired of oil for blood explanation for the war.

The realist people, open the link and learn it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
No, you didn't make a mistake, it's your life pattern that is a mistake. You are a small minded and spiteful person.

demon's post was showing not a mistake, but a pattern.

I only quoted a portion of demon's post, but the entire post highlights a pattern. I would protest your characterization but it would be of no value. I honestly try to be objective. I'm not like you, I realize that I am human and I fail sometimes. When I do I apologize. You on the other hand know that you are always right. You don't make mistakes and therefore have no compassion for those who do. That is why you are a little person that is not worthy of anyone's time. You are abusive, smug, and unwilling to respect those whose opinions differ from yours.

Also, demon made efforts to explain things that were debunked to you before, like for example that Iraq didn't break 1441. It is arguable whether Iraq broke 1441. I have posted text to show that they did break it. You being so obtuse and know it all refuse to even look at the text. You refuse to acknowledge that you could be wrong about anything. At least Demon acknowledges he could be wrong. Don't confuse my words. Demon is standing firm on this issue as I am thus far. But I and I believe he has the honesty to look at the evidence in an objective light. Again, it is unfair for me to speak for him. It seems though that he is willing to consider any evidence that I put forth he just doesn't think that I have put any evidence forth. We will discuss it. You however would never consider any evidence.

I know I posted 1441's text and U.S. promise to not break 1441 on its own but wait for the U.N. assessment in Iraq, in threads where you were participating, four times. I know I pointed out how Iraq failed to abide by 1441. That you refuse to look at the evidence makes you dishonest and not me.

It's a pattern of dishonesty for you to bring up debunked arguments, in new threads, hoping for a new audience that falls for obsolete arguments. Oh please, you didn't even bother to read my post. Go back. There is a 13 point rebuttal to your argument. Instead of making claims why don't you rebut the argument? How about it Mr. everybody is dishonest but me? Care to rebut the points or are you going to dismiss it simply because I didn't make the argument? And note that I linked and quoted it?

It is not enought to simply declare victory. You have to make argument and when someone rebuts your argument you have to deal with that. Not you though, you haven't the IQ or the balls to rebut the points.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
...it's your life pattern that is a mistake. It is so like you to attack the person and not address the argument. This speaks volumes about you but I doubt that it surprises anyone.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
You are a small minded and spiteful person.
...

You mean that you supporting a war for oil with a cheating pattern is capable to judge me "...a small minded and spiteful person..."?

Get real.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
You mean that you supporting a war for oil is capable to judge me "...a small minded and spiteful person..."? Ion,

Here is a little hint. You are begging the question...and for what it is worth I'm just stating the obvious.

[Ion]

The obvious is that you copied reviews of books that you didn't read.

The obvious is that I told you about 1441 in past threads, and demon told it to you here.

You are a cheat.

Now open the link that I posted five posts ago.

For your small mind, is here also:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2004/0128oilprofit.htm

It tells you how U.S. exploits the oil in Iraq, cheat and "..small minded..." RF.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
The obvious is that you copied reviews of books that you didn't read. Your point? I didn't say that I had read them. I was only interested in the information they provided.

The obvious is that I told you about 1441 in past threads, and demon told it to you here. And it is obvious that I have rebutted what you told me but you refuse to consider my argument which ISN'T a review of a book. Demon had the balls to read what was written, why don't you?

You are a cheat. If I hadn't QUOTED the material then you would be right. I'll give you another small hint. A quote indicates SOMEONE ELSE'S work.

Now I didn't link or give credit. That was wrong. I have appologized. Again, so typical of hypocritical liberals you are unable to forgive me. That is ok though. You serve as a great example.

Now open the link that I posted five posts ago. Still arguing by proxy? Are you too stupid to pull quote what you think the link argues? Are you too stupid to make an argument?

It tells you how U.S. exploits the oil in Iraq, cheat and "..small minded..." RF. It doesn't rebut the points does it? Can't do it can you? You just arent smart enough to outline what you think a site says. You have only the inteligence to post links. Well bully for you. I have links also but I don't care to play that game. Again, note how Demon to his credit doesn't just post a link. He makes an argument and then backs it up. Why can't you do that...oops I forgot, you haven't the IQ. Sorry.

[RandFan]

Ion,

Do yourself a favor and let Demon take this one. He is head and sholders above you (and perhaps myself but I like the challenge) and he can do a much better job of this.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Ion,

Do yourself a favor and let Demon take this one.
...

RF,

do me a favor and take this one.

I am head and shoulders above you in intelligence, integrity and information.

It's you and me.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Your point? I didn't say that I had read them. I was only interested in the information they provided.
...

My point is that you pretended to claim on your own like if you knew from reading it what was in reality claimed in a review.

Otherwise known as dishonesty in your case, RF.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

RF,

do me a favor and take this one.

I am head and shoulders above you in intelligence, integrity and information.

It's you and me. I doubt very much you are above anyone on this forum. I have never seen you make any arguments of any substance or value. You make claims and are simply abusive thinking you can win a debate by declaring victory and bullying others.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
I doubt very much you are above anyone on this forum.
...

I am above you.

Tell me again the gag about Iraq not complying with 1441.

Or the gag where you copy book reviews and pretend to speak for yourself.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
My point is that you pretended to claim on your own like if you knew from reading it what was in reality claimed in a review. Oh wow, you have a point. Big deal. Do you have an argument?

I quoted the material. Why do you assume that I claimed it as my own if I quoted it? Answer me that one?

Otherwise known as dishonesty in your case, RF. Your inability to read my posts and the fact that you make claims with out argument demonstrate your lack of thinking. The fact that you lack the ability to sum up a web site and can only post links demonstrates your alleged intelligence.

And one more time, since you lack the honesty or the balls to admit it, I QUOTED the material. Why would I quote that which I claimed was my own?

Oh, and BTW, Out of over 4,000 posts I did this one time, I admitted my mistake and apologized. I am one of a few who is willing to admit that I am human and apologize for my mistakes. Something you are incapable of because you don't think that you make mistakes.

You don't have a case, you don't have an argument, you don't even have a clue.

I'm glad you are on the forum though. You provide a good counter balance to the right wing mirrors of you.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
I am above you. Yes, you are far superior jerk than I have ever been, I'll give you that.

Tell me again the gag about Iraq not complying with 1441. Why, you didn't read the argument the first time. Want to know how I know? You are unable to rebut it!

Or the gag where you copy book reviews and pretend to speak for yourself. More claims. Answer the question, why would I quote material that I was pretending was my own?

When did I pretend?

You are making a claim, can you support it?

Now you are just gainsaying and arguing ad nauseam. I doubt you even know what that is. You'll prove me right by continuing to do just that.

[RandFan]

Ion,

You will also prove me right by refusing to answer my questions. I've noticed this woo-woo like behavior in you. I pointed out before and even quoted your refusal to answer but you just brushed it off. No problem. You have the maturity of a 12 year old. Unable to answer hard questions you just keep making claims thinking that tough talk will save you. It won't but you will pretend that it does. You will continue to avoid the tough questions and skip reading arguments that you can't understand much less rebut.

This is my prediction. I'll enjoy reminding you of it from time to time.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yes, you are far superior jerk than I have ever been, I'll give you that.
...

Not really.

You are the superior jerk, RF:

.) supporting the killing of Iraqis for oil;

.) lying about knowing the contents of books that I haven't read.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Ion,
...
No problem. You have the maturity of a 12 year old.
...

Then you have the maturity of a three year old:

how is your gag going about Iraq not complying with U.N., given that U.S. not Iraq broke resolution 1441?

Any progress, RF?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Not really. Gainsaying.

You are the superior jerk, RF: More gainsaying.

supporting the killing of Iraqis for oil Who?

lying about knowing the contents of books that I haven't read. Are you speaking in the first person?

Still no answers. My prediction is comming true. Thank you. :D

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
Still no answers. My prediction is comming true. Thank you. :D
Is your prediction that:

.) oil for blood is good;

.) you lie about books you haven't read?

Yes, your prediction is true.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Then you have the maturity of a three year old:

how is your gag going about Iraq not complying with U.N., given that U.S. not Iraq broke resolution 1441? Debunked. See my earlier post.

Any progress, RF? More gainsaying and no answers. I said you were another Jedi Knight and you are behaving just like him. I have answered your questions. You refuse to answer mine. You are being obtuse. It is demonstrable. Again, thank you.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Debunked. See my earlier post.
...

I -and demon- debunked your 'debunking'.

See earlier posts.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

Is your prediction that:

.) oil for blood is good;

.) you lie about books you haven't read?

Yes, your prediction is true. Now you are begging the question. And you still refuse to answer the questions.

When did I lie?

How can I pretend that material is mine when I quote it?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

I -and demon- debunked your 'debunking'.

See earlier posts. No he didn't. He pointed out my mistake. That is NOT debunking anything. The argument stands. So far neither you nor he have rebutted it. No one has responded to the points in the argument. You settle for ad hominem and begging the question. Your digging your self a hole.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
When did I lie?
...

Then.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
No he didn't. He pointed out my mistake. That is NOT debunking anything.
...

Re-read demon's posts.

demon debunked your claim.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Then. That is just a claim, can you back it up? Can you show how I lied? Can you answer how I can pretend something is mine when I quoted it?

You are still gainsaying.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

Re-read demon's posts.

demon debunked your claim. It's your claim that he did. I say he didn't you say he did. It is your job to show me how. So how about it? Can you support your claim? How did I lie? Why did I quote material if I was going to pretend it was mine? Do you even know what the he!! you are talking about?

You are still gainsaying.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
That is just a claim, can you back it up? Can you show how I lied?
...

Yes:

read the posts already written.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Yes:

read the posts already written. Moron, I can't prove a negative. You have made a claim. It is your job to prove that claim. You refuse to answer questions and you are just gainsaying.

You are not looking good.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
It's your clim that he did. I say he didn't you say he did.
...

You say that he did.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Moron, I can't prove a negative.
...

Moron, the negative is you and I proved it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
You say that he did. Really? When?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Moron, the negative is you and I proved it. Another claim and more gainsaying. You still haven't answered the questions. I'm waiting.

[RandFan]

For those keeping score at home.
Ion refuses to answer questions.

He refuses to support his claims.

He has settled into just gainsaying.

He says I lied but can't answer how it is that I lied if I quote the material.

He refuses to acknowledge that I appologized for my mistake.

He refuses to rebut my argument.


Ion, your batting 1,000

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Another claim and more gainsaying.
...

RF moron, you are easy to debunk:

U.S. signed 1441.

Here is the explicit promise by the U.S. to not use force without the U.N. Security Council Authorization if 1441 was violated:

here (http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/IRAQ/US081102.HTM)

"As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."

I repeat:

this shows the explicit promise by the U.S. to not use force without the U. N. Security Council authorization.

The promise is broken by Bush's U.S..

Q.E.D.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
For those keeping score at home.[list]
...
He refuses to support his claims.
...

Imbecile,

read the posts and learn how to not kill.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Really? When?
Read your own posts, moron.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
RF moron, you are easy to debunk:

U.S. signed 1441.

Here is the explicit promise by the U.S. to not use force without the U.N. Security Council Authorization if 1441 was violated: No it doesn't. Read it again. It says the matter will return to the council for discussions.

Guess what happened after the breach. The matter was returned to the council for disussions.

here (http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/IRAQ/US081102.HTM)

"As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12." See, look at it again. "will return...for discussions". There were no hidden triggers and there was no automatic use of force.

I repeat:

this shows the explicit promise by the U.S. to not use force without the U. N. Security Council authorization. You are good at inventing things. Sorry but this is not in there.

Q.E.D.NOT!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

Imbecile,

read the posts and learn how to not kill. Instead of calling me imbecile why don't you learn how to read and answer the questions.

How did I lie when I quoted the material?

When did I lie?

How was the 12 point argument rebuted?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
No it doesn't. Read it again. It says the matter will return to the council for discussions.

Guess what happened after the breach. The matter was returned to the council for disussions.
...

No it wasn't returned moron:

Bush went to war, remember?

Against his own:

"...As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force...."

Moron, remember the war?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

Read your own posts, moron. It's your claim. You are being a woo-woo. If you make claims you have to back them up. This is a skeptics forum, you are expected to back up your claims or withdraw them or look like an idiot. What is your choice?

When did I lie?

How is it I lied when I quoted the material?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

No it wasn't returned moron:

Bush went to war, remember?

Against his own:

"..."As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force...."

Moron, remember the war? And there were no hidden triggers. Did you really forget that the council met before the war after 1441?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
And there were no hidden triggers. Did you really forget that the council met before the war after 1441?
To say that 1441 was not broken.

Bush deciding by himself that 1441 was broken, breaks his promise to return himself to U.N. without unilateral use of force.

RF, you are a moron.

[RandFan]

Christ,

You would think that you could at least look up what you can't remember.

TIMELINE IRAQ: A Decade of Tensions (http://www.ipsnews.net/iraq/timeline.asp)

13 Nov - Iraq accepts Security Council resolution 1441 and informs the Secretary General of compliance.
18 Nov - Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei arrive in Baghdad with advance team to set up for inspections
27 Nov - Formal inspections begin, almost a month before 45-day deadline for resumption of inspections set forth in resolution 1441.
7 Dec - Iraq provides UN weapons inspectors with 12,000-page declaration of the regimes weapons of mass destruction programmes according to the requirements of UN Security Council resolution 1441. Iraq states that there are no weapons of mass destruction within its borders.
19 Dec - UNMOVIC Chairman Hans Blix reports to the Security Council with observations on the 12,000 page Iraqi declaration.

2003

27 Jan - Blix and ElBaradei report to Security Council 60 days after inspections resumed in Iraq. They both express the need for more time.
28 Jan - Bush warns in State of the Union address: If Saddam Hussein does not cooperate and disarm, the US will lead a coalition force to disarm him.
5 Feb - Secretary of State Colin Powell presents US intelligence on Iraqi activities to Security Council.
14 Feb - Chief U.N. arms inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei report to the Security Council that to date they have found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but banned weapons remain unaccounted for. They stress the need for "active" iraqi cooperation to solve these outstanding issues.
An open debate ensues between Security Council members. Permanent
members France, Russia and China support continued and enhanced inspections
in opposition to the U.S. / U.K. call for force.


15 Feb - Anti war demonstrations attract hundreds of thousands of protestors in cities across the globe, including Amsterdam, Berlin, Cairo, Lahore, London, Madrid, Mexico City, Montreal, Moscow, New York, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Rome, Sydney.
18 Feb - Security Council convenes open meeting, at request of Non-Aligned Movement, to hear from non-council members on how to disarm Iraq. The majority of non-member states support peaceful disarmament.
24 Feb - Security Council receives two plans on how to disarm Iraq. A draft resolution of U.S., U.K.and Spain finds that Iraq has failed to comply with Resolution 1441 - leading the way to military action - while a "memorandum" from France, Germany and Russia calls for continued inspections.
11-12 March - Security Council holds open debate at the request of the Non-Aligned movement and hears statements from 51 member states and two regional organisations. Most maintain that war is not inevitable and force should be used only as a last resort
12 March - United Kingdom tables a ''non-paper'', which provides more time for arms inspections and sets forth six key tests for Iraqi disarmament.
16 March - Summit meeting of the leaders from the United Kingdom, Spain, United States and Portugal in the Azores.
17 March - Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the United Kingdom Ambassador to the United Nations emerges from closed consultations of the Security Council to announce that the diplomatic process is over and that there will be no vote on the draft resolution co-sponsored by the U.S., U.K., and Spain.
- Kofi Annan informs the Security Council of his decision to withdraw all U.N. staff from Iraq after receiving phone calls from U.S. officials advising him to do so. All mandates for U.N. business in Iraq are suspended.
- George Bush gives Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq or risk war.

19 March - U.S.-led forces launch strikes on Iraq at approximately 0230 GMT.

Facts: Council passes 1441 and Iraq agrees.

Iraq is found in material breach

Council meets and DISCUSES the matter.

The U.S. invades Iraq.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
It's your claim.
...

It's your claim that it is my claim.

My claim is that you are a moron who supports oil for blood.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

To say that 1441 was not broken.

Bush deciding by himself that 1441 was broken, breaks his promise to return himself to U.N. without unilateral use of force.

RF, you are a moron. Another claim. Your last one was shot down in flames. Do you want to try again or have you been sufficently spanked?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
It's your claim that it is my claim. You are now gainsaying. But I would be happy to prove you made a claim. Just a second and I will repost your claim.

My claim is that you are a moron who supports oil for blood. Another claim and it is controverted by posts that I have made to this forum.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
Iraq is found in material breach
...

Iraq is not found in material breach, moron.

Remember February 2003, when it was shown that Powell lied in U.N. about Iraq?

That's when Iraq was not in material breach.

U.S. was in material breach to attack Iraq anyway.

Like I showed in my first two links in this thread, for oil.

Moron.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
You are now gainsaying.
...

Now you are gainsaying, moron.

[RandFan]

Ion
My point is that you pretended to claim on your own like if you knew from reading it what was in reality claimed in a review. This is a claim that you have yet to back up. There are more. I will drag them out also.

And when are you going to answer the questions?

When did I lie?

How is quoting material lying?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
This is a claim that you have yet to back up.
...

You did back it up, when demon exposed your copying.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Now you are gainsaying, moron. You don't even quote my alleged gainsaying. Is that all you have left is gainsaying and ad hominem?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

Iraq is not found in material breach, moron.

Remember February 2003, when it was shown that Powell lied in U.N. about Iraq?

That's when Iraq was not in material breach.

U.S. was in material breach to attack Iraq anyway.

Like I showed in my first two links in this thread, for oil.

Moron. Hey Ion,

Did you even think to look on the Internet before you made such an assinine statement?

Question, when you are proven wrong will you have the balls to admit that you were wrong?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Instead of calling me imbecile...
...

Let me guess:

you are an imbecile.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

Let me guess:

you are an imbecile. Hey, will you admit it when you are proven wrong? Or are you gutless hypocritical Liberal who only cares about his ego? When I made a mistake I was man enough to admit it. Are you man enough to step up to the plate?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
Question, when you are proven wrong...
...

Go ahead, prove me wrong that U.S. didn't break 1441.

[RandFan]

Hey Ion,

How about it? Do you have the maturity to admit that you were wrong? Or are you only a smug egotistical prick who can't admit when he was wrong?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
Are you man enough to step up to the plate?
Yeah:

U.S. broke 1441 like I showed.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Go ahead, prove me wrong that U.S. didn't break 1441. Nice try at shifting the argument. NO MORON! You said that Iraq was not in material breach. Will you have the balls to admit that you were wrong?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hey Ion,

How about it? Do you have the maturity to admit that you were wrong? Or are you only a smug egotistical prick who can't admit when he was wrong?
Hey RF,

How about it? Do you have the maturity to admit that you were wrong and supports killings? Or are you only a smug egotistical prick who can't admit when he was wrong?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Nice try at shifting the argument. NO MORON! You said that Iraq was not in material breach. Will you have the balls to admit that you were wrong?
RF,

Nice try at shifting the argument. NO MORON! You said that Iraq was in material breach. Will you have the balls to admit that you were wrong?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Yeah:

U.S. broke 1441 like I showed. Now who is the liar?

You said,

Iraq is not found in material breach, moron. So how about it? Enough of the pissing contest, do you have the balls to admit that you are wrong? Why aren't you protesting that you are right? You know you are wrong but lack the backbone to admit it?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Hey RF,

How about it? Do you have the maturity to admit that you were wrong and supports killings? Or are you only a smug egotistical prick who can't admit when he was wrong? Beggs the question.

When was I wrong? Another claim. Why is it I can post your claims but you can't post mine?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Now who is the liar?
...
You know you are wrong but lack the backbone to admit it?
You are the liar:

you know you are wrong but lack the backbone to admit it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Nice try at shifting the argument. NO MORON! You said that Iraq was in material breach. Will you have the balls to admit that you were wrong? The were in material breach.

Do you deny that they were?

Originally posted by Ion
Iraq is not found in material breach, moron. Is this statement true or false?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
When was I wrong?
...

When I told you that you were wrong.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

You are the liar:

you know you are wrong but lack the backbone to admit it. Just a claim. You have refused to show where I lied.

Do you still claim that Iraq was not in material breach.

Originally posted by Ion
Iraq is not found in material breach, moron. Will you admit that you were wrong when I prove conclusively that Iraq was in material breach?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

When I told you that you were wrong. Gainsaying and refusing to answer the question and back up your claim.

Originally posted by Ion
Iraq is not found in material breach, moron. Do you stand by your statement? Was Iraq in material breach? Will you admit that you are wrong?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
The were in material breach.

Do you deny that they were?
...

U.N. said Iraq wasn't in breach regarding WMDs.

Search for WMDs proves that Iraq wasn't in breach, moron.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Iraq is not found in material breach, moron.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
Was Iraq in material breach? Will you admit that you are wrong?
Iraq was not in material breach.

No WMDs.

Will you admit that you are wrong, moron?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Gainsaying and refusing to answer the question and back up your claim.

Do you stand by your statement? Was Iraq in material breach? Will you admit that you are wrong?

This reminds me of the debates about Clinton's trial. You can argue the legal nitpicks all you want, but it doesn't prove a thing. Israel is in breach of UN resolutions. The US isn't making any plans to invade.

The point is, Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter what. The legalities were merely incidental, post hoc justification.

[RandFan]

You stand by your claim right?

Originally posted by Ion
Iraq is not found in material breach, moron.

[Ion]

From my post about the U.S. promise to not use force regarding U.N. Resolution 1441, U.S. is in breach.

Iraq is not in breach.

RF, you are a moron.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

U.N. said Iraq wasn't in breach regarding WMDs.

Search for WMDs proves that Iraq wasn't in breach, moron. Now you are just shifting the goal posts.

I WAS THE ONE THAT SAID IRAQ WAS IN MATERIAL BREACH!

I didn't say ANYTHING about WMD!

You said,

Originally posted by Ion
Iraq is not found in material breach, moron.This was your claim.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
You stand by your claim right?



I can remember when Saddam sent mountains of documentation to show he had no WMD. He could have save himself the time. Nothing he could have done would have been considered proof he didn't have WMD.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Iraq was not in material breach.

No WMDs.

Will you admit that you are wrong, moron? No, it WAS in material breach just like I said.

[Ion]

Now that's been established that Iraq was not in breach but U.S. was in breach of 1441, what about the oil RF?

Halliburton, Chevron-Texaco, you know?

Moron...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

You did back it up, when demon exposed your copying. How is that backing it up? Do you even know what the hell you are talking about? I quoted the material.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
How is that backing it up?
...

You are the best incriminator of your own dishonesty, RF.

That's how it is backed up.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
From my post about the U.S. promise to not use force regarding U.N. Resolution 1441, U.S. is in breach.

Iraq is not in breach. Well I quess you don't know what the hell you are talking about and I bet you haven't the balls to admit that you are wrong.

Press Release SC/7564 (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm)

Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued ViolationsYes, that is right, they were in material breach just as I had said.

I made a claim and I backed it up. See how that works?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
No, it WAS in material breach just like I said.
No, Iraq WASN'T and U.S. WAS in material breach just like I said.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Now that's been established that Iraq was not in breach but U.S. was in breach of 1441, what about the oil RF?

Halliburton, Chevron-Texaco, you know?

Moron... Maybe you should learn a little about what you are talking about before you post.

Press Release SC/7564 (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm)

Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

No, Iraq WASN'T and U.S. WAS in material breach just like I said. More gainsaying. Why is it that I can prove my claims and you never can?

Press Release SC/7564 (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm)

Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations

[RandFan]

Now that that is cleared up. Do you have the balls to admit that you were wrong?

Will you answer the other questions?

When did I lie?

How is quoting other peoples material lying?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
I made a claim and I backed it up. See how that works?
The claim that U.S. can go to war even though U.S. promised not to use force because of 1441?

No you didn't.

U.S. broke 1441, Iraq didn't.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

The claim that U.S. can go to war even though U.S. promised not to use force because of 1441?

No you didn't.

U.S. broke 1441, Iraq didn't. God you are so dishonest. I post the proof that Iraq was found in material breach by the your beloved U.N. and you refuse to accept the proof.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Now that that is cleared up. Do you have the balls to admit that you were wrong?

Will you answer the other questions?

When did I lie?

How is quoting other peoples material lying?
Now that that is cleared up that U.S. not Iraq broke 1441, do you have the balls to admit that you were wrong?

Quoting other peoples material is lying when you do it as if it is your own reading and knowledge of the material.

You remind me of Bush lying that he knew of WMDs in Iraq.

Moron,

and

cheat.

[RandFan]

Press Release SC/7564 (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm)

Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations Read it again. I know how slow you are.

Look at the words in capital letters. See the 6th and 7th words over? "MATERIAL BREACH". What this means is that they were, contrary to your claims, in "MATERIAL BREACH".

Now grow a set and admit that you were wrong.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Now that that is cleared up that U.S. not Iraq broke 1441, do you have the balls to admit that you were wrong?

Press Release SC/7564 (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm)

Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations It hurts doesn't it?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Quoting other peoples material is lying when you do it as if it is your own reading and knowledge of the material. How can you quote someone else AS IF it is our own? That doesn't make any sense.

Press Release SC/7564 (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm)

Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Read it again. I know how slow you are.
...

Read it again. I know how slow you are.

U.S. promised not to use force in the case of 1441, but work thru U.N..

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
How can you quote someone else AS IF it is our own? That doesn't make any sense.

You tell me RF.

You did it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

Read it again. I know how slow you are.

U.S. promised not to use force in the case of 1441, but work thru U.N.. Sorry,

Still doesn't change the fact that the U.N. WAS in material breach just as I said they were. Remember? I said Iraq was in material breach and you said, the Einstien that you are,

Originally posted by Ion
Iraq is not found in material breach, moron. But sadly the U.N. agrees with me.

Press Release SC/7564 (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm)

Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations :D

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

You tell me RF.

You did it. No I didn't. If I was going to plagerize, I WOULDN'T have quoted it.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
But sadly the U.N. agrees with me.


Then how come idiot that Bush didn't and doesn't have the U.N. agreement?

Idiot:

Here is the explicit promise by the U.S. to not use force without the U.N. Security Council Authorization if 1441 was violated:

here (http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/IRAQ/US081102.HTM)

"As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."

I repeat:

this shows the explicit promise by the U.S. to not use force without the U. N. Security Council authorization.

The promise is broken by Bush's U.S..

Q.E.D.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
No I didn't. If I was going to plagerize, I WOULDN'T have quoted it.
The why did you do it RF?

RF?

RF?

[RandFan]

Press Release SC/7564 (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm)

Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations One more time. I know that you lack the honesty to admit that you were wrong. It is demonstrable that you were wrong. You can try and deny it but it is there for all to see. I saved the thread so I can remind you of your refusal to... Back up your claims.

Answer questions.

Admit that you were wrong.
:D I'm going to sleep very good tonight. Thank you.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

The why did you do it RF?I have answered the question. It is you that have refused to answer my questions.

I quoted it so that others would know that it WASN'T mine.

[Ion]

Here is the explicit promise by the U.S. to not use force without the U.N. Security Council Authorization if 1441 was violated:

here (http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/IRAQ/US081102.HTM)

"As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."

I repeat:

this shows the explicit promise by the U.S. to not use force without the U. N. Security Council authorization.

The promise is broken by Bush's U.S..

Q.E.D.