Proof that Iraq is in "material breach" of UNSC resolution 687 since inception.

[rikzilla]

#1. Saddam gave haven and support to the terrorist Abu Nidal and his organization (before he had him killed recently that is) in violation of 687, paragraph 32 which imposes the obligation under international law to report suspected acts of Iraqi support for international terrorism to the UN secretary general.which also addresses Iraq's support of terrorism.

#2. Abdul Rahman Yasin, the one terrorist not captured from the first WTC bombing is currently living free in Baghdad. The only named conspirator still at large. He was one of the "blind Sheik's" nutty Islamic fundie followers....so why did he run for Iraq...and why did Saddam harbor him in full disregard of UN Security Council Resolution 687? (paragraph 32 again)

#3. Abu Mussab al Zarqawi (al Qaida senior operative) is apparently free to operate in Baghdad as well. (pesky paragraph 32 again)
the link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/23/iraq.alqaeda/index.html)

#4. Ramzi Yusef aka Abdul Basit, the mastermind of WTC bombing #!. Was at the time suspected of being an active Iraqi intelligence agent. Also, when finally captured in the Phillipines, found to be also associated with Abu Sayyef (terrorist group known to be linked with al Qaida)

#5. Dr. Hamza's testimony that Iraq's Mukhabarat (political secret police) are running the concealment mechanism for their ongoing proscribed nuclear program. The link (http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-19hamza.html)

#6. On August 8, 1995 Hussein Kamil (Saddam's son-in-law) defected to Jordan. He had supervised Iraqi unconventional weapons programs. His information confirmed that Iraq had developed and possesed weaponized biological agents.

#7. Egyptian officials arrested one of the first WTC bombers where he was hiding with family in Cairo. He is Abu Halima. He told them about the involvement of two Iraqi intelligence agents who had managed to flee.

#8. UNSCOM 227 inspection (from Ritter's book Endgame) uncovered Iraqi documents detailing biological and chemical agent testing done on humans. (political prisoners)...Endgame page 180.

#9. Calutrons (magnetic isotope seperators) of the kind used in the Manhattan project were found in the process of being moved around by the Iraqis way back in 1991. (another instance of deception, and active nuclear program)

#10. Mukhabarat terrorism "school" inadvertently found by UNSCOM 150 inspection team in 1996. (not part of UNSCOM mandated mission...not WMD's...just terror/torture etc...the issue of this find was not taken up by the UNSC) page 120 "Endgame.


For those of you who continue to cry for evidence I ask you now to attempt to rebut these facts. Put up or shut up. ;)

-z

[crackmonkey]

There are also allegations from a defector that Saddam trained Arab terrorists at the Salman Pak air base. Supposedly they had a 707 parked on a runway, and the trainees used it to practice their hijacking technique.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

[Doctor X]

Yeah . . . but has he done anything bad recently?

--J.D.

[demon]

Oh Yippee, we can now go off and kill a lot of innocent people because of that!

Incidently, International Law doesn`t count to you? An attack unsanctioned by the UN Security Council, or Article 51? Who is going to be in breach of those annoying little articles?

Warmongering has no limits. From the sublime to the ridiculous.

[crackmonkey]

Can you contradict any of his points?

[demon]

If I can`t, does that justify killing innocent people? Want to justify that?

[Doctor X]

Demon:

Back up just a bit. I understand you are angry. However, you have to address the points made. For, you see, one could turn around your question and note that the number of innocent people killed in recent conflicts--Gulf War I-The Motionless Picture and Afghanistan are far less than those being killed by Sadam.

Furthermore, that the UN is unwilling to enforce the "laws" they make. . . .

--J.D.

[demon]

If I can`t, does that justify killing innocent people? Want to justify that?

[AlH]

Originally posted by demon
If I can`t, does that justify killing innocent people? Want to justify that?

Just out of curiousity, what should the US/international community do in your opinion?

[Tmy]

Everyone loves to waive the UN flag when it suites them. Sure you can find UN violations, but when the UN wants to try to work on more inspections we here "screw the UN they dont know what theyre doing."

[crackmonkey]

I hypothesize that his answer will boil down to "Nothing".

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by demon
If I can`t, does that justify killing innocent people? Want to justify that?

Innocent people are going to die, whether Saddam stays in power or he is removed. I (and many others) believe that if he is removed, far fewer innocents will die. How is this not justified?

I apply the same justification for removing the Taliban.

I continue on to the despots of Sub-Saharan Africa, by the way.

MattJ

[Tmy]

I dont buy the "free the Iraqi people" arguments. More like propaganda if you ask me.

We never cared about the Taliban. If they wouldve turned over Bin Ladin and his crew right after 911, the Taliban would be in power today.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont buy the "free the Iraqi people" arguments. More like propaganda if you ask me.

Believe what you wish. Time will tell. Some didn't buy the "free the Poles" arguments, either.

Originally posted by Tmy
We never cared about the Taliban. If they wouldve turned over Bin Ladin and his crew right after 911, the Taliban would be in power today.

Most likely true, but then that would have been our failure.

[Edit to note that this thread is going off track. If you want to respond, feel free to start another thread.]

MattJ

[demon]

"Just out of curiousity, what should the US/international community do in your opinion"

Maybe stop setting them up and giving them weapons in the first place would help. Then the question of what we have to do with these terrible guys becomes moot.

Also, some of us here could do with learning a little history. We can`t start history yesterday because it is convenient for us to do so.

Anything boils down to nothing crackmonkey if left long enough. Including warmongers. Why don`t you "hypothesize" on that?

[Tmy]

Ok back to topic................who should decide what a "material breach" is? GW? the UN???

Rumor has it the next inspector report gives Saddam a "B" for co operation. Its not an "A", so is that good enough reason to pull the trigger.

[Doctor X]

demon:

Maybe stop setting them up and giving them weapons in the first place would help. Then the question of what we have to do with these terrible guys becomes moot.

Perhaps, but that does nothing about now.

For example, it seemed rather reasonable, to me, not to go after Sadam and depose him in GW-I--of course I had thought more of his "stuff" had been destroyed, "we" would support insurrections against him, et cetera--for it would appear the US conquering a nation.

Hind sight appears "we" should have dealt with him.

Of course "hind sight" states the French should not have violated the sanctions, the Clinton administratioin should have paid better attention, et cetera.

Whomever you wish to attribute the most blame to, the fact remains Hussein is a problem now.

Do we wish to have this same argument five years from now?

--J.D.

[demon]

"Just out of curiousity, what should the US/international community do in your opinion"

Maybe stop setting them up and giving them weapons in the first place would help. Then the question of what we have to do with these terrible guys becomes moot.

Also, some of us here could do with learning a little history. We can`t start history yesterday because it is convenient for us to do so.

Anything boils down to nothing crackmonkey if left long enough. Including warmongers. Why don`t you "hypothesize" on that?

[AlH]

Originally posted by demon
"Just out of curiousity, what should the US/international community do in your opinion"

Maybe stop setting them up and giving them weapons in the first place would help. Then the question of what we have to do with these terrible guys becomes moot.

Also, some of us here could do with learning a little history. We can`t start history yesterday because it is convenient for us to do so.

Okay, so starting today, the US, Russia, China, France, Britain, Germany, etc. will no longer export anything that is or could be used as a weapon. Good start.

Unfortunately, we cannot go back in time and change history either. So, given the situation with Iraq today, what would your solution to the problem be?

To keep this somewhat on track, I think the UN should be the body that decides if breaches have happened, the US should do what it can to help demonstrate such breaches if it will not jeopardize national security.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by demon
Oh Yippee, we can now go off and kill a lot of innocent people because of that!

Incidently, International Law doesn`t count to you? An attack unsanctioned by the UN Security Council, or Article 51? Who is going to be in breach of those annoying little articles?

Warmongering has no limits. From the sublime to the ridiculous.

Demon,

Please stick to the facts as put forth on this thread. International law is what has been broken by Saddam. Without Saddam's removal (and the removal from power of all the al Abu Nasir tribe BTW) Iraqi civilians will continue to die under UN economic sanctions. The status quo is too cruel to fathom. The sanctions cannot continue, and Saddam's cruel regime must still be contained. How to do it?? Give us your answer so that we may discuss it.

You can call me a warmonger all you want, but whether or not I am one makes no difference. The facts that I have presented in my initial post still remain. Ad Hominum will not help your argument here.

Like I said before...(it's old tired and trite, but I can think of nothing more apt) Put up or shut up. No more whining. Refute these facts, give us an alternative solution, or go away and say no more.

-zilla

[Advocate]

If I remember correctly, Iraq's acceptance of resolution 687 was part of the terms of the ceasefire ending the Gulf War. So it would seem to me that a new UN resolution authorizing force isn't really necessary if the resolution has been violated. Now you could argue that only the UN could declare that there has been a material breach and I am not sure how that works, but if there has been one then the old resolution authorizing force ought to be in effect once again.

I don't like the thought of another war, even one where the US has as few casualties as the first one. And there are no guarantees that will be the case. However, I do not see any other means of either enforcing complaince or removing the offending regime. A decade of sanctions hasn't done the job. What makes anyone think it can be done without the renewed use of force?

I also understand that the motivations of the US government may be less than noble. I won't disagree with that. But just because there is another motive does not negate that a just purpose will also be served. This is often the case with governments. There is a real motivation and there is a just purpose that is used to justify the action. But the existence of these other reasons does not mean that good is not done. It does mean that a lot of good things fail to get done because there isn't a less altruistic reason to do them, but that is a subject for another day.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Advocate
If I remember correctly, Iraq's acceptance of resolution 687 was part of the terms of the ceasefire ending the Gulf War. So it would seem to me that a new UN resolution authorizing force isn't really necessary if the resolution has been violated. Now you could argue that only the UN could declare that there has been a material breach and I am not sure how that works, but if there has been one then the old resolution authorizing force ought to be in effect once again.

I don't like the thought of another war, even one where the US has as few casualties as the first one. And there are no guarantees that will be the case. However, I do not see any other means of either enforcing complaince or removing the offending regime. A decade of sanctions hasn't done the job. What makes anyone think it can be done without the renewed use of force?

I also understand that the motivations of the US government may be less than noble. I won't disagree with that. But just because there is another motive does not negate that a just purpose will also be served. This is often the case with governments. There is a real motivation and there is a just purpose that is used to justify the action. But the existence of these other reasons does not mean that good is not done. It does mean that a lot of good things fail to get done because there isn't a less altruistic reason to do them, but that is a subject for another day.

Wellcome to the forum Advocate,

I could not agree with you more. There are no ALL good governments, nor ALL bad wars. Fuzzy logic, ain't it a bitch?

Sometimes war must be waged....a war can even sometimes be the least evil choice...without war the Jews of Europe would have all gone up the chimneys of concentration camp crematoriums. I came to this subject with only the knowledge allowed me by CNN. I researched it because I wanted an informed opinion. If I was to advocate peace then I wanted to know this war was unjust, if I advocated war I needed to KNOW that what is at stake is worth the lives of our young soldiers. What I found was shocking to me. That such a situation was allowed to drag out so long in unconcionable (sp?)... One book I read said the infant mortality was about 7,000 children per year in Iraq prior to sanctions. Since sanctions started the infant mortality has been above 40,000 kids dead of malnutrition etc every year since 1991!! (Sorry, the source is one I can't remember the name of...please correct me if you have the right figures)

If any of you wish to point the finger at America and say we're evil, well there's you chance. I agree. A banal evil...an incompetent evil. Sanctions do little to hurt Saddam, but kill tens of thousands of innocents every year. If Clinton should be held accountable for anything, it should be for his immorally inept Iraq policy. Instead the repubs nail him for getting blown. (after spending 50 million $!!! A disgrace!)

So, all of you who responded...thanks...and when any of you see someone spouting off the brainless, kneejerk mantra of "no blood for oil", please link them to this thread. They will have a job trying to refute these 10 points,....I hope someone's up to it, because if I'm wrong on any of these points I'd like to know it.

The UNSC is the final arbiter of what constitutes a "material breach". But a decent lawyer could take just one of these 10 points and make a very solid case that indeed the resolution has been breached. Trouble is the UNSC has had a long track record of valiantly looking the other way unless pushed by the US. The US under Clinton did little pushing.....and lots of ineffective cruise missile lobbing. I have hope that GWB will do the job right this time. I look forward to seeing a rebuilt, modern, democratic, and sanction free Iraq be born out of this mess.

-zilla

[Ben Shniper]

I'd like to add that Saddam has repeatedly and deliberately and openly supported suicide bombings in Israel. Israel hasn't directly attacked Iraq in years. So why shouldn't Saddam support suicide bombings in America? Why wouldn't he? If Mohammed Atta's family got 25K from Saddam, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

When Iraq is allowed to use Hamas to bomb Israel without any consequences to him, why shouldn't he bomb America or Europe the same way? After all, he has no end of (illegitimate) grievances against America.

-Ben

[crackmonkey]

The thought of going to war isn't pleasant. In this situation, though, I honestly feel that allowing the status quo to continue would be far worse - both to the US and the Iraqi people.

[susheel]

Does anyone remember that many of the links in the chain from the terror attacks lead to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and some other nations who are now allies of the USA?

Most of the evidence is heresay from defectors and convicts hoping to get a better deal. Remember what happened the last time such evidence was used during the Bay of Pigs? Oh, by the way...many of us are still laughing about the incubator baby story that was manufactured during Gulf War one. I admire the way the Bush I and co. managed to slide that under the rug when it was proved to be hogwash.

The American government inspite of all its posturing has not provided any evidence to support its WMD accusations. Nor have they provided any evidence of links to terrorists.

Oh, I forgot, they are all Arabs, so that's evidence enough.

Everyone knows what this war is about. It is NOT about suppression of terrorism.

By they

[crackmonkey]

I suspect it will be impossible to convince some that Saddam has WMD, even if they were discovered in Baghdad. Even if inspectors stumbled across Iraqi scientists assembling a nuke, there would be cries of outrage that it was a stunt set up by the CIA.

[bangdazap]

Originally posted by rikzilla

So, all of you who responded...thanks...and when any of you see someone spouting off the brainless, kneejerk mantra of "no blood for oil", please link them to this thread. They will have a job trying to refute these 10 points,....I hope someone's up to it, because if I'm wrong on any of these points I'd like to know it.


The US has supported and trained a lot more and worse terrorists and dictators than Iraq (Saddam being one of the dictators, Osama bin Laden one of the terrorists, among others). Who's going to bomb the US to make them stop doing these things? So think before you spout of your brainless kneejerk mantra of "war war war, no matter what", OK?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by susheel

The American government inspite of all its posturing has not provided any evidence to support its WMD accusations. Nor have they provided any evidence of links to terrorists.

Oh, I forgot, they are all Arabs, so that's evidence enough.

Everyone knows what this war is about. It is NOT about suppression of terrorism.

By they [/B]

Susheel,

You are making unsupported assertions. Please examine the evidence as put forward in my opening post and debunk it. There are many anti-war/anti-American posters here and I have given an open invitation for ALL who have claimed there is no evidence to come here and debunk this evidence. As of now Demon and yourself have piped up and said nothing. I posted the evidence, and without addressing one iota of what I posted you have said
"The American government inspite of all its posturing has not provided any evidence to support its WMD accusations. Nor have they provided any evidence of links to terrorists."

Well, the American government may not have provided this stuff, but it's out there anyway for those of you who care to look. You are obviously one of those who like spouting slogans instead of doing research. I posted this thread to point up the fact that people such as you are talking out of their rear ends. Your post has perfectly illustrated that point!

Thank you for your participation! :D ;)

-zilla

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by bangdazap


The US has supported and trained a lot more and worse terrorists and dictators than Iraq (Saddam being one of the dictators, Osama bin Laden one of the terrorists, among others). Who's going to bomb the US to make them stop doing these things? So think before you spout of your brainless kneejerk mantra of "war war war, no matter what", OK?

You may feel free to call me any names you like. Ad Hominum attacks do not count very much among the more thoughtful posters here.

The fact that the US has supported bad guys in the past is immaterial to this debate. Let's give you the argument that the US is actually an evil "Great Satan"....does this "fact" in your little head have anything to do with the Iraq question? Does it address any of the points I've mentioned??

No....it doesn't.

The US is evil assertion can be debated to death on another thread, please create one at your leisure. This thread is for the debunking of the 10 points I mentioned. If you cannot do it then please post elsewhere....and remember that if/when you start chanting "no blood for oil" on some other thread here at JREF someone will come along and link you back to these 10 points. If you can't refute them, then your argument has no legs to stand on. This is not going to be a war for just oil...there's a bigger picture. Pull your head out of your bum and have a look around sometime,...the world is a complex and fascinating place. :p

-zilla

[Doctor X]

'Zilla:

The "but the US has trains lots and lots and lots more terrorists" remains a non sequitur not to mention wrong, as you recognize.

When George the Younger confiscates the next tax rebates to build a statue and palace for himself, I may consider him as reprehensible as Sadam. . . .

Since sanctions started the infant mortality has been above 40,000 kids dead of malnutrition etc every year since 1991!!

You might find this all interesting from Pollack's book:

How Many Iraqis Have Died Since 1991?

Unfortunately, the answer is: we just don't know. . . . That said, there are a number of things that we do know and that are worth saying.

First, however many people have died, the numbers that the Iraqui regime is disseminating--and that many well-meaning people and even U.N. agencies are recirculating--are clearly wrong.[1] Iraq's claims are grossly contradicted by the regime's own demographic data. In 1997, the Iraqi regime conducted a census, and two years later it. . . . . . . stated that Iraq's population had increased from 16.5 million in 1987 to 22 million in 1997. Baghdad also claimed that had it not been for the U.N. sanctions, the population figure would have been 23.5 million but that 1.5 million people (1 million of them children) had died prematurely as a result of sanctions. Although this was the headline of the census, all of the other numbers in it controverted this lurid claim. The census figures indicate a population growth rate of 33 percent over ten years, a very high rate . . . by itself. If one were to add back the 1.5 million . . . (and the 500,000 who fled the country. . .), it would produce a ten-year growth rate of 45 percent--which is phenomenal and would have put Iraq among the fastest-growing populations in the world. However, Iraq was not know to be one of the fastest-growing populations in the world prior to the Gulf War. . . .

Amatzia Baram has demonstrated that the Iraqi figures themselves belie the assertions of the regime. . . . [T]he census figures show Iraqi population growth rates remaining stable over the last thirty years, and the decrease in population growth rates the regime claims was produced by the sanctions would not have been big enough to create the actual population increase had 1.5 million people already died. Thus, the census figures for population growth by themselves indicate that the Iraqi claims as to deaths from sanctions are significantly inflated. [2] To explain this discrepancy, Baghdad claims that there was a quantum leap in Iraq's birthrate in 1991-97, which not only offset the deaths but produced the growth. Interestingly, the census does not present any data to support this contention. . . . According to unofficial U.N. statistics, Iraq's birthrate continued to decline right through 1997. . . .

If the ludicrous assertions of the Iraqi regime are clearly false, it still leaves unanswered the question of how many Iraqis truly died. Unfortunately, all we have is a good guess. At present, the most comprehensive, thorough, and sensitive analysis has been conducted by Richard Garfield of Columbia University. Gardfield's research was exhaustive, and his methodology is the current gold standard. based on this work, Garfield concluded that between August 1990 and March 1998, anywhere from 106,000 to 227,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died as a rsult of the war, the intifadah [Various uprisings against Sadam which Sadam conducted punitive reprisals targeting women and children.--Ed.], and its aftermath. . . . [T]he number is probably closer to the high end . . . but . . . roughly 25 percent of those who died were killed during the Gulf War and the intifadah. [3] Since Garfield also estimates that 1,000 to 5,000 Iraqi civilians died during the Gulf War, the vast majority of the children under the age of five killed in combate were therefore probably killed in the intifadah--an estimate that squares with the numerous accounts of the brutality of Saddam's forces and their slaughter of women and children in suppressing the revolt. [4]

So the best estimate we have is that roughly 135,000 to 150,000 Iraqi children died in the first seven years after the war. . . . Regardless of whether one blames these deaths mostly on the sanctions or mostly on the regime's manipulation of and reaction to the sanctions, this is still a very heavy cost. Given that the Gulf War itself probably caused no more than 10,000 to 30,000 Iraqi military casualties and another 1,000 to 5,000 civilian casualties, it raises the question of whether full-scale combat is a more humane policy than draconian sanctions.

Pollack, KM. The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. New York: Random House, Inc., 2002, pp. 137-139.

References Cited in Book:

1. For World Health Organization, UNICEF, and the UN FAO repeating or arbitrarily modifying Iraq's made-up numbers, see Cockburn and Cockburn, Out of the Ashes, P. 137; Hiro, Neighbors, Not Friends, pp. 129, 177.

2-3. Baram, "The Effects of Iraqi Sanctions," pp. 195-198.

4. Garfield, "Executive Summary," pp. 1-2.

I have to agree that hyperbole and fallacy, though sincere, does not solve the current problem.

--J.D.

[rikzilla]

Wow, great work X! ;)
Gotta love a guy who does his homework! Yeah, the purges of General officers after the Iran/Iraq war led to entire tribes being eliminated. Men, women, and kiddies. UNSCOM divers looking for missile parts dumped in the Tigris found many bodies of these purge victims....but it wasn't part of their mandated mission....so they had to turn an official blind eye to it.

Saddam was worried that some Generals who attained great popularity for their conduct of the war would attempt to overthrow him....so after they were no longer useful on the battlefield...and a threat at home....he had them all tortured and killed. That's how he insured the stability of his regime.

I did read about these mass killings tied to the military purges, but did not post that info here as it does not directly bear on the question of Iraqi compliance with 687. Thanks for bringing it up though...it deserves much consideration when attempting to assess the impact of sanctions on the Iraqi people, and the justness of the coming war.

-zilla

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy
Everyone loves to waive the UN flag when it suites them. Sure you can find UN violations, but when the UN wants to try to work on more inspections we here "screw the UN they dont know what theyre doing."

I think this is actually 180 degrees. You have people who think that if the UN won't budge, unilateral action is okay. These people caved since the peacefascists demanded that action be done through the UN. So now you have the unilateralists saying "see, they are in breach of the UN stuff, can we get on with this already". Now the peacefascists say "even if they are is that an excuse to kill innocent people!!!!".

The peacefascists have demanded UN crap at every turn, despite the fact that original peace accord has never been complied to which means in theory that Gulf I is still going on.

Its cognitive dissonance with a sprinkle of tunnel vision.

[susheel]

Rik,

You are obviously one of those who like spouting slogans instead of doing research. I posted this thread to point up the fact that people such as you are talking out of their rear ends. Your post has perfectly illustrated that point!

Thank you for the insults and ad hominems. There is no point in my providing evidence because with the internet it will be so easy and besides, your 'evidence' will always be bigger than mine. Contrary to what you may think, we in the third world do read and are able to make logical connections.

I pride myself on the fact that I don't get carried away by my own government's propaganda, so what makes you think that you can use similar propaganda to influence me?

You don't have to answer this. It is just a vent. I won't be returning to this forum because after certain things that have happened to some of my friends (yes some are Iraqis) using the Amero-centric logic that has become rampant on this forum, the attitude of many here has begun to turn my stomach.

So...So long and thanks for alll the good times.

[Jon_in_london]

What does UN resolution 687 have to do with it?

You might have posted a link u know?
http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fletcher/multi/gulf_states/resolution_687.html

"32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;"

This resolution never had any 'material breach' clause in it.

And I can think of some other countries that violate UN resolutions...................

[Doctor X]

Forgive the argumentum ad [No Latin!--Ed.] appeal to ignorance or information which readers cannot verify; however, I asked about regarding the No Fly Zones (NFZs) and international law to some involved in international law and diplomacy.

First, as one poster whom I do not recall put it, there are levels of UNSC resolutions. The UN member states can bring forth resolutions as well, of course, as the UNSC. These may not be binding in the sense it would demand compliance from member states.

Second, the UN does not create international law.

As much as any major institution, the ability of the UN to enforce a resolution depends on the ability of it to apply pressure on a member. "Legally" UNSC resolutions that specify actions such as, "get out of Kuwait or we let George the Elder squish you" require the concensus of the UNSC permanent members--no veto . . . which pretty much comprises the major nations involved.

Regarding, "could Canada decide NFZ existed over Cleveland, Ohio" questions, I was reminded a few facts:

1. The US did not invade Canada . . . recently.
2. Iraq lost a war and has failed to comply with UNSC resolutions considered "binding."
3. As one poster put it, if the UNSC found the NFZs "illegal" the members could bring forth a resolution against it. Yes, as another poster protested, the US, Britain, et cetera could veto it; however, it would serve as a demonstrable argument against them.

As the source put it, if the US invaded Canada, was pushed out by a coalition led by Monaco and Iceland, Monaco and Iceland could try to prevent further attacks against Canada by creating a "buffer zone." The NFZ do serve that purpose in Iraq. To continue the analogy, they would prevent the US from droping pro-Dixi-Chicks leaflets on citizens of Buffalo in clear violation of various human rights resolutions. . . .

Now, I can understand if the Readership speculates upon just which orifice I produced this. I asked the question

Any legality or illegality regarding the NFZs?

The source admitted it may simply be that they are not illegal because they have never been declared illegal and, more importantly from a practical standpoint, despite public posturing no one other than Iraq wants them considered illegal.

If I receive any demonstrable evidence, legal wise, I will pass it on.

However, my source noted the very practical problem of intervention, "No one protested significantly when France intervened in the Ivory Coast. France did not ask for a 'UN resolution' granting it permission."

Is the UN just a "rubber stamp" or a "paper tiger" depending upon whom you ask. The source disagreed for two reasons:

First, many small countries just cannot afford to have embassies and consolates. Having a presence in NYC allows them to have contact with diplomats from every country.

Second, it is a venue for small countries to raise points that, frankly, the "big guys" may not consider. Source cited the example of debates on how to regulate patents for, say, AIDS drugs in nations that, frankly, need them the most but cannot afford them. Not that the Big Countries [Tm.--Ed.] do not care, but, for example, Bush and Co. are not exactly innundated by lobbiests on this matter--it falls away in favor of other issues.

--J.D.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by susheel
Rik,



Thank you for the insults and ad hominems. There is no point in my providing evidence because with the internet it will be so easy and besides, your 'evidence' will always be bigger than mine. Contrary to what you may think, we in the third world do read and are able to make logical connections.

I pride myself on the fact that I don't get carried away by my own government's propaganda, so what makes you think that you can use similar propaganda to influence me?

You don't have to answer this. It is just a vent. I won't be returning to this forum because after certain things that have happened to some of my friends (yes some are Iraqis) using the Amero-centric logic that has become rampant on this forum, the attitude of many here has begun to turn my stomach.

So...So long and thanks for alll the good times.

Thank you and good bye.

One down.....countless more to go. The work has begun, but like the WOT itself the WOS (war on stupidity) rages on....:rolleyes:

Susheel....using the "play the victim" card...and taking your ball and going home tactic has been done to death. If you have issues with what I've said why not just address the facts in a calm rational manner? If I am "spouting propaganda" please correct me as my sources are all noted with my points.

This is a forum full of very talented and bright people. I expect someone to tear into my points in a methodical and rational manner....unless they can't. If my points are indeed true and unassailable, (which is beginning to become apparent) then I would hope to see at least a few of the anti-war people come forward and acknowledge it.

Intellectual honesty is something I personally take very seriously....if I am wrong on any point, show me and I will admit my mistake and learn from it....I only ask the same from you guys.

-zilla

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
What does UN resolution 687 have to do with it?

You might have posted a link u know?
http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fletcher/multi/gulf_states/resolution_687.html

"32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;"

This resolution never had any 'material breach' clause in it.

And I can think of some other countries that violate UN resolutions...................

Sorry,...yeah I could have posted a link.

...ahhh, you are quibbling about language. "Thou shalt not kill" also has no "material breach" clause in it. But, if you were to kill... then it would in fact BE a material breach, wouldn't you say?

Most laws have no "material breach" clauses. They merely stipulate that if you break the law, law enforcement, under certain guidelines pertaining to the law you have broken, will come down on you with appropriate force.

c'mon man, you can do better than that. Besides, look at the preponderance issue....even if you succeed in refuting one point you have nine more to go. ;)

-zilla

[Crossbow]

Nobody, except for Saddam's flunkies, actually support him.

Everyone knows that he is a brutal, paranoid, power hungry, dictator and the sooner he is dead the better.

However, the question really is should a war against the nation of Iraq be waged just to get rid of Saddam?

No. Iraq is pretty much keeping its bad behavior within its own borders due to the strong international focus that has been on it for the last several years. Therefore, since Iraq is not an immediate threat to the USA or its interests, a war against Iraq is not warrented.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Crossword:
Nobody, except for Saddam's flunkies, actually support him.

Everyone knows that he is a brutal, paranoid, power hungry, dictator and the sooner he is dead the better.

However, the question really is should a war against the nation of Iraq be waged just to get rid of Saddam?

If he's devoid of support within Iraq, surely that would entail any war being a short with relatively few deaths and casualties?

If he's so utterly reviled by the Iraqi people, I'd wager they could well be praying for Allied military intervention. Remember all the talk about "don't declare war on the people of Afghanistan", and the rather positive reaction on the streets of Kabul in the aftermath of the Taliban's overthrow?

[c0rbin]

Rikzilla,

I agree that Saddam is a bad man and is lying to the world about his WMD programs.

But, so far, Iraq has been unable to flex any muscle.

The US is unpopular right now and cannot find the support for an attack that GW Bush has been quoted as saying needs to happen "right now."

What's the rush? Why "right now"?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by c0rbin

But, so far, Iraq has been unable to flex any muscle.

The US is unpopular right now and cannot find the support for an attack that GW Bush has been quoted as saying needs to happen "right now."

What's the rush? Why "right now"?
Well, I could be cynical and say they want to go 'right now' because a victory in Iraq would boost Bush's ratings and help him win the next election, whereas waiting might cause problems if the war does not go well.

However, there are other reasons for going now...
- They need to attack when the weather is cooler. The Americans have chemical suits, but they aren't really practical to use in the summer (too hot). So, either they attack now, or they wait another year
- Even though Saddam can only cause problems in his own country, invading Iraq now will allow sanctions to be lifted sooner. It will also mean that fewer people will die from Saddam's own actions.
- Even though Iraq is contained (and can't "Flex his muscles"), there is a fincancial and political cost to this containment. The sooner Saddam is eliminated, the sooner the U.S. can stop with the No Fly zones and other 'containment' action

[c0rbin]

"Right now" those who are most threatened by Saddam are his neighbors. Why don't they spearhead military action?

[Crossbow]

The US Military is the best military in the world and I am sure that they would have few real problems dealing with an enemy force pretty made up of conscripts who hate their leaders and are armed with old weapons.

However, winning a military victory would be the easy part.

There are many factions in Iraq (Kurds who want their own country, Shiites who want to destroy Israel, Sunnis who are lean more towards the West) and if the US forces a change in government, then that means the US will be obligated for years to come in winning the peace.

Countries with a few strong, but highly ambitious factions can make the job of a dictator a lot easier because most dictators are quite good at playing both ends against the middle. On the other hand, they make democracy quite difficult because everyone wants their own way and no one is willing to work with the opposition.

Do you think Iran will sit around watching events unfold on CNN while they have a chance to reshape their old enemy Iraq?

Do you think the Kurds in Turkey, Russia, and other countries will sit around playing backgammon when they finally see a chance to create their own country (as was promised after World War I)?

Do you think the citizens of Iraq will sit around drinking coffee while they have a chance to get revenge on those who have been repressing them for years?

Do you think Saudi Arabia will sit around buying new BMWs while they have a chance to settle their border dispute with Iraq once and for all?

Do you think ... (Well, you should have the idea by now)?

It will take years to keep all of the competing interests in balance and be both difficult and costly, and I really do not think the US could do a very good job of it thus setting the stage for future conflicts.

By the way, in regards to the note about Afghanistan, that situation was quite different. Afghanistan did attack the US and the US had good support from its allies in going there. This is not the case with Iraq.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla
or those of you who continue to cry for evidence I ask you now to attempt to rebut these facts. Put up or shut up. ;)

-z
Okay, Rik, I've just looked at your original post and have not yet read the responses of others. I'll point out that some of what you call proof is speculation. Dr. Hamza's testimony does not square with the current UN inspections. Though providing haven to Abu Nidal was dispicable, is there any proof that Iraq assisted Nidal during his terrorism days? (Also, Abu Nidal was never part of al Qaida, so that distinction should be kept in mind for those still confused on the mythical Iraq-al Qaida link.) The terrorism "school" to which you refer here you mentioned in another thread. Then you said it was documents detailing possible terrorist tactics with land mines, but that Ritter did not provide any discussion that the tactics had been put to use or that there were any potential targets.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by c0rbin
"Right now" those who are most threatened by Saddam are his neighbors. Why don't they spearhead military action?
Actually, "Right now" he's not threatening his neighbours. Why? because they're all dictatorships like Iraq is. And why threaten Iran or Saudi Arabia when you can threaten Israel? (He gets more brownie points from other middle east dictatorships from that.)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Rikzilla,

I agree that Saddam is a bad man and is lying to the world about his WMD programs.

But, so far, Iraq has been unable to flex any muscle.

The US is unpopular right now and cannot find the support for an attack that GW Bush has been quoted as saying needs to happen "right now."

What's the rush? Why "right now"?

Well,

I've been researching this question with an eye toward history. (Hey, the best place to start looking at a subject is at the beginning eh?) Anyway, UNSC 687 was signed in 1991...or maybe 1990...my brain is fogging up at the moment.... If you look at it from the beginning you start to see this massive pattern of deciet that Iraq has been playing on the UN. They have been literally in material breach of 687 since before the ink was dry.

By the time Hussein Kamal defected in 1995 we had all the solid ironclad proof that one would ever need to convince the world that Iraq was in breach. It's really the Clinton admin's fault that hostilities did not resume in '95. (and please don't take me as a Clinton hater...I'm a dem...and I voted for him once...the first time)

So now it's Jan 2003. There's a valid school of thought that says that if Clinton had done the right thing in '95 there'd have been no 9/11 disaster. I have no crystal ball...so I don't know if that would have been so or not....but it's obviously a possibility.

All this is why I don't understand the argument; "why now"? If not now, when? If Iraq is truly in breach of 687...and my points in my initial post show that they are....then when are we to force them into disarming? If we do nothing, the sanctions and NFZ type containment must proceed into the indefinate future. These sanctions are killing scores of Iraqis per year, and don't seem to harm the lavish lifestyle of Saddam at all.

Like you said, there is no rush....but if I'm an Iraqi the need for action takes on a whole new urgency.
-zilla

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Okay, Rik, I've just looked at your original post and have not yet read the responses of others. I'll point out that some of what you call proof is speculation. Dr. Hamza's testimony does not square with the current UN inspections. Though providing haven to Abu Nidal was dispicable, is there any proof that Iraq assisted Nidal during his terrorism days? (Also, Abu Nidal was never part of al Qaida, so that distinction should be kept in mind for those still confused on the mythical Iraq-al Qaida link.) The terrorism "school" to which you refer here you mentioned in another thread. Then you said it was documents detailing possible terrorist tactics with land mines, but that Ritter did not provide any discussion that the tactics had been put to use or that there were any potential targets.

You bring up some good points Wayne,

I'll try and address them later when I have some time. The books I read on the subject are now back in the library :( Mylroie's book did indeed address Abu Nidal and the group he headed in the 80's. She stated somewhere in her book that Iraqi military and intelligence agencies trained, equipped, and gave haven to Abu Nidal from the beginning of his activities.

.....but alas...you may have to go read that one yourself...or I may have to buy it as reference material in order to keep up my end of the discussion?? :confused: Money is tight ya know...

-zilla

BTW,...I will be travelling to Ft. Laud for the meeting this weekend, if anyone would like to discuss all this with me there I'd be pleased to do so face to face.

[c0rbin]

It would be so much easier for me to buy the anti-terrorism or bringing democracy or eleviating suffering, for the good of the Iraqi people (doesn't Iraq have the largest middle class in the middle east?) if oil weren't involved, with a country like North Korea, which, as far as I know, is a worthless rock jutting out into Ghidira's playground.

Sorry for the run-on.

Anyway, if there is so much internal strife, why not use that instead of perpetuating an Anti-American mythology that our might will make right? Are our interests in the region such that we can't take the moral high-ground and pressure/shame the whole world of freedom-loving peacenics into forcing Saddam out?

I realize that we are the big-bad military on the planet, but as has been pointed out in other threads, we are not the only military.

I guess I am coming at this from a PR perspective. You cannot justify going into Iraq for humanitarian reasons and not go into North Korea or Africa. Because we are willing to do this very thing, it seems like we care only for the oil to feed our "excess."

It is evident that a large portion of humans on the planet dislike A,ericans, why perpetuate thier reasons for hating us?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by c0rbin
It would be so much easier for me to buy the anti-terrorism or bringing democracy or eleviating suffering, for the good of the Iraqi people (doesn't Iraq have the largest middle class in the middle east?) if oil weren't involved, with a country like North Korea, which, as far as I know, is a worthless rock jutting out into Ghidira's playground.

Sorry for the run-on.

Anyway, if there is so much internal strife, why not use that instead of perpetuating an Anti-American mythology that our might will make right? Are our interests in the region such that we can't take the moral high-ground and pressure/shame the whole world of freedom-loving peacenics into forcing Saddam out?

I realize that we are the big-bad military on the planet, but as has been pointed out in other threads, we are not the only military.

I guess I am coming at this from a PR perspective. You cannot justify going into Iraq for humanitarian reasons and not go into North Korea or Africa. Because we are willing to do this very thing, it seems like we care only for the oil to feed our "excess."

It is evident that a large portion of humans on the planet dislike A,ericans, why perpetuate thier reasons for hating us?

Well, I guess it has alot to do with being "world leader" and last "superpower"....I know, that sounds like alot of BS to me too. :rolleyes: But I guess in the big picture someone must lead.

Your points about N Korea, etc are very valid. However, these are all individual scenarios...and must be solved in their own time. Surely you don't suggest we do it all at once?? Also, the N. Korea question will be far touchier as these creeps have the fissile material and the missiles to deliver the nukes. Think how much stickier the situation in Iraq would be if we allowed Saddam to gain the same advantage!

Honestly, I think the pending war on Iraq has alot more to do with international terrorism than it does oil or anything else. the oil angle is certainly there....but if it were not, there would still exist the same valid reasons for the attack on Saddam's government.

-zilla

[Doctor X]

Crossbow:

No. Iraq is pretty much keeping its bad behavior within its own borders due to the strong international focus that has been on it for the last several years. Therefore, since Iraq is not an immediate threat to the USA or its interests, a war against Iraq is not warrented

Unfortunately, the strong international focus is anything but that. I have to agree with PM Blair--love PM Question Time on C-Span; imagine if senators could just insult one another!--in response to a question concerning Bush's apparent unilateralism and why he should wait for inspectors, Blair noted that if it had not been for Bush there would be no inspectors in Iraq.

Saddam has gambled that the world would give up. It has. The sanctions were not working, countries were selling him stuff he should not have. He is not contained.

Other good responses pro and con, so I will leave it at that.

--J.D.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Crossbow:



Unfortunately, the strong international focus is anything but that. I have to agree with PM Blair--love PM Question Time on C-Span; imagine if senators could just insult one another!--in response to a question concerning Bush's apparent unilateralism and why he should wait for inspectors, Blair noted that if it had not been for Bush there would be no inspectors in Iraq.

Saddam has gambled that the world would give up. It has. The sanctions were not working, countries were selling him stuff he should not have. He is not contained.

Other good responses pro and con, so I will leave it at that.

--J.D.

so are they just playing good cop/bad cop with saddam?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Doctor X
...

Saddam has gambled that the world would give up. It has. The sanctions were not working, countries were selling him stuff he should not have. He is not contained.

...
--J.D. [/B]

To: Doctor X

Would you please provide some data to support your statement?

Thanks much!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow


To: Doctor X

Would you please provide some data to support your statement?

Thanks much!

Well gang...

JK may be a big stupid blow-hard....but giving credit where credit is due I must lift from his thread a link to my 11th point illustrating Iraqi non-compliance with UNSC 687. (Hey, the old broken clock syndrome)

Point #11....Hans Blix's most recent report of Iraqi non-compliance (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=373367)

From what I've heard lately Bush will indeed be comming out with detailed and just declassified intel proving Iraqi "material breaches"......but as I have illustrated on this thread, there is already plently of proof available for those who wish to look for it.

-zilla

BTW Crossbow....If you have read anything about the last ten years of Iraqi interaction with UNSCOM you would understand Dr. X's assertion to be quite true.

Allow me to suggest the following:
Source #1 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006009771X/qid=1043762188/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-3472580-2055911?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
Source #2 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060929839/qid=1043762282/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-3472580-2055911)
Source #3 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1586480391/ref=pd_sim_books_4/104-3472580-2055911?v=glance&s=books)
Compare those to this dissenting view (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893956385/qid=1043762395/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/104-3472580-2055911?v=glance&s=books)

[Crossbow]

To: rikzilla

The point was made that some countries have illegally sold Iraq products that would enable Iraq to develop new weapons.

And I in turn asked for data to support this statement.

Now then, the article you posted does not provide any of the data that I requested.

If you can actually my question, then please do so.

Thanks much!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow
To: rikzilla

The point was made that some countries have illegally sold Iraq products that would enable Iraq to develop new weapons.

And I in turn asked for data to support this statement.

Now then, the article you posted does not provide any of the data that I requested.

If you can actually my question, then please do so.

Thanks much!

That would (mostly) be France, Germany, and Russia. I have read about this issue, but now cannot remember which book it's in. There was an issue about mobile chemical labs that were purchased from Germany...but alas...I'll need to refer back...and many of the books I suggested to you above I have already sent back to the DC library. Please recheck my earlier post....I edited it to add my reading list...so far.

[Crossbow]

To: rikzilla

Thanks for the data, however it still does not address the issue that I am trying illuminate.

I have not read the books you listed, but I looked through what I could and while they discussed things many interesting things that have been going within Iraq, now and in the past, they do not provide any data that states that other nations have been illegally selling Iraq items that would be used to develop illegal weapons. Therefore, my conclusion is that the 1981 Osrik raid, the 1991 Gulf War, and the current enforcement of International Sanctions have worked to prevent development of Iraqi WMD.

Now then, since you actually have these books if you could actually provide data to the contrary it would be appreciated.

[c0rbin]

Your points about N Korea, etc are very valid. However, these are all individual scenarios...and must be solved in their own time. Surely you don't suggest we do it all at once?? Also, the N. Korea question will be far touchier as these creeps have the fissile material and the missiles to deliver the nukes. Think how much stickier the situation in Iraq would be if we allowed Saddam to gain the same advantage!

Doing it all at once is probably not the best, especially considering the bad press the US gets as a Monger.

Your timing point is the right idea, but backwards, I think.

Again, back to our PR issue, why not let the world deal with the passive aggressive evil that is Saddam, they guy who might have a gun, so we can deal with Korea, the guy holding a gun.

That way, we could domonstrate to the world that we are in this for the security of all, and not to line our pockets with oil.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow
To: rikzilla

Thanks for the data, however it still does not address the issue that I am trying illuminate.

I have not read the books you listed, but I looked through what I could and while they discussed things many interesting things that have been going within Iraq, now and in the past, they do not provide any data that states that other nations have been illegally selling Iraq items that would be used to develop illegal weapons. Therefore, my conclusion is that the 1981 Osrik raid, the 1991 Gulf War, and the current enforcement of International Sanctions have worked to prevent development of Iraqi WMD.

Now then, since you actually have these books if you could actually provide data to the contrary it would be appreciated.

Crossbow,

A skeptical Scottie would have looked this up himself. I provided the link...scroll back some....I stole the link from JK, but it goes to the heart of your request about info on WMD's Iraq is KNOWN to have. (It doesn't address how they got 'em...but I can't be
responsible for spoon-feeding this stuff to you...you do need to look on your own a bit)

From the link:Chemical weapons

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, the agent was never weaponised.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilisation and that more had been achieved than has been declared. ...

I would now like to turn to the so-called "Air Force document" that I have discussed with the Council before.

This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War.

I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC. The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs.

The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume these quantities are now unaccounted for.



Now in Ritter's book he recounts how Iraq claims to have unilaterally destroyed some of this stuff.....but since UNSCOM was never able to find evidence of the actual destruction they concluded it was more BS from Saddam. (why would Saddam destroy chemical weapons and make it impossible to verify the destruction thereof? seems pretty counterproductive)

Then there's this:
Biological weapons

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of (anthrax), which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. ...

As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999.

As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered. ... I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.



Does this help you out? I can't help you with info as to country of origin....the info is out there if you research it though. Gee, isn't it enough that UNSCOM is reporting that Iraq has this stuff?? :confused: :rolleyes:

-zilla

[Crossbow]

To: rikzilla

I have to say that you are being dense.

This makes the fourth time I have asked, but I will try again.

The question is:

What countries have helped Iraq in developing illegal weapons (Nuclear and/or Biological and/or Chemical)?

I hope you now understand and if you will actually read my earlier post (instead of just hitting the 'Quote' button and mindlessly reacting) you will see that I did follow-up on the links you provided. To reiterate, the links did not provide the evidence requested.

> So then, you, and others, have stated that other nations have helped Iraq in circumvent the international trade sanctions in order to support an Iraqi WMD program.

> I have disagreed and asked for you and the other interested party (Doctor X) to provide evidence for you claim.

> So far none has been provided.

Therefore, if you do have this type of evidence I would like to see it.

Thanks much and I hope that you, or someone else, can actually provide the evidence in question.

By the way, if you do not have this evidence, then just say so.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow
To: rikzilla

I have to say that you are being dense.

This makes the fourth time I have asked, but I will try again.

The question is:

What countries have helped Iraq in developing illegal weapons (Nuclear and/or Biological and/or Chemical)?

I hope you now understand and if you will actually read my earlier post (instead of just hitting the 'Quote' button and mindlessly reacting) you will see that I did follow-up on the links you provided. To reiterate, the links did not provide the evidence requested.

> So then, you, and others, have stated that other nations have helped Iraq in circumvent the international trade sanctions in order to support an Iraqi WMD program.

> I have disagreed and asked for you and the other interested party (Doctor X) to provide evidence for you claim.

> So far none has been provided.

Therefore, if you do have this type of evidence I would like to see it.

Thanks much and I hope that you, or someone else, can actually provide the evidence in question.

By the way, if you do not have this evidence, then just say so.

Listen,

This thread has a stated purpose. If you are not here to attempt to refute the 11 points of specific evidence against Iraq then go and start your own thread.

Your attempt to sidetrack and hijack this thread is duly noted. I made the mistake of entertaining your question as I thought you were asking it in good faith. You are not. You are merely making a very feeble attempt to obfuscate, and bait. That makes you very troll-like....beam yourself back up Scotty.

-zilla

[Crossbow]

OK, fine with me!

I asked four times to see this evidence which showed that International Sanctions against Iraq were not working because Iraq was able to get materials abroad in order to support its WMD program.

I asked four times, and each time a negative response.

So, in your own way you have answered my question. That is the type of answer I typically get from those who are aching to start shooting in Iraq.

They know what the the problem is,
however they cannot provide any evidence to validate the said problem,
and the do not understand why anyone should even care about this evidence,
because they know what the problem is.

Behold the joy of circular logic!

Thank you so very much, you have been most helpful.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow
OK, fine with me!

I asked four times to see this evidence which showed that International Sanctions against Iraq were not working because Iraq was able to get materials abroad in order to support its WMD program.

What has this question got to do with the topic of this thread?? Nothing right??? Therefore your attempt to hijack this thread is noted.



I asked four times, and each time a negative response.

You asked 3 times and I gave you an honest "I don't know", why don't you enlighten me? The fourth time you asked it became apparent that you are not interested in the truth, or the actual subject of the thread.

So, in your own way you have answered my question.

Oh??


That is the type of answer I typically get from those who are aching to start shooting in Iraq.

What?? I don't know 3 times and the a big f*ck off??!!



They know what the the problem is,
however they cannot provide any evidence to validate the said problem,
and the do not understand why anyone should even care about this evidence,
because they know what the problem is.


Now you are becoming completely incoherrent. Please address the points mentioned in the beginning of this thread. You won't, so you are trying to blow smoke. You are an intellectual coward.


Behold the joy of circular logic!


:rolleyes:

Thank you so very much, you have been most helpful.

Do the initials FOAD mean anything at all to you?

[Doctor X]

A Unique Personage:

so are they just playing good cop/bad cop with saddam?

To be honest, I have no bloody idea.

It seems to me that Blair has been rather firm with Bush. If anyone has been playing "good cop/bad cop" it has been elements of the Bush administration--the most obvious being Rumsfeld and Powell. For what it is worth, I do not think both are as "at odds" as the US press likes to think. I think part of the strategy has been to not only "threaten with the stick" but to demonstrate a willingness to use it.

Now, I have no idea if Blair is "good copping" to the Europeans, various Arab nations, or even Iraq on the sidelines.

Crossbow:

Would you please provide some data to support your statement?

Evidence?

EVIDENCE?!!!

Perhaps, you, the A-Theist, commie, facist, can get your Free Willy God [All Rights Reserved.--Ed.] to explain to me [Right, enough, stop that.--Ed.]

Yes . . . sorry . . . well . . . fair question. However, think about it! Where would forums be if we had to actually have evidence?!

Seriously, to return to my proclamation:

Moi: Saddam has gambled that the world would give up. It has. The sanctions were not working, countries were selling him stuff he should not have. He is not contained.

I am citing a primarily chapter seven of Pollack's book.

Apologies if I seem to hit you with a "just read the book you unspeakable denizen from the nethers of a yak" insult; however, I do think it would be easier for you to check it out. If you do not mind a rather long bit of quoting--pages--I will do it, it will just take a bit of time.

--J.D.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Doctor X
A Unique Personage:



To be honest, I have no bloody idea.

It seems to me that Blair has been rather firm with Bush. If anyone has been playing "good cop/bad cop" it has been elements of the Bush administration--the most obvious being Rumsfeld and Powell. For what it is worth, I do not think both are as "at odds" as the US press likes to think. I think part of the strategy has been to not only "threaten with the stick" but to demonstrate a willingness to use it.

Now, I have no idea if Blair is "good copping" to the Europeans, various Arab nations, or even Iraq on the sidelines.

Crossbow:



Evidence?

EVIDENCE?!!!

Perhaps, you, the A-Theist, commie, facist, can get your Free Willy God [All Rights Reserved.--Ed.] to explain to me [Right, enough, stop that.--Ed.]

Yes . . . sorry . . . well . . . fair question. However, think about it! Where would forums be if we had to actually have evidence?!

Seriously, to return to my proclamation:



I am citing a primarily chapter seven of Pollack's book.

Apologies if I seem to hit you with a "just read the book you unspeakable denizen from the nethers of a yak" insult; however, I do think it would be easier for you to check it out. If you do not mind a rather long bit of quoting--pages--I will do it, it will just take a bit of time.

--J.D.

Don't bother X

Crossbow has revealed himself to be a troll who is attempting to hijack the thread. Why don't we just stick with the 11 points of evidence?? who will refute them??? Or, if indeed they are as irrefutable as I believe them to be then why are we still suffering the fools and ninnies who cry "oil war" with nary a thought in their heads???

-zilla

[Martin]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Crossbow has revealed himself to be a troll who is attempting to hijack the thread

Well, he was responding to someone else's point, so I'm inclined to think that hijacking is a touch harsh.

Why don't we just stick with the 11 points of evidence?? who will refute them??? Or, if indeed they are as irrefutable as I believe them to be then why are we still suffering the fools and ninnies who cry "oil war" with nary a thought in their heads???

I have to admit, from the beginning this entire thread seemed like one big non sequitur to me. Suppose I give you the 10 points. Then what? Is being in violation of UN resolutions a reason for war in itself? Iraq is not the only country to do so. Does this particular resolution state what should happen in event of such a breach? If not, you still need to make the case that each event is a reason for war. And supplying alternative explanations does not automatically rule out the possibility of an oil war. Exactly what is your point?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Doctor X
...
I am citing a primarily chapter seven of Pollack's book.

Apologies if I seem to hit you with a "just read the book you unspeakable denizen from the nethers of a yak" insult; however, I do think it would be easier for you to check it out. If you do not mind a rather long bit of quoting--pages--I will do it, it will just take a bit of time.

--J.D.

Thanks Doctor X!

I assume you are referring to The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. by KM Pollack, yes?

In one of my earlier postings regarding the 11 Points rikzilla made, I said that the International Trade Sanctions were working to prevent Iraq from importing materials that would be used to create WMD.

You and rikzilla disagreed, saying that Iraq has been able to import these materials.

I repeatedly asked for any evidence to support your claim.

rikzilla ran on and on about other activies Iraq was, and is, involved in but he never was able to provide the data I requested. By the way, if he did not have this information, then that is fine with me, I just wish he would have said so. It would have saved both of us alot of trouble.

Anyway, I will try to obtain a copy of the book you mentioned in the near future and get back to you.

Thanks again!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Martinm


Well, he was responding to someone else's point, so I'm inclined to think that hijacking is a touch harsh.



I have to admit, from the beginning this entire thread seemed like one big non sequitur to me. Suppose I give you the 10 points. Then what? Is being in violation of UN resolutions a reason for war in itself? Iraq is not the only country to do so. Does this particular resolution state what should happen in event of such a breach? If not, you still need to make the case that each event is a reason for war. And supplying alternative explanations does not automatically rule out the possibility of an oil war. Exactly what is your point?

My point Martin, is that UNSC resolution 687 is the instrument of the cease fire at the end of Desert Storm. Since 687 constitutes the agreement to cease fire, a breach of it by Iraq renders the existing cease fire null and void. This means Desert Storm could legally resume. IMHO it should have resumed in 1995 with the defection of Hussein Kamal....his info was the smoking gun that UNSCOM had been waiting for. The Clinton admin was a study in inaction. They looked the other way when info on Saddam's WMD activities came to light in the 90's. What's happening now should have happened over 7 years ago.

Also the argument I'm making here is that the issues in Iraq are far more complex than just "America is a big evil empire that wants cheap oil". Oil of course is a consideration....I'm not so stupid as to think it's not on the leadership's minds.....but it is not an overriding consideration. Put this way, given all the dynamics at work in Iraq, Iraq would still be next on the WOT hit list whether it had oil or not. It is overly simplistic and intellectually dishonest to keep repeating slogans such as "oil war". This is what I'm trying to illustrate here.

-z

[Reginald]

A bit speculative in places I admit but......

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/01/25/sprj.india.iraq/

If this is confirmed I would say that is a fairly strong case.

[Crossbow]

To: Reginald

Thanks much for the info!

It is greatly appreciated.

[Reginald]

You are welcome.

Not very scientific to say this but my gut says wheres there's a discovered one there are ten that go unseen....like cockroaches I suspect.

(given the radiation resistance of 'roaches, there could be a niche market for top quality bugs for the Iraqi Atomic industry):D

[Ed]

The question in my mind remains, does Iraq pose a clear and present danger to the US? If he supports al Quida AND posesses weapons of mass destruction then I think the answer is yes and we should take him out. If not it seems to me that the reasons are more shakey.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Ed
The question in my mind remains, does Iraq pose a clear and present danger to the US? If he supports al Quida AND posesses weapons of mass destruction then I think the answer is yes and we should take him out. If not it seems to me that the reasons are more shakey.

True Ed,

The entire reason for posting this thread tho was to show that evidence exists for many and varied breaches of 687. The fact that 687 is breached constitutes a lawful basis for resumption of hostilities. Just because there is lawful basis does not mean we must resume the fighting.....but if/when we decide it's worth fighting for... there can be no question as to the lawfullness of our own actions.

I believe it's obvious the decision has been taken. Personally, I agree with that decision. Without holding Iraq accountable, the UN and the entire WOT becomes a shallow mockery of itself, and the world a breeding ground for more terrorism.

-zilla

[rikzilla]

Looks like the information I posted here about Saddam's trashing of UNSC 687 will added to extensively...and soon.






By Glenn Kessler and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 29, 2003; Page A01


President Bush said last night that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell will brief members of the U.N. Security Council next week on evidence showing that Iraq possesses, and is still engaged in producing, weapons of mass destruction, signaling the start of an intensive campaign to win over international and domestic opinion
Powell to Tell U.N. Council of Arms Evidence

Should be interesting..... :p

-z

[Doctor X]

Crossbow:

Not to get inbetween a "discussion" between you or anyone else, however, these discussions can become "personal" because they deal with very important subjects--life and death. As open minded as we like to think we are--I know, you all merely think [Stop it!--Ed.]--sorry . . . we wonder why others do not "see to reason."

A bit of a story . . . [No! Stop him!--Ed.]

I had to drive through Nebraska.

For those who live in other countries and American who live in civilized regions, Nebraska is the state that contains th town of East Butt-****.

There is nothing there.

However, Nebraska has one thing over Kansas--it has National Public Radio. Oddly enough, I could listen to NPR through the whole damn state. Who the hell listens to NPR--rather "liberal" for "furiners" reading--in Nebraska? Possibly a few forgotten KBG agents still waiting for "the signal" to dump in the flouride into the drinking water to "contaminate our precious bodily fluids." [No Dr. Strangelove references!--Ed.]

Anyways, "All Things Considered"--which usually spends two hours interviewing violin gelders of Uraguay--spend two hours interviewing Pollack. He was not a war mongerer and he answered a lot of questions against war. The interview convinced me to read the book. This took place in the beginning of October.

I [Pontificate.--Ed.] mention this because [He wishes to cure insomnia.--Ed.] I am not interested in a "firebrand" book that simply confirms my opinions. So . . . the book is worth the read; it is not pages of "Saddam sucks and America is great . . . Eat Snacky Smores!"

It considers, in detail, the pros and cons of sanctions, for example. He also does not spend his time castigating people he thinks "did wrong."

Anyways, I think you will enjoy it. At the very least I would welcome someone telling me if Pollack is full of crap.

Ed:

While I disagree, it is a fair comment. Again I have to cite Pollack--no I do not get a kickback. He details just what a well-armed Saddam can do . . . wait, we have seen what he has done!

--J.D.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Anyways, I think you will enjoy it. At the very least I would welcome someone telling me if Pollack is full of crap.

I have not read the book, but if you'd be interested in what someone else has to say about it, you may want to check this brief review (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=6BUZJTDNCL&isbn=0375509283&itm=1) (scroll down the page a bit) from a "retired researcher" in Chicago. He does not say the book is full of crap, but says why he thinks the case for a military invasion is unpersuasive.

[rikzilla]

Thanks for the link to the review Wayne. The guy who reviewed it comes across as a reasonable bloke. Thanks also to you X... I'm adding Pollack to my reading list. I just put a hold on a copy at the good old DC library...I'll let ya know what I think.

I realize I have my own biases....but am also trying hard to see thru them to Wayne's side of the argument...(that's why I'm reading Ritter)....but sadly Ritter's personal problems are casting doubt upon his judgement at this critical time!! :(

-z

[AlH]

Originally posted by Crossbow
To: rikzilla

The point was made that some countries have illegally sold Iraq products that would enable Iraq to develop new weapons.

And I in turn asked for data to support this statement.

Now then, the article you posted does not provide any of the data that I requested.

If you can actually my question, then please do so.

Thanks much!

From BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/2712903.stm

A court in the German city of Mannheim has convicted two businessmen of supplying weapons-making equipment to Iraq in violation of UN sanctions.

Last December, Tageszeitung newspaper reported that over 80 German companies were listed in Iraq's weapons report to the UN.
Several of these were still involved in Iraq last year, thereby breaking the UN weapons embargo.
Of further embarrassment to Germany is that - according to the newspaper article - German companies make up more than half of the total number of institutions listed in the report.

[Crossbow]

To: AlH

Thanks for the tip!

I really appreciate it.

[Doctor X]

Wayne:

Regarding the review:

Its case for invading Iraq, however, fails to convince me that the danger from Saddam is serious and imminent and that the danger cannot be addressed in any peaceable way. Nor does it show that the destruction caused by an invasion would be outweighed by the benefits.

it seems to be merely the reader's opinion. For what it is worth, I feel Pollack directly discusses these issues and makes a convincing case--particularly with regards to how even innocent lives lost in an invasion compare to the routine deaths caused by the regime.

I, too, would like to see him debate Ritter. I have seen Richard Butler debate Ritter and dissect him.

--J.D.

[crackmonkey]

Ritter once said that Butler was nothing more than Bush's marionette. It's amusing to me that no one can just disagree with Ritter; it seems that anyone questioning his assertions is yet another player in the shadowy anti-Ritter alliance.
Ritter's ego knows no bounds.

[Doctor X]

crackmonkey:

You raise a very important point--conspiracy makes one "important."

You have to be important to merit a conspiracy against you!

As for Butler being a "Bushman"--well . . . he is Australian [Stop that!--Ed.]--he did much of the work during the Clinton years, methought . . . which . . . means . . . Clinton and Bush were WORKING TOGETHER!!!! [!--Ed.]

Stranger things . . . I may have mentioned I once dealt with a guy who claimed the Bush Family, Nazis, and Mossad were behind 9/11. . . .

Roswell!!! Roswell!!!

--J. "Should not have had that extra mocha this morning" D.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Regarding the review: it seems to be merely the reader's opinion.
Yes, that's all I meant it to be.

[Doctor X]

Not to appear dismissive of it, but it reminds me of a review from a distinguished professor from the University of Chicago who made claims for containment and then stated Pollack argued for "such and such" despite the fact that Pollack did not!

Of course, he does not cite where Pollack makes the arguments he attaches to him.

One can very well read the book, I suppose, and then claim, "I am still not convinced." However, one should then come up with a better plan. Just claiming that containment will work when Pollack demonstrates that it has not requires refuting Pollack directly.

--J.D.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Of course, he does not cite where Pollack makes the arguments he attaches to him.

It is not clear to me who "he" is in the above sentence. The Chicago professor? The review to which I linked for your interest did cite page numbers (374, 421, 174, 266) and direct quotes.

[Doctor X]

"Ah HA! Pronoun problem!"

"He" refer'd to the Chicago professor. The review was read to me over the phone.

--J.D.

[subgenius]

Well this could prove interesting:
Saddam's bodyguard warns of secret arsenal

02feb03

SADDAM Hussein's senior bodyguard has fled with details of Iraq's secret arsenal.

His revelations have supported US President George W. Bush's claim there is enough evidence from UN inspectors to justify going to war.
Abu Hamdi Mahmoud has provided Israeli intelligence with a list of sites that the inspectors have not visited.

They include:

AN underground chemical weapons facility at the southern end of the Jadray Peninsula in Baghdad;

A SCUD assembly area near Ramadi. The missiles come from North Korea;

TWO underground bunkers in Iraq's Western Desert. These contain biological weapons.

William Tierney, a former UN weapons inspector who has continued to gather information on Saddam's arsenal, said Mahmoud's information is "the smoking gun".

"Once the inspectors go to where Mahmoud has pointed them, then it's all over for Saddam," Tierney said.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5921220%5E663,00.html

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by subgenius
Well this could prove interesting:
Saddam's bodyguard warns of secret arsenal...

"Once the inspectors go to where Mahmoud has pointed them, then it's all over for Saddam," Tierney said.
:confused: Why is this being publicized before the weapons inspectors have the opportunity to visit the sites?

[rikzilla]

Ahh Wayne,

When are you going to admit that the preponderance of evidence against Saddam's government is overwhelming? In order for you to rebut all that is coming out you will have to do exactly what creationists do...ie; ignore evidence you don't like while clinging to what little evidence supports your claim that Iraq and Saddam are not dangerous.

As I type Colin Powell is laying out more evidence...so much that it will take some time to append it all to this thread. The original 10 points will soon become 30....then 100.....how much info do you need to see? When will you admit to simply being wrong?

Were I you, I'd have done it by now. You, and other anti-war/anti-Americans here are just plain wrong. There is proof of your wrongness and you usually fail to accept this proof. This makes you and your friends look intellectually dishonest. Hell, I won't even go into the fact that the anti-war movement is led by the historically discredited and irrelevant communists. :rolleyes: :eek:

What is it going to take to convince you Wayne?? That's the burning question.

-z

Originally posted by rikzilla
Ahh Wayne,



As I type Colin Powell is laying out more evidence...so much that it will take some time to append it all to this thread. The original 10 points will soon become 30....then 100.....how much info do you need to see? When will you admit to simply being wrong?



I am listening to it right now, and it's certainly interesting and pretty convincing.


Were I you, I'd have done it by now. You, and other anti-war/anti-Americans here are just plain wrong. There is proof of your wrongness and you usually fail to accept this proof. This makes you and your friends look intellectually dishonest. Hell, I won't even go into the fact that the anti-war movement is led by the historically discredited and irrelevant communists. :rolleyes: :eek:


Is it really necessary to call all us loyal Americans who simply haven't made up our minds yet anti-American? That's the sort of thing you probably wouldn't (definitely shouldn't) say to my face.

The Communists are trying to take advantage of the peace movement, yes. That neither invalidates the movement nor makes all its members communists. You are right not to "go into this" because it's completely irrelevant.

I and others will make up our minds by ourselves, based on facts presented to us, not the screams that plenty of proof already exists. Our natural skepticism should be an understandable trait around here and certainly does not make us less loyal than you.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by sundog


I am listening to it right now, and it's certainly interesting and pretty convincing.


Is it really necessary to call all us loyal Americans who simply haven't made up our minds yet anti-American? That's the sort of thing you probably wouldn't (definitely shouldn't) say to my face.

The Communists are trying to take advantage of the peace movement, yes. That neither invalidates the movement nor makes all its members communists. You are right not to "go into this" because it's completely irrelevant.

I and others will make up our minds by ourselves, based on facts presented to us, not the screams that plenty of proof already exists. Our natural skepticism should be an understandable trait around here and certainly does not make us less loyal than you.

Nope....no free pass

A skeptic remains a skeptic on any given topic only when that topic has not been proved by either a preponderance of evidence, or solid proof. (There is no real skeptic that expects to remain perpetually skeptical on a topic which can indeed be known.) Since both have existed since 1995 when Hussein Kamal defected I can only assume that persons such as yourself are either uninformed, deluded, traitorous, or stupid. I am assuming you are claiming to be the first of those things. ....and yes, I'll say it to your face...and anyone else's face...that makes such a remark.

I find it telling that the anti-war movement has been co-opted by the communists....just because it's relevance is not yet fully known does not mean that it is irrelevant. The communists are not going into full gear worldwide for altruistic reasons. To ignore their involvement is to not care about the big geopolitical picture. If you don't care, then I'd have to ask why?

-zilla

Originally posted by rikzilla


Nope....no free pass

A skeptic remains a skeptic on any given topic only when that topic has not been proved by either a preponderance of evidence, or solid proof. (There is no real skeptic that expects to remain perpetually skeptical on a topic which can indeed be known.) Since both have existed since 1995 when Hussein Kamal defected I can only assume that persons such as yourself are either uninformed, deluded, traitorous, or stupid. I am assuming you are claiming to be the first of those things. ....and yes, I'll say it to your face...and anyone else's face...that makes such a remark.

I find it telling that the anti-war movement has been co-opted by the communists....just because it's relevance is not yet fully known does not mean that it is irrelevant. The communists are not going into full gear worldwide for altruistic reasons. To ignore their involvement is to not care about the big geopolitical picture. If you don't care, then I'd have to ask why?

-zilla

No free pass, yourself. You consider the case proved; I don't. I have -at the very LEAST - as good a brain as you. A large portion of the world agrees with me. If you are capable of dismissing all of them with the four adjectives you mention, you reveal yourself to be nothing more than what you appear to be: a raving right-wing idiot. Even Rush doesn't go that far.

The idea that everyone who disagrees with you is either an idiot or a traitor reveals you to be no skeptic. Join the woo-woos in the "I'm right, you're an idiot" line. You stand revealed as just another nut with an agenda.

I love America as much as you. MORE than you, actually, since I don't hate half the people in it.

(edited to remove juvenile muscle-flexing)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Ahh Wayne,

When are you going to admit that the preponderance of evidence against Saddam's government is overwhelming? In order for you to rebut all that is coming out you will have to do exactly what creationists do...ie; ignore evidence you don't like while clinging to what little evidence supports your claim that Iraq and Saddam are not dangerous.

As I type Colin Powell is laying out more evidence...so much that it will take some time to append it all to this thread. The original 10 points will soon become 30....then 100.....how much info do you need to see? When will you admit to simply being wrong?

Were I you, I'd have done it by now. You, and other anti-war/anti-Americans here are just plain wrong. There is proof of your wrongness and you usually fail to accept this proof. This makes you and your friends look intellectually dishonest. Hell, I won't even go into the fact that the anti-war movement is led by the historically discredited and irrelevant communists. :rolleyes: :eek:

What is it going to take to convince you Wayne?? That's the burning question.

-z
Ahh, Rick. I have been working and the television has not been on. I'll have to view the replay on C-SPAN later and read about it in the meanwhile, which I haven't done yet because I forgot about today being the day for Powell's presentation.

Your post prejudices my reaction to Powell's presentation, which the White House forewarned would not contain a "smoking gun," so there may be good reason to dispute the conclusions you've reached. Remember, it's not the quantity of the evidence, but it's quality that matters. However, I don't know what my reaction will be. Why should you? On the whole, your post is insulting. (Anti-war = anti-American: sounds like Archie Bunker.) However, I will take it as a compliment that you are so focused on my opinion over all others.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Ahh Wayne,

When are you going to admit that the preponderance of evidence against Saddam's government is overwhelming? In order for you to rebut all that is coming out you will have to do exactly what creationists do...ie; ignore evidence you don't like while clinging to what little evidence supports your claim that Iraq and Saddam are not dangerous.

As I type Colin Powell is laying out more evidence...so much that it will take some time to append it all to this thread. The original 10 points will soon become 30....then 100.....how much info do you need to see? When will you admit to simply being wrong?

Were I you, I'd have done it by now. You, and other anti-war/anti-Americans here are just plain wrong. There is proof of your wrongness and you usually fail to accept this proof. This makes you and your friends look intellectually dishonest. Hell, I won't even go into the fact that the anti-war movement is led by the historically discredited and irrelevant communists. :rolleyes: :eek:

What is it going to take to convince you Wayne?? That's the burning question.

-z
Ahh, Rick. I have been working and the television has not been on. I'll have to view the replay on C-SPAN later and read about it in the meanwhile, which I haven't done yet because I forgot about today being the day for Powell's presentation.

Your post prejudices my reaction to Powell's presentation, which the White House forewarned would not contain a "smoking gun," so there may be good reason to dispute the conclusions you've reached. Remember, it's not the quantity of the evidence, but it's quality that matters. However, I don't know what my reaction will be. Why should you? On the whole, your post is insulting. (Anti-war = anti-American: sounds like Archie Bunker.) However, I will take it as a compliment that you are so focused on my opinion over all others.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

On the whole, your post is insulting. (Anti-war = anti-American: sounds like Archie Bunker.)

His position is to the right of Rush Limbaugh, to the right of Pat Buchanan, to the right of Bill O'Neill, to the right of EVERY conservative who has voiced an opinion. NO pro-war advocate has come out and said anything on this scale. He stands revealed as an unthinking bigot of the worst sort.

For heaven's sake, not even all the Republicans are on board. Are they traitors too?

He has completely destroyed his credibility as a skeptic: "I'm convinced I'm right; if you don't agree, you are either misinformed, deluded, traitorous or stupid. Furthermore, you are not a skeptic, because I think the case has been proved." This sort of delirious rant could have come from any of our local woo-woos. One thing we can say for certain, a person capable of logic and rhetoric like this is CERTAINLY no skeptic.

Not much of an American, either, in my opinion. In America we work together to come to a consensus. We don't draw a line in the sand and say "I'm an American and you're a Commie".

[DavidJames]

"His position is to the right of Rush Limbaugh, to the right of Pat Buchanan, to the right of Bill O'Neill, to the right of EVERY conservative who has voiced an opinion. NO pro-war advocate has come out and said anything on this scale. He stands revealed as an unthinking bigot of the worst sort."

Except one. Has anyone ever seen JK and Rikzilla at the same place at the same time :D

Consumed by the dark side, he has. ;)

[subgenius]

Really un-American to declare that anyone who is anti-war, even if everyone else is pro-war, is unpatriotic. Hate to mention the "N"(azi) or "H"(itler) words, but they sure used that technique to the hilt.
There are some good quotes by our founding fathers and other great patriots on this....I'll try and find some.
Also, does anyone in their right minds think the Commies anywhere, much less here, are even relevent? Time to come up with a new out-group thread to strengthen the in-group bonds.
Joe McCarthy is dead (or is he just sleeping?)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by sundog


No free pass, yourself. You consider the case proved; I don't. I have -at the very LEAST - as good a brain as you. A large portion of the world agrees with me. If you are capable of dismissing all of them with the four adjectives you mention, you reveal yourself to be nothing more than what you appear to be: a raving right-wing idiot. Even Rush doesn't go that far.

The idea that everyone who disagrees with you is either an idiot or a traitor reveals you to be no skeptic. Join the woo-woos in the "I'm right, you're an idiot" line. You stand revealed as just another nut with an agenda.

I love America as much as you. MORE than you, actually, since I don't hate half the people in it.

(edited to remove juvenile muscle-flexing)

Well,

It is you and others like you who dismiss a mountain of evidence of Saddam's breaches of UN resolutions. I have taken it upon myself to point out all this evidence on this thread. It has been refuted...by whom??? I see a board full of extremely bright people....and no refutation to the points I provided. Evidence which has existed YEARS!

Now there is yet more....and still you pick one thing and call it "not credible". So who is the idiot here? You wish to get personal and call me "worse than Rush"?? Well, this "raving right-wing idiot" as you have called me is pro-choice, pro-gun control, and against the president's "faith based initiatives". Somehow I feel pretty strange defending my own politics on a thread that is expressly regarding something other than, and more substantial than my personal political views.

Why don't you, instead of calling me names, show me either how my evidence is wrong....or provide data bolstering your own POV? If you can't do this then it merely points out that you are acting from your heart and have no real leg to stand on in this debate.

Ad-hominums will not help you here. I consider the case proved only because it has been. It's called a "preponderance of evidence"....you do know what the term means?? The ability to ignore evidence which does not corespond to one's own belief system is a trait that is certainly very non-skeptical.

-zilla

Originally posted by DavidJames

Consumed by the dark side, he has. ;)

Have to admire his courage, though, if he really is willing to walk up to a 250-pound 6'6" Texan in prime physical shape and tell him he's anti-American...

"Fighting words" is still a valid legal concept in Texas. :)

Originally posted by rikzilla



Ad-hominums will not help you here.
-zilla

Oh, Jesus. That one breaks the irony meter. :rolleyes:

It is not an "ad-hominum" (sic) to point out that your views on the subject are to the right of virtually every commentator.

[subgenius]

One can assume all the worst claims to be true, still be opposed to a war, and still be patriotic.
Can we agree on that?

Originally posted by subgenius
One can assume all the worst claims to be true, still be opposed to a war, and still be patriotic.
Can we agree on that?

Doesn't look like it. :(

[subgenius]

Originally posted by sundog


Doesn't look like it. :(
Don't be so quick. Sometimes we can agree if we get past the rhetoric.
Let's see what our friend says.:)

[rikzilla]

Wow Sundog,

All that vitriol...comparisons with JK etc....

You guys are really convinced of your superiority...:D :D

That's all well and good...I'm an evil right wing war monger, but hey, guess what ...you haven't refuted a single thing I've posted.

Not a word.

Pretty skeptical huh? :rolleyes:

-zilla

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by sundog


Oh, Jesus. That one breaks the irony meter. :rolleyes:

It is not an "ad-hominum" (sic) to point out that your views on the subject are to the right of virtually every commentator.

Nope,

It's a thread hijack. If I am indeed to the right of Hitler my information still stands unrefuted.

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by subgenius
One can assume all the worst claims to be true, still be opposed to a war, and still be patriotic.
Can we agree on that?

Sure,

I can accept that answer, but only if you are a conscientious (sp?) objector. ie; you will not be party to war or killing under any circumstances.

It's not a smart stance...(were we all like that we would not exist as a free nation very long)...but it's a philosophy...and as such I could accept that you follow such a philosophy and are a decent citizen.

But to ignore a threat such as Saddam's is just plain dangerously stupid. The threat of Iraq was mostly ignored by Clinton for 8 years (read Mylroie)...and what we got was 9/11.

-z

[subgenius]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Sure,

I can accept that answer, but only if you are a conscientious (sp?) objector. ie; you will not be party to war or killing under any circumstances.

It's not a smart stance...(were we all like that we would not exist as a free nation very long)...but it's a philosophy...and as such I could accept that you follow such a philosophy and are a decent citizen.

But to ignore a threat such as Saddam's is just plain dangerously stupid. The threat of Iraq was mostly ignored by Clinton for 8 years (read Mylroie)...and what we got was 9/11.

-z
That sounds like agreement to me.:) See how easy it is?:)
Why can't we all just get along?;)

Originally posted by rikzilla
Wow Sundog,

All that vitriol...comparisons with JK etc....

You guys are really convinced of your superiority...:D :D

That's all well and good...I'm an evil right wing war monger, but hey, guess what ...you haven't refuted a single thing I've posted.

Not a word.

Pretty skeptical huh? :rolleyes:

-zilla

You miss all the points here.

"uninformed, deluded, traitorous, or stupid." This is not vitriolic? You don't consider calling someone unAmerican an insult, or saying peace activists are all commies? What do you expect in return when you use rhetoric like this?

I don't dispute your points - once more, you miss the point. I dispute your opinion that anyone whom they don't convince is either "uninformed, deluded, traitorous, or stupid."

You aren't debating a group here, you're talking to me. I did not bring up JK at all. JK and I have a good communications channel open, in fact.

I am not convinced I am superior to you. Such a consideration is completely immaterial to the argument. I simply think you are dead wrong to label people who disagree with you disloyal or Communists. Surely that's a simple enough point. As I pointed out, not even people fairly far to the right are willing to say something that inflammatory.

Sorry you think I hijacked your thread. Carry on.

By the way, having had a chance to review all the things Powell said, I am convinced now of the need to do something about Saddam. But I'm not going to insult the people who aren't convinced yet, and you certainly didn't help them make the case by just throwing insults around.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by sundog


You miss all the points here.

"uninformed, deluded, traitorous, or stupid." This is not vitriolic? You don't consider calling someone unAmerican an insult, or saying peace activists are all commies? What do you expect in return when you use rhetoric like this?

I don't dispute your points - once more, you miss the point. I dispute your opinion that anyone whom they don't convince is either "uninformed, deluded, traitorous, or stupid."

You aren't debating a group here, you're talking to me. I did not bring up JK at all. JK and I have a good communications channel open, in fact.

I am not convinced I am superior to you. Such a consideration is completely immaterial to the argument. I simply think you are dead wrong to label people who disagree with you disloyal or Communists. Surely that's a simple enough point. As I pointed out, not even people fairly far to the right are willing to say something that inflammatory.

Sorry you think I hijacked your thread. Carry on.

By the way, having had a chance to review all the things Powell said, I am convinced now of the need to do something about Saddam. But I'm not going to insult the people who aren't convinced yet, and you certainly didn't help them make the case by just throwing insults around.

Listen,

If uninformed, deluded, traitorous, or stupid strikes too close to home I'm quite sorry for you. I guess the very nicest thing I can say is that I consider you uninformed and leave it at that.

There are indeed these types of people in the anti-war movement. I live in DC and have attended several protests...I have first hand knowledge of what goes on in these protests. Sorry if you were offended, but if any of those shoes fit then be honest and wear them.

I'm glad that in your opinion you have finally seen enough evidence of Saddam's malfeasence...the problem I have is in losing patience with people who complain there is no evidence for war....(there has been ample evidence since 1995...the Kamal defection) If Clinton had taken care of business back then (this right wing nut voted for Clinton BTW)...it would have been easier to assemble a coalition and get rid of him then than it is now.

I loved Clinton...and supported him to the hilt....but his fubar'd middle east policy is the root of much of our problems in the region now.

-z

Originally posted by rikzilla


Listen,

If uninformed, deluded, traitorous, or stupid strikes too close to home I'm quite sorry for you. I guess the very nicest thing I can say is that I consider you uninformed and leave it at that.



Is this your idea of logic, of a reasoned argument? If so, don't waste your time feeling sorry for me.

Let's examine this in detail.

You call me a series of insulting names because I disagree with you; I object; and your response is:

If uninformed, deluded, traitorous, or stupid strikes too close to home I'm quite sorry for you.

Clearly a juvenile comeback, clearly an ad hominem, clearly intended to pile on the insults, and clearly showing your thought processes are not, shall we say, of a high quality.

The very nicest thing I can say about this sort of thinking is that you should probably consider running for office with a brain like that.


There are indeed these types of people in the anti-war movement. I live in DC and have attended several protests...I have first hand knowledge of what goes on in these protests. Sorry if you were offended, but if any of those shoes fit then be honest and wear them.



Excuse me? Are you seriously telling me that you can discern the politics and inner motivations of all antiwar people because you've seen a protest march?

You are still calling me a Communist... "be honest and wear them". A very odd thing for someone claiming to be a liberal to do. Deliberately provocative, and deliberately insulting. You would not say this to my face.


If Clinton had taken care of business back then (this right wing nut voted for Clinton BTW)...it would have been easier to assemble a coalition and get rid of him then than it is now.


Glad to hear you weren't always a right wing nut.

[Doctor X]

Wow . . . my computer cannot find the site for a day and look what happens--I have to look for that "smoking gun story."

Anyways, what is important, in my mind {Sex?} Shhh!!! [That or cheese.--Ed.] Quiet!

What is important in my mind is:

By the way, having had a chance to review all the things Powell said, I am convinced now of the need to do something about Saddam. But I'm not going to insult the people who aren't convinced yet, and you certainly didn't help them make the case by just throwing insults around.

Yes, folk, there are the deluded, those who are very unhappy about what my father did . . . he once apologized for his generation ruining "sex" and "drugs" for teens and college students---"everything mutated!"

Some pine for the days when protesting was a great way to meet chicks/dudes/not-quite-sure. It was a way to show independence.

That particular group is, however, small.

Similar is the group that has some political advantage it wishes to exploit.

On the other side, you have war mongerers.

These groups are the most obnoxious and gain the most attention.

Nevertheless, all groups have a right to speak in America.

The purpose of debate--particularly on a forum such as this that prides itself on skepticism--is to create and defend an argument {No it's not!} Yes it is! Too often on Lesser Boards [Boo. Hiss.--Ed.] the topics just degenerate into personal vendettas. Yyyyeeeessssss . . . sometimes even your Humble Narrator has descended . . . no, more like "slid" . . . into less-than-gentle prose . . . though I hope it a temporary aberation.

I did not need "convincing" from Powell, but I hope he was able to convince people who were not. That is the point. I listened to a democratic congressman (?) from Florida who was very anit-war on the radio whilst wandering about. He stated that Powell convinced him of the threat of Saadam. His one main concern now is he wants an answer from the Administration of "what then" happens after the war.

Good question.

The answer may be, "we are not sure, but we have to go in anyways." That some want a better answer is no vice.

Me mum has not been exactly supportive of my views on this situation. I fear I am destined to suffer the Thomas Kincaid painting in the will whilst me sis scarfs up the Waterford Crystal over this! Nevertheless, she did relent to buy Pollacks book--"$25 hardcover!!"--and has altered her views somewhat.

I, way back when, agreed with George the Elder, that the coalition could not survive him marching on Baghdad--not to mention "who" takes over, destabilizing a major country with Iran about, looking like conquerors, et cetera.

Now, I am beginning to agree with the "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" who think we should have just marched in.

Opinions change. It is a good thing.

Unless it involves developing an attraction to country western music; that remain pathological.

--J.D.

[subgenius]

Doctor X:
"Unless it involves developing an attraction to country western music; that remain pathological."
___________________________
Country music that transcends the label:
Dwight Yoakam
kd lang
Lyle Lovett
Patsy Cline
You toymongering music chauvinist:eek:
"Only two kinds of music: good and bad."----can't remember who said that.
Otherwise your post is excellent.;)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
:confused: Why is this being publicized before the weapons inspectors have the opportunity to visit the sites?

This was reported by Debka weeks ago. For some reason our mainstream media choose not to comment until recently.

[Doctor X]

Subgenius:

"Can lessbeans be country-western singers?"

Seriously, I have a respected mentor who claims he listens to two types of music "country and western!"

On the subject of good quotes, I believe U.S. Grant stated he knew only two songs, "one is Yankee Doodle and the other isn't."

You are now hearby sentenced to listen to Sean Hannity and the excretable over-schmaltzing "Let Freedom Ring" song!

--J.D.

[subgenius]

"Can lessbeans be country-western singers?"
Aren't they all and vice versa?

You guys are hijacking Rik's thread! :mad:

Although I admit "lessbeans" are more fun to talk about.

[Doctor X]

I will try, very hard, to avoid quoting South Park . . . "I'm gonna be a lesbian, too!"

"No way, dude! I'm gonna be a better lesbian!'

[Stop it!--Ed.]

Yes . . . so was Hank Williams, Sr. a lesbian?

[STOP IT! Else we will cue Ackey Breaky Heart.--Ed.]

No!

Right . . . yes . . . well, I would like to see this reported in the major news.

---J.D.

"What are you doing, Cartman?"

"My maaaaaam said if I wanted to be a lesbian I had to learn to lick carpet."

[Right! Clear off!--Ed.]

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by sundog


Excuse me? Are you seriously telling me that you can discern the politics and inner motivations of all antiwar people because you've seen a protest march?

You are still calling me a Communist... "be honest and wear them". A very odd thing for someone claiming to be a liberal to do. Deliberately provocative, and deliberately insulting. You would not say this to my face.





Wrong again.

I used the word "If"....you stepped right in with both feet. I stand by my opinion. You may say what you wish about me...you have compared me to every vile personage you could conjure...but I have not risen to your bait. You also infer that I am a coward and would not give my opinion to your face but you are wrong. If you care to come to DC I will meet you and settle that question in person. I have recently returned from attending the Amaz!ng Meeting....and met several of the people I have disagreed with in the past. The meetings there were cordial...we agree to disagree and go on about our business. I would hope that you would be able to be as civil. Even so, if you wish to come beat me up, suit yourself. I will PM you with a time and a place as long as you do not expect me to travel out of town for my beating. :rolleyes: :p

Look..perhaps you are a communist. I don't consider that as an insult to you...if you are one then admit it and get on with life. I have not just seen a protest march....I witnessed a huge one every year for the last 4 or 5 during the annual IMF-World Bank meetings. The protest march against the coming war was not just a protest march...it was The Largest Anti-War March In Washington Since Vietnam!!!!! (As billed by A.N.S.W.E.R.) Guess what? It was nothing more than the same collection of communists and masked anarchists that we have seen so many times before. (Well this time there was a militant pro-Palestinian group...and a few more of the usual hippies)

Believe me....there comes a time when even a skeptic has seen enough.

-zilla

[rikzilla]

Well now that I've shown that UNSC res 687 has been breached repeatedly by Iraq, we now have the issue of UNSC res 1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm) ...which has merely been breached repeatedly since it's inception last Nov.

All this only points to the continuing uselessness of the UN. :rolleyes:

It was this very same reluctance to take decisive action that led to the dissolution of the League of Nations. The LoN refused to do anything about Italian aggression in Ethiopia. If the UN doesn't take action to insure it's resolutions are no longer ignored, and soon, they will find themselves on the very same ash heap of history.

From res 1441:
The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,....etc.......





Check out the list of previous resolutions that Iraq has blatantly disregarded. It seems the UN has already decended into irrelevance.... :confused: How is having a UN that is this weak and rudderless better than having no UN at all? :confused:

-zilla

[subgenius]

Britain Admits That Much of Its Report on Iraq Came From Magazines
By SARAH LYALL


LONDON, Feb. 7 — The British government admitted today that large sections of its most recent report on Iraq, praised by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell as "a fine paper" in his speech to the United Nations on Wednesday, had been lifted from magazines and academic journals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/international/europe/08BRIT.html?th
--------------
Oooops!

[Doctor X]

Well . . . at least it was not from Tony Blair's wife's spiritual advisor. . . .

--J. "Have the Inspectors Tried Dowsing?" D.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Well . . . at least it was not from Tony Blair's wife's spiritual advisor. . . .

--J. "Have the Inspectors Tried Dowsing?" D.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!....Choke...ack!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

(thanks for the belly laugh!!!)

Maybe I'll send UNSCOM inspectors a case of Penta water in order to super-hydrate them.....and add some q-bracelets and magnetic insoles to help their stamina on long nights on WMD-hunting!!

:D :D :D

Thanks for bumping my favorite thread.....and giving me a laugh-headache.

-zilla

[Doctor X]

I am gone for a week on business.

Everyone play nice!

--J.D.

[Wayne Grabert]

I'll make this brief since I have been having problems with my cable modem service since Tuesday night. It has been inoperable most of the time. For a brief period Wednesday morning it came back to life. You'll notice that my last post was accidentally submitted twice. That's because the modem started to go on the fritz again. I called the cable company Wednesday and I'll have to wait till Monday afternoon for a service tech to come out. So before it fritzes out again:

From what I have seen of replays of parts of Powell's presentation, the Bush administration was right: there was no "smoking gun." There was evidence short of proof, yet compelling, that Saddam is cheating on disarmament. I'm not shocked. However, I still don't see the case for war, especially when one thinks in terms of costs/benefits.

If Saddam is hiding something, why not take the time to uncover as much as possible and disarm him of those weapons instead of him using them on Israel and US troops?

More importantly, if the matter is breach of a UN resolution, then it should be up to the UN, not the US, to decide when force should be used--especially since those short-range weapons do NOT pose a threat to the US.

The "evidence" of a Hussein-al Qaida link was laughable and one more piece of evidence of the lack of credibility of the Bush administration.

[Wayne Grabert]

FYI, former inspector Scott Ritter damns Powell's evidence. (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/09/1044725663093.html)
Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council on Wednesday was a "compelling case and sound argument" only for the unknowing, Ritter said in a lecture in Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.

But for those with knowledge of the disarmament process, the report was nothing but "smoking mirrors, nothing to do with reality (and) plain wrong," Ritter said.
Ritter questioned Powell's "improper" briefing on anthrax, in which he said UN experts estimated that Iraq could have produced 25,000 litres, saying stocks, if they did indeed exist, had gone well past their shelf life.

"Powell gave no substantive evidence" on alleged chemical weapons programs, said Ritter, a former intelligence officer in the US Marines who was once dubbed a "cowboy" by UN staff and diplomats in Baghdad for his intrusive inspection procedures.

Ritter also dismissed photographs and radio intercepts Powell offered as evidence to the Security Council.

"What he presented is not hard evidence ... because the context, frequencies, history (of use) of the frequencies and who the individuals (talking) are must be known to ascertain whether they are relevant or not," he said of the tape recordings.

Here are the impressions (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,889844,00.html) of some other experts.

Experts find some allegations on chemicals and nuclear weapons 'striking and significant'

[rikzilla]

Wayne,

Ritter is a guy whose opinion I sought and respected. Now we come to find out he's an internet pedophile.

I know it shouldn't poison the well....but well now here you are asking me to consider which of these guys is telling the truth.

The Secretary of State, much respected ex-General Colin Powell
or
Scott Ritter,..ex-UNSCOM team leader...current private citizen and sexual predator of children over the internet.

Sorry, but not only is Colin Powell "in the loop" and likely to have better info...Scott Ritter is a scum-bag.

-zilla

[rikzilla]

bump

(it's still relevant guys)

[rikzilla]

I had to rescue this thread from oblivion. (several times) It has existed since 1/24/03 and not one person has been able to refute the facts it lists. So many anti-war and anti-American posters...and no one cares to come here and challenge my assertion of these facts. That's pretty funny. The very best they can do to against this thread is to hope I stop bumping it and let it die.

Since 1/24/03 more facts have come to light. Those listed by Colin Powell for instance. But what's the point of my listing those facts? No one can even refute the pre-existing facts. UNSC res 687 was a cease fire agreement. It's been broken over and over again. UNSC res 1441 lists some 15 resolutions which have been flaunted by Iraq.

So what's the point of France's argument??? That inspections can work if given more time and more inspectors?? How many years have there been inspectors??? 12 or so?? Do the French expect another month or so to make a difference?? If so they are not very smart....if not, then what's up their sleeve?

-zilla

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I had to rescue this thread from oblivion. (several times) It has existed since 1/24/03 and not one person has been able to refute the facts it lists. So many anti-war and anti-American posters...and no one cares to come here and challenge my assertion of these facts. That's pretty funny. The very best they can do to against this thread is to hope I stop bumping it and let it die.

Since 1/24/03 more facts have come to light. Those listed by Colin Powell for instance. But what's the point of my listing those facts? No one can even refute the pre-existing facts. UNSC res 687 was a cease fire agreement. It's been broken over and over again. UNSC res 1441 lists some 15 resolutions which have been flaunted by Iraq.

So what's the point of France's argument??? That inspections can work if given more time and more inspectors?? How many years have there been inspectors??? 12 or so?? Do the French expect another month or so to make a difference?? If so they are not very smart....if not, then what's up their sleeve?

-zilla

bump

yup....still relevant

[rikzilla]

bump...

This is still relevant to various threads .....these are facts....
sorry, but they will not go away.

[rikzilla]

Bump, bump

[Doctor X]

Nice to know that the Iraqis are "considering" destroying somme of their banned weapons.

Kumbaya. . . .

--J. "I Have a Bridge to Sell" D.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Rikzilla,

I agree that Saddam is a bad man and is lying to the world about his WMD programs.

But, so far, Iraq has been unable to flex any muscle.

The US is unpopular right now and cannot find the support for an attack that GW Bush has been quoted as saying needs to happen "right now."

What's the rush? Why "right now"?

US national security is. 9/11 is. This is the reason pre-emptive strikes and "regime change" have become US policy. Before 9/11 these measures would only have been taken in Rush Limbaugh's wet dreams. Now they've become mainstream Bush admin policy. Only the sea-change of 9/11 can account for it. It's overdue IMHO. The books I've read sho clearly that we had enough evidence to take action back in 1995.

-zilla

[rikzilla]

Bumped in hopes that K-W will read this.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

rikzilla

anyway you could update this post with another list/archive of more current evidence even though the original list hasnt been disproven ?

[Baker]

Great thread rikzilla!

You have posted un-rebuttal evidence that no one has yet to refute.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Baker
Great thread rikzilla!

You have posted un-rebuttal evidence that no one has yet to refute.

Thanks man! :D

This thread is my baby. 4 books on Iraq and UNSCOM. It was fascinating reading,...but I've got a belly-full of Saddam....I've gotten to the point that I know more than I wanted to about this creep. He's a sickening monster...much worse than even CNN or Fox has portrayed him.

A strange case of TMI on my part! :( However, the deafening silence of the left in rebuttal to this thread helped me a great deal to form my pro-war opinion.

I voted against Bush in 2000, and was among those who thought the Supreme Court was wrong to stop the FL recounts. But since then Bush has done nothing but impress me. The man gets results!

-zilla

[Wayne Grabert]

Any idea on when Iraq is going to use its alleged WMD that it was supposedly so eager to use against the US? So far, the only thing they've fired has been conventional. Where's the beef?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Any idea on when Iraq is going to use its alleged WMD that it was supposedly so eager to use against the US? So far, the only thing they've fired has been conventional. Where's the beef?

Lets hope we're not giving them the chance. Of course...it's not even nearly over yet Wayne. :(

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Any idea on when Iraq is going to use its alleged WMD that it was supposedly so eager to use against the US? So far, the only thing they've fired has been conventional. Where's the beef?

Simple reasons really.

He still retains sympathy in various places and he's not desperate enough to lose that yet.

As soon as he does use them every country will be forced to distance themselves from him for fear of being seen to approve his use of WMD. (that they claimed he didnt have in the first place)

Even now he revels in the divided opinion he has created.

So you see, he wont use them untill he dosnt care what anyone thinks, let him get desperate enough.

some time on monday I would guess.

[Jim Lennox]

A paper about resolutions and the legality of the war can be found here. (http://www.hwcn.org/link/mkg/index2.html) It is very thorough and even includes a response to this old chestnut.

One hears the argument (often from people who call themselves "realists") that this is no time for legal niceties. They point out that the world is confronted by a serious and imminent threat, and if the UN Charter is standing in the way of action to meet the threat, then the UN Charter must be brushed to one side. If the UN is incapable of meeting the threat, it is argued, others must take over from the UN and deal with the problem, even if it means going against the UN Charter - otherwise Saddam's sinister preparations will go unchecked. The world should be thankful - so the argument goes - that the US and its partners are coming to the rescue of the UN in its moment of weakness.

This line of argument suffers from several flaws.

Is that any help Rik?

[Jim Lennox]

Just one more thing isn't all this their (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) idea?

[crackmonkey]

I'd say that the main reason Saddam's not using WMD is because the **********'s pushing up daisies.

[Baker]

No one is even sure if he is still alive.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Baker
No one is even sure if he is still alive.
What d'ya mean? I had a conference call with him and Usama this morning! :D

(Point is, I heard enough speculation about bin Laden's death to not think Hussein is dead till they produce a body.)

[Baker]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

(Point is, I heard enough speculation about bin Laden's death to not think Hussein is dead till they produce a body.)

Did I say he was Dead?
How ever latest reports suggest he is badly injured.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81847,00.html

[Baker]

After posting the link to this thread twice there is still no reply from shanek.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Baker
After posting the link to this thread twice there is still no reply from shanek.

That's because he has no answer to these facts. He knows they are facts. This is why I have charged him and AUP time and again as intellectually dishonest. Neither of these guys has ever, to my knowledge, admitted they were wrong even when demonstrated wrong. Hell, Shanek even defended the obvious error of one of his pet web sites...then when Randfan or someone...(not sure) contacted the webmaster of the site in question and advised them of the error (in definition of WMDs)...the webmaster thanked him and corrected the error. Shanek has still not admitted his error!!

This all just goes to show that arguing with the intellectually dishonest has no upside. They will never admit error...they will not hold themselves to the same standards the rest of us are expected to adhere to. :mad: Basically...they just aren't worth talking to.

-z

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by rikzilla


US national security is. 9/11 is. This is the reason pre-emptive strikes and "regime change" have become US policy. Before 9/11 these measures would only have been taken in Rush Limbaugh's wet dreams. Now they've become mainstream Bush admin policy. Only the sea-change of 9/11 can account for it. It's overdue IMHO. The books I've read sho clearly that we had enough evidence to take action back in 1995.

-zilla

You were trying to answer the question "Why the rush? Why right now?" in a prior thread. But you answer says the opposite.

1. 9/11 created the rush. Yet Saddam did exactly NOTHING new after 9/11.
2. You say that the "imminent" threat has existed since 1995. How can it be an imminent threat after 8 years requiring "immediate" action that cannot wait even a month?

The reasons for the war have nothing to do with an imminent threat, or violating a UN resolution. These are simply "reasons du jour" and are already outdated. Don't you know that the latest is that we are there to "liberate" the people?

Remember the phrase from the cold war era, "Better Dead Than Red"? We are applying this principle during our destruction of Baghdad and the rest of Iraq. Oh, how about "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette." Sure, there will be some Iraqis who benefit from regime change and some who won't. So our new "friends" over there will be the winners in the wealth re-distribution game which is coming after Saddam is gone.

Give them liberty, or give them death! I didn't misquote, did I?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont buy the "free the Iraqi people" arguments. More like propaganda if you ask me.

We never cared about the Taliban. If they wouldve turned over Bin Ladin and his crew right after 911, the Taliban would be in power today.

That quote was from January 24. I would call it prescient in light of our new policy to "liberate Iraq".

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Thanks man! :D

This thread is my baby. 4 books on Iraq and UNSCOM. It was fascinating reading,...but I've got a belly-full of Saddam....I've gotten to the point that I know more than I wanted to about this creep. He's a sickening monster...much worse than even CNN or Fox has portrayed him.

A strange case of TMI on my part! :( However, the deafening silence of the left in rebuttal to this thread helped me a great deal to form my pro-war opinion.

I voted against Bush in 2000, and was among those who thought the Supreme Court was wrong to stop the FL recounts. But since then Bush has done nothing but impress me. The man gets results!

-zilla

You should have packed up your arguments and gone home by now. Is it not obvious at this point that UNSC 687 has absolutely nothing to do with this war? It was never about UN resolutions, Bush threw the UNSC out the window when he realized that they wouldn't go along with his "cure" for 687.

Bush can't really say, I'll enforce 687 on my own against the wishes of the group that created 687! That would be intellectually dishonest.

(And before you make a comment about France and its threatened UNSC veto... why hasn't UNSC censured the US for starting the war? Hmmm, that wouldn't be because US and UK would veto, would it?)

Folks, get with it. Cowboy George and his posse are off in la-la land, and that is why we are in this war. It is not Saddam's threats, it is not his violations, and is not about Iraqi liberation. Just as Vietnam was not about helping Vietnamese.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DrChinese


You should have packed up your arguments and gone home by now. Is it not obvious at this point that UNSC 687 has absolutely nothing to do with this war? It was never about UN resolutions, Bush threw the UNSC out the window when he realized that they wouldn't go along with his "cure" for 687.

Bush can't really say, I'll enforce 687 on my own against the wishes of the group that created 687! That would be intellectually dishonest.

(And before you make a comment about France and its threatened UNSC veto... why hasn't UNSC censured the US for starting the war? Hmmm, that wouldn't be because US and UK would veto, would it?)

Folks, get with it. Cowboy George and his posse are off in la-la land, and that is why we are in this war. It is not Saddam's threats, it is not his violations, and is not about Iraqi liberation. Just as Vietnam was not about helping Vietnamese.

I see no points addressed here...just another loud mouth babbling. :rolleyes:

BTW genius,...687 was the instrument of cease fire for Gulf War I. If the terms of the cease fire are ignored (which they have been since inception) the hot war can, and should, be cranked back up. There was no legal need for 17 more resolutions...that's the stupidity of this whole situation! From the first moment of Iraqi non compliance we should have gone back in.

-z

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by rikzilla


I see no points addressed here...just another loud mouth babbling. :rolleyes:

BTW genius,...687 was the instrument of cease fire for Gulf War I. If the terms of the cease fire are ignored (which they have been since inception) the hot war can, and should, be cranked back up. There was no legal need for 17 more resolutions...that's the stupidity of this whole situation! From the first moment of Iraqi non compliance we should have gone back in.

-z

I said that 687 is not the reason we are in Iraq. So your assertions in this thread are pointless and are merely an apology for Bush's actions. That SHOULD be obvious to you at this point.

And I notice you were silent on my refuting your insistence that the need for this war was "overdue". I assume from your silence that you have now come to your senses on this point.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by rikzilla


I see no points addressed here...just another loud mouth babbling. :rolleyes:

BTW genius,...687 was the instrument of cease fire for Gulf War I. If the terms of the cease fire are ignored (which they have been since inception) the hot war can, and should, be cranked back up. There was no legal need for 17 more resolutions...that's the stupidity of this whole situation! From the first moment of Iraqi non compliance we should have gone back in.

-z

Reposted my comments because Mister Chicom apparently can't read english. :rolleyes:

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Reposted my comments because Mister Chicom apparently can't read english. :rolleyes:

(crickets chirp) I see ya Mr. Chicom.....cat got yer tongue?

That's okay...take your time. Do your homework for once....address the points presented in this thread and make your rebuttal as rationally as you are capable.

I can wait while you get your $hit together..... :D :D I don't need you for entertainment....there's plenty of that on Fox News these days! :p

-z

BTW,...haven't heard much from Wayne either lately! :D I don't envy you guys.....going up against the evidence I started this thread with is like pointing at the sky and insisting; "It's Green!!!!"

[Jim Lennox]

Did The Authority Under Paragraph 2 Of The November Resolution (678) Terminate With The Cease-Fire?

The answer to the question posed in the heading of this section must therefore be: most, but not necessarily all, the authority under the November Resolution (678) terminated with the cease-fire; the Security Council left it uncertain as to whether or not military operations involving no military presence on Iraqi territory are permitted, but if they are, they must be for purposes delineated in paragraph 2 of the November Resolution (678).

From here. (http://www.hwcn.org/link/mkg/sect_5.html)

Perhaps Rik would enjoy debunking the entire paper?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox




From here. (http://www.hwcn.org/link/mkg/sect_5.html)

Perhaps Rik would enjoy debunking the entire paper?

Interesting tack Jim. Instead of attempting to debunk points which are indeed fact, you have found a site which attempts to do a legalese end-around. Their assertion seems to be that the way the resolution was written, all authority for legal military action against Iraq ceased the moment troops were withdrawn from Iraq.

This is an interesting argument for legal academics to ponder. You guess...(correctly BTW)...that I am no legal scholar and thus cannot debunk the learned lawyers of this website. You are right. I can't. I will not pretend to be someone I am not. However I will give you my take on this information...and I thank you for bringing this to my attention.

It seems to me, as an ex-military guy, to be counter-intuitive to sign a cease fire instrument when it is written in such a way as to say "As soon as we leave, you don't have to comply with these terms." That makes no sense. It seems more likely to me that this is a group of lawyers attempting to find loopholes in the resolution for whatever reason they may have. Lawyers do this in court all the time. They often find proceedural errors by the authorities which result in charges being dropped, and guilty parties going free.

This is because it is of paramount importance for our society that police act under the law....and one released murderer is individually less dangerous than an entire force of police acting outside the rules governing their interactions with the public.

The cease fire agreement and it's attendant demands that Iraq disarm and cease support for terrorism is not IMHO in the same class as a common criminal case put before a US court. The issues are far larger. It is not in the world society's best interests to allow the Iraqi regime off the hook on some kind of legal technicality. It is also interesting to note that there have been sixteen subsequent resolutions which seek to get Iraq to comply with the original demands of the cease fire.

It bears repeating that UNSC res 687 was that cease fire agreement...one that Iraq obviously has not honored and likely never intended to honor. I have listed just a sampling of the more obvious violations of 687. These violations are fact, and as such have not been realistically challenged here.

An argument over the legality of military action based on some kind of unintentional loop hole in the original resolution is IMHO not a good enough argument in this issue. I am more interested in the original intent of the cease fire agreement, than I am the ponderings of a thinktank full of lawyers that are obviously looking for a proceedural loophole in the resolution.

Perhaps these guys are better lawyers than the ones who wrote up 687....that would be good enough to secure an aquittal in a civil or criminal case in the US,...but in this case it does not serve the public interest to play the "my lawyer can beat up your lawyer" game. The quality of lawyering does nothing to change the facts of this issue...which were listed by me at the head of this thread.

-zilla

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Reposted my comments because Mister Chicom apparently can't read english. :rolleyes:

Who is the Mr. Chicom you keep referring to?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Who is the Mr. Chicom you keep referring to?
Rik, don't mess with Texas!

[rikzilla]

:D Chicom,....if the shoe fits..... :rolleyes:


....there are chemical weapons unaccounted for in Iraq. The regime says "we have no chemical weapons"....who are we to believe??

....elements of 3rd ID are within 4 miles of Baghdad. The regime information minister says this is "silly"...who are we to believe??

:confused: :p :D


If the Iraqi government were to explain the the sky is blue, it would be prudent to go outside and check. We all knew Iraq's track record of lies, some merely chose to ignore that fact. It just goes to prove that when the subject is politics, some ordinarily solid skeptics suddenly become very gullible.

As the arguments of the anti-war left in support of Saddam's regime come apart it will be interesting to see how the leftists on this board will regroup. Will they admit they were wrong as evidence becomes available? Some will....but I can think of at least two who likely will not. :rolleyes: I can count on Wayne at least to tell it like it is....once the undeniable smoking gun of WMD, and Al Qaida links are found. But that is just my point. In this new and dangerous post 9/11 world we are not going to have smoking gun type evidence. We are going to have to act on intelligence and rational estimations. I guess this means we are likely to be wrong from time to time...but for the WOT to be a success we will have to attack the terrorists, and terror sponsors wherever they are.

So the left will cry out that our pre-emptive policy in the WOT will result in mistakes made, and innocent people killed. This is dangerous stuff to be sure...but right now all the right has to do is point to the successes of Afghanistan, and now Iraq....and to the absence of successful terror attacks on American soil.

You can't argue with success guys..... I'm looking forward to seeing 3rd ID's armor cruising past the crossed swords of Saddam's great "Arc de Triumphe".....we ought to get that picture eartly next week. :D

-z

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla
If the Iraqi government were to explain the the sky is blue, it would be prudent to go outside and check. We all knew Iraq's track record of lies, some merely chose to ignore that fact. It just goes to prove that when the subject is politics, some ordinarily solid skeptics suddenly become very gullible.

Rik, if you substituted "Iraqi" and "Iraq" with "Bush" in the above statement, you's have an equally strong argument.

Whom are we to believe? I'd rely on evidence. Unfortunately, the inspections were cut short. But they were always "irrelevant," right? Yes, they were because this war was never about WMD or any of the other pretexts floated by the Bushies as marketing campaigns. It was always about power. This war is nothing less than an act of aggression and conquest.

In another thread days ago I posted an extract from an article that appeared in the English edition of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. It was mainly an article about the involvement of Hezbollah in the bombing of an Israeli embassy in South America some years back. The final paragraph, which I extracted, stated that the Israeli government would try to persuade Washington to next turn its war on terror on Iran, Syria and Lebanon. It further stated that the government had been told by its supporters within the Bush administration that it had a good chance of success.

The next day, or maybe it was the day after that, Rumsfeld started his threats against Syria and Iran.

This war is mainly about two things: the extension of American power and re-ordering the Middle East to enhance Israel's security. It will achieve the opposite of both. The winner will be radical Islam.

And it's "Dr. Chinese," you Anglo-imperial pig! ;) (Be nice to the Doctor.)

[rikzilla]

Reposted...but relevant here as well

MSNBC has it too (http://www.msnbc.com/news/895185.asp?0cv=CA01)
From the link
SARGAT, Iraq, April 4 — MSNBC.com tests reveal evidence of the deadly toxins ricin and botulinum at a laboratory in a remote mountain region of northern Iraq allegedly used as a terrorist training camp by Islamic militants with ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network.

You guys who've been bleating about no evidence of WMD, and no evidence of Al Qaida links call all now free free to shut the f#ck up.

-z

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by rikzilla
You guys who've been bleating about no evidence of WMD, and no evidence of Al Qaida links call all now free free to shut the f#ck up.

But the remote northern regions of Iraq are outside Saddam's control anyway. And didn't you spot the word 'allegedly' in there?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


But the remote northern regions of Iraq are outside Saddam's control anyway. And didn't you spot the word 'allegedly' in there?

sheesh!! Nothing happens in Saddam's police state without his approval. More evidence becomes available every hour!! If you still are of the opinion that Saddam is innocent, and the war on Iraq bogus,....I refer you back to my lead post on this thread....posted back in January. Evidence which has never been refuted even though the lefties on this board have had 3+ months to do so! l:rolleyes:

If you don't think there's evidence yet, there's always tomorrow. When we've been in control of the country for a solid month after the fall of Saddam's regime...and still now WMD evidence I will conceed the point to those on the left. However,...the lefties have a better chance of getting a frosty mug of rootbeer in Hell than they have of being proved right on this issue.

-z

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Reposted...but relevant here as well

MSNBC has it too (http://www.msnbc.com/news/895185.asp?0cv=CA01)


You guys who've been bleating about no evidence of WMD, and no evidence of Al Qaida links call all now free free to shut the f#ck up.

-z
WRONG! That's a Kurdish controlled area of Iraq. It has nothing to do with Hussein's regime.

Try again.

[Baker]

It just resently became apart of Kurdish controlled area of Iraq.

led an infantry charge two days ago that pushed the approximately 700 Ansar fighters out of their villages and toward the peaks. U.S. forces played a crucial role, with airstrikes and cruise missiles that crushed the buildings in the village of Sargat.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Baker
It just resently became apart of Kurdish controlled area of Iraq.

That area was just one mile from the Iranian border and within the northern no-fly zone and outside the control of Hussein's regime. So while that particular section of the NFZ may not have been directly under the control of the Kurds, it was in the region where they had autonomy.

I've made the point on this Board a few times before, as have others, that even if biological or chemical weapons were eventually found in Iraq, that it would not legitimize this war. However, if they are not found, then that would help expose the phony pretext used to start the war.

Perhaps the "more evidence" that Ric writes about include
this false alarm: (http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030404_885.html) U.S. Marines near the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah found what initially appeared to be suspicious chemicals in water samples from the Euphrates River, two defense officials said Friday.

Details were sketchy, but both officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they knew of no indications that subsequent tests of the water had confirmed the presence of illegal chemicals.

This false alarm (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_767484.html?menu=news.latestheadlines) perhaps?
US military admits 'suspicious' powder is explosive

American officials have admitted that the thousands of boxes of white powder they seized north of Baghdad are explosives.

The US military and various media outlets had suggested that they may have made the first discovery of chemical weapons in Iraq.
That last story just came out today also.

It's interesting how finding and destroying WMD was stated as a top priority when the war started, but with no luck in finding any it has now slipped in importance in speeches by Bush in favor of "freeing the Iraqi people."

However, if this report is accurate, the Iraqi people
may not be welcoming the favor. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-634029,00.html) It was now dusk. We drove through thick smoke and saw detonations of some sort at a nearby army base. As we entered the city we veered off onto the side streets, and found a city braced to defend itself.

The Fedayin were out in their black uniforms and balaclavas. Men armed with Kalashnikovs were manning sandbag emplacements on the corners. I had never seen so many armed Iraqis on the streets.

The Americans and British may say their motivation is to liberate the Iraqis, but these people gave every impression that they were prepared to die for their country.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
That area was just one mile from the Iranian border and within the northern no-fly zone and outside the control of Hussein's regime. So while that particular section of the NFZ may not have been directly under the control of the Kurds, it was in the region where they had autonomy.

Nah, that is not exactly right. The alleged terrorist training camp, Sargat, is a village located in the mountains east of Halabja. While Halabja is located in the PUK it is well south of the 36th parallel (the northern no-fly zone).

This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/daily/graphics/kurd_033103.html) link shows that Ansar al-Islam is located west of Halabja.

This (http://www.mideastweb.org/miraqd.htm) link shows that Halabja is located well south of the 36th parallel.

[rikzilla]

bump

(Because I miss Dr. X)....and because this stuff is being rehashed and re-written by the lefties among us. It's instructive to remember our own recent history.

-z

[rikzilla]

bump?? hey, does this thing work??

[ImpyTimpy]

Isn't 687 a fairly old resolution, with other resolutions passed on top of it, stating that Iraq was in fact in breach of 687?

[Wayne Grabert]

What is the point of bumping this thread unless Rikzilla is now willing to admit that the whole WMD argument was a ruse and without foundation? (Just like the al Qaida connection that was another lie.)

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Isn't 687 a fairly old resolution, with other resolutions passed on top of it, stating that Iraq was in fact in breach of 687?

Here's a link to the UNSCOM chronology (http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/resolution687.htm) of events concerning resolution 687.

I have a feeling that we could find a 1 megaton thermonuclear warhead, sitting on a launch pad with coolant pouring out, ready for someone to push the button and there will be people who say "Well, 1 megaton isn't much by current technology standards" or "It could just be a vehicle to launch a cable satellite".

The fact is that there has been plenty of evidence that Saddam deliberately violated the agreement, which he made at the end of the Gulf war to save his sorry ass. He has been laughing at the world and the bleeding hearts who defend him for the last 12 years.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla
bump

(Because I miss Dr. X)....and because this stuff is being rehashed and re-written by the lefties among us. It's instructive to remember our own recent history.

-z

Agreed, it worthwhile to remember recent hstory.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26295557.htm

UN panel finds no links between Iraq and al Qaeda

UNITED NATIONS, June 26 (Reuters) - A U.N. terrorism committee found no evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda network, which it said on Thursday had sprouted a third generation of suicide bombers in Morocco and elsewhere.

The committee, charged with reporting on al Qaeda and remnants of Afghanistan's Taliban, released a 42-page report on the state of international terrorism following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"Nothing has come to our notice that would indicate links between Iraq and al Qaeda," said Michael Chandler, one of five outside experts who prepared the report for the committee.

...

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Here's a link to the UNSCOM chronology (http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/resolution687.htm) of events concerning resolution 687.

I have a feeling that we could find a 1 megaton thermonuclear warhead, sitting on a launch pad with coolant pouring out, ready for someone to push the button and there will be people who say "Well, 1 megaton isn't much by current technology standards" or "It could just be a vehicle to launch a cable satellite".

I seriously doubt that would happen...

The fact is that there has been plenty of evidence that Saddam deliberately violated the agreement, which he made at the end of the Gulf war to save his sorry ass. He has been laughing at the world and the bleeding hearts who defend him for the last 12 years.
Yes, in terms of 687 I'm sure (which was good old GW 1 days)... However, we're still waiting for the evidence of WMD's (this is 2003 last time I checked) and any other serious violations which justified GW 2...

[ithinksoiam]

If not, just shut the f*ck up already!

You guys have no moral standing to come out and spout your stinking idiocy at this time. Why don't you go back to your sh*tholes and come out when you find your precious WMDs.

Thank you.

[Crossbow]

To: ithinksoiam

Please watch your language because there has been a problem with the JREF web site being blocked by filtering software used at public libraries, schools, and other such places.

Try this format instead, it will get your point across without touching the digital tripwires:

Re: Have you warmongers found your WMDs yet?

If not, just shut the f*ck up already!

You guys have no moral standing to come out and spout your stinking idiocy at this time. Why don't you go back to your sh*tholes and come out when you find your precious WMDs.

Thank you.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

IRAQ HID NUKE-ARMS TOOLS IN BACK YARD

By NILES LATHEM and ANDY SOLTIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 26, 2003 -- An Iraqi scientist buried key pieces of his nation's nuclear technology in his Baghdad back yard, on orders from Saddam Hussein's son and son-in-law, to conceal the equipment until it was needed to build an atomic bomb, it was reported last night.

The parts Mahdi Obeidi dug up, which are now at CIA headquarters in Virginia, are not the smoking gun of Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction, U.S. officials told CNN

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/1899.htm

..........


SCENE OF MASSACRE:
Iraqi kids play on the burned hulk of a British vehicle in Majar al-Kabir, where six Britons were killed yesterday by a mob that heard a rumor they were searching women's rooms for weapons.
- AP

[Graham]

Originally posted by rikzilla
bump

(Because I miss Dr. X)....and because this stuff is being rehashed and re-written by the lefties among us. It's instructive to remember our own recent history.

-z

I miss Dr. X too! What happened to him anyway?

Maybe we should ask Cleopatra . . .

Graham

[Wayne Grabert]

IAEA: Buried parts are evidence Iraq did not restart program. (http://www.canada.com/news/story.asp?id=B7E04EA8-FFAF-4989-87B3-8CF010973C31)

VIENNA (AP) - Indirectly challenging a U.S. argument for war on Iraq, the UN atomic agency said Thursday that a find of parts from Baghdad's original nuclear weapons program appears to back its stance that the project had never been reactivated.

The comments reflected the ongoing dispute between the United Nations and Washington over whether outsted president Saddam Hussein was trying to make weapons of mass destruction.

The U.S. administration argued such programs existed in going to war against Baghdad, while UN inspectors said their searches on the ground turned up no evidence of such programs.

It was also reported on NPR that the parts were so badly corroded after having been buried so long that they were useless.

[rikzilla]

bumped in the hope that it won't get pruned if I bump it??.....
:(

BTW, anyone know what happened to Dr. X???